A nice little riddle

[Nabisco97]

A co-worker a couple of days ago gave me this riddle about the Bible.

This puzzle was written by a lady in california in response to an offer from a gentleman in philadelphia that he would give $1000.00 to anyone who could write a puzzle he could not solve. He failed to do so and paid the $1000.00.

Adam, God made out of dust,
But thought it best to make me first.
So I was made before man,
To answer God's most holy plan.
A living being, I became,
And Adam gave to me my name.
I from his presence then withdrew,
And more of Adam never knew.
I did my makers law obey.
Now never went from it astray.
Thousands of miles I go in fear,
But seldon on earth appear.
For purpose wise which God did see,
He put a living soul in me.
A soul from me God did claim,
And took from me my soul again.
So when from me the soul that fled,
I was the same when first made.
And without hands, or feet, or soul,
I travel on from pole to pole.
I labor hard by day and by night,
To fallen man I give great might.
Thousands of people, young and old,
Will by my death great light behold.
No right or wrong can I conceive,
The scriptures I cannot believe.
Although my name therein is found,
They are to me an empty sound.
No fear or death doth trouble me,
Real happiness i'll never see.
To heaven I shall never go,
Not to hell below.
Now when these lines you read,
Go search the bible with all speed.
For my name is written there,
I do honestly declare.

Please try to solve this simple little puzzle. The answer is ONE WORD found 4 times in the bible. Search hard and you are sure to find much more than the word -- and when you do find the word you will say it's too simple and everyone should know---.

I've been doing a little bible reading so far, but the only guesses I can presume are

Serpent
Lilith
Some Angel
The Devil
A Talking Animal (haha)

This is all i've gathered and would like to hear your insights. hopefully i'll already have figured it out.

Oh yeah the last part of that riddle please do not discuss on this thread (Search hard and you are sure to find much more than the word) this, no smart remarks. Although I love to joke about the bible i'd like to keep this completely serious.

I still say the only serious guess off my list is Lilith

[Z]

Adam, God made out of dust,
But thought it best to make me first.
So I was made before man,

This rules out any human being.

[UrsulaV]

Lilith also doesn't appear in most Bibles, as far as I know.

[Nabisco97]

Yeah that's what I was thinking, but in the King James Version, nothing relating to that yet in Genisis. Also the Bible is very confusing as to what was created before man.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Leviathan. The Whale. I assume the reference to the soul given and taken away is to Jonah in the belly of the great fish.

[Nabisco97]

Leviathan. The Whale.

Now where is that mentioned? In Genisis? In the KJV?

Wut up New Blood.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The Book of Job. Also a few of the Psalms and Isaiah, I believe.

[Nabisco97]

The Book of Job. Also a few of the Psalms and Isaiah, I believe.

Cool, thx.

[T'ai Chi]

"Will by my death great light behold."

Whale seems a sensible answer.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm really not surprised the guy had trouble getting this because it isn't technically correct. Leviathan is not specifically a whale and Jonah was swallowed by a big fish rather than a whale, but I think the light refers to light from whale oil. So what she really did was take many assumptions and put them into her riddle. It's still a pretty good riddle, though.

[tkingdoll]

I cheated and Googled it.

[Nabisco97]

Actually the whole riddle is contradicting (or one part makes it that way).

Five times leviathan is mentioned

Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out LEVIATHAN with an hook? or his tongue with a cord [which] thou lettest down?

Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of LEVIATHAN in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Psa 104:26 There go the ships: [there is] that LEVIATHAN, [whom] thou hast made to play therein.

Isa 27:1 (x2) In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish LEVIATHAN the piercing serpent, even LEVIATHAN that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.

That is contradicting right?

The answer is ONE WORD found 4 times in the bible.

It's found five times

[UrsulaV]

The word "Leviathan" is found six times in the New International Bible, vs. four in the King James, so a specification on what version might've been handy, too. (I mean, with that many lines, already, what's one more?)

The line "To fallen man I give great might," seems a little odd, though. I get the whale oil bit, but are people harnessing whales and using them to plow the ocean or something?

It also assumes the Genesis 1 version of creation is correct, rather than Genesis 2, where Adam is created before the animals. Also seems kinda hard about animals not having souls, which some of us would probably protest..

Edit: Ooh, good point Nabisco. It DOES show up in four verses, but is written five times.

[Nabisco97]

The word "Leviathan" is found six times in the New International Bible, vs. four in the King James, so a specification on what version might've been handy, too. (I mean, with that many lines, already, what's one more?)

The line "To fallen man I give great might," seems a little odd, though. I get the whale oil bit, but are people harnessing whales and using them to plow the ocean or something?

It also assumes the Genesis 1 version of creation is correct, rather than Genesis 2, where Adam is created before the animals. Also seems kinda hard about animals not having souls, which some of us would probably protest..

Edit: Ooh, good point Nabisco. It DOES show up in four verses, but is written five times.

Yeah that would have been helpful with which version, but by now the KJV is the default isn't it?

This is why I will tell people I don't read the bible from now on! Instead of just simply too many contradictions of the natural world in which God can come down and play and show himself but won't ( then we really start debating, especially about the problem of evil.

From now on just say - Which version should I choose and why?, because you arent the only type of christian- ill revise this later with everyone's input.

EDIT: Boy, this takes me back to the days of Final Fantasy 2 American Version ( 4 in Japan)

EDIT: EDIT:Thanks for the props UrsulaV, almost forgot to thank you, and sorry for the plain thx earlier, I've been playing World Of Warcraft way too much.

[Lord Emsworth]

Personified Wisdom?

[Nabisco97]

Personified Wisdom?



Huh? Are you guessing or making another kind of remark

[Jon.]

When I read it I thought of the Sun. But I'm most of the way convinced that Leviathan is the answer.

[Lord Emsworth]

Huh? Are you guessing or making another kind of remark


It was my guess, though I figured out that it is quite wrong.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The line "To fallen man I give great might," seems a little odd, though. I get the whale oil bit, but are people harnessing whales and using them to plow the ocean or something?




Yeah, that bothered me too. So, I figure either she is a bad poet; this refers to the later line about giving light; or she is really brilliant and this refers either to Jethro Tull's Heavy Horses or to Star Trek IV.

Personally I think she's a bad poet.

Or maybe there is another better answer? Leviathan was the best I could come up with.

It also assumes the Genesis 1 version of creation is correct, rather than Genesis 2, where Adam is created before the animals. Also seems kinda hard about animals not having souls, which some of us would probably protest..

I think this is all part of the bad poetry, since it seems to assume both creation accounts -- with the sea creatures being created on day 5 and then the later account when Adam names all the animals, neglecting the fact that the animals were all created after him in that second creation story.

[Beerina]

"Will by my death great light behold."

Whale seems a sensible answer.

I had to think about that one for a second, but yes, people used to use whale oil lamps all the time.

"Leviathan", by the way, is a leftover from earlier stories wherein God, or Odin, or whatever, slew the great chaos dragon Leviathan, and cut it in half to make heaven and earth. Later redactors, making god more and more omnipotent, got rid of this portion of creation (though separating the great chaos sea still remains more or less intact -- see the "firmament", i.e. the firm sky, holding back the waters, and when God floods the world in Noah, he opens the windows of heaven and "breaks up the fonts" of the deep, that which was holding back the water under the bottom portion, i.e. earth, so the flood rises up from below, too. It wasn't just rain that flooded the earth, technically speaking.)

And the few references later on to Leviathan still remain -- "Was it not God who slew Leviathan?" that the redactors goofed and left in since it was in a Psalm.

[Beerina]

Let's sum up so far in light of "Leviathan" or "a whale".

> Adam, God made out of dust,
> But thought it best to make me first.
> So I was made before man,

Check! Animals made first.

> To answer God's most holy plan.
> A living being, I became,
> And Adam gave to me my name.

Check! Adam named all the animals. (How he knew English, I'll never know.)

> I from his presence then withdrew,
> And more of Adam never knew.

Check! Outside of unmentioned old-school reference to "fishes" and that Adam named all the animals, Adam didn't hang with the whales at all.


> I did my makers law obey.
> Now never went from it astray.
> Thousands of miles I go in fear,

A bit puzzling -- whales don't travel in fear. Sonar and ship engines may mess their direction and signalling up from time to time, but that's not fear.

> But seldon on earth appear.

True, only if they beach themselves or are hauled there prior to slaughter.

> For purpose wise which God did see,
> He put a living soul in me.
> A soul from me God did claim,
> And took from me my soul again.
> So when from me the soul that fled,
> I was the same when first made.

Clever if it's the whale that swallowed Jonah. Granted, it was a "fish", but modern taxonomy making whales mammals instead of fish doesn't necessarily apply here.


> And without hands, or feet, or soul,

True, although many around here are quick to point out the DNA for legs and feet still exist, perhaps somewhat corrupted, inside a whale, and occasionally express themselves, much like human tails. Also, I was interested to learn a whale's tail was homologically a tail, and not modified flipper-feet. I had always assumed it was modified legs and feet -- that's why the "tail" moved up and down instead of side-to-side. Live and learn.

> I travel on from pole to pole.
> I labor hard by day and by night,

Moving a whale's bulk would be hard labor by human standards, but not necessarily by a whale's standards. Still, poetic license...

> To fallen man I give great might.

Odd, no solution. Perhaps, as Eskimos know, eating whale blubber keeps you very warm, fallen man (i.e. any old man) gets a lot of energy. But that's a stretch.

> Thousands of people, young and old,
> Will by my death great light behold.

Whale oil lamps + poetic license to call a lamp's dim light a "great light".

> No right or wrong can I conceive,

Typical of animals excepting the serpent.

> The scriptures I cannot believe.

...as any animal cannot since they are not bright enough.

> Although my name therein is found,
> They are to me an empty sound.
> No fear or death doth trouble me,

Because you're not a human, the only animal that knows it's going to die.

> Real happiness i'll never see.
> To heaven I shall never go,

Poetic license that a whale won't go to Heaven, i.e. never experience that ultimate holy realm. But it still is a bit fishy.

[Rufo]

Well, is Leviathan the correct answer to the riddle? If it was some kind of challenge I suppose there is a correct answer, right?

Serpent
Lilith
Some Angel
The Devil
A Talking Animal (haha)
The serpent seems a fairly good guess, but it appears pretty often on earth and also didn't obey its maker's law, at least not to begin with.
Lilith is mentioned in some Bibles, but as far as I know only one time, as a desert demon. Also, according to the mythology, I think she was made at about the same time as Adam and he did some more with her besides the naming. Also, she didn't obey God's law very well, since she spoke His name.
The angels mentioned by name in the Bible aren't that many... and though I have heard some about angels with strange anatomy, like multiple heads, I can't recall any lacking hands and feet, and I do think they are supposed to have souls.
The Devil certainly didn't obey his maker's law, and is already in hell.
An animal seems very probable... but what animal?

[Bri]

I think this is all part of the bad poetry, since it seems to assume both creation accounts -- with the sea creatures being created on day 5 and then the later account when Adam names all the animals, neglecting the fact that the animals were all created after him in that second creation story.

Since this was brought up several times, the "second creation story" (I assume you mean Genesis 2:4-25) doesn't indicate that the animals were created after man according to my translation from the Hebrew. Genesis 2:19 is translated "Now, God had formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call each one..." (emphasis mine).

Originally, I had thought the following line might refer to hunting of whales (weren't some whales nearly hunted to extinction?):

Thousands of miles I go in fear,

But then the following line doesn't quite make sense:

No fear or death doth trouble me,

But I did a search on the Internet, and it seems that this line should read:

No feat of death doth trouble me,

Perhaps a reference to beaching?

There seems to be many different versions of the poem. Here is one found here (http://www.braingle.com/brainteasers/teaser.php?id=19679):


Adam, God made out of dust
But thought it best to make me first,
So I was made before man
To answer God's most Holy plan.
A living being I became
And Adam gave to me my name.
I from his presence then withdrew
And more of Adam never knew.
I did my Maker's law obey
Nor ever went from it astray.
Thousands of miles I go in fear
But seldom on earth appear.
For purpose wise God did see,
He put a living soul in me.
A soul from me God did claim
And took from me the soul again.
So when from me the soul had fled
I was the same as when first made.
And without hands, or feet, or soul,
I travel on from pole to pole.
I labor hard by day, by night
To fallen man I give great light.
Thousands of people, young and old
Will by my death great light behold.
No right or wrong can I conceive
The scripture I cannot believe.
Although my name therein is found
They are to me an empty sound.
No feat of death doth trouble me
Real happiness I'll never see.
To Heaven I shall never go
Or to Hell below.
Now when these lines you slowly read,
Go search your Bible with all speed
For that my name is written there
I do honestly to you declare.

Note that this version is also without the troubling line:

To fallen man I give great might.

Which instead reads:

To fallen man I give great light.

Perhaps a reference to nighttime.

Yet, another version here (http://www.heartofwisdom.com/riddle.htm) lists this as the verse:

I labor on by day and night,
To fallen man, I am a great sight.
Thousands of people young and old,
Will by my death great light behold.

Yet another here (http://www.wholesomewords.org/children/chpuzzle.html):

My labors are from day to night,
And to men I once furnished light.
Thousands of people both young and old,
Did by my death bright lights behold.


So does anyone know the original words to the poem?

-Bri

[UrsulaV]

Since this was brought up several times, the "second creation story" (I assume you mean Genesis 2:4-25) doesn't indicate that the animals were created after man according to my translation from the Hebrew. Genesis 2:19 is translated "Now, God had formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call each one..." (emphasis mine).



Can't speak to the Hebrew myself, obviously, but the King James certainly seems to imply that Man was creatured prior to the animals:

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


The implication being that Adam is alone and the animals are created in hopes of finding a help meet among them. Likewise, the creation of the animals is listed after the creation of man. I grant you, it doesn't say precisely "HUMANS THEN ANIMALS, DAMNIT," but the reading looks a lot like man first to me.

However, there's arguably wiggle room in this interpretation for the riddle, because at no point in Genesis 2 is God ever listed as making the sea creatures, which are neither cattle nor fowl of the air nor beast of the field. So they evidentally didn't get a mention. But if we're taking that out, then Genesis 2 also never has Adam naming the sea creatures (and one wonders how he'd arrange to meet the giant squid and the little floofy things around deep sea vents anyway!) so that'd be out.

I suspect the poem is based on Genesis 1.

[Bri]

The implication being that Adam is alone and the animals are created in hopes of finding a help meet among them. Likewise, the creation of the animals is listed after the creation of man. I grant you, it doesn't say precisely "HUMANS THEN ANIMALS, DAMNIT," but the reading looks a lot like man first to me.

The implication in the Hebrew version is that before God made Adam a companion, he allowed Adam to name all of the animals. The commentary says that Adam had a special gift of knowing the very essence of each animal in order to name them appropriately. As Adam was naming the animals, God knew that Adam would see that none of the animals were an intellectual fit for him, therefore when God made him a mate, Adam wouldn't take her for granted. Even your translation of Genesis 2:20 seems to support that reading. This also explains why the naming of the animals appears within the context of Adam needing a companion and right before Eve was actually created.

