Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account

by John H. Sailhamer

DO I REALLY HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE?
In this ground-breaking work, Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer shines new light on the opening chapters of the Bible, revealing how centuries-old misunderstandings have continued to shape popular biblical interpretation — as well as greatly contributing to unnecessary conflicts between the Bible and science.
Pointing to answers found in the first two chapters of Genesis, Sailhamer presents a credible, scripturally supported, and much-needed explanation that opens the door to reconciliation of biblical and scientific world views.
No matter what your position or background, you will be challenged to test your understanding of the Bible’s critical opening sentences and reexamine your beliefs about the creation of the world through Genesis Unbound.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Science, Christianity, Faith, Biblical Studies, Nonfiction

304 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1996

About the author

Dr. Sailhamer has been teaching since 1975, most recently at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. He was President of The Evangelical Theological Society in 2000 and has published a number of books, including An Introduction to Old Testament Theology, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, and Genesis: The Expositor's Bible Commentary, all from Zondervan. He has contributed a number of articles and book reviews in various biblical journals and has delivered several scholarly papers and particpated in several Old Testament Bible translation committees

Reviews

[Zach Hollifield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holy smokes. I think I’m convinced.

[Linus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wie der Untertitel verspricht ein provokativer Ansatz zu Genesis 1-2, der mich noch nicht zu 100% überzeugt hat, aber wohl immer in meinem Kopf durchdacht wird, wenn es um die Schöpfungsberichte geht. Trotz vereinzelter exegetischer und argumentativer Schwächen ein super spannender Beitrag und eine echte Empfehlung, wenn man sich mit Genesis 1-2 auseinandersetzen möchte, daher dennoch 5 Sterne.

[Parker McGoldrick · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a big disappointment. For how closely Sailhamer looks at the text in all his study, he really misses the mark in this book. It's beyond clear that he's taking his own opinions and conclusions and working those into the text, rather than what he normally does so well: looking at the text and letting it speak on its' own terms. But honestly I think I'm more disappointed because it's Sailhamer and I love Sailhamer, and I did NOT love this book - so it feels like I'm betraying him. Owell.

[Benjamin Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent but easily readable scholarship on the creation accounts in Genesis. Sailhamer particularly presents a compelling case for reading Genesis 1-2 in light of the purpose of the Torah. He argues that with this reading the Garden of Eden was clearly in the Promised Land. Even more stricking, Genesis 1 is primarily about the Land of Canaan, not the creation of the universe. The actual creation of the sun, moon, stars, water and land of the universe occurs "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1. Here Sailhamer argues extensively that the first verse of Genesis is not a title. For instance, because Genesis 1 ends with a summary or title "and God saw everything he had made and behold, it was very good," it is unlikely, especially given every other example of Ancient Near Eastern literature we have, that the first verse would act as a title as well. Moreover, reading Genesis 1:1 as a title would require a translation similar to, "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth." A reading which is simply not justified by the Hebrew text. Many other great discussions are found in this work and I definitely recommend it to any student of the Bible.

There was one oddity, however. At one point in the book, Sailhamer tries to argue that the theory of general relativity implies post-modernism. He writes, "Einstein had demonstrated that even the most fundamental principles of natural science -- such as the nature of time and space -- were not objectively true. They were true only under certain circumstances and with a limited frame of reference." It's true that science gradually became to be seen as subjective and relative. But Einstein was not the culprit, Hume and Kant were (among others of course). All Einstein argued is that space and time are relative to one another. That is, the rate time passes for you is relative to the your movement through space. It is not a claim that time and space are meaningless or cannot be measured by an objective standard (otherwise, how would we know space is expanding?). Granted, this point is in no way crucial to Sailhamers argument, but it is a claim I've heard thrown around carelessly among pastors and now even Biblical scholars. It also represents a general pattern of intellectual laziness when it comes to science. And it's unfortunate to see great thinkers like Sailhamer falling into the same trap.

[Joe Cassada · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Sailhammer's book offers a well written and fascinating look at a relatively unfamiliar interpretation of Genesis 1-2. His work is done with solid exegesis that gives a new perspective (actually, a really old one) on beginnings without pandering to secular scientists, appeasing young-earthers, or evoking the tin foil hattery of Gap Theorists.

