Is genesis one about the original creation?


When God first speaks in verse 3, the planet Earth is already there covered with darkness and water (the deep), showing that the original creation of all things is not in Genesis. Certainly if “In the beginning God created” was more than a mere summary of God’s revealing the heaven and the earth (dry land) during the six days when He does speak, Moses would’ve told us in verse one, “God said.” The fact that neither “water” nor “angels” are said to have been created anywhere in Genesis also shows many things were created BEFORE Genesis. Nowhere in Genesis does God even create “dry land.” He merely gathers the water into one place “revealing” the dry land (verse 9). Nowhere in Genesis is it said there were millions of (many huge) meteorites nor any Ice Ages. That is because, these huge events happened BEFORE Genesis.

1 Like

Hi, Mike. That’s an interesting view – I would tend to agree with you that a lot of the things that God speaks to in Genesis 1 seem to already exist by verse 3. I have always assumed that “the heavens and the earth” in verse 1 is a catch-all term for “everything.” I don’t see how not including the phrase “God said” changes that, but maybe you can elaborate on why that makes a difference for you? So I guess I don’t follow your assertion that the things you list were created before Genesis. It can be fun to speculate, but I find Genesis verse 1 to be sufficient in simply stating that God created everything – some of the details are shared later, but most are not.

1 Like

I essentially view genesis 1 as this.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Verse one is then introducing statement. The message is that God created them heavens and the earth. Then it went on to explain it. It is mythological in nature. The text itself shows that.

How could there by a formless earth covered with deep water prior to the sun and stars. Where did the elements come from? They came from stars right? It’s a egg or chicken joke sort of. Secondly, how did the waters not all freeze if the elements were somehow here prior to the celestial lights. There is no real logical scientific or theological reason to believe genesis 1v1-2 was emphasizing some previous bulk of creation. It’s a introduction to the concept it was chaotic before God made it peaceful. Not literally, merely mythologically. I also have no reason to believe angels were created prior to this universe.

It’s the same argument that I see others use to try to cover the scientific and textual failures of literal interpretation.

They act like the Bible gives three separate creation accounts that are all in harmony together as a scientific answer.

Vs1 is one creation. Since it’s not hammered out there is nothing supposedly wrong with saying what’s flawed about it. It just glosses over the concept of it’s not being scientifically accurate by replacing it with a ambiguous phrase.

Then people say the creation account in genesis 1 is different from genesis 2. Not as in a completely separate mythological tale pointing towards the same truth, but they say that genesis 2 was a su creation on day six. That’s also just an attempt to gloss over the issues.

Vs 1 is about God making it clear he is the creator. The rest of genesis 1 is about how God made the universe and setting up patterns for the seventh day, and the 10 creations, and we see those patterns used again and again. Such as Moses’s deconstruction of the 10 creations with 10 plagues in Egypt reversing creation “peace” and replacing it with chaos. Why did the Jews rest while wondering on the seventh day? Because a god rested on the 7th day as well. It’s about patterns and showing God is the master of the universe.

Chapter two is a retelling of the same myth only focused on humanity. God is not only the creator of the universe but our Creator. Our God. Our father. He cares for us. It introduces us to the fact he wants perfection for us. It introduces us to the problem of humanity wanting to do what they think is good and reject what god says is good.

Adam and Eve saw that the fruit looked a good.
Abraham and Sarah saw that Hagar looked good.
Israelites saw that the idols looked good. The boy that would become David looked good.

It’s introducing us to the themes of the Bible and it’s not trying to provided us with a scientific response.

