Scriptural References:
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
Other Scripture Taken from:
The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English, © 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 2nd ed. 1986 by Jay P. Green, Sr. (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers).
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, copyright © 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1985 by P. Green, Sr. This work was contained in the side column of Green’s work referenced above.
King James Version (Authorized Version) noted as KJV.
Genesis 2:4 Closes Out the Story of God’s First Creation of Mankind
Hebrew syntax points to two creations of mankind. For
many years the Jewish community and the Christian church have
believed that the account of the creation of Adam and Eve given in
Genesis 2 is a detailed description of a more general creation of
mankind told in the first chapter of Genesis. This section will discuss
some syntactical reasons why we should interpret the creation
account of Adam and Eve to be a creation of another race of
people, which was in addition to the creation of the
pre-Adamites as recorded in Genesis 1. My comments will center on Genesis
2:5f.
A Tiny Prefix Makes a Large Difference in Meaning
The belief
that Genesis only describes one creation of mankind has resulted
in a number of serious misunderstandings of the Bible; most
importantly, if one holds to this view, it becomes truly impossible
to reconcile science and the Bible. One major reason for this misunderstanding
of Genesis has been because the scholars have misunderstood the function
of a Hebrew conjunction as it functions to indicate whether or not a
pronoun such as these or this refers to what precedes it
or to what follows it. This conjunction is normally prefixed to the first word
of sentences that constitute a narrative. It is the Hebrew letter waw.
Its orthographic representation is written like this: ו. Concerning
small things making big differences, we can appreciate this old rhyme:
For
want of a nail, the shoe was lost.
For
want of a shoe, the horse was lost.For want of a horse, the rider was lost.
For want of a rider, the battle was lost.
For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
Because the
function of this little Hebrew letter was not recognized and because a correct
understanding of Hebrew narrative genre has been missed, our understanding
of the Bible and human origins has been greatly harmed. And as a result, many
attempts to defend the truthfulness and inspiration of the Bible have been
lost. Please follow through with me as we find how to interpret Genesis 2:4-5
through properly grasping and applying the use of the Hebrew conjunction.
I intend to show two things concerning the first two chapters of Genesis: (1)
Genesis 2:4 refers to the creation account in Genesis 1, and (2) the
account of God's preparation of the Garden of Eden and the creation
of Adam and Eve, which begins at Genesis 2:5, should be understood
from the text to be a second creation of mankind separate from the first creation
as recorded in Genesis 1.
You are not going to rely totally on my word for it, because I shall direct you to passages in your own Bible that illustrate how the Hebrew conjunction works. My support is located mainly in the appendixes of my book. But be careful, very few translations are consistent in how they deal with this conjunction. They may translate it some places as now and other places with and. Some translations sometimes may leave it out. Green's translation and the NASB translation almost always show it translated, but they use different words in different contexts, which is OK, but it is a little more difficult to discern whether or not the conjunction was included in the original Hebrew text. I have noticed that the NASB translates it at least with and, now, so, then, and thus or not at all.
You are not going to rely totally on my word for it, because I shall direct you to passages in your own Bible that illustrate how the Hebrew conjunction works. My support is located mainly in the appendixes of my book. But be careful, very few translations are consistent in how they deal with this conjunction. They may translate it some places as now and other places with and. Some translations sometimes may leave it out. Green's translation and the NASB translation almost always show it translated, but they use different words in different contexts, which is OK, but it is a little more difficult to discern whether or not the conjunction was included in the original Hebrew text. I have noticed that the NASB translates it at least with and, now, so, then, and thus or not at all.
One application
of the Hebrew conjunction waw is to join parallel elements, as we
do with our conjunction in English. Another application of the conjunction
is our focus of this discussion: it moves the narrative along from one
sentence to the next as the story progresses. This conjunction functions
to set apart the non-quoted material from the quoted material. This helps the
reader recognize a quote (for Hebrew did not employ quotation marks)
and it gives a pattern of writing to the narrative that is different from the
quotations. This serves to break up the monotony of the text. In Hebrew, words
meaning however, therefore, etc. were often omitted and instead a
waw was employed.
Another
function of the waw conjunction, as I indicated, is
to indicate whether or not the formulas, such as these
are... or this is..., make reference to the list
of names (or section of prose) that comes before the formula or to the
material that comes after it.
Genesis 2:4 Closes Out the First Chapter of Genesis
The author of Genesis closes out
the account of the generations of the heavens and the earth at Genesis 2:4 and
then moves on to give the account of the creation of Adam and Eve. He moves us
on from the creation of mankind during the six days of creation to the creation
of Adam and Eve which occurred at a later time.
I shall quote Genesis 2:4-5 from
the NASB including the verse numbers; I shall do this to show that this
translation begins a new paragraph at verse 4. The translators indicated a new paragraph here by
printing the numeral “4” in bold type:
4 These are the
generations [these beginning words are a literal translation taken from the NASB
notes] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the
LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the
field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field [lit., and] had yet sprouted, for the
LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was
no man to cultivate the ground.
I began verse 4 using the
more literal translation from the center column of the NASB because these are
the words the translators of the NASB used generally throughout the book in the
other occurrences of this formula, and because I believe it is translated more
accurately. Placing this verse with the paragraph that follows it rather than
with the previous paragraph is a common error made by most translators of this
passage. When the translator placed verse 4 with the account of the creation of
Adam and Eve, he was reflecting his opinion that verse 4 refers to the creation
account which follows it. If this were true, then Adam and Eve would have been
created during the six days of creation, the setting for the first account of
creation. However, I have found conclusive syntactical evidence that this verse
refers (or “looks”) backward to the
six days of creation narrated in Genesis 1 rather than looking forward to the creation of Adam and Eve
in Genesis 2. Before we take a look at the syntactical evidence, let us mention
a reason that have been given for concluding that this verse looks forward and also note some reasons that
have been given for concluding that this verse looks backward. These observations will demonstrate why Hebrew syntax included
a way to eliminate ambiguity.
