Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

Hello dpardo,In addition to the points that were made by Rei, the order of events in both chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is indicated by prefixing an imperfect verb form with the Hebrew letter "vav". This is called a "vav consecutive". As it is used to denote sequence in the narrated past, it is properly translated as: "And then . . ."For example: ויאמר יהוה אלהים (v'yomar YHWH Elohim) = And then said the LORD God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dpardo

​

Genesis 2:18 does refer to the creation of Eve.

​

Just because Eve's creation is not mentioned until verse 22 does not mean that she was not his "help meet".

---

Genesis 2:20 makes it inescapably clear that Eve is not created at or before verse 18. The only possibility, therefore, is that she is finally created in verse 22 after the creation of the animals:Gen. 2:18 ". . . I will make for him a helper corresponding to him."The Hebrew terms used in Gen. 2:18 are: עזר כנגדו (ezer k'neg'do) = a helper corresponding to him.And after the creation and naming of all the animals:Gen. 2:20 ". . . but for a man, not was found a helper corresponding to him."And the identical terms are used in Gen. 2:20: עזר כנגדו (ezer k'neg'do) = a helper corresponding to him.

quote:

---

dpardo

​

Which is more likely:

​

a. The author contradicts himself in the very next chapter. . .

---

As has been explained, there are two separate versions represented here. And the marvel of Jewish midrashim has always been more than flexible enough to handle that fact; for example:

quote:

---

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, rabbi of Yeshiva University in New York and the Maimonides School in Boston, the leading modern Orthodox rabbi in the United States with influence around the world, wrote a very important article, "Lonely Man of Faith" (Tradition 7, 1965) in which he discussed in depth the implications of the two different creation stories:

​

"We all know that the Bible offers two accounts of the creation of man. We are also aware of the theory suggested by Bible critics attributing these two accounts to two different traditions and sources. Of course, since we do unreservedly accept the unity and integrity of the Scriptures and their divine character, we reject this hypothesis which is based, like many other Biblio-critical theories, on literary categories invented by modern man, ignoring completely the eidetic-noetic content of the Biblical story.

​

It is, of course, true that the two accounts of the creation of man differ considerably. This incongruity was not discovered by the bible critics. Our sages of old were aware of it. However, the answer lies not in an alleged dual tradition but in dual man, not in an imaginary contradiction between two versions but in a real contradiction in the nature of man. The two accounts deal with two Adams, two men, two fathers of mankind, two types, two representatives of humanity, and it is no wonder that they are not identical." (p. 10)

​

The Jewish Agency for Israel - U.S.

---

AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-01-2004 11:44 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arachnophilia

​

i'm not sure i understand the midrash at end.

---

Hi Arachnophilia,I'm quite sure that I don't understand it. But then there is great deal of Jewish midrashim that I don't understand; actually, some of it I don't think I would want to be in the frame of mind to understand. Based on what I've read of this genre, Christian apologetics are a paragon of restraint by comparison.But, of course, the point of posting that quote was not to suggest that it made sense (perhaps even the contrary). It was, rather, to drive home the point that with such powerful tools of rationalization available to them, the Jewish compilers and redactors would likely not even blink at such a trivial matter as conflicting accounts.P.S. Though I know some will disagree, I second your opinion (message 112, Origin of God's word) on the earlier origin of most of the Genesis text.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-02-2004 02:22 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill

​

The Hebrew word adam (man) appears in both accounts but is untranslated in the second. Notice how this plays out at chapter 5 verse 2 in the King James Version:

---

Hi doctrbill,In my current opinion, the first usage of "Adam" as a proper name is in Genesis 4:25. And, interestingly, it is coincident with the conception of Seth.Amlodhi

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill

​

What about verse 1? "And Adam knew Eve his wife, ..."

---

Hi doctrbill,Verse 1 says האדם (ha'adam) = the man.Verse 25 says אדם (adam) and is followed by the singular attached pronoun "his" in "his wife", and thus = Adam.Verses 25-26 appear to be a redaction connecting chapter 4 to the following "book of the generations of Adam" (chapter 5) which makes no mention of Cain or Abel.

quote:

---

doctrbill:

​

While we're on the subject of Seth; I find the 3rd verse of chapter 5 most interesting:

​

"And Adam ... begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image: ..."

