Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2 in Hebrew
Friar Broccoli
I would like to know if anyone here can help me with a
"discussion" I am having concerning the differences between
Genesis 1 and 2.
In summary I am trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian
that the Bible cannot be literally true because Genesis 1 and 2
tell contradictory stories.
In some english translations of the Bible this conflict is
obvious. For example in the:
"New American Standard Bible" NAS
Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly separate creation stories.
However in other translations the difference is much less
obvious because the past "created" is replaced by the past
anterior "had created". This is seen in the:
"New International Version" NIV
The arguments which I have presented to show that Genesis 2
really is different can be seen via the following links:
Main argument:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4568170de4ccd670
Supporting text and references:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/80f2bee013aba339
I would be grateful if someone here would read my main argument,
and most especially the last one concerning Genesis 2:18, where
I argue that the word "make" causes the words "had formed" in
2:19 to be incoherent.
Does my argument look sensible in the Hebrew original? Does it
pass the sanity test?
I am also curious about the NIV translation of Genesis 2:2 which
begins:
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing
..."
The use of two "had"'s in that phrase looks extremely awkward in
english. In the NIV translation Genesis_1 contains no "had"'s
at all and that phrase looks as if it was written by the same
person who wrote Genesis_1. So I wondered if the Hebrew
original justifies the change from simple past to past anterior.
I know that I know nothing about this topic, and I am therefore
certain that I have made many foolish mistakes. I would like to
know what those mistakes are.
Cordially;
Keith Elias
Eli...@gmail.com
Arthur Lesley
________________________________
Friar Broccoli
> Finding inconsistencies between two translations of the same
> passage or of two different passages doesn't say anything
> about the truth of them. One can generally say that Genesis
> I, an explanation of the origins of everything on a large
> scale, from a perspective that stands outside the universe
> being created, is a more general account of what Genesis 2
> tells from an earhly point of view.
Yes, I already have some knowledge of the basic positions and
their supporting arguments.
> See such books as Kermode and Alter's, The Literary Guide to
> the Bible.
Thanks for the reference, if I become sufficiently desperate, I
may resort to actually learning something.
> Different denominations favor different translations, so if
> you and your interlocutor don't accept the same ones, your
> argument may continue.
Which is why I am asking if there are objective reasons for
using the past anterior (which does not exist in Hebrew) as
opposed to a simple past in Genesis 2.
For example are there examples of writings in ancient Hebrew
where the writer wanted to express a past anterior and did so
by using a more complex structure to clearly indicate his
meaning? ... thereby indicating that this time could be
expressed if a writer really wanted to.
Thank You for taking the time to respond.
Cordially;
Keith Elias
Opher Kutner
I think the reason the translator used the past anterior form may have to do
with the old problem of whether the text should read "sixth" (e.g. LXX) or
"seventh" (MT) day. After all, the work was completed on the sixth day, not
the seventh. So, by using different tenses for vykl and vysbt the translator
attempted to defend the MT version, i.e., the work was not "completed on the
seventh", but "had been completed by the seventh".
As for the grammar, according to Gesenius (164b) this translation may be
sustainable.
Opher Kutner
Beit Morasha