I understand it’s difficult to imagine “In the beginning” doesn’t refer to the very beginning because, that’s what has been assumed for so long. It’s hard to believe, but thanks to modern Hebrew scholars, we know Genesis One better now than at any time in Church history. In fact, Jesus spoke and the Apostles spoke and wrote in Greek instead of Hebrew. That’s why they, again hard to imagine, didn’t quote the Hebrew OT, but rather LXX the Greek translation of the OT. Brilliant modern scholars, digging and digging have, for example, proven the now well-known fact that there cannot be a GAP between 1:1 and 1:2. That means they cannot claim a creation in verse one followed by a destruction in verse two. And that means verse two describes the way things were at the time of verse one, which then means at the time of “In the beginning,” Earth was already there, covered with darkness and water. Scholars such as Watchman Nee, Donald Grey Barnhouse, F. W. Grant, Finis Jenninnings Dake, Derek Prince and C. I. Scofield all believed Earth had a long history BEFORE the six days, but died before this rather new scholarship that shows there cannot have been a GAP.

I would hesitate to use the word “proven” since interpretation is going to play a role regardless of which particular Hebrew word was used, but anyway, what are your sources for this?

I guess I’m not entirely sure what your last statement is meant to be be implying.

I agree verse 1 and verse 2 are not about two different creations. It’s about the same creation. Verse one introduces us to what the following passages are about.

I’ve heard several different arguments such as revealing vs creating and ect…

It seems to read exactly like any similar sentence.

In the beginnings Mi created the buisness. On day one … say 7.

Even scholars who don’t believe in the “Summary Statement” view, admit the Hebrew permits it. They admit it’s possible that the conditions in 1:2 were BEFORE 1:1. If 1:1 is the original creation, it would thus be part of Day One and would mean Day One was the only Creation Day that did not start with God being shown to have spoken. It would also mean God created Earth in condition that was not good and was not called good. Not only would the creation of angels be left out, but so would Lucifer’s long history of being “blameless in all of your ways.” (Ezekiel 28:15). If the 1:1 beginning was the very beginning, then when did the supercontinent divide into the continents as we see them now? This division is not in Genesis because, it happened long before Genesis. Why would God create Earth needing to be fixed? We do not need to FORCE into Genesis all of the major events that are not there. The simple plain explanation is that the creation of angels, the fall of a third of them, the millions of meteorites that are known to have hit Earth, continental drift, Ice Ages and the billions of years of starlight travel all happened long before Genesis.


Now THAT is an excellent observation!

As a side note.

Lucifer was a weird translation done by KJV for the morning star which was venus and those verses are about a man. It even calls him a man.

Rev 12 states that Satan was kicked out of heaven after he tried to kill Jesus, presumably through King Herod.

Is genesis one about the original creation?

Yes. What it is not is a how to “creation for dummies” book. The very idea is absurd. Nobody reading Genesis in 90% of the history for which it existed would ever think that God was trying to inform us of HOW He created the Earth or the Universe. It was assumed to be beyond our comprehension (that is what we read Job for example). With modern science, we are perhaps getting close to the point where we could understand such a thing. And perhaps it is an inane reaction to this with some sort of absurd sense of rivalry that a few sects have tried to make their religious texts serve such a role. But instead of glorifying God they have really never been about anything more than glorifying the people of religion. And the result is that scientists demonstrated the greater humility – bowing before the information which God has sent us in both the Earth and sky, going from every question answered to hundreds of more questions. While these creationist turn instead to the total arrogance of willful ignorance, basically insisting they know everything instead of nothing.

To be sure Genesis 1 is certainly not a play by play account of God’s creation of everything. I suppose if you squint a little, you might be able to see it as a description of a more limited portion of creation. But frankly I see much more meaning in the text by the analysis which sees this as a declaration of theology about the kind of God which the Bible is affirming compared to all the other religions – not the sun, moon or stars, not the light or the darkness, not the earth or the waters, not the plants or the animals, and not man either… but one who created them all.