​

This sounds a lot like the wording of chapter 1 where man is created in the image and likeness of God.

---

It is exactly the same terminology and I too find it interesting. Albeit, we are dealing with the tradition of Seth here, whose lineage will eventuate in the righteous Noah. As such, I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised that he is accorded special status.Good to hear from you again, doctrbill. I agree that there are many interesting details in this section of the text. If you have anymore insights, I will be eager to hear them. I always enjoy talking with you.Amlodhi

WILLOWTREE,Remember the last time you and I went through this? When you didn't even know there was a definite article in the text?:

quote:

---

From a previous post by WT

​

But where is this definite article in the original text?

---

Remember that when you were forced to concede that argument, you remarked that you would tell anyone who asked that "Amlodhi says adam should be translated ishi"? Even though I specifically pointed up the distinction between these terms by giving you the example of both usages in the first sentence of Genesis chapter 4 (which you were still unable to comprehend).Remember that I (in frustration) told you then, "please don't volunteer to speak for me" because you still failed to comprehend what was being said to you?And now I read this from your disingenuous mouth:

quote:

---

Now posted by WT

​

Amlodhi admits it says Adam but it should be translated ishi.

---

This makes me angry. This time I'm not asking you "please".DO NOT presume to speak for me because you don't know your burro from a well-shaft.Thou shalt not bear false witness.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-03-2004 04:09 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill

​

Any thoughts on why the KJV, RSV, and so many others render it as Adam?

​

Is your Hebrew text different from the one they were using?

---

The NIV also renders Adam, but the NAS translates "the man".Also:Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society; Jerusalem, 1985.The Interlinear Hebrew Bible, (literal trans., 3 vols.), Jay P. Green Sr. ed., Hendrickson pub., 1985.Both of the above publications translate the usage in Gen. 4:1 as "the man".To the best of my knowledge, all the versions are translated from the standard Masoretic Hebrew text in which the definite article is attached to the term in Gen. 4:1. The text reproductions I use are:Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Masora and Critical Apparatus, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. תורה נביאים כתובים, Koren pub., Jerusalem Ltd.; Jerusalem, Israel.I have no good explanation as to why some translations choose to denote this term (with the D.A.) as a proper name. IMO, it is not inexcusably incorrect; Adam was "the human" after all. But, also IMO, it is not technically correct either. Nowhere else is a proper name prefixed with the definite article. For instance: you're not going to read: "the Noah" or "the Abraham".Also, one additional consideration that I think is pertinent to any earlier usages in the text, and chronologically, is that it would make no good literary sense to name the man "Adam", and then in a following passage revert back to calling him "the man".The confusion exists because the term best translated as "human" (adam) becomes (IMO, in later tradition) the proper name of the first human, i.e. Adam.As I once tried to explain to WT (whom it is probably best if I don't discuss too much right now), there are somewhat subtle nuances differentiating the terms; "adam" as humankind; "ha'adam" as 'the human'; and "ish" as 'a man'.The relevant section of my post in that exchange is reproduced below:

quote:

---

There is no usage of a plural construction of "adam". It is, then, used with much the same construction and connotations that we use for "man" in the sense of "human" or "human species", i.e. not singular/plural but rather, singular/collective.

​

In contrast, "ish" does utilize plural forms. It is used with much the same connotation that we ascribe to "fellow" or "guy". Thus, while a plural construction of "ish" may be used to describe a specific group of men, i.e. "those guys" (as separate in some way from the rest of humanity), "adam" would only be used to refer to the afore mentioned "humanity" collectively.

​

In the same sense, "ish" without the definite article would have the connotation of "a guy" or "a fellow", whereas "adam" without the definite article has the connotation of "human/mankind".

​

Then, "ish" with the definite article would indicate "the guy" or "the fellow", whereas "ha'adam", i.e, with the definite article would carry the sense of "the human being".