Those who
believe that this verse looks ahead point out that the introduction of the name
of God, Jehovah (more accurately, Yahweh, or as it is often translated, LORD) first occurs in the book
of Genesis in this verse, and that, in Genesis 2, this is the normal way to
refer to God. They believe, since God is narrowing in on the creation of Adam,
His more personal name is used rather than His title God. They conclude that because God’s name Yahweh does not occur in
the first creation account, its occurrence in Genesis 2:4 must mean that this
verse is a part of the second creation account where the name Yahweh often
occurs. They therefore place verse 4 with the second creation narrative and
consequently conclude that Genesis 2:4 refers forward.
Those who hold to the JEPD theory see the introduction of the name Jehovah God as due to the insertion by the author of “J” (Jehovah) literature, whereas Genesis 1 was “E” (Elohim) literature. Some scholars believe you should cut the verse into two parts. They believe the first part of the verse looks backward, and the last part of the verse looks forward. I have observed that most Bible translators do not split up the verse. We shall come back to this verse to show that this verse should not be split after we determine the rules which indicate whether the formula refers backward or forward.
Personally,
I think there is a very good reason why the author waited to use the phrase “LORD God” until he was finished
describing the seven days of creation. The account of creation found in Genesis
1:1-2:3 uses the literary device of repetition and simplicity. The simplicity
may be a little harder to see than the repetition, but please note the
statement, “Let there be light; and there was light,” or consider the
simplicity in his description of God’s creation of mankind; he simply blesses
them and points out His benevolence in providing food for them and for the animals
as he instructs them in how they would be sustained. Next He says, “And it was
so.” This abruptly ends this creation account, except for God’s rest on day 7. I
believe Moses, for simplicity and repetition, held off introducing the name of God
until after he told of God’s resting on the seventh day; then at once he
included the name of the true God, Jehovah (Yahweh). He wanted to assert that
it was the one true God who had revealed Himself to the Hebrews—Jehovah God—who
created the heaven and the earth. He wanted to supply this important
theological information as near as possible to the first creation narrative so
the reader would know immediately that it was Jehovah God who was this great Creator
and none else.
Furthermore,
most of the interpreters who see this verse as referring to what follows also
say that the introductory formulas that are similar to “these are the
generations of the heavens and the earth” always stand at the beginning of a
section of Genesis. They say that, apart from the first introductory chapter,
each section of the book of Genesis begins with this formula.
On the other hand, those who insist that the verse looks backward say that the creation of the
heavens is never mentioned in the narrative after Genesis 2:4, while the phrase
“the heavens and the earth” is identical in Genesis 1:1.
Since the
clause these are the generations of the
heavens and the earth occurs in one form or another throughout the
Pentateuch, I have called it a formula.
Because this formula and others that are similar to it occur quite often in
the Old Testament, it is possible to study it to discover how the author
indicates whether he is making reference forward
or backward.
The formulas we must analyze are in
the general form of one of these: (1)
These are the generations of so and so or (2) These are the sons of
so and so. A study of these formulas has revealed that when the author uses
these formulas, he takes special care to make sure that the portion of the text
to which the particular formula refers is easily discerned by the reader; that
is, he makes sure the reader will understand whether the formula refers forward or backward. The presence or absence of the conjunction (in Hebrew,
the prefix waw) before and/or after the formula is used to indicate
whether the formula looks backward or
forward. Whether or not the
conjunction acts as a waw consecutive
makes no difference, only the presence or absence of the waw indicates whether the generations are making reference to the
material which follows this formula or material which comes before this
formula. Please see appendix D for a
study of verses which confirms these conclusions.
If the formula refers to the
section of narrative to follow, a conjunction is sometimes placed before the
formula (at the discretion of the author) to set it off from that which has
been written before it. In this case (which we shall call case 1), the formula refers to what was written after it. In this
case, no conjunction follows the formula unless this formula is followed with a
nested formula as in examples 11 and 27 in appendix D of my book. For a common instance of
case 1, see Genesis 11:27, which is example 10 in appendix D.
In a second case, no conjunction is
written before the formula. In this case, if the formula refers to what follows
it, the writer is careful to leave out the conjunction which follows the
formula so that the reader will know that the formula is meant to refer to what
follows it. The understanding here in the mind of the reader is that since the
formula is not separated from what follows it in its immediate context, it
refers to what follows it rather than to what precedes it. We shall call this case 2. See Genesis 11:10, which is example 9 in appendix D of my book. (An
exception to this rule is a paranthetical section in which it is obvious that
the formula cannot look forward and in
which the inclusion of a conjunction would cause a misreading of the passage;
in this instance, the formula looks backward).
A third case is one in which no
conjunction is written before the formula and the formula refers to what
preceded it. In this case, the author is normally careful to put a conjunction
after the formula to show that it refers to what was written before the
formula. When the author shows his intention in this manner, we shall call it case 3. For a common instance of case 3,
see Genesis 9:18, which is example 4 in appendix D. In this case, there is an exception where nesting
occurs, in which case the conjunction can be held off and placed after the two
nested formulas. See examples 7 and 8 of the appendix of my book. Here is a summary of each of the cases
described above:
Case 1: If there is a conjunction before
the formula, then the formula always looks forward (whether or not a
conjunction follows):
Case 2: If there is no conjunction
before the formula and no conjunction
after the formula, then (except in 1 Chronicles 1:23-24 where its inclusion
would cause misreading of the text) the formula looks forward:
Case 3: If there is no conjunction
before the formula and a conjunction after the formula, then the formula refers
backward:
Genesis 2:4 Must Look Backward Because
Hebrew Syntax Demands It.
If
Genesis 2:4 is followed with a conjunction in the Hebrew text, this verse looks
backward. The verse which follows the
formula in question begins with the waw
prefix which the NASB translates now.
From this we know that the verse looks backward.
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no
plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not
sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground. (Gen.
2:5)
Verse 4 looks backward to the six days of creation which Genesis 1 narrates; it
should be placed with the preceding paragraph or made a complete paragraph in
itself. This conclusion will certainly surprise some people because most have
thought that it refers forward. The
arguments that we reviewed that were based only on the contents of the passages
involved were inconclusive. The syntax of
the language overrides this type of argument. The author communicated his intention
for Genesis 2:4 by his syntactical use of the conjunction. It is of utmost
importance to realize that the author had to make a choice and show the reader
which way the verse was to look. Moses chose his wording so that the reader would
know that this verse looks backward. If
such a formula occurs in English, we usually put it within the paragraph to
which it refers. In biblical Hebrew they did not indent paragraphs; the Hebrew
speakers, however, had their own method of eliminating ambiguity on the matter
as we have just seen.
