What Genesis Two Says

to clarify what PaulK was saying, this is an inappropriate translation motivated more by ideology than knowledge of hebrew. the verse says:

quote:

---

וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם

​

"And the LORD God formed out of the earth all wild beasts and all birds of the sky,"

---

the verb in the sentence, יִּצֶר yetser, is technically qal-imperfect. biblical hebrew tenses don't really align perfectly to english, but perfect is something like past tense, and imperfect is something like present or future tense (they're used similarly in modern hebrew, but they've established the rules that way, where biblical hebrew did not). however, it's made perfect because it's part of a vav-consecutive, which indicates sequence. this makes it absolutely inappropriate to translate it as an english perfect verb implying that this happened out of sequence. vav-consecutives just don't work that way.now, an unscrupulous translator working on the NIV might look at, say, genesis 2:8:

quote:

---

וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר

​

"The LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom He had formed."

---

this verse translated the same verb, this time in perfect conjugation, yatsar, as a past perfect. now, this unscrupulous translator might look at this and come to conclusion that this must be translated as a past perfect because man was already created in the previous verse. and indeed, the two verses might even form a chiasm: that one begins with yetser (as above, in a vav-consecutive).but really that's translated as a perfect verb because of its place in the sentence. it's a verb, in the predicate, preceded directly by a relative pronoun asher ("that" or "whom") and the direct object, et-haadam ("the man", et signifies that it's the direct object). it has to do with the grammar, not the overall context. and certainly not the context from a completely distinct story (by a separate author, at a later date).in short, the NIV has chosen ideological consistency over following the grammar present in the text.

hi buz. let's look at genesis 2, the relevant portion only. verses 1-3 should be part of genesis 1. here's verse 4 onwards.

quote:

---

.אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
.וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִצְמָח: כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאָדָם אַיִן, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה
. וְאֵד, יַעֲלֶה מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁקָה, אֶת-כָּל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
.וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה
. וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר
.וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה, וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל--וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן, וְעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע
.וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן, לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת-הַגָּן; וּמִשָּׁם, יִפָּרֵד, וְהָיָה, לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים
.שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, פִּישׁוֹן--הוּא הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם, הַזָּהָב
.וּזְהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא, טוֹב; שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח, וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם
.וְשֵׁם-הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי, גִּיחוֹן--הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ
.וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל, הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר; וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי, הוּא פְרָת
.וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן-עֵדֶן, לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ
. וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר: מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל
.וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת
.וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ
.וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה
.וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם
.וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת
.עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד
.וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ

---

notice that almost every verse (i've given you one per line) begins with the same letter? that letter is a vav. the story is told using a technique called the vav-consecutive. like the name implies, it means that each statement happens consecutively. another word for that might be "sequential".in fact, the only verses above that do not begin with a vav are verse 4 (the start of the story), verse 11 (which begins describing rivers meant in the author's present), and verse 24 (which describes "moral" of the story, meant to be presently applicable). the bits you're concerned about all happen sequentially.Edited by arachnophilia, : title

those are just translations of the vav-consecutive (scroll up one or two messages). it gets boring translating them all the same way, whether you prefer "and" or "then". both are correct.

quote:

---

אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

​

(Genesis 2:4)

---

looks like it's there to me. see also verses 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22. shall i go on to chapter 3? don't be silly. of course it's a hebrew text. look. it's in hebrew. it's a hebrew text.would you rather we translate the words of the page, or make shit up about what we think the text might have been before it was written, based on nothing more than ideology that can't be substantiated with any kind of historical, archaeological, or even literary evidence? yet, you're more than happy to go on about your "make shit up" version?

that's sort of accurate, i guess. not especially, no. there are two creation accounts; they are easily separated due to writing style. genesis 1:1-2:4a is written in a much for rigid, organized, and utterly boring style. genesis 2:4b through chapter 4 is written in a fluid, narrative, conversational style, that plays on words and ideas and ironies. genesis 2-4 is significantly better writing than genesis 1, and is in all likelihood a portion of a larger story which genesis 1 has strongly revised.let's start by looking at a creation story that's not found in genesis, or even anywhere in the rest of the torah. let's look at yahweh and the dragon.

quote:

---

O God, my king from old,
who brings deliverance throughout the land;
it was You who drove back the sea with Your might,
who smashed the heads of the monsters in the waters;
it was You who crushed the heads of Leviathan,
who left him as food for the denizens of the desert;
it was You who released springs and torrents,
who made the mighty rivers run dry;
the day is Yours, the night also;
it was You who set in place the orb of the sun;
You who fixed the boundaries of the earth;
summer and winter--You made them.

