2:19 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.
Rashomon wins, hands down. This chapter is simply not the same story as the previous one. Similar in some ways, but not compatible. They simply don't belong together. In the first chapter, plants were created on the third day, birds on the fifth, and on the sixth day, first animals and then man. In this chapter, man was created, and then plants, and then animals and birds. And there's no real way to attribute that to a lack of clarity; the first chapter was obsessed with what happened on which day. In this chapter, that's gone, but the order is integral to the story here: God made the animals after deciding Adam was lonely.
Let me just repeat that point. There is no way that chapter one and chapter two are both correctly describing the same events; they are fundamentally incompatible. If someone wants to talk about when man was created in Genesis, you have to ask, "Which version? The chapter 1 version or the chapter 2 version?"
Now, this is a bit of a setback for us. Part of my goal in this blog was to understand what Genesis said about the God character in the story. But we can't honestly draw conclusions about God from chapter 1 being the same as Lord God in chapter 2, since they seem to be creators of different worlds.
Moving on....
The name Adam pops up out of nowhere. We're kind of guessing at this point that he's the man God made from mud and dropped in Eden. That's not too wild a speculation, since there's only one person on earth at this point in the story.
God, the busybody aunt, wants Adam to find a mate. So, naturally, he makes a cow (apparently also out of mud, like he made the man), and brings it to Adam. And after the cow, a turkey and rat and raven and elephant and dove and beaver and so on.
This is utterly bizarre. The only conclusion I can draw from this is either (1) God is really into bestiality and desperately wanted Adam to mate with some animal, any animal or (2) God is an idiot who honestly thought, "I bet what Adam is looking for in a mate is a rat with nice whiskers and a long tail. No, maybe a raven with sleek black feathers. No? How surprising." Other options: (3) both, (4) God has a weird sense of humor and was laughing hysterically the whole time, (5) I'm completely misreading this passage.
In fact, let's go wild and include the next verse for clarification.
2:20 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.
So, they are definitely and explicitly looking for a "help meet" for Adam. So, Adam is definitely the man who needed a help meet, and God is definitely bringing him lots of animals for that purpose. Maybe "help meet" doesn't mean mate. Maybe. Anyone have another suggestion?
Anyway, Adam said, "That's a cow. Not gonna marry me no cow. That's a turkey. Not gonna marry me no turkey, no sir. That's a rat. Oh Lord, I ain't gonna marry no rat, no way, no how. Good God, that's a raven. I'll marry a raven ... nevermore! Muhahahaha. That's an elephant. What time are we breaking for lunch? No, of course I'm not interested in the elephant in that way. I am getting a little hungry, though. Ok, that's a dove. No dove for me."
You know all those annoying homophobes who say "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."? Next time you're chatting with them, tell them, "Actually, God made Adam and Bessie the cow. Genesis 2:18-20."
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Help meet
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Sometimes God is like your old aunt, always trying to get you hitched.
In case it wasn't absolutely clear that there was only one man before, we're reminded of that here.
"Help meet" isn't a common or clear term. It sounds more like "swap meet", but apparently just means "mate". Both in the British sense and not.
As I said, "It is not good that the man should be alone" kind of sounds like your aunt or grandmother. But the "not good" is a little interesting since we've been talking about the knowledge of good and evil. So, does it just mean, "I feel like interfering", or does it mean "fundamentally evil" or "could be better" or "I'm obsessed with reproduction" like the authors of the previous chapter? It is not clear.
Sometimes God is like your old aunt, always trying to get you hitched.
In case it wasn't absolutely clear that there was only one man before, we're reminded of that here.
"Help meet" isn't a common or clear term. It sounds more like "swap meet", but apparently just means "mate". Both in the British sense and not.
As I said, "It is not good that the man should be alone" kind of sounds like your aunt or grandmother. But the "not good" is a little interesting since we've been talking about the knowledge of good and evil. So, does it just mean, "I feel like interfering", or does it mean "fundamentally evil" or "could be better" or "I'm obsessed with reproduction" like the authors of the previous chapter? It is not clear.
Surely
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Ok, here's the commanding part.
First, this differs sharply from the first chapter, where man was given every tree without restriction. Here we have a clear "don't eat this one". Definite push for Rashomon.
But a reason is given. The "for" after the colon clearly means "because". You shouldn't eat it, because you will die if you do. And it's unambiguous: "surely" means definitely, absolutely, without doubt or wriggle room. And it's quick: on the same day.
Now, that sure sounds to me like it's poisonous. But it's not entirely clear. It could be a threat rather than a warning, more like, "Don't touch my stuff, or I'll kill you."
This is a restriction from eating from one of the special trees mentioned; it seems that the tree of life is still fair game.
Note that God is warning the one man that he sculpted from mud. No other people or animals have been mentioned in this chapter, so presumably no one else is around yet.
One more point, which seems almost too obvious to bother with, but I've heard people quibble over it. If someone says to you, "Don't eat the little red berries; if you do, you'll be dead within the hour", and you trust them and don't think that they're insanely possessive of their berries or deliberately trying to mislead you or spectacularly bad at communicating, the only way to interpret that is "Poison!" It's not a warning that you might get your face permanently stained red, thereby killing your good looks. It's not a suggestion that the speaker might be disappointed if you eat them. It's not abstract or vague. It's not, "It could interfere with your immune system, leaving you slightly more vulnerable to various illness and decreasing your life expectancy from 78 years to 74 years."
So, should someone get around to eating the fruit, we now expect that they'll get stomach cramps, fall over, convulse wildly, and kick it. Of course, there's always the possibility that God is wildly mistaken. "I think there was some sort of warning label on one of the seed packets I got for the garden. Maybe that tree over there? Ah, whatever."
Ok, here's the commanding part.
First, this differs sharply from the first chapter, where man was given every tree without restriction. Here we have a clear "don't eat this one". Definite push for Rashomon.
But a reason is given. The "for" after the colon clearly means "because". You shouldn't eat it, because you will die if you do. And it's unambiguous: "surely" means definitely, absolutely, without doubt or wriggle room. And it's quick: on the same day.
Now, that sure sounds to me like it's poisonous. But it's not entirely clear. It could be a threat rather than a warning, more like, "Don't touch my stuff, or I'll kill you."
This is a restriction from eating from one of the special trees mentioned; it seems that the tree of life is still fair game.
Note that God is warning the one man that he sculpted from mud. No other people or animals have been mentioned in this chapter, so presumably no one else is around yet.
One more point, which seems almost too obvious to bother with, but I've heard people quibble over it. If someone says to you, "Don't eat the little red berries; if you do, you'll be dead within the hour", and you trust them and don't think that they're insanely possessive of their berries or deliberately trying to mislead you or spectacularly bad at communicating, the only way to interpret that is "Poison!" It's not a warning that you might get your face permanently stained red, thereby killing your good looks. It's not a suggestion that the speaker might be disappointed if you eat them. It's not abstract or vague. It's not, "It could interfere with your immune system, leaving you slightly more vulnerable to various illness and decreasing your life expectancy from 78 years to 74 years."
So, should someone get around to eating the fruit, we now expect that they'll get stomach cramps, fall over, convulse wildly, and kick it. Of course, there's always the possibility that God is wildly mistaken. "I think there was some sort of warning label on one of the seed packets I got for the garden. Maybe that tree over there? Ah, whatever."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Freely
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Ah, those verses that end in colons.
