Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Pree Dem]

> To me this is like saying, "Moving forward and moving backward don't have to be mutually exclusive."


I’m sure you read it that way. But there is no inconsistency in saying that a text is expounding on previous events, followed by a continuation of the narrative. You might not agree with this interpretation, but you’re looking for a contradiction where there is none.

> The idea is not of non-existence, but of lack of cultivation, i.e., more like a jungle of plants than an ordered orchard or garden.

The lack of cultivation is expressed in the words “no rain” and “no man to work the ground.” But the text also says “every plant of the field before it was in the earth.” Allow me to repeat: this is describing a time before any plant was in the earth. This is more than a lack of cultivation.... Plants. Aren’t. In. The. Earth. Yet.

> Being made from the ground is different from being made of dust. The word in Gn. 2.19 is adamah, ground; the term in 2.7 is 'apar, dust.

Right, they can be different and sometimes they’re used interchangeably to describe the same thing. My question is, what is the metaphorical significance of animals being created from the ground? I think whatever answer you come up with can likewise be applied to humans.

[jimwalton]

> But there is no inconsistency in saying that a text is expounding on previous events, followed by a continuation of the narrative.

And yet that is not what is going on. The text is sequel, meaning that it is looking forward and NOT backward.

> before any plant was in the earth.

Again, you are missing both the scriptural and cultural context. The description of a non-ordered condition on the Earth is paralleled in part by descriptions of a primeval condition in some ancient Near Eastern texts. A common way of speaking of the Earth before it became ordered (not before its manufacture) appears in a set from Nippur as well as in a document called "Ewe and Wheat." Genesis is part of its cultural river, but takes a different approach. As Dr. John Walton writes, "Unlike Genesis, these texts consider the primeval condition of humans to be primitive and uncivilized. Like ancient Near Easter literature, however, Genesis begins with a time when no irrigation or planting strategies were being carried out by people. In the ancient Near East this resulted in no offerings for the gods. In Genesis God plants the garden and puts people in it. The similarities show the common idea that creation accounts proceed from an unordered, nonfunctional beginning through an ordered process."

Keil & Delitzsch write, "The creation of the plants is not alluded to here at all, but simply the planting of the Garden of Eden. The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation. This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not."

> Right, they can be different and sometimes they’re used interchangeably to describe the same thing. My question is, what is the metaphorical significance of animals being created from the ground?

Since Genesis 1-2 are not descriptions of material manufacture (creation) but instead of God ordering what existed to function in a certain way (creation), Gn. 2.19 is not about material manufacture. In Gn. 1.24, the "land" produced living creatures. There is indicates not a biological process but a functional relationship of animals and the planet: They are land animals. It has nothing to do with humanity and can't be applied in that way to humans. Humans are never regarded as "land animals" in the Scripture.

[Pree Dem]

> Keil & Delitzsch write... “The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation. This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not."

Ahh I see. I think that’s a cogent way to interpret this. I have my reservations, but I don’t think this view misuses the text in any way. Thanks for the commentary