In the debate over the proper translation of Genesis 1:1, one of the key issues is whether the first word of the verse, בְּרֵאשִׁית, is in the absolute or construct state. If בְּרֵאשִׁית is in the construct state, then it is in construct with the verb בָּרָָא and the ensuing clause of Genesis 1:1, and the verse should be rendered with a dependent clause. This rendering is known as the dependent-clause translation of Genesis 1:1 found in such versions as the NRSV, NJV, and NAB. If בְּרֵאשִׁית is in the absolute state, then it is not in construct with בָּרָָא and the ensuing clause, and the verse should be rendered with an independent main clause. This rendering is known as the traditional translation of Genesis 1:1 found in such versions as the KJV, NAS, NIV, and ESV. Building off his previous article (Wilson 2018), the author in this article defends the traditional translation of Genesis 1:1 by arguing that at the clause level of investigation, בְּרֵאשִׁית cannot be in construct with the verb בָּרָָא and the ensuing clause of Genesis 1:1. According to the author, such a construction would be a Hebrew genitive clause governed by a nomen regens. According to the author, Hebrew genitive clauses in general have certain syntactical features that delimit how they relate to their main clauses. When such a genitive clause construction for Genesis 1:1 is analyzed in its relation to the main clause—whether that be Genesis 1:2a or 1:3—the data shows that it lacks the syntactical features characteristic of genitive clauses in general. Thus, it is highly improbable that Genesis 1:1 contains a genitive clause, and as a consequence, it is equally improbable that the verse could be rendered with a dependent clause.