Genesis 1:21 (NASB): “God created the great sea monsters (הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים, ha-tanninim ha-gedolim) and every living creature that moves (נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת, nefesh ha-chayya ha-romeset) with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird (kol-ʿof kanaf) after its kind; and God saw that it was good.”
Context: Day Five of Creation
Genesis 1:21 is situated on the fifth day of the creation narrative, when God populates the newly formed realms of sky and sea. On day 2, God separated the waters below from the waters above, making space for sky and ocean; on day 5, He fills those spaces with living creatures. Verse 20 records God’s command, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of heaven.” Verse 21 then describes the fulfillment: God creates aquatic and avian life. The structure follows the chapter’s pattern – divine command, execution, and a declaration that the result is “good.” Notably, day 5 is the first time since verse 1 that Scripture uses the verb בָּרָא (bara’, “create”), highlighting the significance of the emergence of animate life. Earlier acts used verbs like “made” or “separated,” but here, as one commentator notes, “the animal world is something new and distinct summoned into existence,” warranting the word “created” . In fact, bara’ appears only three times in Genesis 1 – at the beginning (1:1), the advent of the first living creatures (1:21), and the creation of humans (1:27) – underscoring these as especially momentous acts of divine origination.
Verse 21 also introduces a blessing (in verse 22) – God blesses the sea and sky creatures to “be fruitful and multiply.” This is noteworthy because such blessings are otherwise given only to humans in this chapter. It underscores that in the narrative’s broader structure, day 5 is a pivotal preparation for day 6 (the creation of land animals and humankind). Life in the sea and sky is declared “good,” setting the stage for the final creative act (humans) which will be pronounced “very good” (1:31). The inclusion of sea monsters and birds in the “good” creation emphasizes that every realm of creation – even the mysterious depths of the ocean – is under God’s benevolent sovereignty.
The Hebrew Text and Key Terms of Genesis 1:21
Let us examine the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:21, phrase by phrase, to unpack its meaning and nuance:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים (vayyivra Elohim) – “And God created.”
אֶת־הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים (et-hatanninim haggedolim) – “the great tanninim.”
וְאֵת כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת (ve’et kol-nefesh ha-chayya haromeset) – “and also every living creature that moves.”
אֲשֶׁר שָׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם (asher shartsu hamayim) – “with which the waters swarmed” (or “that the waters teemed with”).
לְמִינֵיהֶם (leminehem) – “according to their kinds.”
וְאֵת כָּל־עֹוף כָּנָף (ve’et kol-‘of kanaf) – “and also every winged bird” (literally, “flying creature of wing”).
לְמִינֵהוּ (leminehu) – “according to its kind.”
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב (vayar Elohim ki-tov) – “And God saw that it was good.”
“And God created” (וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים, vayyivra Elohim) – The verse opens by repeating the subject “God” (אֱלֹהִים) and the special verb “created” used earlier in Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew construction emphasizes that it was by God’s agency alone that these creatures came into being. Grammatically, vayyivra is a Qal imperfect consecutive form, which continues the narrative sequence (“and [then] God created…”). The use of bara’ here is deliberate; as noted above, it signals a new creative act of profound significance . In contrast to human making or shaping, bara’ in the Hebrew Bible always has God as its subject. It often connotes either creation ex nihilo or the introduction of something fundamentally new. While Genesis 1 does not explicitly spell out “creation from nothing” at each step, later theological tradition (and some translations) certainly see bara’ as implying God’s origination of creatures without using pre-existing materials. For example, the medieval Wycliffe Bible (1380s) even paraphrased this verse as “God made of nought great whales…” , injecting the phrase “of nothing” to make clear that God didn’t merely fashion pre-existing matter but truly brought these beings into existence. The text itself simply says “God created,” but the implicit claim is that even the most colossal or fearsome beings owe their existence entirely to God.
“the great tanninim” (הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים) – This is arguably the most intriguing phrase in the verse. The Hebrew tanninim (תַּנִּינִים) is plural, often rendered “sea monsters,” “sea serpents,” or “dragons.” It comes from a root meaning “to extend or stretch out,” thus connoting large, elongated creatures. The word appears elsewhere in Scripture to refer to enormous or serpentine beings: for example, crocodiles (Ezekiel 29:3), giant snakes (Exodus 7:9-12), or metaphorical “dragons” representing empires (Jeremiah 51:34) . In later Jewish tradition and mythology, tannin became virtually synonymous with Leviathan, the primordial sea dragon of chaos . By specifying that God created the tanninim, Genesis 1:21 is making a bold theological statement: even the immense and mysterious creatures of the deep – those that in other Near Eastern stories symbolized chaos or evil – are part of God’s good creation. The verse pointedly calls them “the great tanninim,” implying the largest, most formidable of sea creatures .
