From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation according to Genesis refers to the Hebrew narrative of the creation of the heavens and the earth by Yahweh Elohim (the God of Israel) as told in Genesis (chapters 1 and 2), the first book of the Pentateuch.

Contents 1 The text 1.1 First account - "Creation week" 1.2 Bridge 1.3 Second account (Eden narrative) 2 Exegetical points 2.1 "In the beginning..." 2.2 The name of God 2.3 Tohu Va-Vohu 2.4 The ruach of God 2.5 The "deep" 2.6 The firmament of heaven 2.7 The number seven 2.8 Man and the image of God 3 Authorship 4 Single vs. dual account 4.1 The single account theory 4.2 The dual account theory 4.3 Specific arguments 4.3.1 Inconsistent order of events 4.3.2 Different names of God 4.3.3 Writing style 4.3.4 The likelihood of parallel inconsistent accounts 5 Summary of interpretations 5.1 Genesis 1:1-2:3 5.1.1 Literalist 5.1.2 Day-Age 5.1.3 Literary framework 5.2 Genesis 2:4b-3:24 5.2.1 Literalist 5.2.2 Symbolic history 5.2.3 Metaphor or allegory 6 References 7 Bibliography 8 See also 9 External links 9.1 Sources for the Biblical text 9.2 Other resources

Part of a series on

Creationism

History of creationism Neo-creationism

Types of creationism

Day-age creationism Gap creationism Old Earth creationism Progressive creationism Theistic evolution Young Earth creationism

Other religious views

Hindu · Islamic · Jewish Deist · Pandeist

Creation theology

Creation in Genesis Genesis as an allegory Framework interpretation Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Baraminology Flood geology Intelligent design

Controversy

Politics of creationism Public education History Teach the Controversy Associated articles

Creationism Portal ·  v • d • e

The modern division of the Bible into chapters dates from c.1200 AD, and the division into verses somewhat later. The distinction between Genesis 1 and 2 is therefore a relatively recent development.^[1] Many Biblical scholars regard Genesis as beginning with two accounts of the creation, 1:1-2:3 and 2:4b-2:25, each with its own focus of attention, with 2:4a forming a bridge between them. Others view the "second account" as simply a continuation of the story.

The first account is, according to many, a narrative of cosmogony, leading to the creation of humankind in the divine image and the sabbath rest of God. The "creation week" narrative consists of eight divine commands, or fiats, executed over six days, and followed by a seventh day of rest. However, according to Maimonidies, "Genesis does not refer to cosmogeny — an account of the origin and development of the universe. Instead, it presents a cosmology — a discussion of the structure of the universe."^[2] Maimonidies, as well as Gersonides, explained the account of creation mentiones in Genesis in an entirely non-literal manner.^[3]

The full text may be read: Genesis 1:1-2:3.

• First day: God creates light. (The source of light is not mentioned; it is described by some as a "primordial light", to be distinguished from the sun and moon which are created later in the week.) The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.
• Second day: God creates a firmament and divides the waters above it from the waters below. The firmament is named "heaven."
• Third day: God gathers the waters together, and dry land appears. "Earth" and "sea" are named. Then God brings forth grass, herbs and fruit-bearing trees on the Earth.
• Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament of Heaven, to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon; but not named), and the stars.
• Fifth day: God creates birds and sea creatures; they are commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
• Sixth day: God creates wild beasts, livestock and reptiles upon the Earth. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness." They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."
• Seventh day: God, having completed his work of creation, rests from His work. He blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

(The statement in verse 8 that "there was evening and there was morning" is often cited as the reason that the Jewish day starts at sunset.)

^2:4a These are the toledot of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

The phrase "These are the toledot ('generations') of the heavens and the earth when they were created" lies between the "creation week" account and the account of Eden which follows. It is the first of ten "toledoth" phrases providing structure in the book of Genesis, and since the phrase always precedes the "generation" to which it belongs, the "generations of the heavens and the earth" should logically be taken to refer to Genesis 2; nevertheless, commentators from Rashi to the present day (e.g., Driver) have argued that in this case it should apply to what precedes.^[4]

See also: Garden of Eden

The text continues with what many scholars consider to be different account of creation, focusing on the man and woman, and often referred to as the "Yahwist" version. Others consider it an account of specific events of Day 6, following on from the previous chapter.^[5][6] The text may be read online: Genesis 2:4-25

This account has man (Heb. adam) being created first out of the dust of the ground (Heb. adamah), when "no bush of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up." A garden is then planted "in Eden, in the east" and God puts the man in the garden to tend it.

