where planted” and formed” depends entirely on context whether it’s past “had “had tense, or past perfect. But what that means is that the critical factor of how one understands those verbal forms is whether or not one sees a contradiction between the two chapters. If you are looking for discrepancies, you can translate it in the way that produces it. If you're looking for harmony you can translate it in the way that harmonizes it. You can’t decide it on the base of the grammar, you have to decide on the basis of context. Now as one commentator has said, even if you have accepted the documentary theory, it’s still reasonable to assume that the person who put these two creation accounts together, still knew contradictions between them, otherwise why wouldn’t he have edited it to harmonize it himself? Leupold, I think this is under the bibliography, the middle of page 8. Leupold, in his commentary, page 108, quotes another scholar who says, is just as unlikely as it can be that the author should have “it been such a dunce as to set down at the outset two exclusive sets of accounts of creation.” Even if one had accepted the documentary theory without a problem, why would someone have done that? There is no necessary conflict between the two chapters. Okay, any questions on that? (Student asks question). I would follow the suggestion of Derek Kidner, Tyndale Bulletin, 1966, the title is: 2:5-6, wet or dry.” And there “Genesis is a discussion of those verses in which he concludes that those verses are really parallel to Genesis 1:2, the chaotic state of creation before the process of ordering creative matter. So he says in verses 5 and 6, there is a two-fold expansion of 4b by which the bare phrase the day which the LORD made earth and heaven” is given specific “In content. At this opening stage of creation, the reader is struck first in the negative “not yet, not yet, none of” verse 5. In an approach that starts in the known world, and strips it of its familiar features. With its mind cleared of the ordinary presuppositions, the reader is now ready for the positive statement of however strange a scene of the world is in verse 6. It is none other than a scene suggested in different terms in Genesis 1:2,
where “had planted” and “had formed” depends entirely on context whether it’s past tense, or past perfect. But what that means is that the critical factor of how one understands those verbal forms is whether or not one sees a contradiction between the two chapters. If you are looking for discrepancies, you can translate it in the way that produces it. If you're looking for harmony you can translate it in the way that harmonizes it. You can’t decide it on the base of the grammar, you have to decide on the basis of context. Now as one commentator has said, even if you have accepted the documentary theory, it’s still reasonable to assume that the person who put these two creation accounts together, still knew contradictions between them, otherwise why wouldn’t he have edited it to harmonize it himself? Leupold, I think this is under the bibliography, the middle of page 8. Leupold, in his commentary, page 108, quotes another scholar who says, “it is just as unlikely as it can be that the author should have been such a dunce as to set down at the outset two exclusive sets of accounts of creation.” Even if one had accepted the documentary theory without a problem, why would someone have done that? There is no necessary conflict between the two chapters. Okay, any questions on that? (Student asks question). I would follow the suggestion of Derek Kidner, Tyndale Bulletin, 1966, the title is: “Genesis 2:5-6, wet or dry.” And there is a discussion of those verses in which he concludes that those verses are really parallel to Genesis 1:2, the chaotic state of creation before the process of ordering creative matter. So he says in verses 5 and 6, there is a two-fold expansion of 4b by which the bare phrase “In the day which the LORD made earth and heaven” is given specific content. At this opening stage of creation, the reader is struck first in the negative “not yet, not yet, none of” verse 5. In an approach that starts in the known world, and strips it of its familiar features. With its mind cleared of the ordinary presuppositions, the reader is now ready for the positive statement of however strange a scene of the world is in verse 6. It is none other than a scene suggested in different terms in Genesis 1:2,
Vannoy_History_Lecture08_Genesis2.docx