His exposition of the creation account provides answers to such questions as "How can there be a literal 24 hour day without a sun?" and "What about dinosaurs?" Obviously, there are many answers available to such questions, but Sailhammer offers a solution that is not forced but simply the result of a careful study of the Hebrew author's intent in the creation narrative.

You can enjoy this book without having to agree with every thing the man says. I would go so far as to say that every preacher and pastor should at least be aware of the interpretation offered by Sailhammer. Read his book, come to your own conclusions, but at least put down the pitchforks and torches long enough to inform yourself of another literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 available to serious Bible students.

[Andrew Dionne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a lovely read and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who has the slightest interest in thinking about the creation account. Solid exegesis, theology, and writing.

Dr. Sailhamer's argument is nicely summed up in the following quote:

"I think it is unfortunate that when a person supports a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, he or she is given only one choice. In our day the word "creationism" has come to mean only one thing, the belief that God created the universe in a single, six-day week. That, unfortunately, has been the only game in town. I have tried to show that another view can equally be called "creationism." It, too, believes the Bible speaks about a literal six-day week, but it sees that week as describing the preparation of the promised land, not the creation of the universe. To be sure, Genesis 1:1 does indeed teach that God created the whole universe, but the rest of the chapter (1:2-31) is about His preparing the promise land" (p.234-235).

[Daniel Greiwe · Rating 4 out of 5]

DNF. I think since I have been heavily influenced by Christian thinkers who have learned from or under John Sailhamer, all of what I read was either a repeat of ideas I have already heard or outdated notions as those in his field take his ideas and push them further.

So I greatly appreciate the contributions he has made to Old Testament scholarship but I probably won’t seek them first hand very often.

[Elizabeth ‘Andy’ Terrall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quick skim for research, but “provocative” is the perfect word to describe this interpretation of Genesis. I found it very convincing in its suggestions and thought-provoking in its nuance.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sailhamer is quite popular in some (read:evangelical) circles, but I had not heard of him until I read Seth D. Postell's Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh. Postell was a student of Sailhamer's as well as a big fan. Prior to reading this book of Sailhamer’s, I read his The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Genesis Unbound is very different in style than the Pentateuch as Narrative. The Pentateuch as Narrative is more scholarly and, I suppose, assumes more biblical background than Genesis Unbound or, at least, assumes more willingness to research what is being said. The intended audience of Genesis Unbound seems to be the average churchgoing Christian who may open their Bible occasionally but is not a deep reader. In this, Sailhamer really demonstrates his chops as a teacher. He is able to tailor his presentation to different audiences.

I was less impressed with Sailhamer's main thesis in this book. He suggests that while the phrase "heavens and earth" certainly means the entire universe, in the next phrase "earth" is to be understood in the limited sense of the promised land. While he argues persuasively for this position, I don’t think this is a natural way to read the narrative. It necessitates arguing not only that were the heavenly bodies not created on the fourth day, but animals were not created on the sixth day. Rather, these entities were introduced, as it were, to the promised land possibly billions of years after they were created.

I am unclear about how Sailhamer understands water covering the surface of the land. Usually this is understood as water covering the entire surface of the earth prior to the creation of land on day 2. But Sailhamer believes animals existed for billions of years before the week of Genesis 1. So does he believe that a huge sea covered the promised land for billions of years while the rest of the earth was dry? And then on day 2 God miraculously dispelled all this water in preparation for the creation of humans?

As is to be expected, the science in this book is very bad. The Big Bang was not an explosion, and Einstein's theory of relativity does not say that scientific knowledge is relative. These are minor errors, but the idea that "clear traces of human beings date back only about thirty thousand years ago, appearing without any discernible antecedents, as if they came from nowhere" is completely wrong, even in 1996 when this book was written. Sailhamer does not cite any scientific source for this misinformation, but only footnotes two Genesis commentaries, one of which was written in 1925!

