At its core, Genesis offers not one but two distinct creation accounts, each highlighting different aspects of humanity’s relationship with God. Far from being the straightforward words of Moses, the book reflects centuries of redaction and compilation—much like the Book of Mormon—woven from multiple voices and contexts. Along the way, readers encounter surprising details: skies imagined as a solid dome, humans formed from dirt, and Joseph Smith’s bold emendations of the Old Testament Hebrew text. In this interview, Avram R. Shannon explains how ancient context reshapes our understanding of Genesis, creation, and the faith-science conversation.
Sign up to be notified when we publish new content, like articles about Latter-day Saint views on evolution and the age of the earth.
The Authorship of Genesis
How does the way Genesis was written resemble the Book of Mormon?
With the probable exception of the small plates (1 Nephi to Omni), the Book of Mormon was a product of Mormon (and to a lesser extent, Moroni), who took various sources—the large plates of Nephi, letters, individual records, etc.—and combined them, together with his own editorial perspective and commentary, to make our Book of Mormon.
In biblical scholarship, we call individuals who serve as compilers and editors like this redactors.
The Book of Mormon is a redacted text.
In the same way as our Book of Mormon, the evidence around Genesis (and most other biblical books) suggests that what we have in our Bible is also an edited and compiled text.
What I mean by this is that an individual or individuals collected a variety of sources, some likely written and some likely oral, and compiled them, together with a specific editorial perspective, in order to create what we now have as our biblical Book of Genesis.
In this way, Genesis has material that reflects a variety of social and historical circumstances. It has material that derives, in some form, from the time of the stories it relates. That material has been reworked and understood by a later inspired editor.
Does Joseph Smith’s New Translation commit Latter-day Saints to the idea that Moses authored Genesis?
One of the important things to remember here is that the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is an extract of the New (or Joseph Smith) Translation of Genesis. Thus, much of what we see in Moses reflects ideas in Genesis.
In many ways, the New Translation found in Moses has places that push away from the idea that Moses was the author of Genesis. We do have Moses 1:40–41, which states that Moses wrote a book, but it also seems to indicate that what we have in Genesis is not the book that Moses wrote.
Nowhere does it make any claims about authorship.
One of the key things that we see in regard to authorship here is that the Book of Moses places the narrative about Moses’s discourse with God and Satan in the third person.
This means that Moses 1 presents itself as a narrative about Moses, like we find in Exodus and so forth, rather than being a first-person account from Moses, like we have from Nephi in 1 Nephi.
In fact, like Genesis or Exodus, nowhere in the text of the book of Moses does it make any claims about authorship—other than indicating that Moses did write something down.
Why is it unlikely that Moses wrote the Hebrew text of Genesis?
That one is a little bit clearer because of the evidence we have around the formation of the Hebrew language.
The internal narrative of the Bible puts the Exodus from Egypt (and therefore Moses) to around 1446 BCE. Some scholars have argued for a date as late as around 1290 BCE based on the question of the identity of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The Exodus likely happened sometime between those dates.
It was written in its current form later than Moses and the Exodus.
For this discussion, I am not going to weigh in on the specific dates for the Exodus, because my only reason for mentioning those dates is to further observe that our earliest potential evidence for Hebrew as a language is around 1200 BCE. This date is the earliest possible date for a potential Hebrew inscription.
This means that Moses likely did not speak Hebrew or write in Hebrew, because it was not yet differentiated from other Canaanite dialects.
Our current book of Genesis is written in Hebrew and is written in a form of Hebrew that reflects some level of historical linguistic development, which means that it was written in its current form later than Moses and the Exodus.
The Two Genesis Creation Accounts
How many creation stories are in Genesis?
A close reading shows that there seem to be two accounts of the creation of the world that have been joined together by our inspired redactor(s).
The break between the two creation accounts is at Genesis 2:4. Genesis 2:3 makes it very clear that God has rested from his labors because he is done working. Genesis 2:4 then begins another account of the creation.
- Genesis 1:1–2:3 — The first creation account in Genesis.
- Genesis 2:4–2:25 — The second creation account in Genesis
- Other Scriptures — These two creation stories in Genesis join other accounts, such as Psalm 74:12–17 (a narrative about Jehovah battling a great sea dragon, representing the forces of disorder, to create the earth).
What is the difference between the first creation and the second creation in Genesis?
This is a good question. I give my students this exact question on an exam when I teach this section. It’s so important to differentiate what is happening here.
1st Creation Account in Genesis
The first creation account contains the separation of creation into creative periods (called “days” in Genesis and Moses). God creates simply by speaking and commanding.
