Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davidfentonism AT aim.com]

  In my opinion, speculation about two different dieties or two traditions 
are incongruent with the Bible as a whole. As a text, it might be more 
practical to see Genesis 2:19 as a prolepsis which we see again in Genesis 
2:2-3 even though Sabbath was not sanctified until centuries later (Exo. 
20:8; Deut. 5:15). Chronicles is well-known for this. Apologetics Press 
(http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/20) offers this:
 
  After reading the first two chapters of the Bible, some skeptics, in an 
attempt to disprove the Bible’s inerrancy, have accused the writer of Genesis 
of erring in regard to the record of events occurring on day six of creation. 
While Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after the 
animals, critics claim that Genesis 2:18-19 teaches that man was created 
before animals. Skeptics assert that such language by the author of Genesis 
proves that the Bible is not divinely inspired.  Some Bible students resolve 
this alleged contradiction by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated 
“formed” could have been translated “had formed.” In his Exposition of 
Genesis, H.C. Leupold wrote:  Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts, 
the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing 
of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of 
man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. 
But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring 
them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in 
our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this 
instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is 
partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as 
many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added). Hebrew scholar Victor 
Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19, as he also 
recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, 
p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their Old Testament 
commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the 
Holy Spirit via Moses intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God 
brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding 
even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New 
International Version renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, 
but rather as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground 
all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). 
Although Genesis chapters 1 and 2 agree even when yatsar is translated simply 
“formed,” it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned 
above, and the translators of the NIV, all believe that it could (or should) 
be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this 
possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the 
two chapters disagree.  The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in 
the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible (especially 
regarding the order of God’s creation—whether vegetation, birds, land 
animals, man, etc.) is because they fail to realize the fact that Genesis 1 
and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the 
order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides 
more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. 
Chapter two never was meant to be a regurgitation of chapter one, but instead 
serves its own unique purpose—to develop in detail the more important 
features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his 
surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and Old 
Testament:  Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, 
and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest 
and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to 
recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a 
skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in 
detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on 
obscurantism (1966, p. 117).  
 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe summarized some of the differences in Genesis 
1-2 in the following chart (1992, p. 35). 
  
   Genesis 1 Genesis 2 
  Chronological order Topical order 
  Outline Details 
  Creating animals Naming animals 
    The fact is,  Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but 
presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation as set forth in chapter 
1.... Chapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no 
different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order 
of creation (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69).  In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 
are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance 
is essentially a more detailed account. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing 
about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but 
merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man in 
order to be named.  If one still rejects both the possibility of yatsar being 
translated “had formed,” and the explanation of the two chapters being worded 
differently because of the purposes they serve, a final response to the 
skeptic’s allegations is that the text never says that there were no animals 
created on the sixth day of creation after Adam. Although in my judgment it 
is very unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be named by 
Adam (after creating all others before the creation of man—Genesis 1:20-27), 
some commentators do hold this view. After his comments concerning the 
translation of yatsar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures mentioned 
in 2:19 refer “to the creation of a special group of animals brought before 
Adam for naming” (1990, p. 176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all 
the animals on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those mentioned 
in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam, for the purpose of being named. 
In U. Cassuto’s comments on Genesis 2 regarding the time Adam named the 
animals, he stated: “Of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that 
had been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament 
of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose 
of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden” (1961, p. 129, 
emp. added). Both of these long-time Bible students recognize that the text 
never says there were no animals created after Adam, but that all animals 
were created either on day five or day six (before and possibly even after 
Adam’s creation). However unorthodox (or unlikely) this particular position 
might be, it does serve as another reason why skeptics have no foundation 
upon which to stand when they assert that a contradiction exists between 
Genesis 1:24-27 and 2:19.    
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il
 To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
 Sent: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 2:03 AM
 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 2:19
 
  Dear Kenneth,

First of all, I fail to see anything offensive in your question. Anyone who 
is insulted by an honest question should not be on this list. This list (as 
I understand it) is a place for open dialogue by people with different 
perspectives and beliefs. Your question is perfectly legitimate.

The fact is, that the first two chapters of Genesis ARE two different 
stories. One tells of God's creating the world from a watery chaos, going 
from the "simple" plants and fish to the more complex land animals and 
culminating in man. Both man and woman are created together. The second 
story tells of YHWH-Elohim creating a desert world, then watering His garden 
and placing the single man within it to tend it. He then creates the animals 
and finally woman as man's helpmates. However you look at it, these are 
different stories.


People who accept source criticism claim that the two stories were 
originally two different traditions, maybe even about two different deities, 
which were later pasted together. I, personally have no problem with this 
explanation, but other explanations are possible. Rabbinic tradition sees 
the two stories as expressing two different ASPECTS of creation: when the 
Torah uses the title Elohim for God, it refers to God's acting in judgment 
(there are places in which "Elohim" is used of human judges as well). The 
title YHWH refers to God's mercifulness. God at first intended the world to 
be run by the aspect of judgment - any being that sinned would receive 
immedeate punishment. Then HE realized that the world could never survive 
such a regime, and allowed divine mercy to take its place in creation - 
beings that sinned would have the chance to repent, retribution could be 
held off. But since God does not make mistakes, understanding this is 
refering to a chronological sequence - first one "creation", then the next - 
is simplistic. The two stories are meant to show US that there are these two 
aspects to God's creation. Which is LITERALLY TRUE? Why does that matter? 
Since when is the Bible a textbook about geology and biology? Or history, 
for that matter?

Yigal Levin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kenneth greifer" <greifer AT hotmail.com>



> In case anybody actually reads what I wrote about Genesis 2:19 a few 
> months
> ago, I would like to repeat what I said before. I am sorry about some of 
> the
> wording that was insulting to some people. I did not expect to have that
> comment show up again, so I just recommend people ignore what I wrote,
> which, ironically, you will probably do anyway.
>
> Kenneth Greifer   
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading 
spam and email virus protection.