manwithdream

The reason I did not answer your question about how the writer knew about trees that were not in Israel or maybe even the area where the garden of Eden was supposed to be is that the writer of Genesis 1 is supposed to be G-d who knows about every kind of plant and tree. Genesis 1 tells the creation of plants and trees every where on earth, so that means not just Israel or where ever the garden of Eden was.

Plants and trees that grow in bodies of water or at the edges of bodies of water might have been the kind that grew first. The writer of Genesis does not say only water plants and trees grew at first, but when I read in Genesis 2 that land plants did not grow yet because it did not rain, I just assumed that the other plants and trees were water plants and trees.

I looked up swamp trees on the internet and it mentions all kinds of exotic plants and trees, and I think some of them grow fruits, but Adam and Eve according to Genesis did not eat off of swamp trees, but a garden on land.

spin

God is in the third person. Someone is narrating his actions, so, no, god is not the writer.

Besides, we have enough parallels to know from Babylonian and other literature that the description in Gen 1 is not totally original to Genesis. We know why the chaotic waters were called Tiamat. We know why the divine wind was present in 1:2. These accounts are eventually derived from the same basic sources.

You seem to be apologizing for the text. You don't seem to be working with it, but trying to update it to make it fit some version of modern science.

I've already indicated that the trees in 1:11 are described as ordinary fruit trees, yet you insist on changing the text to mean something that is not there. Do look at 1:11. Let the earth sprout grass, the herbs that produce seed, the fruit tree that makes fruit according to its kind [TD$) D$) ($B MZRY( ZRY( (C PRY ($H PRY L:MYNW]. Note the TD$) D$), "sprout sprouts". Also note (C PRY (or etz peri), "fruit trees". These strongly suggest ordinary land flora of the more domestic varieties.

Seaweed, mangroves etc., cannot be found in 1:11. Why do you insist on something that plainly cannot be found in the text?

Same words in 1:11 and 3:2 "fruit" [PRY] and "tree" [(C]. There is nothing at all in the text to suggest to you "swamp trees". You're not reading the text. You must deal with what the text says and I'm sorry you're not showing me that you are at the moment.


spin

manwithdream

I don't think you answered my comment from yesterday about Gen 2:19 being grammatically wrong if it is supposed to say that Adam named the animals because it says "he will call to it (masculine)" and "its name" (masculine) instead of feminine for the words "living soul" (feminine).
I did not give the reasons, but now I am. I gave other possible translations that I am guessing might make sense.

The reason I discussed "swamp trees", etc. is to show that Gen 1 and 2 can fit together, since Gen 2 says it did not rain yet. I wanted to see if some fruit trees grew from the earth close to bodies of water, even if it did not rain. I probably should look at the quotes again, and reconsider my ideas.

spin

Have you looked at the text? Seriously, have you? If so, have a look, say, at Gen 17:15 and tell me the grammatical difference between $MW, rendered "her name", in 17:15 and $MW, rendered "its name" in 2:19.

Do so. It's unsupported by the text therefore unjustifiable.


spin