Genesis 1:1-5 - Headnote and the first “Yom” (יום‎).

A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis V2.0

[This is an excerpt from an exhaustive personal study of most of the first 9 chapters of the book of Genesis. This is a vastly expanded effort from the original version that can currently be found here downloadable for free. The purpose of this exercise is to compare a non-symbolic literal reading of the text to our current understanding of language, paleontology, and the physical sciences. Constructive discussion on the merits of this study is encouraged!]

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

As mentioned in the section on Literary Structure, verse 1:1 is meant to be a headnote announcing the purpose of this section, not an event itself. To support this “headnote verse” interpretation, every creative action God takes throughout the first chapter of Genesis is declared before it occurs. Following with that literary pattern, verses 1 and 2 are the headnote and exposition prior to His first declaration in verse 3. Additionally, Genesis 1-2:3 is self-identified as a genealogy in verse 2:4 further supporting that this narrative opens with a headnote.

Historically, stating that there was a “beginning” to the universe is unusual for philosophy and science prior to the 20th century. As described in A very brief view of cosmology in history, it has only been within the past 70 years or so that we now have compelling scientific evidence to suggest a finite time universe. What has defined cosmology in the 20th century is the broad acceptance of a cosmic origin as well as speculation regarding the universe’s ultimate fate. These are the same divergent concepts introduced millennia ago in Genesis and revisited throughout the Bible.

Outside of the aforementioned rational, would taking this verse literally on its own merits still be stating that God created the location (heavens) and energy (earth) for our universe? Could this still be considered His first creative act? Even if read outside of the context of Genesis 1, the exact meaning of the sentence is difficult to resolve. At the minimum, this would be a unique creative action when compared to all other uses of “Bara” (בָּרָא) in the Bible.

As argued in “Creatio Ex Potentia” ‘vs’ “Creatio Ex Nihilo” and Bara (בָּרָא), Yatsar (יָצַר), Banah (בָּנָה) , that God defined the location for our universe and supplied or utilized the energies found there is arguably not a “creative” (Bara בָּרָא) action. We cannot know if space and energy as we understand them are common or unique beyond our universe.

Restating my earlier analogy, that a farmer selects a plot of land and possesses a sack of seeds is not farming. Those elements are necessary, but it is the utilization of that potential which is the act of farming. In this way, God’s definition of our space and supplying energy into it can be considered preparation “ex nihilo” while the act of creating in this space with those energies is “ex potentia”. Although nothing in this study precludes God from manifesting or otherwise supplying space and energy “ex nihilo”, again these are matters of supply, not creation.

The scientific nature of space and energy (per special relativity) is that they are constant and eternally persist. Scientifically, they are not created or destroyed. Therefore, even if God supplied them, He would not “create” a void or formless energy. He would either have claimed such an energetic space or possibly supplied them “ex nihilo” in their primordial or naive form. From there, creation took place “ex potentia”.

Science suggests that the first photons of the universe came out of a sudden and simultaneous conversion of energy from a theoretical state (Higgs Boson), and that various galactic structures resulted from asymmetries introduced to the homogeneous distribution of particles. The Bible describes an ubiquitous emission of light followed by the actions of separating and gathering as the process by which God created the Earth and its major features. Being that the beginning of the universe is forever beyond our ability to observe directly, science can do little more than presume the original source of energy in the unvierse is “ex nihilo” or pre-existed in an indefinite and undefined state in the primordial space where our cosmos now exists. But, due to an undefined motivational event, the resulting cascading set of reactions, has utilized those energies “ex potentia” to drive into existence various self-organizing systems which resulted in the emergence of intelligent life.

The eras of creation were authored thousands of years before we discovered the persistence of energy in the universe. That Genesis seems to describe a creation process of utilizing potential aligns modern science.

1:2 The earth was formless and empty.

Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

Approximate Year: >13,800 Ma (13.8 Byr BC)

Historical Period: Prior to Photon Epoch

Event: Beginning of the universe

The Genesis narrative continues onto a brief exposition where the “earth” is described as having no shape or content. Although one might find the word choice to be mellifluous, one must consider if the concept of no earth would be understandable to ancient people. A spherical earth floating in outer space may not have been popularly understood at the time, and this brief description was meant to make sense broadly to people living more than 3000 years ago who only ever saw or experienced the world below them and at ground level. Instead of the more complicated task of conveying the absence of the Earth, the author may have been trying to establish the concept in reverse.

A paraphrase might read, “Imagine if the entire earth were a giant empty hole, the edges and bottom of which could not be seen.” The author is trying to convey the idea of empty space by having the audience expand on an accessible concept of an infinite hole.

Furthermore, the term "Erets" (אֶרֶץ) used for “earth” also translates to “land” in the context of a location as opposed to a specific object. The use of the term prior to the formation of a tangible planet (or filling of the infinite hole) suggests that this story is not necessarily describing terra firma, but is referring to the location where the planet earth will eventually be formed.

“Darkness” on “the surface of the deep” further emphasizes the vaccuous visualization of intangibility making it more relatable to ancient people. Being out on a boat during an overcast night without a light visible in the sky may be as close as any of us can get to the sense of nothingness. Whether several inches or many fathoms deep, water in darkness appears to be an endless void of unknowable depth while mirroring a featureless sky above. With little to reflect sound back to an observer, low lying clouds or fog also have a muting effect on surrounding sounds further obfuscating reality. Being that watercraft have been in use by humans and their predecessors for hundreds of thousands of years, this imagery would have been meaningful to nearly everyone.

Sensory deprivation tanks are another example of utilizing darkness and floating atop body temperature water to instill sensory oblivion. This is a modern experiential version of the same idea being presented by this verse. The sense of floating in nothingness and only being directly aware of your own presence is the closest accessible equivalent to being a consciousness in a void.

Although the verse continues describing the action of “hovering over the surface of the waters” which sounds as though there is a tangible liquid present, this is a continuation of the dark water visual which is meant to signify nothingness. Paraphrased, he is stating that, “The invisible presence of God was in the empty formless dark space.”

However, this practical interpretation does not preclude the possibility of deeper implied meaning requiring a point of reference not available to an ancient audience. Surprisingly, modern cosmology attempts to explain the invisible early universe in such “liquid” terms. Quantum Mechanics categorically describes motion and interactions using calculations comparable to those used to describe ripples on water. In fact, all matter and particles smaller than a few hundred molecules propagate in a way that scientists describe as probabilistic “waves“. Quite literally, when a particle is in motion, it is thought to exist in a “wavelike” state moving like ripples on a pond until a time at which it interacts with another particle’s wave.

Further support of this idea is the Higgs particle which is thought to have filled the early universe before standard particles like photons and quarks existed. We cannot directly observe these particles which would have decayed into other particles and forces before the Photon Epoch, but CERN believes it has produced them experimentally. These pre-matter quantum “God particles” may have been the original quantum “water” filling the “empty” universe.

Could "waters" as a description of the contents of a formless space have foreshadowed our current understanding of quantum physics today? Although one could argue against such an interpretation, it is worth noting that the analogous imagery used is surprisingly compatible with modern science. In any case, that the author was seeking to conflate the concept of unknowable nothing full of intangible something is apparent.

1:3 God said, "Let there be light,"

and there was light. ^4aGod saw the light, and saw that it was good.

Approximate Year: 13,800 Ma

Historical Period: The Photon Epoch

Event: First photons fill the universe

Albert Einstein once asked Abraham Pais, “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?” While attempting to disprove the observation dependent results of quantum mechanics, Einstein’s own arguments contesting its probabilistic aspects eventually lead scientists to prove the observation problem of quantum mechanics to be proven true.

Photons and other elementary particles in motion exist as probabilistic waves that are not in any one place until they are "observed" or interacted with in some way. This implies that before any particle could physically exist in the universe, there needed to be something or someone to interact with or "observe" it. This presents the strange possibility that an unobserved or interaction-free universe might never exist to begin with! Paraphrasing the scientific philosophy of René Descartes, that we exist may be the only thing we can be certain of. And since the universe most certainly does now exist, this has left many physicists with the peculiar question of how the earliest quantum interactions spontaneously began.