The question of how Adam named all of the animals on earth in one day notwithstanding, there's not necessarily a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 concerning the order of creation of animals and man.

-Bri

[tkingdoll]

Well, is Leviathan the correct answer to the riddle? If it was some kind of challenge I suppose there is a correct answer, right?




According to Google, the correct answer is 'The Whale'.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The implication in the Hebrew version is that before God made Adam a companion, he allowed Adam to name all of the animals. The commentary says that Adam had a special gift of knowing the very essence of each animal in order to name them appropriately. As Adam was naming the animals, God knew that Adam would see that none of the animals were an intellectual fit for him, therefore when God made him a mate, Adam wouldn't take her for granted. Even your translation of Genesis 2:20 seems to support that reading. This also explains why the naming of the animals appears within the context of Adam needing a companion and right before Eve was actually created.

The question of how Adam named all of the animals on earth in one day notwithstanding, there's not necessarily a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 concerning the order of creation of animals and man.

-Bri

You're joking, right? In the second version, God creates man, breathes life into him and then decides that man needs a companion. So God creates the animals so that Adam can find a companion. When he doesn't find one, then God creates woman.

The second version specifically says that there was no vegetation on the earth. Then God makes man. Then God plants the garden of Eden, then He makes all the trees, etc. In the first version, vegetation is created on the third day before the sun and moon are made.

There is no contradiction if you want to jump through hoops. There is obvious contradiction if you read the stories as they are written. It doesn't matter what commentary someone has added to your version of the bible. That is merely someone else's opinion.

[UrsulaV]

Even your translation of Genesis 2:20 seems to support that reading.

Huh-whuh?

I see God saying Adam's alone and needs a help-meet. Then I see God making animals. Then I see Adam naming them. It even says that Adam did not find a help-meet among the animals, which would be kind've a weird thing to say if the two things were totally unrelated.

Sorry, dude, but your interpretation strikes me as a reaaaaal stretch there. If you want to claim the Hebrew version has a different chronology, I can't disprove that, 'cos I don't read Hebrew, but it looks pretty clear in the King James version that God first creates Adam, then the animals after Adam is lonely. I think you're having to do a real tapdance around the actual wording to get it to come out the other way.

[Bri]

You're joking, right? In the second version, God creates man, breathes life into him and then decides that man needs a companion. So God creates the animals so that Adam can find a companion. When he doesn't find one, then God creates woman.

Given that the translation I'm looking at comes directly from the Hebrew, it is quite likely more accurate that the animals are created before man in both "versions."

There is no contradiction if you want to jump through hoops. There is obvious contradiction if you read the stories as they are written.

Since they were written in Hebrew, the version I have (which was translated directly from the Hebrew) is likely the more accurate "as written." There is clearly no contradiction between the order of the animals and man in my version.

It doesn't matter what commentary someone has added to your version of the bible. That is merely someone else's opinion.

I wasn't basing it on the commentary, just the translation. The commentary simply added that Adam had the power to accurately name the animals according to their nature. The rest is in the text.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm very sorry that you were taken in by whoever translated your version and told you that it was directly from the Hebrew. I cannot post urls here yet, but here is the Hebrew with a direct translation into English at its side on this site......mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm You can look at it or not, but your argument suffers from bearing no relationship to anyone else's seeming reality.

Try and pull that BS on someone else's time.

[Tirdun]

Is this even a riddle? It seems like a trivia question for bible studies class.

[Bri]

Huh-whuh?

I see God saying Adam's alone and needs a help-meet. Then I see God making animals. Then I see Adam naming them. It even says that Adam did not find a help-meet among the animals, which would be kind've a weird thing to say if the two things were totally unrelated.

I meant that the commentary makes sense as far as explaining why the text would talk about Adam needing a companion, then stops to talk about Adam naming the animals (which has nothing to do with anything otherwise), then goes on with God providing Adam a companion. Either way, the translation from the Hebrew makes it fairly clear that the animals were created first in both passages.

By the way, what is a "help-meet" anyway? My version translates it as "helper."

-Bri

[Bri]

I'm very sorry that you were taken in by whoever translated your version and told you that it was directly from the Hebrew. I cannot post urls here yet, but here is the Hebrew with a direct translation into English at its side on this site......mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm You can look at it or not, but your argument suffers from bearing no relationship to anyone else's seeming reality.

Try and pull that BS on someone else's time.

The version I have also has both the Hebrew and English side-by-side, but it's in book form. I can post the relevant information if you'd like to find the book yourself. My point is that there is much ambiguity and variation in translating ancient Hebrew, especially when the meaning of some words are unknown, or are only known in the context of the Bible. So don't take everything you read on The Skeptic's Annotated Bible as the absolute last word -- as has already been discussed on this forum in several threads, it is far from the final word in most cases and is downright wrong in others.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

And here is the Hebrew with direct translation wherein you can clearly see that man is made before plants in the second creation account and clearly also made before animals. You can work through the words directly yourself. Let's skip all the apologetics. .sov gracepub.com/bibles/interlinearpages/page2.htm

[UrsulaV]

By the way, what is a "help-meet" anyway? My version translates it as "helper."

-Bri

A helpful partner. Has connotations like "spouse" a lot of times, I b'lieve.

[UrsulaV]

So don't take everything you read on The Skeptic's Annotated Bible as the absolute last word -- as has already been discussed on this forum in several threads, it is far from the final word in most cases and is downright wrong in others.

-Bri

I'm usin' the King James and NIV. And Ichneumon links don't appear to go to the Skeptic's. And the last time you accused me of using the Skeptic's Annotated, in another thread, I was using the NIV. I have never actually even looked up the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

This is just a suggestion, but you might wanna consider asking people what version they're using before you assume that we all automatically use the Skeptic's Bible, ya know? I wouldn't normally mention it, but this is the second time you've brought it up when I haven't seen any signs of anybody using it in the thread in question, and it seems a little weird.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Since I don't even know what the Skeptic's annotated Bible is I have no clue what Bri is talking about in the first place. I didn't make my claim lightly. It was based on checking the Hebrew-English translations directly. The sequence of events, even given the potential ambiguities, is fairly clear. It is certainly not the case that there is no problem between the two accounts. The best one can say is that there is horrible ambiguity, but even that is stretching things a bit far.

[Bri]

There are obviously many who disagree, which was simply my point -- that it's not quite as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think it is. Here are a few:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/gn1&gn2h.html


The New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202&version=64;) translates it this way:


19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air...

There are, of course, other explanations offered by theists for the differences in the two accounts of creation, but differing translations from the Hebrew can easily account for this one.

-Bri

[Bri]

I'm usin' the King James and NIV. And Ichneumon links don't appear to go to the Skeptic's. And the last time you accused me of using the Skeptic's Annotated, in another thread, I was using the NIV. I have never actually even looked up the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

This is just a suggestion, but you might wanna consider asking people what version they're using before you assume that we all automatically use the Skeptic's Bible, ya know? I wouldn't normally mention it, but this is the second time you've brought it up when I haven't seen any signs of anybody using it in the thread in question, and it seems a little weird.

This has already been discussed in another thread, so I'm surprised that you are even bringing it up again knowing that there are other translations of the passage that clarify the seeming contradiction. No translation of the Bible that I've seen specifically point out these contradictions that have been brought up both on this thread and in others. You have to go to sites like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (and of course other sites like it) to find these sorts of conclusions without mention of translational ambiguities that might explain them. In many cases, these sites pick and choose the translation that best makes their point without mentioning others.

That said, I shouldn't have mentioned the Skeptic's Annotated Bible specifically since I had no way of knowing specifically from which site the original poster got his information. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is the best-known of those sites on this forum, but I was referring to other similar sites as well.

-Bri

[Bri]

Since I don't even know what the Skeptic's annotated Bible is I have no clue what Bri is talking about in the first place. I didn't make my claim lightly. It was based on checking the Hebrew-English translations directly. The sequence of events, even given the potential ambiguities, is fairly clear. It is certainly not the case that there is no problem between the two accounts. The best one can say is that there is horrible ambiguity, but even that is stretching things a bit far.

I will officially apologize for my wording, and it wasn't my intention to "accuse" you of using that specific site as a source.

You are correct that some translations might seem to have a contradiction. My point was that there are other translations that don't, and when taken in the context of the surrounding text the translation I provided seems to make the most sense. Certainly one should be careful about making sweeping generalizations about errors in the Bible based on these sorts of translational ambiguities.

I wouldn't say that it's stretching it a bit to say that there is an ambiguity, because Ancient Hebrew is a somewhat ambiguous language. Many of the words used in the Bible are only found in the Bible, and therefore we cannot be certain of their meaning. These kinds of variations in translation are not at all uncommon.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

I know the apologetics. They are sometimes truly sad and ignore the earlier pronouncement that there was no vegetation on the earth, then God creates man, then plants the garden -- special pleading about vegetation only being herbs and plants that can be tilled being one of the top ploys. The animals were expressly created to be mates for Adam, but he found none. I'm sorry, but there is no way to make the chronology work by changing a verb tense. The entire argument is circular -- the verb tense decided by context must be past tense because the first account clearly shows that animals and plants came first, so the context determines that we use past tense here, so there can be no contradiction because we have defined it so that no contradiction is possible. Since most of the apologetics that you decided to link from what I recall of them consist largely of special pleading -- the trees are, of course, only the trees of the garden not trees in general in the second account since we know that trees were created on the third day, so I suppose the fruit trees in Genesis 1 were not pleasing though God saw that they were good, since he made all trees that were pleasing in the garden. You say that there is no contradiction. There are plenty of contradictions. You may, of course, twist yourself into a pretzel to explain them away but it looks foolish to discerning eyes.

What possible difference could a contradiction between the two accounts make? Why even attempt to argue against it?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Certainly one should be careful about making sweeping generalizations about errors in the Bible based on these sorts of translational ambiguities.


I don't recall anyone making a sweeping generalization about errors in the Bible (until possibly this current discussion veered off into its new location). I do recall making a distinction between the first and second creation accounts and how the author of that poem seemed to confuse the two accounts and conflate them. Those are two very different activities.

[UrsulaV]

No translation of the Bible that I've seen specifically point out these contradictions that have been brought up both on this thread and in others. You have to go to sites like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (and of course other sites like it) to find these sorts of conclusions without mention of translational ambiguities that might explain them.
-Bri

Err...this may come as a shock, but since we were talking about this riddle and all, I actually read through the KJV and NIV version of Genesis 1 and 2, looking specifically at what was created first. I didn't require an outside source to go "HEY! LOOK! CONTRADICTION!" I was specifically looking at the two stories to see what was created before Adam so I could figure out the riddle. And there looked like two different accounts of what was created before Adam. I flipped back and forth between the pages a coupla times because I was rather interested in solving the riddle. I like riddles.

I really didn't require the Skeptics Whatsit in order to go "Hey, looks like this riddle is based on Genesis 1, not Genesis 2!" I figured that one out alllllll by myself. People really are capable of reading the first two books of Genesis and going "Huh, okay, what was created before Adam so I can answer this riddle?" and seeing that the two chapters come up with two apparently different answers. I really, honestly, was able to read for myself, that what was created before Adam appears to differ between the two chapters, and I really did read just a plain passage-look-up version (off Biblegateway.com if you're interested) without someone specifically pointing out contradictions in the margins. I can read! And I don't even have to move my lips!

I can also tie my shoes without assistance. I am particularly proud of this last.

Seeeriously, you appear to have made at least two unfounded assumptions here--what Bible I'm reading, and that a particular site must be feeding me information. Really, dude, if you want to know what I'm basing it on, all you have to do is ASK. I'm delighted to tell you what led me to a particular conclusion, and that way you actually get accurate information instead of just assuming that we're all reading the Skeptic's Bible over here.

[Bri]

I don't recall anyone making a sweeping generalization about errors in the Bible (until possibly this current discussion veered off into its new location). I do recall making a distinction between the first and second creation accounts and how the author of that poem seemed to confuse the two accounts and conflate them. Those are two very different activities.

I was pointing out that many theists don't see a contradiction, and the author was likely one of them. Your conclusion that the author seemed to be confusing the two accounts was based on one possible translation which perhaps the author wasn't using.

I won't comment any more on using passages in the Bible to demonstrate contradiction since it's off-topic and has already been discussed in more detail in other threads.

-Bri

[Bri]

Err...this may come as a shock, but since we were talking about this riddle and all, I actually read through the KJV and NIV version of Genesis 1 and 2, looking specifically at what was created first. I didn't require an outside source to go "HEY! LOOK! CONTRADICTION!" I was specifically looking at the two stories to see what was created before Adam so I could figure out the riddle. And there looked like two different accounts of what was created before Adam. I flipped back and forth between the pages a coupla times because I was rather interested in solving the riddle. I like riddles.

I really didn't require the Skeptics Whatsit in order to go "Hey, looks like this riddle is based on Genesis 1, not Genesis 2!" I figured that one out alllllll by myself. People really are capable of reading the first two books of Genesis and going "Huh, okay, what was created before Adam so I can answer this riddle?" and seeing that the two chapters come up with two apparently different answers. I really, honestly, was able to read for myself, that what was created before Adam appears to differ between the two chapters, and I really did read just a plain passage-look-up version (off Biblegateway.com if you're interested) without someone specifically pointing out contradictions in the margins. I can read! And I don't even have to move my lips!

If you say so, but this has already been discussed on other threads which you've taken part, so you were aware of these passages long before this thread. Let's not pretend that you just discovered this.

Second, I already commented on my use of the reference to the Skeptics Annotated Bible, and the post in which it was used was not addressed towards you at all.

Nonetheless, even if you had just discovered the contradiction in question straight from the translations you mentioned specifically because of the poem, my comments still stand. One shouldn't make assumptions based on specific translations of the Bible, and it is likely that the author of the poem didn't see a contradiction between the order of creation of animals and man in the two passages from Genesis 1 and 2.

-Bri

[Bri]

You say that there is no contradiction. There are plenty of contradictions.

Actually, I only said that there was no contradiction concerning the order of creation of the animals and man (which was the only contradiction that pertained specifically to the riddle that was the topic of the original post) according to my translation from the Hebrew. I didn't comment on other contradictions specifically, nor on any other translations that you may have been using, except to say that they are not the only translations and might not be the most accurate.

-Bri

[UrsulaV]

One shouldn't make assumptions based on specific translations of the Bible, and it is likely that the author of the poem didn't see a contradiction between the order of creation of animals and man in the two passages from Genesis 1 and 2.

-Bri

The author of the poem, however, made a VERY translation-specific assumption, namely that the name of the answer (presumably "whale") appears four times in the Bible. This is very much dependant on translation, and differs between the NIV and KJV--the NIV doesn't list "whale" at all, and translates something like Job 7:12 as "monster of the deep" rather than "whale."

