Addendum to the Essay on Genesis, Ch. 1 - 3

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

‘(8) Jan. 30, 2023: Conceptualizing Secularity (1): Definitions

Essay on Genesis, Ch. 1 - 3

The first Hebrew word, call it W1, in the First Book of Moses is translated into English (NIV) in the book of Genesis as “in the beginning.”  According to the Bible-hub Interlinear web resource, W1 occurs only four other times in the Old Testament, where it is translated as “early in the reign of …”  If one assumes that the creation of the universe deserves its own sense for W1, then we might postulate that W1 can bear either of two senses: first, as an absolute or logical “beginning” of time itself or, second, as a “relatively early time near the beginning of a phase, process or reign elsewhere defined.”  In the case of Genesis 1:1, W1 is taken to refer to absolute or logical priority: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

  Analysis requires that we seek to remove the quotation marks surrounding the word “beginning” in the phrase “the ‘beginning’ of time itself.”  Let A be the phrase “the ‘beginning’ of time itself.”  Let B be the phrase “time itself.”  By saying that “A is logically prior to B,” we mean that B must be understood in terms that include A (as a matter of knowledge); as well as that “if B exists, then A exists” (as a matter of ontology).  It would seem that the offending quotation marks can indeed be dropped.

In contrast, consider the events C and D.  By saying that C is temporally prior to D, we are saying something about four-dimensional space-time that is both consistent with special relativity and informative regarding the so-called “time-stamps” associated with C and D.  When relativistic effects are negligible, then “C being temporally prior to D” means that “the time value associated with C is less than the time value associated with D.

In English, the absolute (logical) versus temporal distinction seems reasonable: We may say things like “In (or at) the beginning of the war, each side had ten warships” (absolute beginning).  We might also say that “In the beginning of the war, each side failed repeatedly before finally launching ten warships” (relatively early in a temporal process, or during some imprecisely defined “days of yore”).

In German, the same absolute (logical) versus temporal distinction is indeed picked up in the Schlachter 2000 translation of Genesis 1:1, but to the opposite effect: In all German usage known to the current writer, “Am Anfang” could potentially bear either of the aforementioned two senses.  However, Schlachter renders Genesis 1:1 as “Im Anfang,” which seems to refer exclusively to the sense of “relatively early in a process.”  Generally, the present writer expects reliable translation, good German, and helpful and accurate notes in Schlacher.  But in this instance, online Luther resources verify that Martin Luther translated Genesis 1:1 as “Am Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und Erde.”

“In the beginning,” the logical necessity of Genesis-1 creation was about to be embraced (comprehended in thought).  The earth and the deep (the sea below and the heavens above) were desolate (formless), empty, and dark (Gen. 1:2); as well as seeming metaphorically to cry out for some ex-nihilo creation.  The Spirit of God was “hovering above the waters,” setting the stage for God to proclaim a six-fold “Let there be …”  On each of the Six Days of Creation (Gen. 1:3-31), God would “speak some aspect of the world into existence.”

In the Six Days of Creation portrayed by Genesis 1:3-31; six differing, overlapping, non-consecutive time intervals of universal creation and development occur.  This six-fold plan of creation featured the following: There was to be initial radiation, inorganic phase separation (solid - liquid - gas), organic plant life, astronomical development of stars, organic animal life in the water and in the air, and organic land-based animal life including mankind.  On the Sixth Day, creatures that could be referred to as man, mankind, Menschen, or “generic adam” (he who is taken from the earth) appear in Gen. 1:26-27.  In the words of Gen. 2:1, “So were the heavens and the earth completed in their vast array.”

Tto the nearest integer multiple of five billion, the universe’s inaugural radiative blast (Big Bang) has dominated about fifteen billion years of universal development; and the declaration “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3) can therefore only refer to one metaphorical day, namely, the First Day of Creation.  Moreover, there is no expectation that - - for example - - organic plant life (Day 3) must develop before stellar development (Day 4) can occur.  The developments or tasks envisioned by the Six Days of Creation are only logical prerequisites for the overall creative process.  This reading is consistent with a Biblical understanding in which metaphor and literal interpretation peacefully coexist.

