WATCH MY YOUTUBE VIDEOS

You may want to view my YouTube videos: (Type in YouTube the exact title and look for the tile to come up for clicking on.)

    1. Biblical Genealogies Show Two Human Origins

    2. The Book of Genesis Assumes an Old Earth

    3. Was Adam the First Man According to Romans 5

    4. Creation Days Were Long Ages According to Genesis

    5. A Discovery in the Hebrew Language Reveals a Dual Human Origin

    6. Genesis 2 and 5 Do Not Contradict My Dual Origin Creation Thesis

    7. Outline of Genesis Reveals That God Used Two Methods of Creation

    8. Does 1 Corinthians 15 verse 45 Teach That Adam Was the First Man

    9. In 1 Corinthians 15 Verse 47 Who Is the First Man

    10. How Do You Harmonize the Bible and Science

    11. Can You Believe in Evolution and Be a Christian

12. The Descendants of Noah Who Were Scattered from Babel Were Able to Conquer Others


WELCOME

I hope you will have a pleasant visit to my blog. Please choose an article from the right column or scroll down below; Almost every article requires that you click on "Read more" to continue. My blog shows that, according to the Bible, God created mankind at two different times in two different manners. This understanding makes it possible to harmonize science and the Bible.

NEW 2020 EDITION OF MY BOOK IS OUT:

In December of 2020, I updated my book to the publisher. Please be sure your supplier provides this edition. AuthorHouse will always provide the latest edition. You may also email me for a book; this will assure a current edition is sent to you. See my profile for email address. The 2020 edition is now available on Amazon Kindle and as an ebook at AuthorHouse.

HALF OF MY BOOK IS ON ACADEMIA.EDU. To access it, please go to academia.edu and type in the search box my name "Gary T. Mayer." Go down to the title "New Evidence for Two Human Origins" and click. Then for best results, DOWNLOAD the article (half of my book). This portion of my book on Academia.edu includes mathematical proof of a dual origins creation of the human race. Also it includes a new two-page chart that further shows what transpired with the decreasing life spans.

New Evidence for Two Human Origins

Are you interested in THE AGE OF THE EARTH, DARWINISM, THE HUMAN GENOME, BIBLICAL GENEALOGIES, HARMONIZING SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE? If so, here are some articles that might interest you. I have written a book on this subject entitled "New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science." I hope you enjoy this blog which is meant to help us understand ourselves and God's Word. Please return to find new posts. Your comments and emails would be greatly appreciated.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

GENESIS CLEARLY INDICATES TWO CREATIONS OF MANKIND

Revision dates: 5/29/13; 6/21/13; 6/25/13; 7/3/13; 7/5/13; 7/8/13; 7/18/13; 6/13/14; 8/8/2014; 8/13/14; 4/24/15

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, sothen, 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.

 The Hebrew Conjunction Becomes the Key

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.

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.

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... "(Green)
 
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.

 Conclusion

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...." (emphasis mine)

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 were made during the lifetime of Peleg. You may observe Genesis 10: 11-12. These two verses do not begin with a conjunction; they must be a parenthesis giving information concerning the activities of Nimrod after the scattering from the region of Babel. Notice also Genesis 10:13-14: "And Mizraim became the father of Ludim and Anamim and Lehabim and Naphtuhim and Pathrusim and Casluhim (from which came the Philistines) and Caphtorim. The NASB considers the comment on Casluhim to be a parenthetical statement. Please note Genesis 10:18: "...and the Arvadite and the Zemarite and the Hamathite; and afterward [after God confounded the languages] the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad. The actual descendants of the sons of Noah that are mentioned would basically have been alive and dwelling at Babel before the scattering of the people from Babel. Let us read Genesis 10:32-11:1 ignoring the chapter break:

"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. Genesis 11:1, "[And]...the whole earth used the same language and the same words," does not begin the next section, but rather closes out the genealogies of Genesis 10. The new section begins at Genesis 11:2 with the words:

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. It resumes the narrative back in time when they were leaving the ark to journey to the territory of Babel. Therefore, the author employs a formula writing, "And it came about as they journeyed east." The author of Genesis believes the reader will understand that his new section begins when they were just arriving at Babel. We may assume this because "they" includes all of them. They never traveled all together eastward in the land of Shinar after their scattering from Babel, so as one reads this sentence, he knows when this was happening. Basically, Genesis 11:1 is speaking of the period of time that the descendants of Noah were living at the territory of Babel. Genesis 11:2 employs a formula that specifies the point in time from which the narrative proceeds. Because the author expressly indicates the point in time that he now resumes the narrative, the presence of the conjunction does not indicate that the narrative is moving on from the time of their scattering from Babel. Any indication that the conjunction is moving on from this point is overridden by his explicitly pointing out the point in time that he is writing about. It is also significant that the author uses the formula and it came about when which alerts the reader that a time for this event is being specified. Note also that the conjunction waw is part of this formula.
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 Canaan. 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, because there the LORD confused the language of the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth." Now we can see the purpose for the conjunction that begins Genesis 11:2: It connects the last section of the three sections to the first two sections that deal with the scattering of the descendants of Noah. The author wanted to connect together these three sections dealing with the scattering so included this conjunction for this purpose. But in so doing, it was necessary to indicate that he was backtracking to the time when the party was first arriving at Babel. For this he used a typical Hebrew formula and it came about....

