1:20 records that G-d said that the waters should swarm with sheretz nefesh chaya and ohf that would fly to penei rekia ha-shamayim. This saying by G-d means that G-d created or caused to evolve organisms that lived in the water and organisms that could fly. I believe that the term nefesh chaya implies movement, which means that the first half of 1:21 is recording the creation of creatures that could move in the water. This could be Cnidarians and/ or Deuterostomes which appeared around 500-600 million years ago. 1:20 then means that the Torah skipped many stages in the development of life. Also, the verse indicates that life began in the water, which corresponds to modern science. Note, this verse seems not to be referring to fish since they would not be considered as sheretzim, crawling organisms, though Rashi (on 1:20) labels the fish as sheretzim. Yet, there is no need for the Torah to mention the creation of every organism, as just a select few are mentioned.
The second half of 1:20 refers to ohf that would fly to penei rekia ha-shamayim. This phrase raises at least two questions. One, what is meant by the term ohf, birds or insects, and two, what does it mean that they could fly to penei rekia ha-shamayim?
Aviezer (1990, pp. 85, 127) suggests that insects (and marine animals) were created on day five and that the day corresponds to the time from approximately 635 million years ago to 250 million years ago. He notes (pp. 82-84) that there were giant insects in the period and that one type of dragonfly had a wing span of 30 inches. The end of the period according to Aviezer was the Paleozoic era, which was marked by a very large extinction. Rashi (on 1:20) also writes that ohf here means flies.
Slifkin (2006, p. 185, footnote 3) critiques Aviezer's chronology for day five since he argues that the word ohf in 1:20-22 refers just to birds and not to flying insects, as Vayikra 11:21 uses the words sherets ohf when the reference is to insects. Also, 1:28 records that mankind was blessed to have dominion over the ohf in the sky and it is doubtful that this blessing was to dominate insects.
A clue to understanding what the term ohf means in 1:20 is to compare it with the term winged ohf in 1:21. The added term winged shows that the ohf in 1:20 and the ohf in 1:21 are different. 1:20 is referring to insects which are not referred to as winged organisms, even though most insects have wings, and 1:21 is referring to the creation of birds, where the wings are more prominent. (See our discussion on 1:6,7; 1:11,12 and 1:14,16, https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2014/10/bereshit-11-19-bereshit-some-thoughts.html that when the Torah records that G-d spoke and later that G-d created, as in 1:20,21 this is referring to two different acts of creation. Thus, one has to distinguish between the acts of creation of 1:20 with those recorded in 1:21.)
With this understanding, one could still agree with Slifkin that the blessing in 1:28 is referring to birds, and that Vayikra 11:21 is referring to insects. In 1:21 the Torah modified the term ohf to be winged ohf to distinguish the birds from the insects in 1:20, but afterwards the Torah would not have to use this extra term, winged. Instead, ohf becomes birds and when dealing, relatively rarely, with insects, that term is modified to be sheretz ohf.
What does it mean that the insects (or if one wants, birds) could fly to penei rekia ha-shamayim? Above in our discussion on day two, we explained that rakia means either the galaxy or the solar system, but no insects or birds could fly into either the solar system or the galaxy. However, the word penei qualifies the area of their flying, to be either towards the rakia or before the rakia, but 1:20 does not state that they flew into the rakia.
1:21 then records that G-d bara, created, the tanninim ha-gadolim, the nefesh chaya ha-romeset, which the water had swarmed forth of each kind (Altar, 2004, p. 8), and the winged ohf of each kind. What are the tanninim ha-gadolim and what does it mean the nefesh chaya ha-romeset which the water had swarmed forth?
Rashi (on 1:21) explains that the tanninim ha-gadolim were giant fish. Cassuto (1961, pp. 49-51 and Sarna, 1989, p. 10) notes that people have understood tanninim ha-gadolim as being sea monsters, and then the verse states that G-d created these sea monsters to demonstrate that these monsters were under G-d's control. Yet, it is difficult to argue that tanninim ha-gadolim really means sea monsters, unless one believes that sea monsters actually exist or existed. If one does not accept their existence, then it cannot be that the Torah states that G-d created a non-existent animal, even if it is to correct erroneous beliefs. However, I would agree that the Torah uses the word bara, create, because if a person mistakenly believes in sea monsters, and thinks that tanninim ha-gadolim are sea monsters, then the person should know that the sea monsters were created by G-d. (This would be similar to the use of the term azazel on Yom Kippur, see our discussion on Vayikra 16:7,8, "To azazel" https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2016/04/167-10-aharei-mot-to-azazel.html.)