The Error of
Dividing Genesis 2:4 into Two Sentences
The reason some believe that Genesis 2 should be divided into two sentences is because they want to put the formula “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth” with the narrative which leads up to it, but they want to put the phrase “LORD [Jehovah] God” with the narrative which follows it. To do this they separate the sentence after the words “when they were created.” But no conjunction follows this phrase. If the verse is divided in this fashion, there is no conjunction before the formula “These are the generations of…” and there is none after it. This fits case 2 so that the formula as well as the whole sentence in which it is found refers forward. But the reason verse 4 was bisected in the first place was to make it possible to interpret this formula so that the first half of the verse looks backward and also to show that the translators interpreted the last part of verse 4 as being included with the paragraph which follows it.
The reason some believe that Genesis 2 should be divided into two sentences is because they want to put the formula “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth” with the narrative which leads up to it, but they want to put the phrase “LORD [Jehovah] God” with the narrative which follows it. To do this they separate the sentence after the words “when they were created.” But no conjunction follows this phrase. If the verse is divided in this fashion, there is no conjunction before the formula “These are the generations of…” and there is none after it. This fits case 2 so that the formula as well as the whole sentence in which it is found refers forward. But the reason verse 4 was bisected in the first place was to make it possible to interpret this formula so that the first half of the verse looks backward and also to show that the translators interpreted the last part of verse 4 as being included with the paragraph which follows it.
An Example
in Which No Conjunction Is Included before “These.”
Here is an example from Genesis 9:18-19 in which the
conjunction is purposefully omitted to show that “these” refers to what
precedes it:
"And the sons of Noah that went out of the
ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham is the father of Canaan. [No conjunction
hereà] These are the three sons of Noah, [Conjunction
here] and the whole earth was overspread from them." [Green]
If
the formula these are... or this is... is used
in a narrative to refer to the element(s) of a section that precedes it, large
or small, the conjunction is never used immediately before these formulas
and the elements of this preceding section. (There are exceptions to
this rule, but the exceptions are understandably explainable and do
not violate this rule.) A conjunction before "These are..." (quoted above) was
purposely omitted so that the reader would know
that "these" makes reference to what precedes it. The
placement of the conjunction before "[t]hese" would have told the
reader that this word refers to what follows it. A number of examples
of each of the three cases listed above are given in appendix D of my book.
Analyzing Genesis 2:3-5a
Now
let us go to Genesis 2:3-5a since it is so important to our understanding of
the Genesis narrative. The following is from Green's translation:
"And God
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because He rested from all His work
on it, which God had created to make [better tr., to prepare]. [No
conjunction hereà] These are the births [better tr., descendants]
of the heavens and of the earth when they (were) created, in the
day (that) Jehovah (was) making earth and heavens; [Conjunction hereà] And
every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant…."
In Hebrew Almost
Every Clause Begins with a Conjunction.
At
this point in our discussion, it will be helpful to get a larger picture of
just how the conjunction is used in Hebrew to give
the material the narrative character. Please keep in mind that
this profuse employment of the waw conjunction in the forward
movement of narrative material does not
apply to quotations within the narrative sections. To get a better feeling
for how this rule works, let us observe that every verse in the Hebrew text
from Genesis 1:2 through 2:3 inclusive begins with the waw conjunction; this is typical of
the Hebrew narrative. Therefore, it should become very obvious to the
Hebrew reader that the conjunction has been omitted at Genesis 2:4. This
signals to the reader that "these" of this verse refers to what
precedes it.
No Conjunction
before the Formula; No Conjunction After It
Since
this use of the conjunction has been so often ignored in translations
and interpretations, we will look at some more examples of it. Let us next look
at Genesis 5:1-3:
"[No conjunction hereà] This is the book of the generations [better
tr., descendants] of Adam: [No conjunction
hereà] In the day that God created man [better tr., Adam],
He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed
them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created. And Adam
lived one hundred and thirty years and fathered a son in his own likeness,
according to his image, and called his name Seth." (Green)
This quotation
follows the creation of Adam and Eve, their fall into sin, God's judgment upon
them, their bearing of Cain. It also speaks of Cain's murdering Abel. It
proceeds to speak of some of the descendants of Cain, and describes their
arrogance. Just before our example verse, it tells of the birth of Seth to Adam
and Eve. There is no conjunction before this quotation since it does not move
the narrative forward. Actually, it is backing up the narrative to
the time of the creation of Adam and Eve.
Neither is there a conjunction after the statement: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The next statement simply begins: "In the day that God created man..." The absence of a conjunction before and after this opening sentence indicates to us that it refers to what follows it, not to what precedes it. This is because a study of this use of the conjunction shows that if no conjunction is used before the clause containimg the these-formula and no conjunction is used after this sentence (unless another these follows it or there is another obvious reason), then the formula always refers to what follows it. Some examples are Genesis 5:1; 6:9;11:10 ;
37:2; Exodus 6:14a.
Neither is there a conjunction after the statement: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The next statement simply begins: "In the day that God created man..." The absence of a conjunction before and after this opening sentence indicates to us that it refers to what follows it, not to what precedes it. This is because a study of this use of the conjunction shows that if no conjunction is used before the clause containimg the these-formula and no conjunction is used after this sentence (unless another these follows it or there is another obvious reason), then the formula always refers to what follows it. Some examples are Genesis 5:1; 6:9;
Consider
another example where there is no conjunction before or after the formula:
"[No conjunction hereà] These are the...[descendants] of Noah.[No conjunction hereà]
Noah, a righteous man, had been perfected among his family—Noah walked with God. And Noah fathered three sons:
Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And the earth was corrupt before God, and the
earth was filled with violence." (Gen. 6:9-11a, Green)
One may wonder,
“Why doesn't this section begin with a conjunction?” Probably it does
not open with the conjunction because this section does not begin
where the narrative that immediately precedes it leaves off. It goes back nine
verses to Genesis 5:31:
"And Noah was five
hundred years old. And Noah fathered Shem, Ham and Japheth." (Green)
Both state that
Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It also repeats much of Genesis
6: 5-7 which tells of God's looking on the earth (that is, the land of the
descendants of Adam and Eve) and of His seeing the corruption of man;
it also quotes God's statement of His decision to destroy all flesh,
meaning man and animals, from the land. Genesis 6:8 says, "And Noah found
grace in the eyes of Jehovah" (Green). Genesis 6:9-14a relates
what the author meant in Genesis 6:8 when it spoke of Noah's finding
grace from Jehovah. The author may also have omitted the conjunction before
"these" because this sentence is an explanatory statement concerning
what was to follow so that it did not move the narrative forward in time. Note
also that if no conjunction precedes the these formula and no conjunction
follows it, the pronoun in question refers to what follows it and not to
what precedes it.