The author of the poem is obviously making an assumption about a specific translation of the Bible to begin with!

[UrsulaV]

If you say so, but this has already been discussed on other threads which you've taken part, so you were aware of these passages long before this thread. Let's not pretend that you just discovered this.
-Bri

Certainly not, but let's not pretend that nobody's capable of reading Genesis and going "Gee, Rocky, which came first, Adam or the animals?" without the Skeptic's Bible set as their homepage, either.

[Bri]

The author of the poem, however, made a VERY translation-specific assumption, namely that the name of the answer (presumably "whale") appears four times in the Bible. This is very much dependant on translation, and differs between the NIV and KJV--the NIV doesn't list "whale" at all, and translates something like Job 7:12 as "monster of the deep" rather than "whale."

The author of the poem is obviously making an assumption about a specific translation of the Bible to begin with!

I see your point, but it wasn't clear to me that the author provided the "hints" rather than the hints being added later by someone else. Given the context of the riddle, I'm guessing the hints were probably added later.

Nonetheless, many theists (even those who read the NIV and KJV) don't necessarily see a contradiction in those passages (especially if they're familiar with other translations), and the author may very well have been one of them.

Certainly not, but let's not pretend that nobody's capable of reading Genesis and going "Gee, Rocky, which came first, Adam or the animals?" without the Skeptic's Bible set as their homepage, either.

OK, your point is well-taken, and I've already explained what I meant when I made the reference to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and I have already apologized to the poster to whom my original comments had been directed for not being more clear.

I will concede that certainly one can read some translations and see a contradiction. I was pointing out that the apparent contradiction in question is far from definitive for most theists, and other (possibly more accurate) translations may resolve the contradiction altogether.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

How does one determine which translation is the more accurate? Is it based on what satisfies "me" (the individual reader) the most? Internal consistency? Fidelity to the logical structure of the story? Fidelity to the words used?

[Z]

Bri, unfortunately you're touching on one of the very important problems when dealing with hard-core theists: they'll NEVER see a contradiction, regardless of translation. And in spite of your present apparent backpeddling, it does seem like you're placing a great stock of faith in your Hebrew translation, when other authorities have translated those same terms differently, and see the contradiction which you refuse to see.

But based on the rest of the poem, it's clear that the author was using a fairly common translation that had the contradiction still in-tact.

[Bri]

Zaayr,

Yes, I agree, but please don't overstate my argument and then claim that I was backpedaling. I never claimed that one couldn't see a contradiction in some translations, and as I said from the beginning, I am only referring to the previous comments concerning the accuracy of the riddle (specifically the comments concerning the order of creation of the animals and man).

Since you can't read a contradiction into some translations at all, there is very likely an ambiguity in the original Hebrew. It is certainly possible that the author of the poem (who is probably a theist) didn't see a conflict in the text regardless of what translation she was using.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't think anyone doubts that she sees no contradiction. In fact, that was the whole point -- that she obviously did not see a contradiction while others of us do.

Let's cut to the chase. Could you produce a non-contradictory translation for us so that we can look at it? I cannot see how to structure that story so that a contradiction does not appear, and I am thoroughly unconvinced by the argument that the context of a preceding, independently written, story determines the use of the past tense in the second account. I am not at all sure how using the past tense really helps when one looks at the entire structure of the story. It might be helpful if you could produce the story in full so that we could examine it rather than having to rely on little snips from apologetic sites.

[Bri]

I already posted several references that claim that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 don't contain contradictions, so if you're interested in reading those arguments, please go back to those references. I was not making that argument myself, but rather the argument that my translation doesn't have the contradiction you brought up concerning the order of animals and man as indicated in the riddle. Here is the relevant translation:

18 Hashem God said, "It is not good that man be alone; I will make him a helper corresponding to him." 19 Now, Hashem God had formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man called each living creature, that remained its name. 20 And the man assigned names to all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to every beast of the field; but as for man, he did not find a helper corresponding to him. 21 So Hashem God cast a deep sleep upon the man and he slept; and He took one of his sides and He filled in flesh in its place. 22 Then Hashem God fashioned the side that He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

This translation of the passage meshes with the order of creation from Genesis 1 (animals then man) without contradiction. The New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202;&version=31;) has a similar translation.

Based on the evidence, it is far from certain that there is a contradiction as far as the riddle is concerned. The fact that the author probably doesn't see a contradiction in the order of creation between animals and man isn't particularly surprising.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

You are not at all bothered by "I will make a helper" --future tense -- then the animals are brought forth and trust that the correct tense has been chosen for the verb "form" -- past tense? I don't think the structure of the story calls for the past tense there based on the internal evidence. Why do we move from future to past tense? What contextual evidence supports that move?

[Nabisco97]

How can someone not see a contradiction in Genisis 1 and 2 If they're reading from the KJV? Unless they leave one out, it seems to me, that there is a contradiction.

Sorry, but I haven't talked much to people about the first two chapters contradiction status. Most people here don't even talk about Genisis at all.

[Bri]

You are not at all bothered by "I will make a helper" --future tense -- then the animals are brought forth and trust that the correct tense has been chosen for the verb "form" -- past tense? I don't think the structure of the story calls for the past tense there based on the internal evidence. Why do we move from future to past tense? What contextual evidence supports that move?

I'm not particularly concerned about the Bible one way or the other.

Although I do see your point, assuming that the Bible isn't the infallible word of God, it seems unlikely that the author(s) of the Bible would have God create animals as "helpers" for Adam, especially since that wouldn't explain the naming of the animals in the middle of the passage. It does make sense if God, in bringing the animals to Adam to name, intended for Adam to recognize that none of the animals are his intellectual equals before creating woman. The phrase "he did not find a helper corresponding to him" seems to support that. Reading it that way both makes sense in context and eliminates any inconsistency.

It also seems highly unlikely to me that the authors of the Bible wouldn't have noticed the inconsistency (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are right next to each other) and corrected it if there was one.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not particularly concerned about the Bible one way or the other.

Although I do see your point, assuming that the Bible isn't the infallible word of God, it seems unlikely that the author(s) of the Bible would have God create animals as "helpers" for Adam, especially since that wouldn't explain the naming of the animals in the middle of the passage. It does make sense if God, in bringing the animals to Adam to name, intended for Adam to recognize that none of the animals are his intellectual equals before creating woman. The phrase "he did not find a helper corresponding to him" seems to support that. Reading it that way both makes sense in context and eliminates any inconsistency.

Wel, that wasn't exactly my point. I asked what textual evidence supported the move from God speaking of a future action and then moving directly to an action in the past. Adam not recognizing any of the animals as his equal (proper mate) is the basic idea behind that part of the story. The problem arises from moving from the one tense to the other for no apparently good reason.

It also seems highly unlikely to me that the authors of the Bible wouldn't have noticed the inconsistency (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are right next to each other) and corrected it if there was one.



I don't think the authors thought about any consistency or inconsistency issues in joining the two stories. It seems to me that you are looking at these stories with modern eyes expecting consistency because that is what we moderns want in our stories. Folks hearing these tales during the Bronze Age would have known the conventions of such stories. The second story takes off from the final point of the first one -- that man was not made for creation but creation was made for man. This theme is made more explicit in the second tale where man is made first and the rest of creation is expressly fashioned to suit him. I don't think consistency between them was important to any ancient audience, just as there is no good answer to, "Whence came Cain's wife?". The Bible doesn't particularly concern itself with those questions because it was never about providing a coherent account of human history.

It seems as though this argument returns again to its circular origin -- we choose the tense that makes the stories jibe because we want the stories to jibe. Leave the second story on its own and there is no reason whatever for us to use the idea "God had formed out of the ground..." since this sentence occurs directly after the future tense statement, "I will make him a helper". These stories have points to them. The first stories concerns separations. The second story is loaded with themes. I am concerned that with all the emphasis on the "literal truth" or the "infallibility" or the "consistency between the accounts" that the real messages are being over-looked, and we are producing yet another generation of bad readers.

[Bri]

I am concerned that with all the emphasis on the "literal truth" or the "infallibility" or the "consistency between the accounts" that the real messages are being over-looked, and we are producing yet another generation of bad readers.

I can buy most of your argument. In fact, most theists (including some literalists) would agree that the accounts in Genesis are not meant to be read as a literal history of events. Of course there are apparently counter-arguments to your argument as well.

As far as the riddle is concerned, I doubt the author was very concerned with any inconsistencies and simply assumed the order in Genesis 1. Perhaps the author wasn't aware of a possible inconsistency in Genesis 2, or perhaps she simply didn't believe that there is an inconsistency.

It's also possible that she was using the NIV translation rather than KJV which has no inconsistency. Although the hint seems to assume the KJV, I'm not certain the author wrote the hint.

-Bri

[Z]

18 Hashem God said, "It is not good that man be alone; I will make him a helper corresponding to him." 19 Now, Hashem God had formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man called each living creature, that remained its name.

Even this translation seems to indicate that Adam existed prior to God forming the animals. The structure of the term 'had formed' doesn't indicate whether this formation was prior to that of Adam or not, and the fact that the very same sentence carries on to the introduction of animals to Adam suggests that, in fact, God made these animals after Adam precisely out of a need to find him a helper.

So an apparent contradiction still exists.

[Bri]

So an apparent contradiction still exists.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I don't see where that translation implies that man was created before the animals. At best it doesn't say one way or the other, but it seems fairly clear that the animals brought before Adam are the ones that God had previously created, so he didn't create them right then and there to be helpers for Adam.

-Bri

[Z]

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I don't see where that translation implies that man was created before the animals. At best it doesn't say one way or the other, but it seems fairly clear that the animals brought before Adam are the ones that God had previously created, so he didn't create them right then and there to be helpers for Adam.

-Bri

Just because the word had was used does NOT mean that we're talking a pre-Adamic event. Here's how I read it:

God said, "It's not good for Adam to be alone, so I will make him a helper"

Now, God had made all these animals and presented them to Adam, and Adam named them.

So the statement does pertain to the past, but it is the near, post-Adamic past. After all, he couldn't have presented the animals to Adam if Adam was made after that time, and it doesn't mention here that God made the animals, then Adam, then presented the animals to Adam. The situation is worse if you consider the possibility of 'had created' to be not as we tend to think of it today, as a past participle, but if instead we consider the rarer and more archaic 'had caused to be created' - inferring, perhaps, that God issued this labor to others to do (the Angels, perhaps?).

It takes some special apologetics to take this line from ANY translation and say that God made these animals before Adam, and THEN made Adam, and THEN had Adam name the animals.

In fact, the context of 18 and 19 together implies, quite clearly, that God had made Adam, and decided to make the animals as part of the search for a suitable helper for Adam.

From what I've read, though, this discussion is really pointless anyway, since it seems that the authoring style of the first and second creation myths are sufficiently different as to suggest not just two different authors, but two different time periods as well. It's quite reasonable, from the available evidence, to view these two myths as pieced-together and only mildly coherent, and it seems as if the only ones really still debating this point are the fundie apologeticists.

[Bri]

Just because the word had was used does NOT mean that we're talking a pre-Adamic event.

I agree with that statement. However, it does NOT mean that we're necessarily talking about a post-Adamic event either. In fact, it doesn't indicate at all whether the animals were created before Adam or after, only that they had been created before Adam required a helper.

In fact, the context of 18 and 19 together implies, quite clearly, that God had made Adam, and decided to make the animals as part of the search for a suitable helper for Adam.

That statement I cannot agree with. That the animals were created before Adam required a helper would seem to preclude the animals having been created for that purpose.

It's quite reasonable, from the available evidence, to view these two myths as pieced-together and only mildly coherent, and it seems as if the only ones really still debating this point are the fundie apologeticists.

While it's certainly true that it's reasonable to view the two as "pieced-together," I don't know that it's true that only fundamentalists believe otherwise.

-Bri

[Z]

That statement I cannot agree with. That the animals were created before Adam required a helper would seem to preclude the animals having been created for that purpose.

-Bri

God said, "It's not good for Adam to be alone, so I will make him a helper"

Now, God had made all these animals and presented them to Adam, and Adam named them.

But this says Adam was alone; and God thought this was bad; so he made animals for the purpose of being helpers to Man.

In this myth, animals were secondary creations to Man. Whether you can agree with this or not is irrelevant - the statement is self-evident from the structure. Thus, the contradiction exists, clearly.

[Bri]

But this says Adam was alone; and God thought this was bad; so he made animals for the purpose of being helpers to Man.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. The translation I quoted and the NIV translation both contradict the conclusion that animals are created for the purpose of being Adam's helpers.

In this myth, animals were secondary creations to Man. Whether you can agree with this or not is irrelevant - the statement is self-evident from the structure. Thus, the contradiction exists, clearly.

Whether or not I agree with your opinion is irrelevant?

Although I don't personally disagree that a contradiction exists, there is plenty of room for disagreement. The contradiction exists, but far from "clearly" and the statement that animals are created after man is far from "self-evident from the structure."

-Bri

[Yahweh]

A co-worker a couple of days ago gave me this riddle about the Bible.

This puzzle was written by a lady in california in response to an offer from a gentleman in philadelphia that he would give $1000.00 to anyone who could write a puzzle he could not solve. He failed to do so and paid the $1000.00.

Adam, God made out of dust,
But thought it best to make me first.
So I was made before man,
To answer God's most holy plan.
A living being, I became,
And Adam gave to me my name.
I from his presence then withdrew,
And more of Adam never knew.
I did my makers law obey.
Now never went from it astray.
Thousands of miles I go in fear,
But seldon on earth appear.
For purpose wise which God did see,
He put a living soul in me.
A soul from me God did claim,
And took from me my soul again.
So when from me the soul that fled,
I was the same when first made.
And without hands, or feet, or soul,
I travel on from pole to pole.
I labor hard by day and by night,
To fallen man I give great might.
Thousands of people, young and old,
Will by my death great light behold.
No right or wrong can I conceive,
The scriptures I cannot believe.
Although my name therein is found,
They are to me an empty sound.
No fear or death doth trouble me,
Real happiness i'll never see.
To heaven I shall never go,
Not to hell below.
Now when these lines you read,
Go search the bible with all speed.
For my name is written there,
I do honestly declare.

Please try to solve this simple little puzzle. The answer is ONE WORD found 4 times in the bible. Search hard and you are sure to find much more than the word -- and when you do find the word you will say it's too simple and everyone should know---.
Its a whale (http://www.bible.org.sg/what/fun/bbquizans2.htm).

[Z]

You are welcome to your opinion, Bri. Language isn't much my thing, when it comes to usage; I've no idea how I managed perfect reading comprehension scores since fifth grade, considering how I mangle most sentences. But this passage (the specific quote I took above) reads quite clearly and concisely, IMHO, that God created the animals as part of a search for an aide to Adam.

Of course, as such, it raises lots of interesting questions, regarding God's supposed infallibility and omniscience, as well.

[Bri]

Thanks for allowing me my opinion, Zaayr. I can't say why you managed perfect reading comprehension scores if you mangle sentences -- perhaps you ought to ask your school district that question.