This is similar to, but contrasts a bit with the first chapter. As always, we have the 'Lord' thing. But this is parallel to 1:29, "I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... it shall be for meat". In this case, it's the trees in the garden; in the previous case, all the plants on earth.
This part doesn't sound much like a command, but that hints at what follows the colon.
Ah, those verses that end in colons.
This is similar to, but contrasts a bit with the first chapter. As always, we have the 'Lord' thing. But this is parallel to 1:29, "I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... it shall be for meat". In this case, it's the trees in the garden; in the previous case, all the plants on earth.
This part doesn't sound much like a command, but that hints at what follows the colon.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Dress it
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Back in 2:8, God put man in the garden. Seven verses later, he did it again. Maybe man ran away. Anyway, this time there's a purpose: the garden needs a gardener.
Consistent with this chapter, and inconsistent with the first, we have "LORD God".
Note that there's a continuum between gardener and farmer. In fact, I'm not sure I can define the distinction between a garden and a farm.
Back in 2:8, God put man in the garden. Seven verses later, he did it again. Maybe man ran away. Anyway, this time there's a purpose: the garden needs a gardener.
Consistent with this chapter, and inconsistent with the first, we have "LORD God".
Note that there's a continuum between gardener and farmer. In fact, I'm not sure I can define the distinction between a garden and a farm.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Four heads
2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
The first part doesn't sound like it makes much sense. If the garden is in Eden, the river should go into Eden to water the garden. If the garden isn't in Eden, why did you just tell us it was there?
But there's a way around this. First, assume that the author is lousy at communication. Second, read it thus: And a spring came up in Eden to water the garden, and from that spring a river went out of Eden.
This is written to sound like "God created a river", but it doesn't really say that. The normal thing is that you find a water source and put the garden there. But this could be interpreted that way. The "And" wouldn't be so much sequential in time as "And, by the way, there was a river there."
Then the river split into four parts. I don't have much to say about that. I'm going to break with tradition and add 4 more verses here which I also don't have much to say about.
2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
2:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
2:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
My usual comments apply: the verses are grouped oddly. The whole thing is inconsistent; why no information about Euphrates, but so much about Havilah?
Beyond that, what is notable is that there is a startling amount of geographic detail. This sounds like the authors are really making an effort to provide directions to locate a real place. It's a pretty odd way to make up a creation myth, since it's practically begging for someone to verify it (or disprove it). If you lived in that area a few thousand years ago, all it would take would be the willingness to go an a hike up to the source of whichever river was nearest, and locate the garden. So, wouldn't people have done that, and kept track of the location? Why isn't the garden a tourist destination today?
The first part doesn't sound like it makes much sense. If the garden is in Eden, the river should go into Eden to water the garden. If the garden isn't in Eden, why did you just tell us it was there?
But there's a way around this. First, assume that the author is lousy at communication. Second, read it thus: And a spring came up in Eden to water the garden, and from that spring a river went out of Eden.
This is written to sound like "God created a river", but it doesn't really say that. The normal thing is that you find a water source and put the garden there. But this could be interpreted that way. The "And" wouldn't be so much sequential in time as "And, by the way, there was a river there."
Then the river split into four parts. I don't have much to say about that. I'm going to break with tradition and add 4 more verses here which I also don't have much to say about.
2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
2:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
2:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
My usual comments apply: the verses are grouped oddly. The whole thing is inconsistent; why no information about Euphrates, but so much about Havilah?
Beyond that, what is notable is that there is a startling amount of geographic detail. This sounds like the authors are really making an effort to provide directions to locate a real place. It's a pretty odd way to make up a creation myth, since it's practically begging for someone to verify it (or disprove it). If you lived in that area a few thousand years ago, all it would take would be the willingness to go an a hike up to the source of whichever river was nearest, and locate the garden. So, wouldn't people have done that, and kept track of the location? Why isn't the garden a tourist destination today?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Midst
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
In the last verse, "God planted a garden" and "put the man" there. Here he's making the plants grow in the garden. So, "plant" in the last verse really seems specifically to mean "plant seeds", which grow in this verse. Still, "made ... to grow" is an odd construct. That's pretty much what happens after you plant seeds in good soil; you don't usually make much effort.
As a computer programmer, I'm tempted to interpret this as: Consider all species of trees. Some are good looking and have nutritional fruit; some are one or the other; and some are neither. What grew in the garden were both. In addition to those, there were (at least) two species that were not both: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge.
Of course, I know that nobody speaks English (or any real language) the way we program computers, so the interpretation is more like: Consider all species of trees. Some are good for gardens because they look good; others are convenient to have around because they have nutritional fruit. (And there may be some overlap betweeen those two sets.) Most of these species were in the garden. Also, there were two particularly important trees in the garden that I want to mention, Life and Knowledge.
The "every tree..." business makes this really sound like the fantasy of a farmer.
It's not entirely clear here what the two special trees are about, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But one thing is clear is that it's not "knowledge of mathematics" or "knowledge of sports trivia" or "knowledge of farming techniques" but "knowledge of good and evil". It's not clear whether that means knowing the difference, or knowing lots of stories about each.
Technically the "in the midst" means close to the middle; in practice, it at least means "not on the edge". Here it only clearly applies to Life; Knowledge may or may not be near an edge.
Oh, another "LORD God". This chapter uses that very consistently.
In the last verse, "God planted a garden" and "put the man" there. Here he's making the plants grow in the garden. So, "plant" in the last verse really seems specifically to mean "plant seeds", which grow in this verse. Still, "made ... to grow" is an odd construct. That's pretty much what happens after you plant seeds in good soil; you don't usually make much effort.
As a computer programmer, I'm tempted to interpret this as: Consider all species of trees. Some are good looking and have nutritional fruit; some are one or the other; and some are neither. What grew in the garden were both. In addition to those, there were (at least) two species that were not both: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge.
Of course, I know that nobody speaks English (or any real language) the way we program computers, so the interpretation is more like: Consider all species of trees. Some are good for gardens because they look good; others are convenient to have around because they have nutritional fruit. (And there may be some overlap betweeen those two sets.) Most of these species were in the garden. Also, there were two particularly important trees in the garden that I want to mention, Life and Knowledge.
The "every tree..." business makes this really sound like the fantasy of a farmer.
It's not entirely clear here what the two special trees are about, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But one thing is clear is that it's not "knowledge of mathematics" or "knowledge of sports trivia" or "knowledge of farming techniques" but "knowledge of good and evil". It's not clear whether that means knowing the difference, or knowing lots of stories about each.
Technically the "in the midst" means close to the middle; in practice, it at least means "not on the edge". Here it only clearly applies to Life; Knowledge may or may not be near an edge.
Oh, another "LORD God". This chapter uses that very consistently.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Eastward
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Again, this chapter uses "LORD God"; point to Rashomon. Also, the last chapter talks of plants, but not a garden.
God plants a garden. This God is a farmer. It doesn't say "God made the earth grow a garden", or "God waved his hand and a garden appeared". It says "planted", like God one by one stuck seeds into the mud.
"Eastward" is interesting. In some ways it's very specific. But, east of where man was created? East of where the storyteller is?
"Formed" is a reference to the mud-sculpting from the last verse.
"Put" is interesting. It's very vague. Did God stick the man in a wheelbarrow and move him?
Again, this chapter uses "LORD God"; point to Rashomon. Also, the last chapter talks of plants, but not a garden.
God plants a garden. This God is a farmer. It doesn't say "God made the earth grow a garden", or "God waved his hand and a garden appeared". It says "planted", like God one by one stuck seeds into the mud.