Translators have long wrestled with how to convey tanninim. Early English Bibles like the Geneva (1560) and King James Version (1611) chose to translate it as “whales”, likely because whales were the largest sea animals known and seemed a fitting example of “great sea creatures” . The King James wording “great whales” was influenced by the Latin Vulgate (“cete grandia” – literally “huge sea creatures” or whales) and the fact that Hebrew has no specific word for “whale” . However, tannin in Hebrew does not strictly mean “whale” – it’s a broader, more mythic term. Most modern translations have abandoned “whales” in favor of terms that reflect the potentially mythological tone. For instance:
New American Standard Bible (NASB) and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): “the great sea monsters” .
English Standard Version (ESV) and NKJV (1982): “the great sea creatures” .
New International Version (NIV) (2011): “the great creatures of the sea” .
Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (NJPS 1985): “the great sea monsters” (similarly to NRSV) .
Septuagint (LXX) (ancient Greek translation ~2nd cent. BC): “ta kētē ta megala”, meaning “the great sea beasts/monsters.” The LXX’s use of kētē (as in ketos, the word used for the sea monster that swallowed Jonah) confirms that ancient translators understood tanninim as huge sea creatures, not ordinary fish.
Each choice carries nuance. “Monsters” preserves the sense of otherworldly menace or mystery that tanninim had in ancient imagination – these could be leviathans and dragons. Indeed, later in the Bible, tannin appears in parallel with Leviathan (e.g. Isaiah 27:1) and is used as a motif for God’s cosmic enemies . Genesis 1:21, however, domesticates this idea: instead of God battling the sea dragon, God simply speaks it into being as just another creature. By translating it as “sea monster,” versions like NRSV or NASB allow readers to catch the mythological allusion – prompting the realization that what other cultures feared as chaos-beasts, Israel’s God calmly creates and declares “good.” On the other hand, translations that say “sea creatures” or “great creatures of the sea” adopt a more cautious, neutral tone. This avoids suggesting that the Bible affirms “monsters” in a fairy-tale sense, but it risks smoothing out the ancient flavor. Some scholars criticize this as a form of translator “cowardice” – a euphemistic retreat from the text’s full mythic imagery. The Jewish scholar Jacob Love wryly notes that while tannin literally could mean “serpent,” “nary a professional translator” would render Genesis 1:21 as “God created the big snakes.” Instead, “most modern translators offer ‘great sea monsters,’ and the King James prefers ‘whales.’”. The impulse behind “whales” or “sea creatures” is arguably an excess of caution – an attempt to ground the text in familiar biology and avoid pagan connotations of “dragons.” But in doing so, something of the awe is lost. The Hebrew term really invites us into the worldview of ancient Israel, where the tanninim could symbolize the untamable depths – yet even these are tamed by being named and created by God.
It’s worth noting that Genesis 1:21 mentions tanninimseparately from “every living creature that swarms in the waters.” This suggests the author gave special emphasis to these great beasts of the sea, almost as a category unto themselves. We might compare this to listing “giants” apart from ordinary humans – it highlights their significance. Far from avoiding the topic of legendary sea beasts, the text directly confronts it: Yes, even the dragons of the deep are My handiwork. And significantly, “God saw that it was good.” In the Hebrew, the declaration ki-tov (“that [it] was good”) comes after the creation of all the creatures (including tanninim). Despite some speculative interpretations (based on Masoretic accent marks) that God’s “it is good” might exclude the sea monsters, the plain sense is that they too are part of the goodness of creation. Unlike day 2 (which uniquely lacks a “and God saw that it was good” statement, perhaps because the work of separating the waters was unfinished until day 3), day 5 has no such omission. The tanninim are pronounced good along with everything else. This demythologizes any idea that they are agents of evil or chaos opposing God. Later scriptures reinforce this: Psalm 148 calls on “sea monsters and all deeps” to praise the Lord . The chaos beasts have been integrated into the chorus of creation.
“every living creature that moves” (כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת, kol-nefesh ha-chayyah ha-romeset) – After the tanninim, the verse includes “every living thing that moves, with which the waters swarmed.” The Hebrew term nefesh (נֶפֶשׁ) literally means “soul” or “life-breath,” but in this context it denotes a living being/creature. Importantly, the Bible uses nefesh for animals as well as humans – here we see it applied to fish and other marine life. In Genesis 2:7, man is called nefesh chayyah (“a living soul/being”), the very same phrase used for animals in Gen 1:21. Some translations historically rendered nefesh chayyah differently for humans versus animals (e.g., man became a “living soul,” but fish are “living creatures”), arguably out of a theological view that human “souls” are unique. However, the Hebrew draws no such sharp line in terminology. God’s breath of life animates all creatures. As one commentary observes, “living creature” in Genesis refers broadly to “every living, breathing thing”. John Milton famously wrote of the “crypts and refractories of life” in the sea; here nefesh reminds us that the swarming schools of fish are living beings enlivened by God’s spirit of life just as land animals and humans are (though humans alone will be in God’s image).
