The Missing Links in the Fossil Record
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Veritas veritate
New member
No, you are just not comprehending the text. There were no cultivated/domesticated plants. This is why you see the phrase "of the field" after "plant" and "herb."
If you don’t like the NRSV, use the NET Bible with its excellent notes. It clearly says man was formed “back before anything was growing.”
You are simply denying the text. Even the KJV says man was formed when plants had not yet appeared:
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
So you deny what the Bible says to support your tradition.
Young’s disagrees with you too:
and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground, 6 and a mist goeth up from the earth, and hath watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.
No shrubs or herbs had yet spouteth when man was formed.
So you are wrong on all counts.
The NIV proves you wrong too:
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
“No plant had yet sprung up” when man was formed.
You just made a lot of false claims. Did you even bother to read what the Bible says?
see the NET Bible notes:
tn Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם (terem). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate) indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2). Two negative clauses are given (“before any sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given – again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).
14 tn The first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15; Job 30:4,7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’esev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”
15 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.
The five Hebrew scholars who translated the Torah for the NET Bible have excellent credentials.
iouae
Well-known member
Would this scenario not explain it...
On day 3 God raises the land and gathers the waters off the land, and let us suppose God plants the earth with vegetation. Is God going to make fully formed trees with fruit, or does God just seed the earth with seeds? Let's suppose God chooses the easy way and just seeds the earth. Notice Gen 2:5 speaks of the plants "before it grew" meaning they were seedlings, being watered by a mist from God, in the uninhabited rest of the earth.
But in one place, viz. Eden, God puts fully formed plants for the animals created on day 6, to eat. And from Eden, all animals spread out as the herbs grow in the rest of the earth.
So, there is a mist watering the rest of the earth where there is no man to till the earth, because the only man is in Eden. That is what is being said here...
Gen 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
But Eden was prepared before God created Adam because it says God created the garden (first) and put Adam there (after that). Gen 2:8
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Thus the account in Genesis 2 fully conforms with the account in Genesis 1, but adds detail. The detail is that only in Eden were fully grown plants placed, while the rest of the earth had seedlings, and, as yet, no animals. I.e. there was a point on earth from which animal life, and humans spread, much like after the flood when the same thing occurred again where all life spread from Ararat.
One last thing...
Eden seems to be watered by rivers, while the rest of the earth and its young seedlings are watered by mist. If you are growing seedlings you have to water them daily, which could be unpleasant for naked people. In Eden there is no need to water daily since plants are watered by rivers.
Gen 2:10
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;
That scenario denies the clear language first creation story:
Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
On Day 3 the earth brought forth all kinds of plants, and God saw it, and there was evening and morning the third day.
The second creation story says man was formed before any plants had sprung up.
So the two creation stories are literally incompatible.
iouae
Well-known member
And it explains where no plants had sprung up, viz. in the earth, which had plants not yet grown...
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But Eden is described as a different case from the rest of the earth.
Gen 2:8
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9
And out of the ground made the LORD God 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 knowledge of good and evil.
So if the rest of the earth has no man to till the ground, but Eden has, that explains the supposed discrepancy.
You wrote "The second creation story says man was formed before any plants had sprung up". Man was formed before any plants had sprung up or grown in the rest of the earth.
Iouae, it sounds like are rewriting Genesis 2 from
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 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 one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
To read:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the garden of Eden and no herb of the field had yet sprung up in the garden of Eden—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the garden Of Eden subset of the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
But that is not what it says.
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 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 one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
To read:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the garden of Eden and no herb of the field had yet sprung up in the garden of Eden—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the garden Of Eden subset of the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
But that is not what it says.
iouae
Well-known member
2003cobra, this is what I am trying to say...
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth outside the garden of Eden and no herb of the field had yet sprung up in the earth outside the garden of Eden—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth outside the garden Of Eden subset of the earth, and there was no one to till the ground/earth outside the garden of Eden; 6 but a mist would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground/earth outside the garden of Eden— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
Did you bother to read the NET Bible translator notes that I posted?