"Eastward" is interesting. In some ways it's very specific. But, east of where man was created? East of where the storyteller is?
"Formed" is a reference to the mud-sculpting from the last verse.
"Put" is interesting. It's very vague. Did God stick the man in a wheelbarrow and move him?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Dust
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.
Again, this chapter uses "LORD God" where the first just said "God". One point to Rashomon.
Also, in this chapter, man is created before plants. In fact, man is created before anything else. In the other chapter, man was pretty much created last. Major points to Rashomon.
"Dust" is clearly the wrong word right after a mist watered the earth. Dust is dry. The correct word would be "mud". Or I suppose perhaps "clay".
What does it mean that man is made of mud? Well, clearly the ground is important. Another hint that the author is a farmer. Besides that, maybe it also indicates an interest in, and familiarity with pottery. And an active imagination.
This God is a sculptor, and breathes. Apparently he breathes into his sculpture's nostrils. To each his own.
This suggests a pretty clear understanding of the relationship between breathing and being alive. Of course, that's none too subtle.
Again, this chapter uses "LORD God" where the first just said "God". One point to Rashomon.
Also, in this chapter, man is created before plants. In fact, man is created before anything else. In the other chapter, man was pretty much created last. Major points to Rashomon.
"Dust" is clearly the wrong word right after a mist watered the earth. Dust is dry. The correct word would be "mud". Or I suppose perhaps "clay".
What does it mean that man is made of mud? Well, clearly the ground is important. Another hint that the author is a farmer. Besides that, maybe it also indicates an interest in, and familiarity with pottery. And an active imagination.
This God is a sculptor, and breathes. Apparently he breathes into his sculpture's nostrils. To each his own.
This suggests a pretty clear understanding of the relationship between breathing and being alive. Of course, that's none too subtle.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Up a mist
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Come to think of it, if the dry land was just separated from the water, why would it desperately need watering? I'll count that in favor of Rashomon.
Aside from this rather bizarre description of the first rain, there's not a whole lot to this verse.
Ok, the mist went up from the earth, and then went back down to the earth, watering it. Makes little sense. Why didn't the water just stay in the earth where it was needed?
Anyway, one interesting point is that God isn't implicated in this mist. This just happened. In fact, the "But" almost sounds like "despite God". "God hadn't made it rain, but it rained anyway."
Come to think of it, if the dry land was just separated from the water, why would it desperately need watering? I'll count that in favor of Rashomon.
Aside from this rather bizarre description of the first rain, there's not a whole lot to this verse.
Ok, the mist went up from the earth, and then went back down to the earth, watering it. Makes little sense. Why didn't the water just stay in the earth where it was needed?
Anyway, one interesting point is that God isn't implicated in this mist. This just happened. In fact, the "But" almost sounds like "despite God". "God hadn't made it rain, but it rained anyway."
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Before it grew
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
This is a bit of a low point. I can't quite figure out how to make grammatic sense out of this. It seems to be saying that there were no plants, or that all of the plants were just seeds in the ground. But it doesn't quite actually say that.
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth." Let's simplify that down. First, we can drop the leading "And" with impunity. The phrase "of the field" describes the plants, and doesn't seem that important. Let's just use "there" instead of "in the earth" for now. Then the phrase becomes "every plant before it was there". There are two ways to interpret "before" in English. One, it can mean "in front of", as in "all the papers before you". Two, it can mean prior to, earlier in time. If "before" means "in front of", then what is "it" referring to? "Every plant in front of it was there."
The last verse ended in a comma, but going back to it doesn't help. There's simply no referent for "it", if we interpret "before" as "in front of". That leaves us with the temporal meaning of "before", and "it" refers to the plant. So the phrase is something like "every plant, before arriving and every herb before growing". But then we get to a colon, and don't have a real sentence yet.
The part after the colon seems like it's trying to explain the part before the colon. It starts with "for" as in "because". "Because no rain and no tilling." (I'm being brief here; at least the actual phrase after the colon is grammatical.) Now, rain and tilling help plants grow. So, the part before the colon should say "The plants hadn't grown yet". Or, in the inimitable repetitive style we're getting used to "The plants before growing hadn't yet grown." But just "The plants before growing" seems like not quite enough.
Let's just assume that the first part is supposed to say "At this time (ie, on the day that God made the earth and the heavens), the plants of the fields were still just seeds in the ground, as were the herbs of the field; and they had not yet grown."
Moving on. There's a second "LORD God", so this verse is sounding like the previous one. No real shock there, since the previous one ended in a comma. But we'll count it as another small hint that this chapter has a different author than the first one. That is, that the Rashomon Interpretation is true.
It sounds kind of like it's saying that you need two things to grow plants: rain and tilling. This is pretty odd, since everyone knows that plants grow on untilled soil, although they don't take root as readily. It does seem to be referencing some agriculture knowledge, and is farmer-oriented. This gives it something in common with the first chapter. This chapter also seems to be written by a farmer. That would tend to undermine the Rashomon Interpretation and support the Repetition Interpretation.
Another way to read the "rain and tilling" is that you need either one or the other to get plants to grow. Perhaps wild plants grow from rain, and domesticated one from tilling. But tilling is no substitute for watering, and I'd think even early farmers would know that. However, this interpretation puts man and God as equals, which is interesting.
It reads like God is the cause of rain. I'd go with large bodies of water evaporating, temperature gradients in the atmosphere changing the ability of the air to hold water, and so on. But that's just me.
If the Repetition Interpretation is true, this is specifying when exactly we're talking about. This is after the dry land was separated from the water, but before the earth brought forth grass. That's specifically part of the way through the third day. In the first chapter, earth and seas were separated on the first part of the third day (1:9-1:10), and the earth brought forth grains and fruit trees on the second part (1:11-1:12).
The third day, then is "the day that the LORD God made the earth". However, it's not the day God made the heavens; heaven was created on the second day, filled with stars on the fourth, and with birds on the fifth. That's a strike against Repetition and in favor of Rashomon.
This is a bit of a low point. I can't quite figure out how to make grammatic sense out of this. It seems to be saying that there were no plants, or that all of the plants were just seeds in the ground. But it doesn't quite actually say that.
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth." Let's simplify that down. First, we can drop the leading "And" with impunity. The phrase "of the field" describes the plants, and doesn't seem that important. Let's just use "there" instead of "in the earth" for now. Then the phrase becomes "every plant before it was there". There are two ways to interpret "before" in English. One, it can mean "in front of", as in "all the papers before you". Two, it can mean prior to, earlier in time. If "before" means "in front of", then what is "it" referring to? "Every plant in front of it was there."
The last verse ended in a comma, but going back to it doesn't help. There's simply no referent for "it", if we interpret "before" as "in front of". That leaves us with the temporal meaning of "before", and "it" refers to the plant. So the phrase is something like "every plant, before arriving and every herb before growing". But then we get to a colon, and don't have a real sentence yet.
The part after the colon seems like it's trying to explain the part before the colon. It starts with "for" as in "because". "Because no rain and no tilling." (I'm being brief here; at least the actual phrase after the colon is grammatical.) Now, rain and tilling help plants grow. So, the part before the colon should say "The plants hadn't grown yet". Or, in the inimitable repetitive style we're getting used to "The plants before growing hadn't yet grown." But just "The plants before growing" seems like not quite enough.
Let's just assume that the first part is supposed to say "At this time (ie, on the day that God made the earth and the heavens), the plants of the fields were still just seeds in the ground, as were the herbs of the field; and they had not yet grown."