Among the events of the Sixth Day of Creation in Gen. 1:26-27, God is said either to have “made mankind in our (Trinitarian) image” or to have “created mankind in His (God’s) own image.”  However, He had not yet explicitly “added form” to the dust of the earth, which is the material cause of mankind (Gen. 2:7).  Indeed, in Gen. 2:5, no Mensch was even available to cultivate newly available agricultural land.

In view of the labor shortage appearing in Gen. 2:5, it would seem to be more appropriate to redefine the term “mankind” in Gen. 1:26-27 as “the set of all hominids.”  Then the subset of all hominids, referred to in Gen. 2:7, can be relabeled as man, mankind, Menschen, or “generic adam.”  This subset of hominids refers, at first, to Adam and Eve, when they lived in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8).  Later, upon being driven out of the Garden after the Fall of Man (Gen. 3:7-24), Adam and Eve would also have descendants falling into this subset.  Man, mankind, Menschen, or “generic adam” have a prescribed, restrictive relationship with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17).  In contrast, while the members of the set of all hominids may have logged an enormous number of travel miles during epic adventures accessible to archaeology, these migrations did not earn all hominids a special relationship to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The old-earth timeline portrayed by the Days of Genesis 1 differs from the young-earth timeline developed in Genesis 2.  (See the blog post of Nov. 10, 2025.)  Genesis 1 deals with the six metaphorical days of Biblical creation.  These are not six intervals of physical time, but rather are representations of six tasks logically required to have been accomplished before the whole panoply of heavens and earth could finally be assembled and proclaimed to have been “completed in all their vast array.”  Internal to each of these six metaphorical days, there may be temporal processes; but, overall, there seems to be no unifying time allowing sequential completion of all six tasks.  In contrast, Genesis 2 only begins its account of mankind and the Garden of Eden after the “heavens-and-earth completion” proclaimed by Gen. 2:1.  Evidently, the Big Bang, planetary formation, and hundreds of thousands of years’ worth of archeological data had all started in the remote past, long before the Genesis 2 story.

In Genesis 2:10-14, the four rivers flowing in the vicinity of the Garden of Eden are mentioned: the Pishon (near the land of Havilah), the Gihon (near the land of Cush in southeastern Mesopotamia, not in Africa), the Tigris (east of Ashur, or ancient Assyria), and the Euphrates (no data here, but it is the river flowing through ancient Babylon).  Owing to radical landscape changes due to the later, catastrophic flood, the locations and flow directions of these rivers do not sound entirely familiar.

“Adam” and “Eve” as proper names appear only gradually in the Book of Genesis.  For example, the NIV English translation of “adam” (he who is taken from the earth) changes from “a generic man” to “the particular man named Adam” in Gen. 3:20.  Next, Adam chooses to name his wife “Eve.”  Thus, Genesis 3:20 seems, momentarily, to be the first verse with both Adam and Eve mentioned as proper names.  Regrettably, however, the Schlachter 2000 German translation still uses Mensch (generic adam) as the person doing the wife-naming in Gen. 3:20.  Eve, or Eva, means life, living, or the mother of all the descendants of Adam.

In Gen. 3:1-6, the tempting snake was more deceptive than any other animal in the fields and was therefore capable of inducing Eve (who also induced Adam) into eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  In Gen. 3:22, God deplores the fact that man now knows good and evil, because man now needs only to reach out and to eat from the fruit of the tree of life in order to live forever.  In order to avoid this final, forbidden step (Gen. 3:23-24), God first banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  God then strategically placed cherubim (angelic creatures) and a flaming sword to guard against, and presumably to prevent, mankind’s return from exile back into the vicinity (Garden of Eden) of the tree of life.