And
This translation seeks to accurately account for every word in the original text wherever possible. In this case, “And” is added to account for the Hebrew waw in the opening wayyiqtol verb וַיְכַל (waykhal). Bringing out such wayyiqtol verb forms in translation helps the reader to identify narrative genre (which is characterized by this form) and provides a fluid progression within the narrative.

on the seventh day
While some English translations have “By the seventh day” here, the preposition “on” better accounts for the beth preposition in the Hebrew בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי (bayyom hashevi'i). The use of “on” here is not to imply that God was still working on the seventh day, but rather simply to maintain consistency with the normal wording throughout the Old Testament (cf. esp. v. 3). With a more consistent rendering for the beth preposition, this translation provides the clearest window into the original text.

on it
Refer to the discussion on verse 2 above. “On it” represents the beth preposition in the designation בוֹ (vo), maintaining consistency with the same preposition earlier in verse 2.

created in making it
The phrase “created in making it” is more accurate to the Hebrew text than something like “created and made” because there is no conjunction (e.g., “and”) in the original text and the verb for “made” is not a finite verb like “created” (בָּרָא; bara), but rather an infinitive (לַעֲשֽׂוֹת; la'asoth; lit. “to make”). The translation here helps to bring out that God’s creating and making are not two entirely distinct actions. Rather, in this verse, the phrase “in making it” demonstrates how this infinitive verb further explains God’s action in creation.

These are the generations
This phrase provides a consistent translation of the phrase אֵלֶּה תוֹלְד֧וֹת (elleh tholedoth), which is an important formulaic phrase around which Genesis is structured (cf. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). A consistent translation for this particular verse is also important because this is the first occurrence of this phrase in Genesis. This allows readers to see the intentional structure created throughout the book via the use of this phrase.

grown
Though many English translations have “sprung” or “sprouted” here, the translation as “grown” helps to show the connection between this verse and others where the same Hebrew word (צָמַח; tsamaḥ) appears (cf. vv. 5, 9; 3:18). Maintaining this lexical connection (especially with 3:18) demonstrates with greater clarity that the ground that grew plants, waiting for man to cultivate them, would then grow thorns and thistles against him.

caused it to rain
The phrase “caused it to rain” instead of something like “sent rain” provides a more accurate rendering of the hiphil verb stem for the verb הִמְטִיר (himtir). The hiphil stem usually denotes that the verbal action was caused by the subject. The Genesis account shows that nothing in creation occurs outside of God’s sovereignty, and thus, rain had not yet fallen on the earth because God had not yet caused it.

stream
The word “stream” here translates the Hebrew term אֵד (ed). “Stream” more accurately conveys what is meant here than something like “mist,” since the best lexical evidence points to the concept of a subterranean, freshwater river (e.g., see HALOT on אֵד). God used waters below rather than rain from above to water the earth prior to the Flood.

would rise
The translation “would rise” accurately captures the ongoing action implied by the Hebrew imperfect verb form used here (יַֽעֲלֶה; ya'aleh). The idea here is that this stream would be continually rising as a matter of course in order to water the earth. It was not something that happened only once or occasionally, but continually as a regular pattern.

And so
The words “And so” represent the waw conjunction (usually translated “and”) within the Hebrew term וַֽיְהִי (wayehi). Here, this term, while describing the process of “becoming” something, also functions as a significant textual marker to denote an important conclusion. This is a climactic point in the narrative, as no other living creature was endowed with the personal privilege of God breathing the breath of life into its nostrils. This was something very special and distinct for man, formed directly by God in His image, and even the seemingly small grammatical distinction in the text here highlights that.

in Eden, toward the east
This phrasing more accurately represents the word order in Hebrew (בְּעֵדֶן מִקֶּדֶם; be'eden miqqedem) than some other English translations, which place “toward the east” before “Eden.” The Hebrew wording, while denoting two markers of location (“in Eden” and “to the east”), puts a greater weight of emphasis on “Eden.” This specific word order is important as it will be reversed in Genesis 3:24, when man is driven out because of sin and cherubim are stationed “at the east of the garden of Eden” (מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן־עֵדֶן; miqqedem legan-'eden). There, “the east” appears prior to “Eden” emphasizing “the east” and beginning a pattern wherein “east” will represent a negative motif of being opposed to God throughout the Bible, where the movement east and/or down highlights the opposite direction of God’s promises and blessings (cf. Gen. 11:2; 12:10; 13:11; 25:6; 29:1; 38:1; Isa 2:6; Jer 31:40; Ezek 8:16). Man’s sin thus creates an exact reversal of God’s intentions in His good creation.

