Re: Publicity for Genesis Reconsidered

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 08:11:42 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Science, Women, and Paul"

    Hi Mike,

    You've touched on a number of different points in this post! I probably
    won't be able to reply in just one post!

    I'd like to take this opportunity to make a "big picture" statement.
    Genesis Reconsidered deserves to be immediately after our Bible and
    Science link on the ASA homepage.

    A) It has generated a tremendous amount of discussion.
    B) It makes very bold statements (Gen 1 and science peacefully coexist!)
    C) Peter is a live body on this list every day. He is available to answer
        questions and respond to criticisms.
    D) There are very vocal supporters on this list who support the
        of Gen 1 and science.
    E) Someone made the comment that the ASA should stand for good science.
        Well, in my three months on the list no one has come up with a
        contradiction between Gen 1 and science. Challenges, yes. All
        answered. It is bad science to give the public the impression that
        Gen 1 has nothing to do with science. Bible and
    F) I believe that the ASA, in addition to good science, should stand for
        "good Bible." That means that Gen 1 is real history until shown
        otherwise. Burying Genesis Reconsidered in the hinterlands of the
        ASA site sends a horrible message.

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in QuestionƯ

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []
    Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 3:08 PM
    Subject: Re: Publicity for Genesis Reconsidered

    Hi Jim,

    You keep clamoring for me to discuss the Hebrew of Gen. 1:26,27. Peter has
    already done so quite well in his article "Genesis Reconsidered."

    There he wrote:

    There is an obvious contrast between (a) Gen. 1:26ff and (b) 2:7ff. In (a),
    God is called elohim, representing his general relationship to the creation;
    in (b), Yahweh elohim. Yahweh, freely translated "I am,"76 is his name used
    in the context of his covenants with humans, implying a personal
    relationship. While (a) deals with "man" [adam] in a collective sense, or
    humankind, (b) deals with "the man" named Adam. In (a), God created "them,"
    collectively; in (b), he designed "him" individually. In (a), humans are
    declared to be created "male and female," two collective terms; in (b), the
    Lord deals with "Adam and his wife," an individual couple. Consistently, (a)
    uses general, collective language; but (b) uses specific, personal terms.
    These and other features are explainable if (a) and (b) deal with different
    epochs, whereas making them versions of the same story creates problems.

    I have discussed the Hebrew of Gen. 1:29,30 at some length in a previous
    to this list showing how the 'adam in Gen. 1:26,27 were preadamic omnivores
    (meat eaters).

    There I wrote:

    I believe the Hebrew in Gen. 1:29,30 has been widely mistranslated due to
    translators having a strong bias towards a belief that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are
    both describing the same creation acts.

    Gen. 1:29,30 (NIV) reads as follows: Then God said, "I give you every
    seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has
    fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of
    the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on
    ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant
    for food." And it was so.

    Why would God have told man what wild animals were allowed to eat? Why would
    man have had any interest in their diets? Man would not have had any control
    over what they ate. If this translation is correct then both verses 29 and
    appear to be scientifically inaccurate. After all, neither mankind nor all
    creatures in the animal kingdom have ever been strict vegetarians.
    Anatomically, human beings appear to have been designed by God as omnivores.
    And many animals clearly appear to have been designed by God as carnivores.
    Both human and animal physiology seem to clearly contradict Gen. 1:29 and

    With these things in mind, I contend that the Hebrew language in Genesis
    has been widely mistranslated, in a way that also greatly affects the
    of verse 29.

    I believe these two verses should read as follows: Then God said, "I give
    every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that
    has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food, and all the beasts
    the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on
    ground-everything that has the breath of life in it - I give, as every green
    plant, for food." And it was so.

    This variant translation only involves the removal of one word, "to," at the
    beginning of verse 30, which does not appear in the Hebrew, and the addition
    of one word, "as," toward the end of verse 30. Small words like "as" are
    often added for clarity when biblical Hebrew is translated into English,
    as the small word "to" has long been added at the beginning of verse 30.
    However, these two tiny changes in the translation of verse 30 completely
    change the meaning of both verses 29 and 30. Instead of telling us that God
    created mankind and all animal species to be strict vegetarians, they tell
    that God created mankind to be omnivores.

    Peter has also discussed the Hebrew of Gen. 5:1,2 in previous posts. In
    to Dick ( > ) he wrote:

    > and implied in Genesis 5:1-3: "This is the book of the generations of

    "Generations" is the Hebrew "toledoth". It is the colophon (a title
    appended to, rather than preceding, the text to which it refers, as in
    clay tablets of those times) appended to what went before, i.e. the part
    of the story as it was told by Adam.

    > "In the day that God
    > created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female
    > created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the
    > day when they were created."

    A literal word-by-word translation of the Hebrew from "The NIV(TM)
    Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament", ed. J.R. Kohlenberger III
    (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987) (- links English words translated
    from a single Hebrew word; *** stands for Hebrew 'et, the definite
    direct object indicator, which is never translated):

    Gen.1:27-28: Gen.5:1-2:
                           in-day (opening parenthesis)
    so-he-created God to-create God (beginning of quote)
    *** the-man man
    in-image-of God in-likeness-of God
    he-created him he-made him
    male and-female male and-female
    he-created them he-created-them
    and-he-blessed them and-he-blessed them (end of quote)
                           and-he-called (this was a quote about
                           *** name-of-them ... generic man)
                           in-day (closing parenthesis)

    Gen.5:1-2 obviously refers back to Gen.1:27-28, basically repeating it
    with similar expressions. Therefore, I would consider it as just as
    generic. That God called "their" (not "his") name Adam confirms the
    generic use.

    > "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty
    > years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and
    > called his name Seth."

    Now, of course, the individual Adam is in view.

    So far as your saying, "The YEC crowd will laugh," I believe the opposite is
    true. They will laugh at you. That is if you tell them God created the human
    race long before He created Adam, but that Genesis 1 fails to mention this
    important event. They will say that makes absolutely no sense since Gen. 1
    mentions the creation of everything else God ever made. I know. Because
    that's what they have told me. They have said, "If God made men before Adam
    Genesis would say so." I tell them, "It does." I then point to Gen. 1:26,27.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 18 2002 - 21:23:19 EDT