MJ Only Why are things Created in Gen 1 and Gen 2 different?

[Yahudim]

That which is created will be cut down. There we go with the harvest paradigm again. Hmmm...

 

[Josephus]

Beresh't 1 lists the Seven days of Creation in a chronological order. But the order of events recorded in Beresh't 2 are different. For instance, Adonai Elohim creates Adam before He formed the animals from the ground and brought them to Adam to be named. So, WHY is the order different?

This analysis is in error.

I believe the word "and he formed" which is yitzer, is actually congruent with the Genesis 1 narrative:

וַיִּצֶר (vai-yi- tser)

This verb root is יצר (Y.Ts.R) meaning "form." The prefix י (y) identifies the subject of the verb as third person, masculine singular and the tense of the verb as imperfect - he will form. The prefix ו (v) means "and," but also reverses the tense of the verb – and he formed.

In other words, vai'yitzer is not in response to man being alone, since the vav used here is not a conjunction but rather a grammatical tool to reverse the tense as described above. If it were a conjunction (meaning a chronological "and" of cause and effect), then the word would have to be translated in the future tense as "and He will form" which is grammatically incorrect with the next verb "brought."

The rabbis and all Jewish commentaries I know are all in agreement that the animals were formed before man, and the tense the of verbs in the 2:19 agrees. The formation of the animals was before the issue of man being alone.

In fact the very next verse in 2:20 gives us the word לֹא-מָצָא "not found" whereas if G-d had created animals for Adam in response to his being alone, then it would have been written "not created". Else do we then say G-d was not capable of creating an ezer knegdo for Adam until woman?

Since "not found" is the conclusion of 2:20 this indicates the "making" of 2:18 is referring instead to G-d's intent to make woman, even as he has the animals pass before Adam prior to doing this action. The question then becomes, why did G-d have the previously created animals pass by Adam? As the verse says, so he could name them. Adam could see for himself that even with his gift of prophecy to give an animal its unique name forever, that there really was no one or nothing else suitable for him other than who G-d would make for him.

 

[Yahudim]

This analysis is in error.

I believe the word "and he formed" which is yitzer, is actually congruent with the Genesis 1 narrative:

וַיִּצֶר (vai-yi- tser)

This verb root is יצר (Y.Ts.R) meaning "form." The prefix י (y) identifies the subject of the verb as third person, masculine singular and the tense of the verb as imperfect - he will form. The prefix ו (v) means "and," but also reverses the tense of the verb – and he formed.

In other words, vai'yitzer is not in response to man being alone, since the vav used here is not a conjunction but rather a grammatical tool to reverse the tense as described above. If it were a conjunction (meaning a chronological "and" of cause and effect), then the word would have to be translated in the future tense as "and He will form" which is grammatically incorrect with the next verb "brought."

The rabbis and all Jewish commentaries I know are all in agreement that the animals were formed before man, and the tense the of verbs in the 2:19 agrees. The formation of the animals was before the issue of man being alone.

In fact the very next verse in 2:20 gives us the word לֹא-מָצָא "not found" whereas if G-d had created animals for Adam in response to his being alone, then it would have been written "not created". Else do we then say G-d was not capable of creating an ezer knegdo for Adam until woman?

Since "not found" is the conclusion of 2:20 this indicates the "making" of 2:18 is referring instead to G-d's intent to make woman, even as he has the animals pass before Adam prior to doing this action. The question then becomes, why did G-d have the previously created animals pass by Adam? As the verse says, so he could name them. Adam could see for himself that even with his gift of prophecy to give an animal its unique name forever, that there really was no one or nothing else suitable for him other than who G-d would make for him.

Thank you for the analysis, Josephus. I will look into it and respond later. I hope you will forgive my brevity, but pressing family matters demand most of our time these days.

 

[Yahudim]

@daq
I started meditating on the 'Light' being 'bara' (cut down) and remembering Moshe and the veil he wore. Also I considered the New Jerusalem in terms of 'the Light' and wondered if it, when used in that context, might suggest 'cut down' in terms of purposely limiting it's intensity or effect.

 

[daq]

@daq
I started meditating on the 'Light' being 'bara' (cut down) and remembering Moshe and the veil he wore. Also I considered the New Jerusalem in terms of 'the Light' and wondered if it, when used in that context, might suggest 'cut down' in terms of purposely limiting it's intensity or effect.

Look at H2852 cathak, I see it more like this, as it is used in Daniel 9:24a (only) where we read determined, decreed, etc., etc. It is like cutting off sections of spoken word dictation in a one-way dialogue containing commands: section one, section two, section three, and so on, like chopping the whole decree, ordinance, determination, or dialogue, into smaller understandable portions. In Daniel it probably speaks in the sense of how the seventy weeks are divided up: but is this not also precisely what we see in the opening creation account? ...Yom Ehad, ...Yom Sheni, and so on.