It’s good to see you’ve put a lot of time into the Genesis creation story. We can hammer this out and try to see whether or not 1:1 is about the original creation. If 1:1 is part of Day One and is about the original creation, it means Moses didn’t consider the sun, moon and stars (Day Four), as comprising part of “the heavens” he spoke of being created “in the beginning.” So we must ask ourselves, “Would Moses think “the heavens” weren’t comprised of anything seen?” Can we expect Moses, for the only time in the OT, to call a sunless, moonless and starless space, “the heavens?” In this “Summary Statement” view, “the beginning” and “the Six Days” both refer to the same thing, therefore Earth was already there covered with darkness and water (we think as a result of a judgment of a previous civilization before Adam md Eve). This means we think “During the Six Days God created the heavens and the earth.” Let’s look at what Moses meant by “heavens and earth.” The Hebrew word translated “heavens” in 1:1 is the same word (shamayim), used on Day Four concerning where God “placed” the sun, moon and stars (1:17), and is where the birds flew on Day Five (1:20). We know the sun, moon and stars are not actually where the birds flew, which tells us they weren’t literally created in those heavens, but rather were “revealed” or “made to be seen” in the heavens where the birds fly–not newly “created” there. We think God removed the cloud-cover, revealing the sun, moon and stars, just as He removed water to “reveal” “dry land.” In our view, the heavens in 1:1 do include the sun, moon and stars and are literally “the heavens.” The Hebrew word translated, “earth” in 1:1 means “dry land.” So "In the beginning (during the Six Days), God “revealed” (which the Hebrew word for created in 1:1-“bara,” can mean), “the heavens and the dry land.”

Don’t tell me I’ve got to delve into Revelation 12 to cover the fringe of the Genesis One debate?? LOL!! The woman in 12:1 cannot be Mary just as the wilderness in 12:6 cannot refer to Egypt because Mary was not in Egypt for anywhere close to “one thousand two hundred and sixty days.” (12:6b). The “male child” she gives birth to cannot refer to Jesus because, He wasn’t “caught up to God and to His thrown” at birth (12:5). Yes, it does say this male child will “rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (12:5), but that is said of the overcomers in the Church in Revelation 2:27. As chapter 12 continues it says “And THEY (not He), overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.” Then after her child was raptured, the woman fled into the wilderness (12:14), which Mary didn’t do when Jesus ascended into heaven. So we must live consecrated lives if we wish to be among the overcomers of the Church and be a part of the first resurrection. That’s the point of Revelation 12. May God help us all.

The obvious scientific interpretation would be:

  • Genesis 1:1a, “God creates the heavens” = 14-5 billion years ago
  • Genesis 1:1b, “and the earth” = 4.5 billion years ago


First I feel it should be without a doubt obvious that revelations is littered with metaphors and poetic images. Such as the woman could not have been really given the wings of a angel, and some baby was not literally carried off into heaven.

The story is definitely about Jesus. That was the title given to Jesus, the male son King who would rule all nations with a iron rod. The days are just a couple of years. All of these events did not happen prior to creation but after creation. The metaphors here line up perfectly with Christ’s story as a child and bleeds into how he overcame the devil.

Mary gave birth to a male son who would rule all nations with a iron rod.

The woman gave birth to a male who would rule all nations with a iron rod.

The dragon tried to kill the child.
Herod tried to kill the newborn king, Jesus.

Mary, Jospeh, and Jesus fled Herod and bounced around for a while ending up in Nazarene ( place of the sticks and was safe from Herod.

The woman was given wings and the son called up to heaven and escaped the dragon into the wilderness.

In the new testament we see a high amount of demonic activity. In the old testament every time we see it we see it being used by God it was sent out by him. In the New Testament, it shows they were doing this on their own. Their time was short. They were full of wrath for being defeated.

Ultimately Jesus himself then defeated Satan and overcame death.

There was no boy back in the start who had that title, went to war with the devil, and then somehow stayed alive until they overcame the devil. It does not match up what the women being the body of believers from the Old Testament through the new.

If the argument that you’re making is that satan had already fallen sometime between genesis 1v1 and genesis 1v# it does not line up with any story relative to humanity like revelation 12 did. I’m just pointing out that it’s a weak argument to say Satan feel between verses 1 and the next verse or so as a systematic proof that there must have been time between the two.

1 Like

I agree that fits.

I just don’t see the verses stating in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth as day one verses it being a introducing statement preparing for the days of creation and viewing it all as he revealed everything later.