Moving on. There's a second "LORD God", so this verse is sounding like the previous one. No real shock there, since the previous one ended in a comma. But we'll count it as another small hint that this chapter has a different author than the first one. That is, that the Rashomon Interpretation is true.
It sounds kind of like it's saying that you need two things to grow plants: rain and tilling. This is pretty odd, since everyone knows that plants grow on untilled soil, although they don't take root as readily. It does seem to be referencing some agriculture knowledge, and is farmer-oriented. This gives it something in common with the first chapter. This chapter also seems to be written by a farmer. That would tend to undermine the Rashomon Interpretation and support the Repetition Interpretation.
Another way to read the "rain and tilling" is that you need either one or the other to get plants to grow. Perhaps wild plants grow from rain, and domesticated one from tilling. But tilling is no substitute for watering, and I'd think even early farmers would know that. However, this interpretation puts man and God as equals, which is interesting.
It reads like God is the cause of rain. I'd go with large bodies of water evaporating, temperature gradients in the atmosphere changing the ability of the air to hold water, and so on. But that's just me.
If the Repetition Interpretation is true, this is specifying when exactly we're talking about. This is after the dry land was separated from the water, but before the earth brought forth grass. That's specifically part of the way through the third day. In the first chapter, earth and seas were separated on the first part of the third day (1:9-1:10), and the earth brought forth grains and fruit trees on the second part (1:11-1:12).
The third day, then is "the day that the LORD God made the earth". However, it's not the day God made the heavens; heaven was created on the second day, filled with stars on the fourth, and with birds on the fifth. That's a strike against Repetition and in favor of Rashomon.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
In the day
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Another verse ending in a comma. Sigh.
This is another introductory verse; it could easily be 1:1, but here it is at 2:4. There are four possibilities that I see. One: we are going completely nonlinear, circling back to tell the same story again, perhaps to fill in missing details. Two: we are telling a different story, although a similar one, maybe like Rashomon. Three: someone simply shuffled all the verses around randomly. Four: this isn't introductory, but is yet another summarizing of what went before.
Three would likely lead to an even less coherent story than we've had. Four will quickly be shown to be wrong. So only the first two options are contenders. Similarities between the stories will point toward the first, which I'll call Repetition Interpretation; differences and inconsistencies will point toward the second, which I'll call the Rashomon Interpretation.
These chapters are wildly inconsistent about whether it's "heaven" or "heavens".
This is the first "Lord God". And it's "LORD", but I'm assigning no significance to the capitalization.
It's not really clear what "generations" means.
It's interesting that it says "in the day" to refer to when God created heaven and earth. In the previous chapter, heaven was created on the second day, and earth on the third. So that would be two days; and in the previous chapter counting the days seemed very important. But this reads more like "back in the day", just some vague time long ago.
By the way, when I say "the first chapter", I mean verses 1:1 through 2:3; it seems obvious that what are technically the first three verses of the second chapter are actually the last three verses of the first.
The use of "Lord" and the lack of interest in counting days already suggests that the Rashomon Interpretation is the right one. These points are distinctly different from the previous story, and we have barely started telling the second one. We're telling the creation story again, but this time it's a different creation story, even told by a different author, who uses different words and has different interests.
But that's just a suggestion. More conclusive evidence will have to wait.
Another verse ending in a comma. Sigh.
This is another introductory verse; it could easily be 1:1, but here it is at 2:4. There are four possibilities that I see. One: we are going completely nonlinear, circling back to tell the same story again, perhaps to fill in missing details. Two: we are telling a different story, although a similar one, maybe like Rashomon. Three: someone simply shuffled all the verses around randomly. Four: this isn't introductory, but is yet another summarizing of what went before.
Three would likely lead to an even less coherent story than we've had. Four will quickly be shown to be wrong. So only the first two options are contenders. Similarities between the stories will point toward the first, which I'll call Repetition Interpretation; differences and inconsistencies will point toward the second, which I'll call the Rashomon Interpretation.
These chapters are wildly inconsistent about whether it's "heaven" or "heavens".
This is the first "Lord God". And it's "LORD", but I'm assigning no significance to the capitalization.
It's not really clear what "generations" means.
It's interesting that it says "in the day" to refer to when God created heaven and earth. In the previous chapter, heaven was created on the second day, and earth on the third. So that would be two days; and in the previous chapter counting the days seemed very important. But this reads more like "back in the day", just some vague time long ago.
By the way, when I say "the first chapter", I mean verses 1:1 through 2:3; it seems obvious that what are technically the first three verses of the second chapter are actually the last three verses of the first.
The use of "Lord" and the lack of interest in counting days already suggests that the Rashomon Interpretation is the right one. These points are distinctly different from the previous story, and we have barely started telling the second one. We're telling the creation story again, but this time it's a different creation story, even told by a different author, who uses different words and has different interests.
But that's just a suggestion. More conclusive evidence will have to wait.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Had rested
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Not only does God need to rest, he likes resting so much he makes the day when he rested holy. He must have been seriously worn out.
Ok, this is the last of 4 verses saying that the creation is over. So, it's time to go back and summarize. Here are the days in shorthand, after the introductory first verse.
So, what have we learned about God from this tale? He existed when the story began, when the earth was covered in water. He's leading a committee, or is a committee. He's a hard worker, or a group of hard workers who can accomplish impressive things. He's insecure, and is always checking if his work is any good. He can't do everything at once, and he gets tired. He looks like people. He talks and sees. He's obsessed with reproduction. He wants people and animals to eat plants. He wants the sun to rule the day, and people to have dominion over animals. He doesn't create something from nothing so much as he shapes and organizes. He supports farming.
And of the universe? Well, at the bottom is the earth on one side and the seas on the other. Above them is heaven, which is apparently the atmosphere, containing birds, and the sun, moon and stars. Above that is another ocean which makes the sky look blue. One of the purposes of the sun and moon is to divide day from night, although there were a couple of days and nights before they existed. The main goal of the plants and fish and birds and animals and people is to reproduce like crazy.
Here's the really crazy part: there are people who say they think this story is literally true. That's bizarre enough, but odder still is that they believe hardly anything that I've written here. And we haven't even gotten to the warped and twisted parts yets.
Not only does God need to rest, he likes resting so much he makes the day when he rested holy. He must have been seriously worn out.
Ok, this is the last of 4 verses saying that the creation is over. So, it's time to go back and summarize. Here are the days in shorthand, after the introductory first verse.
- 4 verses, 1:2-1:5. Let light; light. Divide from dark. Good. Name: Day, Night.
- 3 verses, 1:6-1:8. Let firmament with purpose; made firmament; so. Name: Heaven.
- 5 verses, 1:9-1:13. Let dry land separated from water; so. Name: Earth, Seas. Good. Let plants from earth, reproducing; so; plants. Good.
- 6 verses, 1:14-1:19. Let lights with purposes; so; made sun, moon, stars to rule. Good.
- 4 verses, 1:20-1:23. Let fish, birds from seas; made fish, birds, reproducing. Good. Bless: reproduce.
- 8 verses, 1:24-1:31. Let animals from earth, reproducing; so; made animals. Good. Let people with dominion; made people, reproducing. Bless: reproduce, farm, have dominion. People eat plants. Animals eat plants. Very good.
- 3 verses, 2:1-2:3. Rest, bless, sanctify.