​

Psalm 74:12-17

---

there's an element here you might be surprised the see: the leviathan. he appears also at end of job, listed among god's accomplishments during creation, where god asks what the puny job can do against such a mighty beast -- a mighty beast that yahweh has killed. the author job and the psalmist are both talking about a creation story that simply is not present elsewhere in our modern bibles. yet, a similar story is present in on a set of tablets called the "enuma elish".

quote:

---

Now after the hero Marduk had conquered and cast down his enemies,
And had made the arrogant foe even like
And had fully established Ansar's triumph over the enemy
And had attained the purpose of Nudimmud,
Over the captive gods he strengthened his durance,
And unto Tiamat, whom he had conquered, he returned.
And the lord stood upon Tiamat's hinder parts,
And with his merciless club he smashed her skull.
He cut through the channels of her blood,
And he made the North wind bear it away into secret places.
His fathers beheld, and they rejoiced and were glad;
Presents and gifts they brought unto him.
Then the lord rested, gazing upon her dead body,
While he divided the flesh of the ... , and devised a cunning plan.
He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven.
He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions thereof,
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.
And the lord measured the structure of the Deep,
And he founded E-sara, a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-sara which he created as heaven,
He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.

---

tiamat, of course, is a dragon that lives in the water. now, the enuma elish is a selection of seven tablets. you might be familiar with another creation story split up into seven sections. the enuma elish is, of course, much longer and better written. but so was the book of J, that almost certainly copied aspects of this story, including yahweh slaying the dragon, breaking his head, and carving channels from his blood.genesis 1 was written specifically to take all this out, and the evidence is that it retains the structure, but changes the important details. note in psalm 74, above, we have the creation of heaven (separation of the waters), the creation of day and night, the creation of seasons and sun and moon, all aspects found in genesis 1. so where is the dragon? he's two places:

quote:

---

When God began to create heaven and earth--the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep...

​

Genesis 1:1,2a

---

the "deep" here is תְהוֹם, tehom, a cognate for "tiamat". further, the initial state of creation was water and chaos, much like tiamat's rule at the beginning of the enuma elish. but here's where the leviathan literally appears:

quote:

---

God created the great sea monsters...

​

Genesis 1:21a

---

literally in hebrew, it says, הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים, ha-taniynm ha-gdolim, "the big snakes". dragons, in the water. some translations, like the KJV, will say "whales". "whale" in hebrew, you see, is לִוְיָתָן. livyatan. leviathan. yeah.what's going on here is that genesis 1 is replacing text wholesale from J. it is taking all the seven chapters of J's creation epic, and redacting them down to the core essentials. it removed all of the conflict between the leviathan and yahweh, because that would make god seem weak. it removed all the parts where yahweh personally creates with his hands, because that makes him seem to human. instead he issues verbal commands. and it generally provides a cliff-notes version of the story. the paragraph or so on the creation of animals and mankind and the sabbath (genesis 1:24-2:4a) is the cliff-notes version of genesis 2:4b-4:26. it says more or less what happens, but leaves out the parts where yahweh creates with his own hands and breath, lies, condemns his people to death, and then lets a murderer go free. it's the sanitized version, and was intended to wholly replace the eden narrative.there are two creation accounts. but one was intended to edge the other one out, and only got part of it. the rest stuck, because it's such a good story.

of course they had personal agenda.there are two trees in the garden of eden. one, etz-hadaat, is sort of morality, which yahweh commanded us to avoid. the other, etz-chaim, is another name for the law of moses. the kerubim that separate use from etz-chaim are the same as the kerubim on the ark of the covenant, which also watch over the law of moses.genesis 2 and 3 are dripping with agenda.

as jar somewhat bluntly replied, this is part of the genesis 1 narrative, not genesis 2. that story is the etiology for jewish week, culminating at shabbat. the whole thing is rather bad writing in general, and treats god like an black box, who is mysterious and different and totally unlike us.genesis 2, in contrast, ascribed motivation to yahweh, who is portrayed a lot like the man he creates with his own two hands at the beginning of the J source, and his prophet moses whom he buries with his own two hands at the end of the J source. you can feel the pain and isolation in yahweh's voice when says of the man "it is not good for the man to be alone." yahweh fails at first to make the man a suitable companion, as he failed at first to make himself a suitable companion in the man. man is as unlike him as the animals are unlike the man; basically the same stuff, but not quite right.but don't expect to find motivation and personality like this in genesis 1. it's not there. in genesis 1, yes, necessarily so. the story exists to explain where shabbat (day seven) came from and why it's observed. the whole thing is ordered with the intent of explain why things became ordered as they are. because this god, yahweh, is J's fiction. he's a character in her book. an interesting, dynamic, vibrant, conflicted, complicated character. but a character nonetheless. one of the hints is that throughout the book of J, yahweh acts completely differently to each patriarch who then "calls the name yahweh" much like a parent would "call the name" of their child. this yahweh is her fiction, and he is also their fiction. that's not to say that J didn't believe in yahweh, but her belief was as complicated and conflicted as the god she so frequently portrayed as complicated and conflicted. and she was more interested in saying certain things than in honoring belief. they're metaphors, dude. in the context of the literal events of the story, they are special, magical trees. J's book is largely about who has the blessing and why. most of her heroes steal the blessing from those that deserve it.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.