The narrative gives a description of four rivers which water the garden: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Hiddekel (Tigris) and the Euphrates. Several locations are mentioned, including Cush and Assyria. Scholars thus generally consider that Eden was located in Mesopotamia, though differences of opinion exist. (In particular, creationist advocates of a global flood theory contend that, due to the total destruction of the antediluvian world it is impossible for Eden to be precisely located.)

The narrative introduces the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God then decides the man needs a companion and makes the animals and birds, presenting them to him for naming, but none are suitable as a mate. Lastly, he creates woman (Heb. ishah) from the man's (Heb. ish) side. Traditionally, it has been called Adam's rib.^[7] A statement instituting marriage follows: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh".

The story of man's expulsion from Eden then follows, building upon the setting and characters introduced here.

The first word of the book, "in the beginning" (Heb. b^erēšît), provides the traditional Jewish title for Genesis. In most English renderings Genesis opens with: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...." The Hebrew is actually ambiguous, and an alternative reading is equally possible: thus the great Jewish commentator Rashi has: "In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...," while the Bereshith Rabba combines the first three verses and reads: "In the beginning of God's creation...when the earth was without form and empty..., God said, 'Let there be light.'" Thus Christianity has a text in which God creates heaven and earth ex nihilo, while in Hebrew God's first act is the oral command, "Let there be light!"^[8]

Two names of God are used, Elohim in the first account and Yahweh Elohim in the second account. This difference, plus differences in the styles of the two chapters and a number of discrepancies between them, formed one of the earliest pieces of evidence that the Pentateuch had multiple origins, and was instrumental in the development of source criticism and the documentary hypothesis.

Tohu Va-Vohu (Hebrew: תהו ובהו), "formless" and "void." In most Bibles the phrase is translated by various combinations of adjectives with which translators attempt to capture the flavor of the primeval terrestrial moment which Tohu Va-Vohu describes. This phrase is shrouded in ancient obscurity, and although it has some limited traffic in Modern Hebrew, is deemed to be a deeply mystical concept.^[9]. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) rendered this term as "unsightly and unfurnished" (Greek: ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος), paralleling the Greek concept of Chaos.

Some English translations have "the Spirit of God," others "a wind from God." The Hebrew ruach has the meanings "wind, spirit, breath," but the traditional Jewish interpretation here is "wind," as "spirit" would imply a living supernatural presence co-extent with yet separate from God at Creation. This, however, is the sense in which "ruach" was understood by the early Christian church in developing the doctrine of the Trinity, in which this passage plays a central role.^[10]

The "deep" (Heb. t^ehôm), a formless body of water, is a mythological term referring to the chaotic primordial waters that, through the creation event, became locked within the underworld (see also: sheol).

The "firmament" (Heb. rāqîa) of heaven, created on the second day of creation and populated by luminaries on the fourth day, denotes a solid ceiling which separated the earth below from the heavens and their waters above. The term is derived from the verb rāqa, used for the act of beating metal into thin plates.

Seven was regarded as a significant number in the ancient Near East. It has been argued that the author of Genesis 1:1-2:3 has intentionally embedded it into the text in a number of ways,^[11] besides the obvious seven-day framework: the word "God" occurs 35 times (7 × 5) and "earth" 21 times (7 × 3). The phrases "and it was so" and "God saw that it was good" occur 7 times each. The first sentence of Genesis 1 contains 7 Hebrew words, and the second sentence contains 14 words, while the verses about the seventh day (2:1-3) contain 35 words in total.

