"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void"(NRSV).
"When God began to create heaven and earth- the earth being unformed and void...God said" (NJPS).
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (NIV, KJV, NASB, ESV).
All of these translations struggle with how to translate and interpret this opening phrase. The NRSV understands verse 1 to be a dependent clause that finds its main idea in verse 2. The NJPS also sees verse 1 as a dependent clause, but it sees the main clause in verse 3, thus verse 2 is just parenthetical. Then, there is the more traditional translation that is espoused by the NIV, KJV, NASB, and ESV. They see verse 1 as an independent clause that refers to either a creative activity that precedes the seven days or provides a literary introduction to the events that take place during the seven days. If it refers to an activity before the seven days, it means that first, God created the heavens and the earth in a formless and void state. This was then changed by the events of the seven days. If verse 1 is a literary introduction, then it is to be seen as a summary/title for the chapter. God created heaven and earth, and this is how He did it.
I'm not going to get bogged down here in the grammar, but if you are interested, there are many commentaries that examine this issue, such as George Wenham's commentary on Genesis. To sum it up, this is what has to be dealt with: For those who would opt to translate it as a dependent clause, they have to emend the masoretic vocalization to do so. This would include changing the verb bara from a finite verb to an infinitive. Thus, in stead of "God created" they would say "when God...created". They justify this move by saying that there is no definite article before beresit (Therefore it wouldn't be "In the beginning", but "In beginning" or "when beginning"), and by appealing to the grammatical similarity to the Akkadian creation account of Enumah Elish (which begins, "When on high...").
However, as Walton and others have pointed out, research has shown that time designations in adverbial expressions in no way require the use of a definite article (Walton, Genesis, Kindle, loc.1360, as well as G. Hasel, "Recent Translations of Genesis 1:1," BT 22, pg 156-57). As far as appealing to the Akkadian, the account provides insufficient evidence for making such a radical emendation. So, it seems best to understand verse 1 as an independent clause. But this still doesn't settle the issue of determining if any creative activity is going on.
I would like to point out two evidences that I think support reading verse 1 as a literary introduction to the seven days. First, when we look at the book of Genesis as a whole, it uses what scholars call a toledot ("these are the generations") statement. These statements are used as summary statements to introduce various sections/stories in Genesis. For example, beginning in 2:4 and ten other times in the book, this statement is used to introduce sections of the book. This means that the consistent pattern in Genesis is to use a literary introduction before each major story. What makes this point even more persuasive is that the section ends in verse 2:1, which reads, "the heavens and the earth" were completed. This phrase mirrors 1:1. Based on these observations, it seems best to understand Genesis 1:1 as a literary introduction. This means that nothing is being created, but rather it is a summary of what follows. The "initial period" therefore is not verse 1, but all of chapter 1.
Why is this important? It is important because many who try to reconcile evolution with Genesis say that Genesis 1:1 refers to a material creation that takes place long before the fashioning of the world that happens in the seven days. This would make room for the age of the universe, followed by the creation of the earth, the animals, and man. Again, because no time period is specified, and because the age of the earth is not mentioned in Genesis, many opt for this type of concordism.
My contention is two fold. First, I reject concordism, and do not think that Genesis is addressing the issue of modern science at all, therefore, we should not attempt to try and make Genesis 1 fit with modern scientific theory. Second, Genesis 1 is about assigning functions, not creating material. Since Genesis 1:1 is a literary introduction, it follows the functional understanding well. An English translation that would bring this idea across would be something like this- "In the initial period, God assigned functions to the heavens and earth." As we will see in the next post, this position is supported even more when looking at verses 2-3.