A very difficult passage!

[jereth]

Is it just me, or is the beginning of Genesis chapter 2 one of the most difficult and confusing passages in the Bible? The overall message is clear (God creates a garden and places man in it), but we seem to be given some extra details which, to me at least, seem quite bizzare. Although I've heard various attempts at interpretation, I don't think I've ever been satisfied that I can really understand this passage.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. [/FONT]

The bolded parts are the most confusing. Any thoughts?

Some specific questions:
- What's that about no rain? Is this talking about the whole earth, or just a specific part (eg. a desert region)?
- What's this "mist" exactly? (other translations: "spring", "streams"). Is this referring to a natural or artificial irrigation system?
- What are the 4 riverheads supposed to represent?
- What's the significance of the gold and precious stones?
- Where is Havilah? Is it a reference to part of Arabia?
- Where are the Pishon and Gihon rivers today?
- Do the references to Mesopotamia (Tigris and Euphrates rivers, Assyria) mean that Eden was in Mesopotamia? But why is there also a reference to Cush (i.e. Ethiopia)?

 

[johnd]

Is it just me, or is the beginning of Genesis chapter 2 one of the most difficult and confusing passages in the Bible? The overall message is clear (God creates a garden and places man in it), but we seem to be given some extra details which, to me at least, seem quite bizzare. Although I've heard various attempts at interpretation, I don't think I've ever been satisfied that I can really understand this passage.

Some specific questions:
- What's that about no rain? Is this talking about the whole earth, or just a specific part (eg. a desert region)?

The earth, many believe, was created with a canopy of water vapor around it much like the various (amonia, helium, etc) vapor canopies around Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune to this very hour.

This true greenhouse effect had marked effects on the weather and environment. It is believed that the earth from pole to pole was temperate.

- What's this "mist" exactly? (other translations: "spring", "streams"). Is this referring to a natural or artificial irrigation system?

There are many forms of aquifers, wells, and springs present in the world today which could easily supply rivers with water. Then as now, I se no problem with this. But you must remember that prior to the flood of Noah there were believed to have been subterranean vaults of water which broke up during the deluge causing the continents to break up and slide away from one another and which deepened the ocean basins.

- What are the 4 riverheads supposed to represent?

The geographic location of the rivers (pre-flood). It suggested the location of Eden being somewhere in the fertile crescent in the Middle East.

- What's the significance of the gold and precious stones?

Finance. Remember this was about the time of the metal working age.

- Where is Havilah? Is it a reference to part of Arabia?

Indeterminate.

- Where are the Pishon and Gihon rivers today?

I do not know which it was, but I believe one of the two was where the Jordan is now (of course, it was much longer in ancient times). If you notice the topography from Mount Herman through the Sea of Galilee, down the Jordan, through the dead sea, and due south through the arabah to the gulf of Aqaba you can make out the ancient riverbed of what would have been a significant river in those days.

- Do the references to Mesopotamia (Tigris and Euphrates rivers, Assyria) mean that Eden was in Mesopotamia? But why is there also a reference to Cush (i.e. Ethiopia)?

Remember the continents were different.

Where Israel is today, for example, and down through the Sinai there appears to be stress fractures in the continental rifts that suggest a pivot point. For all we know the fourth river listed may now be at the bottom of the Mediterranean sea. The Med may have been just a river that split open into an inland sea from the continents pivoting together (swinging Africa around clockwise from a position further west).

The great flood, the collapse of the water vapor canopy, the breaking up of the subterranean vaults under all that water weight, the splitting and smashing of continental plates etc. has made for a significant difference in the world before the flood and the world after the flood.

 

[Assyrian]

There is a beautiful simplicity to the story, there were no plants because there was no water and no gardener to till the ground. Of course we know plants evolved before humans did, and the ancient Hebrews would have read in the first creation account that plants came first too, but in this story they have to wait for man to be created first. I read it as an illustration of the creation mandate of chapter 1, that the plants, and animals, were created for us to mind and care for.

