Sign up ×

One way of reading Gen 1:1 with its immediate context is that it is part of the first day of creation


However, Gen 2:1 concludes the sixth day with:



share|improve this question

4 Answers 4





Edit to address a comment Jack makes on Gone Quiet's answer.




There are scholars who regard the repeated statements of "this is the account of" in Genesis as ending sections. Walter Kaiser in The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? makes the point of these marking out sections of Moses' source material.* I was unclear if he sees them as ends of a section or beginnings.


share|improve this answer
I'm going to check that about Kaiser tonight. There are some scholars who argue that the tolodoths mark the beginning of a section and others who argue for the end. I want to make sure Kaiser teaches on the end. – Frank Luke Feb 16 '12 at 21:23

The answer to the question


On chapter division



share|improve this answer

The NET Bible notes address this question directly, spelling out the two alternative interpretations:


Moreover, the notes go on to indicate that the NET translators strongly favour the latter interpretation:


Emphasis is my addition In both cases

This shows that there is no strong reason against interpreting verse 1 as a summary statement of the six days of creation as it is unlikely to have escaped the attention of the NET translators (and as Frank has indicated in his answer).

Given the repetition of the distinctive phrase1 "the heavens and the earth" in 1:1 and 2:1, it seems most likely that this is a deliberate bookend narrative device where the intervening verses are summarized at each end:

1:1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ESV


1 The NET notes say: "This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them."

share|improve this answer
This is good. (+1) Any thoughts on Gone Quiet and Ron Maimon's conclusion that 2:3 is the other bookend (and not 2:1 as you noted)? – Jas 3.1 Sep 3 '14 at 21:00

Genesis 1:1-2, in fact, can be equally translated in two ways; by taking the Hebrew word 'b-reishit' either as a 'construct' or in the 'absolute'. This fact, in itself, renders the possibility of translating the first two verses (Gensis 1:1-2) into two strikingly different but equally valid translations. These two equally valid translations in turn give us two creation accounts and therefore, two beginnings. As such, Genesis 1:1 is an independent absolute original perfect creation and Genesis 1:3-31 is an account of a dependent later work of re-creation subsequent to chaos on earth as in Genesis 1:2. For clear details relating to God's works of creation and re-creation, renovation and restoration, please visit:>

"A natural reading of Gen 1:1 with it's immediate context is that it is part of the first day of creation"- This statement in itself lays bare the Author's bias. An objective reading of Gen.1:1 should lead anyone to conclude that it is not in anyway an incomplete work of creation. This creation fact is amply made clear by an OT Scholar []. Most theologians affirm that Genesis 1:1 is a completed work of creation that is perfect and beautiful. This rules out the common assumption or belief that Genesis 1:1 is part and parcel of the first day of creation. In fact, objectively speaking, the first day begins with the appearance of light on earth, subsequent to God's commanding it to appear. For a detailed explanation and appropriate interpretation of Genesis 1 creation accounts, visit:>

share|improve this answer
I've amended the opening of the question - my bias is actually in the opposite direction but I'd like to keep the question neutral on that issue. – Jack Douglas Jan 14 at 11:01
btw why two answers? Can you edit one of them to include the content of both or did you mean to post that way? – Jack Douglas Jan 14 at 11:02
Welcome to BH.SE! Please take our site tour. and check out what makes us different from other sites that study the Bible. Be sure to fully include any information from external sources in your answer that is pertinent to answering the question. I've combined your other post with this one as this is a Q&A site, not a discussion forum. – Dan Jan 14 at 18:41

Your Answer