The word "had" in the NIV would indicate past tense, which means that there is really no indication of whether animals or man was created first. However, the past tense does seem to indicate that the animals existed before God said "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." That would seem to preclude your reading that "God created the animals as part of a search for an aide to Adam."

Of course, the KJV translation would seem to support your theory, but the fact that there are multiple interpretations indicates that the Hebrew might be ambiguous.

-Bri

[Pauliesonne]

I'm in pain.

[rharbers]

But this passage (the specific quote I took above) reads quite clearly and concisely, IMHO, that God created the animals as part of a search for an aide to Adam.

Of course, as such, it raises lots of interesting questions, regarding God's supposed infallibility and omniscience, as well.

So this is how it went: God makes Adam first. Then the light, stars, sun, moon, plants and animals just so he can name them. Then he divides Adam in two to make a woman so now we have two humans instead of one. Sounds about right?

[Z]

Thanks for allowing me my opinion, Zaayr. I can't say why you managed perfect reading comprehension scores if you mangle sentences -- perhaps you ought to ask your school district that question.

The word "had" in the NIV would indicate past tense, which means that there is really no indication of whether animals or man was created first. However, the past tense does seem to indicate that the animals existed before God said "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." That would seem to preclude your reading that "God created the animals as part of a search for an aide to Adam."

IF it were placed prior, that would be the case; however, the sentence with the word you're focusing on comes AFTER this statement; and since the entire section is past-tense, nothing supports your assertion here.

Of course, the KJV translation would seem to support your theory, but the fact that there are multiple interpretations indicates that the Hebrew might be ambiguous.

-Bri

But none of those interpretations re-arrange the two passages in question.

[Bri]

Zaayr:

Consider the following:

Bri said "It is not good to be hungry. I will eat some lunch." Now, Bri had made a sandwich with bread of the field, cheese of a cow, and all the tomatoes of the garden. He brought it to the table to see how it would taste. And Bri tasted that it was good.

Are you saying that there is no way according to the above sentences that Bri might have made the sandwich earlier that day, prior to becoming hungry?

-Bri

[Z]

Zaayr:

Consider the following:



Are you saying that there is no way according to the above sentences that Bri might have made the sandwich earlier that day, prior to becoming hungry?

-Bri

According to its structure and context, I would say the obvious interpretation is that Bri became hungry, then made a sandwich.

You could mean it the other way, but that interpretation is not indicated in this structure. If that were what you wished to say, you should either have mentioned the sandwich first, or you should add a descriptive like, "Now, prior to this time, Bri [had made a sandwich]." Otherwise, the tenses being the same, the only indicator of order is the order of the sentences themselves... indicating that hunger preceded the production of sandwich.

[Bri]

According to its structure and context, I would say the obvious interpretation is that Bri became hungry, then made a sandwich.

Your interpretation requires that the second sentence be grammatically incorrect. In order to convey the meaning you are trying to impose on it, the word "had" would have to be omitted from the second sentence. Of course, the sentence is not grammatically incorrect as written. It simply conveys that the sandwich was made before Bri became hungry.

The word "had" in this manner is used to form the past perfect tense (http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/pastpf.htm).

-Bri

[Z]

Are you sure it is used this way, though?

I will admit I'm unfamiliar with the use of 'had' to refer to a prior event AFTER another event has been mentioned... and I could well be wrong, in this case. However, given the archaic grammar we're discussing, the concept of 'had made' can also refer to something someone else (his angels, perhaps) made for him... 'I'll have that made right away.' 'I had made many fine tapestries by my artisans'. It's an obsolete usage today, but we're not talking about a common discourse of the current period, are we?

What would be particularly enlightening is to see what, exactly, the verb usage is, directly tranlated from Hebrew. If, indeed, the native word is a past participle, then I retract my commentary and offer apologies. If, however, it is not - if it has merely been interpreted as such - then my comment stands.

Interestingly, in my copy of the Diaglott, the passage reads, "At this time, God caused to be made of the Earth all the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky..." I'm not putting much stock in this translation, though, as I've found it lacking when compared to many other translations. But it certainly seems as if the passage is ambiguous.

But I do concede on the phrase you wrote, since you are writing in English and that was your intent. As I said, language was never my thing.

[Lord Emsworth]

Zaayr:

Consider the following:



Are you saying that there is no way according to the above sentences that Bri might have made the sandwich earlier that day, prior to becoming hungry?

-Bri


Nobody in their right minds would phrase things in a way that from the structure of the text screams sequential order (became hungry, and so made sandwich) and mean something else (made sandwich earlier on, then became hungry).

Torment the text all you want, a reading such as in the NRSV (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=gen+2:18-19) is the most likely and sensible:
18 Then the Lord God said, ‘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, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
At least it doesn't reduce the story to textual rubble.


ETA: And what about Gen 2:7 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=gen+2%3A7) anyway? Does that read "had made" too?

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.
Verb and tense are exactly the same: 2:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1140133055-5142.html); 2:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1140133217-2562.html)

[T'ai Chi]

I have a feeling the Skeptics Annotated Bible won't positvely affect the world as much as the actual Bible does.

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, let's see if I can post an actual url now.

Here is the direct translation from the Hebrew -- showing the Hebrew and the problem in fashioning a translation from it. God speaks in future tense about the need for man to have a helper and then speaks in past tense (formed) in the direct words. Translations alter formed into had formed to correlate with the Genesis 1 account -- the argument being that the context of Genesis 1 dictates that we use a past perfect form in Genesis 2. In other words, a circular argument -- there is no contradiction because we assume the context for deciding what the verb tense will be so that there will be no contradication.

Here's the link: http://www.sovgracepub.com/bibles/interlinearpages/page2.htm

[Bri]

Are you sure it is used this way, though?

Yes, I'm fairly sure that the past perfect tense can be used this way. From the aforementioned web site (http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/pastpf.htm):

Using the Past Perfect

The past perfect is used to show you which of two events happened first. Imagine that two things happened in the past:

I went to see the movie.
We discussed the movie in class.

Here, we don't know which order the events happened in. That may be important -- perhaps I went to see the movie after the discussion, or maybe I saw the movie before the discussion. There are many ways to make this sequence clear, and the past perfect is one of them. This is how we do it:

I went to see the movie. We had discussed it in class.

Here, we KNOW that the discussion took place FIRST -- even though the sentence describing it comes afterwards. We discussed the movie, and THEN I went to see it.

However, given the archaic grammar we're discussing, the concept of 'had made' can also refer to something someone else (his angels, perhaps) made for him... 'I'll have that made right away.' 'I had made many fine tapestries by my artisans'. It's an obsolete usage today, but we're not talking about a common discourse of the current period, are we?

I understand what you're saying, but that explanation sounds like a bit of a stretch. It's unlikely that the intended meaning is that someone else made the animals for God. For one thing, the NIV is one of the least archaic translations so it probably wouldn't use the term "had made" to indicate that someone else made them, and no other translation that I know of mentions anything like that. Also, it would seem to be unusual that someone other than God created the animals considering that nowhere else does it mention anyone but God creating any part of the world. If that was the intended meaning, it is likely that the text would probably specify who it was. Finally, the comments for the passage in the translation I'm using (which uses "had") gives an explanation that the animals were created before man, but that Adam simply named them at this point in order to discover that he had no equal. If the use of the term "had" in my translation intends to indicate that someone other than God created the animals after man, the commentary would be in direct conflict with the text.

What would be particularly enlightening is to see what, exactly, the verb usage is, directly tranlated from Hebrew. If, indeed, the native word is a past participle, then I retract my commentary and offer apologies. If, however, it is not - if it has merely been interpreted as such - then my comment stands.

Unfortunately, the tense in ancient Hebrew is often ambiguous by my understanding, and I don't think Genesis 2 really specifies an order. There is often no direct translation from Hebrew since many words and phrases are found nowhere but the Bible, so the only way to know what they mean is by context. Many theists simply accept that the second "account" of creation isn't meant to specify an order, but simply to add additional details, such as the creation of woman from man.

-Bri

[Bri]

Translations alter formed into had formed to correlate with the Genesis 1 account -- the argument being that the context of Genesis 1 dictates that we use a past perfect form in Genesis 2.

Actually, I believe the argument is that the ancient Hebew for "formed" and "had formed" are the same. Which one you would choose would depend on the context. In this case, the only context available is Genesis 1.

Cool link though.

-Bri

[Bri]

Nobody in their right minds would phrase things in a way that from the structure of the text screams sequential order (became hungry, and so made sandwich) and mean something else (made sandwich earlier on, then became hungry).

It's not at all uncommon. In this case, it actually makes a great deal of sense because the information in question is being told in chronological order:


Adam is lonely.
God brings before him the animals that had been created earlier.
Adam names them and sees that none of them are his equal.
God creates a helper for Adam.


That's how I'd write it if I was writing Genesis 2 and was more interested in relaying a specific sequence of events rather than the seqence of the events already mentioned previously in Genesis 1.

-Bri

[Z]

So apparently, the ambiguity remains...

What's the deal with the 'Now,' before that part? After all, 'now' would seem to place the context in such a light that 'formed' would be the more logical choice, if a choice between 'had formed' and 'formed' was an issue.

Or was 'Now' a creative embellishment?

Bri, there's a good chance your quibble about 'had formed' boils down to nothing more than a deliberate contextual shift, to reduce the contradiction between the two accounts.

[Z]

It's not at all uncommon. In this case, it actually makes a great deal of sense because the information in question is being told in chronological order:


Adam is lonely.
God brings before him the animals that had been created earlier.
Adam names them and sees that none of them are his equal.
God creates a helper for Adam.


That's how I'd write it if I was writing Genesis 2 and was more interested in relaying a specific sequence of events rather than the seqence of the events already mentioned previously in Genesis 1.

-Bri

Problem: God says He will make for Adam a helper. Not that he had made for Adam a helper, and he'll let Adam pick from among them. The future tense of the prior passage is quite clear. This adds considerably to the weight of context for 'formed' instead of 'had formed'.

[Bri]

Problem: God says He will make for Adam a helper. Not that he had made for Adam a helper, and he'll let Adam pick from among them. The future tense of the prior passage is quite clear. This adds considerably to the weight of context for 'formed' instead of 'had formed'.

God is likely referring to the woman rather than the animals when he says "I will make a helper suitable for him." The words "suitable for him" (rather than "I will make a helper for him") imply that God already knows that the animals are not suitable for Adam. In that light, it probably isn't God's intention for Adam to pick a helper from among the animals, but rather for Adam to realize that none of the animals are suitable for him. In that context, it also makes sense that the animals were already created.

I do understand how one might gather that God created the animals in order for one of them to be Adam's helper (especially with the KJV), but there is actually nothing in the text to indicate that. It says only that God wants Adam to name them, which wouldn't be necessary in order to pick a helper from among them.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't know, man. I've been looking around at Hebrew verb forms and it seems that they tended to be much more concrete than we are. They had a sort of tense -- it's called aspect rather than tense in many sources -- but this seems to have only moved from between past to future with the less common participle form serving for present tense. Rather than the way that we use the idea of tenses they spoke more in terms of completed and not completed tasks -- perfect aspect for completed tasks (our past tense) and imperfect aspect for incomplete tasks (our future tense).

I can find no mention of our concept of a past perfect tense. Perhaps I have not searched widely enough?

But even with all that aside, I repeat again, if you take this second creation account on its own, the meaning would not include our use of the past perfect tense. That would not really make sense within the structure of the piece, since the sequence of events is -- creation of man, breathe life into man, create the garden, man needs a companion, create the animals. It is only when one tries to put the story in the context of the first creation account that one would even think of using the past perfect tense and this would only be used to reconcile the accounts. So, in other words, you are stating that there is no contradiction because you have already decided that there can be no contradiction.

[Z]

Well said, Ichy.

Bri, it makes no sense for the interjection of Adam naming the animals if it wasn't a part of God's search for a suitable helper for him. Nor does it make sense for God to need to show how each creature was unsuitable for Adam. He apparently was perfectly capable of making male and female of every other creature on Earth without having to prove to the others that whatever else existed was unsuitable. Your post above, Bri, sounds like the usual post-hoc rationalization I usually hear from fundie apologists.

The two creation tales share similarities, true - but they also have their differences, and those differences are significant. In the case of order of creation, we have a contradiction indicated by the second creation account, and the standard means of reconciling that contradiction appears to be a lot of mental and linguistic gymnastics!

Makes me wonder where we'd wind up when discussing Abel's wife... :D

[Bri]

I don't know, man. I've been looking around at Hebrew verb forms and it seems that they tended to be much more concrete than we are.

I don't know ancient Hebrew, so I can't say. I've previously posted several links that explain the situation with tenses in Hebrew, so you can either dismiss them or not. I also have at least two different translations that use the word "had" in the translation, one which is primarily a Hebrew version with translation, the other is the NIV. It seems unlikely that they are both purposely changing the translation to make Genesis 2 fit Genesis 1, but it's possible.

I can find no mention of our concept of a past perfect tense. Perhaps I have not searched widely enough?

My reference to the past perfect tense was referring to the English, and I posted a link with further information about its use. I was simply showing Zaayr that the translation used in NIV uses the word "had" to denote an order of events in conjunction with the past perfect tense of the verb (in this case "had made" compared to "made"). I don't know if there is a different word in ancient Hebrew for "had made" and "made." If not, then the meaning is indeed ambiguous and it doesn't say one way or the other whether the animals were made before man.

But even with all that aside, I repeat again, if you take this second creation account on its own, the meaning would not include our use of the past perfect tense.

You certainly don't know that the meaning of the Hebrew would not include the past perfect tense, and why would Genesis 2 be taken out of context? The context of Genesis 1 provides evidence that indeed the meaning of the Hebrew might include the use of the past perfect tense. Unless you can provide evidence that the NIV simply "made up" a translation to force Genesis 2 to fit Genesis 1 (as in, the Hebrew unambiguously specifies that the animals were created after man), then the answer is far from certain.

So, in other words, you are stating that there is no contradiction because you have already decided that there can be no contradiction.

I've already told you my opinion on the matter. I agree with you and Zaayr, that in my personal opinion there appears to be a contradiction with certain translations. That said, the NIV translation appears to contain no contradiction, unless you have evidence that the NIV translation is wrong.

Which is probably why the author of the riddle that is the topic of this thread didn't think twice about basing part of the riddle on animals having been created before man. See how neatly I brought all of this back on-topic?

-Bri

[Bri]

Bri, it makes no sense for the interjection of Adam naming the animals if it wasn't a part of God's search for a suitable helper for him.

I've already given you a perfectly reasonable interpretation that seems to be supported by the text.


Nor does it make sense for God to need to show how each creature was unsuitable for Adam. He apparently was perfectly capable of making male and female of every other creature on Earth without having to prove to the others that whatever else existed was unsuitable.

Obviously, God doesn't consider humans to be the same as animals. I think that's kind of the whole point of the passage.

