Just a note: The NIV's rendering "streams came up from the earth" certainly evokes a spring. It gives the impression of a groundwater source. Indeed, a spring is what we call a stream that comes up from the earth. For what it's worth, the NIV also renders "vault" in Genesis 1 rather than "expanse" and I really appreciate that rendering. I'm guessing there was some serious discussion among the translation committee about that, and I bet it took some courage.
One more thing. For clarity, are you saying that the accounts in Ge 1 and 2 are literary retellings of the same basic story? In other words, it is not the case that Ge 2 simply zooms in on Day 6 from the previous chapter, but rather that both accounts "cover the same ground," so to speak, but using very different forms? Would this be something like Jesus's use of two very different images to illustrate the same thing, the growth of the Kingdom, in Mt 13:31-33? And if so, then is the critique "valid" that these two accounts are contradictory, if one supposes, as many modern evangelicals do (and I am an evangelical myself), that the two accounts are a literal, journalistic-type record of events?
I think gen 1 and gen 2 are related though I would not say that relation can be reduced very easily. You can’t boil it down to “zooming in on day 6” or a “retelling of gen 1 with different terms.” I would just say “it is what it is.” The writers of the Bible used repetition in sophisticated ways... many of which we need to observe for a long time before weighing in because our literary forms do not include repetition to the same extent as theirs did. I don’t think the two accounts are contradictory any more than the two facets of a gem are contradictory for reflecting the light at different angles. We aren’t meant to choose one facet or draw boxes around them. We are meant to gaze at them and slowly come to know them better.
Just my two cents. I am sure there is a lot more discussion to be had.
Thank you, Andy. I think I am tracking with you here. But then I still have the question raised by Meredith Kline. If a spring is watering the whole ground, why would a lack of rain result in no vegetation (the wasteland)? The spring seems to cancel out the problem attributed to the lack of rain. This question is valid whether the elements in the story are literal or metaphorical. Kline suggested that the word "ed" refers to a raincloud—God is answering the two problems of v 5 (no rain and no people to cultivate the ground) by providing two solutions: rain and then a man in vs 6 and 7. This has always made a lot of sense to me. Thoughts?
Great comment, Jordan. I suppose a key question is whether that text says that God had sent no rain in order to rule rain out as a possibility, hence turning our attention to the “waters below” or whether the text mentions rain in order to prime our imaginations and cue up rain, in which case perhaps the mist is a cloud. I lean toward the former but wouldn’t dismiss the latter as a valid read.
Okay. That makes sense. There had been no rain, leaving the land a desert (i.e., formless and void). THEN a spring surfaces, large enough to provide the headwaters for four significant rivers, and waters the whole region. God brings life into the waste, echoing Genesis 1. Our English translations always give me the impressions that it's like, "There was no rain ... but that's no big deal because there was a mist watering everything anyway!" But then why were there no plants? "Don't overthink it."
I think I would need a Hebrew expert to weigh in for further clarification. These are at least two possible readings that the English text supports, IMO.
Just a note: The NIV's rendering "streams came up from the earth" certainly evokes a spring. It gives the impression of a groundwater source. Indeed, a spring is what we call a stream that comes up from the earth. For what it's worth, the NIV also renders "vault" in Genesis 1 rather than "expanse" and I really appreciate that rendering. I'm guessing there was some serious discussion among the translation committee about that, and I bet it took some courage.
One more thing. For clarity, are you saying that the accounts in Ge 1 and 2 are literary retellings of the same basic story? In other words, it is not the case that Ge 2 simply zooms in on Day 6 from the previous chapter, but rather that both accounts "cover the same ground," so to speak, but using very different forms? Would this be something like Jesus's use of two very different images to illustrate the same thing, the growth of the Kingdom, in Mt 13:31-33? And if so, then is the critique "valid" that these two accounts are contradictory, if one supposes, as many modern evangelicals do (and I am an evangelical myself), that the two accounts are a literal, journalistic-type record of events?
I think gen 1 and gen 2 are related though I would not say that relation can be reduced very easily. You can’t boil it down to “zooming in on day 6” or a “retelling of gen 1 with different terms.” I would just say “it is what it is.” The writers of the Bible used repetition in sophisticated ways... many of which we need to observe for a long time before weighing in because our literary forms do not include repetition to the same extent as theirs did. I don’t think the two accounts are contradictory any more than the two facets of a gem are contradictory for reflecting the light at different angles. We aren’t meant to choose one facet or draw boxes around them. We are meant to gaze at them and slowly come to know them better.
Just my two cents. I am sure there is a lot more discussion to be had.
Thank you, Andy. I think I am tracking with you here. But then I still have the question raised by Meredith Kline. If a spring is watering the whole ground, why would a lack of rain result in no vegetation (the wasteland)? The spring seems to cancel out the problem attributed to the lack of rain. This question is valid whether the elements in the story are literal or metaphorical. Kline suggested that the word "ed" refers to a raincloud—God is answering the two problems of v 5 (no rain and no people to cultivate the ground) by providing two solutions: rain and then a man in vs 6 and 7. This has always made a lot of sense to me. Thoughts?
Great comment, Jordan. I suppose a key question is whether that text says that God had sent no rain in order to rule rain out as a possibility, hence turning our attention to the “waters below” or whether the text mentions rain in order to prime our imaginations and cue up rain, in which case perhaps the mist is a cloud. I lean toward the former but wouldn’t dismiss the latter as a valid read.
I suppose I would also read the wasteland as the state of the terrain BEFORE the spring rose... the context for the spring.
Okay. That makes sense. There had been no rain, leaving the land a desert (i.e., formless and void). THEN a spring surfaces, large enough to provide the headwaters for four significant rivers, and waters the whole region. God brings life into the waste, echoing Genesis 1. Our English translations always give me the impressions that it's like, "There was no rain ... but that's no big deal because there was a mist watering everything anyway!" But then why were there no plants? "Don't overthink it."
I think I would need a Hebrew expert to weigh in for further clarification. These are at least two possible readings that the English text supports, IMO.