Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>]

> From: kenneth greifer Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:11 PM
> 
> Could Genesis 2:19 be about a second creation where G-d creates the
> animals
> again , but this time to let Adam pick a help-mate?
 
> Maybe in the first creation story the animals were made for their own > >
> kind,
> but this time G-d was going to make a help-mate for Adam, so He made the
> animals again from the ground, and He wanted Adam to declare which will be
> for him.
>
> I am not saying that there were two creation stories stuck together like a
> lot of anti-Bible or anti-Torah critics say, but a second creation of the
> animals within the 6 days of creation for a specific purpose.
>
[Steve Miller] 
This question was from July. I think it is an excellent question, but, I
don't see how God could form again from the ground animals that he had
already formed from the ground the day before. 

I too am not satisfied as of now with the normal explanation of translating
Gen 2:19 as past perfect, but I need to study it much more. There are cases
where a vav-consecutive is past-perfect, but it is rare. The normal way of
expressing a past-perfect here would be to use asher (which) followed by a
verb: "And God brought every beast of the field and every fowl of the
heavens, which He had formed from the ground, to the man."

An explanation that I am toying with is at least as wild as yours. It is way
under half-baked though. Perhaps God formed Adam on the 3rd day, after
making the dry land. But the creation of man was not complete until He built
woman out of one of man's side-chambers on the 6th day. So the overview of
creation in Gen 1 just says that God created mankind, male and female, on
the 6th day. 
A big problem with this is: why then would God say on the 6th day, Let us
create man in our image ....?
If anyone can point out any other problems with this idea, I would be most
grateful.

> 
> Also, why does it say "...and He brought them to the man to see what He
> will
> call them...". I don't see the words "them" in the quote.
> 

[Steve Miller] This was already answered that the direct object pronoun
"them" is not necessary in b-hebrew. This is true. I looked at all the
instances of hiphil imperfect "to bring" in Genesis, and when the thing
being brought is not a person, the direct object pronoun "it" or "them" is
usually left out. Examples are: Gen 27:14, 31, 33; 37:32. The only counter
example in Gen. that I found was Gen 30:14.

-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceinwilderness.info