Hello everyone. You are watching the second video in a Bible study video series. I'm "Dyn",
and once again I would like to start this video off with prayer, and then get into the
second section of Genesis, which I categorize as Genesis chapter 2, verse 8, through verse
25. Father thank You for this time that we have
together to study the Bible, uh, thank You for all the resources that we have available
to us. Thank You for, um, all of the effort and time that people have put (in the past)
into studying the Bible and understanding what it's really saying, and please help us
to understand, uh, what we're going to be reading today, uh, if You want to speak to
us then please help us to be aware of it and to understand what You're saying, uh, and
if possible then maybe use this [. . .] part of the Bible that we're going to be reading,
not just to understand the Bible a little bit more, but maybe to understand You a little
bit more. Amen. Verse 8 begins: "And Jehovah God planted a
garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the
ground made Jehovah 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." The word "garden" in verse 8 basically means
a garden with a fence or hedge. This Hebrew word is connected to a word that means ". . . to
hedge about . . .". The word "eastward" in verse 8 literally means the front, but could also be used for either
the past or the east, and it makes me think that maybe this word has some connection to
the sun rising in the east, but I'm not really sure about that. The word Eden means pleasant,
or delicate. In verse 9 the word that's translated "pleasant" is not the same [. . .] Hebrew
word that's translated "Eden" in verse 8. The word that's translated "pleasant" in verse
9 could be translated as beautiful, precious, or something desired. Like the English word
"good", the word that's translated "good" in verse 9 can mean something that is either
morally good, or something that's just pleasing. The Hebrew word in verse 9 that's translated
as "evil" (like the English word "bad") can be used for something that's morally evil,
or something that's just unpleasant. Verse 10: "And a river went out of Eden to
water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. The name of the first
is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second
river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. And the name of the
third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth
river is the Euphrates." In verse 8 it says that the garden was in
Eden, but here in verse 10 it says that a river flowed out of Eden, and into the garden.
One possibility is that Eden was the name of the region, as well as the name of a city
within that region. If that's true, then verse 8 would obviously be referring to the region,
and verse 10 would be referring to the city. Some people may say that Eden was a city inhabited
by angels, others may say it was inhabited by humans that existed before Adam and Eve,
while others may say it was aliens. Adam and Eve were the first humans. I can say that
because in verse 5 it says that there was not a man to till the ground, and in verse
7 it says that man was formed of the dust of the earth. Also, in Hebrew the same word
translated here as "man" is the word for Adam. So, humans predating Adam is not a possibility
according to the text. While angels might be more logical than humans, it's still a
stretch and can't really be backed up by anything. I think the two most likely explanations are
either A) the "Eden" mentioned in verse 10 is a city of God (similar in purpose to the
New Jerusalem mentioned in Revelation chapter 21), B) the reason for the difference is just
a textual error that happened over the years of copying the text, or C) there's some other
explanation for how the garden could be in Eden, and yet the river flowed out of Eden
and through the garden. Since I'm not a scholar and I don't know Hebrew, I don't know how
likely it is that this small section of the text was corrupted.
In verse 11, the word "Pishon" (in Hebrew) means "dispersive" according to Strong's Hebrew
Dictionary. The word "bdellium" in verse 12 means a "gum", and Strong, uh, suggests that
it has a strong smell. Strong also suggests that both amber and pearl are possibilities.
In verse 13, the word translated as "Gihon" is connected to a word that can be translated
as "gushing". I believe that the word "Gihon" can be translated as "a gushing stream". In
verse 14, the word "Hiddekel" is thought to be the Tigris river (according to the American
Standard Version footnotes). The word "front" (or "in front") could be translated as "east",
according to the American Standard Version footnotes (again). The word "Euphrates" means
(in Hebrew) something that rushes. Continuing on in verse 15 (which is the last
verse in this paragraph) it says: "And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden
of Eden to dress it and to keep it." Verse 16 continues: "And Jehovah God commanded the
man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die." In verse 15, the word translated as ". . . to
dress . . ." means to work in general, or to serve. The Hebrew word translated as to
"keep" means ". . . to hedge about . . .", or to protect. Young's Literal Translation translates
verses 16-17 this way: "And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree
of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou
dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'"
Verse 18 continues: "And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him a help meet for him. And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast
of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what
he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the
name thereof. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and
to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him."