1 Like

The Virtuous Heavenly Woman (Rev 12) is the antithesis of the fallen worldly Harlot of Babylon.

The latter represents the apostate 1st century Jerusalem (Rev 11:8) which caused the Crucifixion. (Nero’s Jewish empress Poppaea Sabina may have been implied, in specific particular, also.)

The former represents the faithful remnant of Israel which gave rise to the Holy Family and Jesus of Nazareth. (Mother Mary may be implied, in specific particular, also.)

Virtuous Woman receiving eagles’ wings symbolizes the flight of the Jewish Jerusalem congregation to Pella in 70 AD, and son called up to heaven represents Jesus’ Ascension.

Note that the prodigal boy child grows to manhood in heaven, and returns in victory as the adult Christly conquering figure (Rev 19). He symbolizes (generally) the Church, as the body of Christ on earth, spiritually victorious, converting the pagan Roman empire to Christ. (Emperor Constantine may be symbolized, specifically.)

As for the Fall, Saint Augustine, who was well versed in the entire Bible from cover to cover, construed the angelic fall in Gen 1:4 when “light was separated from darkness”.

Of course, plainly, the God says repeatedly that everything is “good” and “very good” throughout Genesis 1. If everything being “good” precludes a Satanic rebellion, then said rebellion did not occur until the 7th Divine (Sabbath) Day – in which case, something about God “resting” may have “provoked” the sudden “activity” of the Adversary ???

Everything I read in scripture shows that Satan was an angel with the other angels until after he tried to kill Jesus through Herod.

Job shows Satan as still among the angels and would be used to test them.

We do see conflict between angels. Michael, the angel of Israel, along with Gabriel, stood against the Prince of Greece and the Prince of Persia, both of which were also angels. But you notice it’s just them two. Not others. They were not at war. They were at tension.

In Jude we read that Michael and Moses was arguing over the body of Jesus. They were still communicating and not yet at war.

The gospels mention that a Jesus watched Satan fall like lightening from heaven. The gospels are silent on Jesus as a child, presume because they were hidden at that time. Jesus , while on earth in the form of a man watched Satan fall like lightening. They fall was the war. That fall was when he lost to Michael. That would mean Jesus was old enough to remember seeing that so it took place some years after Herod tried to kill them.

In the Old Testament you don’t read of fallen angels. You read of angels being sent as deceitful spirits or spirits of torment carrying out Gods will.

After the war, Satan was cast down, and knowing his time was short ( because revelations is predominantly about the destruction of Jerusalem and the anti christ Nero) and so he sought out Gods people like a lion. But his time was short.

It all fits together well. May better than Satan went to war sometime shortly after he was created trying to kill some other kid. Then after that he still argued with angels and marched with them testing mankind. Makes no sense to me.

1 Like

Concerning the lights in v3 and ,14 the let there be is the same word. It’s not created in one and revealed in another.

The creation myth is very clear.

The Bible opens with in the beginning God crested the heavens and the earth. That’s a summary for the next few chapters.

It says he was over the deep waters of the formless earth. That’s chaos. The same root words. The sea and chaos. That’s part of what in revelation it mentions in the restored world metaphors there is no ocean. It specifies no sea.

Revelation 21:1 New American Standard Bible

21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

It also mentions prior to the stars, which were everything came from, there was light. Before creation, when it was just a God among chaotic disorder not suitable for life there was light. Revelation also picks up on that.

Revelation 21:23 New American Standard Bible

23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Humans have always used myths, parables, and stories that were fictional to convey a real truth it morality. Fairy tales and fold tales did it often.

1 Like

No! My point is that Satan DIDN’T FALL BETWEEN VERSES ONE AND TWO, BUT BEFORE GENESIS ALTOGETHER. Yes it would be a weak argument to say Lucifer fell at any time in Genesis without Genesis telling us so. When Satan is introduced in Genesis, he is already a fallen being full of hate, deceit, and outright lies. Lucifer had a long history BEFORE Genesis, as did the other angels who “shouted for joy” when God “laid the foundation of the Earth” (Job 38:5-7).

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.