Paul5204

If you guys and gals haven't figured it out yet, the reason why there is no "and evening was and morning was, for a day seven," is because it is still day seven, a sabbath holy to the Lord. So act accordingly. Eternity starts and ends with for a day 8 [which not surprisingly also happens to be the day of circumcision, the day of the cutting off of human (this world) flesh].

spin

There is no day eight for the creation. Putting an end to the day only makes way for such a day eight. The text is an institutionalisation of the sabbath. Why else does the writer frame the creation in six days plus the day of rest to end the process? God's work was done. So obviously our days are recurrent repeats of God's work but on a lower plane.


spin

Doctor X

Spin:

Do you have some recommendations?

--J.D.

Amos

Post Deleted. Sorry spin I did not see your post with regard to the eight days.

Amlodhi

Hi Doctor X,

RE: beginning Hebrew grammars:

I don't mean to preemp spin here and I'm sure he will have some good recommendations. However, in my opinion, one of the best structured grammars I have come across is:

"Biblical Hebrew, An Introductory Grammar", Page H. Kelley, William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

It is inexpensive in paperback, easy to use and provides the examples in the form of biblical quotes. Nearly perfect for the beginner.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Added Amazon link - MD

CJD

Just a few thoughts:

I do think that the first creation narrative serves distinctly as an institutionalisation of the Sabbath. I also think that the narrative (along with most others in the Tanak) assumes a two-register cosmology (i.e., upper and lower). Both of these were already mentioned by spin.

One thing I cannot allow, however, is spin's insistence on cleaving a "source text" from the actual completed or edited text of the Deuteronomist. Maybe I have misunderstood him/her, but if not, this is where his/her exegesis (of the relationship between) of the two accounts would fail miserably. In truth, our differences pertain to our committment to start either atomistically or holistically (myself being the latter).

At the outset, I must note that I do not defend the peculiarly modern conception of inerrancy. It is a strawman, and a most frustrating one at that, especially when the green skeptic thinks he/she has accomplished something substantively skeptical by knocking down "inerrancy." My only aim is to argue for how the text ought to be read. I do admit, as I have elsewhere (see my second post here), to an a priori admiration for the ancient writers and editors of the Tanak. I do not assume they were idiots, with no ability to weave complex narratives together. More often than not, certain glaring "contradictions," which make the final editors out to be practically illiterate, can be rectified by spin's own advice: "I suggest that you seek a good beginner's grammar of Hebrew to undersand the Hebrew verb system if you want to go past where you are now." Past, that is, the stage of a whelp with FRAPS.

What follows is just a suggestion of how to read Genesis 1 and 2 structurally.

Genesis 2:4a reads: "This is the account (or "generations" or "descendents") [Heb., toledot] of the heavens and the earth . . . ."

The first thing to point out is that the word toledot is signal marker for the beginning of each of the ten books of Genesis (alternatively, this may place too much emphasis on its minor characters. So, the structure of the whole book can be parsed in three: Primaeval History, 1–11; Patriarchal History, 12–36; the Joseph Story, 37ff.). The Hebrew word toledot comes from the root yld, which means "to bear children." Here the text is relating an account that pertains to what the cosmos has generated, not the generation of the cosmos.

From a literary perspective, the writer/editor takes this opportunity to weave in a dischronologized account to produce a rhetorical effect, namely, the creation of Woman. This might help us understand why the text stands in such a blatantly seeming contradiction. It is artristry, folks. Fully aware of itself. The alternative would have every scribe to have ever come in contact with this portion of the Tanak reduced to work of data entry (my apologies to the data "entreists" in our midst).

The flow is as follows: Man and animals created (2:7, 19); Animals parade in front of the vice-regent to get named (v. 19); No suitable helper is found among them (v. 20b); Deep sleep, Woman fashioned (vv. 21–22); Man wakes up and exclaims: "This one! This time! Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh . . . !" With poetry, Adam celebrates bond of shared flesh and bone and equality of Man and Woman. In naming her "Woman," he also names himself "Man" (incidentally, this point is often overlooked by certain women critics with an axe to grind). Interestingly, while the narrator named Adam by his relation to the ground (adam . . . adama), Adam is "recorded" naming himself in relation to his wife.

Now for just an example of the structure of this pericope. Just like Days 1 and 4 of the first creation narrative, so too does the second creation narrative use a certain literary device: Repetition. In Genesis 2:8b, man is put by God in the garden. In like manner, verse 15 has the LORD God taking the man and putting him in the garden. Are these two literal occurences? Can anyone explain why a gifted writer would leave it thus if it was to be read in a modern, linear, and Western fashion?

What is being done here has been called by some "Synopsis, Resumption/Expansion." In 2:8a, we see a brief synopsis of God's planting a garden in the east. In verses 9–14, we see an expansion on that garden, complete with descriptions of its river, precious metals, etc. In 2:8b, we see a brief synopsis of God's forming man. In verses 15–25, we see a significant expansion on the pinnacle of God's fashioning (i.e., the creation of Man and Woman).

Tell me, reader, would you rather kick against the goads here, or would you rather appreciate the artistry and literary genius of (at least one) of the Genesis narrator(s)?

Regards,

CJD

Amos

Well put and it's a beautiful story.

Here is my take on Gen.2:10-14, which is where the plan of salvation finds existence in reality.