[Nick Paine · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Sailhammer puts forth an interesting reading of Genesis 1-2 which he describes as literal and historical (it is), yet one which does not commit one to a young universe (or earth). His central interpretive argument is that the “land” (aretz in Hebrew) in Gen 1:2ff is referring specifically to “Eden,” which is also the promised land of the Abrahamic and Israel narratives. He argues that in Gen 1:1 God created all things in the universe “in the beginning” (bereshit) which always denotes an unspecified period of time in Hebrew. The phrase in v. 1 “sky and land” (shamayim and aretz) is a euphemism for “the universe” in Hebrew. Thus, in v. 1 God created the universe during some unspecified time period (perhaps millions of years ago) “in the beginning.” What follows in vv. 2ff is a drastic change in focus to only the land (aretz) which is to be taken as Eden, a land “empty and uninhabited” (tohu vabohu), which God then forms into a habitable land for human flourishing. He takes six literal days to form this land for human existence and flourishing. He then puts humans in the garden in the land in chapter 2.

I find this general interpretation to be fascinating and insightful, but I have given this book three stars for his lack of citation. I am not a citation police or anything, and I really am fine with people writing without quoting anyone else (in fact, I may prefer it; think of the way C. S. Lewis writes), but the problems is that Sailhammer very often makes claims such as, “this particular interpretation has a longstanding tradition within Rabbinic Judaism” without footnoting his sources for such a claim. This tendency (and it happens through the book) is extremely frustrating to the reader.

In sum, intriguing content but really poor support and sourcing.

[Noel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent read. Without stealing Dr. Sailhamer's thunder, the book takes a fascinating approach to its subject: what if we let the original Hebrew text itself guide our interpretation and understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, rather than approaching it from the various worldviews, translations, and interpretations that have attached themselves to theses chapters over time? Of particular interest to me was Dr. Sailhamer's commentary on the influence of ancient Greek cosmology on the translation, interpretation, etc. of the early chapters of Genesis (thanks to the Septuagint). While I may not agree with all his points, they are certainly plausible and most definitely thought provoking. A must read for anyone interested in creation science!

[eduardo gallegos · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for a fair view of the creation account spoken of in the Holy Bible.

After reading this book i found myself having less questions about the creation account and focusing more on the creator Himself. Wow the power behind creation is beyond our understanding, yet our creator allows for us unworthy sinner to have a relationship with Him through Jesus. May you find this read as eye opening as i did. May the Lord receive all the glory of this book and everything that is righteous within us. I love Jesus!

[Dave Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sailhamer calls a truce in the artificial war between science and much of evangelical Christianity. He admits his view of Genesis has problems, but contends its problems are fewer than those of other views. Fair enough. The Bible does not force us to take a young earth / young universe stance in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence against it.

[Aaron Clark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sailhamer is a well-respected scholar, and I add my respect to that consensus. We have to confess, this subject is the sort of thing we ought to approach with humility, even if we disagree. In this respect, I appreciate his quote from Luther at the beginning. Even the Reformer had no idea how to interpret the first 2 chapters of Genesis!

There were some helpful insights into the Hebrew, such as "heavens" being a very general term that could be interpreted "sky," and "earth" a more general term that could be translated "land,"; as well as a more accurate interpretation of "formless and void" (Hebrew: "tohu wobohu") as "fallow and indistinct" (Symmachus), and to gain the sense of it being a veritable "uninhabitable wilderness." There are merits here, helpful for forming out interpretation (without, perhaps, going as far as Sailhamer). Also helpful were the cosmological insights of Reformed (Luther and Calvin) and Jewish scholars (such as Rashi), particularly the Jewish vision of an uninhabitable, watery planet, with a day-1 primeval light and darkness. These insights have helped to reform my own view, and may allow for an old universe and earth.

I appreciate Sailhamer's attempt to harmonize the evidence of an old earth with the biblical narrative of a literal 6-day creation. His view (called "Historical creationism") is essentially that, in verse 1, God created the heavens and the earth, and the rest of the creation account is actually an account of the forming of the promised land. While this does "fix" the scientific issues with the traditional creation interpretation, a host of other problems are presented. He tries to address these issues throughout the book, but for me, his answers were - at least, in my mind - totally unsatisfactory. Some of the issues include the following:

1) If you take his view, God hardly does anything new in the 6 days of creation, especially the first 4 days.

2) His view reduces the 4th day of creation to God saying, "Let there be a calendar" rather than actually creating anything. The sun, moon, and stars were already created in verse 1.

3) His view doesn't take into account the fact that 1:8 explicitly states that the expanse created in the 2nd day is in of itself "heaven," as opposed to a pre-created heaven of verse 1. Day 4, therefore, appears upon a simple reading of the text to populate these heavens.

