Addendum to the Essay on Genesis, Ch. 1 - 3 — Philosophy's Continuous Coastline

This addendum is meant, first, to provide a more succinct statement of the Biblical concept of “in the beginning.” Second, additional paragraphs are supplied on the moral fall of Adam and Eve and their physical banishment from the Garden of Eden. Third, the distinction between Genesis-1 creation and Genesis-2 creation is more fully explored. Finally, a separate section of Internet links is provided in order to facilitate navigation among eight recent blog postings on the history and philosophy of religion from a Christian perspective.

‘(1) We previously indicated that the first Hebrew word in the book of Genesis is rendered in English as “in the beginning.” This word occurs five times in the Old Testament, according to the “Bible-hub” Internet resource. The latter four such occurrences of “in the beginning” clearly mean “early in the reign” of some king, indicating temporal priority and the idea that physical causes precede physical effects. The first occurrence of “in the beginning,” however, refers to logical or absolute priority. In logical priority, premises must be defined or understood “before” any necessary conclusions may be drawn. In other words, temporal priority is empirical (based on the structure of the external world); whereas logical priority is conceptual (based on the structure of reason).

‘(2) The third chapter of Genesis deals with the Fall of Man, which in turn calls forth the Wrath of God in Romans 1:18-32. In the NIV we read that “the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people” (2011) or “of men” (1978). There is human culpability for this spiritual malfeasance, because God’s power and nature “have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” The fallout from such godlessness and wickedness is so obvious that it can in some cases be seen as merely empirical data, requiring no special theological treatment other than the summary doctrine of “total depravity.”

We note in passing, based on the Bible-hub Internet tool, that the Greek word, anthropos (anthropon in the genitive case), is the common source for the two NIV translations of “people” (2011) and “men” (1978) in Romans 1:18. Anthropos has as its possible meanings, applicable to both males and females, the following: (1) that which is “man-faced,” (2) a concrete human being, (3) a general or generic human being, and (4) an “indefinite” human being (or a “someone”).

There is real ugliness or “aesthetic strangeness” involved when one is asked to make a switch in familiar Biblical linguistics from “wickedness of men” to “wickedness of people,” despite the facts that Biblical Greek is static and that anthropos has meanings applicable to both male and female. Was the third chapter of Genesis incomprehensible until someone figured out that the “Fall of Man” was really “The Fall of People”? Was the Shorter Westminster Catechism unfathomable for hundreds of years until someone deciphered the meaning of “What is the chief end of man?” as being “What is the chief end of people?” There is today a real issue about the privilege of having a “dead language” in which to register Biblical texts and eternal truths. Such an issue did not arise in the times of Wyclif and Luther, et al., who strove for the accessibility of Biblical texts in everyday languages - - which is a different issue. One wishes for accessibility without cynical, rhetorical manipulation.

‘(3) Near the end of Genesis-1 creation, in Genesis 1:26, the NIV-2011 contains “Let us make mankind in our image.” (“Us” and “our” refer to the Trinity.) The NIV-1978 contains “Let us make man in our image.” The Hebrew source for these “mankind or man” translations is “adam,” or “he who is taken from the earth.” At the interface between Genesis-1 creation and Genesis-2 creation, in Genesis 2:1, both NIV translations contain “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.” Continuing on to Genesis 2:5, the NIV-2011 states that “There was no one to work the ground.” The NIV-1978 states that “There was no man to work the ground.” The labor shortage thus implied seems to have been one reason for instituting Genesis-2 creation.

In Genesis 2:7, both the NIV-1978 and the NIV-2011 contain “The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” The “breath of life” in this context (i.e., in Genesis-2 creation but not in Genesis-1 creation) seems to refer to the spiritual content of human existence. Spirituality is also suggested by the last part of the Schlachter 2000 German translation of Genesis 2:7: “So wurde der Mensch eine lebendige Seele,” where “eine lebendige Seele” means “a living soul.” Thus, a fundamental quarrel emerges in the translation of the last two words of Genesis 2:7.

It would appear to be necessary, in the analysis of Genesis 2:7, to declare one’s colors regarding the translation of the Hebrew word that is transliterated either as nefesh or nepes in the Bible-hub Internet tool. Either the NIV (1978 or 2011) rendition is correct regarding “a living being,” or else the Schlachter 2000 rendition is correct regarding “a living soul.” In Genesis 2:7, the word at issue, nefesh (or nepes), is the penultimate word of the Hebrew text and the basis for the final word of the English text.

The “being / soul” issue in Genesis 2:7 has been previously analyzed. In the Wall Street Journal of April 5, 2019, Blaire French (a lecturer at the University of Virginia) wrote an article entitled “Putting ‘Soul’ Back in the Hebrew Bible.” French wrote that “To exclude ‘soul’ as a definition for nefesh because it sounds too Christian does not do justice to the original text.” Contra French, the NIV translators appear to be making Aristotle’s point that even plants have souls, which are simply “principles of life” and not a big deal for humanists. Such translators do not scruple to remove “soul” from Genesis 2:7. In so doing they would appear to be taking a “low view” of the word nefesh as it was originally used in the context of Genesis 2:7. The present writer endorses the “living soul” translation for the ending of Genesis 2:7.

While summarizing - - in a somewhat speculative mode - - the apparent necessity for an additional Genesis-2 creation beyond the Genesis-1 creation, one might say that a genus (homo) with a certain number of species (perhaps more than one) had arisen in the Genesis-1 creation. However, at least one of God’s intended species for that genus had not yet appeared by the time of the completion of Genesis-1 creation. Ultimately, Genesis-2 creation occurred, featuring the venue of the Garden of Eden with its fateful ground rules, as well as at least one addition to the list of the species in the genus homo.

On the view, presented here, of Genesis (Chapter 1) creation complemented by Genesis (Chapter 2) creation, a new species originated in the Garden of Eden in Chapter 2. The new species descended from first members named Adam and Eve. Depending upon one’s taste, this new species could be attributed to a divine decision or to an unpredictable, stray cosmic ray that caused a decisive genetic mutation. This theory of a bipartite creation has the advantage that Genesis-1 creation had evidently provided sufficient species with potential marriage partners for the descendants of Adam and Eve. All species seem to have freely intermingled outside of the Garden of Eden. This theory presupposes that the scientific fields of DNA and archaeology are valid modes of inquiry compatible with Biblical accounts of creation. For example, one sometimes reads of studies of the percentages of Neanderthal DNA among various historical populations of homo sapiens.

Eight Recent Blog Postings on the History and Philosophy of Religion

Previous Blog in 2026

‘(1) Mar. 9, 2026: Essay on Genesis, Ch. 1-3

2025 Blogs

‘(2) Dec. 8, 2025: History of Religion and Timeline-Essay 2.2

‘(3) Nov. 10, 2025: History of Religion and Timeline-Essay 2.1

‘(4) Aug. 22, 2025: Philosophy of Religion and Background-Essay 1

‘(5) July 21, 2025: Commenting on Biblical Texts

2024 Blogs

‘(6) Dec. 3, 2024: Conceptualizing Free Will

2023 Blogs

‘(7) Feb. 6, 2023: Conceptualizing Secularity (2): Ancient to Modern