• Please see License for Copyright notice and Licensing information.

“In the beginning,”

End of phase 1 (ready for phase 2)

From Genesis 1, we retain our main sources, but slightly modified into a three phase approach:

• To establish a base text from the public domain;
  • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=GNV;KJV;ASV;WEB;RSV
  • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=DRA;DARBY;YLT;WYC;NET
  • Note RSV and NET included for reference and comparison only; they are not in the public domain.

• To ensure theological reliability
  • https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2.htm (interlinear for word order)
• and for commentary
  • JPS 1985 w/Rashi on sefaria.org or http://taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/Index/english-Gen-2
  • Stone Edition Chumash

• A Special note here for the 'Skeptic's Annotated Bible', which is an interesting collection of possible contradictions, which we can consider for (at least) it's collection of OT/NT contradictions.

“For reference only” (word choice, word order, and theological value) means that we will lean towards a word choice and order which most easily supports the commentary, and will not include commentary that conflicts with existing commentaries (such as those found in the Stone Edition Chumash).

One of the discoveries that I made while doing Genesis 1 is that writing style began to dictate word order and grammar choice moreso than looking at any particular translation. In Genesis 2, I will lean away from discussing which particular translation we took changes from with the note 'ws 1:3' which would mean we made changes similar to the changes made in genesis 1:3 in order to comport with the writing style and grammar practices we have established. This may also include word choice. We will still make a full discussion on word choice and writing style where it is deemed important, especially when it concerns something theological.

While we will still aim to include full notes on changes, we don't expect these notes will survive through to phase 2. Similar to the 'exhaustive cross-reference approach'. We aren't interested in such an exhaustive cross reference that tends to repeat the original statement 4 or 5 times with cites from Psalms. The point of the cross-reference here is to support some theological point, to give some reference of value for debate, proof or counter-proof. Therefore the cross reference should be included with a short commentary and not simply be a list of connected verses. Thus, there should probably be two sections; one, a notes section, which discusses vagaries of translation, possible alternate readings, or points out hebrew word order and such when it is deemed important. And, such will almost always have some theological point in and of itself! Therefore while there can be a notes section, even combined with a cross-reference, this section will be considered a summary of the commentary section. I.E. there will be an entry in commentary matching every entry in notes to explain why it is there.

In addition to verse commentary there should be a passage about the book itself and it's history, and there should be included occasional discourses and essays explaining major topic in the book. As these are considered 'commentary' they should be kept to a minimum of length so that the reader may get on with the book. In order to do this, we could adopt a 'blunt, factual' style but this may be considered antagonistic. Therefore we should always include a brief (brief) summary of the antiposition before countering it, as if to say 'it has been read by this, but this is in error due to…. The antiposition will probably be italicized, and the rebuttal afterwards in plain. Alternate could be non-serif and serif; monospaced and justified; let the experimentation ensue.

I think overall a lot of time was wasted in comparison for word choice and word order. The reality is that most of the time the ASV was used, with writing style and word order similar to WEB, or some other translation, but then re-found in YLT, Darby, DRA, and so forth. Then the real choices would come when we examined the interlinear and examined the commentary in Stone Edition and others. Therefore let us adopt the reverse approach as before; we will look at the Stone edition and JPS1985, esp. commentary, then open the interlinear and starting from the ASV work in desired changes from KJV, WEB, DRA, WYC etc. which bring us closer to the basis for commentary and an acceptable reading.

After reading my 'translation' of Genesis 1, I was honored and surprised to discover many things which came out of the wording and reading which I felt were glossed over or ignored in other translations. I was very pleased with what came out, and although I will still probably want to make changes later I think this is an excellent stage to be at right now with Phase 1.

It is my hope that the above strategy will continue to provide such a rich and real platform for counter-missionary work in general and allow the light to shine through onto the Noachide path.

GNV 2 God resteth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it.

1 AndThus the heavens and the earth were finished, and everything they contained; all creatures great and small[a].

• Thus is a KJV revision. strikethroughs will almost always refer to KJV revisions from ASV in the future unless otherwise marked.
• host refers to the created creatures. can change to '..and all the living creatures.'
• This word in hebrew seems to mean a collection of living creatures; and at times an 'army'. They are God's army upon the earth set out to do his will. Is this an acceptable commentary?
• In any case this is also translated as ornaments, furniture, vast array, etc. and I think it's a cute touch to put in a reference to the song all creatures great and small.

