Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Enoch2021 - Firefox did it........Thank You, Blessings!

 

 

GREAT!!!  Oh, I forgot to tell you.....$$$$$$$,  ???

 

Don't be like Connor and not pay for services rendered 

 

Send To:

 

Enoch2021

HIS WORD shall not Return to HIM VOID

PO Box 777

and "GOD SAID", "And It WAS SO"  77777

 

My check is in the mail....snail mail.  That is, I literally attached it to a snail and sent it on its way.  Just keep waiting.  Don't salt your driveway if you live in a cold climate!

 

clb

 

 

Now that was Hilarious!!!!!

 

 

"That is, I  literally attached it too a Snail.....    .....and sent it on its way 

 

 

Did you Glue it to him?   If not, I may have to contact PETA

 

Must have been a really small check 

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

Enoch2021 - Firefox did it........Thank You, Blessings!

 

 

GREAT!!!  Oh, I forgot to tell you.....$$$$$$$,  ???

 

Don't be like Connor and not pay for services rendered 

 

Send To:

 

Enoch2021

HIS WORD shall not Return to HIM VOID

PO Box 777

and "GOD SAID", "And It WAS SO"  77777

 

My check is in the mail....snail mail.  That is, I literally attached it to a snail and sent it on its way.  Just keep waiting.  Don't salt your driveway if you live in a cold climate!

 

clb

 

 

Now that was Hilarious!!!!!

 

 

"That is, I  literally attached it too a Snail.....    .....and sent it on its way 

 

 

Did you Glue it to him?   If not, I may have to contact PETA

 

Must have been a really small check 

 

I paid for what I learned--considering how far I have to go with the quoting mechanism even now, yeah, it was pretty small

 

glad you liked the joke.  It's refreshing when people who disagree with each other can at least laugh together, don't you think?

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

 

I paid for what I learned--considering how far I have to go with the quoting mechanism even now, yeah, it was pretty small

glad you liked the joke.  It's refreshing when people who disagree with each other can at least laugh together, don't you think?

 

clb

 

 

 

I agree generally speaking.

 

I lack many things but a sense of humor is not one of them 

 

It's hard to express it here, if I may use a one of your terms, in this "Genre".  It would have to fall well outside the main subject area (like this one) because of the seriousness of the subject matter..... and I think most would agree, its actually intuitive.

[a-seeker]

 

shiloh357, on 08 Mar 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

 

ConnorLiamBrown, on 08 Mar 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

 

 

That is ridiculous Shiloh.  It is either childish, or presumptuous to an alarming degree. 

 

 

 

No, it is not childish or presumptuous.  I have seen your "exegesis" first hand and frankly, it's not really exegesis at all.

 

I have had numerous professors from various schools confirm my skills. 

 

 

Whatever you say, lol

 

The point here is not that their opinion is right; but that, against theirs, yours is obviously not going to count for very much and only a man inflamed with pride would think otherwise. 

 

 

It's not a popularity contest. I know what proper exegesis looks like and the stuff you have presented, even the stuff that got deleted has shown me that you don't really don't understand it.  It's not childish of me to say so.  It is YOUR pride than can't handle being told that you're wrong.

 

 

 

Shiloh, Shiloh, Shiloh.  Is this one of those games where you need the last word before we can turn to actually interesting matters?  If so, just let me know and I will say, “You are better at throwing unnecessary jabs than I; God has gifted you in attacking people when you should be sticking to the subject at hand."  Otherwise, what was the point of these comments: what was the intended result?  What were the motives, Shiloh? I hear stuff like this “whatever you say, lol” from middle-school children all the time.  Why is it coming from the mouth of adults? How would the intellectual strength of a response suffer at all if these things were left out?!  Answer, it wouldn't.  It would probably even be stronger.  Certainly the conversation would be more dignified.

 

IN FACT, CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT THE POINT OF the above COMMENTS ARE?! 

 

I can think of only 3 motives:

 

1) to convince CLB (on Shiloh's authority) that he is not good at exegesis

2) to make me (=Shiloh) feel better about myself

3) to convince others (not by argument but by rhetorical jabs) that I am a true exegete and Connor is not.

 

Obviously 1) is ridiculous.  Let's concede the point that I think I am decent at exegesis but really am not, and that my teachers were either lying to me or are no better at exegesis.  Still, Shiloh remains a random guy on a random website--obviously against their  word his is going to amount to squat. Again, Shiloh would have to be a) presumptuous or b) stupid to really think I would accept his counsel.  I don't think he is stupid; he says it is not presumption.  