The phrase ha-chayyah haromeset literally means “the living [creature] that is moving.” The participle romeset (רֹמֶשֶׂת) comes from the root ramaś, often translated “to creep” or “crawl.” It’s the same root used later for “creeping things” on land (Gen 1:24). Here it is applied to aquatic life – the imagery is of things wriggling, gliding, or scuttling in water. Because “creep” in English suggests reptiles or bugs, most translations use “moves” or “moves about” for romeset. The King James phrased it as “every living creature that moveth”, and others say “that swarms” or “that teems.” Notably, romeset is feminine in form, agreeing grammatically with nefesh (which in Hebrew is feminine). This detail is lost in translation, but it shows the Hebrew sentence is treating “living creature” as a category (a feminine noun class) and describing it as moving. The waters “swarmed” with these moving beings – the verb sharatsu (שָׁרְצוּ) used here means to swarm, teem, or abound. Genesis 1:20 used the noun form sheretz (שֶׁרֶץ) to describe “swarms of living creatures” filling the seas. This conjures an image of bursting abundance – shoals of fish, schools of jellyfish, swarms of shrimp, perhaps even frogs or marine insects, all proliferating in the newly hospitable seas. There is a wonderful fecundity implied: the sea isn’t populated by a few big fish alone, but by myriad swarming lifeforms. The text highlights quantity and variety (“every living creature…according to their kinds”).
We should pause on “according to their kinds” (לְמִינֵיהֶם, leminehem). This phrase is a refrain in Genesis 1 (appearing for plants, sea creatures, birds, land animals). It indicates that God created creatures organized by species or categories. In the ancient worldview, each type of animal was distinct and reproduced “after its kind.” This affirms an orderly, structured creation – each creature fits into a category willed by God. While not a scientific taxonomy, “after their kinds” suggests limits and diversity: fish remain fish, birds remain birds, etc., each multiplying within the parameters of its nature. Later, this concept of “kinds” undergirds the biblical prohibitions against mixing species (like breeding different animals, or sowing mixed seeds) – the idea is that God’s creation has integrity of order. In Genesis 1, the emphasis on diverse kinds also implicitly celebrates biodiversity. The sea is not a monoculture; it contains everything from minnows to tanninim, each “according to its kind” – in other words, fully formed in its identity as God intended. Some readers see in this an argument that evolutionary transmutation was not envisioned (since one “kind” does not morph into another in the text), while others simply see a affirmation that God is the author of variety. In any case, the ancient audience would understand that fish, birds, land animals, and creeping things were distinct realms – a worldview that resonates with their experience of nature and perhaps with their cultic categories of clean/unclean animals (each “kind” having its place).
“every winged bird” (כָּל־עֹוף כָּנָף, kol-‘of kanaf) – This phrase literally means “every flying creature of wing.” The Hebrew word ‘of (עֹוף) broadly means flying creatures. Often it refers to birds, but it can include any winged flying thing, even bats or insects in some contexts. For example, Leviticus distinguishes “winged swarming things” (insects) from birds, but calls them sheretz ha-‘of – a “swarm of flying things.” Here in Genesis 1, ‘of kanaf (literally “fowl of wing”) is an idiom emphasizing the defining feature of this class: having wings. The Septuagint translated it as “peteinon pteroton,” essentially “winged fowl.” The Vulgate similarly says omne volatile – “every flying thing” . English versions variously render it “every winged bird” (ESV, NIV), “every winged fowl” (KJV), or simply “every bird.” The King James adds “after his kind” (we will discuss the pronoun in a moment). One commentator notes that by saying “bird of wing,” Genesis “makes the wing characteristic of the class, which extends beyond what we call birds” . In other words, the text is not concerned with modern scientific classifications (e.g. distinguishing bats as mammals or insects as invertebrates). Anything that flies through the air with wings falls under ‘of kanaf’. This reflects the ancient Near Eastern cosmology where animals were categorized by habitat and behavior rather than anatomy or genetics. There were creatures of the water, creatures of the air, and creatures of the land. On day 5, God fills two realms: the water and the air. On day 6, He will fill the land with creatures. Thus, ‘of kanaf covers birds of all sorts – eagles, sparrows, bats (which have wings and fly by night), perhaps even winged insects like locusts or butterflies. All are part of the sky’s teeming life. Genesis 1:21 deliberately pairs “the waters swarming with swarming creatures” with “the air filled with winged flyers,” showing the completeness of life in both domains.
Gendered Language: “after its kind” vs “after his kind” – In the Hebrew, leminehu (“according to its kind”) uses a masculine singular pronominal suffix (“its”). Hebrew often defaults to masculine grammatical gender when referring back to a noun of common gender. The KJV, following the Hebrew literally, said “every winged fowl after his kind” – using “his” for an impersonal pronoun, which was acceptable English in 1611 (the masculine could stand for neuter in older usage). Modern English Bibles avoid using “his” for animals or things, since contemporary readers would find it confusing (it’s unlikely the text meant every bird after a male person’s kind!). So NIV, ESV, et al. use “its kind” or pluralize (“according to their kinds”) . This is a small example of how shifts in English gender usage affect translation. It has no bearing on theology per se, but it does illustrate how translators must balance literal form with clarity. Some traditionalists might lament losing the KJV’s phrasing as a stylistic matter, but generally this change isn’t controversial – it’s widely agreed to be an improvement in clarity.