So, what have we learned about God from this tale? He existed when the story began, when the earth was covered in water. He's leading a committee, or is a committee. He's a hard worker, or a group of hard workers who can accomplish impressive things. He's insecure, and is always checking if his work is any good. He can't do everything at once, and he gets tired. He looks like people. He talks and sees. He's obsessed with reproduction. He wants people and animals to eat plants. He wants the sun to rule the day, and people to have dominion over animals. He doesn't create something from nothing so much as he shapes and organizes. He supports farming.
And of the universe? Well, at the bottom is the earth on one side and the seas on the other. Above them is heaven, which is apparently the atmosphere, containing birds, and the sun, moon and stars. Above that is another ocean which makes the sky look blue. One of the purposes of the sun and moon is to divide day from night, although there were a couple of days and nights before they existed. The main goal of the plants and fish and birds and animals and people is to reproduce like crazy.
Here's the really crazy part: there are people who say they think this story is literally true. That's bizarre enough, but odder still is that they believe hardly anything that I've written here. And we haven't even gotten to the warped and twisted parts yets.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Rested
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
In 1:31 it implies that God was done creating things. In 2:1 it says everything was finished. And here it says that he's ended his work. So, maybe he's done creating things.
This verse tells us something else about God. In addition to looking like a person, he is like a person in that after working hard for six days, he's tired and needs a day off to rest. I picture him all sweaty, sprawled in a field, and wishing that he'd invented couches and air conditioning, beer and television already.
The phrasing of the first half of the verse is odd. It suggests that on the 7th day he was still finishing up somehow. But that could just be awkward phrasing.
In 1:31 it implies that God was done creating things. In 2:1 it says everything was finished. And here it says that he's ended his work. So, maybe he's done creating things.
This verse tells us something else about God. In addition to looking like a person, he is like a person in that after working hard for six days, he's tired and needs a day off to rest. I picture him all sweaty, sprawled in a field, and wishing that he'd invented couches and air conditioning, beer and television already.
The phrasing of the first half of the verse is odd. It suggests that on the 7th day he was still finishing up somehow. But that could just be awkward phrasing.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Finished
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gee, somehow we're into the second chapter, but we're still summarizing the first. The numbering fails again.
It's not entirely clear, but by "host" I think it means everything living in them.
I have no idea why heaven is plural this time.
Gee, somehow we're into the second chapter, but we're still summarizing the first. The numbering fails again.
It's not entirely clear, but by "host" I think it means everything living in them.
I have no idea why heaven is plural this time.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The sixth
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
This is a pretty nice sort of summary. He saw "every thing", and, even though each thing indivually was good, together it was "very good". And the "behold" makes it sound like he was particularly surprised to find this, and therefore delighted.
This is a pretty nice sort of summary. He saw "every thing", and, even though each thing indivually was good, together it was "very good". And the "behold" makes it sound like he was particularly surprised to find this, and therefore delighted.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Herb for meat
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
So birds and animals also get to eat plants.
This makes people feel not so special.
This also makes carnivorous animals feel left out. And hungry.
Also, in case you wondered, the bible is clearly pro-legalization.
So birds and animals also get to eat plants.
This makes people feel not so special.
This also makes carnivorous animals feel left out. And hungry.
Also, in case you wondered, the bible is clearly pro-legalization.
Meat
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
I think in context it's clear that "meat" means "food".
So, God has given people the grains and fruit trees for them to eat, but animals aren't mentioned here. This suggests to me that the authors were vegetarians.
I think in context it's clear that "meat" means "food".
So, God has given people the grains and fruit trees for them to eat, but animals aren't mentioned here. This suggests to me that the authors were vegetarians.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Subdue
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Oddly enough, people are blessed much like fish.
This repeats the dominion, but it leaves out cattle and "all the earth". I don't know about the cattle, but this makes me lean toward interpreting "all the earth" as just meaning all the animals.
The phrase "replenish the earth" is parallel to the fish's "fill the waters". I think it's just a third way of saying "reproduce". So "Be fruitful" = "Reproduce" and "multiply" = "reproduce". Which makes the blessing start "Reproduce, reproduce, reproduce." Perhaps that was considered important.
But the "subdue it" phrase is new and very interesting. People are charged with subduing the earth. I get two pieces of information from this. First is "There's no such thing as a free lunch"; God will give the earth to people, but they still have to work to control it. Second, this can basically be read as people being commanded to develop agriculture. That surely sounds like a fundamental purpose for a group of farmers.
Oddly enough, people are blessed much like fish.
This repeats the dominion, but it leaves out cattle and "all the earth". I don't know about the cattle, but this makes me lean toward interpreting "all the earth" as just meaning all the animals.
The phrase "replenish the earth" is parallel to the fish's "fill the waters". I think it's just a third way of saying "reproduce". So "Be fruitful" = "Reproduce" and "multiply" = "reproduce". Which makes the blessing start "Reproduce, reproduce, reproduce." Perhaps that was considered important.
But the "subdue it" phrase is new and very interesting. People are charged with subduing the earth. I get two pieces of information from this. First is "There's no such thing as a free lunch"; God will give the earth to people, but they still have to work to control it. Second, this can basically be read as people being commanded to develop agriculture. That surely sounds like a fundamental purpose for a group of farmers.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Female created
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This is a significant milestone here. It's the first time we start a sentence with a word other than "and" since the very first verse which started "In". In verse 16, there was an independent clause which started "he". By my count, we had 50 independent clauses starting "and". My English teachers would have covered this in red and screamed that it was essentially one massive run-on sentence. But now we have three clauses, and not one starts with "and".
So what does "so" mean? Informally, at least in modern English, it doesn't have to mean anything. "So, anyway, ..." More formally, it means "Because of what preceded." There was the cause; so there was the effect. That's a little interesting, because it's applied to God. That suggests that God, like all things we're familiar with, is subject to laws of cause and effect. But, that's not really the meaning here, exactly. This seems more like the "so" following a rationale for acting, the basis for a decision. God decided to create man because ... well, in this case, because God had said they should. This is strong committee talk, really. The creation subcommittee created man because the planning subcommittee said to do so.
Except that there's only one guy in the creation subcommittee; the "us/our" from the last verse has turned into "he/his".
We get into equally convoluted details understanding what got created. We have three phrases: in the first God created "man"; in the second God created "him"; in the third God created "them" (male and female). There seems to be a lot of leeway in how we could interpret this.
One extreme would be a sequential individual interpretation. God made one male person; then another male person; then a third male and a female. The "individual" part of this interpretation conflicts with our interpretation of the earlier verse, where we read "them" as indicating that "man" was the whole species.
The sequential species interpretation doesn't really make much sense. God made the species, then God made the species, then God made both genders of the species.
The fully parallel species interpretation is wildly repetitive, but makes sense. God made the species, which involved God making the species, specifically both genders of the species. I'm going to go with this one, but there are several others options which are possible; this is a verse rich in multiguity.
Let's note that when trees and grains and fish and birds and animals were created, there was the "after his kind" explanation. We don't get that here. But we can interpret the "male and female" bit as standing in for a discussion of the reproduction of people, just as "after his kind" referred to the reproduction of the other species.
This brings up the point that people are very distinct here from land animals. Created on the same day, sure, but (1) people look like God, which apparently land animals don't; and (2) people's reproduction is discussed differently; and (3) people have dominion over everything.
This verse has the repetitive "in his own image, in the image of God"; that's clearly an important point. That point isn't emphasized in the third phrase, the one which hints at reproduction by mentioning sexes. The pronoun "he", used for God, suggests that God is male. However, the interpretation of "man" as describing the species, male and female, suggests that both are made in the image of God; or at least in the image of the committee members. This hints that perhaps the committee members were of both sexes.