No Conjunction
Before the Formula; But a Conjunction After It’s Clause
Here
is an example in which no conjunction precedes the formula, but a conjunction
follows the clause containing the formula:
"[No conjunction
hereà] ...These all were the sons of Joktan.
[Conjunction hereà] And their dwelling was from Mesha as you go to
Sephar, an eastern mountain." (Genesis 10:29-30, Green)
"These"
refers to what precedes the formula; therefore, no conjunction precedes it, but
a conjunction follows it. This assures the reader that "These" refers
to the material that precedes it.
A
Conjunction before the Formula
Now
let us look at an example where we find a conjunction at the beginning of a new
section, Genesis 10:1-20:
"[Conjunction hereà] And these are the generations [better tr., descendants] of
the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after
the flood.
"[No conjunction hereà] The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and
Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. And Gomer's sons
were...
"And Ham's sons were Cush, Mizraim...
And Canaan
fathered his firstborn Sidon
The chapter
before this one, chapter 9, ends with a story concerning Noah and his sons; it
then reports the death of Noah. The narrative next moves on with short
genealogies of each of the three sons of Noah with short comments here and
there. I have found that if a conjunction precedes the formula, i.e., these
are... or this is... etc., then you may have a conjunction
following it at the beginning of the next clause or you may not. In either
case, the formula refers to what follows it. Also please notice that there
is no conjunction between the descendants of the sons of Noah and "The
sons of Japheth...." But a conjunction is included before Ham's sons (v.
6) and Canaan 's sons (v.15). As I mentioned above, "One
application of the Hebrew conjunction is to join parallel elements, as we do
with our conjunction in English." This was the purpose of the conjunction
before "Ham" and "Canaan ." These conjunctions are simply joining
the parallel portions of this section of prose.
From these and other examples we
can conclude that Genesis 2:4 must refer to the creation account of Genesis 1,
not to the creation of Adam and Eve.
Genesis 2:5
and What Follows Is Set at a Time After the Creation of Genesis 1.
Remembering
the examples we have read that illustrate the use of the Hebrew conjunction waw
and moving on to further understand the Hebrew narrative, we shall look at
examples that will indicate why we should conclude that Genesis 2:5
begins a new creation. We shall discover that in the vast majority of the time,
each sentence of a narrative begins with the conjunction waw. If it
does not, there is always a discernible reason. We shall discover if a
narrative clause begins with a conjunction, the reader is to assume that
the narrative moves on in time, unless (1) the following event
is specifically stated to have occurred at some other time, at a time
earlier in the story, or at a time further into the future, (2) there is
sufficient information found within a short span of the local text
that indicates that something other than a smooth glide into the future is to
be understood by the reader, or (3) the conjunction is only functioning as a
connective for non-time related items.
The
Narrative May Inform the Reader When the Next Event Takes Place (Gen. 10:32-11:2)
Now
let us look at a passage in which the author explicitly informs the reader
when the event in question took place. The NASB translates the waw
conjunction with the word "Now." Here is the opening two
verses of Genesis 6:1-8:
"Now [lit., And]
it came about when men began to multiply on the face of the land,
and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the
daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever
they chose" (emphasis mine).
Genesis 5
follows the genealogy to Noah. The sons of the God (fallen angels) began
to marry the daughters of men near the beginning of this time. The formula
and it came about overrides the general rule that states
that a narrative moves along into the near future when it is preceded with
the conjunction waw.. It specifies to the reader
when this section is again taking up the narrative. In this
instance, the author began his narrative at a time that would
place it approximately at the first half of chapter 5. To make this
plain, he states at what time the angelic-human marriages began
to occur. It was when the descendants of Adam and Eve began to
multiply. The author is not moving on from the end of the genealogies
of Genesis 5, but he also is not going back to repeat what he has already
written. I must warn you that this Hebrew formula is not always translated
with the words "and it came about" as the NASB translates it; other
translations may vary. The Hebrew of the expression may be: -ויהי כי (and it
came about when) or - ויהי ב (and it came about as).
Next
we shall look at another passage in which we are explicitly told the
time of the narrated event because it did not follow chronologically the
last events. At first glance, one might think that this rule breaks down at
Genesis 11, because it opens with a conjunction, but the episode
described in Genesis 11 precedes the scattering of the people as
recorded in Genesis 10.
"Now [lit., And]
the whole earth used the same language and the same words. And it came
about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in
the land of Shinar
We
need to observe that only a few generations of the sons of Noah are
given in chapter 10. Even though here and there a note is made to indicate
where these clans finally settled, these comments are not accompanied with
a story narrative. Note particularly verse 25: "And two sons were born to
Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and
his brother's name was Joktan." Then the text begins to list the sons of
Joktan, Peleg's brother. "In the days of Peleg" means that the
settlements away from the area of Babel Babel Babel Babel
"These are the
families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies [better tr.,descendants],
by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth
after the flood. [And]...the whole earth used the same language and the same
words."
This last
sentence quoted has a stative verb and does not move the narrative along.
So it appears that Genesis 11 is simply basically listing the descendants of
Noah when they dwelt at Babel
And it came
about as they journeyed east,
that they found a plain..."
The
author is using this formula to specify the point in his narrative at
which he now resumes his narrative. This formula takes us back
to the founding of the settlement at Babel territory of Babel Babel land of Shinar Babel territory of Babel Babel
The question now that may come to our minds is, “Why did the writer include a conjunction here since he is not moving on in time but rather moving back in time?” The answer may be seen by looking back to Genesis 9:18-19: "Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father ofCanaan .