4) His view does not satisfactorily deal with 2:1 and 2:4, which appear to communicate that this was not merely a forming of a particular land (the promised land) but an actual creation of the heavens and the earth.

5) In order to establish his view, Sailhamer must call into question not only the intuitive meaning of the biblical text, but just about everything else, such as the majority of English translations of the Bible, the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), the historical church's creation views (from the early church all the way to the Reformer's), etc. I would be troubled to be in opposition to such a consensus and catholicity of doctrine, but Sailhamer does not seem troubled at all.

Sailhamer continually points out that other views are harmonizing science with their views of Genesis 1 and 2. But then it feels like in the same breath he himself is doing this very thing. I think it would be better to admit that we all take into account the explorations of science in how we approach Genesis 1 and 2, while still giving the final authority to the Scriptures. The issue boils down to one of interpretation (of both scientific data and the biblical text).

Part of me wishes that Sailhamer's view was more evident in the text, as it would certainly harmonize with what we learn from science. In fact, while my initial reception of Historical Creationism is negative, I have been wrong before, so I'll sit with this one a little longer. However, I imagine there are better ways to approach the issue, while not abandoning the intuitive meaning of the text.

[Nathan Wilder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sailhamer sets out to engage in the creation account of Genesis 1-2 by reconsidering the lexical overlap of our common English translations and the underlying Hebrew words. He analyzes the range of meaning for terms such as "beginning," "heaven," "earth," and "day," to expand the boundaries of possibility in the mystery of creation. One of the key insights for reading the Genesis account is to detach the modern western inclination towards punctiliar chronology. The author of Genesis seems to intend to convey the important purpose of God in creation, more so than to answer the popular modern quest for historical chronology, sequence, and timing.
The big question is, what does the text of Genesis 1-2 actually prescribe we believe in our biblical cosmology? He treats other common misconceptions as well, such as the theory that the book of Genesis need not be literally interpreted, since it is poetry. Sailhamer clarifies that while some poetic elements exist in the text, the text as a whole better fits the framework of historical narrative. In the same vein, he treats the usage of the term "myth" to describe the Genesis account as a "purpose and meaning" historical-cultural account, rather than a merely fictional work.
Those who have reviewed this book with 1 star, that I can see, have misdiagnosed a single point: They see Sailhamer as trying to reconcile the Bible with science. On the contrary, Sailhamer's task is actually to examine what the textual parameters allow for in theories of the origins of the earth and universe. Where Sailhamer's work confuses this point, he explains the textual parameters clearly, but then proceeds to propose various scientific theories and conclusions as possible, even ascribing his own belief in some of them. Thus, his discussion seems to blur the line between a strict textual basis and an accommodation of secular thought. While he is not compromising the biblical text to fit in with science, the parallel treatment of both subjects in the book could give that appearance. Not every scientific conclusion is meant to be taken as a textual conclusion. They are presented as separate parallel considerations.
My personal approach to the Genesis account includes a level of mystery and awe, comfortable with not knowing all the timing and processes of creation. After all, God often brandishes his knowledge of creation to inspire awe and mystery in humans (ie, book of Job).

[Kiel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m beginning a long awaited goal of reading through all the books in my library on the early chapters of Genesis, and on creation and science related debates and other related issues. Sailhammer’s book and view is hailed for its commitment to a text-first approach that denies evolutionary theories while also landing outside of Young Earth Creationism, allowing for an old earth and a more robust appreciation for scientific inquiry. While this view is called various things, even by the author, textual creationism and historic creationism are the most consistent names. Essentially, this view sees a series of unfortunate translation events, starting with the Septuagint, the 3rd century BC Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. There’s evidence the translators sought to syncretize with the Ptolemaic cosmology involving chaos, thus tilting the translation in that direction. Sailhammer finds the Targums and medieval Jewish commentators to be more faithful to the original text and its implications, namely that all matter in the unverse is created in the first verse of Genesis, taking an unknown period of time, and everything after is focused exclusively on the Promised Land, which contains the Garden of Eden. The days of creation are, in his view, the preparation of the promised land for mankind, and are literal 24 hour days. The first chapters of the Bible are historical. Modern translations have also failed because of their desire to accommodate a Copernican universe within the text for conservatives, and a Darwinistic cosmos for progressives. Sailhammer doesn’t wish to wash out all translations, merely highlight that the Hebrew for “Earth” is actually “Land,” and that the most natural reading leads to a focus on the Promised Land, which makes sense with the rest of the Pentateuch. Obviously I can only summarize, and state that I have been familiar with this view and find it favorable on many counts. My reading the details has served to strengthen my appreciation for historic creationism, but I have more reading to do before I nuance my position beyond that. 257 pages of deep diving into Genesis 1-2, translation history, and human origin debates.