It's interesting that land animals aren't supposed to look like God, while people do. To my eyes, people look like land animals. There isn't really that much diversity in land animals; two (back) legs, and either two front legs or two arms. One head with two eyes, two ears, a nose with two nostrils and a mouth with a tongue and a bunch of teeth. That describes people, horses, apes, cats, lizards, elephants. Also consider that people don't look that much like each other; is it obvious at a glance that a 4'10" skinny white woman with blue eyes and straight blonde hair is the same species as a 6'10" fat black man with brown eyes and curly dark hair? Yet both of those are presumably in the range of the first group of people created, in God's image.
This is a significant milestone here. It's the first time we start a sentence with a word other than "and" since the very first verse which started "In". In verse 16, there was an independent clause which started "he". By my count, we had 50 independent clauses starting "and". My English teachers would have covered this in red and screamed that it was essentially one massive run-on sentence. But now we have three clauses, and not one starts with "and".
So what does "so" mean? Informally, at least in modern English, it doesn't have to mean anything. "So, anyway, ..." More formally, it means "Because of what preceded." There was the cause; so there was the effect. That's a little interesting, because it's applied to God. That suggests that God, like all things we're familiar with, is subject to laws of cause and effect. But, that's not really the meaning here, exactly. This seems more like the "so" following a rationale for acting, the basis for a decision. God decided to create man because ... well, in this case, because God had said they should. This is strong committee talk, really. The creation subcommittee created man because the planning subcommittee said to do so.
Except that there's only one guy in the creation subcommittee; the "us/our" from the last verse has turned into "he/his".
We get into equally convoluted details understanding what got created. We have three phrases: in the first God created "man"; in the second God created "him"; in the third God created "them" (male and female). There seems to be a lot of leeway in how we could interpret this.
One extreme would be a sequential individual interpretation. God made one male person; then another male person; then a third male and a female. The "individual" part of this interpretation conflicts with our interpretation of the earlier verse, where we read "them" as indicating that "man" was the whole species.
The sequential species interpretation doesn't really make much sense. God made the species, then God made the species, then God made both genders of the species.
The fully parallel species interpretation is wildly repetitive, but makes sense. God made the species, which involved God making the species, specifically both genders of the species. I'm going to go with this one, but there are several others options which are possible; this is a verse rich in multiguity.
Let's note that when trees and grains and fish and birds and animals were created, there was the "after his kind" explanation. We don't get that here. But we can interpret the "male and female" bit as standing in for a discussion of the reproduction of people, just as "after his kind" referred to the reproduction of the other species.
This brings up the point that people are very distinct here from land animals. Created on the same day, sure, but (1) people look like God, which apparently land animals don't; and (2) people's reproduction is discussed differently; and (3) people have dominion over everything.
This verse has the repetitive "in his own image, in the image of God"; that's clearly an important point. That point isn't emphasized in the third phrase, the one which hints at reproduction by mentioning sexes. The pronoun "he", used for God, suggests that God is male. However, the interpretation of "man" as describing the species, male and female, suggests that both are made in the image of God; or at least in the image of the committee members. This hints that perhaps the committee members were of both sexes.
It's interesting that land animals aren't supposed to look like God, while people do. To my eyes, people look like land animals. There isn't really that much diversity in land animals; two (back) legs, and either two front legs or two arms. One head with two eyes, two ears, a nose with two nostrils and a mouth with a tongue and a bunch of teeth. That describes people, horses, apes, cats, lizards, elephants. Also consider that people don't look that much like each other; is it obvious at a glance that a 4'10" skinny white woman with blue eyes and straight blonde hair is the same species as a 6'10" fat black man with brown eyes and curly dark hair? Yet both of those are presumably in the range of the first group of people created, in God's image.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Breaking news!
This just in ....
http://www.dailyglobal.com/2009/10/god-is-not-the-creator-claims-academic/
Turns out that we're not the only ones trying to figure this thing out. So is Ellen J. van Wolde, and she's doing in Hebrew and Dutch. Apparently, she thinks the first line should be read as "In the beginning, God separated the heaven from the earth". She seems to think this is radical because it implies that the earth was already there, so God didn't create it. Of course, this is pretty much what I wrote a few weeks ago when I got to the eighth verse:
http://beret-sheet.blogspot.com/2009/09/second-day.html
The short form is that the only way to make sense of the description of God creating heaven in verses 6 - 8 was to interpret the first verse as introductory, which makes the second verse really the beginning of the story. And the second verse describes the earth as "formless, empty, dark, watery" (in my words). So, "In the beginning" just means the beginning of the story. And God comes off more like a talented builder than a magical creator.
But it's nice to see that someone who is actually qualified is sorting this out the same way.
http://www.dailyglobal.com/2009/10/god-is-not-the-creator-claims-academic/
Turns out that we're not the only ones trying to figure this thing out. So is Ellen J. van Wolde, and she's doing in Hebrew and Dutch. Apparently, she thinks the first line should be read as "In the beginning, God separated the heaven from the earth". She seems to think this is radical because it implies that the earth was already there, so God didn't create it. Of course, this is pretty much what I wrote a few weeks ago when I got to the eighth verse:
http://beret-sheet.blogspot.com/2009/09/second-day.html
The short form is that the only way to make sense of the description of God creating heaven in verses 6 - 8 was to interpret the first verse as introductory, which makes the second verse really the beginning of the story. And the second verse describes the earth as "formless, empty, dark, watery" (in my words). So, "In the beginning" just means the beginning of the story. And God comes off more like a talented builder than a magical creator.
But it's nice to see that someone who is actually qualified is sorting this out the same way.
Our likeness
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
This passage is about the creation of man, but it tells us a lot about God. First, it is almost impossible not to read this as God heading a committee of some sort; how else to interpret the plural "us ... our"? And since the committee interpretation also explains the planning out loud, the checking if it was good, and so on, it's starting to seem inevitable.
Next, man is in the image and likeness of the committee members. This strongly suggests a physical similarity; that is, the committee members had two legs, ten fingers, two armpits, body hair, teeth, one head, and so on. It also suggests that there are differences, although it's not clear what they are. If there were no differences, surely this would be "after our kind", not "after our likeness", identical not similar. Since man looks like a committee member, this suggests that the differences were other than appearance.
It's pretty clear here than "man" refers to the species, not a particular man. For instance, it says "let them have dominion", which does not seem to refer to a particular individual.
Man is given "dominion" over all of the animals created earlier today and yesterday. Oddly, though, it says "fish" here after avoiding that word in verses 20 - 22. Man is also given dominion "over all the earth", although it's not really clear if that's supposed to mean "over all the animals of the earth" or "over all the dry land" or what. Nothing is mentioned here of plants, or of sun, moon and stars, or of heaven, or of the waters above heaven, or of day and night.
It's not clear if man being given dominion over animals is parallel to the sun's purpose to rule the day. It's harder to read this as man being a deity, as you can interpret the sun ruling over the day. Perhaps this is because man is a species here, not an individual like the sun. However, in English (and, I guess, in French and Latin and other languages), the word "lord" means something like "landowner"; the land owned is the "domain" of the lord, and the ownership of the land is "dominion". But "lord" also has religious overtones of being a deity, so there is something of that connotation here as well.
