More on Turkels latest (part 3)
eric/cindy bach thebachs@fgi.net
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 18:58:02 -0600 (00918025082, 3.0.6.32.19990202185802.007acc20@fgi.net)
Greetings Achilles!
At 08:02 PM 1/31/99 -0500, achillesz@usa.net wrote:
>(presented primarily for Jason Carter, the person I refer to when I say
"you"
>in this post)
>
>In "Points of Order" Turkel attempts to dismiss some of the alleged
>contradictions between the two creation accounts found in the book of
Genesis.
>
>Turkel:
>> Typically, critics find two major points of disagreement between G1 and
G2. The
>> first of these is rather easy to dispose of:
>> Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed,
>> and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in
itself, upon
>> the earth: and it was so.
>> Gen. 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they
>> were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
heavens, And
>> every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of
the field
>> before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth, and
>> there was not a man to till the ground.
>> The allegation is that whereas G1 has plants made before man, G2 has man
made
>> before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that G2 indicates
no such
>> thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist
yet were
>> plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field? The Hebrew word here is
sadeh,
>> and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to a quite
limited
>> area of land, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is
'erets -- a
>> word which has much broader geographic connotations. A key to
understanding what
>> is being described here is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there
were no
>> "plants of the field" -- because a) there was no rain upon the earth,
and b)
>> there was no man to work the earth -- the two key elements for agriculture
>> according to the ancient mindset. Thus, what this passage indicates is that
>> there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the
verses
>> following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places
man to
>> tend to it. G2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet
at all,
>> but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of
agriculture. (This
>> idea of Eden as a special place set aside shall come into play as we
progress.)
>
>
>Achilles
>
>Once more Turkel has resorted to a sort of hair-splitting legalism to try
and
>"harmonize" the accounts. Even if there were no other flaws to his argument
>here, this would still be extremely weak in my view. Are we really
entitled to
>take such liberties with the Word of G-d? He would have you read Genesis
1:11ff
>as saying "wild plants" and Genesis 2:4-5 as saying "domestic plants"
which is
>simply not what the text says. The text says, in the first instance, "grass,
>the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,
whose
>seed is in itself" - the qualification of this to refer to only wild
plants is
>a stretch, to say the least.
>
>Still, on deeper examination his argument is not merely weak. It gets much
>worse.
>
>He would have us read "erets" as "earth" - with the "broad geographic
>qualifications" that word has in english, and "sadeh" as field, again with
the
>more limited connotations of the english translation. So I will do a quick
word
>study of these two words, with the resources I have handy.
>
>As an aside I should mention that these resources are available on the
net, and
>require no special knowledge of ancient languages to use, so you could
easily
>have discovered these things on your own had you taken the time to examine
>Turkels argument critically instead of hastily embracing it and assuming
it's
>veracity.
>
>So, first let us see what we can find out about the Hebrew word "erets,"
>translated in this case as "earth" in the KJV. (Strongs #776)
>
>>From the online Hebrew lexicon I have been using, I find the word comes
from an
>unused root probably meaning 'to be firm.' It is most often translated in
the
>KJV as "land." It is also translated in the KJV at places as country,
ground,
>and yes, even as field. Under definitions I find that it can be rendered as
>earth (as opposed to heaven,) a piece of land, ground, or even soil. Thus
his
>argument, relying exclusively on the english translation 'earth' and the
>connotations of that word, falls totally flat.
>
>Now, onward to "sadeh." (Strongs #7704)
>
>I find that it too derives from an unused root, this one meaning "to spread
>out." Among the words the KJV uses to translate this are field, country,
land,
>ground, and soil. Sound familiar? Under definitions I find field, land, a
>cultivated field, a home of wild beasts, a plain as opposed to a mountain,
or
>land as opposed to sea. I find no reason to accept Turkels contention that
the
>hebrew word "sadeh" has the same limited connotations as the english word
field
>might be argued to - quite to the contrary, I find it can refer to EITHER a
>cultivated field or a wild field that is home to wild animals!
>
>In conclusion, Turkels contention here is not very convincing on the face,
and
>a simple word study of "erets" and "sadeh" reveals it to be nonsense. He
still
>hasn't shown any good evidence against the JEDP hypothesis that the
scholarly
>world supports, and that hypothesis explains in a far more believable
fashion
>the difference in phrases he wants to make so much of - if G2 was written
>first, in Judea, and G1 approximately a century later, in the northern
kingdom,
>obviously they would have been written by different people, and such a minor
>difference in phrasing is not surprising at all if that is the case.
BACH
Sorry for not snipping above, but I didn't want any of you to miss what had
been said before.
What Turkel/aka Holding misses is that in Genesis 9:20,
we are told in GOD'S Holy Word, that "NOAH was the FIRST tiller of the
soil." [RSV] IOW, man, the second of Turkel's 2 requirements for
agriculture, didn't actually become a farmer until AFTER the flood. This
would have been quite some time after both the G1 and G2 creation stories
in dispute.
Therefore, as usual Turkel, is reduced to just a trickle!
Bones Bach
thebachs@fgi.net