The mist was needed so plants could grow in the moist earth and to form the dust into a clay that could be moulded. Why mist rather than a good shower of rain? I am reading this from a 21st century perspective, but I see a picture of God instituting a slow process arising naturally from the earth itself to produce man. as it says in chapter 1, God said, Let the earth produce living creatures. In chapter two both man and animals are formed by God from the same ground adamah, but as well as the image of God as potter making clay images, we see God instituting natural processes to make them too.

I think the four rivers purposely set Eden in an impossible, imaginary geography rather than a literal one, and tell us the story of Eden is the story of the whole world and the whole human race. In a sense the people who think the rivers can give us the location of the garden of Eden are right, but not the way they think.

 

[laptoppop]

One point - regarding the order of plant creation between chapters 1 and 2. At first glance the two chapters seem in conflict - when were plants created? Its easy to reconcile however. The historical hebrew interpretation is that chapter two is specifically talking about the cultivated plants -- "in the field". Cultivation requires a gardener/farmer. You couldn't have cultivation until Adam was created.

 

[Assyrian]

I have come across that interpretation, yet the account in Gen 2 sounds as though it was meant to be exclusive, no bush of the field... and no small plant in Gen 2:5 and in verse 8 God makes every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. But God had already created vegetation plants and trees bearing fruit in Gen 1:11.

Similarly, the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens in Gen 2:19, after he created man, yet they were created before man in Gen 1.

 

[laptoppop]

Indeed - it depends on which words you put in bold

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground

IMHO, the cultivation interpretation makes the whole part about no man to till the ground make sense.

Verse 9 is describing the filling of the garden of Eden, not the earth.

Verse 19 is notably missing a "then" -- the animals are allowed to be created earlier. NIV even translates it as "[/FONT]Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." -- past tense

 

[jereth]

There is a beautiful simplicity to the story, there were no plants because there was no water and no gardener to till the ground.

Yes, with that I agree, it really is a beautifully crafted story.

The mist was needed so plants could grow in the moist earth and to form the dust into a clay that could be moulded. Why mist rather than a good shower of rain? I am reading this from a 21st century perspective, but I see a picture of God instituting a slow process arising naturally from the earth itself to produce man. as it says in chapter 1, God said, Let the earth produce living creatures. In chapter two both man and animals are formed by God from the same ground adamah, but as well as the image of God as potter making clay images, we see God instituting natural processes to make them too.

Interesting take on it. I've read an interpretation that says the author is painting a mythical picture of an arid desert region (very familiar to the people of the ANE), where rain naturally does not fall. God then establishes special conditions under which a lush garden paradise can flourish.

I think the four rivers purposely set Eden in an impossible, imaginary geography rather than a literal one, and tell us the story of Eden is the story of the whole world and the whole human race.

I would certainly agree with that. The myth appears to contain a nice blend of familiar reality (the references to the Tigris and Euphrates, Assyria and Cush) and fantasy (eg. the 2 imaginary rivers, the gold and precious stones). So the author has given us just enough to tie the story to the real world, by casting it into the well known setting of Mesopotamia -- yet he is also making it clear that he is writing a piece of vivid fiction by including the fantastical elements.

 

[jereth]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
IMHO, the cultivation interpretation makes the whole part about no man to till the ground make sense.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Assyrian on this one. I think the "cultivated plants only" idea is a fudge. Here are my reasons:

1. The absence of man isn't the only reason why plants aren't growing at the start -- it's also the absence of water. Without water, no plants can grow [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]whatsoever[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica].
2. The original Hebrew actually reads: "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]When every bush of the field was not yet in the earth and every small plant of the field had not yet sprung up". [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The word "every" denotes everything, totality. It is the same word used in verses 9 ("every tree") and verse 19 ("every beast", "every bird"). Clearly, verses 9 and 19 are meant to be complementary -- initially, every plant is not growing, and later, every plant is created
3. The concept of "cultivated plants" makes no sense. All plants that are cultivated by man (carrots, potatoes, apple trees, etc.) originally grew in the wild! Are you saying that none of these plant species were actually created on Day 3, but instead on Day 6?
4. Why would the author make such a big point of there being no plants at the beginning, unless he [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]really [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]means there were no plants?
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]5. If you read Genesis 2 naturally, without preconceptions, (one might say "literally") the picture drawn by the author is of a totally barren desert at the beginning, where absolutely nothing green is growing until God plants the garden of Eden.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

Verse 9 is describing the filling of the garden of Eden, not the earth.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But you're forgetting that in Genesis 2, the story of Eden is the story of the whole earth!