However, gendered language becomes theologically significant when we consider humankind in the creation account. In the broader narrative of Genesis 1, gender is explicitly mentioned only with humans: “Male and female He created them” (1:27). The term used for humanity in 1:26-27 is ’adam (אָדָם), which in context does not mean “a male person named Adam” but “mankind” or “humankind” as a collective. We know this because it immediately says “male and female He created them,” and uses plural pronouns (“let them rule…”) . The singular ’adam is a collective noun here. Many recent translations make that explicit: for example, the NRSV and NET render ’adam as “humankind” . The NET Bible’s notes explain, “the term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural ‘they’ in v.26b) and the referent is defined specifically as ‘male and female’ in v.27.”. Older translations like KJV simply said “man” – which in 17th-century English could mean “the human race” but today often implies a male individual. Thus, translation choices about gender terms can affect reader understanding of key theological points: namely, that both sexes are included in God’s image and given dominion. An overly literal or archaic rendering (“man” for humanity, “him” for them) might unwittingly obscure the equality of male and female or suggest a male-centric creation. Conversely, a very modern paraphrase might overcorrect; for instance, one could imagine a translation saying “God created human beings … God created them in the image of God, creating them male and female,” avoiding pronouns for God or singular “man” altogether. Indeed, some translations (especially in recent decades) have adopted more gender-neutral language not only for humans but even avoiding masculine pronouns for God (repeating “God” instead of “He”). In Genesis 1:27, most stay literal (“He created them”), but a few might choose phrasing like “God created humankind in God’s image…; God created them male and female,” to eliminate the masculine pronoun for God. This is done not because the Hebrew says “God… God…” (it doesn’t), but as an interpretive choice to prevent misunderstanding that God is male. Whether one views this as sensitive theology or “agenda-driven” translation can be subjective. What’s clear is that Genesis 1 intentionally highlights gender in the case of humans (“male and female”), whereas it does not for the animals. There is a subtle implication that human gender is a reflection of the divine intent (perhaps related to the image of God, though interpretations vary), whereas fish and birds simply breed after their kinds without explicit mention of male and female. Every creature multiplies, but only humans’ sexual duality is explicitly honored in the text.
Some early Jewish commentators read tanninim in verse 21 as implicitly gendered as well – intriguingly, rabbinic lore spoke of a male and female Leviathan created on the fifth day. Rashi’s commentary on Gen 1:21 notes a tradition that “God created the great sea monsters – i.e., the Leviathan and its mate”, and that God later had to subdue or kill one to prevent them from destroying the world . This comes from a Midrash that the male Leviathan and female Leviathan would have multiplied uncontrollably, so God preserved one for the eschaton (when the righteous will feast on Leviathan). Targum Jonathan (an Aramaic paraphrase) likewise says God created “the Leviathan and its consort”. Thus, Jewish tradition actually did see a sort of “male and female” even among the sea-monsters! This illustrates how ancient interpreters sometimes filled in gaps in the text with mythic imagination. The canonical text, however, is more reserved – it leaves such details out. The tanninim are plural, but undefined in number or sex; only the phrase “the two great monsters” in Targum Neofiti hints at two individuals (likely alluding to Leviathan and the land beast Behemoth) . Genesis itself is content to say that all creatures of the sea, great or small, were formed by God’s command.
Creation, Cosmology, and the “Sea Monsters” in Ancient Perspective
Genesis 1:21 carries rich theological and cosmological implications, especially when read against the backdrop of ancient Near Eastern beliefs. In the cosmology of Israel’s neighbors, the sea (the deep, or Tehom/Tiamat) was often portrayed as a primordial chaos entity. Creation myths like the Babylonian Enuma Elish or the Canaanite Baal Cycle include dramatic battles between the storm-god and sea monsters. For instance, in the Ugaritic myths, the god Baal slays a writhing seven-headed serpent named Lotan (cognate to Leviathan) and also defeats Tunnan (cognate to Tannin), solidifying his kingship over creation . Similarly, Babylon’s Marduk cuts the ocean-dragon Tiamat in half to form heaven and earth. These are examples of the Chaoskampf, the “struggle against chaos,” a common motif in which order is brought to the cosmos by subduing or killing a chaos monster .
The Hebrew Bible is aware of these mythic themes. In later poetic texts, echoes of God’s own “chaoskampf” appear: “You divided the sea by Your might; You broke the heads of the sea monsters (tanninim) on the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan…” (Psalm 74:13–14). And Isaiah 27:1 prophesies that “The LORD…will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent; He will slay the tannin (dragon) that is in the sea.”. So in poetry and prophecy, Leviathan or tannin can represent forces of evil or nations oppressing Israel (Egypt is called “the great tannin” in Ezek. 29:3). Yet in Genesis 1:21, remarkably, there is no battle at all – the feared tanninim are not opponents but creatures, effortlessly made by God and declared good. As one scholar observes, Genesis “omits God battling the sea monster” and instead “naturalizes” it . There’s a deliberate polemic or correction here: unlike the other religions where the sea monster signifies something God (or the gods) must fight and overcome, in Genesis the sea monsters are demythologized – reduced from cosmic threats to just part of the marine fauna.
