Banner Image: Sombrero Galaxy
A critique of the traditional seven-day, young-earth interpretation of Genesis 1 based on the Hebrew text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (the standardized Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament). Reading Genesis 1 is recommended before continuing.
The traditional seven-day interpretation of Genesis 1 has God commanding the heavens, earth, and all therein into existence during six days. God then rests on the seventh day. This has been the essence of Jewish belief dating back to at least 300 BC. Christians in the first century accepted this interpretation and have passed it down to the present.
The primary reason seven-day, young-earth creation theology is being challenged is because firm scientific evidence shows the heavens and earth are significantly older than the 4004 BC creation date calculated by Anglican Archbishop James Ussher. Several lines of evidence clearly show the earth is more than 6,000 years old.1 For example, the biblical city of Jericho has been dated older that 8,000 BC. Typically, this information is either ignored or attacked by defenders of the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1.
In an attempt to harmonize the creation account with scientific information regarding extensive age, additional interpretations of Genesis 1 have been developed. Unfortunately, they require the special definition of certain words and in some cases a completely metaphorical explanation. A pro and con analysis of the four main interpretations illustrates their strengths and weaknesses—and why they should be rejected.
The good news is that when the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 is properly interpreted it can be fully accepted without reservation. When the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 is harmonized with the rest of the Old Testament (comparing scripture with scripture) a correct interpretation emerges. The language of Genesis has been embellished to support seven-day creation belief. When properly interpreted, not a single word, phrase, or verse in Genesis 1 need be treated as mythological, metaphorical, or untrue.
Genesis 1 is best viewed as a preamble (introduction) to the Pentateuch written by Moses. When Moses wrote his preamble, the children of Israel clearly understood its meaning; however, its interpretation eventually became corrupted. No specific evidence points to when this happened. It may have happened during the time of the judges when no strong, continuous spiritual or political leadership existed. It may have happened between the reign of Solomon and the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC as Israel turned away from worshiping God. It may have happened while Israel was in captivity in Babylon. It was probably during one of these periods of turmoil that an embellished interpretation emerged. A charismatic leader developed a new, exciting explanation for Genesis 1 and began teaching it. This eventually became accepted as true. We know that by around 300 BC the traditional seven-day interpretation had become accepted belief.
The Septuagint is a translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew language into the Greek language. The first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch) were translated from Hebrew into Greek around 275 BC by Jewish scribes in Alexandria, Egypt.2 The remaining books of the Old Testament were translated at various times during the next 100–300 years.3 Translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was a response to the spread of the Greek language due to the conquests of Alexander the Great. The Septuagint allowed Jews and proselytes who did not speak Hebrew to study the Old Testament in their native Greek tongue.
As a whole, the Septuagint has a number of translation errors.4 The Septuagint translation of Genesis 1 specifically, is poorly translated with some words being mistranslated, omitted, or added.5 The Hebrew scribes who translated Genesis 1 believed in the traditional seven-day interpretation and used their work to embed their beliefs into their translation. The scribes who translated the Septuagint were familiar with the native Hebrew and Greek languages of the day and were conceptually capable of making a good translation; however, their poor scholarship and theological beliefs produced a less than accurate work.6
The writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37–100), who lived in Jerusalem, and Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria (20 BC–AD 50), who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, attest to their acceptance of the traditional seven-day interpretation of Genesis 1 by the Jews.7, 8 Based their writings and the Septuagint, we can conclude that during the time of Christ Jews accepted the traditional seven-day interpretation of Genesis 1.
Early Christians undoubtedly believed in the traditional seven-day interpretation of Genesis 1. However, it is fascinating to note that any specific reference to the heavens and earth being created in six days (or seven days) by God speaking them into existence was kept out of the New Testament. The New Testament mentions several historical figures and events recorded in Genesis, but is silent about traditional seven-day theology.
Bible scholars are aware of translation errors found throughout the Septuagint; however, they view the traditional seven-day interpretation of Genesis 1 as correct. Moses wrote and gave the Pentateuch to the children of Israel. They safeguarded and preserved this document over hundreds of years. Hebrew is the native language of the Jewish people. Jews accept the traditional seven-day interpretation, so their interpretation must be correct. Conservative Christian scholars view the Septuagint translation as absolute proof the Bible teaches traditional seven-day, young-earth creation theology.
