Search for certainty > > Home

Creation According to Sailhamer

Posted Wednesday, October 18, 2006 by Charlie Trimm

I just read a fascinating book by John Sailhamer about Creation. It is entitled Genesis Unbound: A Provocative Look at the Creation Account. Sailhamer is a great scholar who often goes against tradition, and this book is no exception. While I do not find myself convinced by many of his arguments, I thought I would pass along some of the highlights of his book to help us think about the options. It will challenge your view of Genesis 1-2!

1. Sailhamer sees aretz as not referring to the earth, but to the land of Israel. This conforms with the way the word is used elsewhere.

2. The sun and moon: God did not create them on the fourth day, but made them to be signs then.

3. In the Beginning can have a very long time frame. This way, he can have six literal days while also having an old earth.

4. The Garden of Eden is in Israel and is essentially the same as the Promised Land. Note how the land of Egypt and the Euphrates are mentioned in relation to the Garden.

5. What God was creating in Gen 1:2ff is not the world, but the land of Israel.

6. The command to work and till the land is poorly translated, it should be to serve and worship God. Note that the suffix on the verbs is feminine, while Garden is masculine.

7.  Formless and void refers to the wasteland outside the Promised Land. 

 

Food for thought! 

Friday, October 20, 2006 10:25 PM

Adam wrote: 

Sailhamer's conception of haretz (does he make a distinction between aretz and haretz?) is interesting, and I believe he uses the same reasoning to argue for a local flood in Gen. 7, but how does he get around what seems to be a clear merism, hshamayim and haretz? Doesn't this imply more than a local creation event?

Also, in Gen. 2:15, abd could mean "to worship," but shmr doesn't seem to fit with Sailhamer's translation. Does he offer examples to support this? In addition, elohim is also masculine so how does this work any better? Could we say instead that the feminine suffix points to the implied referent adamah (cf. 3:17)?

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:09 AM

Charlie wrote:  I'm assuming you are talking about Genesis 1:1, which he does view as the creation of everything. Then the rest of Genesis 1 is the creation of the local Promised Land. I am also not sure how Sailhamer's view solves the problem of the suffix in Genesis 2:15. He did not explain himself there, but simply quoted a few rabbis, so perhaps they have a more detailed explanation. 

Monday, October 30, 2006 2:36 PM

Charlie wrote:  For all of you Hebrewphiles, the answer to the question is this: the final he is not a suffix, but is the he attached to a infinitive. 

Login to add comments