In the debate over the proper interpretation of Genesis 1:1, the key issue is over the meaning of the compound phrase אֵת הַשָּמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. If the phrase is a merism, a literary device in which a whole is referred to by two of its parts, then the phrase, as a whole, communicates a tertiary meaning that is different from the individual meanings of its two parts. If the phrase communicates a tertiary meaning, then the word אֶרֶץ of the compound phrase in Genesis 1:1 would be unrelated in meaning to the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2. The two verses then would exhibit a semantic discontinuity where Genesis 1:1 would be better understood as a title or summary to the creation narrative, and Genesis 1:2 would be better understood as the opening of the narrative. This view is known as the summary-statement, or titular, interpretation. In the summary-statement interpretation, there is no explanation for the origin of the material in Genesis 1:2, thus undermining the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. However, if the compound phrase does not communicate a tertiary meaning, or at least does not always communicate a tertiary meaning, then the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:1 could be related in meaning to the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2. The two verses then would exhibit a semantic continuity where Genesis 1:1 would be better understood as the opening of the creation narrative, and Genesis 1:2 would be better understood as a description of the state of that opening. This view is known as the traditional interpretation. In the traditional interpretation, the origin of the material in Genesis 1:2 is described in Genesis 1:1, thus undergirding the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. In this article, the author defends the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:1 by analyzing the meaning of the compound phrase אֵת הַשָּמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ and by showing that certain characteristics of the merism label, like the tertiary meaning, cannot and should not be applied to the phrase. The author also individually analyzes the words אֶרֶץ and שָׁמַיִם to show that together the individual meanings of the two words can communicate a meaning that proponents of the summary-statement interpretation incorrectly describe as tertiary. However, the author then shows that such a meaning is not always applicable to the compound phrase, as in the case of Genesis 1:1.