This will will be a lot about Hebrew and does precise grammar really effect pragmatic meaning. This article will only put forth opinions and you may or may not agree with my conclusions which is ok!

Let us now dive into Genesis 1:1

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ

In both the King James and the NIV this says “In the beginning God created the heavans and the earth ”

And a common Jewish rendering of this is “In the beginnings of God’s creation of the heavans and the earth”

But either way it is clear that God created the heavans and the earth ,so what is the issue here.There is not an actual definite article in the first word “b’reishit” בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית ,it most literally says “in beginning ” not in “the” beginning. The word “be” meaning: in, with or sometimes when and reishit meaning head or top or start or beginning.

Some people argue that this proves that there were multiple creations and if you read some of my earlier articles you may have heard of the “Pre Adamic Creation” which if you know my writings you know I do not support. Although I am not a believer personally in previous creations I am not saying that it is not possible.The question is though is that the lack of the word “ha” the Hebrew definite article ,does that prove a previous or multiple creations.Why does the text say simply “in beginning” and not in the beginning. And some Hebrew scholars argue the correct rendering should be “in a beginning”.

Another point also is that Hebrew also has no indefinite article ,so a or an does not exist in Hebrew ,so in “a” beginning does not make sense either however Hebrew often used “ha” the definite article to imply a or an ,so its quite possible that if in a beginning was meant ha might be used.Also Hebrew has no vowels in the script and written vowel points called nikud were not in use until Medieval times,before then the vowel system was handed down to the generations verbally.Generally be with that vowel shva means in,with or when but if the letter beit has a a vowel hence ba ,it can mean “the” in some circumstances.It is possible that if the vowels got confused by scribes it could have meant “in the beginning”

Also remember it may not be wise to analyze very ancient texts with our ultra precise way of seeing grammar.for instance in the (Exodus 20:5) which you can read I won’t quote it here because it is well known. As you all know it says; “The sins of the fathers visited to the third and forth generations” .In the Hebrew text the actual word “dor” meaning generation is totally dropped and is absent.They have have been trying to be poetic or maybe a scribal error.

Remember just because we all believe that the Bible in the inspired word of God does not mean that in small parts there could be scribal error.Of course God would never allow a big problem but trivial issues may have gone undealt with.So maybe Genesis being such an early book and language being very simply then and this issue being small ,hence no scribe later added the definite article.

Could this mean that there were previous creations if backed up with other evidence,yes but the point here is that is does not prove it for sure.

Here is Genesis 3:18

חוַיִּשְׁמְע֞וּ אֶת־ק֨וֹל יְהֹוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ הַיּ֑וֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּ֨א הָֽאָדָ֜ם וְאִשְׁתּ֗וֹ מִפְּנֵי֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים בְּת֖וֹךְ עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן

Genesis 3:8 New International Version

⁸ Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

This is the scene after they eat the fruit they were not allowed to.

More specifically in question is this ending בְּת֖וֹךְ עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן

Among (in the midst) the tree (or trees or even wood or woods) the garden.

Some say because the word gan meaning garden has ha the definite article that this means this is refering to specific tree ,mainly the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the tree that was forbidden.Hence they were hiding behind the tree that brought there very trouble.This is an interesting and plausible theory and I am not opposed to it but does the use of the word ha prove it.Another thing is the three word phrase is in construct and when words are in construct then if one word has a article it automatically adds it to the others .If the theory that this is a construct chain is true it should read .”In the midst of the tree of the garden”

A couple things here to think about and I will admit I’m not a grammar expert ok.I cannot tell you all the exact rules for a construct chain but even if we assume it means in construct form “in the midst of the tree of the garden” .And by the way in context it is also likely that eitz means trees because most translations look at it this way.That also does not make it right either so this one is very tricky.Also words can fall together in construct without that intention. What if the text meant “among the trees of the garden” and the ha on gan or garden was to indicate that it was talking about Eden and not another garden and the definite article never meant to create a construct form.Just because nouns can be viewed as connected does not mean they are.Also again remember that people in very ancient times did not view grammar as precisely as we do ,so we could be looking at a scribal oversight.Maybe the scribe would not have placed the ha in gan or garden if he had known people would have added ha to eitz or tree/trees.

The Holy Spirit will intervene as we know on big screw ups but maybe this was not a big screw up or even a screw up at all.maybe it just meant “among the trees of the garden and making a construct state was not intended.Or maybe another way of phrasing would be ” (hiding behind) a tree in the midst of the garden” (and the the means Eden) .There you now have a construct state without it meaning a particular tree! Again I’m not saying the theory proposed is wrong ,only that the grammatical argument does not prove it.

I recently found out that the Leningrad Codex ,the oldest known Old Testament fully intact (the Aleppo Codex is older but is damaged)

.This Tanakh dates to the 11th century has something weird ,it has a dagesh mark on a letter Reish in the book of Genesis.The Hebrew letter Reish ר does not take a dagesh mark in theory.If you do not know, a dagesh is a dot and is a type of Hebrew accent mark.This could be explained by a speck of dirt that got stuck and may not even be a dagesh.Or just a mistake that was to slight to re-write a whole page over.

I am not by any means saying that grammatical irregularities may not hint at something deeper ,they very well may ,only that do not hold your entire theory on them without other evidence.The reason why the word generations was left out of Exodus 20.5 (only the original Hebrew that is) could have significance or maybe Moses who at that time only had a tablet of stone to write with just dropped a word to save space.

Feel free to investigate the meaning of precise grammar but do not think it always has to have a deeper meaning.

Thank you all and God Bless !