This passage is about the creation of man, but it tells us a lot about God. First, it is almost impossible not to read this as God heading a committee of some sort; how else to interpret the plural "us ... our"? And since the committee interpretation also explains the planning out loud, the checking if it was good, and so on, it's starting to seem inevitable.
Next, man is in the image and likeness of the committee members. This strongly suggests a physical similarity; that is, the committee members had two legs, ten fingers, two armpits, body hair, teeth, one head, and so on. It also suggests that there are differences, although it's not clear what they are. If there were no differences, surely this would be "after our kind", not "after our likeness", identical not similar. Since man looks like a committee member, this suggests that the differences were other than appearance.
It's pretty clear here than "man" refers to the species, not a particular man. For instance, it says "let them have dominion", which does not seem to refer to a particular individual.
Man is given "dominion" over all of the animals created earlier today and yesterday. Oddly, though, it says "fish" here after avoiding that word in verses 20 - 22. Man is also given dominion "over all the earth", although it's not really clear if that's supposed to mean "over all the animals of the earth" or "over all the dry land" or what. Nothing is mentioned here of plants, or of sun, moon and stars, or of heaven, or of the waters above heaven, or of day and night.
It's not clear if man being given dominion over animals is parallel to the sun's purpose to rule the day. It's harder to read this as man being a deity, as you can interpret the sun ruling over the day. Perhaps this is because man is a species here, not an individual like the sun. However, in English (and, I guess, in French and Latin and other languages), the word "lord" means something like "landowner"; the land owned is the "domain" of the lord, and the ownership of the land is "dominion". But "lord" also has religious overtones of being a deity, so there is something of that connotation here as well.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Creepeth
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Here there's no mention of "the living creature after his kind". That means either our one interpretation where that referred to the others was correct; or that they have simply been forgotten.
The order here is different. In the last verse it was cattle, creeps, beast. Here it is beast, cattle, creeps. And, as is common here, the phrasing is slightly different. There seems to be no significance to this.
Beyond that, I don't think there's anything new to say about this.
Here there's no mention of "the living creature after his kind". That means either our one interpretation where that referred to the others was correct; or that they have simply been forgotten.
The order here is different. In the last verse it was cattle, creeps, beast. Here it is beast, cattle, creeps. And, as is common here, the phrasing is slightly different. There seems to be no significance to this.
Beyond that, I don't think there's anything new to say about this.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Creeping thing
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
In context, I'd guess that this is the creation of land animals. But the text here is pretty unclear. In verse 21, "every living creature that moveth ... after their kind" was brought forth from the sea. Now we have "the living creature after his kind" from the earth; is that obviously different other than the place of origin? Then we have the phrase "cattle, and creeping thing"; are those two more things being created, after living creatures, or are those an exhaustive list of the kinds of living creatures that are being created? Finally we have "beast of the earth after his kind"; that seems distinct. That makes either 4 or 2 kinds of things being created, one of which isn't clearly described as being different from something created earlier.
It is clear that the earth is bringing these forth; that seems to make this verse directly parallel to verse 20. But verse 20 doesn't have the "and it was so". Why the subtle change?
In context, I'd guess that this is the creation of land animals. But the text here is pretty unclear. In verse 21, "every living creature that moveth ... after their kind" was brought forth from the sea. Now we have "the living creature after his kind" from the earth; is that obviously different other than the place of origin? Then we have the phrase "cattle, and creeping thing"; are those two more things being created, after living creatures, or are those an exhaustive list of the kinds of living creatures that are being created? Finally we have "beast of the earth after his kind"; that seems distinct. That makes either 4 or 2 kinds of things being created, one of which isn't clearly described as being different from something created earlier.
It is clear that the earth is bringing these forth; that seems to make this verse directly parallel to verse 20. But verse 20 doesn't have the "and it was so". Why the subtle change?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Fifth
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
I'm itching to put in a summary, but I'm going to try to wait until my 34th post.
I don't seem to have anything to say here.
I'm itching to put in a summary, but I'm going to try to wait until my 34th post.
I don't seem to have anything to say here.
Multiply
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
After all that dividing, we now get some multiplying.
"Them" is apparently "every living creature that moveth"; but now that seems to refer only to sea animals. The phrasing is repeatedly very strange: living creatures excludes land animals, birds, and sometimes whales.
This passage may clarify the previous one. It seems that the multiplying is still in the future, so the earlier "after their kind" was misplaced. Also, "abundantly" is less than filling the waters.
The phrase "in the earth" I'll take just to mean "on dry land", not underground. Although the phrase "fowl multiply in the earth" does make me picture chickens in a cave doing math homework.
For no particular reason, the fish are supposed to be fruitful, but not the birds. But both should multiply. More strange is that the fruit trees and grains, despite having their reproductive cycle described, are not even instructed to multiply. Maybe God thought that telling the fruit trees to be fruitful would be too obvious.
God's blessing for fish and birds is instructions to have lots of descendants. That's very Darwinian of him. Anyway, this is the first blessing. Apparently the stars, moon, sun, plants, heaven, earth and light didn't get blessed.
After all that dividing, we now get some multiplying.
"Them" is apparently "every living creature that moveth"; but now that seems to refer only to sea animals. The phrasing is repeatedly very strange: living creatures excludes land animals, birds, and sometimes whales.
This passage may clarify the previous one. It seems that the multiplying is still in the future, so the earlier "after their kind" was misplaced. Also, "abundantly" is less than filling the waters.
The phrase "in the earth" I'll take just to mean "on dry land", not underground. Although the phrase "fowl multiply in the earth" does make me picture chickens in a cave doing math homework.
For no particular reason, the fish are supposed to be fruitful, but not the birds. But both should multiply. More strange is that the fruit trees and grains, despite having their reproductive cycle described, are not even instructed to multiply. Maybe God thought that telling the fruit trees to be fruitful would be too obvious.
God's blessing for fish and birds is instructions to have lots of descendants. That's very Darwinian of him. Anyway, this is the first blessing. Apparently the stars, moon, sun, plants, heaven, earth and light didn't get blessed.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Whales
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Here whales are distinguished from "every living creature that moveth", as opposed to last verse's "moving creature that hath life". Is it because whales don't move? Aren't alive? Birds, too.
Other translations say "sea monsters" instead of "great whales".
Unlike the previous verse, this one says "after their/his kind". This phrase was used to describe seeds of trees and grains before: an apple tree has apples containing apples seeds which grow into apple trees, etc. It doesn't seem to make much sense here, but by analogy, it's talking about birds having bird babies and creatures having creature babies. Maybe.
That would almost call for a very odd interpretation of this, in which multiple generations of creatures are being described here. Which raises the issue of whether the abundance is the water creating lots of creatures; or whether it's the creatures, once created, breeding abundantly. Grammatically, abundantly is modifying "bringing forth", which the water is doing; but we've seen enough not to entirely trust the grammar.
Here whales are distinguished from "every living creature that moveth", as opposed to last verse's "moving creature that hath life". Is it because whales don't move? Aren't alive? Birds, too.
Other translations say "sea monsters" instead of "great whales".
Unlike the previous verse, this one says "after their/his kind". This phrase was used to describe seeds of trees and grains before: an apple tree has apples containing apples seeds which grow into apple trees, etc. It doesn't seem to make much sense here, but by analogy, it's talking about birds having bird babies and creatures having creature babies. Maybe.
That would almost call for a very odd interpretation of this, in which multiple generations of creatures are being described here. Which raises the issue of whether the abundance is the water creating lots of creatures; or whether it's the creatures, once created, breeding abundantly. Grammatically, abundantly is modifying "bringing forth", which the water is doing; but we've seen enough not to entirely trust the grammar.