This creation account emphasizes God’s transcendent power and his interest in order and classification. The creation of living things follows the order: animals of the sea and air, then land animals, then human beings. Human beings are made in God’s image, and males and females are created simultaneously.
2nd Creation Account in Genesis
In the second creation account, God creates using very physical verbs of creation. He builds. He forms. Humanity is given a reason for creation—it is to work and till the ground. This is the creation account where humanity is made from dirt.
The order of creation is first the male human, and then the rest of the animals, then the female human, who is created from the rib of the male human.
All of these aspects are familiar to readers of the biblical text, and you can see how these stories sort of blend together in our regular discourse on creation.
Some of the later aspects of the narrative in Genesis seem to have their roots in this second creation account. This creation account introduces Eden.
What can we learn from the differences between the two creation stories in Genesis?
Each creation account in Genesis can teach us something different about how the ancient authors and editors of the Bible understood their relationship to God and to the world around.
It also shows how God inspires different people at different times to teach them truths. For example, as noted, the first creation account indicates that humanity is created in the image of God. This gives a view of humanity’s divine nature and destiny and our relationship with our creator.
Elder Uchtdorf calls this “the paradox of man.”
On the other side, the second creation account indicates that humanity is created from dirt. In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin uses this particular idea to help his people see their own nothingness before God (see Mosiah 2:21–26).
Part of the beauty of this is the way the two creation accounts can then be combined to give us a full perspective on our nature and our relationship to God.
Elder Uchtdorf calls this “the paradox of man: compared to God, man is nothing; yet we are everything to God” (“You Matter to Him”, October Conference, 2011).
Does Joseph Smith’s approach in the King Follett Sermon reflect the Hebrew text of Genesis 1?
This is a tricky question, in part because Joseph Smith is reflecting on the Hebrew Text—but he is also emending it.
By this, I mean that what he ends up interpreting in the King Follett Discourse is not the text of Genesis 1:1 as we have it in our Bibles today. Rather than referring to creation happening in the beginning, in this discourse, Joseph Smith understands Genesis 1:1 to be saying something like “[The] head brought forth gods.”
He arrives at this reading by emending the Hebrew text. He removes the preposition b-, which Joseph Smith correctly identifies as “in, by, through.”
But he suggests that it does not belong there, and so rather than our bereshit (“in the beginning” or “when God began), he is working from reshit, which he re-vowels as roshit, which Joseph understands as “head.”
On a purely grammatical and text-historical level, this does not reflect the Hebrew text we have received at all. Reshit (“beginning,” or, more often, “firstfruits”) is connected etymologically with rosh (head).
However, the grammatical termination is an abstract ending (Joseph Smith identifies it as Sheit, but it is actually just –it). That transforms the concrete noun “head” to something like “headness”, which the Hebrew Bible then deploys in various ways, including “beginning”.
For Joseph to get to his understanding, he also needs to remove the grammatical ending as well as the initial preposition.
Genesis 1:1 is not easy Hebrew.
It should be noted that Genesis 1:1 is not easy Hebrew to parse, and so Joseph Smith is working with an already difficult text. In fact, there is a medieval Jewish text that is seventy chapters long—each one a different commentary on the first Hebrew word of Genesis 1:1.
Additionally, although Joseph Smith’s reading requires extensive emendation and therefore produces a fairly singular interpretation of what is happening in Genesis 1:1, it strongly reflects Joseph Smith’s relationship and approach to scripture.
One of the great things that the Joseph Smith Papers project illustrated is that Joseph Smith viewed his relationship with scripture as something that was dynamic, rather than wholly static, as he felt comfortable revisiting and editing his own translations and revelations.
Scientific Worldviews and the Genesis Creation Accounts
Should we expect 21st century science in Genesis?
It’s really a question of expectations. We want to be very careful when making scripture do something it is not trying to do.
As I read Genesis 1 and 2, I think that on some levels the authors and editors of Genesis thought that what they were presenting was a consistent and “scientific” model of the universe. But their primary goal wasn’t to give a complete model of the universe. They were interested in getting humanity on the earth so that they could discuss humanity’s covenant relationship with Jehovah.
The modern scientific worldview is not self-evident. It requires careful measurement and, in some cases, complex instrumentation.
An example of this is DNA. Much of modern biological science is based on DNA. There is no possible way for an author in the Mediterranean Iron Age to even have the tools to articulate what DNA is, let alone how it affects biological processes in the world around them. They certainly would not have instruments to measure and describe it.
Just let ancient books be ancient.
It would be unfair of us to expect it of them. Sometimes it is helpful to just let ancient books be ancient. Every so often, when I speak about this with students at BYU, they ask me why God would let people in antiquity believe something that was “wrong”.