Check post 244. The two types prove you doubly wrong.
That doesn’t work either.
If the earth brought forth all kinds of vegetation on Day 3 and man was created on Day 6, then the timeline and rewording you offered doesn’t work.
I would like to write more now but time is tight. More to come later.
It is a pleasure to correspond with you. Thanks.
iouae
Well-known member
I agree with you here 6days that Genesis 2 complements Genesis 1 since Moses did not forget what he had written a chapter before. The same plants created on day 3 are now referred to here in Chapter 2 under two collections.
Gen 2:5
And every plant H7880 of the field H7704 before H2962 it was in the earth, H776 and every herb H6212 of the field H7704 before H2962 it grew: H6779 for H3588 the LORD H3068 God H430 had not H3808 caused it to rain H4305 upon the earth, H776 and there was not H369 a man H120 to till H5647 the ground. H127
The word "herb" H6212 is referring to grass for grazers.
The word "plant" H7880 is referring to bushes for browsers.
Thus it is covering the categories of all plants for herbivores. There was no food for herbivores
iouae
Well-known member
Likewise a pleasure to discuss this with you and 6days.
I see subtle nuances in every single phrase in Chapter 2. Maybe I am seeing things, you be the judge.
I definitely see a comparison of conditions in Eden, with conditions outside Eden.
To me the key to unlocking Chapter two is the mist that goes up to water the ground, before it has rained.
There seems to be a before rain (when there is a mist rising up from the ground), and after this when there is rain. This has to have significance.
So I ask the purpose of the mist, and the purpose of mentioning it.
Mist and rain water plants. There seems little other use here to mention these.
A mist would water seeds beautifully so as not to wash them away, especially if the seeds were just strewn all over the earth. If God were like me, that is how I would do it. I would not create every tree fully formed and then plant each tree individually. And once established, rain would water seeds which have sprouted. Thus it would take one angel and a bag of seeds to sow these worldwide, or it would take all the host of heaven to dig holes and plant full grown trees worldwide. I say this somewhat tongue in cheek.
Compare ...
Gen 2:5
And every plant H7880 of the field H7704 before H2962 it was in the earth, H776 and every herb H6212 of the field H7704 before H2962 it grew: H6779 (to grow H6779) for H3588 the LORD H3068 God H430 had not H3808 caused it to rain H4305 upon the earth, H776 and there was not H369 a man H120 to till H5647 the ground. H127
...with...
Gen 2:9
And out H4480 of the ground H127 made H6779 H0 the LORD H3068 God H430 to grow H6779 every tree H6086 that is pleasant H2530 to the sight, H4758 and good H2896 for food; H3978 the tree H6086 of life H2416 also in the midst H8432 of the garden, H1588 and the tree H6086 of knowledge H1847 of good H2896 and evil. H7451
The word "grow"/"grew" H6779 means a visible plant above the ground.
So in verse 5 we have no (visible) plants - but I say invisible, planted seeds.
And in Eden we have full grown, visible, trees and grasses yielding food for man and animals.
This could be a before and after scenario, but I see a real possibility that only in Eden is there a fully grown garden, the rest of the earth still has to grow. Proof of this is ...
Gen 2:8
And the LORD H3068 God H430 planted H5193 a garden H1588 eastward H6924 in Eden;
Notice it only speaks of God planting a garden in Eden. This is significant. It had to be full grown because God puts Adam there, and it would be stupid to imagine Adam in a garden of seeds or sprouts. No renaissance painter ever depicts Eden so. It is clear that we are still speaking of Eden in these verses...
Gen 2:8
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9
And out of the ground made the LORD God 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 knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:10
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;
There were no trees of life or trees of knowledge outside Eden.
It is logical that you prepare the Garden and then put the man into it.
To me it is also logical that God created Adam in Eden. Where else?
I don't read Gen 2:15 (creation of Adam) to have occurred before Gen 2:19 (creation of animals).