Interestingly, the first “Bara” (בָּרָא) or creative action of God is to command the existence of what we now understand to be a fundamental elementary particle. And then He observes it. The presence of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) strongly suggests that the universe experienced a period in which it was saturated in light. Per theory, some of that light would have indeed been in the visible spectrum and therefore the earliest observable particle to an observer present in the early universe.

As mentioned previously, the Higgs Boson (often nicknamed the “God particle”) is a theorized particle that may have dominated the universe before the Photon Epoch. Current cosmological origin theories suggest that there was a simultaneous decay of all the Higgs Bosons contained in the early universe to several of the standard model particles we observe today including photons. In 2014, researchers at CERN claimed to have produced this primordial particle and observed some of its predicted decay products.

Per popular cosmic origin theory, at roughly 10 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe was dominated by photons. In a very literal sense, the contents of the universe are entirely an opaque “light” without anything to cast a shadow. This light-filled state echoes God’s command, portraying the universe’s first observable moment.

1:4b God divided the light from the darkness.

Approximate Year: 13,799 Ma

Historical Period: Recombination

Event: Universe becomes transparent

Scientists theorize that around 380,000 years after the Photon epoch was the recombination period when protons and electrons formed neutral atoms allowing light to travel. This atomic matter also was interacting with and absorbing the light. With something to now separate "light and darkness", the remaining photons are eventually absorbed or red shifted below the visible spectrum. The entire universe goes optically "dark" again for roughly the next 250-650 million years.

Alternatively, after the first light became extant in the universe, whether it is as a decay product of the Higgs Boson or other process, the wavelength has been slowly lengthening through redshift ever since. This means that if the earliest photons had wavelengths shorter than 700 nm, a time-compressed observer would see the color of the light shift further red until it is imperceptible. This change of wavelength from the visible to the invisible spectrum would happen through the theoretical mechanism of cosmic expansion or another hypothetical redshift mechanism like dilational flooding. Being an equally distributed phenomenon, this redshift would give the appearance of ubiquitous light fading to sunset simultaneously throughout the universe.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is believed to be the remaining redshifted photons from the Photon Epoch. This is evidence of the homogenous distribution of primordial particles (per the Higgs Boson theory) and the relativity-defying simultaneity of this conversion event across the universe.

1:5 God called the light “day”,

and the darkness he called “night”.

There was evening and there was morning, the first [era].

Approximate Year: 13,798 Ma

Historical Period: Photon Decoupling

Event: Cosmic Dark Ages

At the end of each "era", God gives a name to His creation. Not only does this imply that what was created did not exist until that point in time, but also that He, being the creator, was entitled to do so. The creation story employs the literary format and terminology of a genealogy where the parents or other responsible party would name the descendants of a given lineage. Although brief, this authoritative statement places God as the originator, catalyst, and sole proprietor of all that is created in this story.

As discussed in the section on Evening (עֶ֤רֶב) and Morning (בֹ֖קֶר), the second sentence (1:5b) is often considered the source for the traditional Jewish observation of sunset marking the beginning of the next calendar day. Although I argue these verses only describing the transition from sunset to sunrise which is only half of a calendar day, the practice of demarking calendar days at sunset is itself peculiar:

• Outdoor temperature and animal activity (including humans) are often at their lowest point just before sunrise making daybreak the most logical division of days. Also, starting with light and ending with darkness is literally the progression described in 1:4b.

• It is commonplace for humans to continue their activities into the evening hours as opposed to retiring immediately with the sun. The various religious observances and celebrations described in the Bible began at sunset with no prescribed time to retire. Returning to one’s home or a place of safety prior to sunset is supportably logical, but more a matter of personal safety than measuring time.

• In the Julian calendar which is still used in astrological studies, days end and begin at high noon. Although this too may seem like an odd time to increment the calendar, the advantage to the Julian method is being universally measurable and to-the-minute accurate at a given location. Noon is an easily determined time of day anywhere on Earth, weather permitting, without the need of any special tools. Using a plumb stick, midday can be pinpointed by noting when the shadow is at its smallest. This results in each day being equivalent 24-hour periods.

