Genesis 2:19

[Psalty]

Hey there, was hoping to start a discussion on the verse Genesis 2:19.

The pericope is 2:15-25 talking about the creation of Adam, Animals, then Eve.

The NASB95, NET, and KJV render the verb “to form” as present tense.
New translations like the LSB, ESV and NIV render the verb as past tense for animals only, with all other pericope verbs in the past tense.
Edit: all other verbs in the pericope are present tense. It is incredibly rare in Hebrew to have a change of tense within a given pericope. And even when it occurs, the indicators are not present in this passage.

Examples:

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
— Genesis 2:19 NASB95

And out of the ground Yahweh God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and He brought each to the man to see what he would call it; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
— Genesis 2:19 LSB

So the question is, do you think that modern translations like the LSB, ESV, NIV and similar are:
1. being pressured by young earth creationists, or
2. it is an apologetics defense to “help” Scripture have less apparent conflict between chapter 1 & 2? Or,
3. it is just better translation work and the KJV and older Hebrew scholars and Rabbis just generally got it wrong?

 

[Ben1445]

Hey there, was hoping to start a discussion on the verse Genesis 2:19.

The pericope is 2:15-25 talking about the creation of Adam, Animals, then Eve.

The NASB95, NET, and KJV render the verb “to form” as present tense.
New translations like the LSB, ESV and NIV render the verb as past tense for animals only, with all other pericope verbs in the past tense.
Edit: all other verbs in the pericope are present tense. It is incredibly rare in Hebrew to have a change of tense within a given pericope. And even when it occurs, the indicators are not present in this passage.

Examples:



So the question is, do you think that modern translations like the LSB, ESV, NIV and similar are:
1. being pressured by young earth creationists, or
2. it is an apologetics defense to “help” Scripture have less apparent conflict between chapter 1 & 2? Or,
3. it is just better translation work and the KJV and older Hebrew scholars and Rabbis just generally got it wrong?

If the statement is read with as much room as is possible for accuracy of meaning, there is no reason to say that there is a conflict.

An example are puzzles which can be found elsewhere on the BB.

In simplest form a riddle like this will suffice for example.

1. What is full of holes but still holds water?
   Answer: A sponge

The point is that mentally something with holes doesn’t hold water. You would expect it to leak. But there is a “thinking outside the box” answer. It is not a trick or false answer. It is just not how we normally think.


Absent the word “immediately” in 2:19, nothing in the English that is stated that would necessitate their creation one by one in front of or near to Adam.
From the KJV…
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Notice the punctuation. The semicolon is there to show a connection of the two sentences. The semicolon explains the preceding thought. It is reasonable to allow for a space of time where the semicolon stands. There is no reason to separate in time what is divided by the colon. In my opinion, it would be an error to think that God brought them and Adam named them some other time. (Again, I conclude this solely from sentence structure. I have not looked into the Hebrew.)

Another example, pardon me for the foolishness of it.

And out of the flour the baker formed a cake, and every treat he could imagine; and brought them unto the birthday party to see what the children would call them: and whatsoever the children called every treat, that was the name thereof.

If you were to assume that the baker made all the desserts the same day, you would imagine he would be tired. But it is reasonable to assume that they would keep and some of them could have been made at an earlier time than right before taking them to the birthday party.
I think that the animals God made were not in danger of spoiling or expiring before they could be brought to Adam. The text doesn’t necessitate the immediate naming of the animals upon creation.
Please tell me if you see otherwise.

 

[Psalty]

Oh, I am not assuming conflict between 1 & 2, but the old earthers point to this to say so. Thanks for your post!

 

[Psalty]

If the statement is read with as much room as is possible for accuracy of meaning, there is no reason to say that there is a conflict.

An example are puzzles which can be found elsewhere on the BB.

In simplest form a riddle like this will suffice for example.