I find it useful to think through things in connection with Nephi’s observation in 2 Nephi 31:3 that God speaks to humanity “according to their own language, unto their understanding.” When God speaks to humanity, he speaks in ways that make sense in their worldview.
I learned about atoms in high school—only to discover in college that the model I had been taught was neither entirely wrong nor entirely accurate. Atoms are more complicated than the simplified model I had been taught.
Any time God speaks to his children, he works his revelation into a model that makes sense to his children, while also expanding and building on it.
What is the firmament in Genesis 1?
As I note in the article, firmament is not really a word we use very often in English. Our English word was borrowed directly from the Latin Vulgate, meaning “something strong or supports”.
The Hebrew word raqia‘ means something spread out, but in the sense of beating out like a metal sheet or plate.
It is clear from its function in Genesis 1 that the sky was conceptualized as something somewhat solid, because it can keep out the “waters above”. This is why the sky has windows in it, as can be seen in Malachi 3:10, where God opens the windows “to pour out a blessing”—that is, to make it rain.
The rain needs to come from somewhere.
This model is based on observational evidence, similar to our model. The sky is a dome because it clearly looks like one. There are waters above because rain needs to come from somewhere.
The idea of the sky as a barrier informs the entire cosmological picture in Genesis.
The Ancient Context of Genesis
Why is it important to read Genesis in its ancient context?
First and foremost, because Genesis is an ancient text. We will never understand it unless we acknowledge that and work from that.
The Creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 has relevance for modern readers through the Holy Ghost, but that relevance is built on ancient perspectives. Understanding what the ancient authors and editors are doing and what they are not doing can help us from claiming too much or too little from our Bible.
What was Creation fundamentally about for the authors and editors of Genesis?
For the ancient authors and editors, Genesis was about setting the stage for when Jehovah makes a covenant with Israel so that He can be their God and they can be his people. All of the narratives about the Matriarchs and the Patriarchs fit into this same stage setting.
In its broadest contours, the story of the Old Testament is about the people of Israel and their covenant relationship with Jehovah. This relationship (again with Israel as a people) begins at Mount Sinai.
The medieval Jewish scholar Rashi (whom I mention in a couple of places in my paper) asks why Genesis is even in the Bible, since the story starts in Exodus.
The backdrop of Creation opens the story of Israel and the covenant.
As it is presented in Genesis 1 and 2, the story of Creation is part and parcel with this narrative thrust toward Israel’s covenantal relationship with Jehovah.
Thus, Creation is about putting things in their proper places, illustrating that God is in charge of the world and of humanity. It is about teaching humanity its place and role.
It also explains the people and cultures that produced Abraham and Sarah, and from them the Israelites. The backdrop of Creation opens the story of Israel and the covenant.
How does putting science and scripture in their proper context help make their relationship non-adversarial?
I cannot speak for everyone, of course, but for me, it helps me to see that they are doing different things. Recognizing that the ancient authors were not doing twenty-first-century science helps me to focus on what they are doing rather than potentially remonstrating against them for what they are not.
In the same way, recognizing that twenty-first-century science is entirely unconcerned with my covenant relationship with God helps me to focus on what it is doing rather than expecting to answer questions it is wholly uninterested in.
As I note in my paper, I find this statement from President Nelson incredibly helpful:
There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both.
“Church Leaders Gather at BYU’s Life Sciences Building for Dedication”
As I increase my knowledge of both, I can be grateful for all the truth that God wants me to know in my mind and in my heart.
Did You Enjoy This?
About the Scholar
Avram R. Shannon is an assistant professor in the Department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University and the author of a chapter in The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution. Dr. Shannon earned a BA in ancient Near Eastern studies from Brigham Young University (2007), a master of Jewish Studies from the University of Oxford (2008), and a PhD in Near Eastern languages and cultures with a graduate interdisciplinary specialization in religions of the ancient Mediterranean from The Ohio State University (2015).
Further Reading
- Come Follow Me 2026: Old Testament Study Resources
- How Do You Use a Study Bible?
- Why Did God Command Abraham to Sacrifice Isaac?
- How Old Did Joseph Smith Say the Earth Is?
- What Did the First Presidency Say About Evolution in 1909 and 1925?
Resources
- The Genesis Creation Account in Its Ancient Context (BYU College of Life Sciences)
- Book of Genesis Summary: A Complete Animated Overview (Bible Project)
- Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis–Deuteronomy (Greg Kofford Books)
- Kevin L. Barney, “Examining Six Key Concepts in Joseph Smith’s Understanding of Genesis 1:1” (BYU Studies)
- The Scriptural Accounts of Creation: A Scientific Perspective (BYU Religious Studies Center)
