Cheryl

Hi Michael,

Again you are bringing up scripture that fits the rules of using the pluperfect. You quoted:

Moses inserts a waw consecutive as a pluperfect into a sequential narrative in order to introduce a revelation previously given to Moses: “Now the Lord said to Moses, ‘One more plague I will bring on Pharaoh and on Egypt…’â€

The plagues had already been introduced and one final plague was mentioned. The multiple plaques (an obvious repetition of plagues given by God) seems clearly to fit the rule of repetition. It does not fit with Genesis 2:19 where unlike the plagues the action “formed” has not been previously introduced concerning the animals and thus does not fits the rule and Bergen’s book shows why it doesn’t fit.

Bergen also shows that chapter two with verses 8 and 19 are sequential in the Hebrew so I will continue to rest with that. It is not only a legitimate understanding of the passage, but appears to me with all the evidence to be the correct understanding of the passage with the Hebrew grammar being so precise.

You also asked if historical figures ever make this “obvious” conclusion that animals came after Adam. Yes. The Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew and is the work of 70 scholars translated Genesis 2:19 as “formed yet further”. This shows that animals had already been created but these ones were formed in addition to the ones already in existence. This was written several hundred years before Christ’s birth and shows a second set of animals came after Adam. Also the overwhelming majority of biblical translations do not use the pluperfect when they could have if it was legitimate to use it in this setting. You still have not given any reason for the legitimate use of pluperfect in Genesis 2:8, 19 so I see no reason to change my view.