I just took a look at the link to the CEB you posted. If found it's translation of the first clause in Gen. 1.1 to be disturbing as well:
"When God began to create the heavens and the earth..."
The idea is that Genesis is not teaching a creation out of nothing, but possibly some preexisting matter. For example, it would be like me saying "When I began to sculpt the statue it was a real mess."
Again, Robert Reymond is helpful here and I'll quote him at length:
"The entire issue of whether to render Genesis 1:1 as “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” or as a temporal clause meaning “When God began to create the heaven and the earth,” turns on the first word-group in Genesis, traditionally translated “In the beginning.” This word is composed of the preposition בְּ, be, meaning “in,” and the noun רֵאשִׁית, rē˒s̊îṯ, meaning “beginning.” The noun is anarthrous, having no article, and as far as its form is concerned could be in either the absolute or the construct state. Now admittedly, when a definite noun is in the construct state, it is anarthrous and derives its definiteness from the following definite noun or verbal idea. Hence, it is argued by modern scholars that since בְּרֵאשִׁית, berē˒s̊îṯ, is anarthrous, (1) it is standing in relation to what follows, (2) it is thus made definite by the following verbal idea, and (3) it is accordingly to be translated literally: “In the beginning of God’s creating,” which resolves itself quite naturally into the temporal thought: “When God began to create.” (A noun in the construct state is normally followed, it is true, by another noun while here it is followed by the finite verb בָּרָא, bārā˒; but it must be admitted that such a construction is also a genuine Semitic usage, as evidenced by the occurrence of this construction in Exod. 4:13; 6:28; Lev. 14:46; Deut. 4:15; 1 Sam. 5:9; 25:15; Pss. 16:3; 58:9; 81:6; Isa. 29:1; Hos. 1:2.)
But does the omission of the article in בְּרֵאשִׁית, berē˒s̊îṯ, demand that the noun be construed as standing in a construct relation to the following finite verb? Not necessarily, for in Isaiah 46:10 this very word is anarthrous, and yet it is clearly in the absolute state: “the One declaring from [the] beginning the end.” Thus the mere absence of the article is not sufficient evidence, standing alone, for determining the state of the noun רֵאשִׁית, re˒s̊îṯ. The decision must be made in the light of other considerations, and for these I am indebted to Edward J. Young’s following exegetical insights:
1. In the Hebrew text בְּרֵאשִׁית, berē˒s̊îṯ, is accented with a disjunctive accent, indicating that the word has its own independent accent and was thus construed by the Masoretes as an absolute noun.
2. Without exception the ancients versions regarded בְּרֵאשִׁית, berē˒s̊îṯ, as an absolute.
3. In the Old Testament when a construct noun precedes a finite verb, the fact of constructness is apparent, either from the form of the noun in construct or from the demands of the context that the noun be so taken. Neither of these conditions is present in Genesis 1:1. In fact, the context, specifically the finite verb בָּרָא, bārā˒, favors the absolute state, for while the verb is frequently employed with the accusative of the product produced, it is never employed in a context where an accusative of the material employed in the creative act is mentioned, which would be the case here if בְּרֵאשִׁית, berē˒s̊îṯ, were construed as a construct noun. Even Gerhard von Rad, the form-critical Old Testament scholar, feels obliged to write: “Since pre-existent matter is never mentioned in connection with this activity [denoted by בָּרָא, bārā˒], the idea of creatio ex nihilo is connected with it.”
It is preferable, therefore, to view בְּרֵאשִׁית, berē˒s̊îṯ, as an absolute noun on the analogy of ’Εν ἀρχῇ, en archē, in John 1:1, and to construe verse 1 as a grand summary statement of the creation of the universe out of nothing—as it has been traditionally rendered."
(NSTCF 389-390).
Just from looking at these two issues, the CEB might be too concerned with novel liberal interpretations of unpopular doctrines rather than choosing the interpretation that is the most probable given the immediate context and the broader theological context.