This has profound theological meaning. Genesis 1 asserts God’s absolute sovereignty. Nothing in creation, not even the most monstrous creature or chaotic force, lies outside God’s command. In fact, by creating tanninim on Day 5, after He has already separated and bounded the seas on Days 2 and 3, God shows that the sea is not hostile to Him: it is habitat, not enemy territory. The tanninim, in other myths symbols of chaos, here live in a well-ordered world. The medieval Jewish commentator Benkhensopp (to combine two perspectives) notes that in Genesis, “such tannînîm were created on the fifth day…and are admonished by the psalmist to praise God (Ps 148:7). The great Tannin, however – in other literature – is a different kind of creature, one which opposed God in the cosmic war preceding creation (Isa 27:1; 51:9).”In short, the Bible contains both traditions: one that has God combat the monster (in symbolic allusions), and one that has God simply create the monster. Genesis 1 falls in the latter category, akin to what we see in Psalm 104:25-26, where Leviathan is portrayed as a playful creature of the sea that God formed: “There is the sea, vast and spacious… in it are creatures beyond number. There the ships go to and fro, and Leviathan, which You formed to frolic there”. This is a non-confrontational view: Leviathan/tannin is part of the play of creation, even serving a role in God’s world (Psalm 104 says God provides it food). Scholars point out that Psalm 104 and Genesis 1 share this approach of affirming creation’s wild side as fundamentally good. By contrast, Psalm 74 and Isaiah 27 represent the combat myth motif adapted – God as the divine warrior who defeated chaos in primordial times or will defeat it in the end. Both perspectives (war versus peace with the monster) exist in scripture, perhaps reflecting different theological “strategies” . Genesis 1’s strategy is to emphasize God’s power and sovereignty: nothing challenges God, because even the mightiest dragon is simply another creature on His leash. The potential downside of this view, as some theologians note, is that it raises the question: if God made even chaos-creatures, where did evil or disorder come from? It “points to the mystery of God’s ways,” allowing that “chaos and evil have a place in God’s divine economy somehow”. Ancient Israel seemed comfortable with that tension – God’s creation includes wild, dangerous aspects (the ocean depths, predatory beasts, etc.), yet God pronounces it good and in Job 41 even takes pride in Leviathan as a creature beyond human control but under His dominion.
From a cosmological standpoint, Genesis 1:21 also reflects how Israelites viewed the structure of the world. The world is a three-tiered cosmos: heaven, earth, and sea (sometimes simplified to “heaven and earth” as a merism). The sea and the sky were seen as separated by the solid firmament (רָקִיעַ, raki’a – created on Day 2). Birds fly “across the face of the firmament of heaven” (Gen 1:20), meaning in the air below heaven but above earth. Sea creatures fill the waters below. The tanninim haunting the deep waters embody the mystery of the cosmic ocean. By populating the sky and sea on Day 5, God is filling the realms created earlier (just as Day 4 filled the day/night with lights, and Day 6 will fill the land). There’s a beautiful literary symmetry often noted: Day 1 (light/dark) is filled on Day 4 (sun, moon, stars); Day 2 (sky/sea) is filled on Day 5 (birds/fish); Day 3 (land and vegetation) is filled on Day 6 (land animals and humans who will use the vegetation). In this structured narrative, the mention of tanninim on Day 5 specifically addresses the sea portion of Day 2’s creation. It’s as if the author was keen to assure us that nothing was left out – even the dragons of the deep are accounted for.
Another aspect of ancient cosmology visible here is the classification of animals by habitat and locomotion. Genesis groups creatures into broad classes that made sense to people without modern biology: things that swarm in water, things that fly in the air, things that creep or walk on land (see Gen 1:24-25 for “cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth”). The “swarming” concept covers what we’d call fish, amphibians, mollusks, etc., while “flying creatures” covers birds and likely bats and insects. The word remes (“creeping things”) later covers not only reptiles and bugs but any small ground-dwelling fauna. These groupings have a functional logic: creatures are defined by how they move and where they live – swimming, flying, crawling, walking. Our modern way of grouping by taxonomy (mammals, reptiles, etc.) is different; hence, a whale, which is a mammal, is in the biblical view a “swimming swarmer” in water and counted with fish. (Interestingly, one 19th-century commentator observed that “whales, strictly speaking, are mammals and would belong to the sixth day, but tannin…here designates large sea creatures in general”. The ancients of course did not know whales bear live young; for them whales were just extraordinary fish.) This underscores that the Bible’s concern is not scientific classification but theological order. Each creature, whatever its modern class, has its appointed realm. Order vs. chaos is a theme: the creatures stay in the domains God prepared for them – fish in the sea, birds in the air, beasts on land. The tannin of the deep, no matter how chaotic he might seem, still remains in the sea where God placed him.