These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was
populated." Next the author writes three sections that all deal with the population
of the earth. The first section, Genesis 9:20-29, narrates the story
of Noah's nakedness and his curse upon Canaan .
This relates to the scattering of the descendants of Noah because Genesis 9:27 prophesies, "May God enlarge Japheth, And let
him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan
be his servant." The next section, Genesis 10:1-11:2, gives the
genealogies of Shem, Ham, and Japheth and indicates which nations came form
each of these men. The third section, Genesis 11:2-9 relates the account of
God's displeasure with the descendants of Noah while they were at Babel, thus
giving the reason for their departure form Babel into the then known world.
These three sections end with a concluding statement: "Therefore its name
was called Babel Babel
The question now that may come to our minds is, “Why did the writer include a conjunction here since he is not moving on in time but rather moving back in time?” The answer may be seen by looking back to Genesis 9:18-19: "Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of
Before we leave Genesis 10:32 -11:2, it is important that we notice that this
passage provides an alternative way that Moses could have written Genesis
2:5--the verse that introduces the creation of Adam and Eve. As has been
shown, if no conjunction is included before the clause containing the these-formula
and no conjunction is included after this clause, then the formula refers
to the material that follows it. Therefore, it was necessary
for Moses to begin his narrative of the Garden of Eden and the creation of
Adam and Eve with the conjunction; otherwise "these are the
generations [better tr. descendants] of the heavens and the
earth...." Genesis 2:5 would have been referring to what follows it rather
than to Genesis 1. As Genesis 11:2 begins with the formula "And
it came about as...," to indicate that he had now
reverted back in his narrative to the time at which the sons of
Noah were journeying to Babel, so Moses could have used
this formula to indicate when Adam and Eve were created. He could
have written, "And it came about on the sixth day of creation, that "no
shrub of the field was yet in the earth...." Or he could have written,
"And it came about after God had created the animals that "no
shrub of the field was yet in the earth...." However, he did neither of
these. He began his next paragraph with the Hebrew prefixed conjunction -ן
with no indication that his narrative was not moving forward in
time. It is the absence of any indication that the narrative is not progressing forward in time that indicates to us that Genesis 2 relates a subsequent, different creation from Genesis 1. This may be why interpreters of this text have failed to see that the narrative noves on to a different creation story in Genesis 2.
Genesis
11:10
Another example of interest is
Genesis 11:10 because, even though there is no conjunction after the
formula, indicating this formula refers to what follows it, still there is
no conjunction before the formula indicating that this section does not
proceed forward from the verse preceding it. This is in contrast to
Genesis 2:5, which includes the conjunction before it, indicating that the
narrative (unless otherwise noted) proceeds forward from the verse before
it:
"[No conjunction
hereà] These are the generations of Shem:
[No conjunction hereà] Shem was a hundred years old and fathered Arpachshad
two years after the flood. And after he fathered Arpachshad..." (Gen. 11:10,
Green)
Genesis
11:10 begins repeating the names of the descendants of Shem
which were also included in the genealogy of Genesis 10:21 . This may be why Genesis 11:10 does not begin with a conjunction. But “these” refers
to what follows it just as our rule requires in a case where there is no
conjunction before or after its clause.
God’s
Eden Project
Our focus will now be on Genesis
2:3-17. It is crucial that we make an accurate discourse analysis of this
passage. Without a good understanding of what the author was thinking when he
wrote it, it will be hard to see the difference between the purpose of the
opening conjunction of verse 9 and the opening conjunction of verses 5 and 6. Someone may say that Genesis 2:9 contradicts my conclusion that narratives never move backwards in time unless indicated otherwise because verse 8 says that God put the man into the Garden, and then verse 9 says that God caused "every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food" (Green) to spring up. Does this not mean that the narrative can move backwards without its revealing otherwise?
This insite into Genesis 2:5-17 will help us see that the narrative moves
forward to a new creation story in Genesis 2, which is different from the creation
as recorded in Genesis 1. We will see that the Bible teaches two human origins,
two different creations of man.
The “and” at the beginning of verse
9 is a connecting and. It connects God’s placing the man in the garden
with the sprouting up of the trees. To see that this is the case, we shall take
a further look at Genesis 2:5-17. First it is to be taken as a unit. We have
already seen that Genesis 2:4 refers to what precedes it. Genesis 5 begins a new
subject. The key to understanding this passage is to accurately define in our
mind what its subject. The subject of this passage is not limited to a man or
to a race. It is not limited to a garden. It is not limited to what one could
have seen in Garden of Eden. Rather, the subject includes Adam, the garden, the
plants and trees, and the rulership of Jehovah God over the man dwelling in the
garden. It was a physical and moral paradise. Here is a large part of this
section of Genesis: (I have left out most of the discussion of the rivers
flowing out of Eden
Here
is Green's translation of Genesis 2:5-17 (with verses numbered):
5"[A]nd every shrub of the field was not yet on the
earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up; for Jehovah God
had not sent rain on the earth; and there was no man to till the ground. 6And…[a
flow] went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7And
Jehovah God formed a man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul."
Green begins a new paragraph here, but this is unnecessary.
8"And Jehovah God planted a garden inEden Eden Euphrates ."
Green begins a new paragraph here, but this is not necessary.
15"And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden, to work it and to keep it. 16And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden; 17but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."
Green begins a new paragraph here, but this is unnecessary.
8"And Jehovah God planted a garden in
Green begins a new paragraph here, but this is not necessary.
15"And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden, to work it and to keep it. 16And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden; 17but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."