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Genesis 2:4[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

Verse 19 is notably missing a "then" -- the animals are allowed to be created earlier. NIV even translates it as "[/FONT]

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." -- past tense

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]That's a corruption of the text. The Hebrew of verse 19 is in present tense, just like all the other verses before and after. I'm afraid you can't play games with the biblical text to make it say what you want. (hang on... isn't that what the evolutionists do?)

Think about the logic of the passage.
A. God says: "I want to make a companion for the man."
B1. So God makes the animals
C1. God brings them to the man.
D1. The man names the animals...
E1. But no companion is found.
B2. So God makes the woman
C2. God brings her to the man
D2. The man names the woman
E2. The woman is a perfect companion

The beautiful symmetry of the story is totally wrecked if you alter the tenses.

[/FONT]

 

[laptoppop]

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (10 Volumes)

Classically good commentary on the OT. Available *FREE* as a part of the *FREE* e-sword program from http://www.e-sword.net

(You *do* have e-sword, don't you? Its amazingly good. Free Bibles, commentaries, dictionaries, etc.)

Has a great section on Gen 2:5-6 (about 4 times longer than allowed for a post). If this post encourages anyone to get e-sword, I've done my good for the day! This clearly describes the hebrew used and why the description is of cultivated fields (farmland).

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1. The absence of man isn't the only reason why plants aren't growing at the start -- it's also the absence of water. Without water, no plants can grow [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]whatsoever[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica].
2. The original Hebrew actually reads: "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]When every bush of the field was not yet in the earth and every small plant of the field had not yet sprung up". [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The word "every" denotes everything, totality. It is the same word used in verses 9 ("every tree") and verse 19 ("every beast", "every bird"). Clearly, verses 9 and 19 are meant to be complementary -- initially, every plant is not growing, and later, every plant is created
3. The concept of "cultivated plants" makes no sense. All plants that are cultivated by man (carrots, potatoes, apple trees, etc.) originally grew in the wild! Are you saying that none of these plant species were actually created on Day 3, but instead on Day 6?
4. Why would the author make such a big point of there being no plants at the beginning, unless he [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]really [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]means there were no plants?
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]5. If you read Genesis 2 naturally, without preconceptions, (one might say "literally") the picture drawn by the author is of a totally barren desert at the beginning, where absolutely nothing green is growing until God plants the garden of Eden.
[/FONT]

1. Huh? There was *water*, just not *rain*
2. Again - it depends on which word you concentrate on. The hebrew word used for "field" in this passage almost always refers to a cultivated field, like farmland. You couldn't have farming without a farmer, which is why the passage makes such a big thing about having man to to the work.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3. Not that the species didn't exist - that the plants didn't exist as farm products.
4. There were no farm plants because there was no farmer.
5. I disagree. Over and over the author stresses "the field" -- we might even say "the farm" in our culture.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

But you're forgetting that in Genesis 2, the story of Eden is the story of the whole earth!

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Genesis 2:4[/FONT]

Huh? This is the ending to the initial account, before the author goes into more detail. "These are the generations" is used several times in Genesis to represent a transitional point. 2:8 clearly refers to a localized garden.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]That's a corruption of the text. The Hebrew of verse 19 is in present tense, just like all the other verses before and after. I'm afraid you can't play games with the biblical text to make it say what you want. (hang on... isn't that what the evolutionists do?)

I don't read hebrew (yet) -- but looking at a variety of English translations, they preserve the ambiguity in v19 about *when* the animals were created. Strongs agrees as well that the word just says it happened.

Think about the logic of the passage.
A. God says: "I want to make a companion for the man."
B1. So God makes the animals
C1. God brings them to the man.
D1. The man names the animals...
E1. But no companion is found.
B2. So God makes the woman
C2. God brings her to the man
D2. The man names the woman
E2. The woman is a perfect companion

The beautiful symmetry of the story is totally wrecked if you alter the tenses.
[/FONT]

God is timeless. He knew even beforehand that Adam would need a companion. The "so" in your logic implies a time sequence which is not implicit in the text.