 

So is it 2 or 3 or both?  2 is most certainly childish.  3 is probably as well.

 

 

 

 

 

We are probably misunderstanding each other here.  I was in no way implying that “truth changes” or that the “meaning of the text” will change.  I am not a “post-modernist”.  I believe in absolute truth.  However, Genesis 1 - 2:4 does not read like an historical narrative, or at least like any I have ever read before: I hold that it belongs to a genre distinct from poetry (it is obviously NOT poetry--there are no parallelisms) and historical narrative (if it is historical narrative, it is of a most elevated kind; ts alliteration, its number-games, or the formulaic expressions--all these are unlike any other historical narrative we have in OT).

 

 

This only serves to make my point.  Competent scholarship does recognize the creation narrative as an historical narrative.  The Hebrew grammar precludes Genesis 1 from being anything other than a historical narrative.

 

In Genesis 1 the structure goes like this for example:   Conjuncntion (and or v') Verb (omeir) Subject (Elohim) Object (light). So that would read from Hebrew, "and said God, light be..." You see that grammatical construct all through the the account.   That is typical of a Hebrew historical narrative.   Not only that but every place where Genesis 1-3 is mentioned in the New Testament, all three chapters are treated as actual history.  Even Jesus considers it an historical narrative given that Jesus saw Adam and Eve as literal, historical people.   He basis His claims about marriage on Genesis 2. 

 

There is a symmetry to the account, but it that makes it no less a historical narrative than the Exodus from Egypt.

 

By "Competent" you mean = those who agree with me, and are Jesus believers......correct?  Let me ask, If the parables of Jesus were translated into Hebrew, would they also pass the historical narrative test, which is simply conjunction + verb + Subject + object?

 

 

 

 

 

Even if the language suggested completely different plants between the two narratives, that would still not alleviate the oddity that God created some plants without rainfall, but others requiring it: i.e. the plants and fruit trees on day 3 sprouting supernaturally (without rainfall or sunlight) then the bushes and herbs sprouting according to the agricultural laws with which we are all familiar.

 

 

Yes, but you are calling an oddity, I am saying is simply a supernatural event and God, being sovereign can do as He pleases.  As long as God is the explanation and given that He has all power to do so, it is not odd at all.   God is not bound to operate within the confines of what we deem scienticially possible.  It may be odd to YOU, but I see nothing odd about an all-powerful sovereign God doing as He pleases. 

 

 

I am saying that the 6day version paints a picture of a very inconsistent God which I find insulting to both the human and Divine author of Genesis and I will defend both.

 

Day 1: we have light without source--which is to say it isn't light.  The only other book where I find something like this described is Revelation, which is clearly not an historical narrative.

 

Day 3: creates most vegetation but not all, including fruit trees for man to eat

 

Day 6 creates beasts and then man and gives over to them the vegetation from day 3 to eat

 

2.5 occurs on day 6, we have lots of vegetation but not all, because some, God selected to require water.  Why the distinction?  Eh, He's God, He can do whatever He wants (can call this the exegetical God-of-the-Gaps).

 

Then God makes it rain, enabling these plants to grow (do the other plants from day 3 NOW require water?).

 

God creates man to cultivate the plants just now created

 

God makes more fruit trees for man to eat (those made on day 3 were not enough? Or man had a supernatural appetite at the start which depleted those resources?): these fruit trees require water at their inception, whereas those of day 3 did not, but perhaps now do.

 

God determines it is not good for man to be alone (we are then still on day 6).  6Dayers play a little with the grammar and have animals already created in accordance to Day 6.  However, it says God purposed to "make" (asah) a suitable helper, and then shows Him "making animals".  The grammar + the sequence is clear: animals were made after Adam but before Eve.  

 

Only a bias in favor of Genesis as a historical narrative would force me to accept such a choppy and inconsistent process of creation; I don't share that bias--nor am I greatly moved if the only sign of its being an historical narrative is a single grammatical construction, itself derived from a relatively small corpus of literature.  Exodus, Joshua, the Samuels, Kings etc. all demonstrate that construction, yet no one doubts their intended genre.  .  Why is Genesis 1 made an exception? 

Why?  Unbelief?  Absurd, "strange things are afoot" in all those books yet pious Christians accept them. The obvious answer is that there is more than grammatical constructions to determining a genre--to say that there is not is to impose one's own rules on the text. 