The meaning of the phrase "image and likeness of God" has been much debated. The great medieval Jewish scholar Rashi believed it referred to "a sort of conceptual archetype, model, or blueprint that God had previously made for man." Maimonides pointed out that only man has free will.^[12]

Genesis 1:26-27 states "God created man (lit. adam) in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them". Modern scholarship is divided over whether these verses teach that the image of God was represented symmetrically in Adam and Eve, or whether the first two parts of the verse indicate that Adam possessed the image more fully than the woman, reflecting the bias of an ancient patriarchalist culture.

The text does not name its author, and a variety of theories have arisen regarding its authorship.

According to Jewish tradition the first 5 books of the Bible, known collectively as the Torah or Pentateuch, were written by Moses. This tradition was adopted by the earliest Christians. For example, John the Evangelist presents Jesus as having accepted Mosaic authorship (John 5:46-47). The modern scholarly view is that the Torah was written by a number of authors at various times between the 9th and 5th centuries BC; the Creation story in Genesis is usually seen as composed of two, originally separate, accounts, both based on Mesopotamian mythology, and combined during the Babylonian exile as an answer to those myths.

Modern textual critics posit that the first two chapters of Genesis are a composite of two different literary strands: the "Yahwist" (9th century BC), and the "Priestly" (7th century BC); and that the strands were compiled by an unknown redactor (but often suspected to be Ezra). One such scholar wrote, "The book of Genesis, like the other books of the Hexateuch, was not the production of one author. A definite plan may be traced in the book, but the structure of the work forbids us to consider it as the production of one writer" (Spurell xv).

The postulated sources are:

• Genesis 1:1—2:3, which exclusively uses the word Elohim to describe God, is ascribed to the Priestly source, who uses only Elohim until the revelation of the Divine name YHWH (Yahweh) to Moses (Exodus 6:3).
• Genesis 2:4—24, which uses the words Yahweh Elohim to describe God, is ascribed to the Yahwist, who uses Yahweh exclusively. The combined form Yahweh Elohim, which appears only in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3, is thought to be the work of a later editor (known as R, for Redactor), who combined P, J and other texts into a single text, the five-book Torah, in the post-Exilic period.

The documentary hypothesis, or DH, proposes that the five books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) were composed from four originally independent documentary sources, known as the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source. The form of the hypothesis advanced by Julius Wellhausen in the late 19th century is no longer so dominant as prior to the 1970s, but the terminology and much of the framework still forms the basis of views on Pentateuchal origins. According to the DH the Pentateuch was created in the 5th century BC by an editor (Wellhausen suggested that this editor could be identified with Ezra, and this view is still widely supported) working with four independent documents. These documents, as reconstructed by source criticism, are known by scholars as the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source, and were composed at various times during the 1st millennium BC. John Van Seters has drawn attention to the relationship of the Pentateuch to the so-called Deuteronomic history (the books from Joshua to the Kings), the whole forming a single history of Israel from the first creation of the world to the Babylonian exile, the last event recorded in the Book of Kings. Drawing attention to the close structural parallels between the Pentateuch and the work of the 5th-century BC Greek historian Herodotus, as well as the somewhat later Near Eastern historians Berossus and Manetho, Van Seters has suggested that the Pentateuch as a whole therefore post-dates the 6th-century BC Deuteronomic history, and was written as a prelude to it.

According to the DH, Genesis 1-2:3 is from the Priestly source, and Genesis 2:4 to the end of the chapter from the Yahwist. No other sources are present in these two chapters, although Richard Elliott Friedman identifies Genesis 2:4a (the "bridge") as the work of the final editor in the 5th century BC. Wellhausen believed that the Yahwist was the earliest source, dating from the 10th century BC, and the Priestly the most recent, dating from the 6th century BC. These dates are disputed today, with Van Seters, for example, proposing a 5th century Yahwist as the final author, but few scholars would date any material in Genesis as earlier than the 1st millennium BC.

Genesis 1 is markedly different from Genesis 2. The structure of Genesis 1 in particular is striking: the chapter is divided into seven units built around the idea of creation/furnishing: one the first three days God creates light, sky (raqia, the solid dome of the heavens), and land and plants; on the next three he makes the "furnishing" of these things, the sun, moon and stars for the light, the birds (and fish) for the heavens, and animals, foodplants and man; the seventh day forms a coda when the "heavens and the earth" (i.e., the universe) is complete, and God rests. The structure reflects the theme: God is preparing and furnishing a habitation for the pinnacle of creation, man.