The key to understanding Genesis1 lies not in trying to overturn the clear seven-day structure, but in understanding what the text says. The text of Genesis 1 must be allowed to speak for itself, rather than forcing an embellished interpretation into the text. Clarity comes by (1) determining what God actually says when he speaks, (2) identifying the words of the narrator (Moses), (3) properly understanding words used by the narrator, (4) understanding why a seven-day format was used, and (5) why Genesis Chapter 1 was written.
The most significant error in the traditional interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 regards jussive verbs. Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 20, and 24 are claimed to contain "jussive command" verbs capable of turning a descriptive sentence into a command. This is a major issue—significantly exceeding all others—in correctly interpreting and translating Genesis. Except for biblical Hebrew scholars, few people have ever heard of this little-known verb classification. Regardless, the important issue is that outside Genesis Chapter 1, jussive verbs have essentially no significance in the Old Testament. The "jussive command" verb is a fabrication of biblical Hebrew grammar that seriously distorts the Genesis creation account.
Linguists acknowledge the existence of the "jussive mood." A sentence may have a jussive mood which expresses a command, wish, or desire. The entire sentence or phrase (syntax) is what determines the jussive mood, and not a single verb in the sentence. For example in the English language, there are four basic types of sentences: declarative, imperative, interrogative, and exclamatory. The English language does not have "imperative verbs;" however, it does have dynamic verbs that can be used in an imperative sentence. Verbs may be classified as stative (state of being) or dynamic (shows action), and typically dynamic verbs are used in imperative sentences.
The Hebrew expression "tohu wa-bohu" (tohu and bohu) is typically translated "without form and void." The translation of the Hebrew verb tohu (Strong's 08414) as "without form" is unique to Genesis and illegitimate. Tohu should be translated vacant, empty, or void to show the complete absence of life on early earth. The mistranslation of tohu wa-bohu is driven by theological influence rather than sound interpretative practice.
Genesis 1:3 is a truism. A statement that is true, but tells us little else. For example, the statement, "I exist, therefore I am," is a truism but tells us little about who we really are. Genesis 1:3 is simply describing the existence of light.
The Hebrew verb יהי, meaning "be" or "exist," occurs in Genesis 1:3, 6, and 14 and is one of many derivatives based on the root היה. Verbs based on the root היה (hayah, Strong's 01961) occur approximately 3,482 times in the Old Testament. Examination of the Hebrew text is essential to determine when יהי occurs.
The two verbs translated "be" above in Genesis 1:3 are stative verbs. Stative verbs indicate being or state-of-being. This contrasts with verbs that are dynamic and which show action. For example, in the sentence, "Jane ran down the street," the verb "run" is a dynamic verb which shows action. In Genesis 1:3, the stative verb "be" is forced to become a dynamic verb.
The interpretation of Genesis 1:3 is controlled by the presence of an alleged "jussive" verb. In the KJV translation, the English word "let" in the phrase "let there be" indicates the presence of a jussive verb. A jussive verb in this verse turns this declarative sentence into a command. The Old Testament Parsing Guide by Beall, Banks, and Smith classifies the first occurrence of "be" (יהי) in this verse as a jussive verb. The jussive verb is a fabrication of biblical Hebrew scholarship to support the traditional seven-day interpretation of Genesis 1.
The most condemning evidence for rejecting יהי as a "jussive command" verb is that in the 46 verses outside of Genesis 1 in the Old Testament where the specific Hebrew verb form יהי appears, the jussive interpretation has no relevance. Outside of Genesis 1, the remaining 46 verses do not rely on a "jussive command" interpretation.9 This interpretation is unique to Genesis.
In Genesis 1:6 God describes the expanse of the sky which divides the water above (water contained in the clouds) from the water below (seas, lakes and rivers). Nothing is being created or made. No action of any kind is occurring.
The presence of an alleged jussive verb turns Genesis 1:6 into a command. Rather than a descriptive statement, God is issuing a command. God allegedly commands the firmament (expanse) into existence. In the KJV translation, the word "let" in the phrases "let there be" and "let it separate" indicates the presence of an alleged "jussive command" verb. Also note that "be" in the phrase "and be to separate" is not translated in the ESV, KJV and other traditional translations.
The traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:9 has God creating planet earth from the formless, dark, watery mass described in Genesis 1:2. God gathers the waters together to form the oceans, and the dry land is thrust upward to form the continents. The scene depicted is one of great activity. The best interpretation is that God is describing a completely tranquil scene. The waters (oceans and lakes) are waiting in their respective basins—and have been so for some time—and the dry ground (continents and islands) are visible.
The Hebrew verb qavah (Strong's 06960) is best translated "wait" in this verse. The misinterpretation and mistranslation of qavah as "let be gathered together" is an egregious treatment of the Hebrew text to support traditional seven-day creation theology. The translation of qavah "let be gathered together" is unique to Genesis 1:9 and without biblical support.
The Hebrew verb raah (Strong's 07200) is best translated "seen" in this verse. In the Old Testament raah is translated "see, saw, seen, seest, and seeing" 67% of the time in the KJV and as "appear" only 5% of the time. Also note that the "be" in the phrase "the dry ground can be seen" is not translated in the ESV, KJV and other traditional translations.
Further evidence for rejecting the jussive verb interpretation forced on this verse comes from The Old Testament Parsing Guide. They identify qavah and raah as "jusm" verbs rather than "jussive" which means they are "jussive in meaning, but no unique form to indicate jussive.10 Based on spelling, these two verbs are not jussive. Despite this, Bible scholars have assigned these verbs a jussive meaning and force this verse to be a command.
In traditional translations of Genesis 1:14, God is allegedly commanding the sun, moon, and stars into existence. In the KJV translation, the English word "let" indicates the presence of a "jussive command" verb. Theological influence has forced two stative verbs meaning "be" to become dynamic verbs, and has changed this declarative sentence into a command.
In Genesis 1:16 Moses identifies God as maker of the two great luminaries. The greater luminary (the sun) rules the day. The smaller luminary (the moon) rules the night and the stars. The moon by reason of its brightness dominates the dark night and the stars.
The underlined portion of the King James Version translation of Genesis 1:16 is misinterpreted and mistranslated to support traditional seven-day, young-earth creation theology and the belief God created the stars on the fourth day. The English words "he made. . .also" are: (1) not in the Hebrew text, (2) not implied, (3) have been deliberately added, and (4) are grossly misleading, This is a very simple, clear statement. Biblical scholars should hang their heads in shame for deliberately making this verse say something it does not say.
Genesis 1:20 is a descriptive statement by God as he views swarms of fish and other marine animals. God describes the majesty of birds soaring in the sky. The Hebrew verb sharats (Strong's 08317) is correctly translated "swarm" and uwph (Strong's 05774) is correctly translated "fly" in the ESV. However, in the KJV translation the addition of the word "let" indicates these verbs are treated as "jussive command" verbs, which turns this descriptive statement into a command.
The Old Testament Parsing Guide by Beall, Banks and Smith classifies sharats and uwph in Genesis 1:20 as "jusm" which means they are "jussive in meaning, but no unique form to indicate jussive."11 In plain English, based on spelling they are not jussive verbs. Yet Bible scholars have assigned these verbs a jussive meaning to force this verse to support traditional seven-day theology and its embellished interpretation. God is allegedly commanding the fish and birds into existence.
The traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:24 has God creating the land animals by speaking them into existence. The Hebrew verb yatsa (Strong's 03318) is traditionally assigned a jussive verb state and translated "let bring forth." This interpretation is misleading and turns a simple descriptive statement into a command.
The traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:26 has God proposing to make man. The Hebrew text does not support this interpretation. The terms "let us" and "and let them" found in all traditional translations are: (1) not in the Hebrew text, (2) not implied by the text, (3) not based on the existence of any alleged jussive verbs, and (4) misleading. This is among the most egregiously misinterpreted verses in Genesis.
In Hebrew the predicate (verb) normally comes first in a sentence, followed by the subject (noun). Their position is normally reversed during translation into English. In this sentence, translators have not reversed the verb/noun position (made/mankind) for a proper understanding of the text. God is simply stating: "Mankind—made in our image and likeness—has dominion over the animals." The phrase "made in our image and after our likeness" is best viewed as a parenthetical expression.