2 And on the seventh day God finishedended his work which he had madeall the work he had done; and he rested[a] on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.the work he had done.

• ended fits theology better IIRC. other reversions to taste (prefer KJV when no reason not to)
• his work which he had made;“ wording changed for better reading. No particular source.
• Still not happy with the words even after an interlinear comparison. will think about it.

3 And God blessed[a] the seventh day, and sanctified[b] it; becausefor on that day God rested from all Histhe work which GodHe had created and made[c].

• Are we introducing a capitalization rule here? God moved to the front of the sentence to clear up the wording…
  • his changed to the; it's fine. (reverted; see above)
• I want to change 'made' to 'finished' or 'accomplished' but the technical meaning is the same. This might deserve a note in commentary.

[2a] 'rest' also 'cease', even 'abstain' (Strongs, Stone, others). God's work was complete on the sixth day, and entering the Seventh day he ceased or abstained from all work. The meaning in ceased or abstained and also present in 'rested' is that the work was stopped, and will begin again later, but not during the seventh day. This also falls into the category of 'we shall know God from his actions'.

[3a] Ibn Ezra writes 'blessed' and 'sanctified' in that God blessed the seventh day with renewal and abundance; and he sanctified it in that no work was done on that day.

[3b] 'sanctified' vs. 'hallowed' because 'hallowed' has extraneous and shoehorned readings (such as the holiness of 'saints', or a reference to the apostles of jesus) that are considered antagonistic to the text.

[3c] made indicates that there was an ongoing process despite his rest, for he had created the world and the world was continuing to re-create itself (such as animals mating and giving birth). It does not say animals or even Man was necessarily aware of God's rest on the seventh day.

[1-3] This passage strikes me as odd because it really belongs at the end of Genesis 1. This is not my view alone;

The division of the Bible into chapters and verses has received criticism from some traditionalists and modern scholars. Critics state that the text is often divided in an incoherent way, or at inappropriate rhetorical points, and that it encourages citing passages out of context. Nevertheless, the chapter and verse numbers have become indispensable as technical references for Bible study.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible “Christian Versions”

Thus no theological point may be derived from this split (coherent or not) other than to counter a possible ulterior motive; the first account of creation belongs together with itself, and not as part of the second account (with which it has become associated by proximity). Why? because should the 7th day be associated with the sixth, and God rested from all his work and accomplishments, it would imply ever so more strongly that it was God's intent that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil! The fact is, that should these two stories be in harmony as we expect, the events which unfold from this point on in the text are in the same timeline as prior; and that at the end of the sixth day things were very good and on the seventh day God had finished the work of creation – which would include all of the events of Genesis 2:4-25 and including all of Genesis 3!

Especially note we still read “’ĕ·lō·hîm” in 2:2 and 2:3, versus in 2:4, which shows when this context comes to an end.

“The Creation of Man,”

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were cerated, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

• Reverting to KJV here because it seems to flow better into the rest of the passage. Q: earth and heavens? is that from the Hebrew?
• Trying to come up with a much better read that also makes more sense considering the interlinear. 'beyowim' is not the same 'day' meaning as spoken of in Genesis 1 but according to usages in Strongs it appears to be more of an 'in that time' reading.

5 And every plant of the field before they were in the earth, when not even the grass had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;

• Jehovah to LORD for consistency; this is a regression back to KJV! other reversions as seen.
• continuing from before, we will use lowercase 'during' versus 'and'; this is a clear continuation of verse four, so it serves the same theological point of 'and'.
• This 'plant' is “śî·aḥ” and this 'herb' is “‘ê·śeḇ”.

6 at that time there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground,

• 'at that time' only to force a continued reading.
• period changed to comma as it certainly is not a period but a comma considering 2:7 'and'.

7 and the LORD God formmed[a] man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life[b]; and man became a living soul[c].