[Micah Sharp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. He makes a convincing argument that Gen 1:1 is the creation of the Universe and that 1:2-2:3 is the preparation of Eden/Promised Land (featured also in ch 2).
The argument hangs on three main points:
1. Gen 1:1 refers to the creation of the whole universe.
2. Gen 2 describes Eden as the same territory as the Promised Land.
3. In light of the message of both Genesis and the Pentateuch, the author sees the Gen 1 land as Gen 2 Eden.

Point 2 seems nearly indisputable to me.
Point 3 makes enough sense but I think he relies to heavily upon the broader context of the Pentateuch for this argument rather than drilling down into the Genesis narrative itself. It makes sense but doesn’t necessarily have to follow.
Point 1 is honestly hard for me to swallow. Gen 1:1 within the context of the chapter and the book presents itself so clearly as a title or summary statement. His arguments against this simply fall flat me, compared to many powerful linguistic and narrative arguments for it. He seems too concerned with finding ex nihilo in Gen 1, which I think leads to this faulty reading. I think he also fails to see the Biblical theme of God’s heart for all the nations in his focus on the Promised Land.

A few questions remain in my mind that leave his argument unresolved for me:
Can we be certain that בראשית can be an indiscriminate amount of time?
Does “heaven and earth” conjoined really describe a different concept in Hebrew than the two words in the rest of Gen 1?
Does this mean the flood is local to the promised land because it covers the whole “land”?
How does Gen 2:1 fit into this? (It seems to break the narrative flow, unless H+E was “created” but not “finished” until the land was prepared and then inhabited by man)

I appreciated especially his comments in the epilogue. He hopes that he has provided at least an alternative “creationist” view that is more coherent with both the Biblical data and modern understandings of science. Whether or not his argument is ultimately convincing I think he takes many steps forward towards a better literal reading of Genesis 1.

[Carlisle]

So, I'm a five pointer and I seem to be in a small minority of reformed Christians who think that the earth is very old. I base this on scripture in its entirety, not on Genesis 1-2 because a straight forward reading of Genesis 1-2 militates against my position. I've never fully bought into Hugh Ross's position that 'yom' can be translated as a long period of time though it's possible. So, I found out that John Piper is also an old earther and that it was this book that changed his view. This was my motivation for reading the book. Sailhammer was an OT scholar and he bases his view on Scripture. He bases his view on the literal translation or Genesis 1:1. Obviously, you'll need to read his book. I will not repeat his lengthy argument here. This is NOT the Gap Theory. What is being described is the Promised Land and God's preparation of the Promised Land. He makes a strong case for this. Genesis 1:1 is an indeterminate period of time and the rest does describe six 24 hour days as God prepares the Garden of Eden which he avers is synonymous with the Promised Land for Adam and Eve, the father and mother of the human race. So, it changed my mind. I'm now with Piper which is not a bad place to be. Don't think I'd go to the stake for this but even with supremacy being given to Special Revelation over General Revelation, I think this is the best interpretation.

[Chad Brown · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bizarre.

This is one of those books that gets recommended to me by well intentioned and well meaning Christians who don't know anything about science. The book is conceptually sold on this idea of reconciling science and the bible.

Except John Sailhamer totally rejects science.

In short: Sailhamer completely rejects the bedrock of all of modern Biology by rejecting evolutionary science.

From that point on it's just endless list of post hoc rationalizations where Sailhamer argues that certain parts of Genesis CAN be read in a certain way, as to reach a strangled series of presupposed conclusions that no one would ever believe in the first place. Oh, did I mention we have to reject all of evolutionary biology? Right. We also have to reject current and modern historical/scholarly understandings of the bible.

Moses literally wrote Genesis? Yes Sailhamer really believes this. How is that compatible with modern scholarship in history on the bible? Well, it's not, but let's wave our hands enough and get angry that Sailhamer is on the lunatic fringe.