As traditional interpreted, God proposes to make man in Genesis 1:26 and then actually creates him in Genesis 1:27. The best interpretation is that God observes man and his dominion over the animals in Genesis 1:26. Mankind has been on the earth for some time. Moses then identifies God as the creator of mankind in Genesis 1:27. Moses strongly emphasizes God as the creator of mankind by using the term "create" three times.
Most English translations begin Genesis 1:27 with "so" which implies God made man after first proposing to make him. The word "and" is clearly in the Hebrew text.
The traditional translation of Genesis 2:1 leads the reader to believe God finished his work of speaking the heavens and earth into existence on the seventh day. The meaning of this verse is somewhat open to interpretation, and may be viewed as a record of the things God did during six days which includes describing, naming, distinguishing, approving, and blessing a mature, well-functioning earth and biosphere.
We should realize the position we are in today regarding Genesis 1 is the result of generations of inherited belief and teaching. Starting with the New Testament (and before) men and women who loved God and respected the Bible as the inspired word of God were taught the traditional seven-day interpretation of Genesis 1. They accepted this belief as true and passed it on to the next generation. Any teaching contrary to this belief was heretical. There was little reason to doubt this interpretation—and especially so when backed up by volumes of commentary and analysis. Christians today have simply accepted this belief, as did their forefathers.
Biblical scholars have interpreted and translated the Hebrew text to agree with current traditional seven-day, young-earth theology. I do not believe this action has been malicious or with intent to deceive. They are not evil people. They consider the Hebrew language as "flexible" and have applied this concept to the translation of Genesis. They consider the Septuagint translation as absolute confirmation of their belief. Bible scholars honestly believe they are defending what the Bible teaches.
However, times have changed. The evidence supporting an old age for the earth has amassed to the point it is irrefutable. It will never be over turned. The earth and universe are significantly older than 4004 BC (Ussher’s date). This evidence seriously discredits seven-day, young-earth creation theology, which in turn discredits the Bible as being truthful and trustworthy. It discredits the Bible as the inspired word of God. In our rapidly changing world, Christians no longer have the luxury of being wrong.
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence people still cling to the traditional seven-day, young-earth interpretation of Genesis. One significant reason is that no plausible alternate interpretation has been developed for Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 which respects the integrity of scripture. This position has now changed. The Mosaic preamble translation of Genesis 1 respects the biblical text, is an accurate interpretation/translation of the text, and confirms that God inspired Moses to write a sophisticated introduction to Genesis capable of surviving the test of time.
The Mosaic preamble translation is not just another speculative, knee-jerk, out-of-the-box idea to force Genesis to agree with scientific evidence for an old heaven and earth. It is a carefully researched translation of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 (requiring more than 1,000 hours of effort) that corrects a number of egregious errors which are the basis of seven-day, young-earth creation theology. The real basis for the Mosaic preamble translation is the Hebrew text of the Bible.
One should not infer from this discussion that the Bible is full of errors. Once past Genesis Chapter 1, the majority of controversy over interpretation/translation disappears—although there is always room for improvement.
The above is a small sampling of material found in The Real Genesis Creation Story by J. Gene White. Visit the author's website to see how this book came about. For your personal copy of this explosive book, click to order from AMAZON or BARNES & NOBLE. The suggested retail price is $15.95.
1. White, J. Gene (2016) The Real Genesis Creation Story—Third Edition, St. Louis, MO: Sunnybrooke Publications. pp 35-62
2. Fahlbusch, Erwin and Jan Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, Lukas Vischer, eds. (2005). The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p913.
3. Freedman, David Noel, ed. (1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5. New York, NY: Doubleday. p1094.
4. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin J. Wright (2007). A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
5. White, J. Gene, The Real Genesis Creation Story—Third Edition, pp 263-266.
6. Ibid.
7. Josephus, Flavius (1987). The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 13th printing (translated by William Whiston). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. p29.
8. Philo (1993). The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 4th printing (translated by C. D. Yonge). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. pp6-10.
9. White, J. Gene, The Real Genesis Creation Story—Third Edition, pp 240-246.
10. Beall, Todd S. and William A. Banks, Colin Smith (2000). Old Testament Parsing Guide, Revised and Updated Edition. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. p viii and 1.
11. Ibid., p viii and 1.