1. What is full of holes but still holds water?
   Answer: A sponge

The point is that mentally something with holes doesn’t hold water. You would expect it to leak. But there is a “thinking outside the box” answer. It is not a trick or false answer. It is just not how we normally think.


Absent the word “immediately” in 2:19, nothing in the English that is stated that would necessitate their creation one by one in front of or near to Adam.
From the KJV…
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Notice the punctuation. The semicolon is there to show a connection of the two sentences. The semicolon explains the preceding thought. It is reasonable to allow for a space of time where the semicolon stands. There is no reason to separate in time what is divided by the colon. In my opinion, it would be an error to think that God brought them and Adam named them some other time. (Again, I conclude this solely from sentence structure. I have not looked into the Hebrew.)

Another example, pardon me for the foolishness of it.

And out of the flour the baker formed a cake, and every treat he could imagine; and brought them unto the birthday party to see what the children would call them: and whatsoever the children called every treat, that was the name thereof.

If you were to assume that the baker made all the desserts the same day, you would imagine he would be tired. But it is reasonable to assume that they would keep and some of them could have been made at an earlier time than right before taking them to the birthday party.
I think that the animals God made were not in danger of spoiling or expiring before they could be brought to Adam. The text doesn’t necessitate the immediate naming of the animals upon creation.
Please tell me if you see otherwise.

Just to add, why do you think the new translations are going with this reading?

 

[Van]

Hey there, was hoping to start a discussion on the verse Genesis 2:19.

The pericope is 2:15-25 talking about the creation of Adam, Animals, then Eve.

The NASB95, NET, and KJV render the verb “to form” as present tense.
New translations like the LSB, ESV and NIV render the verb as past tense for animals only, with all other pericope verbs in the past tense.
Edit: all other verbs in the pericope are present tense. It is incredibly rare in Hebrew to have a change of tense within a given pericope. And even when it occurs, the indicators are not present in this passage.

Examples:



So the question is, do you think that modern translations like the LSB, ESV, NIV and similar are:
1. being pressured by young earth creationists, or
2. it is an apologetics defense to “help” Scripture have less apparent conflict between chapter 1 & 2? Or,
3. it is just better translation work and the KJV and older Hebrew scholars and Rabbis just generally got it wrong?

Here is the NET footnote on "formed."
58tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.

And here is the NIV translation:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

This mistranslation, according to the NET footnote is also found in DARBY, EHV, ESV, GW, LSB, NOG and TLV.

I do not see the difficulty, God formed the animals and subsequently brought them to man. The Hebrew grammar, according to the footnote does NOT demand an out of sequence interpretation.

 

[Deacon]

The Hebrew word, יָצַר (yāṣar) is used multiple times in the pericope, with the general meaning to shape, form, or create.
(VanGemeren, Willem, ed. 1997. In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 2:503).

The translation difference between “formed” and “had formed” reflects a debate about Hebrew grammar.
Hebrew lacks a distinct pluperfect tense; the underlying verb forms used in Genesis 1 and 2 are grammatically identical.

This creates some ambiguity among the various translations, the same Hebrew construction can be rendered either as simple past (“formed”) or as pluperfect (“had formed”).

Some Hebrew scholars argue that וַיִּצֶר in Genesis 2:19, despite appearing within a sequence of waw consecutives, may function as a pluperfect reflecting an action that preceded the main narrative sequence.
Proponents of the "had formed" reading argue that its use when translating Genesis 2:19 preserves chronological alignment with Genesis 1.

So when using the phrase "had formed," the Legacy Standard Bible gently nudges the reader towards the position that the two creation stories are a single, sequential story rather than two separate creation accounts; this debate has not been resolved.

Neither rendering is linguistically impossible; they simply reflect different interpretive positions regarding the text’s intent.

Rob

 

[Psalty]

The Hebrew word, יָצַר (yāṣar) is used multiple times in the pericope, with the general meaning to shape, form, or create.
(VanGemeren, Willem, ed. 1997. In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 2:503).