A
serious study of this passage reveals that the author is showing us that God
took a land that was lifeless and useless and transformed it into a garden that
was life-producing and profitable to God both physically and spiritually. God
made it physically productive by a number of means, such as providing water (v.4);
He made it spiritually productive by providing a choice for the man between two
trees—one, which would produce life and one, which would produce death. He
placed the man in the garden to cultivate it, and He provided the man a means
of growing spiritually by giving him a way to show his obedience and love for
his Creator. The man was to obey in
regards to the two trees. He could eat from one and live, or he could disobey
God and die. The author of Genesis regarded this to be a very complete garden;
a piece of realestate that had been changed drastically from what it was before
God began to move upon this land, and he desired to indicate in this passage
God’s actions in bringing about this change. We can see that this was what the
author of Genesis had in mind by observing certain statements in this narrative
and by observing where and how this passage ends. Verse 15 terminates God’s
physical restoration of the land—God puts a man into it to care for it. And verses
16 and 17 terminate God’s spiritual provision for the garden. In verse 9, God
mentions the tree of life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but
verses 16 and 17 inform us that God instructed Adam of his responsibility not
to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Earlier I noted that
the subject of Genesis 2:5-17 is the Garden of Eden rather than, as some may
believe, the creation of Adam. Please remember, according to my dual origin
thesis, Genesis 1 is the story of God’s cration of mankind. By Moses day the
amalgamation of the descendants of Adam and Eve into mankind had already
occurred. Note the movement of the narrative through these verses combines the
spiritual development of the garden (v.9) with its physical development. In
regard to the subject of this passage being the Garden of Eden, notice verse
15. Why does the text say, “And Jehovah God took the man and put him
into the Garden of Eden, to work it and to keep it” (Green; emphesis mine)?
This would be similar to saying, “The woman took a candle and placed it on the
table to make her room more cheery.” What is the subject here, the candle or
the room? It is the room. The author of Genesis seeks to emphasize that God
took a dry unproductive piece of land and changed it into a garden where
physical and spiritual life could flourish. Admittedly verse 8 does not include
the extra words took the man. Verse 5 tells us the two basic reasons why
this land was unproductive: it lacked water and it lacked a man to cultivate
it. In summary fashion, verse 8 informs us that God solved these two problems:
He solved the first problem by providing a flow (hot springs
We can now put together all we know about
the use of the conjunction and the results of our alalysis of Genesis 2:5-17.
We can determine the main purpose of each of the waw conjunctions, Let
us remember that we discovered from our study of conjunctions that, other than
its use in its waw consecutive function, it either moves a narrative on
in time or it connects together two or more aspects of the narrative. Of
course, these functions all may overlap. And if it does not move the narrative
along in time, it must indicate the time at which it is retrogressing to, or
its immediate context must be clear that the narrative is not progressing at
this point. Let us now look at these conjunctions. Please refer to these verses
which I have already provided from Green’s translation.
We will leave our analysis of the first “and” of verse 5 until the end. The second “and” connects the second clause with the first one. Verse 6 tells us that a flow went up from the land and watered the whole ground. The key to understanding this verse is to realize that the Hebrew word here for “watered” means that water is being provided for the need of people, animals, and plants. Therefore, this verse must be speaking of what follows the drought conditions described in verse 5; otherwise these verses would create a contradiction. We would be first told that vegetation would not grow because there was no rain (that is, it was too dry); next we would be told that the "flow" watered the ground--a contradictory statement. I realize that the subject of verse 6 precedes the verb that in Hebrew can mean the pluperfect tense is indicated; however, the subject can precede the verb for other reasons. It can precede the verb to indicate a change in subject or to emphasize the subject. To water the land with
The purpose of this analysis was basically to explain the purpose of the conjunction of verse 9. The material in verse 9 obviouly goes backward in time from the setting of verse 8. Why was the conjunction included? Our discourse analysis makes the answer to this question easy. All the conjunctions that are imployed from and including the middle conjunction of verse 6 to the end of verse 17 are connective conjunctions. The author of Genesis adds each thing that God did to make this unproductive whasteland into an inhabited life-producing spiritual dwelling—the Garden of Eden, if you will. Verse 9 in one respect goes back in time to the first planting of the garden, but its emphasis was the time at which the man was placed into the garden. The trees no doubt continually were springing up each year. No formula was included to indicate that the narrative was not moving on simply because it was unnecessary due to the context. The reason for the “and” at the beginning of verse 9 is as stated: it connects the acts of God that transformed a wasteland into the Garden of Eden.
Actually, the reason I explained Genesis 2:9
was to show that we have here a much different situation than we find in Genesis
2:5, which stands between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts. Now we shall
look at Genesis 2:5 to see that such an argument would be invalid because the
context of verse 5 is much different from the context of verse 9. Verse 9 is in
the context of a list of things that God did to reach his goal. Verse 5 opens
up a whole new section of scriptures. Verse 4 closes out the creation account
of Genesis 1. We have seen from many examples (some of which I have included in
the appendix of my book) that, unless it is obvious or explicitly stated otherwise, the
conjunction moves the narrative along in time. Genesis 2:5 has no such
indication. It explains that it had not rained upon the earth and therefore
nothing was growing. That the earth was watered by what I believe were hot springs. (Please see my article in this blog entitled "Where Was the Garden of Eden.") When verse 6 tells us that a flow went up from the earth, it was
probably referring to multiple hot
springs Iran hot
springs Eden
Does
the Pluperfect Matter?
I felt it necessary for me to look into Genesis 2:5 to determine if its pluperfect sentence structure would alter my above conclusion concerning this verse. The pluperfect tense places the action before another happening in the past. An example may be, "We had arrived at the hall before the bride and groom." One could also say in English, "We arrived at the hall before the bride and groom." These both mean the same thing essentially; however, the first example emphases that we arrived before the bride and groom. The Hebrew speaker makes a pluperfect by simply using the Hebrew perfect tense as normal, but instead of placing the subject of the sentence after the verb, he places the subject before the verb.
I felt it necessary for me to look into Genesis 2:5 to determine if its pluperfect sentence structure would alter my above conclusion concerning this verse. The pluperfect tense places the action before another happening in the past. An example may be, "We had arrived at the hall before the bride and groom." One could also say in English, "We arrived at the hall before the bride and groom." These both mean the same thing essentially; however, the first example emphases that we arrived before the bride and groom. The Hebrew speaker makes a pluperfect by simply using the Hebrew perfect tense as normal, but instead of placing the subject of the sentence after the verb, he places the subject before the verb.
In Hebrew the first two clauses of Genesis
2:5 are written as pluperfect clauses. Since these clauses make reference to
what precedes the time of the verse as it stands in the narrative, we
may ask, Does this also take the place of omitting the conjunction as does
the phrase and it came about?