• jehovah to lord again.
• 'from the dust' for readability and commentary
• note: from the dust which was watered earlier. This may insinuate 'of clay' or 'of mud'; possibly referring to aspects of heaven and earth (the duality of man); in any case it's interesting to note this dust was not dry as some people (myself included) would have considered.
• From rashi there is the idea of a baker; 'he watered' and 'he formed'; and I also note it is seen 'and he blew (fired)'.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

• Jehovah to LORD again.

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

• J. to LORD.

[4a] LORD God here; Hebrew usage is “Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm” which we will follow the KJV's use of 'God' for “’ĕ·lō·hîm” and 'LORD' for “Yah·weh” in all occurrences.

According to rashi this is the summary line of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. Thus ends the first context of Genesis. You can see this in the language, as well as in the use of “Yah·weh” “’ĕ·lō·hîm” in this verse.

[7a] 'formmed' with two m's to indicate two yuds on the Hebrew word; see 2:7 “way·yî·y·ṣer” (וַיִּיצֶר֩) versus 2:19 “way·yî·ṣer” (וַיִּצֶר֩). Rashi indicates this refers to the spiritual nature of man.

[7b] This “niš·maṯ ḥay·yîm” is very similar to 'living creatures' (see 7b).

[7c] This “lə·ne·p̄eš ḥay·yāh” (living soul) here is the same word used for other living creatures in Genesis 1; it is not 5397 “neshamah” which would be assumed by the English used. What seems special here is that God did not speak Man into existence as he did with the fish, birds and animals; instead he took some of his existing creation and manually breathed life into it; in this manner we acquired a soul and are different from the animals; in this manner we were created in the image of God.

[8] God formed Adam outside of the garden so he could show him the world outside of the Garden of Eden, and witness the creation of the Garden of Eden. Thus Adam would know what the world outside the garden would be like if were he to disobey God's first commandment. See also the commentary for 2:15 which bears strongly on this.

GNV 15 He setteth man in the garden.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it was lost, and became the source of four different rivers:

• more modern language, similar to WEB or WYC, etc.
• theological consistancy. We can't tell the location of the garden of eden from the rivers; further the Hebrew says they became new headwaters and not branches; so the original source-river had become disconnected in some sense outside of the garden, and new rivers flowed out of it after it exited the garden.

11 The name of the first is Pishon, which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

• more modern language, and 'flows around' based on similar word usage in strongs and interlinear and some PD versions.

12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx[a] stone.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon, which flows around the whole land of Cush.

14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel[b], which flows around to the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

• ws 2:11
• east of based on strongs, various pd, and common sense

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress to and to keep it (to work it and to guard it/to take care of it).

• j. to LORD again

[12a] beryl

[14b] Tigris.

[15] Again mentions put into the garden (see 2:8). After showing what the world outside the garden was like, and making the express point that the garden is self-watering, God put Adam into the garden 'to tend it and keep it'. Yet this immediately does not make sense since we have just been told the garden does not require such care. How then is Adam to fulfill his job to tend to the garden? Thus we see that to tend to the garden means to fufill God's positive commandments in that he shall eat of any tree as follows, and to guard it means to guard against the commission of the anti-commandment, thou shall not eat (as follows). This implies the purpose of Man in the garden is to serve God; for if he does so, his material needs will be satisfied – as Adam was in gan-eden – to think that only Adam's physical exertion would bring him sustenance is to discount God's role in the picture. In this way there was formed a relationship between God and Man.

GNV 22 He createth the woman.

GNV 24 Marriage is ordained.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden thou may freely eat;”

• j. to LORD, modern language
• Given that we left this archaic language as royal speech and this became an issue later we should consider this case very carefully. Mayest was changed to may; but thou and some older grammar has been retained.

17 “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you should not eat; for on the day[a] that you eat it, dying[b], you shall die[c].”

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a suitable helper.”

• ws as stated
• J to LORD, modern lang. according to notes & interlinear

19 And the LORD God who had formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens, then brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

• 'Adam' is a KJV reversion!
• ws, etc.
• interlinear word order
• proper tense (!!) “way-yi-ṣer” ((he who) had formed) then next “way-yā-ḇê” (he) brought them to Adam (he had brought them to Adam). There is nothing here to indicate a conflict vs. Genesis 1; in fact even if you take it as simple past tense it makes more sense that he re-made on-the-spot an example of every animal vs. causing a worldwide parade of animals to revolve around in Adam's presence.
• Especially to show that the point of this passage is that Adam named the creatures; not that God created the creatures after he created Adam. This reinforced by the accurate statement of when this occurred in Genesis 2:5; this is not a 'contradiction'.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a suitable helper.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in stead thereof:

• ws (J to the LORD) etc.
• kickback to the GNV, which the KJV massacred and nobody noticed (read: cared [read: did the research]).