The translation difference between “formed” and “had formed” reflects a debate about Hebrew grammar.
Hebrew lacks a distinct pluperfect tense; the underlying verb forms used in Genesis 1 and 2 are grammatically identical.

This creates some ambiguity among the various translations, the same Hebrew construction can be rendered either as simple past (“formed”) or as pluperfect (“had formed”).

Some Hebrew scholars argue that וַיִּצֶר in Genesis 2:19, despite appearing within a sequence of waw consecutives, may function as a pluperfect reflecting an action that preceded the main narrative sequence.
Proponents of the "had formed" reading argue that its use when translating Genesis 2:19 preserves chronological alignment with Genesis 1.

So when using the phrase "had formed," the Legacy Standard Bible gently nudges the reader towards the position that the two creation stories are a single, sequential story rather than two separate creation accounts; this debate has not been resolved.

Neither rendering is linguistically impossible; they simply reflect different interpretive positions regarding the text’s intent.

Rob

This never used to be a debate, though.

Additionally, rules of Hebrew have indicators for when you would use the pluperfect tense… and these are not met in Gen 2:19.

As you point out, it does seem that the LSB and others have used theology to affect their translation, which I think is incredibly dangerous. Just my 2c.

 

[Psalty]

Here is the NET footnote on "formed."
58tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.

And here is the NIV translation:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

This mistranslation, according to the NET footnote is also found in DARBY, EHV, ESV, GW, LSB, NOG and TLV.

I do not see the difficulty, God formed the animals and subsequently brought them to man. The Hebrew grammar, according to the footnote does NOT demand an out of sequence interpretation.

I agree. You can still be young earth and use the present tense.

The question is really why are translators doing this and is it appropriate?

 

[Psalty]

Here is the NET footnote on "formed."
58tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.

And here is the NIV translation:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

This mistranslation, according to the NET footnote is also found in DARBY, EHV, ESV, GW, LSB, NOG and TLV.

I do not see the difficulty, God formed the animals and subsequently brought them to man. The Hebrew grammar, according to the footnote does NOT demand an out of sequence interpretation.

BTW I love the NET bible and it is one of the resources that helped me key in on this recent change in english translation.

 

[Van]

BTW I love the NET bible and it is one of the resources that helped me key in on this recent change in english translation.

So do I!

And I agree that "fixing" a verse to match as viewpoint is unsound. I think all translations sometimes fail in this regard, but the more Dynamic ones seem to me to fail more often.

 

[Psalty]

So do I!

And I agree that "fixing" a verse to match as viewpoint is unsound. I think all translations sometimes fail in this regard, but the more Dynamic ones seem to me to fail more often.

I still have my first and second additions that were printed in Romania before Thomas Nelson bought it!

And true with your comments on dynamic translations. The net is about as dynamic as I’m willing to go… Though I do use the new living translation with my children.

 

[Van]

I still have my first and second additions that were printed in Romania before Thomas Nelson bought it!

And true with your comments on dynamic translations. The net is about as dynamic as I’m willing to go… Though I do use the new living translation with my children.

Yes, as a missionary I knew told me, after spending his life bringing scripture to people in Africa who could not understand existing translations, "it is important that you use a version that you can understand." Many people have been saved through the use of understandable translations or paraphrases like the NIV and NLT. The good outweighs the bad.

Back when I worked in AWANA, the youngsters could memorize the KJV verses, but many of them had no idea what was being said.

 

[Ben1445]

I agree. You can still be young earth and use the present tense.

The question is really why are translators doing this and is it appropriate?

I can see your point. I agree that incorporating your interpretation to aid the reader in your doctrines is problematic to the idea of having the Word of God instead of doctrines of men.
Absent a statement from the “translators” on the subject, I couldn’t say why I thought they did it.
It could be that they are trying to help their teaching preferences.
It could also be that their teachings override accurate translation. It doesn’t have to be with intent to change. Words mean a lot less than they used to. We are more lenient with our vocabulary. It could be just the capability of the translators and not knowing better.
At the end of the day, any translation is the work of the translators. Hopefully it is their best effort at conveying the message and meaning of the original text.

