Cheryl

Martin,
The NIV and the ESV are two versions that use the past tense in Genesis 2:19 “God had formed” instead of “God formed”. I also found two other versions that I hadn’t realized also translate the verb in the past. They are the Catholic version the 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible and the 1889 Darby Bible. Every other bible translates the verb correctly as “formed”.

What Dr. Buth says is that he has avoided a “superficial harmonization” of the text. Yet at the same timek he says “we are led to interpreting whole stories as the author/redactor intended”. How can one avoid a “superficial harmonization” of the text as the NIV and ESV have? One avoids that by taking the text as it is written and not changing the tense of the verbs.

What “En Hakkore” on the CARM discussion board was denying was that there were two “acts” of the creation of animals just as there were two “acts” of the creation of man. Part one of the creation of man was the creation of the male before the animals were named. Part two was the creation of the female after the animals were named. While “En Hakkore” denies there were two creative “acts” of the animals, he is left with a dilemma. On what day were the birds created? Genesis chapter 1 says it was on day 5 and Genesis chapter 2 says they were created after Adam’s creation on day 6. Either the birds were created in two “acts” just as the animals were or we are left with an irreconcilable problem. No matter how many times “En Hakkore” denied that there were two parts to the creation of animals and birds, the fact that Dr. Buth proves that animals and birds were created after Adam’s creation proves this fact. It now becomes not a “superficial harmonization” of the text to try to make the creative act as one “act” but an part one and part two act of the creation of animals and birds just as God also created mankind with part one and part two and not at the same time.