Finally, Genesis 1:21 invites us to marvel at God’s creativity and the goodness of creation. By singling out the greatest sea creatures and pairing them with the smallest “moving creatures” of the waters, the text paints a picture from the mightiest to the minutest: from giant squids or leviathans down to tiny fish fry and plankton, all owe their life to God’s word. And by mentioning the birds of the air in the same breath, it links sea and sky in a shared exuberance of life. Right after verse 21, in verse 22, God blesses these creatures, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” The fruitfulness of the fifth day’s creatures is directly enabled by God’s blessing. This counters any notion that the sea monsters were antagonistic fertility powers (as in some pagan myths); rather, God is the source of fertility for all creatures. The language “fill the waters” and “multiply on the earth” parallels the earlier command to the earth to bring forth plants, and anticipates the human mandate to “fill the earth” in verse 28. We see a harmonious picture: each domain is filled to the brim with life, and it is all good. There is no hint of fear or negativity toward any animal at this stage – such fear or enmity only comes after the Fall (and in humanity’s later imagination). Genesis 1 portrays an ideal where even the scariest beast is just part of God’s ordered world. As later Jewish reflections put it, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” – in the very good of day six (Gen 1:31), we include the good of day five’s serpents of the sea and the sparrows of the sky alike.
Translation Choices and Their Implications
Having explored the verse in depth, it’s worth summarizing how various Bible translations handle Genesis 1:21 and what that reveals about their philosophies and possible agendas:
“Great whales” – As noted, the KJV (1611) reads “And God created great whales”. This follows older English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva) and reflects the influence of the Latin cete. It was not that KJV translators were unaware that tannin could mean “dragon” (elsewhere KJV does translate tannin as “dragon,” e.g. in Isaiah 27:1 or Psalm 91:13). Rather, in the sober context of Genesis 1, they likely chose the most natural referent (a whale) rather than a mythic one. One might say they de-mythologized the term, perhaps out of a theological preference to avoid pagan imagery. Some defenders of KJV note that “whale” was intended broadly for any giant sea animal (indeed, in Matthew 12:40 KJV uses “whale” for the Greek ketos that swallowed Jonah, where modern versions say “huge fish”). Effect on readers: “whales” makes the text sound like it’s listing familiar zoology, but it masks the ancient idea of sea-monsters. It might also anachronistically lead readers to picture only whales, excluding other possibilities like giant squids or mythic creatures. On the other hand, it avoids the issue that modern “monster” conjures images of God creating something from a fantasy movie.
“Great sea monsters” – This is used in NASB, NRSV, RSV, ESV (footnote or older editions), and NJPS. For example, NASB: “God created the great sea monsters”; NRSV: “sea monsters”. This choice is a more literal rendering of tanninim that preserves the ambiguity between natural and mythical. It acknowledges that to the ancients, these creatures were at the very least awe-inspiring and monstrous (even if real, like enormous serpents or crocodiles). The theological courage here is that it doesn’t shy away from a word that might unsettle some readers. A casual reader might ask, “Sea monsters? The Bible says God made sea monsters?!” – which can lead to a fruitful conversation about Leviathan and ancient context, or it could confuse someone expecting only literal biological terms. Nevertheless, this translation respects the text’s mysterious grandeur. It can broaden a reader’s perspective to realize the Bible isn’t averse to imagery that overlaps with “myth” – it transforms it. In a sense, using “monsters” is honest to the original worldview and forces modern readers out of a comfort zone that sanitizes Scripture.
“Great sea creatures” / “great creatures of the sea” – Found in ESV, NKJV, NIV, HCSB/CSB, NLT and many others. This is somewhat of a middle path. “Creature” is a generic term that simply means “created being.” Calling them “great sea creatures” conveys their bigness and their habitat, but avoids implying they are frightening or evil. The Common English Bible (CEB) even says “the giant sea animals.” This approach treats tanninim as zoological. Some might call this a little euphemistic, toning down “monsters” to “creatures.” Possibly, committees chose this phrasing to avoid the fantastical connotations of “monster” for modern children and lay readers. It’s scientifically neutral – a whale is a sea creature, so is a giant squid, so even if tannin were a dinosaur-like marine reptile, “creature” covers it. Implication: Readers won’t blink at “sea creatures”; it sounds like normal animals. But they also might entirely miss the hint of “sea dragon” that lies in the Hebrew. Such translations may reflect a theological conservatism (not wanting to suggest the Bible has “mythological” elements) or simply a target reading level that avoids potentially confusing terms. One could accuse this choice of over-interpretation – it interprets tanninim for the reader as just animals, closing the door on the alternate resonances. In doing so it protects the text from misunderstanding at the cost of flattening its imagery. Is that translational cowardice or prudence? It depends on one’s philosophy. If one prioritizes the “perspicuity” (clarity) of Scripture for all audiences, “sea creatures” is safer. If one prioritizes maintaining the text’s original flavor, “monsters” is truer.