Your post above, Bri, sounds like the usual post-hoc rationalization I usually hear from fundie apologists.

And probably a lot of other folks as well who aren't fundie apologists. What's your point?

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

I thought my evidence was clear from the last post. Some translations use the past perfect tense in English. The resolution of the contradiction depends on the past perfect tense being used. Any other tense produces the contradiction. I can find no evidence that our concept of the past perfect tense ever existed in ancient Hebrew. So the Hebrew would seem to have used the perfect aspect which corresponds to our past tense. So the word should be "formed".

[Z]

I thought my evidence was clear from the last post. Some translations use the past perfect tense in English. The resolution of the contradiction depends on the past perfect tense being used. Any other tense produces the contradiction. I can find no evidence that our concept of the past perfect tense ever existed in ancient Hebrew. So the Hebrew would seem to have used the perfect aspect which corresponds to our past tense. So the word should be "formed".

You'll have to forgive Bri. He's a non-Fundie apologist... a strange creature, to be sure. As long as he can twist the available evidence to fit his preconceived notion - in this case, that the two accounts are complimentary, rather than contradictory - he'll keep twisting.

I just talked to an associate who is rather gifted in languages, and she claims that Biblical Hebrew did not have a past perfect tense... so anywhere we see 'had' or 'have' before a verb, we should ignore it as a translation error. Of course, I have no idea if she's right or wrong. But it does seem, from this as well as other research, that the conjoining of the two accounts is an artifact of translation in order to remove a contradiction that does exist.

[Lord Emsworth]

It's not at all uncommon. In this case, it actually makes a great deal of sense because the information in question is being told in chronological order:


Adam is lonely.
God brings before him the animals that had been created earlier.
Adam names them and sees that none of them are his equal.
God creates a helper for Adam.


That's how I'd write it if I was writing Genesis 2 and was more interested in relaying a specific sequence of events rather than the seqence of the events already mentioned previously in Genesis 1.

-Bri


But your list is not really accurate as this is what you are trying to tell us:
God creates animals.
Adam is lonely.
God brings before him the animals.
Adam names them and sees that none of them are his equal.
God creates a helper for Adam.

So the information is not being told in the chronological order. It would be if the creation account read like this:

Adam is lonely.
God creates animals.
God brings before him the animals.
Adam names them and sees that none of them are his equal.
God creates a helper for Adam.


And for commonality:
God creates man 2:7
God plants garden and puts Adam into the garden 2:8
God makes a bunch of rivers 2:10-14
God puts Adam into the garden 2:15
God instructs Adam 2:16-17
God finds that Adam is lonely 2:18
God creates animals and brings them before Adam
Adam names them and sees that none of them are his equal.
God creates a helper for Adam.

As you can see, the writer of the second creation story tells us when something happens. And he does so in chronological order. Your version would break this flow quite heavily with Gen 2:19a sticking out like a sore thumb. We can see especially how heavily it breaks with the flow when we read:
Genesis 2
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 will ask again. Does Gen 2:7 have to read "had formed" too?

[CFLarsen]

I have a feeling the Skeptics Annotated Bible won't positvely affect the world as much as the actual Bible does.
Why is that?

[Lord Emsworth]

I just realized something. There actually is an example of a past perfect (in English) used in the account:

Genesis 2:8
8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Quite fortunately it is even the same verb (link (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1140164246-332.html)) as in Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:19. Unfortunately for Bri is that the tense (or mood?) here in 2:8 (link) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1140164336-3878.html) differs from both 2:7 (link) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1140164461-923.html) and 2:19 (link) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1140164497-1142.html).

It looks strange, does it not, that the author of Genesis should have used the imperfect in Gen 2:19 to express "had formed earlier on" and the same imperfect in 2:7 to express "formed in that moment" when he just could have used the perfect to say "had formed earlier on" just as he did in 2:8.

Why did he not use the same tense in 2:19 as in 2:8 when he wanted to express the same thing?

[Ichneumonwasp]

THe author didn't use the past perfect tense in either case. It was the translator who did that. I suspect if you look at the Hebrew it is the same "tense" -- the perfect aspect, which refers to completed action. The "had formed" idea is a way of expressing this in English. The argument stems from an artifact of translation where the idea is not inherent to the Hebrew (at least in the verb "tenses"). I suspect there are other ways of comunicating prior completed action vs recently completed action in ancient Hebrew, but I don't know for sure.

There are plenty of other examples from other languages in which some thoughts are not able to be communicated properly in that language. From what I understand the mind-body problem (mind-body dualism) cannot even be formulated as a problem in some African languages. They simply do not have separate metaphysical categories for those ideas. Navajo is a very complex language that uses different tenses for things like "is it furry", but it isn't really proper to call them "tenses" as they are just different verb forms that carry ideas in ways that our verbs do not. They have a very different concept of time as well and cannot communicate the sorts of things we do with time.

[Lord Emsworth]

THe author didn't use the past perfect tense in either case. It was the translator who did that. I suspect if you look at the Hebrew it is the same "tense" -- the perfect aspect, which refers to completed action.


It is the imperfect in both 2:7 and 2:19. The perfect is used in 2:8. And that is the point. The imperfect in 2:7 is rendered as past tense in English ("formed") - and nobody disagrees. The perfect in 2:8 is rendered as past perfect in English ("had formed") - and nobody disagrees.

The disagreement is about 2:19. Should the imperfect be rendered as past or past perfect?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Impefect aspect in Hebrew is translated into English as future tense. Don't confuse our use of the terms perfect and imperfect for English tenses with the Hebrew use of those words. Perfect aspect (tense) in ancient Hebrew coded the idea of completed action and imperfect incompleted action.

The point is that none of those ideas are present in the original Hebrew. That is all an artifact of the translation process. The translator decides how to use the tenses in English in different ways, but the Hebrew doesn't code that idea at all. There simply isn't any sense of "past perfect" in ancient Hebrew from what I can tell.

In other words, the differential use of the past perfect or past tense in English is the result of an editorial decision on the part of the translator and is influenced by the translator's biases. If we take Bri's advice and return to the Hebrew, the "controversy" disappears because the very idea of a past perfect tense does not seem to exist in ancient Hebrew (there are many tenses in modern Hebrew, however). That being the case, we are forced to use the surrounding context of the story to determine the meaning of how the word should be used. It should, therefore, be further apparent that one's stance on what that word means depends on whether or not you think the stories were intended to be a seamless whole or if they are simply different stories. If you assume from the beginning that they should be taken as a seamless whole, you would be inclined to translate the verb in English in the past perfect tense -- to make the stories fit together without contradiction. But that is probably an artifact of our way of reading texts in the modern age. I don't think that was important in any way to the original audience.

We created this idea that the stories must be non-contradictory and translate words into English, using ideas that are not coded in the Hebrew, to support our particular biases. The actual words of the stories, if you go back to them and read the stories as stories with a message, don't care about contradiction or seamlessness. They are simply stories with messages. The original audience would have appreciated that and probably looked at us with blank stares as though we were an alien species for even having this conversation.

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't really disagree with this at all. Though my point remains, in principle at the very least.

[UrsulaV]

I just talked to an associate who is rather gifted in languages, and she claims that Biblical Hebrew did not have a past perfect tense... so anywhere we see 'had' or 'have' before a verb, we should ignore it as a translation error. Of course, I have no idea if she's right or wrong. But it does seem, from this as well as other research, that the conjoining of the two accounts is an artifact of translation in order to remove a contradiction that does exist.

And as usual, I learn interesting stuff from the most unlikely threads...

[Bri]

You'll have to forgive Bri. He's a non-Fundie apologist... a strange creature, to be sure. As long as he can twist the available evidence to fit his preconceived notion - in this case, that the two accounts are complimentary, rather than contradictory - he'll keep twisting.

Zaayr, thanks for continuing to do what you do best -- putting words in my mouth. Not that my own personal opinion has anything to do with it anyway, but I never said that I had a preconceived notion that the two accounts are complimentary rather than contradictory. I simply said that there is evidence for the argument that the meaning of the passage in Genesis 2 that we're discussing is not contradictory to Genesis 1. So far you haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.

I just talked to an associate who is rather gifted in languages, and she claims that Biblical Hebrew did not have a past perfect tense... so anywhere we see 'had' or 'have' before a verb, we should ignore it as a translation error. Of course, I have no idea if she's right or wrong. But it does seem, from this as well as other research, that the conjoining of the two accounts is an artifact of translation in order to remove a contradiction that does exist.

If in fact ancient Hebrew never used the past perfect tense, that would be evidence to support your theory. On the other hand, if ancient Hebrew simply used the same terminology for the past tense and past perfect tense (thus relying on context), as several sources on the Internet claim, then that is not evidence of your theory.

Simply wanting it to be so is not evidence.

-Bri

[Bri]

I thought my evidence was clear from the last post. Some translations use the past perfect tense in English. The resolution of the contradiction depends on the past perfect tense being used. Any other tense produces the contradiction.

I'm sorry, but you haven't presented any evidence. That there are varying English translations of the Hebrew doesn't really mean much and isn't surprising in the least. The question is whether you have proof that Genesis 2 doesn't intend the past perfect tense. Currently, the only evidence of the intended meaning is Genesis 1.

I can find no evidence that our concept of the past perfect tense ever existed in ancient Hebrew. So the Hebrew would seem to have used the perfect aspect which corresponds to our past tense. So the word should be "formed".

If you can find no evidence that the past perfect tense is used in the Bible, then you're simply not looking. I already posted links to at least three references that disagree with your opinion. These state that indeed the past perfect tense is used in the Bible, but can only be distinguished from the past tense by context. At least two separate translations (including the NIV) also support that evidence.

-Bri

[Beerina]

Huh-whuh?

I see God saying Adam's alone and needs a help-meet.

Since Adam presumably had a penis for reproduction, God knew what was up all along, and was just leading Adam along.

Presumably being ignorant of good and evil, Adam could innocently polish the bayonette with a clear conscience.

[Bri]

But your list is not really accurate as this is what you are trying to tell us:

God creates animals.
Adam is lonely.
God brings before him the animals.
Adam names them and sees that none of them are his equal.
God creates a helper for Adam.


I'm sorry, but no. What I'm saying is that the information you've added in bold isn't mentioned in Genesis 2 at all. It's simply not meant to be a chronology of events. Therefore, what you have in bold above is certainly possible based on the text in Genesis 2, but it's not explicitly part of the chronology of events that Genesis 2 is describes.

If you have evidence that the above order of events is impossible based on Genesis 2, please post it.

-Bri

[Z]

And the context clearly indicates no use of the past perfect tense, Bri.

And, no, you cannot take Gen 1 and use it as context for Gen 2; plenty of evidence suggests that these two accounts were written by different authors at different times, and are not one continuous creation account. You have to rely on the immediate context. After all, you can't take Numbers and use it as context for interpreting Leviticus, can you?

[Bri]

I just realized something. There actually is an example of a past perfect (in English) used in the account:

Genesis 2:8
8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Quite fortunately it is even the same verb (link (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1140164246-332.html)) as in Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:19. Unfortunately for Bri is that the tense (or mood?) here in 2:8 (link) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1140164336-3878.html) differs from both 2:7 (link) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1140164461-923.html) and 2:19 (link) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1140164497-1142.html).

It looks strange, does it not, that the author of Genesis should have used the imperfect in Gen 2:19 to express "had formed earlier on" and the same imperfect in 2:7 to express "formed in that moment" when he just could have used the perfect to say "had formed earlier on" just as he did in 2:8.

Why did he not use the same tense in 2:19 as in 2:8 when he wanted to express the same thing?



Thanks for posting this. It proves my point exactly. The same Hebrew word is used for both the past tense and the past perfect tense, with only context to distinguish the two. Unless you're claiming that in Genesis 2:8 God is actully creating man after putting man into the garden (which would contradict the order implied by the previous line of the text, which also uses the same word), the past perfect tense is absolutely necessary for the passage to make sense.

-Bri

[Bri]

THe author didn't use the past perfect tense in either case.

It seems quite clear from all translations (even the KJV) that the past perfect tense is necessary for 2:8 to make any sense. The previous line 2:7 clearly states that God created man, so you cannot insist that 2:8 indicates that God created man (again) after placing him in the garden. I'm sorry to inform you, but the past perfect tense is certainly used in the Bible, and unfortunately the same word "yatsar" is used for both the past tense (formed) and the past perfect tense (had formed) of "to form." Therefore, we must rely solely on context to determine which is meant.

-Bri

[Bri]

And the context clearly indicates no use of the past perfect tense, Bri.

And, no, you cannot take Gen 1 and use it as context for Gen 2; plenty of evidence suggests that these two accounts were written by different authors at different times, and are not one continuous creation account. You have to rely on the immediate context. After all, you can't take Numbers and use it as context for interpreting Leviticus, can you?

Come on, Zaayr. Of course you can use Genesis 1 as a context for Genesis 2, especially if you're a fundie who believes them both to be the inerrant word of God. I'm sorry about that, but that's the way it is.

But even if you don't use Genesis 1 as a context for Genesis 2, the surrounding text in Genesis 2 is ambiguous at best, and the use of words like "suitable to him" make it very possible that "had formed" is the intended meaning of the passage. I'll grant you that it works both ways, but it seems quite plausible that God wanted Adam to name the animals that were already created so that Adam could discover for himself that none of them are a suitable helper for him.

-Bri

[Z]

It seems quite clear from all translations (even the KJV) that the past perfect tense is necessary for 2:8 to make any sense. The previous line 2:7 clearly states that God created man, so you cannot insist that 2:8 indicates that God created man (again) after placing him in the garden. I'm sorry to inform you, but the past perfect tense is certainly used in the Bible, and unfortunately the same word "yatsar" is used for both the past tense and the past perfect tense for "to form." Therefore, we must rely solely on context to determine which is meant.

-Bri

This, in turn, means that your interpretation, that the phrase should be 'had formed', is unsupported by the available evidence, and by the context of the passage.

Your original argument hinged on the use of the past perfect; as now demonstrated, the use of the past perfect is a translation artifact. Now you're arguing for a contextual interpretation; but the only context readily and reliably available are these passages themselves, not other chapters or books. The in-line context suggests that God finds Man is lonely, says he will make a helper for Man, then creates the animals and has Man name them. This contextual interpretation fits the use of the terms well - especially the use of the future tense in 2:18. You have to reach beyond Gen 2 to get any context that would require us to re-interpret this passage; and since we cannot be certain that Gen 1 and Gen 2 have the same author, while we can be fairly certain that most of Gen 2 has a single author, we are best and most logically left with an in-line contextual translation.

[Z]

Come on, Zaayr. Of course you can use Genesis 1 as a context for Genesis 2, especially if you're a fundie who believes them both to be the inerrant word of God. I'm sorry about that, but that's the way it is.

But even if you don't use Genesis 1 as a context for Genesis 2, the surrounding text in Genesis 2 is ambiguous at best, and the use of words like "suitable to him" make it very possible that "had formed" is the intended meaning of the passage. I'll grant you that it works both ways, but it seems quite plausible that God wanted Adam to name the animals that were already created so that Adam could discover for himself that none of them are a suitable helper for him.

