Out of Darkness
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all, 1st John 1:5.
When a person ignores the prepositions in Genesis 1:1, and tries to make Genesis 1:1 to be at the beginning instead of in the beginning, they create an unreasonably small space in time in which to place the creation of the angels, the rise and fall of Lucifer, and the existence of the cosmos. We explored that in two posts, The Beginning posted on June 17th, and The End posted on June 21st. The poor theologian trying to maneuver in the small space he created through his ignorance of prepositions is like a seven foot man trying to deftly do ballet in a cramped room with 5 foot high ceilings.
Perhaps no verse illustrates the folly of trying to make Genesis 1:1 read as if it was at the beginning (which it most certainly was not) than Genesis 1:2; And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Are we to suppose that God created the earth in darkness? Theistic Evolutionists love to use that verse in the cramped beginning sequence. It shows the earth as an unformed blob and then shows the Lord forming it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When the anointed cherub ruled, the earth was intact. Job tells us that God overturned that earth. Behold, he withholdeth the waters, and they dry up: also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth, Job 12:15. Lest you should be tempted to dismiss Job's statement as a localized tsunami or spring flood consider a few other verses. God originally founded the earth to float on the great deep. The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods, Psalm 24: 1,2.
If you look at 2nd Peter 3:5,6 through the lens of Psalm 24: 1,2 and Job 12:15, it is far more literal and sensible. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. The great temptation is to make that overflowing to be Noah's flood. That can only be done by ignoring the phrase, the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Doesn't that phrase far better describe a ball floating on water? Isn't part of the ball in the water and part of it out of the water? Isn't that what Psalm 24: 1,2 actually said? The earth was originally founded on the the floods. Now it hangs on nothing, Job 26:7.
We get a further glimpse of the earth having been overturned in Jeremiah. I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. Why is the earth without form and void? (Voids are holes or deep fissures such as canyons.)
It is that way because it is under water. That is why the mountains trembled and the hills moved lightly. God overturned the earth that had been ruled by the anointed cherub. It had been inhabited by angels. He broke down that world with its cities and habitations. That is how you find it in Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 depicts an earth under water. The clincher should be that darkness was upon the face of the deep. If God is light, and in him is no darkness at all, how did darkness get upon the face of the great deep? Someone turned the lights out.
The most reasoned explanation that has been given to me by a true bible believer who has trouble associating Jeremiah 4:23 with Genesis 1:2 comes from a contributor to this blog. He finds Jeremiah 4 as a whole to be a warning of what God will do to Israel and therefore has trouble associating it with a past event. I find that to be true, but also to be no impediment to it being a reference to the past. God often refers to his wrath in the past to warn of the dire consequences coming in the future. Solomon assures of of that when he says; The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun, Ecclesiastes 1:9. Just look up the phrase "spared not" to see how God makes reference to past wrath to warn of future consequences.
There just isn't room in the traditional view of Genesis 1:1 to get everything done that is recorded. This has caused people to try to find wiggle room in the Hebrew or to manufacture a gap in the sequence of events. I don't mind theories different than my own, but I have no use for those that do not account for the simple English of the King James Bible. The beginning is a very long time. Genesis 1:1 happened in the beginning. We do not know at what point in the beginning, we merely know that it wasn't at the beginning. Giving ourselves the breathing room afforded to us by our English text we are able to doctrinally account for many other verses that hitherto fore had seemed odd and out of place.