From my study of examples in the Old Testament Hebrew, I have concluded that
this is not the case. My conclusion that this verse carries on the
narrative to a second creation remains valid. The inclusion of the pluperfect does
not interrupt the flow of the narrative; it only gives further information for
the reader so that he can understand what he is reading. The
pluperfect clauses are very few. Here is an example that includes the
conjunction, showing that the narrative was not interrupted; the pluperfect
clauses just added more information to help the reader to comprehend the
situation better:
"And Laban overtook
Jacob. And Jacob had pitched his tent at the Mount. And Laban with his brothers
had pitched at Mount Gilead
Next I have included an example in
which there is no conjunction before the pluperfect part; the absence of the
conjunction indicates that this is a parentheses:
"The Emim... [lit., had
lived] there formerly, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the
Anakim. Like the Anakim, they are also..." (Deut. 2:10-11).
This
parenthesis continues through verse 12.
Conclusion:
the conjunction controls the flow of the narrative; the pluperfect does not.
Additional Examples of the Presence or Absense of the Hebrew
Conjunction to Help Us Understand How It Was Used
It has been clear thus far in our study of
examples that the Hebrews were extremely carful to let the reader know where in
the narrative the action or description being given fits into the movement of
the narrative.
Setting the Narrative Back to a Previous Time
Genesis 19:29 is an example of how the author dealt with a
case in which the paragraph concerns events of a previous time:
"And it came to pass,
when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and
sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew
the cities in the which Lot dwelt." [KJV]
This
story of God's rescuing Lot from the cities of the plain was told in the
beginning portion of Genesis 19. The formula and it came to pass was
used, and the time of the event was given.
Examples in Which No Conjunction Is Employed
Now
we shall look at more examples to discover whether or not a conjunction moves a
narrative backward or further forward in time if no indication is
given to the contrary. And if it does change the flow of the narrative, we
need to discover what types of indications are necessary to show that the
narrative is not progressing forward in time a naturally
expected amount. Let us
note that the conjunction is always used before each sentence in a narrative
except in certain situations. These are:
1. It
is often not used in direct quotations, as previously noted.
2. It
may or may not be used when the author begins to discuss a new event and
he gives the time of the event (directly or indirectly). We will sight some
examples.
3. It
is sometimes omitted when a list or some other information (such as an
introduction or a summary) is given that really does not move the narrative
along.
The conjunction was not used to
begin Genesis 15:1. This verse follows the episode in which Abraham rescued the
goods they had taken from Sodom Gomorrah
An example where the time is given
and the conjunction is omitted is in Numbers 7:18-19a: "On the
second day Nethaneel the son of Zuar, ruler of Issachar, offered; he
brought for his offering one silver dish..." (Green). This similar
form is used for all the rest of the days through day twelve.
Numbers 11:35 is rare because the time is not explicitly given yet
no conjunction is included. The relative time was obvious from the context for
after the people had encamped and lusted after meat they left and went to
Hazeroth. Jehovah gave them quails, but became angry and struck them with a very
great plague. Then we read: [No conjunction hereà] “From the Graves of Lust the people pulled up to go
to Hazeroth, and they remained in Hazeroth.” Apparently since the time was so
obvious due to his note that they pulled up stakes to go to
Hazeroth, the author felt that the inclusion of the conjunction would be
unnecessary. Such a case as this is rare.
In place of the conjunction, the
time is sometimes used for emphasis. In my next example, the word
"then" begins the sentence because the narrative does not move on in
time. First I will quote Numbers 21:17, followed by verse 18:
"And
from there they went to Beer; that is the well of which Jehovah spoke to Moses,
saying, Gather the people and I will give water to them. [No conjunction
here à] Then Israel
Here is an example in which the conjunction is included along with information specifying the time:
"[Hebrew
includes And] at that time Joshua came
and cut off the Anakim from the mountains...." (Jos. 11:21, Green;
emphasis mine)
"[No
conjunction hereà] The fourth lot came out to Issachar..." (Josh.
19:17, Green).
But the outcome of the next lot was stated with the conjunction:
But the outcome of the next lot was stated with the conjunction:
"And
the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the sons of Asher..."
(Josh. 19:24, Green; emphasis mine)
Some of
the verses that state the outcome of the lots have a conjunction and some do
not. By stating the next number of the lot, the narrative was moved along in
time and the relative time of the event was given; therefore the conjunction
was not always used. Here is an example that follows up on the dividing of the
land by lots. A conjunction is included, and I make a note of this because it
is an example of a passage where the time of the event is included:
"[Lit. And]
when they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance
by their borders, the sons of Israel
In our next example, the
introduction begins by giving a time with no conjunction and specifies the
time:
"[No conjunction
hereà] In those days there was no king in Israel
Judges 19:22 is an instance in which an opening clause does not
include the conjunction but one can see why it does not. Two reasons may be
sighted: (1) It really is giving the setting for what was to follow rather than
moving the narrative along; (2) it describes the scene that was set in the
verse before it; and (3) it really is to be taken as an independent clause for
the next clause. The preceding verse states,
"And he brought him
to his house, and mixed fodder for the asses. And they washed their feet and
ate and drank." (Judges 19:21, Green)
I
will quote the subject verse from two versions: first from Green's
literal version and then from the Authorized Version:
"They were making
their hearts merry. And, behold, men of the city, sons of worthless men, went
around the house, beating on the door" (Judges 19:22a).
Now as they were
making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial,
beset the house around about, and beat at the door;..." (Judges 19:22a).
The
beginning clause is actually in the pluperfect; here is another way to
translate it: "They had been making their hearts merry, and behold, the men...."
The narrative does not move on with verse 22a; therefore no conjunction was
employed. The narrative does not move on until it says, “and, behold, the men…”
Next I will site an example of a
verse where the conjunction is omitted. The Israelites were not supposed to
worship anywhere other than at the tabernacle or the temple. Solomon had
not finished building the temple. Therefore, instead of using the conjunction
the word meaning only was used. First Kings 3:2 mentions the
building of the temple;
"Only, the people
were sacrificing in high places, for a house for the name of Jehovah had not
been built until those days." (Green)
Verse
3 is similar; in this case it indicates that although Solomon loved Jehovah, he
was sacrificing in the high places:
"...Only, he was
sacrificing in high places and burning incense." (Green)
Neither
of these two verses that I have quoted moves the narrative along so that the
inclusion of the waw consecutive was not included.
