We objected to Bro Heavyside’s assertion that Adam prophetically spoke Gen 2:24, on the basis that critique was invited of the exposition in the book. Bro Heavyside acknowledges the Hebrew (“therefore”) introducing Gen 2:24 is often used as a narrator’s interjection to explain the events as the basis of ongoing custom/practice. His counter arguments aren’t contextual. In Gen 2:23 Adam is clearly speaking. Gen 2:25 it is clearly God/narrator. Bro Heavyside is claiming v24 is still Adam under inspiration as a prophet. He has the burden of proof yet doesn’t attempt to prove his claim, let alone the contrary pointers. Continue reading
A recent Lampstand article (Things hard to be understood Gen 2:19-20 Vol 25#4 pages 216-220) took issue with a COD post. We pointed out that the literal reading of Gen 2:19 is impossible and literalists re-interpret the passage, changing the meaning to avoid the problem of Adam naming 15,000+ creatures in a super short time. As The Lampstand Magazine wouldn’t print our response we thought we would put it here. Suffice it to say the solution proposed in the Lampstand is very lacking. Continue reading
Bro Peter Heavyside (who we understand is a genuine and decent person) wrote an anti evolutionary Creation book, focused on defending the literalist desire to make Gen 2 part of Gen 1. He addresses the obviously conflict in Gen 2:19 where animals are made after Adam despite the opposite order in Gen 1. His attempt to explain away the discrepancy by limiting the literal meaning and misapplying the grammar is a common literalist problem.
We previously considered bro Heavyside’s treatment of Jesus’ comments on divorce. His book then turns to whether Gen 2:4 represents a conflict between Gen 1 and Gen 2. And predominantly tries to counter a book by Peter Enns (a writer with whom we are not in accord). In reviewing the verse he conveniently misses one of the biggest clues on the gap between the chapters. Continue reading
there is therefore no precedent by which to conclude that the introductory formula in Genesis 2:4 is bringing the reader back into the middle of the previous account to give a more detailed description of a part of the story that was previously told. Such introductions never do this in the rest of Genesis, and the word tōlĕdōt (account) argues against such an understanding. Furthermore, Genesis 2 does not follow the pattern of the recursive examples that follow a genealogy of the unfavored line before returning to the story of the favored line. This evidence then leads us to give strong preference to the view that Genesis 2 is not adding further detail to what happened during the sixth day in Genesis 1. It would therefore also mean that, though Adam and Eve may well be included among the people created in Genesis 1, to think of them as the first couple or the only people in their time is not the only textual option.
Walton, J. H. (2015). The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (p. 66). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.
The Anchor Yale commentary on Genesis 2 includes some interesting comments on the inclusion of Sumerian loan words. This speaks to the age of the history. It also provides us with clear direction on the location of the garden of Eden. While some might like to locate it in Israel (perhaps based on overzealous loyalty), the chapter seems clearly to point to a southern region in Mesopotamia. Continue reading
but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground Gen 2:6 NRSV
Historically this was understood to mean as indicated in the KJV that there some heavy humidity which provided the water, because it wasn’t raining. The only other occurrence of the word translated in the KJV as “mist” is in Job 36:27 – where mist is clearly the meaning. However cuneiform evidence (both Akkadian and Sumerian) now indicates the word could be understood to mean either the annual floodwaters or an underground spring. as also stated in Brown Driver Briggs Continue reading