 

[Redneck Crow]

Is it just me, or is the beginning of Genesis chapter 2 one of the most difficult and confusing passages in the Bible? The overall message is clear (God creates a garden and places man in it), but we seem to be given some extra details which, to me at least, seem quite bizzare. Although I've heard various attempts at interpretation, I don't think I've ever been satisfied that I can really understand this passage.



The bolded parts are the most confusing. Any thoughts?

Some specific questions:
- What's that about no rain? Is this talking about the whole earth, or just a specific part (eg. a desert region)?
- What's this "mist" exactly? (other translations: "spring", "streams"). Is this referring to a natural or artificial irrigation system?
- What are the 4 riverheads supposed to represent?
- What's the significance of the gold and precious stones?
- Where is Havilah? Is it a reference to part of Arabia?
- Where are the Pishon and Gihon rivers today?
- Do the references to Mesopotamia (Tigris and Euphrates rivers, Assyria) mean that Eden was in Mesopotamia? But why is there also a reference to Cush (i.e. Ethiopia)?

Here's my best guess as to where Eden was. We know where a couple of the rivers are. You can see the rivers recombining in a couple of places.

 

[jereth]

1. Huh? There was *water*, just not *rain*

Yes, you're right. But the logic still holds. If the lack of rain is given as a reason for the absence of plants, I don't see how this can only be referring to "cultivated" plants. Rain affects all plants everywhere -- in the jungle as well as on farms.

"There was no rain, therefore there were no plants" - makes logical sense.
"There was no rain, therefore plants couldn't grow on farms" - doesn't make logical sense!!

2. Again - it depends on which word you concentrate on. The hebrew word used for "field" in this passage almost always refers to a cultivated field, like farmland.

I disagree. It appears to me that the Hebrew word "field" is much more general, and can mean "country" or "land".

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] field, land

1. cultivated field
2. of home of wild beasts
3. plain (opposed to mountain)
4. land (opposed to sea)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"[/FONT]- are serpents farm animals?!?

"[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and conquered all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites"
- I take it they didn't just conquer the farms

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"When the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the field"[/FONT]
- hunting on a farm?

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"Now it came about when Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field in the wilderness where they pursued them"[/FONT]
- farms in a wilderness?

Etc.

3. Not that the species didn't exist - that the plants didn't exist as farm products.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]4. There were no farm plants because there was no farmer.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
You just have to ask yourself: why does that statement in verse 5 exist at all? Why would the author bother to tell us such a trivial piece of detail as "there were no farm products"? Bear in mind that this statement is setting the scene for the story that follows.

Let's paraphrase Genesis 2:5-9 your way and my way.

Paraphrase 1
In the beginning, the earth was a dry, bleak and barren desert, with not a plant in sight. A mist went up and watered the whole ground. Then God took some dust and made it into a man, and breathed life into him. Next, he planted a beautiful garden, transforming the desert into a lush oasis. He put the man into this garden paradise to look after it....

Paraphrase 2
In the beginning, there were no farm products. A mist went up and watered the whole ground. Then God took some dust and made it into a man, and breathed life into him. Next, he planted a garden, where certain plants could be farmed. He put the man in the garden so that he could start farming it...

Which one sounds more like a real story?

[/FONT]

Huh? This is the ending to the initial account, before the author goes into more detail. "These are the generations" is used several times in Genesis to represent a transitional point.

Some people see it this way, yes. But I personally think that the "these are the generations" verses are almost definitely headings, rather than endings or transitions. The phrase occurs 10 times in the book of Genesis and is very clearly meant to be a heading.

I don't read hebrew (yet) -- but looking at a variety of English translations, they preserve the ambiguity in v19 about *when* the animals were created. Strongs agrees as well that the word just says it happened.