 

 

The simpler solution is that day 3 represents God as creating ALL vegetation, without pending creations.  At 2:5 the author has taken a few steps back (back in fact, to a point in time where day 3 and day 6 are fused, as it were, together), and is now looking at Creation from a different, and more narrow, perspective.  Since the main theme is now of man and his relation to the earth, it is no wonder we see a longer description of man’s creation (with dirt as his material cause) and types of vegetation that might preoccupy a farmer or a gardner.

 

 

That might be simpler, but that is not correct.  Simpler doesn't equate to "accurate."  

 

 

I will follow Occam's Razor in this: if an interpretation of Scripture answers more questions than raises, and shows the text to be consistent with itself as well as God with Himself, then I will put my money on that.

 

 

 

 

The text isn't stepping back into verse 3.  Chapter two is a focus on day six.

 

 

 

Correct, I never said the text was stepping back to verse three (My guess is you meant day 3?).  Nor is it stepping back to day 3.  Nor day 6.  It has brought day 3 and 6 together; since the author intended them to be read together thematically, but not chronologically.  It is perfectly legitimate for chapter 2 to be chronologically inconsistent with chapter 1 since chronology was not the intention of chapter 1.

 

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

I  can think of only 3 motives:

1) to convince CLB (on Shiloh's authority) that he is not good at exegesis

2) to make me (=Shiloh) feel better about myself

3) to convince others (not by argument but by rhetorical jabs) that I am a true exegete and Connor is not.

 

 

None of the above.   I just know bad exegesis when I see it.  I am just telling you the truth.  You belittle it as childish because of your pride.  You read into the text.  I don't.  It's as simple as that. I don't really care if you accept it or not.  The proof is in your posts.

 

By "Competent" you mean = those who agree with me, and are Jesus believers......correct?

 

 

Nope.  By "competent" I am talking about people who actually know and understand exegesis and exegete Scripture following the proper rules and do so from a motive of devotion to the truth of God's word and not from some fleshly ambition to support an agenda.  They are interested in truth for truth's sake.

 

 

Let me ask, If the parables of Jesus were translated into Hebrew, would they also pass the historical narrative test, which is simply conjunction + verb + Subject + object?

 

 

That's not the only criteria for a historical narrative.  Parables are a different genre and trying to treat them as historical would be bad exegesis. Treating historical narratives as parables is bad exegesis.  

 

Even if you found the same conjunction, verb, subject, object order in the parables, that, on its own, would not make the parables historical narratives. Historical narratives and parables serve two different purposes and in Genesis 1, the purpose is to answer the questions of who and why.  It answers the question pertaining to where we come from, our point of origin. 

 

Parables have a spiritual lesson to teach us and that lesson is laid out for us by the one giving the parable. A parable is not a historical event and Genesis 1 is clearly laid out as a historical event and is treated as historical by the writers of the NT.   If Genesis 1 is not literal history, then Jesus and the NT writers are liars.

 

 

I am saying that the 6day version paints a picture of a very inconsistent God which I find insulting to both the human and Divine author of Genesis and I will defend both.

 

 

Why would God present a picture of Himself that shows Him as inconsistent? 

 

Day 1: we have light without source--which is to say it isn't light.  The only other book where I find something like this described is Revelation, which is clearly not an historical narrative.

Day 3: creates most vegetation but not all, including fruit trees for man to eat

Day 6 creates beasts and then man and gives over to them the vegetation from day 3 to eat

2.5 occurs on day 6, we have lots of vegetation but not all, because some, God selected to require water.  Why the distinction?  Eh, He's God, He can do whatever He wants (can call this the exegetical God-of-the-Gaps).

Then God makes it rain, enabling these plants to grow (do the other plants from day 3 NOW require water?).

God creates man to cultivate the plants just now created

God makes more fruit trees for man to eat (those made on day 3 were not enough? Or man had a supernatural appetite at the start which depleted those resources?): these fruit trees require water at their inception, whereas those of day 3 did not, but perhaps now do.

God determines it is not good for man to be alone (we are then still on day 6).  6Dayers play a little with the grammar and have animals already created in accordance to Day 6.  However, it says God purposed to "make" (asah) a suitable helper, and then shows Him "making animals".  The grammar + the sequence is clear: animals were made after Adam but before Eve.  

 

 

 

1. On day one we find that God creates light. He is the source of that light.  It may very well be the light from His shekinah glory.  He speaks light into existence.  As the Scripture says, "the entrance of thy words bringeth light."

