In other words, Adam was created first v. But all of this is out of order with the events as described Genesis 1! I have a copy of the New Scofield Reference Bible with notes that attempt to help explain these verses.
It is worth taking a look, at how the editors of this Bible translation, sought to resolve this difficulty:. It is often said that Gen. In point of fact, however, Gen. Thus Gen. Nor does it actually describe the creation of vegetation or of animals. Genesis is sometimes erroneously interpreted as describing the creation of vegetation, but it only mentions the planting of a particular garden. Verse 19, often misinterpreted as another description of the creation of animals coming after rather than before the creation of man, actually refers back to the creation of the animals that were brought before Adam.
To think that the planting of the garden described in v. Granted, there are positive ideas to be commended in these Scofield notes. However, there are things that trouble me. Could not the vegetation been created before Adam was created as in Genesis 1, but merely planted in the garden in Genesis 2?
What about the animals? We read earlier in Genesis KJV , which comes at the very end of the first creation narrative begun in Genesis The creation of man and woman is the crowning and final creation moment in Genesis 1.
This approach is also advocated by the Young-Earth Creationist ministry Answers In Genesis see also here , , as well as another defense of this interpretation from Apologetics Press. This view basically argues that it is the wider context, as gained from Genesis 1, that determines the verb tense of these verses in Genesis 2. In other words, because the author understood the events of creation in Genesis 1, it is permissible to translate these verses in Genesis 2, as being events that took place before they appear within the narration.
In recent years, some of the more popular Bible translations actually take the approach proposed by those like the New Scofield editors. If you look at the NIV translation of these verses the ESV is similar , you get this idea actually translated in the text :. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden… v. Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky… v. Claude Mariottini, Old Testament scholar at Northern Baptist Seminary, argues that this translation is an unacceptable violation of Hebrew grammar rules , in his book Rereading the Biblical Text.
If this criticism is correct, then the NIV and ESV, appear to be more driven by the desire to harmonize Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, instead of allowing the literal interpretations of the verses in question, to stand as they are. So, if the NIV and ESV translators turn out to be correct, and their method does not violate the strict literal sense of the Hebrew grammar, then Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, could be chronologically harmonized and the difficulty resolved.
The case would be closed, and the matter is settled. Well, I am largely agreeable with that, but I must confess that such a move away from a strictly literal reading of the original text, nevertheless makes me a bit uneasy.
Is there not a better solution? Let us look at it from a different angle: Is it really necessary to try to harmonize these different passages in the first place? Perhaps, the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 serve, not as a contradiction , but rather as a contrast indicating differences in purpose, with respect to literary genre. Let me put it another way: suppose that the Bible at this point is not giving us an apparent contradiction, that needs to be harmonized, but rather, that it is giving us a clue, as to its truly intended purpose.
It is very easy to think the writer of Genesis is simply pasting together conflicting stories, oblivious to their inconsistency, thus leaving it to contemporary Bible translators to clarify and thereby correct.
But this leaves us with the sense that the writer of Genesis is rather clumsy or incompetent. Might it not be better to think that the writer of Genesis is intentionally drawing out this contrast, in order to bring out the nuance of what these early chapters of Genesis are trying to do?
Could it be that the Bible has a lot more subtlety, as it was originally conceived, than we give it credit? Perhaps, another way of looking at the problem, is to consider that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, serve different literary purposes. For example, it could be the case that Genesis 2 is not trying to give the reader an exact chronology, that you might expect from a human eyewitness account.
Instead, the purpose could be more of a theological, rather than a strictly historical approach to a particular issue. For example, Genesis 1 might actually be more chronological, whereas the Genesis 2 account is not concerned about exact chronology at all! Instead, Genesis 2 could simply have the purpose of trying to explain why Adam needed another human helpmate, namely Eve.
Jump to this blog post showing a completely different approach to this difficulty. The same can pretty much be said, regarding the created purpose of man to work, as in the commission by God to have Adam tend the garden.
In other words, trying to line up scientific chronology with biblical chronology is non-sensical, since here we are really talking about comparing apples with oranges! However, it is important to note at this point what this alternative approach is not suggesting.
It is simply raising the possibility that the writer did not have a strict chronology in mind, when he put together Genesis 2. We should not hold the writer to a standard, that is inappropriate to the literary purpose of the genre. It would be much like trying to insist, that a measuring stick to the sixteenths of an inch, be used in a game of golf, when marking off by shoe lengths is more that sufficient for determining the distance of a ball to the hole.
If all you need is to mark off the ball in terms of a rough distance, insisting on a precision to the sixteenths of an inch is really overkill. Especially if one is concerned with the intent of the text and not assume it is strict historical chronology.
To try to force a particular verb tense in order to make things fit together, when there might be a better alternative, is a rather wooden way of trying to make sense of the text. Granted, this does not necessarily mean that there is no history being presented here. There is no indication that this part of Genesis is merely a fable. An approach that pays attention to nuanced literary genre, does not negate the presence and necessity of an historical basis for the text.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis In the second story, humans were created before the other animals. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. Genesis In the second account, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them But in Genesis 2, the narrative seems to take a step back and focuses on the day God created man.
Although Christians differ about the age of the Earth and how long each day of creation took—whether seven literal days or millions of years between the days—Christians do agree on one thing. God created the Earth and everything within it. Granted, some differ on whether He did so via evolutionary means or through direct creation, but nothing exists on Earth that God did not have a word in.
However, when you encounter the first two chapters of Genesis, it appears as though there are two separate creation stories. But when we get to Genesis 2 , the narrative seems to take a step back and focuses on the sixth day, the day God created man. Differences in the language, some contradictions in the text, and the difference of style cause some Christians to wonder if:. The first chapter follows an organizational, chronological tone whereas the second chapter is more lyrical and differs on its focus from general creation the focus of Genesis 1 to the specific sixth day.
Plus, the first chapter refers to God as the name Elohim whereas the second one used the title of Yahweh -Elohim. Perhaps different authors referred to God in different ways. This article takes the stance that the same author, Moses, wrote both. Other books of the Bible, such as Daniel shift in genre in different chapters. Daniel follow a narrative style, showing the courageous acts of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah as they encounter the culture of Babylon.
0コメント