-Bri

Correction: you can use Gen 1 as a context for Gen 2, but only if you're a fundie who believes them both to be the inerrant word of God.

That doesn't make it right.

And sounding plausible doesn't cause your 'self discovery' interpretation to be correct. Further, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, really - God apparently made animals after making Man in Gen 2, just as he made rivers after making Man.

Actually, I'm being guilty of my own error here - it's not Man we're discussing, but Adam.

One thing I think ought to be considered is that Adam may or may not be the First Man on Earth. Indeed, even Eden itself may not have been on Earth, specifically. He may have been the First Man - a prototype, if you will - but there are some who interpret Genesis to say that Eden was located not on Earth, but somewhere in the spiritual realm. Adam was made before any man at all, and apparently was made while God was still forming the Earth; animals were created in the search for a suitable companion (apparently genderless ones) before God decided to make female animals; then God populated the Earth with these newly made animals while Adam was still brooding over not having a she-Adam. Then God makes Eve, and meanwhile populates the Earth with people; Adam and Eve discover magical fruit, and are banished to the Earth, where their children mingle with the other peoples of Earth.

Strange scenario, I admit, but plausible. Doesn't make it right, either.

If we go with the simplest interpretation - the one least likely to show bias - then Gen 2 apparently contradicts Gen 1... but not necessarily.

[Z]

Just to add - the above scenario is, in large part, based upon two things: first is the apparent contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2; second, the fact that the Tigris and Euphrates are alone in the Cradle of Life; no reliable signs exist of two other rivers in the area (though some have claimed that dried streams or old river beds exist, their work has been considered dubious at best). And, of course, that there is absolutely no evidence of any supertropical jungle having ever existed between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Nor angels with flaming swords.

[Bri]

This, in turn, means that your interpretation, that the phrase should be 'had formed', is unsupported by the available evidence, and by the context of the passage.

I never said that I had ironclad evidence to support it, only that it's a possible reading of the passage. In light of the context (both within Genesis 2 and Genesis 1) it might even be the most likely reading of the passage. In other words, since you cannot strong evidence of a conflict, one may reasonably assume that there isn't one. In fact, the default position would be that there isn't a conflict until you could prove that there is.

Your original argument hinged on the use of the past perfect; as now demonstrated, the use of the past perfect is a translation artifact.

Wrong! Genesis 2:7-8 clearly demonstrate that the past perfect tense must be used in 2:8 for it to make grammatical sense. Therefore, it is quite clear that the past perfect tense is used in Hebrew (despite what your friend told you), but utilizes the same word as the past tense, and relies entirely on context to distinguish the two. The meaning of the passage is ambiguous at best, but there is plenty of contextual evidence to support the opinion that the NIV is probably more accurate than the KJV in its translation of that passage.

Now you're arguing for a contextual interpretation; but the only context readily and reliably available are these passages themselves, not other chapters or books. The in-line context suggests that God finds Man is lonely, says he will make a helper for Man, then creates the animals and has Man name them.

Actually, the in-line context suggests that God wanted to make Adam a suitable helper, and had Adam name the animals that were already created so that Adam would see that none were suitable for him. There would be no need for the word "suitable" or for Adam naming the animals if God simply wanted Adam to pick a helper from the animals he was about to create.

This contextual interpretation fits the use of the terms well - especially the use of the future tense in 2:18. You have to reach beyond Gen 2 to get any context that would require us to re-interpret this passage; and since we cannot be certain that Gen 1 and Gen 2 have the same author, while we can be fairly certain that most of Gen 2 has a single author, we are best and most logically left with an in-line contextual translation.

Again, you have provided one possible opinion, and probably not the most likely according to many.

-Bri

[Bri]

Correction: you can use Gen 1 as a context for Gen 2, but only if you're a fundie who believes them both to be the inerrant word of God.

That doesn't make it right.

Sorry, but I'm not certain that only fundies would use Genesis 1 as a context for Genesis 2, and the fact that a fundie might doesn't make it wrong either.

And sounding plausible doesn't cause your 'self discovery' interpretation to be correct.

Funny, I don't recall saying that it was correct. I only said it was plausible.


Further, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, really - God apparently made animals after making Man in Gen 2, just as he made rivers after making Man.

I see, then by that logic, God also apparently made man, placed him in the Garden of Eden, then made man again! Somehow I don't think many people would agree with your assumption that the order of the sentences always implies chronological order.

If we go with the simplest interpretation - the one least likely to show bias - then Gen 2 apparently contradicts Gen 1... but not necessarily.

I'll have to disagee. The simplest interpretation is that there is no contradiction. But I can certainly see how one could come away with the opinion that there is one.

-Bri

[Lord Emsworth]

Thanks for posting this. It proves my point exactly.


No. It goes exactly against your claim.


The same Hebrew word is used for both the past tense and the past perfect tense, with only context to distinguish the two.


Of course it is the same word, i.e. "yatsar" which means in English "to form." That is why I picked these verses! What is different is the mood the verb is in.

Please do tell why the imperfect is used in 2:19 and not as in 2:8 the perfect???


Unless you're claiming that in Genesis 2:8 God is actully creating man after putting man into the garden (which would contradict the order implied by the previous line of the text, which also uses the same word), the past perfect tense is absolutely necessary for the passage to make sense.

-Bri


Not relevant to what I posted. But anyway, what previous line? ETA: And what does the previous line of Gen 2:19 say?

[ChristineR]

Actually, I believe the argument is that the ancient Hebew for "formed" and "had formed" are the same. Which one you would choose would depend on the context. In this case, the only context available is Genesis 1.

Cool link though.

-Bri

Well, no. Genesis 2 is also context. and that indicates man first, then animals, because the context indicates a chronological ordering.

If the passages were written at the same time and intended to be read together, then you can read it as a non-chronological expansion of the outline in Genesis 1. If the passages were written independently by different persons at different times, they contradict each other.

Let's not go there though.

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm sorry, but no. What I'm saying is that the information you've added in bold isn't mentioned in Genesis 2 at all.


You are the one arguing that the creation of animals (the bolded part) precedes God's ponouncement in Gen 2:18 and that this is expressed in 2:19. And that is why I said that your list is not accurate.


It's simply not meant to be a chronology of events. Therefore, what you have in bold above is certainly possible based on the text in Genesis 2, but it's not explicitly part of the chronology of events that Genesis 2 is describes.


Possible? Possible?? Who cares about remote, out there last hope possibilities? What is the most likely.


If you have evidence that the above order of events is impossible based on Genesis 2, please post it.

-Bri


Proof is for math and alcohol. And proof, although you say evidence, is what you are asking.

[Bri]

Please do tell why the imperfect is used in 2:19 and not as in 2:8 the perfect???

That is because the King James Version (which your source uses) guesses differently from context as to the meaning of the word in 2:19 than does, say, the New International Version. That's my point, that the same word is translated differently within both the KJV and the NIV. It is impossible to say what meaning is intended for the word "yatsar" except by context.

Not relevant to what I posted. But anyway, what previous line.

I was saying that indeed the Hebrew does use the past perfect tense of verbs, but they are written the same as the past tense. From your own source (the KJV):

Gen. 2:7. And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 2:8. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Notice that the bold text in both sentences uses the same word "yatsar" in Hebew, but they are translated differently (one is translated to "formed" and the other to "had formed"). The context makes it unambigous that the first means "formed" (past imperfect tense) and the second means "had formed" (past perfect tense) because they wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Gen 2:19 uses the same word "yatsar" in Hebrew, which some translations (such as your source, the KJV) render as "formed" but others (such as the NIV) render as "had formed." The only way to know which is correct would be from context, but the context is ambiguous in this case unless you consider Genesis 1 (in which case the NIV wins).

Zaayr has argued that if you don't consider Genesis 1 (and he is correct that there is some basis for not considering Genesis 1), the context clearly points to "formed" as the intended meaning whereas I don't think it's clear at all that "formed" rather than "had formed" is the intended meaning of the word "yatsar" in Gen 2:19.

-Bri

[Bri]

Well, no. Genesis 2 is also context. and that indicates man first, then animals, because the context indicates a chronological ordering.

As I already pointed out, Genesis 2:7-8 refutes that evidence, by showing that the past perfect is clearly used to represent an order that is not implied by the position of the sentences.

If the passages were written at the same time and intended to be read together, then you can read it as a non-chronological expansion of the outline in Genesis 1.

Agreed.

If the passages were written independently by different persons at different times, they contradict each other.

Maybe, but not necessarily.

Let's not go there though.

Too late, I'm afraid!

-Bri

[Bri]

You are the one arguing that the creation of animals (the bolded part) precedes God's ponouncement in Gen 2:18 and that this is expressed in 2:19.

Sorry, I certainly don't recall saying that. In fact, I said that the creation of the animals is not expressed in 2:19 at all, only that the context supports the use of the past perfect tense "had formed" which would indicate that the animals had already been created at some point prior to God's statement about Adam needing a helper.

Proof is for math and alcohol. And proof, although you say evidence, is what you are asking.

I know the difference between proof and evidence, and no I'm not asking for proof of anything. The default position would be that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not in conflict with one another. If you want to show that Genesis 2:19 is in conflict with Genesis 1, then the burden would be on you to provide evidence of it that clearly outweighs the evidence against your opinion.

-Bri

[ChristineR]

I meant, lets not go into textual analysis which assigns the various passages to authors. I think Genesis 2 is supposed to be written by "J," right?

I don't understand your comments about Genesis 2:7-8. I agree that 2:7 must be read as "formed" and 2:8 as "had formed." I also see understand that 2:19 could be read grammatically as "formed" or as "had formed." But the general sense of Genesis 2 is chronological.

Let me put it this way: if you were to read Genesis 2 without every looking at Genesis 1, would you choose "had formed" over "formed" in 2:19?

I have not one whit of Hebrew, so I concede that I could be wrong about that.

[Bri]

I meant, lets not go into textual analysis which assigns the various passages to authors. I think Genesis 2 is supposed to be written by "J," right?

You mean Jesus? Do Christians believe that Genesis 2 was written by Jesus? I don't know.

I don't understand your comments about Genesis 2:7-8. I agree that 2:7 must be read as "formed" and 2:8 as "had formed." I also see understand that 2:19 could be read grammatically as "formed" or as "had formed." But the general sense of Genesis 2 is chronological.

Sure, generally things are probably chronological, but there is plenty of reason to believe that Genesis 2 isn't, and the usage of the past perfect tense is already used in 2:8 to maintain chronology despite the sentences themselves not being in chronological order. I think the fact that God says "I will make him a helper suitable for him" rather than just "I will make him a helper" indicates that God already knew that the animals were not suitable for Adam (implying that they had already been created), and had Adam name them so that he would discover that fact for himself. To read 2:19 as "formed" would indicate that God created the animals after determining that Adam needed a helper, implying that the animals were created specifically as potential helpers for Adam. I'm not sure why Adam would have to name them to accomplish that, nor does it make sense to me why he didn't say "I will make him a helper" rather than "I will make him a helper suitable for him" if that was the case.

Let me put it this way: if you were to read Genesis 2 without every looking at Genesis 1, would you choose "had formed" over "formed" in 2:19?

Quite possibly, yes (for the reasons I gave above). I can see why one might translate it "formed" but I think there is a good case for "had formed."

I have not one whit of Hebrew, so I concede that I could be wrong about that.

Nor do I. I have a Hebrew version of the Bible that contains English translation that translates "yatsar" in Gen 2:19 as "had formed" and also the New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=31) of the Bible translates it as "had formed." But as Zaayr pointed out, it is possible that they were only doing so to eliminate a potential conflict with Genesis 1.

-Bri

[Lord Emsworth]

That is because the King James Version (which your source uses) guesses differently from context as to the meaning of the word in 2:19 than does, say, the New International Version.


No. You do not understand. Tense is not in there, that is true. Aspect is. In the Hebrew. So, again:
Please do tell why the imperfect [aspect] is used in 2:19 and not as in 2:8 the perfect [aspect]???


That's my point, that the same word is translated differently within both the KJV and the NIV. It is impossible to say what meaning is intended for the word "yatsar" except by context.


The same verb, yes. That is why I picked them. With different aspects. I don't know if you would count this as the same word.


I was saying that indeed the Hebrew does use the past perfect tense of verbs, but they are written the same as the past tense. From your own source (the KJV):



Notice that the bold text in both sentences uses the same word "yatsar" in Hebew, but they are translated differently (one is translated to "formed" and the other to "had formed"). The context makes it unambigous that the first means "formed" (past imperfect tense) and the second means "had formed" (past perfect tense) because they wouldn't make sense otherwise.


Notice that the bold text in 2:7 uses the word "yatsar" in imperfect whilst the bolded text in 2:8 uses the word "yatsar" in perfect aspect. (One is translated to "formed" and the other to "had formed"). Yes, and the context of both is unambibuous.


Gen 2:19 uses the same word "yatsar" in Hebrew, which some translations (such as your source, the KJV) render as "formed" but others (such as the NIV) render as "had formed." The only way to know which is correct would be from context, but the context is ambiguous in this case unless you consider Genesis 1 (in which case the NIV wins).


Gen 2:19 uses the same form of the verb "yatsar" as Gen 2:7, i.e. the imperfect aspect, which in Gen 2:7 is translated as "formed." A different form of the verb "yatsar," i.e. the prefect aspect, is used in Gen 2:8, which is translated to English as "had formed." Now the question, if the meaning of Gen 2:19 should be "had formed earlier on" why does it not use the same verb form as an instance (2:8) does where it is unambiguous that "had formed earlier on" is meant, but rather uses a verb form that is used when, unambiguously, "formed in that moment" is meant?

And this is why I said that this does not "prove your point exactly" but rather rules against it.

So, the matter is not so ambiguous - if at all - as you claim.


Zaayr has argued that if you don't consider Genesis 1 (and he is correct that there is some basis for not considering Genesis 1), the context clearly points to "formed" as the intended meaning whereas I don't think it's clear at all that "formed" rather than "had formed" is the intended meaning of the word "yatsar" in Gen 2:19.

-Bri

[ChristineR]

No, "J" for "Jehovah." I can't find a good source online, but scholars have sectioned Genesis (and at least some of the other books) into sections by proposed authors based on linguistic quirks. "J" is the author that uses the phrase "Jehovah God" as opposed to Elohim and various other names. "J" is also generally considered to be the best writer from a literary POV.

Trying to Google this just brought up fundy junk. :( Maybe someone else knows where to look.

[Z]

In other words, Bri, the problem is that 2:19 and 2:7 both use a form of the verb properly translated as 'formed', while 2:8 uses a form that properly translates to 'had formed'. IIRC, the usage in 2:8 is only ever used in the fashion we see here... 'the man that he had formed'; 'the town that they had invaded'. So in 2:19, if that sense were intended, the author would have written 'God brought forth the animals that He had created', not 'Now, God had created animals, and brought them forth'.