I'm not a Hebrew expert either, but the tense used in verse 19 is definitely the imperfect tense. (you can research this yourself at www.blueletterbible.com) This tense signifies a present (or future) ongoing action, never a completed action. It is the same tense used throughout the story, which means that we being told a linear sequence of events.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The Lord God took the man and put (imperfect) him in the garden of Eden[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]the Lord God commanded (imperfect) the man, saying[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]the Lord God said (imperfect), It is not good that the man should be alone
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]the Lord God formed (imperfect) every beast
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]and brought (imperfect) them to the man to see what he would call them[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The man gave names (imperfect) to all livestock and to the birds
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]the Lord God caused (imperfect) a deep sleep to fall upon
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]while he slept took (imperfect) one of his ribs[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
I suspect that many English translations include the ambiguity because of the biblical literalist desire to make the 2 creation stories harmonizable when clearly they are totally separate and independent creation myths. Sadly there is an inherent YECist bias in most Bible translation -- same reason why you find "mountains" being covered by water in the flood story.

[/FONT]

God is timeless. He knew even beforehand that Adam would need a companion. The "so" in your logic implies a time sequence which is not implicit in the text.

God's foreknowledge is not the issue here. The fact is that the author is telling us a story. If you read the story without any YECist preconceptions, you wouldn't for a moment consider that the animals and birds were created at any time other than when the story explicitly says that they are created -- namely, when God wants to give a companion to the man.

Edit:
I might add that Genesis 2:19 begins with a "waw" consecutive, which can be translated "and", "now" or "so", and indicates a consecutive sequence of events. Observe the following AiG arguments:

Here, in Hebrew, the ‘and’ is formed by attaching the letter waw (w), the Hebrew letter w, to the front (i.e. right, because Hebrew reads right to left) of a Hebrew imperfect verb form. The particular grammar indicates events happening in sequence (consecutively). Hence this construction is called the waw consecutive.

Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translationhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp#r1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

Hypocritical, yes?

 

[Pats]

Huh? This is the ending to the initial account, before the author goes into more detail. "These are the generations" is used several times in Genesis to represent a transitional point.

Some people see it this way, yes. But I personally think that the "these are the generations" verses are almost definitely headings, rather than endings or transitions. The phrase occurs 10 times in the book of Genesis and is very clearly meant to be a heading.



I'm not a Hebrew expert either....

Hey Jereth, boy I wish Glaudys was back I hope this thread catches her eye when she returns, she has a lot more information than I do on the interpretations of this passage.

However, on this particular issue, I have to go with laptoppop.

Genesis 2:4 should have been divided differently by those who assigned the scriptures their respective chapters and verses. The first part of Gen 2:4 does indeed seem to be end of the poem that is found in the opening chapter of our current Genesis, while the latter of half of the verse seems most likely to be the begining of the story that starts in Gen. 2:5.

I am no expert in ancient Hebrew, myself, but I've read the work of numerous schollars who disagree with your interpretation here.

 

[jereth]

Hey Jereth, boy I wish Glaudys was back I hope this thread catches her eye when she returns, she has a lot more information than I do on the interpretations of this passage.

However, on this particular issue, I have to go with laptoppop.

Genesis 2:4 should have been divided differently by those who assigned the scriptures their respective chapters and verses. The first part of Gen 2:4 does indeed seem to be end of the poem that is found in the opening chapter of our current Genesis, while the latter of half of the verse seems most likely to be the begining of the story that starts in Gen. 2:5.

Hi Pats,

I respect the fact that some people view it differently (i.e. the colophon theory), but I'll present to you the reasons for my own view.

There are 10 "toledoth" (generations) phrases in the book of Genesis:
A. The generations of the heavens and the earth (2:4)
B. The generations of Adam (5:1)
C. The generations of Noah (6:9)
D. The generations of the 3 sons of Noah (10:1)
E. The generations of Shem (11:10)
F. The generations of Terah (11:27)
G. The generations of Ishmael (25:12)
H. The generations of Isaac (25:19)
I. The generations of Esau (36:1)
J. The generations of Jacob (37:2)

In the case of D, E, G, H and I the toledoth phrase is indisputably a heading. D is immediately followed by a listing of the descendants of Ham, Japheth and Shem; G is immediately followed by a listing of Ishmael's descendants; I is immediately followed by a listing of Esau's descendants. It doesn't make sense for E to be a colophon, because chapter 10 is clearly the listing of all 3 brothers, not just Shem. G cannot possibly be a colophon because the subject matter of Genesis 12-25 focuses on Isaac, not Ishmael. Similarly I cannot possibly be a colophon because Genesis 26-35 clearly focuses on Jacob (not Esau). H and J can't be colophons because the preceding material is about Ishmael and Esau respectively, not Isaac and Jacob. Furthermore, there is no colophon at the end of the book of Genesis, which makes the colophon theory even more unlikely.