 

2.  All vegitation requires water, not just some.  However, God sustains the vegititation on day three.  So the "exegetical God of the gaps" nonsense doesn't apply here.  The words used for the vegitation on day three is not the same as mentioned Gen. 2 on day six.  Those are different words, and not generic  words used for a general reference of plant life.  Hebrew is very precise and you simply cannot discard it as an important detail in the story.  The distinction isn't clear in English, but it very clear in Hebrew.  Plants of the field in Hebrew is not the same as trees bearing fruit after their own kind.  

 

3. God didn't create more trees on day six.  God simply mentions that that the bushes and plants of field had not grown because there hadn't been any rain and because there was no man to work the ground.  God had provided man with he needed to start, but it was God's intention that man would take over the work of cultivating the ground and He put all of animals and vegitation under man's care.  God created everything functionally mature and all the materials man needed to start were immediately available including food.   I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

 

4. As for the animals, the animals were made before Adam on day six according to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.   It simply points back to God's act of creating the animals and simply says that God had (previously) formed the beasts of the field, the birds of the air and now He brought them to Adam to see what He would name them.   From there, He created Eve from Adam’s side.   It doesn’t say that God created man and then created the animals.  There are Hebrew scholars going back as far as Keil and Delitsch who bring up the fact that yatsar is easily and better understood as “had formed,”  or “had molded,” meaning that it is referring to the animals God previous made prior to the creation of man.  This is supported by more modern scholars like Norman Geisler and Victor Hamilton.    Geisler points to the fact that Genesis 1 is a chronological order of creation and Genesis 2 points to a topical order which is why the first half of the creation in chapter 1 appears so different from the second half of the creation account in Genesis 2.  The author’s purpose in chapter two is different and focuses on the events of the sixth day, albeit in a topical order.

 

Chapter 1 and chapter 2 are harmonious in every way.  Verse 19 of chapter 2 simply says that animals were formed and then brought to man to be named.  It is not giving an order of events.

 

 

 

Only a bias in favor of Genesis as a historical narrative would force me to accept such a choppy and inconsistent process of creation; I don't share that bias--nor am I greatly moved if the only sign of its being an historical narrative is a single grammatical construction, itself derived from a relatively small corpus of literature.

This is why your “exegesis” should not be taken seriously.   There is nothing choppy or inconsistent at all.   God is not bound by some set of rules an arrogant little man says He has to follow in order to be “consistent” in anyone’s eyes.  God is not limited to the logical box you seek to put Him in.   My assessment of your poor exegetical skills is more than warranted.

 

 

 

Exodus, Joshua, the Samuels, Kings etc. all demonstrate that construction, yet no one doubts their intended genre.  .  Why is Genesis 1 made an exception? 

Why?  Unbelief?  Absurd, "strange things are afoot" in all those books yet pious Christians accept them. The obvious answer is that there is more than grammatical constructions to determining a genre--to say that there is not is to impose one's own rules on the text. 

 

Who doubts their “intended genre?”  There is no part of Genesis that is any less historical than Exodus or Kings or any other historical narrative.  I am not, for my part,  making Genesis 1 an exception.   The one imposing his own rules on the text is you.   No one said that grammatical construction is the only factor in determining genre, but it is an important factor. 

 

 

I will follow Occam's Razor in this: if an interpretation of Scripture answers more questions than raises, and shows the text to be consistent with itself as well as God with Himself, then I will put my money on that.

 

 

The questions you think it raises stem from your own misunderstanding and misreading of what the text is saying.    I will put my money on the truth of the word of God and competent, intelligent exegesis and not  the hermeneutic trainwreck you are subscribing to.

Correct, I never said the text was stepping back to verse three (My guess is you meant day 3?).  Nor is it stepping back to day 3.  Nor day 6.  It has brought day 3 and 6 together; since the author intended them to be read together thematically, but not chronologically.  It is perfectly legitimate for chapter 2 to be chronologically inconsistent with chapter 1 since chronology was not the intention of chapter 1.

 

 

It's nothing of the sort.  There is no chronological inconsistency between them.  To say that Genesis 1 is not chronlogial is why your exegesis is so laughable on even the most basic level.   The ongoing repitition of vav consecutives that occur throughout Genesis 1 demonstrate it is chronological.  To make such a basic error in exegesis shows why I simply cannot you seriously when it comes to exegesis or hermeneutics. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

[a-seeker]

I  can think of only 3 motives:

1) to convince CLB (on Shiloh's authority) that he is not good at exegesis

2) to make me (=Shiloh) feel better about myself

3) to convince others (not by argument but by rhetorical jabs) that I am a true exegete and Connor is not.

