The whole genesis narrative is very interestingly written, and I don’t have a firm interpretation on any of it, to be clear.
Genesis 1:26-28 “man” is created. Now, “man” is translated from “ 'āḏām”, interestingly, so that would be a case against this option.
Then Genesis 2, God rested on the 7th day, then God created man (also from “'āḏām”) and breathed a soul into him.
Later, when referring to “Adam” it comes from the same “'āḏām“
That would be the source of the issue I’m discussing, where it could appear that “man” was created twice, but as shown here, that could very easily be a translation issue resulting from narrative decisions.
On the other two seeds you mention, I tend to agree and think that’s a more solid case.
To clarify though, I said “might” because it could very easily just be a translation quirk I’m referring to, grown out of just not knowing enough source and/or original context.
The second mention of man being created goes into more detail as to how we were made by God, the Bible is a human story, we’re the stars of the show so of course there will be a focus on us. I see only two seeds because God only mentions two. Just my take on things.
That’s the other English reading of it. In English, I do think both readings could be valid. As I was writing it though, I realized I hadn’t gone to the translation on this thought, and the source text does not seem to allow the same notable ambiguities that the English text does.
If you read closely, you can hear me disproving my own claims as I dug into more of the supporting source reasoning for the thought.
Perhaps the reason they translated it that way was for narrative flow, or to assist in memorization or some such. It’s amazing how many times digging into the source language can knock bad ideas off their perches!
The whole genesis narrative is very interestingly written, and I don’t have a firm interpretation on any of it, to be clear.
Genesis 1:26-28 “man” is created. Now, “man” is translated from “ 'āḏām”, interestingly, so that would be a case against this option.
Then Genesis 2, God rested on the 7th day, then God created man (also from “'āḏām”) and breathed a soul into him.
Later, when referring to “Adam” it comes from the same “'āḏām“
That would be the source of the issue I’m discussing, where it could appear that “man” was created twice, but as shown here, that could very easily be a translation issue resulting from narrative decisions.
On the other two seeds you mention, I tend to agree and think that’s a more solid case.
To clarify though, I said “might” because it could very easily just be a translation quirk I’m referring to, grown out of just not knowing enough source and/or original context.
The second mention of man being created goes into more detail as to how we were made by God, the Bible is a human story, we’re the stars of the show so of course there will be a focus on us. I see only two seeds because God only mentions two. Just my take on things.
That’s the other English reading of it. In English, I do think both readings could be valid. As I was writing it though, I realized I hadn’t gone to the translation on this thought, and the source text does not seem to allow the same notable ambiguities that the English text does.
If you read closely, you can hear me disproving my own claims as I dug into more of the supporting source reasoning for the thought.
Perhaps the reason they translated it that way was for narrative flow, or to assist in memorization or some such. It’s amazing how many times digging into the source language can knock bad ideas off their perches!
👍