It is my opinion that, if read plainly, in Genesis 1:3-5 the “day” began when God declared, “Let there be light”, and ended when he “separated” it bringing back the darkness. If considered sequentially, this suggests that it is daybreak which starts the “day”. But the word order in 1:5b is, “There was evening and there was morning, the first day,” which some believe to be the inspiration for observing the change of a calendar day at sunset which is in opposition to the creation of light and subsequent separation from darkness being the first “day’s” events.

It is awkward to have neighboring sentences that seem to be saying the reverse of one another without resolving them. Also, as discussed in Evening (עֶ֤רֶב) and Morning (בֹ֖קֶר), the statement, “There was evening and there was morning,” in all literalness only describes half of a day. Might the terms have been reversed in transcription? Should it read “There was morning and then evening”? Or is there a double meaning to this verse?

Interestingly, the Hebrew root for "Evening" or "עֶרֶב" ("Erev") is associated with the root term ערב (ayin-resh-bet), which can mean “to mix” or “to mingle”. "Morning" or "בוקר" ("Boker") shares the root “בָּקַר” (“bet-kuf-resh”) which can mean to seek out, investigate, or inquire. This could also imply that evenings are reserved for coming together for social gatherings, and the morning for individual pursuits which would typically be the case.

But what if one were to consider “mixing” to be the presence of undifferentiated components, and the scrutiny of an investigation is the process of determining order? The Second Law of Thermodynamics postulates that all systems trend toward entropy. In other words, the universe is expected to become more “mixed” over time, not less. Growing organization in a system is not a natural trend, so to suggest that something mixed will be scrutinized is an affront to the natural order. It would be the chemistry equivalent to taking a solution and distilling the separate ingredients which typically requires energy and intent to accomplish. To ancient people, weathering and decay would also be inherently perceived as order giving way to chaos, so an increase in organization has always been understood to be an intelligent process.

This supports the hypothesis that the terms Evening (עֶ֤רֶב) and Morning (בֹ֖קֶר) may have been selected intentionally to ensure that a deeper interpretation of this unusual story survived translations from antiquity.

Additionally, “Yom” has already appeared in multiple forms to this point. First, “God called the light [Yom],” which implies a state of general illumination, not a timeframe. In the next sentence, “the first [Yom],” is thought to be the timeframe that includes this transition from light to dark along with the progression from “evening to morning”. The second “Yom” in as many sentences has an entirely different meaning.

In summary, that day and night are described and named before the seemingly reverse statement of evening and morning is oddly illogical for the Bible implying that those two sentences are not reiterating one another. At best, a sentence using the terms “day” and “night” followed immediately by a sentence stating “evening” and “morning” is a continuation. These are either two sequentially chained or entirely unrelated statements. Therefore, likely interpretive options for this verse include:

• “There was light, then darkness with the onset of evening leading into the next morning.” This is a strictly serial reading of the statements which is the opposite of the “evening to evening” calendar day.

• The creation of light and separation from darkness is the creative action in 1:5a. 1:5b is a comment on this process being that, “There was mixture (“Erev” עֶ֤רֶב) and there was clarification (“Boker” בֹ֖קֶר)”

Also, the Bible is largely parsimonious and does not often (if ever) paraphrase. Repeated statements, especially within a book, use the exact same terminology. Again, “day” and “night” would not be describing the same conditions as “evening” and “morning”.

Finally, if one still wishes to consider the original emission of photons and the progression to the dark ages a “day” at God’s timescale, then it would be a reasonable argument that this establishes God’s “days” to be several hundred million years each. Although the current scientific community would protest the idea the various epochs and ages which parallel the “yom” of Creation are evenly spaced, an argument for a 1 billion year old universe is still more easily supportable by empirical observation than a five-thousand year old one.

As for current cosmological origin theory, estimates are that the universe remained visibly dark for the next 400 million years. The first elements, mostly hydrogen and helium, are over 99% of the material content at this time, and spread evenly across space. The universe is effectively an optically dark volume full of these elemental gases.