Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two?

I like the way that Mark Futato translates this. There were no wild plants and there were no cultivated plants, because God had not caused it to rain (for the wild plants) and there was no one to till the soil (for the cultivated plants). So God provides water for the wild plants and man for the cultivated plants.Edited by kbertsche, : Added link to Futato article

And if you wouldn't conflate the two types of foliage mentioned in the text, you would see that the parallelism is even stronger. Verse 5 mentions both "shrubs" and "plants", not just "plants".This yields the following parallels:(wild) shrubs need: something to water them (2:5)
(cultivated) plants need: man to cultivate them (2:5)
Water is provided for the shrubs (2:6)
Man is formed to cultivate the plants (2:7)For support for this translation, see the Futato article that I referenced earlier in this thread. Or look at the notes of the NET Bible for Gen. 2:5:

quote:

---

tn The first term, שִׁיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15; Job 30:4, 7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׁב (ʾesev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: back before anything was growing.

​

tn The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.

---

quote:

---

And I did discuss it, in three of my points. Here they are again:

​

All the verbs in question are in the same tense/aspect and so translating them into the same tense/aspect in English seems reasonable,

---

Yes, the verbs are all in the same grammatical form. But this does not mean that they should all be translated the same way. The proper translation depends not only on grammatical form, but also on literary context.

quote:

---

The waw-consecutive indicates that the events of each verse take place after the events described in the verses before,

---

Yes, normally. The waw-consecutive is the normal form for narrative, and is normally translated "and then x happened, and then y happened, ..."

quote:

---

The authors had means of indicating events completed prior to the events in consideration if, indeed, that was the story they were trying to tell, but they did not avail themselves of these means.

---

What are these other means?So far as I know, the waw-consecutive should normally be translated as past tense. But the waw-consecutive form is also commonly used for pluperfect. The context determines whether it should be translated as past or pluperfect.

quote:

---

I quoted the whole thing in this thread; just follow the links. Here's the waw-consecutive: ו

​

And here's arachnophilia's quote of the text from Gen 2:4—25 (which you can find a link to in Message 58):

​

.אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
.וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִצְמָח: כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאָדָם אַיִן, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה
. וְאֵד, יַעֲלֶה מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁקָה, אֶת-כָּל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
.וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה
. וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר
.וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה, וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל--וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן, וְעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע
.וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן, לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת-הַגָּן; וּמִשָּׁם, יִפָּרֵד, וְהָיָה, לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים
.שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, פִּישׁוֹן--הוּא הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם, הַזָּהָב
.וּזְהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא, טוֹב; שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח, וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם
.וְשֵׁם-הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי, גִּיחוֹן--הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ
.וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל, הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר; וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי, הוּא פְרָת
.וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן-עֵדֶן, לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ
. וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר: מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל
.וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת
.וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ
.וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה
.וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם
.וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת
.עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד
.וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ
He posted it one verse per line, so all you have to do is count down to find the verses in question. Do you see the waw-consecutive at the beginning of each line?

---

There is one clear case in the above text where the waw-consecutive should be translated as pluperfect: the beginning of 2:15, "and God had placed man in the garden". This repeats the information of 2:8 "and then God placed man in the garden", after an aside describing the garden.

quote:

---

This is why I keep having trouble grasping exactly what is going on with the verbs in biblical Hebrew. Everyone describes the verbs as being merely aspectual, but labels the verbs as though they contain tense information as well. It's not just you, by the way.
...
See, the perfect is a tense and denotes relative time information as tenses do (alokng with other information). The perfective on the other hand is an aspect and does not denote relative time information but speaks only to the completedness of the action (as you have said).

---

"Tense" in western languages and "tense" in Biblical Hebrew are two different things. Your Wikipedia entry for "perfect" does not apply very well to Biblical Hebrew.Hebrew grammars normally say that Biblical Hebrew has two tenses, perfect and imperfect, but that these have nothing to do with time. They denote only aspect (complete or incomplete), not time. It may be more accurate for grammarians to use the term "perfective" instead of "perfect", but all of the old grammars use the term "perfect" and most modern ones follow suit.FYI, I taught a brief overview of Biblical Hebrew for some folks in my church a few years ago. Here are the resources that I recommended: And here are some websites that I recommended:
Animated Hebrew
Hebrew for Christians
Ancient Hebrew Research CenterEdited by kbertsche, : Cleaned up book references

I think you're correct. As Jack Collins says,

quote:

---

the normal way to express a pluperfect idea (also called a ‘flashback’) in Classical Hebrew narrative is by the use of the perfect verb form (also called the qatal form), commonly introduced in a narrative with a subordinating conjunction such as ’ăer or k, or with some sentence element preposed to the verb.