The weight of evidence is solidly against your opinion, in this case, Bri.

[Bri]

In other words, Bri, the problem is that 2:19 and 2:7 both use a form of the verb properly translated as 'formed', while 2:8 uses a form that properly translates to 'had formed'. IIRC, the usage in 2:8 is only ever used in the fashion we see here... 'the man that he had formed'; 'the town that they had invaded'. So in 2:19, if that sense were intended, the author would have written 'God brought forth the animals that He had created', not 'Now, God had created animals, and brought them forth'.

The "tense" information in the Blue Letter Bible seems to be based on the King James translation rather than any actual difference in the Hebrew text.

The root word "yatsar" appears to be the same form in all three (2:7, 2:8, and 2:19). The difference between the three is that Hebrew strings together words (putting the letter "vav" in front of the word adds the word "and" to it, for example). I don't believe there is any difference in the actual form of the word between past tense and past perfect tense. But if you want to compare the words used, 2:19 is much closer to 2:8 (the obvious past perfect tense) than 2:7 (the obvious past tense). The only difference between the 2:19 and 2:8 is the use of the "vav" in 2:19, which I believe doesn't change the tense, but simply adds the word "and" to it.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can we dispense with this past perfect idea existing in ancient Hebrew? It doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew. Whether or not a translator thinks that the past perfect tense works better in a particular English phrase translated from the Hebrew is completely beside the point. In the Hebrew, the only idea expressed is complete or incomplete action. You are thinking of these verbs from the viewpoint of an English speaker not a Hebrew writer.

[Z]

A copy of the New American Bible I have laying around here creates further confusion; as it seems that Man was also created before any plants existed, as well. In fact, the NAB labels both counts of creation as two separate stories!

The Hebrew-English Bible at http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm renders it as 'formed' as well - with the Hebrew right next to it for comparison. Obviously, I don't read Hebrew or this might be an easier discussion.

As near as I can tell, the most direct translation available reads, "And out of the ground HaShem G-d formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof. " This apparently is according to the JPS.

Robert Heibert further accenuates the difference in his New English translation by adding 'furthermore': "And out of the earth God furthermore formed all of the animals..." http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/gen.pdf

It seems as if the general opinion is that texts like the NIV deliberately alter the tense of the word to reconcile the apparent difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2, as well as altering the earlier text of Gen 2 so that it is merely crop plants that haven't grown yet, instead of all plants. As such, the NIV is an unreliable translation meant to appeal to the Christian sensibility and notion that the Bible is largely infallible.

Strangely, I don't have a KJV lying around! Don't know what it has to say.

[UrsulaV]

Strangely, I don't have a KJV lying around! Don't know what it has to say.

Biblegateway.com has listings of a bunch of translations and passage look-ups, if you need a quick KJV on-line.

[CFLarsen]

I have a feeling the Skeptics Annotated Bible won't positvely affect the world as much as the actual Bible does.

Why is that?

[Z]

Seems like T-C is avoiding your question, Larsen. And Bri seems to be avoiding the facts. Oh well.

[Bri]

Seems like T-C is avoiding your question, Larsen. And Bri seems to be avoiding the facts. Oh well.

Just waiting for someone to post some (facts, that is).

You seem to be rehashing the same information. It is well-known that there are many examples of translational and interpretational ambiguities all over the Bible. We were already aware that other sources translate Genesis 2:19 as "formed" rather than "had formed" but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong to translate it as "had formed" as other translations have.

At this point, I have to assume that Genesis 2:19 can be translated using the past perfect tense / completed action, which would not only be the default position based on Genesis 1, but seems to make more sense as far as the wording of Genesis 2 surrounding the passage in question. The translations of Genesis 2:7 and 2:8 also seem to provide additional evidence.

If anyone has actual evidence that the Hebrew cannot be translated that way, please post it.

-Bri

[Z]

Just waiting for someone to post some (facts, that is).

Several have been quoted. Willful ignorance is no excuse.

You seem to be rehashing the same information. It is well-known that there are many examples of translational and interpretational ambiguities all over the Bible. We were already aware that other sources translate Genesis 2:19 as "formed" rather than "had formed" but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong to translate it as "had formed" as other translations have.

Actually, what has been revealed is that Ancient Hebrew has no 'past perfect tense', so any interpretation as such is erroneous.

At this point, I have to assume that Genesis 2:19 can be translated using the past perfect tense / completed action, which would not only be the default position based on Genesis 1,

As mentioned previously, authorship of Gen 1 and 2 are different, and contextual comparisons between the two are weak, at best.

but seems to make more sense as far as the wording of Genesis 2 surrounding the passage in question.

Incorrect, as shown above. Genesis 2, especially surrounding the question, remains strictly temporally linear; the sudden appearance of the past perfect is anomolous.

The translations of Genesis 2:7 and 2:8 also seem to provide additional evidence.

Again incorrect - 2:7 doesn't use the past perfect, either; but it DOES use the same sense of the verb as 2:19, while the verb in 2:8 is used in a different sense and, as such, has been (again, incorrectly) translated as past perfect. After all, lacking such a tense, the best we can manage is a contexual interpretation. What the verb actually said has no literal equivalent in English. But the evidence is clear - 2:7 and 2:19 use the same tense of 'formed' and mean the same thing; while 2:8 means something that works out better as 'had formed' than anything we have in English.

The evidence is there. You are choosing to deny the evidence so that there is no contradiction between Gen 1 and 2 - you are using apologetics, simply enough.

If anyone has actual evidence that the Hebrew cannot be translated that way, please post it.

-Bri

Of course it can be translated that way; it could also be translated ebonically, or be translated to read that God had Man make the animals. That doesn't mean such a translation is correct or even accurate.

[Bri]

Several have been quoted. Willful ignorance is no excuse.

I have seen no quote that implies that it would be incorrect to translate Gen 2:19 using the past perfect. In fact, I've seen several to the contrary. I have also seen several sources where the author's opinion is that the "correct" translation is the past tense, but even those admit that the past perfect is possibly correct.


Actually, what has been revealed is that Ancient Hebrew has no 'past perfect tense', so any interpretation as such is erroneous.

Incorrect. What has been revealed is that there is no difference in Hebrew between the past tense and past perfect tense. There are many instances where the past perfect is not only probable, but absolutely necessary for the passage to make sense. Unfortunately, in these cases determining which tense was intended is a matter of examining the context. There are several examples in Genesis 2, at least one of which has already been pointed out to you in a prior post. Even the King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202&version=9) which has been used as evidence to support your position provides the following:

8. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

22. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

(Emphasis mine.) Both are obviously past perfect and wouldn't make sense in context otherwise.

Genesis 2, especially surrounding the question, remains strictly temporally linear; the sudden appearance of the past perfect is anomolous.

If that were the case, then the above examples wouldn't make any sense at all. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong about that.

The evidence is there. You are choosing to deny the evidence so that there is no contradiction between Gen 1 and 2 - you are using apologetics, simply enough.

It appears to be you who is attempting for force the evidence to fit your desired outcome.

BTW, do you think that "apologetics" is a bad word or something? It means "formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system" which would certainly fit the arguments I've presented. That doesn't make them wrong, of course.

Of course it can be translated that way; it could also be translated ebonically, or be translated to read that God had Man make the animals. That doesn't mean such a translation is correct or even accurate.

Wow, you must have tried very hard to convince yourself that that's what I actually meant.

-Bri

[Z]

You're still claiming I'm using the KJV to support my position?

Boy, are you messed up.

I see you're still denying the difference between 'which he had formed' and 'Now, he formed'. Even the position in the sentence shows a verifiable difference in sense of the term.

You're also apparently denying that Gen 1 and Gen 2 apparently had different authors and may have been written at different times, which would remove the ability to support structural context in 2 by using 1.

AFAIC, apologetics is basically a 'bad word' - attempting to rationalize or justify something which seems incorrect or can be proven incorrect by introducing irrelevancies, stretching or altering facts, etc. Granted, that's not the 'textbook definition' of the term, but that's how it's generally used.

The short version: according to those versed in ancient Hebrew - apparently, quite a few experts in this field - the use of a past perfect in Gen 2:19 and Gen 2:7 is an error, and some guilty of this error have admitted that this decision was made precisely to remove a contradiction between Gen 2 and Gen 1. Of course, they admit this - they see nothing wrong with changing grammar and context in order to make a more coherent religious document. However, you don't admit this - nor are you accepting their admittance.

What else is there to say?

For that matter, you've never addressed the apparent fact that Adam was made before plant life... according to Gen 2.

[Bri]

What else is there to say?

Since your comments have been addressed previously in this thread, I'll let you have the last word.

-Bri

[David Swidler]

Speaking as one who does know Hebrew, I'd have to say that the verb form under discussion is not definitive. Hebrew does not have a past perfect, but that does not mean that a proper translation should necessarily reject that tense as reflecting the intended meaning. The decision to render it as simple past or past perfect in translation must stem, I think, from the question of whether the narrative was meant to stand alone or not. The answer to that question would provide the much-needed context. That means getting into an authorship discussion. Anyone have good sources? Not the casual refernces to J, et al., but hard information.

[Z]

Speaking as one who does know Hebrew, I'd have to say that the verb form under discussion is not definitive. Hebrew does not have a past perfect, but that does not mean that a proper translation should necessarily reject that tense as reflecting the intended meaning. The decision to render it as simple past or past perfect in translation must stem, I think, from the question of whether the narrative was meant to stand alone or not. The answer to that question would provide the much-needed context. That means getting into an authorship discussion. Anyone have good sources? Not the casual refernces to J, et al., but hard information.

That's an excellent point. If I can free up some time today, I'll see what I can find. Unfortunately, I already know at least one source I have is biased toward debunking the Bible, while another is heavily slanted toward a feminist re-interpretation of its history :rolleyes:...

Think I'll call up Xavier U. and see what I can dig up.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The decision to render it as simple past or past perfect in translation must stem, I think, from the question of whether the narrative was meant to stand alone or not. The answer to that question would provide the much-needed context.

Yes, that is what I have been trying to say all along. I may be completely wrong in thinking this, but from what I understand of the stories, they were probably told as separate entities. The other stories in Genesis seem to follow this idea and probably explain why essentially the same story is told several times with slight variations. There seem to be several Abraham stories as well as a few Isaac stories, etc. that were cobbled together to create what we now know as Genesis.

All of those stories were part of an oral tradition with tales meant to provide a moral or cultural lesson. It doesn't seem to make sense to me that the first and second Genesis accounts were told in quick succession as part of an oral tradition. I think it more likely that they were placed next to one another by an editor who didn't particularly care if they fit together perfectly or not. I don't see why they would care since the story is not one of seamless narrative.

Saying that the accounts contain contradictions when placed side by side does not mean that they are wrong or that the Bible is wrong. What I think it means is that we shouldn't look at it with modern eyes expecting it to read like a history or a novel. It didn't seem to have that meaning to the original audience. That is why I am so dumbfounded by attempts to reconcile the two. I don't think there is any reason that we should try to do that. Why can't we just read the stories for what they are?

In other words, I think there is a contradiction between the two stories, but I think the proper response to that contradiction should be "So what?".

[Bri]

Speaking as one who does know Hebrew, I'd have to say that the verb form under discussion is not definitive. Hebrew does not have a past perfect, but that does not mean that a proper translation should necessarily reject that tense as reflecting the intended meaning. The decision to render it as simple past or past perfect in translation must stem, I think, from the question of whether the narrative was meant to stand alone or not. The answer to that question would provide the much-needed context. That means getting into an authorship discussion. Anyone have good sources? Not the casual refernces to J, et al., but hard information.

Thanks, I was hoping that you might add to the discussion! Oddly, both myself and those who were arguing against me seem to agree with your post.

My point was that some people who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God (as might the author of the riddle which is the subject of the thread) would not necessarily believe there to be a conflict between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:19 based strictly on the text. In order to decide whether there is a conflict or not, one must look at the context.

I'm not certain that proving that Genesis 1 and 2 had different authors would necessarily demonstrate a conflict between the two. Looking only at Genesis 2 in isolation (assuming that the two are written by different authors), one could still gather context that would lend itself to either reading. For example, one could argue that the phrase "I will make him a helper corresponding to him" clearly refers to a woman, not to animals (not only does it say "helper" rather than "helpers" but it also adds "corresponding to him" which would be superfluous if it were not intended to show that the animals did not correspond to Adam). One could also argue that whoever wrote Genesis 2 (or compiled the two into a single story) would have had Genesis 1 as a reference and might have reasonably assumed that the reader was familiar with Genesis 1.

So, there definitely seems to be a pretty good argument for a non-contradictory reading of Genesis 2:19, and it is very likely that the author of the riddle didn't even think to consider a possible contradiction.

-Bri

[Z]

Bri seems to have a different definition of 'pretty good'... Considering that Gen 2 also indicates man to have been formed prior to plant life, and Gen 2 makes no mention of previously making animals UNTIL God decides to create Adam a helper, I'd say there's definitely a good argument against a non-contradictory reading of Genesis 2:19. In fact, I'd say it takes some considerable mental acrobatics to reach a non-contradictory conclusion.

However, most fundies appear to believe that nothing in the Bible is at all vague or contradictory. For example, the lineage of Jesus, although clearly different in two of the accounts, is always reconciled through very similar mental gymnastics.

Well, if they were capable of logic and reason, they wouldn't be fundies, would they?

[Bri]

Bri seems to have a different definition of 'pretty good'... Considering that Gen 2 also indicates man to have been formed prior to plant life...

Again, Zaayr, please don't put words in my mouth. I already made it clear that I was specifically discussing Gen 2:19 as it relates to the riddle in the OP of this thread. If you want to discuss something else, I'd be happy to do so, but it would be off-topic for this thread.

...and Gen 2 makes no mention of previously making animals UNTIL God decides to create Adam a helper...

Unless, as I said, the writer intended Gen 2 to be read in the context of Gen 1, which is a possibility even if there were different authors.


...I'd say there's definitely a good argument against a non-contradictory reading of Genesis 2:19.

Agreed.

In fact, I'd say it takes some considerable mental acrobatics to reach a non-contradictory conclusion.

Perhaps.

However, most fundies appear to believe that nothing in the Bible is at all vague or contradictory. For example, the lineage of Jesus, although clearly different in two of the accounts, is always reconciled through very similar mental gymnastics.

Well, if they were capable of logic and reason, they wouldn't be fundies, would they?

I'll also have to agree with you there. Of course, it doesn't take a fundie to read Genesis 2:19 as being non-contradictory with Genesis 1, and I'm not at all sure that the author of the riddle in question was a fundie.

-Bri

[Z]

Unless, as I said, the writer intended Gen 2 to be read in the context of Gen 1, which is a possibility even if there were different authors.

With one glaring problem:

Genesis 2:4 onward was written centuries prior to Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. The first account is post-exile, the second is pre-captivity. Hence, it could not have been used as context for the writer of Gen. 2:19.

