Die Alchemie. Das ist die Lehre von den grossen Geheim-Mitteln der Alchemisten und den Speculationen, welche man an sie knüpfte

And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Actually, according to verse 8, the man is already in the garden, and God does not need to move him there again. However, the situation is such that the emphasis does not rest on the first part of the sentence, but on the final part. It is not intended to show that God moves the man into the garden, but that the man is to cultivate and guard the garden. According to verse 18, the man is merely placed in the garden; for what purpose is already apparent from the context at the end, but it is not explicitly stated. Here it is explicitly stated. The man is not placed in the garden so that he may wander around idly, but so that he should now also work the garden and be its guardian.

Verse 16. original: "וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל"
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat. (Luther.)

Verse 17. original: "וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת"
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it. For in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. (Luther.)

Previously, God made the man the gardener and guardian of the garden. Now he goes further and makes a pact covenant or agreement with him, which stipulates that the man should manage and rule in the garden as if it were his own property. Accordingly, he could eat from all the trees as they stood there. But the pact has a clause: the tree of knowledge is excluded. God reserves this for himself; the man must not eat from it.

Verse 18. original: "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לֹא טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ אֶעֱשֶׂה לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ"
And the Lord God said: It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper companion to be with him. (Luther.)

Here God forms the plan, speaking it aloud, to give the man a companion. The plan is formed but not yet carried out. The realization of the plan follows only further down. Moreover, God does not state that this being, which is to be placed at the man's side, shall be precisely a woman, a human woman, the femininum feminine form of human, the female counterpart to what Adam is as male.

Verse 19. original: "וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כָּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיָּבֵא אֶל הָאָדָם לִרְאוֹת מַה יִּקְרָא לוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה הוּא שְׁמוֹ"
And the Lord God formed made, created out of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air. And he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

Luther: For when the Lord God had made from the earth all kinds of beasts in the field, and all kinds of birds under the heaven: he brought them to the man, to see how he would name them. For as the man would name all kinds of living animals, so should they be called.

Of Luther's "when God had made — then he brought," there is not a single shred in the text. The text says directly: God made. He made them now. Something new is now the turn, the creation of the animals. God creates the animals of the field land animals and the birds. Previously they were not yet there. And after he had created these animals, he leads them before the man so that he might give them a name.

It is to be noted here that man and animal stand pretty much on the same level. God makes the animals mentioned here out of earth. Consequently, they are dust of the earth, just like the man compare verse 7. And just as in that same verse the man is a nephesh chayah living soul or living being: so here the animal is a nephesh chayah.

One could say, yes, it is like this: just as the body of the deceased human becomes dust, so also

the body of the deceased animal becomes dust; and just as the human breathes, so also the animal breathes. However, we do not like this matter; the overlap of human and animal is drawn too sharply. Therefore, we ask the reader to look closely at verse 19. We have translated the last passage: "and however the man would name all living beings, so should they be called." In the end, it cannot be translated otherwise. But the matter has its catch. If the words nephesh chayah were omitted entirely, the sense that the animals should be called whatever the man names them would not be altered at all. This makes the expression nephesh chayah suspicious. And not only that, the construction is also very peculiar. The expression in question stands so strangely wedged between the other words. The question is therefore not at all far-fetched whether the expression in question owes its existence to a later insertion into the text. If that is the case, then the overlap between human and animal ceases.

Verse 20. original: "וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וּלְאָדָם לֹא מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ"
And the man gave names to every head of cattle, and bird under heaven, and beast in the field; but for the man there was no helper companion found to be with him. (Luther.)

The man here fulfills the mission given to him in the previous verse. Moreover, this verse is broader than the previous one. There, it only concerned the beasts of the field and the birds. Here, the "cattle" behemah domesticated animals is also added. Since God spoke of a companion for the man in verse 18, the man is under the delusion that among the many living beings God presents to him, that companion would be found. But in this he is mistaken; for him, for the man, no companion is found among all the living beings presented to him.

Verse 21. original: "וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל הָאָדָם וַיִּישָׁן וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה"
Then the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept. And he took one of his ribs and closed up the place with flesh. (Luther.)

Verse 22. original: "וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִן הָאָדָם לְאִשָּׁה וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם"
And the Lord God built a woman from the rib which he took from the man and brought her to him. (Luther.)

Verse 23. original: "וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה זֹּאת"
Then the man said: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman Luther uses "Männin", a feminized form of Man, because she was taken from Man. (Luther.)

The words in the text for Luther's "now" are zot happa'am this time. The "previous time," which is contrasted with this "this time," refers to the inspection of the animals that were led before the man. During that, he looked in vain for the promised companion, but now he sees her before him and says, yes, this being I recognize immediately as the promised companion.

Verse 24. original: "עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד"
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Luther.)

Verse 25. original: "וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ"
And they were both naked, the man and his wife; and were not ashamed. (Luther.)

---

## Comparison of the Creation Stories in the First and Second Chapters of the First Book of Moses.

It is not to be thought at all that the creation story with which the Bible begins runs in one continuous tone, as is generally assumed,

but rather the creation story with which the Bible begins ends with the 3rd verse of the 2nd chapter, and then a new, a different creation story begins. Such a thing is obvious. For man, animal, and plant are offered twice. But why does that which we already have need to be offered? That would be a contradiction. Well, it is explained by the fact that we are dealing with two creation stories, each of which brings what it brings on its own account, without caring about the other. Both creation stories have a completely different character.