22 And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.

• DRA reading is very nice here. It also matches the interlinear word order very nicely.
• Adam twice, though?

23 And Adam said, “Now[a] this one has the same[b] flesh and bones as I do; she shall be called Woman[c], because from[d] out of Man[e] she was taken.”

• ws.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

• Job 6:14 'forsake'
• Kept the common wording

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

[17a] this 'beyowm' is not unknown; see 2:4, 5:1, 5:2 and many other verses. It is the definite proposition 'when'. It is not an if-clause. I've left it 'on the day' because it also reads that and it doesn't affect the meaning. You would need to be taught this meaning in context anyway, so it's fine. I changed it to 'on the day' vs. 'in the day' to reflect there is more here.

[17b] 'dying' This dying refers to the death of one nature of man and the birth of another (see 17c). I.e. 'dying' to the nature of Good and the abstract notion of sin, without desire to do it, and thus eventually one will die (see 17c).

[17c] When the knowledge of good and evil enters the mind and one becomes subject to evil impulses, jealousy, hatred, honor, and so forth, it becomes impossible to achieve the goal of spirituality (as long as you are still on earth). In Adam's case (see 3:10) he became ashamed to remain in God's presence. Thus, in a sub-optimal spiritual state, eternal life would eventually become an unbearable burden (See commentary for 3:10). Thus, one becomes subject to death. However, we also note that nowhere does it say man was created immortal, and he certainly did not first eat from the tree of life, before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam lived to 930, the implication being that he would have lived longer had he not sinned.

[18] lit. 'opposite' him or 'to oppose' him (see: strongs, Stone edition commentary, Rashi, etc). Connected but different. This indicates the purpose of the wife is not merely to follow her husband's orders like a slave, but to contribute equally and at times oppose him if he is acting rashly, for instance.

[19,20] There is nothing to indicate this is not entirely in parentheses – as an explanation for why God then made a helper. It could also be taken as a lesson to man; there is no mate for man among the animals. For man was created with free will; and had not yet been commanded to reproduce after his kind.

Nevertheless I have chosen to translate this using the pluperfect, reading it as 'God showed to Adam all of the creatures he had created' and not 'God created and then showed'. This is emphasized by the exact specification of the time of the event in Genesis 2:5, and the idea that this chapter does not reiterate the events of creation but expresses 'more to the story' i.e. the second account is the story of the creation of man. The story here is not about the order of Creation (for that, see Genesis 1), but to show the same story from the perspective of the creation of Man. This statement of elaboration vs. a different story of creation has support from Stone edition and other sources.

The idea of Man being taught some sort of lesson with the parade of animals also has support; God wanted to show Adam that no animal was suitable; “but no suitable helper was found” by Adam, who was examining the Animals. Thus Adam would desire from God for a suitable partner and would repsect her vs. taking her for granted as if she was created all along just for him (And the woman, also, indebted to the man, shall not take him for granted).

Rashi states, all creatures incl. male and female. Adam would notice these all had a mate, and none of them did not have a mate (or were wildly unsuitable anyways). Immediately a deep sleep fell upon him; and this story illustrates the special nature of the creation of Man and Woman, their uniqueness among all other creatures; for they are even special to each other beyond what is found in the animal kingdom.

[23a] “ap-pa-‘am,” (i.e. now or finally) is missing from most translations which indicates Adam's approval of this woman over all other creatures.

[23b] 'bone of my bones', 'flesh of my flesh' means that her bones and flesh were of the same stock as Adam's.

[23c,e] “’iš-šāh,” and “’îš” respectively. This play on words was made by Adam in gan-eden, therefore we know that Hebrew is the Holy language of creation.

[23d] “mê-’îš lu-qo-ḥāh-” i.e. from out of man was taken (her).