 

 

None of the above.   I just know bad exegesis when I see it.  I am just telling you the truth.  You belittle it as childish because of your pride.  You read into the text.  I don't.  It's as simple as that. I don't really care if you accept it or not.  The proof is in your posts.

 

 

Then let the posts speak for themselves.   It’s a waste of my time going through the comebacks of 13-year olds: I am sorry, but that is exactly what they are.  “Whatever, lol.”  What adult says things like that?  I ask you to stop, not out of pride, but because I don’t want to be tempted into stooping so low, that is all.  To prove that it is not pride I offer this confession.  The bulk of my training was in Greek, not Hebrew.  I have enjoyed these debates because it has greatly exercised my Hebrew.  You are clearly better at Hebrew than I and, at least in that regard, have taught me much.  Thank you, sincerely. Henceforward you can regard all questions concerning the Hebrew as honest questions.  Now, is that humble enough for you to drop the accusation of pride?  I am guilty of many things, but pride (not in the Augustinian sense, of which everyone is guilty) is not one of them.

 

 

By "Competent" you mean = those who agree with me, and are Jesus believers......correct?

 

 

Nope.  By "competent" I am talking about people who actually know and understand exegesis and exegete Scripture following the proper rules and do so from a motive of devotion to the truth of God's word and not from some fleshly ambition to support an agenda.  They are interested in truth for truth's sake.

 

 

 

So a person can be competent and not believe Genesis 1 is historical narrative?  I am confused here as to how you define competent.

 

 

Let me ask, If the parables of Jesus were translated into Hebrew, would they also pass the historical narrative test, which is simply conjunction + verb + Subject + object?

 

 

That's not the only criteria for a historical narrative.  Parables are a different genre and trying to treat them as historical would be bad exegesis. Treating historical narratives as parables is bad exegesis.  

 

Even if you found the same conjunction, verb, subject, object order in the parables, that, on its own, would not make the parables historical narratives. Historical narratives and parables serve two different purposes and in Genesis 1, the purpose is to answer the questions of who and why.  It answers the question pertaining to where we come from, our point of origin. 

 

Parables have a spiritual lesson to teach us and that lesson is laid out for us by the one giving the parable. A parable is not a historical event and Genesis 1 is clearly laid out as a historical event and is treated as historical by the writers of the NT.   If Genesis 1 is not literal history, then Jesus and the NT writers are liars.

 

 

So there is more to establishing an historical narrative than grammar...thank you.  (Oh, I am not implying that Genesis 1 is a parable: I don’t think it is, never did, probably never will).

 

I am saying that the 6day version paints a picture of a very inconsistent God which I find insulting to both the human and Divine author of Genesis and I will defend both.

 

 

Why would God present a picture of Himself that shows Him as inconsistent? 

 

 

He wouldn't.

 

 

1. On day one we find that God creates light. He is the source of that light.  It may very well be the light from His shekinah glory.  He speaks light into existence.  As the Scripture says, "the entrance of thy words bringeth light."

 

 

Never thought of that.  Would you mind listing all the places where the Shekinah glory is alluded to (I know the word doesn’t appear except outside the Bible) so that I can study that a little more.

 

2.  All vegitation requires water, not just some.  However, God sustains the vegititation on day three.  So the "exegetical God of the gaps" nonsense doesn't apply here.  The words used for the vegitation on day three is not the same as mentioned Gen. 2 on day six.  Those are different words, and not generic  words used for a general reference of plant life.  Hebrew is very precise and you simply cannot discard it as an important detail in the story.  The distinction isn't clear in English, but it very clear in Hebrew.  Plants of the field in Hebrew is not the same as trees bearing fruit after their own kind.  

 

 

My lexicon does not show these to be indisputably distinct classes of vegetation.  I went online but, unfortunately, every site that suggests such is pushing for a 6day.  That doesn’t mean they’re wrong; but for someone like me it is conspicuous.   Are there any “neutral” lexicons you know of that demonstrate these are indisputably distinct classes of vegetation? after all there is no single word for plant-yielding-seed?

 

 

Now, granting they are distinct classes of vegetation, we would have this: on day 3 we have vegetation, which is either intended as a broad description of what follows, or is its own thing (grass is one of the suggestions of my lexicon); there are plants of the land, but specifically those which have their seed in them; and we have fruit trees (with seeds in them—slightly redundant by modern standards).