In the first creation story, the world is created in six days. The first day brings the light, the second the heavens, the third: the fixed and fluid globe of the earth original Latin: "Orbis terrarum fixus et fluidus", the fourth: sun, moon and stars, the fifth: birds and fish, the sixth: land animals and creeping things, and the human. On the 7th day, God rests.

In the second creation story, heaven and earth are already there, and of them, the earth is focused upon. It is assumed that the earth exists to bring forth plants. But the plant world cannot progress without rain. If God also created the earth we inhabit, then that is an imperfect thing. The imperfection must be neutralized, so God must go further in creating and join rain to the earth; he must create the rain. This rain is now created. Then the human is created, and with him it is prominently focused upon that he should help with the growth of the plants. Then the Garden of Eden is laid out, and the human is forbidden from eating of the tree of knowledge. Then the animals are created. Then the woman is created.

So there is a completely different character for both creation stories in general. But also in detail, both creation stories bear a completely different stamp, and this shows itself step by step. In the first creation story, it concerns God as Elohim, in the second God as Jehovah Elohim. The second creation story places an outstanding weight on rain; the first does not mention it at all. The first creation story classifies the animals quite differently than the second. In the first creation story, man and woman are created in God's image; in the second, God forms the man, whose matter is dust of the earth, and breathes living breath into him, then the woman is created from the man's rib, and so on.

However, it is not just about a special character, but both creation stories have nothing in common. They not only carry different traits, but one also conflicts with the other. That is, in a series of data, one creation story describes the state of affairs in such a way that, if it is as it describes, then it cannot possibly be as the other creation story describes it. In this regard, we highlight the following:

If we look at chapter 2, verse 4, the wording of the text says, "on the day when" or "at the time that the Lord God made earth and heaven." According to the first creation story, however, heaven and earth are not made in one day, but on several days. We know that "time" can be translated instead of "day." However, even if it is translated this way, we still have, as we have seen, the conflict that the author of the second creation story does not know the first creation story at all.

In the first creation story, the animals are created first, and then the human; in the second creation story, precisely the opposite relationship occurs: first the human is created, and only then the animals.

In the first creation story, the third day brings the plant world and the fourth day: sun, moon, and stars. Thus, we have the factual situation that the plant world is created before the inorganic world is even finished. In the second creation story, the inorganic world, which is the heaven and earth of verse 4, is finished first, and when it is there, then it is the plant world's turn.

In the first creation story, the plants

grew without rain; in the second through the influence of rain. If one says, on the contrary, that rain is not excluded in the first creation story, it is just not mentioned, well, then we have the conflict that the first creation story considers something not worth mentioning on which the second creation story places a high value.

In the first creation story, the human may eat from all the trees of the world; in the second, he may not.

In the first creation story, God creates the genus homo, consisting of man and woman, in one casting. In the second creation story, God first creates the man, and only a long while afterward the woman. Between man and woman in the second creation story lie: the layout of the Garden of Eden in general, the placing of the man within it, the growing of trees in the same, the appointment of the man as caregiver and guardian of the garden, the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge, God's plan to give the man a companion, the creation of the animals, the leading of the animals before the man to give them names, the naming of the animals, and the man's sleep.

The first creation story and the second creation story stand in exclusive opposition to each other. That is, if the state of affairs is as it is described in the first creation story, it cannot be as it is described in the second, and vice versa. Therefore, the situation is this: we are dealing with two creation stories, for one of which we have to decide. If we decide for the first, the second falls, and if we decide for the second, the first falls. To want to maintain both side by side means to set up the naked and dry dogma: The Bible negates itself. We do not agree to such a dogma. We know very well that it is generally not acceptable for one person to come along and say this is to be struck from the Bible, and another to come and say that is to be struck. Individual views come into play there. The beginning of deletions is soon made, and the end is not in sight. We know that very well. But where the matter is so significant as here, the situation does turn out a little differently as an exception.

The first creation story, as it lies before us, does not belong in the Bible at all. It is an alchemical piece of work original: "alchemistisches Machwerk", and a fragmented one at that, which has found its way into the Bible. We will come to know it in the course of these lines as a fragmented alchemical piece of work. For characterizing ourselves this way before the world, may no one accuse us of impiety against the Bible; we simply take the standpoint that the first creation story does not belong in the Bible at all.

This was noticed many, many years ago, that it is not a continuous story but two creation stories, that the two stories stand in exclusive opposition, and that one, which is the first, must yield. But instead of looking the facts openly in the face as they are, one took the standpoint that what is there must stay there, and if complications arise from the fact that what is once there remains there, one must remedy these complications as well or as poorly as possible. And so, the path of sophistical translation and interpretation was taken. We have a sample of such an action in Luther's translation, where verse 5, chapter 2 is attached to verse 4, so that the plants, which are not there, are made into ones that already exist; where in verse 19, chapter 2, the animals, which are only just being created, are branded as those that have long been there. In such actions, one must by no means take the sophism from its bad side. That would be very wrong. No, it is simply a matter of a misplaced piety. One overlooked that out of pure piety, one became impious; that it is nothing other than a campaign against the Bible when one has to perform distortions of language and meaning in order to bring about harmony. A particularly bold undertaking, which the zealots of harmony undertook, is that they patched new passages into the Bible. In these passages,