---

Thus, to answer your question, doctrbill, I can't really speak for why some versions choose to translate a proper name in Gen. 4:1. I am simply basing my current opinion on a logical consistency of usage in the Hebrew (with the support of the above mentioned sources). And again, I think it is more than random coincidence that the first usage as a proper name occurs with the conception of the purported "Godly line of Seth".Again, always a pleasure talking with you doctrbill,AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-03-2004 08:17 PM

Hi Arachnophilia,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arachnophilia

​

To WT: how is it evolutionary in the slightest?

---

It isn't. And it doesn't surprise me in the least that you understood that immediately.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arachnophilia

​

i guess this is a point of debate, and i'll let you (doctrbill) and amlodhi duke it out.

---

I'm sure that it's only a figure of speech but, for the record, doctrbill and I don't do much "duking". I will be interested to hear any perspective that he might have on the issue.Amlodhi

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT

​

I only know what you type into a post.

---

No, apparently you have no idea what I type into a post. You misquote and distort my words just like you do to Cyrus Gordon. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is simply your lack of understanding rather than the even less desirable alternative.Nowhere have I said that אדם (adam) or האדם (ha'adam) should be translated as איש (ish).We've been over this before:

quote:

---

Ecc. 2:11-12, "Then I faced all my works that my hands had done, and on the labor that I had labored to do . . . And I turned to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly. For what can האדם the man (ha'adam) who comes after the king do when they have already done it?"

​

Ez. 28:2, ". . . say to the ruler of Tyre . . . because your heart is lifted up, and you have said, 'I am a god' . . . yet you are אדם a man; human (adam), and not a god."

---

So, WT, which one of the above is Adam? Is he the man born after king Solomon or is he the king of Tyre?Notice, איש (ish) has nothing to do with it.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-03-2004 08:21 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill

​

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on that.

---

My thoughts are that the book of the generations of Adam (chapter 5) is a later tradition, and likely by a different author, than chapters 1-4.Note that in Gen. 4:1 "the man" (IMO, as discussed) knew his wife and she bears Cain (and Abel) with the help of YHWH. Along with the use of ha'adam (the man) in 4:1, YHWH is used consistently through verse 24; it is used nine times in these 24 verses.Then, beginning with verse 25/Seth's conception (where, for the first time, the use of adam is unmistakeably the proper name "Adam"), we have an abrupt and synchronous switch to the term Elohim instead of YHWH to denote God.Verses 25 and 26 are two very short lines each separated from both each other and the main subject of chapter 4 by a "sof pasuq", i.e. ":", as though they were addendums.Then chapter 5 is introduced as "the book of the generations of Adam", but neither Cain nor Abel are anywhere mentioned. It says only that Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth and that, after he fathered Seth, he continued to father sons and daughters.It begins to appear then that, unlike the creation and Cain/Abel stories, the Seth tradition did not arise until sometime after the term adam became entrenched in the traditon as the proper name Adam. This later Seth tradition then being attached to the originally separate creation and Cain/Abel traditions by the redactional/transitional verses of Gen. 4:25-26.Add to the above your observation that Adam fathered Seth "in his own image, and his own likeness", and the addendum from 4:26 that it was with Seth and (Seth's son) Enos that it was begun to call upon the name of YHWH, and the purpose of the (later) chapter 5 tradition becomes clear: to provide an exalted history for a Godly lineage leading to the righteous Noah.Disclaimer: This is not a thesis (or a carved-in-stone position), but it does represent my current thoughts on the matter (and remember, you asked for them).

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill

​

I have for some time now suspected that certain stories were concocted in an effort to demonize the peoples upon whom the Israelites were about to attempt genocide.

---

As to this part of your post, I can only agree 100%. Demonize them; Glorify us; that was the SLOP* de jour.*(Standard Literary Operating Procedure).Even Dante couldn't resist writing his friends into heaven and his enemies into hell. Amlodhi

Nowhere have I said that אדם (adam) or האדם (ha'adam) should be translated as איש (ish).

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT

​

Yes you have. Would you like me to retrieve it?

---

Yes, retrieve it.Or, since we both know you're just blowing fumes, let me retrieve the truth of the matter for you:

quote:

---

Previously Posted (in a former thread) by WILLOWTREE:

​

. . . why say "(a)d(a)m" to begin with ? Why not say "ish" ?