“Dragons” – Interestingly, a few very old or very literal translations have rendered tanninim as “dragons.” For example, the Septuagint in other verses uses drakōn for tannin (though not here), and some 19th-century literal Bibles occasionally used “dragons” in marginal readings. The Douay-Rheims (Catholic, 1609) stuck with “great whales” to follow the Vulgate. But later, some folksy or poetic rephrases (or even fantasy-genre versions) might say “sea dragons.” This certainly captures the mythic element most strongly – but at the cost of sounding overtly mythical to the modern ear. A modern reader thinks of a “dragon” as a fire-breathing, winged reptile from legend, which might actually mislead since tannin in context of the sea is more like a sea-serpent or crocodile. So “dragon” can be too literal in one sense (picking one English word that doesn’t exactly match the creature context) and too fanciful in another. Most mainstream translations avoid “dragon” in Genesis 1:21 (though KJV uses “dragon” elsewhere for tannin in prophetic books).
“Living creature that moves” vs “living soul” – This is another place where translations betray a bit of theological bias. The Hebrew calls the swarming animals nefesh chayya just as it will call Adam a nefesh chayya. But nearly all translations render it as “living creature” or “living thing” here, reserving “living soul” for man in Gen 2:7. For example, Darby’s translation (1890) was one of the few that consistently used “living soul” even for animals: “every living soul that moves, with which the waters swarm”. Darby was extremely literal, and by saying “living soul” he intentionally highlighted that animals too have the breath of life (nefesh). Most other translators likely avoided “soul” for animals to prevent confusion – in common English, “soul” implies an immortal spirit or a uniquely human quality. Theologically, some traditions deny that animals have “souls” like humans do. So there might be an unconscious theological agenda to translating animal nefesh as “creature” rather than “soul,” to uphold a distinction. This is subtle; one could argue it’s just idiomatic English (we don’t call animals souls). Yet it does shape perception: readers of KJV or NIV would never realize the Bible used the same word for the life of animals and humans. Darby’s choice, though technically correct, could confuse English readers into thinking of a fish as a “soul” in the way a human is – which is also problematic. So this is a case of translators walking the line between literal anthropology of the text and systematic theology. Many modern versions actually do occasionally use “living being” or “living creature” for humans as well (e.g. NRSV in Gen 2:7: “the man became a living being”). There’s an increasing tendency in scholarship to acknowledge that in Hebrew thought, nefesh is life-breath, not an immaterial ghost, and man shares nephesh-life with animals (see Genesis 7:22, where “all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on dry land, died” – that includes animals in the Flood). Thus, while older theology drew a hard line, modern translations might be more willing to use similar language for human and animal life. Still, due to entrenched usage, “creature” remains standard for animals. The effect on readers is that one might implicitly think humans have “souls” but animals do not – something the text itself doesn’t explicitly say here. This is a case where translation tradition (and perhaps a bit of theological conservatism) has arguably obscured a unity between human and animal life that the Hebrew makes plain. Whether that is proper respect for human uniqueness or an unnecessary distortion is up for debate.
Inclusive vs exclusive language for humanity – As touched on, some translations say “humankind” or “human beings” instead of “man” in Genesis 1:26-27, to correctly convey the inclusive meaning of adam. The NIV (2011), NRSV, NET, and others do this: “Let Us make humankind in Our image…”; “So God created humankind in His image… male and female He created them.”. This is often motivated by both accuracy and sensitivity – “man” as a generic is fading in English, and could be misconstrued as male-only. The ESV (2001), a more conservative translation, retained “man” in 1:26-27 but footnoted “man = the Hebrew adam, meaning mankind.” The KJV and NKJV of course use “man.” Here we do see some ideological divides: more “gender-neutral” translations versus more “traditional” ones. Some critics accuse the former of “agenda” – an accommodation to modern egalitarian sensibilities. Supporters respond that it’s simply conveying the original intent (which was clearly both sexes). The theological stake here is high: Genesis 1:27 is foundational for doctrines of human dignity, gender, and the imago Dei. A translation that obscures that “man” is inclusive could inadvertently feed patriarchal misreadings. Conversely, a too-heavy-handed neutral wording might, in rare cases, lose a nuance (for example, in Hebrew adam is singular in God’s image, emphasizing the unity of mankind, then split into male and female; saying “humankind… them” conveys it well enough, though). On balance, most scholars agree that making the inclusion explicit is a positive, faithful move. The new NRSV (NRSVue 2021) even avoids male pronouns for God where possible (e.g. Genesis 1:27, it repeats “God” instead of “he created them”), not because the text teaches God is genderless (though God is spirit), but to avoid unnecessary masculine imagery. Others find that excessive, arguing the Bible overwhelmingly uses masculine pronouns for God and we shouldn’t redact them. Genesis 1:21 itself doesn’t present that issue (God is named, not pronouned here). But in a broader sense, translation of Genesis 1 does reflect theological choices: how to speak of God (some modern Jewish versions say “God’s self” instead of “himself”), how to convey humanity (inclusive language), how to handle “Let us make man in our image” (some say “make human in our image” or even “make humanity in our image”). These decisions can influence a reader’s theology of gender and God.