OTOH, everything makes very good sense if the toledoth are headings established by the final author of Genesis. B is followed by Adam's line; C is followed by Noah's story; D is followed by the descendants of the 3 sons of Noah; E is followed by Shem's line; F is followed by Terah's story (and that of his son Abraham and grand-nephew Lot); G is followed by Ishmael's descendants; H is followed by the story of Isaac's family; I is followed by Esau's descendants; and J is followed by the story of Jacob's family. By extension, then, A (the toledoth of the heavens and the earth) is clearly also a heading for the section that follows (the Eden and Fall story). That leaves Genesis 1 (creation week story), which is the prologue and is headed by "In the beginning..."

As far as I can tell, the only real basis for the colophon theory is the finding of colophons on Sumerian cunieform tablets. Which is utterly irrelevant because Genesis comes from a time and place totally removed from the clay tablets (clay tablets are from Babylonia circa 2000BC, Genesis is from Palestine circa 1000-1300 BC.) It seems to me that the entire colophon theory derives from the semi-informed speculations of one man, PJ Wiseman, who was an airman not a biblical scholar. The theory has in recent times been seized upon by YECists because it postulates Genesis 1-11 as eyewitness historical narratives, but is totally lacking in scholarly support.

I am no expert in ancient Hebrew, myself, but I've read the work of numerous schollars who disagree with your interpretation here.

Do you have anything online that you could refer me to? I'd be interested in reading their arguements. Thanks!

 

[Marshall Janzen]

We should have a vote on this in the TE subforum! (With an "Other" choice, of course.) I also tentatively lean toward Genesis 2:4 being the beginning of the second account, rather than the conclusion of the first, or 4a being the conclusion and 4b being the beginning.

 

[laptoppop]

Why the TE subforum? Even us brain-damaged YECs <grin> can appreciate the beauty, structure and spiritual significance of scriptural passages -- just because we also consider them historical does not diminish the spiritual meaning at all. In fact, to us, it is pretty cool the way God has worked through history to accomplish His will *and* to reveal Himself and His plan to mankind.

For an example we can all probably agree on. Jesus had 12 disciples. I don't think this was an arbitrary number - but rather one chosen to point both backward to God's working through His chosen people and possibly forward to His kingdom as well. He really *did* have 12 disciples, but it doesn't diminish the spiritual connections or implications or beauty.

Luke recounts Jesus' lineage back all the way to Adam. It is amazing to see how God worked through history to preserve the proper lineage for the promised messiah.

And yes, we can even appreciate literary constructions, analogies, and poetry within scripture. Just because we think the genesis tale is true history does not mean that we cannot rejoice and enjoy the rich beauty and spiritual meanings as well.

Historicity does not degrade spirituality.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Why the TE subforum?

Oops, my bad. I had just read this page of the topic and missed your comments earlier. It had appeared to me that this was mainly a non-YEC discussion, but I stand corrected.

 

[jereth]

Historicity does not degrade spirituality.

Nor does non-historicity.
(sorry, couldn't help myself! )

 

[Pats]

Well, that's a convincing arguement, Jereth. I'd like to look further into it.

Do you have anything online that you could refer me to? I'd be interested in reading their arguements. Thanks!

Sure do.

Custance

There were some others I was reading as well. I can dig 'em up for you later if you're interested, let me know.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Deleted.

 

[laptoppop]

Nor does non-historicity.
(sorry, couldn't help myself! )

<grin> no problem. And yes, that's absolutely true -- Jesus' parables are not less instructive because they are stories not history. I think things get interesting when folks disagree about a passage being historical or not -- but either way, the passage can be beautiful, can be expressed in lots of literary forms, and can have lots of spiritual instruction for us.