We know from Gen 1 that on the sixth day, God created the animals, then Adam.
Any writer is allowed to go back when telling a story, to elaborate. Gen 2:19 tells us that God created the animals out off the dust of the ground, just as God created man out of the dust of the ground, so presumably the logic would be that God creates everything else first so that He can give His undivided attention to speaking to Adam, immediately after creating Adam. It would be impolite of God to create Adam, and then say, as His first words to Adam "hang on a second while I create the animals".
This position contradicts Genesis 1:
Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Grass clearly came forth on Day 3.
The first words of God in the second creation story are about eating. The second set of words were:
It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air...
So man was alone. God formed the animals to seek a helper for him.
The notes from the NRSV Oxford Annotated Bible notes:
Creation in a garden: This tradition, often identified as J, is different from 1.1-2.3, as evidenced by a different style and order of events...Animals are created after the first human rather than before...”
I also encourage you to look at the NET Bible notes. Are you familiar with the NET Bible?
https://bible.org/netbible/
Last edited:
6days
New member
I encourage you to trust the plain words of Scripture... and perhaps commentaries other than NRSV and NET. Would you like some suggestions?
I encourage you to do the same. If you honestly look at Genesis 2, you will see your error in any translation.
You should also look at 2 Samuel 18, which is repeated in the Psalms. Compare 2 Samuel 18 to the events of David’s life running from Saul. In doing so, you will see that the figurative language of ancient Hebrew poetry is true but far from historically accurate.
iouae
Well-known member
I am quite happy if God created Adam out of the dust of the ground, and then made the animals out of the dust of the ground as He brought them to Adam. It's all occurring on Day 6. A writer is not obliged to tell a story with every detail in strict order. A writer may combine one thought with another which goes with the first thought.
As for all vegetation, I am satisfied it was all seeded on day 3, but Eden needed fully grown vegetation, and is described as "grown", whereas the rest of the earth with unsprouted plants sees Adam created first in Eden, and then the plants in the rest of the earth appear, under the watering from mist/rain.
So, from the point of view of Eden, a man comes after vegetation. From the point of view of the rest of the earth, Adam appears first, and vegetation appears later, as it sprouts. So in the rest of the earth, vegetation comes after man. To me it ticks all my boxes.
I use this online Bible which has the NET. The New English Translation is pretty good here. I am not sure "springs" would well up is as good as mist. "Ed" the word for fog or mist is only used twice in the Bible viz.
Gen 2:6
But there went up a mist H108 from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Job 36:27
For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour H108 thereof:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/net/gen/2/1/s_2001
As for all vegetation, I am satisfied it was all seeded on day 3, but Eden needed fully grown vegetation, and is described as "grown", whereas the rest of the earth with unsprouted plants sees Adam created first in Eden, and then the plants in the rest of the earth appear, under the watering from mist/rain.
So, from the point of view of Eden, a man comes after vegetation. From the point of view of the rest of the earth, Adam appears first, and vegetation appears later, as it sprouts. So in the rest of the earth, vegetation comes after man. To me it ticks all my boxes.
I use this online Bible which has the NET. The New English Translation is pretty good here. I am not sure "springs" would well up is as good as mist. "Ed" the word for fog or mist is only used twice in the Bible viz.
Gen 2:6
But there went up a mist H108 from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Job 36:27
For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour H108 thereof:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/net/gen/2/1/s_2001
We will have to agree to disagree.
I find the idea that plants were seeded on Day 3 but had not grown on Day 3 as a complete denial of the text of Genesis 1. The text could not be more clear that all kinds of plants grew on Day 3:
Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
And the text of Genesis 2 could not be more clear that man was formed before any plants were growing:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 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 one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
I ask you to think about this: if you only had the second creation story (starting in Genesis 2.4b) and did not have the first creation story, would you take the position that man was formed before plants were growing?
And if you only had the first creation story, would you argue that the earth brought forth all kinds of vegetation on Day 3 and God saw it was good?
Thanks for your comments.