 

[Deacon]

I agree. You can still be young earth and use the present tense.

The question is really why are translators doing this and is it appropriate?

It takes us back to the saying, "Translator, Traitor."

The NET Bible's footnotes helps to clarify how and why the translators make their decisions.
Modern versions often provide footnotes without such extensive explanations.

Example: (ESV 2025)
Genesis 2:19
Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed7 every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
7 Or And out of the ground the Lord God formed


It's important to understand some of the confounding difficulties confronting translators of Scripture.

This may help: it's an article written by the late Bruce Metzger and delivered as part of a lecture series at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 4-7, 1992.

Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators [link]​

"Problems involved in translating the Scriptures are many. Some result from the presence of variant readings among the manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. Others have to do with the meaning of rare words as well as the uncertainty of punctuation of the Hebrew and the Greek texts. Still others relate to the appropriate renderings in English or any other receptor language and bear on the choice of the literary level and style of phraseology. This article considers examples of these kinds of problems."

Rob

 

[Van]

It takes us back to the saying, "Translator, Traitor."

The NET Bible's footnotes helps to clarify how and why the translators make their decisions.
Modern versions often provide footnotes without such extensive explanations.

Example: (ESV 2025)
Genesis 2:19
Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed7 every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
7 Or And out of the ground the Lord God formed


It's important to understand some of the confounding difficulties confronting translators of Scripture.

This may help: it's an article written by the late Bruce Metzger and delivered as part of a lecture series at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 4-7, 1992.

Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators [link]​

"Problems involved in translating the Scriptures are many. Some result from the presence of variant readings among the manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. Others have to do with the meaning of rare words as well as the uncertainty of punctuation of the Hebrew and the Greek texts. Still others relate to the appropriate renderings in English or any other receptor language and bear on the choice of the literary level and style of phraseology. This article considers examples of these kinds of problems."

Rob

One of the difficulties listed in the link was whether to translate or transliterate. I posted a thread many years ago with my two cents, names should be transliterated, but titles should be translated. Thus Jesus Christ would be rendered "Yeshua the Anointed One."

A transliteration renders a Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic name using our language letters such as it would phonetically sound the same as when the original language was pronounced.

An additional problem is that many people will not buy a bible that differs too much from the one they were familiar with. Claims will be made it is too loose a translation or is too quirky.

But the final problem not addressed in the link, is the bias of the translators. If they think this verse says this, then they might fudge a translation elsewhere to fit. For example, if they believe Ephesians 1:4 says individuals were chosen before creation, then they might alter James 2:5 to read chosen "to be" rich in faith"....

 

[Psalty]

It takes us back to the saying, "Translator, Traitor."

The NET Bible's footnotes helps to clarify how and why the translators make their decisions.
Modern versions often provide footnotes without such extensive explanations.

Example: (ESV 2025)
Genesis 2:19
Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed7 every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
7 Or And out of the ground the Lord God formed


It's important to understand some of the confounding difficulties confronting translators of Scripture.

This may help: it's an article written by the late Bruce Metzger and delivered as part of a lecture series at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 4-7, 1992.

Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators [link]​

"Problems involved in translating the Scriptures are many. Some result from the presence of variant readings among the manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. Others have to do with the meaning of rare words as well as the uncertainty of punctuation of the Hebrew and the Greek texts. Still others relate to the appropriate renderings in English or any other receptor language and bear on the choice of the literary level and style of phraseology. This article considers examples of these kinds of problems."

Rob

Helpful Rob, thank you!

I’ve always been concerned about liberal influence in the scriptures (and more recently Woke/LBGT), but I’m also concerned the other way with conservative folks trying to “help scripture out” as well. Sometimes resistance and back-lashes dont help in the long run. This even goes for the textual critics as well. I really do not like Wallace and others push to get rid of the adulterous woman from John 8, or Marks longer ending. I get that there is some textual stuff going on there, but obviously the Holy Spirit thought it important and inspired, and through whatever means included it in the text.