---

I already did, at the end of the message that you replied to! The beginning of 2:15 is a waw-consecutive which is probably best translated as a pluperfect, "and God had placed the man in the garden".And Jack Collins in the link above gives an extended discussion of the waw-consecutive used as a pluperfect, identifying grammatical clues that suggest a pluperfect sense. He concludes that Gen 2:19 should be translated as a pluperfect: "God had made the animals".Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Are you reading the same paper that I am?!?
Look at page 127-128, where Collins outlines three conditions:

quote:

---

"The Wayyiqtol as 'Pluperfect': When and Why" (pdf) from Tyndale Bulletin:
...the wayyiqtol may express pluperfect time when one or more of the following three conditions are met:
(1) Some anaphoric reference explicitly points back to a previous event. This is Buth’s first condition, and in addition to the verses explained by Buth, this would explain 1 Kings 21:8-9; 2 Kings 7:18-19; and possibly 2 Samuel 13:34 as discussed below.39
(2) The logic of the referent described requires that an event presented by a wayyiqtol verb form actually took place prior to the event presented by a previous verb.40 This would explain. e.g., Joshua 18:8, as well as those passages explained in Buth’s second condition.41
(3) The verb begins a section or paragraph. This was the sole instance allowed by Driver, in which he agreed that ‘the chronological principle’ of the wayyiqtol might be ‘in abeyance’. Note that this also helps explain 2 Samuel 13:34 (discussed below).42
  —Collins

---

On page 123 Collins gives the example of 1 Kings 21:8-9:

quote:

---

And she [Jezebel] wrote (wattiktōb) letters in the name of Ahab and she sealed them (wattaִhtōm) with his seal and she sent (wattilaִh) letters to the elders and to the nobles who were in his city, who sat with Naboth, (9) and she wrote (wattiktōb) in the letters, saying...

---

The beginning of verse 9 is dischronological; it jumps backward in time. It is best translated as a pluperfect, "and she had written in the letters". This is similar my earlier claim that the beginning of Gen 2:15 should be translated as "and God had placed the man in the garden". But 1 Kings 21:9 is a clearer example than Gen 2:15.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I think we are talking past one another a bit.1) I claim that there are grammatical hints that a waw-consecutive should be translated as a pluperfect, and that Collins' paper summarizes these hints. His three conditions are gleaned from a fairly thorough critical analysis of claims by earlier Hebrew grammarians. They do not seem to be based on "apologetic" considerations, but on solid grammatical arguments. You have not argued against (or even addressed) the grammatical basis of his three conditions.2) The application of Collins' three conditions in any specific situation (e.g. Gen 2:19) could probably be argued either way. Grammatical arguments are rarely a "slam-dunk". Collins' grammatical conditions say that Gen 2:19 MAY be a pluperfect, but not that it absolutely MUST be. I don't see why you call this "apologetic"? I see no apologetic basis in his statements. Rather, so far as I can see, all of his arguments are grammatically and literarily based.There is certainly an overarching question of how one views Genesis and its main author or final redactor. Did this person intend to compose a harmonized literary unity, or did he intend to piece together contradictory accounts without trying to resolve the contradictions? This question has some philosophical components, but I see it as primarily a literary question, not an apologetic question.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

No, you have not addressed the fundamental question of whether or not his three conditions are valid grammatical conclusions. You have only addressed the practical question of whether of not they apply to Gen 2. Exactly. You have only addressed the application of these conditions to Gen 2, not the fundamental grammatical principles themselves. I've been more interested in exploring the grammatical principles. You earlier seemed to take the general position that the Hebrew waw-consecutive could not be used as a pluperfect. I believe that it can, and have been trying to explore this general grammatical question. But Gen 1 and 2 are part of a single composition, with Gen 1 intentionally placed before Gen2 for some reason. I highly doubt that the author/redactor intended his readers to skip chapter one and to read chapter 2 in isolation. I agree that any honest attempt to address the issue of whether there is consistency or inconsistency between the two accounts cannot start by assuming its conclusion (either that they are consistent or that they are inconsistent). But I also believe that any honest attempt to understand the text must read Gen 2 in light of Gen 1, because this is the sequence that the author/redactor left us. Again, I see this as a literary issue, not an apologetic issue. I don't think these questions can be avoided. The author/redactor put the material in a certain sequence, apparently intending that it be read in this way.

Jon, my goal in this discussion was to help explain the Hebrew grammar; specifically, to respond to your claim that the waw-consecutive could not convey a pluperfect sense. I have done this. I have provided support for my claim that the waw-consecutive CAN be and IS used as a pluperfect in Biblical Hebrew. This is all that I was trying to do here.If you think that a literary work is better understood by skipping entire chapters (or sentences or words), more power to you. I think this is a ridiculous position, but I have no interest in arguing against it here.