Monday, October 5, 2009
May fly
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Ok, we've got exciting new stuff here. Two creations, and more information about heaven.
In verse 11, God asked the earth to bring forth plants. Here he's asking the water to bring forth animals. The first is "the moving creature that hath life"; that's pretty broad. It's not clear here whether it means a single animal, or one species, or pretty much all animals. Well, maybe "abundantly" rules out a single animal. The second is "fowl", or birds. If this were limited to sea animals, it would perhaps make sense for the water to bring them forth. But, it definitely includes birds, so it's rather odd that they come from the water.
Of course, all animals coming from the ocean agrees with modern evolutionary theory, at least to some degree. As does the plants predating the animals. But the plants not coming from the ocean would be a conflict; not to mention the plants predating the stars. I think it's safe to say the two viewpoints are fairly independent.
We know that God placed the sun, moon and stars in heaven. But here we get more. First, heaven is described as "open"; this is a bit startling for two reasons. One, it's full of stars. Two, it's dividing the waters above from those below. Beyond that, heaven here is where birds fly.
So this clarifies the layout of the world as viewed by the author. At the bottom we have earth and sea, with the earth now covered in plants, and birds and animals coming from the sea. Above that we have heaven, which is full of air and flying birds. In heaven, presumably toward the top, are the sun and moon and stars. And above that, more water.
This reminds me somehow of pictures drawn before perspective, but this is perhaps more before gravity.
What does it mean that fowl are not considered moving creatures that have life? Just some more random inconsistency.
Ok, we've got exciting new stuff here. Two creations, and more information about heaven.
In verse 11, God asked the earth to bring forth plants. Here he's asking the water to bring forth animals. The first is "the moving creature that hath life"; that's pretty broad. It's not clear here whether it means a single animal, or one species, or pretty much all animals. Well, maybe "abundantly" rules out a single animal. The second is "fowl", or birds. If this were limited to sea animals, it would perhaps make sense for the water to bring them forth. But, it definitely includes birds, so it's rather odd that they come from the water.
Of course, all animals coming from the ocean agrees with modern evolutionary theory, at least to some degree. As does the plants predating the animals. But the plants not coming from the ocean would be a conflict; not to mention the plants predating the stars. I think it's safe to say the two viewpoints are fairly independent.
We know that God placed the sun, moon and stars in heaven. But here we get more. First, heaven is described as "open"; this is a bit startling for two reasons. One, it's full of stars. Two, it's dividing the waters above from those below. Beyond that, heaven here is where birds fly.
So this clarifies the layout of the world as viewed by the author. At the bottom we have earth and sea, with the earth now covered in plants, and birds and animals coming from the sea. Above that we have heaven, which is full of air and flying birds. In heaven, presumably toward the top, are the sun and moon and stars. And above that, more water.
This reminds me somehow of pictures drawn before perspective, but this is perhaps more before gravity.
What does it mean that fowl are not considered moving creatures that have life? Just some more random inconsistency.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Fourth day
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
The fourth day is the first with a sun. Days here are clearly tied to cycles of light and darkness: evening and morning. But evening and morning in my worldview come from the rotation of the earth bringing the sun (the main light source) into or out of view in a particular area. The worldview described here is clearly distinct from mine; the first three days in particular don't even have a sun.
The geocentric worldview ("the sun orbits the earth; the sun being up causes day, and the sun being down causes night") predates the heliocentric one ("the earth rotates relative to the sun; the sun being in view causes day"). But the view here seems to even predate the geocentric one. Here it says something more like, "When it happens to be day, the sun comes out to rule the day." Of course, it also says the purpose of the sun is to light the earth, which seems to conflict.
And the writing and the posting were the nineteenth entry.
The fourth day is the first with a sun. Days here are clearly tied to cycles of light and darkness: evening and morning. But evening and morning in my worldview come from the rotation of the earth bringing the sun (the main light source) into or out of view in a particular area. The worldview described here is clearly distinct from mine; the first three days in particular don't even have a sun.
The geocentric worldview ("the sun orbits the earth; the sun being up causes day, and the sun being down causes night") predates the heliocentric one ("the earth rotates relative to the sun; the sun being in view causes day"). But the view here seems to even predate the geocentric one. Here it says something more like, "When it happens to be day, the sun comes out to rule the day." Of course, it also says the purpose of the sun is to light the earth, which seems to conflict.
And the writing and the posting were the nineteenth entry.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Day and over
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
At least now God is seeing by light coming from a light source.
I promise, tomorrow is the last of the six verses on sun moon stars.
At least now God is seeing by light coming from a light source.
I promise, tomorrow is the last of the six verses on sun moon stars.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Give light upon
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
This verse ends in a comma. That's even worse than a colon.
Apparently God made the sun, moon and stars somewhere else, and then put them in heaven. Maybe he had a workshop on earth.
Between the repetition and the bad numbering of verse, I've got nothing else new to say here.
This verse ends in a comma. That's even worse than a colon.
Apparently God made the sun, moon and stars somewhere else, and then put them in heaven. Maybe he had a workshop on earth.
Between the repetition and the bad numbering of verse, I've got nothing else new to say here.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Lesser light
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
This is more specific than just lights in heaven. They're not explicitly named here, but it's clearly the sun and the moon. And the stars are named.
The first point I want to make is this: the moon is radically different from the sun and stars. The sun and stars are actually light sources; the moon just reflects sunlight. The moon is technically not a light.
I mentioned before that this tells us something about heaven: it contains the sun, the moon, and the stars.
The most interesting bits here are the new purposes. The purpose of the sun here is "to rule the day"; the purpose of the moon is "to rule the night". This is pretty strange if taken literally; it makes the sun and moon sound like kings or gods. I think this is one of the hints that this story is older than monotheism.
The other thing about this is: the moon isn't always out during the night, and isn't always visible during the night. It doesn't rule the night the same way the sun rules the day. And the moon is sometimes visible during the day, although never nearly as bright as the sun. But, during total solar eclipses, the moon passes in front of the sun, blocking it out. At that moment, you could say that the moon rules the day. Ironically, that is also when the sun seems most kingly, as that is when you can most clearly see its crown.
It notable that the only purpose (ruling) given here for the sun and the moon is not even listed among the six purposes previously mentioned for the lights.
This is more specific than just lights in heaven. They're not explicitly named here, but it's clearly the sun and the moon. And the stars are named.
The first point I want to make is this: the moon is radically different from the sun and stars. The sun and stars are actually light sources; the moon just reflects sunlight. The moon is technically not a light.
I mentioned before that this tells us something about heaven: it contains the sun, the moon, and the stars.
The most interesting bits here are the new purposes. The purpose of the sun here is "to rule the day"; the purpose of the moon is "to rule the night". This is pretty strange if taken literally; it makes the sun and moon sound like kings or gods. I think this is one of the hints that this story is older than monotheism.
The other thing about this is: the moon isn't always out during the night, and isn't always visible during the night. It doesn't rule the night the same way the sun rules the day. And the moon is sometimes visible during the day, although never nearly as bright as the sun. But, during total solar eclipses, the moon passes in front of the sun, blocking it out. At that moment, you could say that the moon rules the day. Ironically, that is also when the sun seems most kingly, as that is when you can most clearly see its crown.
It notable that the only purpose (ruling) given here for the sun and the moon is not even listed among the six purposes previously mentioned for the lights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