---

quote:

---

Previous (in the former thread) response to WT's above question:

​

As noted (in the previous thread); in the sense of "Let us make adam/humanity/mankind" and "God put ha'adam/the human being in the garden . . ." as opposed to "Let us make ish'im/some men" and "God put ha'ish/the guy (with the implication that others exist) in the garden . . ."

---

Thus, not only have I not said that "adam" should be translated as "ish", I have (both here and in the previous thread) repeatedly pointed out the distinction for you.And since I have a 9 yr. old granddaughter who has no trouble comprehending this, I suspect that you do also. Even though your self-appointed, personal vendetta against "my kind" so often causes you to behave contrary to your lip-service to Christianity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT

​

Dr. Gordon produces a book based upon years of archaeology and you just spin it to mean contrary to the title and thesis of the book.

---

Have you no memory whatsoever? I assure you most of the other people on this board do. You are fooling only yourself; and making a fool of yourself in the process.Amlodhi

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT

​

Don't you remember that I conceded the point (in the previous topic) when you evidenced through Ezekiel?

---

I certainly do. I also remember you conceding the point concerning Cyrus Gordon. And as I have just demonstrated in my above post, I also remember repeatedly explaining to you my understanding of the distinction between the terms "adam" and "ish".And it is precisely because I remember all these things that it makes me angry when I see you on this thread a short time later spewing libelous misrepresentations.

quote:

---

WT:

​

Is it accurate to translate the said verse "Adam" or "Odom" or is the KJV correct - "man"/ishi?

---

{chuckle} . . You think I'm a real dim-bulb, don't you. Let's see, "Adam" or "man/ishi", are those my choices?First off: אִישִי (ishi) is the term "ish" with a 1st person singular possessive suffix meaning literally "man of me" or "man of mine", i.e. usually translated "my husband". I also remember explaining that to you in the previous thread, but apparently, you are not interested in retaining anything you consider irrelevant to your game-playing.As to your question, it depends on which "said verse" you are referring to. Do you mean the Ezekiel verse?:

quote:

---

Ez. 28:2, ". . . say to the ruler of Tyre . . . because your heart is lifted up, and you have said, 'I am a god' . . . yet you are אדם (adam), and not a god."

---

So why does the Hebrew use the term "adam" in this verse instead of "ish" if the KJV translates "a man"? Will you next be accusing the KJV translators of "admitting it says Adam but it should be translated ishi"?You already know that "adam" here is not the proper name "Adam" because Adam was not the king of Tyre.Now, consider what I wrote before concerning the connotation of the terms "adam" vs. "ish":

quote:

---

There is no usage of a plural construction of "adam". It is, then, used with much the same construction and connotations that we use for "man" in the sense of "human" or "human species", i.e. not singular/plural but rather, singular/collective.

​

In contrast, "ish" does utilize plural forms. It is used with much the same connotation that we ascribe to "fellow" or "guy". Thus, while a plural construction of "ish" may be used to describe a specific group of men, i.e. "those guys" . . . in the same sense, "ish" without the definite article would have the connotation of "a guy" or "a fellow", (i.e. an adult male).

---

In contrasting the ruler of Tyre with a god, this verse in Ezekiel has a specific connotation in mind. It is not interested in describing the ruler of Tyre as an adult male of his species (i.e. an "ish"); it is, rather, interested in describing his species (i.e. adam).IOW, the verse is not intending to say, "you are an adult male, and not a god". It means to say, "you are human, and not a god."The KJV can (and often does) translate both "one of the guys" (ish) and "human" (adam) as "a man", but that translation doesn't always convey the nuance that is present in the Hebrew and is likely the reason for part of the confusion you find yourself in.Now, I don't mind explaining my position to anyone; there have certainly been enough good people on this forum who have patiently explained things to me. But having to tediously repeat these things to you gets old quickly. (And your libelous misrepresentations just stink right from the beginning).So, this time, make the effort to actually understand what is being said to you before you come flying back with anymore bogus "Adam or man/ishi" questions.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-05-2004 01:29 AM