Some scholars believe that the Genesis account is a report of creation, which is divided into two parts, written from different perspectives: the first part, from Genesis 1:1–2:3, describes the creation of the Earth from God's perspective; the second part, from Genesis 2:4-24, describes the creation of the Garden of Eden from Humanity's perspective. One such scholar wrote, "[T]he strictly complementary nature of the accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting" (Kitchen 116-117).

Other scholars, particularly those ascribing to textual criticism and the Documentary hypothesis, believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are two separate accounts of the creation. (They agree that the "first chapter" should include the first three verses and the first half of the fourth verse of chapter 2.) One such scholar wrote: "The book of Genesis, like the other books of the Hexateuch, was not the production of one author. A definite plan may be traced in the book, but the structure of the work forbids us to consider it as the production of one writer." (Spurell xv). The distinction between the 'two' creation stories is concealed by some translations, such as the New International Version. For some religious writers, such as Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, the existence of two separate creation stories is beyond doubt, and thus needs to be interpreted as having divine importance.

The first chapter is associated with the Priestly source which typically portrays God as transcendental and remote. The very human story of the Garden of Eden with a strong female character is typical of the Jahwist-source.

The Priestly account has been interpreted as an assertion of monotheism in a context of most peoples in the ancient world believing that the various regions of nature consisted of multiple deities, with the sun, moon, stars, sky, earth, and water all being gods as well as gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. In this account, each day of creation takes two principal categories arranged in a cosmological and symmetrical order of divinity in the pantheons of the day and declares that these are not gods at all, but creations of the one true God. The final verse (2:4) concludes: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created," with the term generations referring to the genealogies in which the Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians placed their multiple gods.^[13]

In both accounts the ordering is determined by symbolic numerology rather than being a simple history. However, the Priestly account has a similar cosmogony to the great civilisations of the river basins, beginning with watery chaos which is then separated into the waters above and the waters below, followed by the earth separating from the engulfing waters. This relates to the agricultural and urban life of the Jews at that time. In contrast, the earlier Jahwist account begins with dry desert into which God brings water and fertile vegetation, reflecting their nomadic pastoral beginnings.^[13]

Dual account advocates assert that there are two orders of events given which are contradictory.^{[citation needed]} The earlier version appears in (Genesis 1:1—2:3} and key items follow this order of creation:

1. plants;
2. marine animals, birds;
3. land animals;
4. humans (man and woman together) (Genesis 1:20—27).

The second account begins with (Genesis 2:4} wherein key items of creation appear in this order:

1. man (not woman);
2. plants;
3. land animals and birds (marine animals are omitted but omission is not a contradiction and the order of birds and beasts is not stated as being on separate days unlike chapter 1);
4. and, when no "help meet for [fit for, corresponding to] him" is found, woman (Genesis 2:7, 9, 18 – 22).^[14]

The first section exclusively refers to God as Elohim, whereas the second exclusively uses the composite name Yahweh Elohim (the former word is often translated "LORD").

Single account advocates assert that Hebrew scriptures use different names for God throughout, depending on the characteristics of God which the author wished to emphasize. They argue that across the Hebrew scriptures, the use of Elohim in the first segment suggests "strength," focusing on God as the mighty Creator of the universe, while the use of Yahweh in the second segment suggested moral and spiritual natures of deity, particularly in relationship to the man.^[15]

Dual account advocates assert that the two segments using different words for God indicates different authorship and two distinct narratives, in accord with the Documentary hypothesis.

Though not so obvious in translation, the Hebrew text of the two sections differ both in the type of words used and in stylistic qualities. The first section flows smoothly, whereas the second is more interested in pointing out side details, and does so in a more point of fact style. One of the principles of textual criticism is that large differences in the type of words used, and in the stylistic qualities of the text, should be taken as support for the existence of two different authors. Proponents of the two-account hypothesis point to the attempts (e.g., The Book of J by David Rosenburg) to separate the various authors of the Torah claimed by the Documentary Hypothesis into distinct and sometimes contradictory accounts.