desirable
The word “desirable” provides a consistent gloss (in appropriate contexts) for the Hebrew term (חָמַד; ḥamad), and such consistency is especially important here, as the same term will appear later in Genesis 3:6. Here, God created every tree that is “desirable in appearance” and “good for food” for His created beings. In Genesis 3:6, the woman failed to recognize the desirability and goodness of every tree, rather seeing the one forbidden tree as “good for food” and “desirable to make one wise.” She thus twisted what God had done. He had given things desirable and good for food, but now she wants to do something different with the one forbidden tree. Further, she began to define what is good and desirable—something which only God as Creator has the prerogative to do. The translation here as “desirable,” coupled with a footnote pointing to Genesis 3:6, helps readers to see this important connection more clearly.

went out
The phrase “went out” (rather than something more interpretive like “flowed out”) translates the Hebrew verb יָצָא (yatsa). This allows for a consistent translation of the word wherever contextually possible, helping the reader to recognize it wherever it appears.

the one that went around
Similar to the verb in verse 10, “the one that went around” provides a more literal translation of the verb הַסֹּבֵב (hassovev) than something like “the one that flows around,” and correctly phrases it in the past tense, as the narrative describes the way something used to be in the past.

the one that went around
Refer to the discussion on verse 11 above.

went
Refer to the discussions on verses 10, 11, and 13 above. Specific Hebrew verbs are chosen for the routes of the rivers in each of those verses and are represented with specific translations in English as well, remining as literal as possible to the original text. In verse 10, the verb is יָצָא (yatsa: “went out”); in verses 11 and 13 it is the participle הַסֹּבֵב (hassovev; “went around”); and here, it is simply the verb for “going” or “walking” (הָלַךְ; halakh), and is thus rendered (for past tense) simply as “went.” Providing distinct translations for distinct words in Hebrew gives the reader the clearest window into the original text.

Asshur
While many translations have “Assyria” here, that major empire had not yet been developed from the geographical location referred to as Asshur. Because Moses’ intent here is not to reference the nation, empire, or people group, but rather the geographic location, the Hebrew name אַשּׁוּר (ashur) is simply transliterated as “Asshur” to avoid unnecessary confusion.

set
The term for “set” here in “God…set him in the garden” is built on the Hebrew verbal root נוּחַ (nuaḥ). Per HALOT, the term can be used to mean to “cause to rest” or to “place somewhere, set, lay.” Here, Moses may be intending a sort of double entendre as he begins to develop a theology of rest by describing God as “setting/resting” Adam in the garden. To avoid the potential erroneous ideas that Adam needed to rest from hard work (which he had not yet started) or that God created Adam on the Sabbath (the day of rest), the translation given here is simply “set,” but a footnote is added in the text with “or caused him to rest” to alert the reader to the other possible rendering. This also leaves the task of interpretation to the pastor or teacher, who may explain the specific nuance of the verbal root used here and elaborate on the theme of “rest” if desired.

to cultivate it and keep it
Because the word for “cultivate” here is עָבַד ('avad; usually “work” or “serve”), this phrase might legitimately be translated as “to work it and keep it.” In fact, the theme of “working/serving” in conjunction with “keeping” will become quite significant in the context of Tabernacle service. Nonetheless, other factors under consideration make “cultivate” a better translational choice in this specific context and will remain the gloss for similar contexts (e.g., 4:2; Ezek 36:9, 34; 48:19).