[Alex Szurkus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I deeply enjoyed reading Genesis Unbound by John Sailhamer. The book is meticulously academically written, presenting a comprehensive and easy-to-understand case for Sailhamer's interpretation of Genesis. His concept of the Garden of Eden as God's temple, with the seven "days" of creation symbolizing the construction time of God's cosmic temple, is fascinating and thought-provoking. However, while Sailhamer's arguments are compelling, I found some of them to be fairly conclusive without sufficient citation to back up the assertions, leaving me feeling like he was jumping to conclusions too often in his reading of the text. Nevertheless, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in one of the predominant, scholarly conservative views of Genesis 1, as it offers a valuable perspective on the interpretation of the creation narrative.

[Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting interpretation on Genesis that seeks to mend the divide between science and Scripture; but as Dr. Sailhamer posits, we cannot interpret Scripture with the intention of having it affirm science. Sailhamer interprets Genesis by analyzing original Hebrew meanings and the author's intention. We come to learn that almost all interpretations of Genesis at some point were stretched to fit widely-held beliefs, like the Greek Ptolemaic Universe and the findings of Copernicus. The creation account is ultimately a one-time miraculous event by God, not a repeatable scientific process, and so we can never truly uncover the entirety of the nature of creation. One thing Sailhamer is confident about though, is that Genesis is to be read as a literal, historical account; not mythology or poetry as is popularly surmised.

[Allen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every serious student of Scripture, especially Genesis, should read this book. It has totally revolutionized my view of creation. One can have a literal and realistic view of creation without believing that God created the universe in 6 days. Sailhamer makes his case well looking at the text and the text alone setting aside influences from science and Greek thought that have impacted our understating of Genesis 1 & 2 for centuries. Get a copy of this book (it is hard to find new but you can buy a used copy cheap from Amazon) and read it.

[Brian Neises · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely fantastic in scope, though not always the most engaging reading. I probably would have preferred a deeper scholarly approach, but the purpose of the book was more to summarize Sailhammer's main points, rather than a deep dive into how he arrived at those conclusions.

Overall, this book provided crucial elements to help fit together some long standing issues I had with all of the other models on interpreting Genesis 1-2, and how they dovetail with what we see in the world around us.

[Ashton E. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book shaped what I believe about creation, though I was not hard set on a single theory - it debunked a lot of previous ideas I agreed with before. All centered around creation taking place in Gen. 1:1 but then being made habitable in the rest of the chapter.
It seemed to overemphasis the point a bit too much for me, but I suppose that’s what most thesis do? Just a bit repetitive but definitely revolutionary (but apparently also not because originally this is how people interpreted Genesis). Super great read, very clear.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Scholarly work on Genesis chapters 1;2

I enjoyed his scholarship in this book. He has understanding of the Hebrew is put to the test and puts meat into the work the authors much appreciated insights bring to the text. His work brings forth an understanding of Genesis 1:1 that answers needed to be brought fourth and meditated on and note dismissed lightly. Perhaps some might think Dr. Sailhamer a little to wordy I do not. Thanks for a great study

[Gowdy Cannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Controversial because it leaves room -via biblical interpretation and NOT science - for an older earth. I highly, highly recommend it even if you will never agree with it, just because it challenges biases and pre-understandings to a familiar biblical passage in ways few other books I've read have. I adore this work.

[Elisha Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t want to give this book a rating because even though it’s not your page turning creative read, it’s a very interesting take on the first two chapters of Genesis that’s worth reading and for a book on theology it’s very accessible for lay readers. Not sure if I agree with him but thankful for his study and thoughts!

[Matt Quintana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Provocative and compelling. Academic yet accessible. Worth the read not just for those interested in the "creation or origins debate," but for any Christian who desires to understand their Bible better.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paradigm shift. What if by shoehorning Genesis into the latest scientific theory we've completely missed the point?  Sailhamer makes an excellent case we've done just that, and I recommend this to anyone interested in the Bible's take on beginnings. 

[Dave Olsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Sailhamer's courage to offer an unconventional take on the story of Genesis based on his understanding of the original Hebrew language challenges readers' assumptions about what they know (or think they know). Academic but accessible, recommended for all students of the Bible.