Here is another verse that does not
include the conjunction because it does not move the narrative along but makes
a summary type statement:
"And the king
[Solomon] went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for it was the great high place.
[No conjunction hereà] Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that
altar. "(1 Ki. 3:4, Green).
The
next verse also does not include a conjunction:
"[No conjunction
hereà] Jehovah appeared to Solomon in Gibeon
in a dream of the night. And God said, Ask, What shall I give to you?" (1 Ki.
3:5, Green)
This
verse stresses Jehovah's grace in appearing to King Solomon even when he was in
Gibeon . It does not move the narrative along, and it gives
the general time of the visitation by giving the place.
1 Kings 9:24 begins, "But [lit. only] the
daughter of Pharaoh went up out of the city of David
Conclusion
Please notice that the writers of
the Scriptures were very conscious of their use of the conjunction; they
never misemploy it. If the conjunction is included, the narrative never backtracks
unless it is made plain that this is the case. I don't even think that Genesis
2:9 is an exception to this due to the reasons I have already given. In
conclusion, when an early Hebrew reader read Genesis 2:4-5a, "These
are the births of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in
the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens--And...."
(Green), he knew that this verse referred to the creation of mankind as
recorded in Genesis 1. He knew this because no conjunction immediately
precedes "these..." and because a conjunction begins the next
clause. Then when he read Genesis 2:5,7, "[And]...no shrub of the
field was yet in the…[land],
and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain
upon the …[land]; and there was
no man to cultivate the ground....Then [lit., And] the LORD God
formed [better tr., a man] man of dust from the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and [lit., the man] man
became a living being," he could have known that the narrative was moving
on to a second creation of man. He could have known that the author could
have used the formula, and it came about...and then he could
have specified the relative time that the narrative was proceeding from,
but the author didn't. He employed the conjunction to indicate that the “these”
of verse 4 is referring to Genesis 1 rather than to Genesis 2f, but he did not
indicate in any way that the narrative was not moving on in time. Therefore, the
reader could have known that the narrative was moving on to a different setting
subsequent to the events of Genesis 1 because narratives always move on unless
it is otherwise made obvious to the reader, especially if the conjunction is
included. Therefore, we must conclude that Genesis 2 describes a different
creation of man from that narrated in Genesis 1.
We can easily find five
differences between the account found in Genesis 1 and the account found
in Genesis 2: (1) God told the people of Genesis 1 that they could eat of every
tree, but He told Adam that he could not eat of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. (2) The trees of Genesis 1 were self-seeding, but the vegetation
of Genesis 2 had to be cultivated. (3) Concerning God's instructions about the
forbidden tree, in Genesis 1, He spoke to the male and the female, saying
that He was giving every tree to them for food, but in Genesis 2, God only
spoke to Adam; Eve had not yet been formed. (4) In Genesis 1, they are told to
subdue the earth and fill it, but in Genesis 2, they were to till the garden
into which they were placed. Nothing is mentioned concerning the rest of the
earth. (5) As I showed in my book, a much more accurate way to translate
Genesis 2:4 the Hebrew word for "generations" is
"descendants": "These are the descendants of
the heavens and the earth..." (my translation). The race that was created
before the creation of Adam and Eve was created, not by God's forming them directly
from the ground, but rather through a process of births. However,
Genesis 2 records that God formed Adam from the soil and Eve from the side of
Adam. What a glaring difference in God's method of creating these two groups of
people.
Someone may think that because
Genesis 2:5 says that the vegetation had not yet sprung up
that this means that vegetation had never grown upon the earth since creation.
But words such as these must be interpreted in context. The context is that of
a relatively small portion of the earth where the Garden of Eden was located. We can conclude that the setting was much
later than the creation of the earth because the reason for the lack of
vegetation was due to the lack of rain. But Genesis 1:9 speaks of God's
collecting the water into one place so that the land would appear. If one
should ask a farmer if had gotten any rain yet, it would not mean that he
had never received rain before, but that he had not received the rain that
he needed at that time.
I believe that one reason for a
misunderstanding of these two creation accounts has been because interpreters
have thought that Genesis 2:4 is referring to the creation story of Adam and
Eve, but it isn't. Another cause for this misfortunate misunderstanding has
been bad translations of Genesis 2:7. Here is a typical translation:
"And LORD God formed man out of dust
from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul" (KJV)
I will now translate it the way I believe
it should be translated:
"And Yahweh God
formed a man out of dust from the ground, and blew into
his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living
soul" (KJV)
I have included the English indefinite
article before the first occurrence of "man" and the definite article
before the second occurrence of "man." This makes all the difference
in the world. Both changes are very permissible per Hebrew syntax. Please see my
book for an explanation for why I made these changes.
Some
Implications
Since
we know God created mankind at two different times, it behooves us to ask, “Did
He create man in the same manner in each case?” We know that Genesis 2 reports
that He created Adam from the dust of the ground as you would form something
out of clay, and that He created Eve from Adam and brought her to him. The
first creation of mankind is recorded in Genesis 1. The method is not specified
in Genesis 1, but it is hinted at in Genesis 2:4, where it states, "These
are the births [better tr., descendants] of the heavens and of
the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah was making earth and
heavens--" (Green). Mankind as a whole was created before Adam and Eve,
and they were created from the heavens and the earth by a process of descent
(a method that includes the process of birth). Notice that the Bible
actually does not contradict the scenario of an old earth or a scenario of
evolution because the Bible teaches that mankind was already created before
Adam and Eve and that mankind was created by a different process--one that
involved births. If you are interested in how to interpret the whole Bible from
this point of view, please see my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins:
Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science (latest edition date, 2015), published by
AuthorHouse. This book also gives mathematical proof that the descendants of
Adam and Eve married into an existing human race. Please also see my recent
article on this blog entitled "ARE THE SONS OF GOD FALLEN ANGELS?"
because in it I explain my view concerning the meaning of the daughters of
men and the sons of God. Due to my obtaining more understanding on the
subject, I changed my view of the meanings of these two
phrases; it is different from the view that I defended in the 2007
and the 2009 editions of my book.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments. Feel free. However, I have set this blog so that I may see comments before I appprove them for publication.