surely eat
This phrase translates what is known in Hebrew grammar as a cognate infinitive absolute. This is a technical way of describing how an author seeks to heavily emphasize a certain verbal idea by repeating the same root twice. Here, because the woodenly literal translation of אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל (akhol tokhel) as “to eat you may eat” is nonsensical in English, the emphatic idea is communicated in translation by simply adding “surely” to “eat.” This properly intensifies the idea as intended. Cognate infinitive absolute constructions may be translated into English in various ways, which is why “surely” is added here, but in other instances (e.g., 3:16) “greatly” is used instead. The choice for which English modifier to use is determined by a number of factors, but largely by the semantic idea of a particular root (i.e., what the word actually means). Thus “greatly” is a better choice for a word like “multiply” because there is a logical connection between those terms, however, “surely” is a better choice than something like “freely” for “eat” because “freedom” and “eating” are not necessarily logically connected, though the concept of freedom to eat any fruit is brought out by God in that He instructs that they should/can/must (surely) eat it. “Surely” is also a better choice here because of the parallel cognate infinitive absolute construction used in the same way in the next verse (“you will surely die”). Translating these identical constructions in verses 16 and 17 the same way helps the reader to see the parallelism between them. While they may “surely eat” from any tree in the garden, if they eat from the one forbidden tree they will “surely die.”

surely die
Refer to the discussion on verse 16 above.

had formed
While the wayyiqtol verb form normally denotes a sequential movement from one event in the narrative to the next, here the verb וַיִּצֶר (wayyitser) contextually refers to something God had already done, since He had formed the animals prior to the time He formed man (cf. 1:24–27). Thus, the rendering as a pluperfect (“had formed”) rather than a simple past (“formed”) communicates the intended idea most accurately in this specific context.

brought each…call it
While some translations have “brought them” and “call them” in this verse, the pronoun used to refer to every beast and bird is singular, signifying that these animals should be pictured one at a time. Thus, the Hebrew text indicates that each animal and bird was brought by God to Adam one-by-one to be named, helping Adam to see clearly that not another created living thing was a suitable helper for him at this point. The translation here using “each” rather than “them” in italics, and “call it” rather than “call them” for יִּקְרָא־לוֹ (yiqra-lo) brings this out clearly into English.

every beast of the field; but for Adam…
Even small choices like the punctuation in this translation are intentional and significant. Here, a semicolon is used rather than a comma to separate the activity described in this verse and its particular significance. In Hebrew, a major disjunctive accent (athnach) divides the verse at this point, requiring punctuation stronger than a comma. This clearer division allows what God intended Adam to realize to stand out more conspicuously: there was not found a helper suitable for him.

And Yahweh God fashioned the rib, which He had taken from the man, into a woman
This wording more accurately represents the word order of the Hebrew text. Moses inserts the phrase, “which He had taken from the man,” between God’s action of “fashioning” and the result of that fashioning—“a woman.” This serves to further emphasize that God did not create the woman out of nothing, or out of something independent of the man, but specifically used a part of the man to create the woman. Thus, Moses will not allow his readers to forget that the woman was fashioned both after and from the man to be both dependent upon him and to have a very intimate relationship with him as quite literally “bone of [his] bones” and “flesh of [his] flesh” (cf. v. 23).

finally
The word “finally” presents a more accurate translation than something like “now” for the Hebrew expression הַפַּעַם (happa'am) in this context. The sense communicated here is that Adam, in this climactic moment, after failing to find a compatible mate among the rest of creation, finally meets his suitable helper. This is thus the language of exuberant excitement and relief in reaction to God’s perfect design in His fashioning of the woman.

this one…this one…this one
The repetition of the demonstrative pronoun “this one” (זֹאת; zoth), much stronger than simply a personal pronoun, here is intentional and exegetically significant. It is the language of excitement, as Adam points directly at the woman, as it were, with his full focus, admiration, and amazement in God’s great creation and provision in fashioning the woman for him. This one is finally the one to solve the man’s problem of aloneness and to be the helper suitable for him.

cleave
The translation here as “cleave” rather than something like “be joined” accurately reflects that that an active voice verb is used here, not a passive. This is not something that merely “happens” or “is done to” the man, but rather is an action of his initiative and responsibility. While the actions of leaving and cleaving are performed by the man, the simultaneous becoming of one flesh is done by God. Thus, both man and God are active in the marital union of a man with his wife, and the careful translation here helps to show how the Hebrew text communicates this.