Aviezer (1990, pp. 81-86) writes that the tanninim ha-gadolim were aquatic creatures in the Ediacaran period (approximately 635 million years ago to 540 million years) which were large relative to the aquatic creatures in the following period the Cambrian age (approximately 540 million years ago to 490 million years ago). Aviezer quotes from Rashi that the tanninim were killed shortly after they were created and he claims this accords with his identification of the tanninim since the Ediacaran creatures became extinct. (Another possibility according to Aviezer's chronology is synapsids, which were the dominant terrestrial animals, up to ten feet in length, in the period up to the massive extinction at the end of the Paleozoic era.)
Schroeder (1997, p. 193) suggests that tanninim ha-gadolim were dinosaurs since he understands that the word tannin is reptiles, and then dinosaurs would be the biggest or the greatest reptiles. Slifkin (2006, pp. 232, 233) disputes this identification for several reasons. One, he claims that tannin are "serpentine creatures" not "the general category of reptiles," and dinosaurs were not serpentine. Two, he claims that 1:20,21 implies that tanninim ha-gadolim were aquatic creatures, while the "overwhelming majority of dinosaurs were terrestrial." These questions are answerable. If the Torah wanted to refer to dinosaurs, then it is unclear what term would have been more appropriate than tannin since the Torah could not use the word dinosaur, which would have been incomprehensible to all people until the 19th century. Thus, once tannin refers to some reptiles, it could refer to dinosaurs. Furthermore, in 1:21, the tanninim ha-gadolim are distinct from the animals that swarm (romes) in the water, and hence the tanninim ha-gadolim need not be aquatic creatures.
All these suggestions are possible but there exists a simpler explanation. Tanninim ha-gadolim can be referring to large crocodiles, which is the usual definition of the word tannin, as for example in Shemot 7:9-12. In 2005 there was a finding of a large sea dwelling crocodile that lived 135 million years ago, and who was been nicknamed by scientists, Godzilla, see Chang (2005).
What does it mean in 1:21 the nefesh chaya ha-romeset which the water had swarmed forth? Does the phrase ha-romeset mean that the animals were swarming in the water? With this understanding, the phrase is referring to larger animals from 1:20, such as crustaceans (lobsters?). Or, does the word remes mean all movement in the water, not specifically crawling, and then the reference would include fish. A support for this is that the same term in Vayikra 11:46 seems to be referring to fish. Another possibility is that the phrase also refers to animals that came from the water, but now were able to crawl on land. With this third possibility, the phrase could be referring to amphibious animals or even early mammals that evolved from animals that had lived at sea. The final set of animals referred to in 1:21 is winged ohf, which as mentioned above are birds. The fact that birds are recorded last in the verse might accord with the idea that birds derive from dinosaurs, though of course the order could not be significant. In any event, both 1:20 and 1:21 are not referring to all animals, but the verses are describing a gamut of animals that were created, from creatures who swarm to creatures who fly, and maybe including creatures that swim.
With regard to the timing of day five, it could be that 1:20 is referring to the Paleozoic era, 540 million years ago to 252 million years ago, while 1:21 is referring to the Mesozoic eras, 252 million years ago to 66 million years ago.
The following verse, 1:22 records G-d's blessing to the animals created on day five. This verse raises two questions. One, this blessing appears after, the phrase "and G-d saw that it was good" (the end of 1:21), but one would have expected the blessing to be before the phrase "and G-d saw that it was good" as occurs in day six, 1:28-31. Two, who is being blessed to fill the waters?
With regard to the first question, maybe the order of the blessing in reference to G-d’s seeing was changed since many of the animals created on day five became extinct. For example, both the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic eras ended with great extinctions. Possibly then when these animals were alive, G-d said that it was good (the end of 1:21) that they had existed, and then after they died, G-d was blessing the survivors of the extinctions that they would continue to exist.
With regard to the second question, many understand the blessing to fill the water to be to the fish, and this would depend on understating the word romeset in 1:21 to refer to fish or that fish are included within the gamut of animals created on day five. Or if one believes that romeset in 1:21 is only to crawling creatures, then one can understand that the blessing in 1:22 with regard to filling the water was to the crustaceans and/ or amphibians, who might be referred to on day five.
To summarize, day five probably refers to the years from 540 million years ago to 66 million years ago, and the dominant animals in this period were the giant reptiles, the tanninim ha-gadolim. In addition, the Torah also refers to the creation of flying insects, birds, and possibly amphibians and small mammals that were early types of rodents.
Day six: 1:24-31: The creation of modern mammals and humans
Day six records two acts of creation. One, the creation of hayyot, behamot and all remes ha-adamah, 1:24,25, and two, humans, 1:26-30. Both of these creations refer to land animals, and this raises a question with regard to the relationship between days five and six of creation. Carl Feit (1990, pp. 31,32) notes that there is some affinity between science and the description of creation in Genesis since in the Torah "these is a gradual ascent from chaos to order, whether from inorganic to organic matter or from lifeless to vegetable or animal matter." However, he notes there are some inconsistencies, as for example the question of how could plant life precede the sun, which we tried to answer at https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2014/10/bereshit-11-19-bereshit-some-thoughts.html, and how could it be that flying creatures (day five) existed before land animals (day six).
