I can hardly wait...
Again I have to correct you... the NET is not
my source, it was invoked by my other interlocutor as evidence against me and I pointed out the translators (plural, not singular as you continually and erroneously assert) actually favored my interpretation rather than his/hers. As to your claim the NET translators offered no proof, I suggest you go back and read what I quoted from them because they, in fact, do offer some. In any case, my choice as a source in defense of my interpretation is Waltke, so please focus on what he has to say, not the NET translators, who were hostile witnesses for my side in the first place.
I already intimated that peer-reviewed scholarship would be above your pay grade... indeed, your attempt to engage with it above reflects numerous interpretive mistakes. Waltke does not himself have three theories... he is
evaluating two different theories, one of which depends on two different translations resulting in a total of three sets of analysis as follows:
Initial Chaos Theory... this appears to your interpretation of the text (at least it was that of my interlocutor whom you seem to have taken over for) and we'll call this Theory #1. Here is what Waltke has to say about it:
Although this view is still supported in modern times, its number of adherents is diminishing. (p. 217) --- note that this was published back in 1975 and its defenders are these days confined to a narrow subsection of apologists with a vested interest in the doctrine of
creation ex nihilo at any cost and reconciling the biblical text with whatever the interpreter deems to be scientifically accurate.
A critical reappraisal of the theory does not show this to be the plain and simple meaning. In fact, the theory faces such serious objections as to render it untenable. (p. 217) --- this sounds a lot like part of your summary above, except you seem to erroneously think it was asserted generally about the theories or concerning a theory he endorses. Far from it! This is his negative evaluation of the "initial chaos theory", which my other interlocutor was arguing for and, it would seem, you are also arguing for.
Precreation Chaos Theory... Waltke notes that there are "two variations" of this theory (p. 221), which we'll call Theory #2a and Theory #2b respectively.
Theory #2a understands "verse 1 {as} a dependent clause" and Waltke points out that, even back in the mid-70s, this "view ... is widely held in scholarly circles" (p. 221). This remains the case today and it is reflected in the main translation of the NRSV, but since neither of us are espousing this view, it need not be pursued further... suffice to say that my source rejects it and I agree with him --- indeed, the only part of what you wrote above that accurately reflects the contents of the article is that Waltke
does understand Gen 1:1 as an independent clause.
This brings us to Theory #2b, which is the interpretation of Gen 1:1 as a "summary statement" --- this is the one both Waltke and I hold to, as well as the one favored by the NET translators in their notes. I would suggest you thus focus on pages 225-28 where he lays out the case for it and rebut point by point if you still disagree. Here is how he summarizes the view to begin with:
According to this view, verse 1 is a summary statement, or formal introduction, which is epexegeted in the rest of the narrative. It appears to this author {ie. Waltke} that this is the only viewpoint that completely satisfies the demands of Hebrew grammar. (p. 226)
A little later on he writes:
The evidence, therefore, seems convincing that verse 1 should be construed as a broad, general declaration of the fact that God created the cosmos, and that the rest of the chapter explicates this statement. Such a situation reflects normal Semitic thought which first states the general proposition and then specifies the particulars. This structure of thought is consistent with Hebrew grammar and with Semitic literature in which specification follows the broad general statement. (p. 227)
Indeed, in response to the OP, I provided another example of this from the biblical text... namely the narrative about Moses setting up the tabernacle --- it begins with a summary statement (Exod 40:17) followed by the specifics of how and in what order he did so (40:18-33a), ending with an assertion of its completion (40:33b). This same pattern is found in a proper interpretation of the creation account... the summary statement in Gen 1:1, the particulars in 1:2-31 and the assertion of completion in 2:1.
Please read more carefully... Waltke is not here offering his own position, but he is quoting from Martin Luther's commentary on Genesis (p. 217, source cited in footnote 5).
LOL! No doubt the same kind of "errors" you find in my posts, which is to say none at all...
I am saying that is what the author of the text asserts, because it is... the deity fashions a dome that holds back a portion of the primordial waters above it and calls this structure "heavens" (Gen 1:6-8) and on the following day calls the dry ground that appeared after the remaining waters gathered together "earth" (Gen 1:9-10) --- if you are understanding "heavens" and "earth" in any other way, you do so against how the author is defining them in the narrative.
I have already established that the cycle of days began in Gen 1:3-5 with the coming of light in contrast to the darkness... this day's creative acts concludes with reference to an evening and morning, completing "one day" (
yom echad) --- there is a 24-hour period in view here and the rest of creation unfolds over the course of a 7-day week including a Sabbath rest. This understanding is reinforced with texts such as Exod 20:11 and 31:17.
Kind regards,
Jonathan