That’s a good article.

 

[Psalty]

One of the difficulties listed in the link was whether to translate or transliterate. I posted a thread many years ago with my two cents, names should be transliterated, but titles should be translated. Thus Jesus Christ would be rendered "Yeshua the Anointed One."

A transliteration renders a Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic name using our language letters such as it would phonetically sound the same as when the original language was pronounced.

An additional problem is that many people will not buy a bible that differs too much from the one they were familiar with. Claims will be made it is too loose a translation or is too quirky.

But the final problem not addressed in the link, is the bias of the translators. If they think this verse says this, then they might fudge a translation elsewhere to fit. For example, I they believe Ephesians 1:4 says individuals were chosen before creation, then they might alter James 2:5 to read chosen "to be" rich in faith"....

That thread sounds like something I would enjoy!

 

[Van]

That thread sounds like something I would enjoy!

Here is the opening post from 2011:


If we were to settle on a translation principle for names, what would it be? To transliterate only, and so the word would appear phonetically correct - sound just like the name pronounced in the original language. Then Jesus would be Yashua (Ya - shoe - ah) or Yeshua and not Hey sous or Joshua. Sheol would be Sheol and not hell or Hades. Hades would be Hades and not hell. Gehenna would be Gehenna and not hell. Yahweh would be Yahweh and not LORD or the LORD.

If we did this we would be a lot closer to what the original authors wrote - the question is why is not this principle found in any well-published translation?

The current practice of changing the names or titles leads, I think, to confusion. Take Messiah. This is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for anointed one. So why not translate it, why leave it as a transliteration. Christ is a form of the word Christos which is a transliteration of the Greek word for anointed one. So why not translate it as anointed one, why leave it as a transliteration or a modified transliteration? If it was a name and not a title, then it would be ok. But this willy-nilly skipping back and forth from transliteration to translation just adds confusion.

If this principle was adopted, then instead of Jesus Christ we would have Yeshua the Anointed. When the text says Sheol, it would say Sheol and a footnote could explain the contextual meaning either the physical grave or the afterlife abode of the dead.

Other than clinging to the traditions of men, does anyone see why this muddle is perpetuated in even the best translations?

One reason is that the New Testament writers, writing in Greek, when they translated or perhaps quoted a translation, they followed the practice of the translation and translated names. Thus when Psalm 16:10 says God “will not abandon my body to Sheol” when Luke quoting Peter writes this verse in Greek in Acts 2:27, he writes “will not abandon my soul to Hades.” But as long as the principle was to transliterate names from the written text in the written language, then we would have a consistent principle. And again, a footnote could explain that Hades is the Greek word for the afterlife abode of the dead, just as Sheol sometimes is in Hebrew.


Report

 

[Deacon]

One of the difficulties listed in the link was whether to translate or transliterate. I posted a thread many years ago with my two cents, names should be transliterated, but titles should be translated. Thus Jesus Christ would be rendered "Yeshua the Anointed One."

A transliteration renders a Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic name using our language letters such as it would phonetically sound the same as when the original language was pronounced.

An additional problem is that many people will not buy a bible that differs too much from the one they were familiar with. Claims will be made it is too loose a translation or is too quirky.

But the final problem not addressed in the link, is the bias of the translators. If they think this verse says this, then they might fudge a translation elsewhere to fit. For example, if they believe Ephesians 1:4 says individuals were chosen before creation, then they might alter James 2:5 to read chosen "to be" rich in faith"....

There are many quotes and allusions of the Hebrew Scriptures in the NT writings, and very few transliterations within those.

A transliteration pushes the problem of how to interpret a problem passage on to those who are less knowledgable about the original language.

IMO, I think it's a good idea to follow a similar path, a simple footnote is probably a better way to express alternative translations.

Rob