This river here is the river of life that rises from deep within the human mind (Eden).
It divides (the fall) and become two branches.
The first river winds throughout the entire land of greed while in search for power wealth and beauty. Such is our life along the road-dust of the sun wherein our days are illuminated by the light of common day = ovblivion = lymbic system.
The second river winds throughout this same land but brings increasingly more pain, poverty and misery because there is nothing infinite about worldly richess that are attached to our lymbic system only. We take a second look at life and see the third river back in the place we first started.
The third river "rises" from the place we first left behind (East of Eden from where we went west because you can't go East from East of Eden). We return there and find ourselved to be back in Eden where the fourth river just "is" as in "I AM."
The fourth river is Eu-prhates and means "bright mind" when we have come full circle in life to arrive at the "examined life."

Jeremy Pallant

Amos, I've said this before, and I'll say it again...

What?

GakuseiDon

Keep in mind that Gen 1 says "plants" and "animals", while Gen 2 says "plants of the field" and "animals of the field". (The only exception is "birds of the air").

The Hebrew word being used is "sadeh", which means "cultivated area". Gen 2:5 says that there were no plants of the field because there'd been no rain and "no man to till the ground".

It seems like Gen 1 is the creation of all creatures, while Gen 2 is a special act of creating the domestic environment of Adam, i.e. the Garden of Eden, and what occurs there. Note also that the only domesticated animal mentioned created in Gen 1 (cattle) are NOT apparently created in Gen 2.

So God creates the world in Gen 1, and THEN creates the Garden of Eden in Gen 2. They are two creation accounts, but they refer to the creation of different things. Therefore, no contradiction. The contradiction only comes about when someone tries to claim that both Gen 1 and Gen 2 are both referring to the same event, i.e. the initial creation of the universe.

(Ed to add: I also think Gen 2 is used to explain how domesticed animals and others that the ancient Hebrews were familiar with came to be named. All the domesticated creatures and the birds were brought before Adam to be named. Not every animal in the world was named - just the ones the AH would have been in contact with. Thus, it wouldn't have been a surprise that they didn't know the names of any exotic animals that they came across later)

CyberShy

I'll post here what I have posted in another thread as well.

--------------------------------------------------------
Gen 1 / Gen 2 creation stories:

First I want to make clear that I do not insist that the creation should be token literary. 6 days might be a poetic / structured form of telling the story. On the other hand, it may be literary though.

But that's not the point of this debate.
People say Gen2 conflicts Gen1 because of:
A. Chronology
B. The name used for God

ad A.
1. first take a close look at the verse 7/8
in 7 man has been created, in 8 God puts man into a garden which he creates. Notice: God creates the gardan after man.
The fact that God plants a garden (he doesn't create it) requires the concept of 'garden' already to exist.
The trees talked about in verse 9 aren't trees in general.
They're the trees that God plants in the garden (verse 8)
Conclusion: the fact that verse 9 (trees) come after verse 7(man) doesn't mean that according to gen2 trees came after man. It only concludes that the trees in the garden of eden came after man. Besidest that it concludes that the concept of 'tree' already existed before God created the garden.
Since there's no chronological notification in gen2 about the creation of 'trees' between verse 7 and 8/9 we can either conclude that the gen2 account is not chronological (which would end the debate and the conflict with gen1) or we conclude that the creation of the 'trees' was left out of the gen2 account (which ends the debate and the conflict as well) or we conclude that the creation of the 'trees' must appear earlier (which ends the debate / conflict) or later in the account, but since that's not the case this possibility has to be abandoned.

Another overal conclusion that can be made is that gen2 is not about the creation of the earth / everything, but rather is an account of the 'creation' of the garden of Eden, and the position of man in that garden.

2. The conclusion of ad A1 can only be made if verse 4-6 can be explained, for sure since appear to happen before verse 7 (creation of man)

If we read carefully ("These are the generations of [...] every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.") we can see that the concept of plant or herb was already existant when man (verse 7) was created.

The thing with plants/herbs is that they
a. either didn't grow yet, but were created. (but for some reason not yet implemented) or were implemented as a seed but didn't grow yet. The last part of the 5th verse implies that they were created but didn't grow yet for man didn't till the ground yet.
Imagine that man did till the ground, the verse implies that in that case the plants would already have growed.

b. these verses rather belong the first creation story (gen1) than to the 2nd story. (it's a conclusion to the creation of gen1)

c. If there is chronology in gen2 then verse 6 implies that the watering / raining that didn't happen until verse 5 happens in verse 6. For story telling purposes this must mean that the plants / herbs of verse 5 started to grow in verse 6.
And verse 6 chronologically happens before verse 5, if you wish to take gen 2 chronologically.

Conclusion: Gen 2 is not in conflict with Gen 1.
Gen 2 is rather a conclusion to gen 1 (what happened to man after he was created, answer: he went into a garden that was planted by God after the creation. And what happened with the plants after the creation; answer: they started to grow, but not before the mist from the earth watered the ground)

B. The different names of God / plural / singular God.

This is not a contradiction.
When God talks, he talks in the plural form "Let us make man in our image"
But in Gen1, when talked about God in the 2nd person, it's singular. Which is the case in gen2 as well.

Besides that, in gen1 God is called 'God' but in gen2 he's called 'The Lord God'. This is a. a different name b. containing the first name c. gen2 is talking about what happened with man after creation. And of course to man God is 'The Lord God'. That last (c) explanation is just a speculative explanation.