As discussed above, Aviezer attempted to answer this question by claiming that day five only refers to flying insects and flying insects preceded land animals. However, I cannot accept this answer since I think that 1:21 was referring to the creation of birds. There are two other ways to explain how the animals mentioned in day six could have been created after the birds in day five.
One, as mentioned above, 1:21 could be understood to refer to animals that swarmed from the water, and these could be early mammals who left the seas. Thus, mammals would have existed on day five, and birds who are mentioned later in the verse, would have been created after land animals such as those early mammals and other reptiles.
Two, while many understand that 1:24,25 refer to all land animals or all mammals, this is not what the verses state. The verses records that G-d created or caused to evolve chaya nefesh according to its kind: behamot, va-remes and chayot. These are very specific land animals, and the verse is not referring to all mammals that ever existed.
The traditional view (Rambam, Laws of forbidden foods, 1:8, also see Ibn Ezra on 1:24) is that behamot are just ox, sheep and goats. My understanding is that behamot are the class of mammals called ungulates. With either view, the creation referred to in day six is to animals who began to exist way after birds first existed.
With my understating that behamot mean ungulates, 1:24,25 can only be referring to a time when ungulates existed, which was approximately 65 million years ago, the beginning of the Cenozoic era. Furthermore, animals that could eventually be domesticated, such as horses, are even later, approximately 50 million years ago. With the traditional definition of the word behamot, the verses are referring to an even later period, as the Ruminantia suborder, which includes goats and cattle, is estimated to have begun to develop approximately 46 million years ago.
Accordingly, 1:24,25 are then referring only to new types of animals from between 65-46 million years ago until the present. It is not clear what are the other two types of animals in 1:24,25. My guess is that the three categories of creatures in 1:24,25 correspond roughly to the three categories of land animals in Vayikra 11:26-30. One, the behama, Vayikra 11:26, which we just mentioned, two, the chayat ha-aretz is to animals that walk on their paws high off the ground, Vayikra 11:27, and three, the remes would be the types of animals specified in Vayikra 11:29,30, animals that seem to move closer to the ground, like rabbits, shrews, or rodents. These types of animals would be the animals that entered Noah's ark, 7:14, and those that were killed by the flood, 7:21, "modern mammals," as the Torah refers to these animals with the same words used in 1:24. New reptiles could be included in this list as either wild animals or as animals that crawl on the ground, but this would only be reptiles that developed in the last 50 million years. If someone (see Sarna, 1989, p. 11) believes that the word remes in 1:24,25 refers to insects, then still the verse would only refer to new insects from the Cenozoic era.
Consequently, day six of creation refers to the period when mammals became the dominant type of creature on the earth. Mammals existed on day five but their existence is not explicitly recorded or not recorded at all in verses 1:21,22, just like there is no mention of the creation of fish on days five or six, even though fish existed in both of these periods, and their existence is referred to in 1:28. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the order of the development of animals based on science and that recorded in the Torah on days five and six of creation.
One other question about 1:24,25 is whether the verses are referring to the same act of creation or two separate acts? My inclination is to view the verses as referring to two different events. 1:24, with the word tosei, indicates a more natural process, and would be that G-d caused the natural forces of evolution to work, and then 1:25 refers to G-d intervening in the evolution process since there was a need to ensure that the process would lead to mankind.
1:26,27 refer to the creation of humans, the genus homo, but not specifically to homo sapiens. While mankind is physically similar to all mammals (and all animals) he/ she is intrinsically different since G-d intervened in the evolutionary process to endow him/ her with the image of G-d, "tselem Elokim." The blessings in 1:28-30 are indicative of homo's potential, and it would only be homo sapiens that would later actualize these blessings. This development is recorded in the story of the Garden of Eden in chapters two and three of the book of Bereshit.
We have tried to show that chapter one in Bereshit can be understood to accord with modern scientific theories, modest concordism. The creation of the world could not have been a random process, as based on current scientific theories it is mathematically impossible for the world and humans to have come about randomly. Thus, as some stages G-d intervened in the process to move things along and G-d established the laws of science that enabled the process of evolution to occur. I believe this is what Reuben Gross (quoted in Carmell and Domb, 1978, p. 238) had in mind, when he wrote:
Assuming that the Darwinists have correctly described the mechanism of creation, all they have done is to dis-establish the Creator as mechanic-mason-carpenter of a static world, but at the same time they have unwittingly re-established Him as an engineer-architect, kiv'yochol, of a self-adjusting complex, dynamic world and the Creator or legislator of the fitness standards and rules of adaptability.
A final point is that the interpretations offered here are subject to change based on new developments in parshanut and in science, but it is hoped that they will be persuasive to some of the readers and/ or inspire readers to suggest other interpretations.