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 in Eden, to the east; and He put the man whom He had formed there. 9And out of the ground Jehovah God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food. 10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it was divided and became four heads. The name of the first was Pishon….14And the fourth river was 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."

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), and to meet the second problem, He created a man to cultivate the ground. He did not have to direct the reader’s attention to his purpose for placing the man into the garden because it followed the verse that specified the problem, namely, the lack of a man.

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 hot springs is by no means, of course, the normal method. Rain must have been the normal method of watering the ground, as it is today. Apparently God provided water to His garden through hot springs rather than through rain in order to eliminate the need for cloudy rainy days in His garden. On the second day, the author describes God’s creation of the expanse: “Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” The Hebrew actually says, as per Green’s interlinear: “…and let it (be) dividing between the waters….” (Gen. 1:6). Its “action” is ongoing as seen by the particle “dividing” and as experienced today in the water cycle. Therefore, the “and” which begins verse 6 moves us on in time. Someone may argue that Jehovah’s actions are not mentioned until verse 7. True, but for the reason already stated, we must conclude that verse 6 moves on in time from verse 5 and that the reader is to realize that the flow was a result of God’s providence accomplished as a geological phenomenon but that God’s creation of Adam from the ground was a direct miracle. The conjunction that begins verse 7 is basically a connecting conjunction, although it no doubt moves the narrative along in time, likewise the second conjunction of verse 7. No doubt God planted the Garden of Eden before He created the man. Therefore, the first “and” of verse 8 is a connective conjunction. Likewise, thee second conjunction of verse 8 is also a connective conjunction.

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 that were flowing up from the ground in northern Iran where the Garden of Eden was vary likely located. This shows immediately that God's solution to the lack of water was unique--not rain but hot springs and that God had provided for it. If we are being taken back to the creation as recorded in Genesis 1, we would need to go back to the time before the creation of the plant kingdom on day 3. This would be very unlikely because the setting of day 3 concerned the whole globe, but here we are dealing with a limited area of land watered by hot springs. Genesis 2:7 tells us that God formed the man (Adam) from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:4 tells us that the race of people introduced in Genesis 1 descended from the heavens and the earth. Verse 8 limits the vegetation that God planted to the area of the garden, which was limited to only a part of Eden. We must have a reason for viewing chapter 2 as another account of the same creation act as chapter 1 since verse 5 opens with the conjunction.  The conjunction that opens Genesis 2:5 does not connect a series of events that do not concern time; it does not employ a formula that refers to a previous portion of the narrative; and the context does not demand that we are telling the creation story of Genesis 1. Therefore, it is best to see Genesis 1 as referring to a completely different creation account.

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.

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. And Laban said to Jacob..." (Gen. 31: 25, Green).

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 and Gomorrah from Chedor-laomer and his confederate kings. Abraham brought the goods and people who had been taken away by these kings back to their homes, but the king of Sodom said to Abraham, "Give me the persons and take the goods for yourself" (Genesis 14:21, Green). But Abraham turned these goods down. Genesis 15 begins without the conjunction: "After these things the word of Jehovah came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram; I am your shield, your reward will increase greatly" (emphasis mine, Green). Here the time is given as "after these things" to relate the offer of Jehovah to Abraham's turning down all this wealth. Since the time is explicitly given, no conjunction was included. Since the time is explicitly given, no conjunction was required. However, in most passages where after these things is found in narrative discourse, the text reads, [And]...it came about after these things....( See Gen. 22:1, 20; 40:1; 48:1; Josh. 24:29; 1 Kg. 17:17; 21:1.) In the exception before us, apparently the author omitted the usual And it came about... to emphasize that God was rewarding Abraham for turning down the spoils offered to him by the king of Sodom.

 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 sang this song: Spring up, O well, sing to it…." (emphasis mine, Green).

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)

 Another example where the conjunction was omitted is found in Joshua 19:17:

"[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:

"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 gave an inheritance to Joshua.... "(Josh. 19:49, Green; emphasis mine).

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. And in those days the tribe of the Danites...." (Judges 18:1, Green).

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 to her house that he built for her; then he built Millo." (Green) The NASB translates the beginning word of this sentence with "As soon as." It must really refer to the time of her move. Since the time was given, the waw could be omitted.

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.

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.