[Z]

I have no idea how accurate or how correct this may be, but it is interesting:

4. In the first two chapters in the Bible are found two contradictory accounts of creation. There are eight points of contrast between the accounts:
Genesis 2

a. The story comes from the southern storyteller of this and other stories.
b. It was first written about 1000 BCE (before the common era, same as BC)
c. The pre-creation situation is dry desert because that's what you find in southern Israel.
d. Creation of humanity precedes the creation of vegetation and animal life.
e. Man and woman, Adam and Eve, are created in two separate acts.
f. The Creator is called "the Lord God."
g. Creation is a hands-on experience for the Lord God.
h. One important aspect of the concept of the Lord God presented in this story is fertility.

Genesis 1

a. This is the religious establishment's official authorized description of creation.
b. This description was first written about 500 BCE, in or around the time the Jews returned to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon.
c. The pre-creation situation is watery chaos because Babylon sat between the Tigris and Euphrates.
d. Order of creation is light, sky, sea, earth, vegetation, sun and moon and stars, birds, sea creatures, land animals, and lastly, humanity.
e. Creation of humanity is single act.
f. The Creator is called "God."
g. The Creator is present only through the commands that cause the creative acts to occur.
h. One important aspect of the concept of God presented in this description is bringing order out of chaos.


From http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/2cs.htm

[Bri]

With one glaring problem...

At some point the two (if authored by different people) were compiled together by someone or some group of people. If that is the case, some feel that the compiler(s) would have made sure that the two stories didn't contradict, especially since they are so close together. According to some, that is evidence that in fact nobody felt that the two stories did contradict (i.e. that Genesis 2 worked fine in the context of Genesis 1).

Of course, for those who believe the Bible to be divinely inspired or even authored by God himself (as might be the case with the author of the riddle), the above argument is moot.

-Bri

[Z]

At some point the two (if authored by different people) were compiled together by someone or some group of people. If that is the case, some feel that the compiler(s) would have made sure that the two stories didn't contradict, especially since they are so close together. According to some, that is evidence that in fact nobody felt that the two stories did contradict (i.e. that Genesis 2 worked fine in the context of Genesis 1).

Which is exactly the argument we've been attempting to show all along - that interpreters who were compiling the NIV et. al., who felt that there should not be a contradiction, simply used a different word-tense, so as to remove apparent contradiction and smooth the bumps between these two accounts.

Of course, for those who believe the Bible to be divinely inspired or even authored by God himself (as might be the case with the author of the riddle), the above argument is moot.
-Bri

ALL arguments are moot for THOSE folks - for them, Genesis 1 was clearly written before Genesis 2, by Moses himself. No use applying logic, reason, or evidence to THOSE folks.

[Bri]

Which is exactly the argument we've been attempting to show all along - that interpreters who were compiling the NIV et. al., who felt that there should not be a contradiction, simply used a different word-tense, so as to remove apparent contradiction and smooth the bumps between these two accounts.

The argument is that whoever compiled the two accounts originally would probably have made the changes if there was a perceived contradiction in the Hebrew.

It is possible that the interpreters of the NIV (and other versions) simply felt that within the context provided by Genesis 2, the most appropriate translation of Gen 2:19 requires the past perfect tense (as is the case of many other passages both in Genesis 2 and throughout the Bible in nearly all translations).

-Bri

[Z]

The argument is that whoever compiled the two accounts originally would probably have made the changes if there was a perceived contradiction in the Hebrew.

It is possible that the interpreters of the NIV (and other versions) simply felt that within the context provided by Genesis 2, the most appropriate translation of Gen 2:19 requires the past perfect tense (as is the case of many other passages both in Genesis 2 and throughout the Bible in nearly all translations).

-Bri

No, the compilers of the NIV have openly stated that changes were made to deal with apparent contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Even the creators of the bible you choose to support your opinion seem to disagree with you.

[Bri]

No, the compilers of the NIV have openly stated that changes were made to deal with apparent contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Reference, please.

Even the creators of the bible you choose to support your opinion seem to disagree with you.

I didn't choose the NIV to support my opinion. My opinion was in part based on a Hebrew version that I have, and in part based on other sources that I've previously posted.

-Bri

[Z]

The NIV was conceived as a version that would appeal to evangelicals. Members of the NIV committee were conscious of the reasons for conservative rejection of the Revised Standard Version, and so they deliberately avoided the "liberal" aspects of that version. The most objectionable aspect of the RSV was its policy of translating the Old Testament without any regard at all for the interpretations of Old Testament passages in the New Testament, and so the members of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation in 1968 stipulated in their Translator's Manual that "the translation shall reflect clearly the unity and harmony of the Spirit-inspired writings." (1) In many places one can see the practical difference which this rule made in the NIV.
In Genesis 2:19 the NIV rendered the first verb as an English pluperfect: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man." The pluperfect "had formed" was used here so as to explicitly harmonize the verse with the account of creation given in chapter 1, in which the animals are created prior to the creation of man. This harmonistic rendering was intended to counter the liberal assertion that the story beginning at 2:4 is from a source which does not agree with the account in the first chapter. (2)

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html

Again, authenticity or accuracy of the website or its authors is not claimed by me; however, this is in accord with other resources I've read as well.

The NIV was created by a group of evangelical conservatives, whose purpose in making the NIV was to deliberately create a document which did NOT contradict itself - which was to be as coherent and self-supporting as possible. In other words - to wipe away the apparent contradictions and logical fallacies of the older bibles.

Therefore, as a resource, the NIV is not overly reliable if one seeks the original meanings - or even the intended meanings - of the original writings.

BTW - which Hebrew version do you have?

edited to correct a bad quote tag

[David Swidler]

I'm pretty sure we're not interested in discussing the NIV (well, I'm not, anyway).

Thanks for the distillation of mainstream biblical criticism on the first two chapters, zaay. I was actually asking for much more detailed stuff, not just the conclusions - actual literary analysis - but to someone familiar with the Hebrew original it's a pretty good starting point (and I guess I shouldn't expect random forumites to take a detailed interest in the intricacies of ancient Hebrew writing styles). I do think it's worthy of discussion, but probably for a different thread.

Staying focused on the question whether the two narratives actually contradict each other, we should keep in mind Ichneumonwasp's observation above discussing whether or not that's even important. The symbolic language and undefined concepts - "firmament" "the sprit of God hovered" "the face of the waters" "tohu vavohu" (normally inadequately rendered in English as "null and void") - support the claim that the beginning of Genesis is meant as a theological/moral work, not a history, and different - even contradictory - principles come to play in discussing different moral ideas. (The vagueness of the terms is more palpable in Hebrew; you'll just have to take my word for it :)).

To add another layer, much has been made of the similarity of the (I think more the first) creation narrative to other ancient origin stories. As in other instances, the author(s) probably consciously employed an idiom familiar to the audience - inhabitants of the ancient Near East. As another example of this, in Lamentations the poet (I think it's attributed to Jeremiah himself) says, "Death has come up through our window." The Canaanite (and that general neighborhood) god of death, Mot, was believed as coming in through the window to take people's souls. The Israelites of 586 BCE understood the reference, but wouldn't conclude that the author actually believed in Mot, just that he used an evocative literary device.

Something similar can be said regarding Genesis 1 (and 2, I guess). The author(s) consciously evoked contemporary lore to get a moral and spiritual set of points across, and whether the symbolism in the story didn't square with a story with a different moral purpose is immaterial.

[Bri]

I was actually asking for much more detailed stuff, not just the conclusions - actual literary analysis - but to someone familiar with the Hebrew original it's a pretty good starting point (and I guess I shouldn't expect random forumites to take a detailed interest in the intricacies of ancient Hebrew writing styles).

Here are a few references that discuss the linguistics and the possibility of the pluperfect in Genesis 2:19:


http://www.grisda.org/origins/06059.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513


Are these closer to the information you were looking for?

-Bri

[Z]

Here are a few references that discuss the linguistics and the possibility of the pluperfect in Genesis 2:19:


http://www.grisda.org/origins/06059.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513


Are these closer to the information you were looking for?

-Bri

I don't suppose you happen to have any unbiased discussion links? After all, in each of the cases you link to above (notably so, in the case of Dr. Shea), each author is working from the presupposition that the Bible is inerrant and/or that error is irrelevant.

The third seems even worse, since the exact same discussion seems to be parrotted on all sorts of apologetic and fundamentalist sites.

[Bri]

I don't suppose you happen to have any unbiased discussion links?

I doubt you'll find much unbiased discussion (I couldn't find any). I did run across one site that claimed that the King James Version was the only "true" translation, and therefore had some arguments against the NIV's use of the past perfect tense.

My position was that it isn't necessarily incorrect to translate Genesis 2:19 using the past perfect tense (as the author of the riddle may have assumed), eliminating any conflict between Gen 1 and Gen 2. There is context within Genesis 2 to do so without even taking into account Genesis 1, although many theists (perhaps including the author of the riddle) have no issue taking Genesis 1 into account especially if they believe that God is the author of both.

Undoubtedly there are arguments on both sides as to whether the context justifies the use of the past perfect tense in Gen 2:19, and I'm not sure you're going to find a definitive answer either way (which was pretty much the point I was trying to make).

-Bri

[cpolk]

The Tree of Life and Wisdom.

Or, "tree" or "fruit", for the one word.

[Z]

That is definitely one of the problems with any emotionally charged field, such as study of the Old Testament. You just aren't going to find any true neutral skeptics working in-field - either they're apologists, seeking to twist every last word to make it fit; or they're on the other side of that fence, seeking to twist it the other way.

[cpolk]

That is definitely one of the problems with any emotionally charged field, such as study of the Old Testament. You just aren't going to find any true neutral skeptics working in-field - either they're apologists, seeking to twist every last word to make it fit; or they're on the other side of that fence, seeking to twist it the other way.

OR... it could be the easiest possible answer, which is the Tree of Life and Wisdom.

"Adam, God made out of dust,
But thought it best to make me first.
So I was made before man,
To answer God's most holy plan."

If God is all-knowing, then the original sin was known to him, and the tree was necessary for that to happen.

"A living being, I became,
And Adam gave to me my name.
I from his presence then withdrew,
And more of Adam never knew."

Adam named everything. Once Adam was expelled, the Tree of Life never saw him - or anyone - again.

"I did my makers law obey.
Now never went from it astray.
Thousands of miles I go in fear,
But seldon on earth appear."

It did what it was supposed to do - it was a tree, doing tree things. It was the only one of its kind.

"For purpose wise which God did see,
He put a living soul in me.
A soul from me God did claim,
And took from me my soul again."

The "soul" indicates the serpent that spoke to Eve from the limbs of the tree.

"So when from me the soul that fled,
I was the same when first made.
And without hands, or feet, or soul,
I travel on from pole to pole."

Pretty self-explanatory. It continued doing tree-things.

"I labor hard by day and by night,
To fallen man I give great might."

It gave wisdom to the "fallen", expelled Adam, and through him, all of mankind.

"Thousands of people, young and old,
Will by my death great light behold."

When trees die, their branches no longer obstruct the sunlight.

"No right or wrong can I conceive,
The scriptures I cannot believe."
Although my name therein is found,
They are to me an empty sound.
No fear or death doth trouble me,
Real happiness i'll never see.
To heaven I shall never go,
Not to hell below."

It's a tree!!!!!

"Now when these lines you read,
Go search the bible with all speed.
For my name is written there,
I do honestly declare."

I'll take, "What is a tree?" for $1,000, Alex.

[Bri]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html

Again, authenticity or accuracy of the website or its authors is not claimed by me; however, this is in accord with other resources I've read as well.

The NIV was created by a group of evangelical conservatives, whose purpose in making the NIV was to deliberately create a document which did NOT contradict itself - which was to be as coherent and self-supporting as possible. In other words - to wipe away the apparent contradictions and logical fallacies of the older bibles.

BTW, the footnote in the quote you provided cites page 10 of Accuracy Defined and Illustrated: An NIV Translator Answers your Questions (http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf) by Kenneth L. Barker (one of the translators of the NIV). Kenneth Barker doesn't seem to admit that the "pluperfect 'had formed' was used here so as to explicitly harmonize the verse with the account of creation given in chapter 1, in which the animals are created prior to the creation of man." It looks as though he claims just the opposite, that he did not explicitly change the verb tense in order to remove the chronological discrepancies. He goes on to say that the text can be rendered either way and that he chose the rendering that he felt to be the most appropriate from the context of the surrounding text of Genesis 2.

I'm certain that there are arguments to be made that the translators were attempting to harmonize Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:19, but I haven't seen anything where the translators themselves admit to it.

BTW - which Hebrew version do you have?

It's The Stone Edition of The Chumash: The Torah, Haftoros and Five Megillos with a Commentary Anthologized from the Rabbinic Writings by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, published by Mesorah Publications, ltd.

-Bri

[UrsulaV]

And without hands, or feet, or soul,
I travel on from pole to pole."

Pretty self-explanatory. It continued doing tree-things.


I'm curious how travelling on from pole to pole is a tree thing. It's certainly not self-explanatory to me, but perhaps I'm dense.

[Bri]

I'm curious how travelling on from pole to pole is a tree thing. It's certainly not self-explanatory to me, but perhaps I'm dense.

Telephone pole?

-Bri

[David Swidler]

Or perhaps Adam and Eve were Adam and Eve Kosciouszko or something.

That reminds me of an exchange I had with someone a few years ago. He had heard that a certain prominent rabbi had traced his ancestry back to some central biblical figure, and from there it was an easy matter to extend the tree all the way to Adam. This rabbi, named Twerski, had that pedigree printed up and mounted on an entire wall of his dining room. Hearing this, I said, "Wow! That means Adam's last name was Twerski!"

[cpolk]

I'm curious how travelling on from pole to pole is a tree thing. It's certainly not self-explanatory to me, but perhaps I'm dense.

Nah, not dense. You just have to remember that the person who wrote this probably wasn't Mensa material, so the answer is something pretty obvious.

"Poles" are branches. Maybe roots as well.

I don't take "travel" to mean literally move; I think it just means that its width is not based on the trunk, but the branches that extend and the roots that travel underground - those are the "arms and legs" of a tree.

Edit: If you want to take "travel" literally, then you can do so by saying that a tree reproduces by way of seeds in the fruit, which grow on the branches, or poles, of a tree.

[UrsulaV]

Interesting.

The answer's still a whale, according to google, but it's an interesting defense, anyway.

Did Adam name the trees? I was under the impression he just did animals.

The word tree also appears some 270+ times in the Bible, and the correct answer only appears four times, though, so do you have a justification for that one?

[cpolk]

Interesting.

The answer's still a whale, according to google, but it's an interesting defense, anyway.

Did Adam name the trees? I was under the impression he just did animals.

The word tree also appears some 270+ times in the Bible, and the correct answer only appears four times, though, so do you have a justification for that one?

Ahhh! You are right, I am wrong. I'm not MENSA material, either. ;)