Now there's something here in verse 18 that I want to address as best I can, but that
can wait until the end of this video. In Genesis chapter 1, verses 24-25, God is
said to have created land animals on the sixth day, but here it says that land animals were
created and brought to Adam. I would suggest that maybe verse 19 is restating what [. . .] was
already mentioned in Genesis chapter 1, verses 24-25, but there are major differences between
this verse and the other account. One is that in the first account, the animals were created
first and Adam second, but in this one the animals were created after Adam. Another difference
is that here in verse 19, it specifically says that God "formed" the animals, while
in chapter 1 it only mentions Him saying for there to be animals. The only answer I can
think of is that these were two different events. It does make sense though that God
would form new animals for the garden, because God actually already did something similar
in verses 8-9. While God created plants and animals in the first six days of creation,
He still planted a garden, put Adam there, created animals to live there, and brought
the animals to Adam so he would name them. This makes me wonder though, how many animals
were there of each type in the beginning (for example: were there two lions, two pigeons,
and so on)? What about the animals in the garden? Were they new kinds of animals that
weren't created in the six days of creation, or only more of the same kinds God had already
spoken into existence? Either way, the text seems to imply that there weren't any animals
in the garden before this, which means these animals were probably made specifically for
Adam and/or the garden. For the skeptics, I want to point out that
the phrase ". . . but for man there was not found a help meet for him . . ." does not
imply that God was surprised by this. Give this verse the benefit of the doubt and say
that it's simply showing that there is a difference between man and animal, and so none of the
animals could be a helper equal with Adam. I highly doubt Moses (or anyone else) would
have thought God would be surprised by this inequality.
So, continuing on to verse 21: "And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man,
and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and
the rib[,] which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her
unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, the word translated in verse 21 as "a deep sleep"
means ". . . a lethargy or . . . trance . . .". In verse 22, the word that's translated as "made" could be translated as "builded", according
to the [King James Version footnotes]. Young's Literal Translation translates verse 22 as:
"And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman,
and bringeth her in unto the man;". I want to point something out here in verse
22. When it says ". . . and brought her unto the man . . ." it may (or may not) be referring
to the first marriage. The word translated here as "brought unto" is a word that can
be used for coming or going, but was also an expression for sexual relations. A good
example of both uses can be found in Genesis chapter 30, verse 16. It uses the word to
state that Jacob came out of the field, and after that Leah uses the same word when she
speaks to him. So, Genesis chapter 2, verse 22 may be specifically referring to God offering
Eve to Adam in marriage. In verse 23, the Hebrew word translated as "Woman" is "Isha",
according to the [King James Version footnotes]. The word translated as "Man" is "Ish", according
to the [King James Version footnotes]. The final verses in this chapter say: "Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
Now that we're done reading the second section of Genesis, I want to go back over verse 18
and address something that I think is important. Some may try to use this verse to show that
men and women are exactly the same. So, lets go over it. the American Standard Version
footnotes puts it this way: a help ". . . answering to . . .". The [King James Version footnotes]
suggest: ". . . as before him . . .". Young's Literal Translation says: "And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone,
I do make to him an helper--as his counterpart.'" Even the LXX says that God said He would make
man a helper ". . . κατ' ἀυτόν . . .", which (according to Strong's Greek Dictionary) I
could translate as ". . . according to him . . .", or ". . . after him . . .". I do think
this verse implies that man and woman are similar, unlike man and animal (read verse
20 to see what I'm referring to). I also think this verse implies that man and woman are
equal. I do not think this verse implies man and woman are exactly the same. I can be equal
to you in my rights and nature, without being exactly like you. At the same time, I can
be similar to you in some ways, and yet very different (or not the same) in other ways.
Even today men and women are obviously similar (both of them being "mankind", or human),
yet different biologically, emotionally, and so on. So, just because Adam and Eve (or man
and woman) are compared here and found to be similar does not mean that man is woman
and woman is man. If it was to be taken that way, why would we, the Hebrews, and this text
use two different words for man and woman?