Proponents of the single account argue that style differences need not be indicative of multiple authors, but may simply indicate the purpose of different passages. For example, Kenneth Kitchen, a retired Archaeology Professor of the University of Liverpool, has argued (1966) that stylistic differences are meaningless, and reflect different subject matter. He supports this with the evidence of a biographical inscription of an Egyptian official in 2400 B.C., which reflects at least four different styles, but which is uniformly supposed to possess unity of authorship. Similarly, the different names of God reflect his different attributes.^[16]

The single account theory asserts that it is unlikely that the text would have survived for three to four thousand years in such an obviously contradictory state, and that it is therefore much more likely that the two segments are consistent with each other, with the first being general and the second being more specific to the creation of humans and the garden.

However, dual account advocates point to several historic factors that would have allowed the contradictory accounts to survive uncorrected. Prior to the modern era, factors that would have made correction difficult included mass illiteracy, hand copying of manuscripts prior to the printing press, early rules preventing translations of the scriptures into common languages, church discouragement and punishment of critical analysis of scripture, and the church's canonization of texts as they were. In early times, there were few incentives or opportunities to criticize or correct scriptural text.

How apparent the differences are depends on the translations. For example, some modern English Bibles translate the two different words for God – Yahweh and Elohim – both as God. Others, however, such as the King James and Revised Standard Versions, translate Elohim as God, and Yahweh as LORD. In addition, some translations (e.g., the New International Version) have rendered the start of the second section as the day when, since the Hebrew beyom ("in the day") is an idiomatic expression for "when." So the NIV regards Ch. 2 as a review of past events – rather than the literalistic on that day, as if it were a first recording of events.

The "creation week" story (which spans the whole of the first chapter of Genesis and the first three verses of the second), and its relationship to actual events of history, has been interpreted in various ways.

Biblical literalists believe that the seven "days" in the account correspond exactly to actual 24-hour days of history during which God created the world in eight divine acts, or "fiats." Hence the view is also referred to as "fiat creation."^[17]

1. Let there be light (Genesis 1:3)
2. Let there be a firmament... (Genesis 1:6)
3. Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together... (Genesis 1:9)
4. Let the earth sprout vegetation... (Genesis 1:11)
5. Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven... (Genesis 1:14)
6. Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly... (Genesis 1:20)
7. Let the earth bring forth living creatures... (Genesis 1:24)
8. Let us make man in our image... (Genesis 1:26)

Time-based historical events. The most common corollary of the literalist interpretation is young Earth creationism, a view that creation week occurred a mere six to ten thousands years ago.^[18]

Gap interpretation. Some literalists prefer to insert a "gap" of time before the creation week story, most typically between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, into which geologic time can be inserted. Some theorists believe that during that "Gap," the world of a presumed pre-Adamite race was destroyed and then rebuilt – a position called the Ruin-Reconstruction Interpretation.^[18] The Gap interpretation was revived in response to the findings of modern science regarding the age of the Earth, and is known as Gap creationism. Arthur C. Custance^[19] has documented numerous historical references to Gap creationism centuries before literalists found themselves debating Darwinists. Custance thinks it may be better to think of this view as a textual debate among literalists first, and a debate topic versus evolution second.

See also: Day-age creationism

Another response to scientific findings is the day-age theory. This holds that each "day" (Heb. yom) of creation week represents a long "age" (perhaps millions or even billions of years) of time in which God acted upon creation. Proponents argue that time in the account should be measured in God's terms rather than human terms, and therefore literal 24-hour periods are not necessary or appropriate.

Main article: Framework interpretation (Genesis)

A growing number of theologians and laypeople support the "framework interpretation," which has a precedent in the writings of St. Augustine,^[20] and has been further developed by such authors as Meredith G. Kline and Henri Blocher. This perspective argues that the story of Genesis 1 is built upon a literary framework where the sequence of events is topical rather than chronological. It is held that Genesis 1 was written to provide religious instruction concerning the theology of creation, as a polemic against pagan creation myths, and to establish the Sabbath commandment—not as a scientifically or historically accurate record.

