What Genesis Two Says

quote:

---

For example, another problem some find is that though the plant life was created on day three, Genesis two says no seeds had yet sprouted because there was no man yet to till the ground.

​

Explanation: Notice in Genesis three, after the curse that the ground was cursed due to God's curse. Adam was to become a tiller of the ground and herbs/plants were to be his food, for the first time in his life. Notice that in Genesis one, the fruit of the tree was to be his fruit No tilling of the ground. All the need do was pluck the fruit of the trees.

---

As others have pointed out, this seems to be a clear misrepresentation. Genesis 2:5 seems to claim that there were no humans, and leads into their creation, so it is a bit implausible to suggest that it refers to a situation AFTER humans were created. And wouldn't the existence of the garden itself (planted in verses 2:8-9) contradict the idea that there were no plants growing ?This seems to be a clear case where the verses are IN sequence.No plants because there is no rain and no humans to look after the plants. (2:5)
God arranges a substitute for rain. (2:6)
God creates a man to look after the plants. (2:7)
God plants a garden. (2:8-9)
God sends the man to look after the garden. (2:15)The sequence makes perfect sense as written. On what basis should we assume that it is not sequential ?

I believe that this is an example of the NIV being guided by apologetic concerns rather than the text.

By my understanding the NIV is not the most reliable of translations because of issues like this. The KJV isn't that great either for a number of reasons (one of which is that the language is a little archaic now). I usually start with the New American Standard Bible which I have been told is one of the more accurate translations.
In the NASB Genesis 2:19 says this:

I've certainly seen it said (and this particular verse is put forward as an example).

quote:

---

Yes it does. Here's the deal about translators. Too many of them take it upon themselves to interpret what was written in the oldest manuscripts from which they translated rather than to do their rightful job of translating what was written in those manuscripts.

---

Which is pretty much the attitude that you are taking here. Only you have even less justification than the translators - who can at least argue that idiom requires interpretation and that non-literal translation of it is a better way of conveying the message to people who are not educated in the history and society of the Bible authors. (Although in this particular case the NIV doesn't have that justification)Your interpret Genesis 2 as being non-sequential BECAUSE it contradicts Genesis 1. You have no justification in the text of Genesis 2 - which clearly resists such an interpretation as I and others have pointed out. Thus your argument begs the question, and is contrary to the actual text of the Bible.

quote:

---

Genesis, as I understand was not a Hebrew Text which is, perhaps God's proper name was not in the chapters at hand.

---

Yet another case where your understanding fails you.