In summary, translation choices in Genesis 1:21 (and the whole chapter) can either illuminate or obscure the text’s ancient richness. A translation that is too timid – avoiding words like “monster” or “dragon” and sanitizing everything into bland terms – might blunt the text’s impact and mask the worldview contrasts that Genesis is actually engaging in. On the other hand, a translation that is too free or too archaic could confuse readers or import unintended meanings (as “whales” might for tanninim, or as “dragon” might likewise mislead). The challenge for translators is to convey the literary and theological drama of verses like Genesis 1:21 in clear modern language without either diluting the content or introducing their own biases. In this regard, comparing translations side-by-side is very instructive. We see that where KJV said “whales,” nearly all modern versions have corrected that to something more encompassing of all large sea life . Where KJV said “after his kind,” nearly all now say “after its kind” . These are improvements in accuracy and style. On the other hand, where KJV’s literalism might have obscured myth (whale for dragon), some newer translations have restored it (“sea monster”), which could be seen as an improvement in honesty. Yet, some like NIV went with a safe middle (“creatures of the sea”). The “general trend” is that academic-leaning translations (NASB, NRSV, NET, etc.) lean toward transparent literalness (not fearing “monsters”), whereas popular evangelical ones (NIV, NLT) lean toward accessible generality (“creatures”). Each choice subtly frames the reader’s understanding of the creation narrative – whether it strikes them as a powerfully mythic proclamation or as a straightforward listing of fauna.
Conclusion
Genesis 1:21, though just a single verse in the creation account, opens a window into the poetry, worldview, and theology of the Bible’s first chapter. In its original Hebrew form, it is dense with meaning: God effortlessly brings forth life in realms that ancient peoples found awe-inspiring and frightening. The verse’s mention of tanninim, the great sea monsters, assures us that nothing in the cosmos – not even the darkest ocean depths and their legendary denizens – exists outside of God’s creative word. In fact, those very “monsters” are pronounced good. The delicate phrase “every winged bird of wing” captures the fluttering diversity of the skies, reminding us that from the mighty albatross to the tiniest sparrow, all owe their wings to the Creator. The use of nefesh (“living soul”) for the teeming schools of fish hints that the breath of life animates all creatures, forming a continuum of life that spans from the sea-floor to the sky, crowned ultimately by humanity made in God’s image.
When we analyze the grammar and structure, we find layers of intentionality: the verse is structured to list the full spectrum of water and air life, highlighting the extremes (the gigantic tanninim and the generic “winged bird”) to imply everything in between. The repetition of “according to their kinds” and the concluding “God saw that it was good” emphasize order and benevolence. In a world where other creation stories involved violence and rivalry, Genesis 1:21 stands out as a tranquil, sovereign act – creation without combat, cosmos without chaos (or rather, chaos employed in service of cosmos).
Exploring how translators have rendered this verse shines light on how our understanding can be colored by language. Some, out of reverence or caution, tamed the language (“whales”); others, out of a desire for precision or candor, spoke of “monsters.” Some emphasized the shared soul of living beings, others the uniqueness of man. In each case, we see that translation is itself a kind of interpretation. Therefore, a careful reader might do well to consult multiple versions and even a bit of Hebrew to grasp the fullness of Genesis 1:21.
Ultimately, the verse invites us to a theological meditation: The God of Israel is the God who “created the great tanninim.” Instead of slaying them, He fashions them. Instead of fearing them, He feeds them. Instead of cursing them, He blesses them to be fruitful. This radically reframes the ancients’ dread of the unknown deep – the deep is God’s nursery, not His enemy. And for modern readers, perhaps jaded by scientific familiarity, the verse challenges us to recover a sense of wonder. The ocean’s depths and the sky’s heights are still realms of astonishing life and beauty. Genesis 1:21, in its ancient way, calls us to see porpoises and pelicans, plankton and pterodactyls (yes, even the extinct kinds!), as products of a single, good, divine will. It reminds us that the proper response is neither terror nor trivialization, but praise. As later commanded in Psalm 148: “Praise the Lord from the earth, you great sea creatures (tanninim) and all ocean depths… and you winged birds!” Together, the tannin of the sea and the bird on the wing fulfill God’s plan and glorify His name – a truth embedded in Genesis 1:21 from the very beginning.
Sources:
Holy Bible, Genesis 1:21 (Hebrew text and various translations)
NET Bible, Gen 1:21 translation notes
Jacob F. Love, “On the Presence of Dragons in the Hebrew Bible,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 52:2 (2024)
John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (2009), and commentary insights via Walton’s discussion of tanninim and “good”
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11 (T&T Clark, 2011) – discussion of Leviathan/Tanninim in ANE context
Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 1:21 (Aramaic paraphrases) – via intertextual commentary
E.A. Speiser and Nahum Sarna, Genesis (Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, 1964/1989) – lexical notes on tannin and nefesh (not directly quoted above but background)
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible (19th c.), on Gen 1:21 – explanation of terms
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary (1871), on Gen 1:20-21 – notes on “whales” includes sharks, etc.
Gill’s Exposition of the OT (18th c.), on Gen 1:21 – cites Jewish traditions about Leviathan
Wikipedia: “Tannin (mythology)” and “Leviathan” (for general background on myths and usage in Scripture).