A similar spectrum of views is encountered in relation to the interpretation of the second creation story (which follows on to the story of the Fall of Adam).

Many biblical literalists and fundamentalist Christians read the story of Eden and Fall as strictly literal and historical. That is, God literally breathed into the nostrils of a being formed out of dust, turning it into a living man; there was a literal Garden of Eden with a literal Tree of Life; a literal couple (Adam and Eve) ate a literal forbidden fruit at the urging of a literal talking serpent; Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and barred from re-entering it by a literal flaming sword.

Other conservative Christians and Jews treat Genesis 2-3 as a record of real events in space-time (i.e., creation and Fall), but consider that the actual details are re-cast as symbols. Thus the forbidden fruit, the serpent, the fig leaves and so forth—possibly even the Garden itself—are actually metaphors for religious or spiritual concepts that underlie the original sin of Adam. Many modern commentators note that "architecture" of the Garden of Eden resembles that of the Temple in Jerusalem, suggesting a degree of religious symbolism.

One significant strand of Christian tradition, beginning with St. Augustine, holds that the forbidden fruit is in fact a metaphor for some kind of sexual temptation which Eve used to lure Adam into sin.

Some scholars believe that Genesis 2-3 is not a historical account at all, but is an allegory describing the creation and sin of each individual human being.

• Rouvière, Jean-Marc, (2006), Brèves méditations sur la création du monde L'Harmattan, Paris.
• Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation in the Old Testament (editor) (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
• Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Ver Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament (ISBN 0-13-948399-3)
• Reis, Pamela Tamarkin (2001). Genesis as Rashomon: The creation as told by God and man. Bible Review '17' (3).
• Kitchen, Kenneth, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Tyndale, 1966, p. 118
• G.J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.
• Davis, John, Paradise to Prison - Studies in Genesis, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975, p. 23
• P.N. Benware, "Survey of the Old Testament," Moody Press, Chicago IL, (1993).
• Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David The Book of J, Random House, NY, USA 1990.
• Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible?, Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987.
• Stone, Nathan, Names of God, Chicago: Moody Press, 1944, p. 17.
• Nicholson, E. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen Oxford University Press, 2003.
• Tigay, Jeffrey, Ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986
• Wiseman, P. J. Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, USA 1985
• J.D. Douglas et al, "Old Testament Volume: New Commentary on the Whole Bible," Tyndale, Wheaton, IL, (1990)

• Allegorical interpretations of Genesis

• Biblical criticism

• Documentary hypothesis

• Enuma Elish

• Origin belief

• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (Hebrew-English text)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (King James Version)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (Revised Standard Version)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New Living Translation)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New American Standard Bible)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New International Version (UK))

• Alexander Heidel, "Babylonian Genesis" A classic text, at Wikibooks
• Paul H. Seely, "The Geographical Meaning of 'Éarth' and 'Seas' in Genesis 1:10", Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997)ANE cosmography.
• Paul H. Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above", The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) ANE cosmography
• Review of James P. Allen, The Egyptian Pyramid Texts (2005)
• Religious practices in late 7th century Israel
• Mark S. Smith, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts", Bible and Interpretation.
• Review of John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (2000).
• "Enuma Elish", in Barry Bandstra, "Reading the Old Testament" Very brief introduction to Enuma Elish and discussion of biblical parallels.
• "Enuma Elish", at Encyclopedia of the Orient Summary of Enuma Elish with links to full text.
• Review of Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (2005) Includes comments on parallels between ancient Mesopotamian literature and biblical texts.
• "Epic of Gilgamesh" (summary)
• Bandstra, The Priestly Creation story Summary of the "Creation framework" of Genesis 1.

• Rob Bell's Everything Is Spiritual teaching
• Old Earth Interpretation of Genesis
• A modified version of P. J. Wiseman's hypothesis
• The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
• The Multiple Authorship of the Books Attributed to Moses
• Hexaemeron - Catholic Encyclopedia article
• Creation Magazine and Ministries
• Origin Science - Seeking to reconcile Science with Scripture
• Creation Crisis - Examining problems with young-earth creationism