 

After 2.5 we see bushes and plants of the field.  Now, regarding the latter, according to you, from the Hebrew it is clear that these do not have seeds (so ferns and other plants that produce by spores) and this specifically excludes plants that possess seeds—these were already created on day 3. Lexically speaking, if I were to look at the Hebrew phrase translated “Plants of the field” elsewhere in Scripture it would clearly exclude every single plant that reproduces by seed and is edible?  Correct?  This phrase EVERYWHERE means seedless non-edible vegetation.

 

We also have newer fruit trees that sprout up in the garden, including the two conspicuous trees.  Is that correct?  Or were these fruit trees, including the TWO, created and matured on day 3 (though the two are not mentioned), so that the better translation is “had already caused to sprout up” and then God planted a garden around them? 

 

3. God didn't create more trees on day six.  God simply mentions that that the bushes and plants of field had not grown because there hadn't been any rain and because there was no man to work the ground.  God had provided man with he needed to start, but it was God's intention that man would take over the work of cultivating the ground and He put all of animals and vegitation under man's care.  God created everything functionally mature and all the materials man needed to start were immediately available including food.   I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

 

 

 

Apologies—I used “create” rather loosely, instead he “causes to sprout” (see above).  So, is this an accurate description of the chronology from Day 3 to just prior to the creation of Eve?  I really am just trying to get the sequence absolutely precise.

 

1. On day 3 we are explicitly told that certain forms of vegetation were permitted to grow to maturity, implicitly without water (no sun): some form of vegetation (deshe; although this may be a generic term for everything that follows) and plants yielding seed, fruit-trees yielding seed, as well as green plants (1:30 if distinct).  Nothing of shrubs or plants of the field (not yielding seed?) is mentioned as being created only in inchoate form (seeds requiring germination).  On day 3 we have only edibles allowed to grow to maturity; no non-edibles, including trees like the cedar tree.  Correct?
2. On Day 6 God gives over to man all the vegetables that are fully mature for eating: we are still awaiting non-edibles.  Correct?
3. At 2.4 we rewind a bit and look again at day 6.
4. By day 6, at 2.5, we learn it has still not rained.  Therefore some plants have yet to germinate: shrubs, plants of the field, and other fruit trees excepting those which God matured on day 3.  Correct?
5. It rains and man is formed, thereby enabling some further agricultural developments.
6. God then plants a garden (which presumably required rain and therefore could not be planted on day 3).  In this garden he causes to spring up more fruit trees, fruit trees created on day 3 but not allowed to spring up until now, most of which man is now allowed to eat (not the two trees), so that at 2.5 there were already fruit trees which man could eat; but now God sprouted more fruit trees, extended the permission of 1.30 to include these as well, but laid down a prohibition regarding two of them.

 

Overall, have I got it right?  Really, I am just trying to get the sequence right in my head.

 

Oh, curious, to which of these very specific classes of vegetation mentioned in Genesis would a Cedar tree belong to, or other trees that yield no fruit—obviously not trees yielding fruit, right?

 

 

Sorry, lot's of questions (but then these were the sorts of questions I wanted to ask one-on-one, which you declined as "a waste of your time".

 

clb

Edited March 11, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[a-seeker]

Continued from recent post

 

 

4. As for the animals, the animals were made before Adam on day six according to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.   It simply points back to God's act of creating the animals and simply says that God had (previously) formed the beasts of the field, the birds of the air and now He brought them to Adam to see what He would name them.   From there, He created Eve from Adam’s side.   It doesn’t say that God created man and then created the animals.  There are Hebrew scholars going back as far as Keil and Delitsch who bring up the fact that yatsar is easily and better understood as “had formed,”  or “had molded,” meaning that it is referring to the animals God previous made prior to the creation of man.  This is supported by more modern scholars like Norman Geisler and Victor Hamilton.    Geisler points to the fact that Genesis 1 is a chronological order of creation and Genesis 2 points to a topical order which is why the first half of the creation in chapter 1 appears so different from the second half of the creation account in Genesis 2.  The author’s purpose in chapter two is different and focuses on the events of the sixth day, albeit in a topical order.

 

Chapter 1 and chapter 2 are harmonious in every way.  Verse 19 of chapter 2 simply says that animals were formed and then brought to man to be named.  It is not giving an order of events.

 

 

Hmmm.  Correct me if I am wrong (and by more than saying “you are wrong”) but the naming of the animals and the process of finding a suitable mate appear to be clearly linked.  Without Genesis 1 wouldn't a person be advised to read 2.18 in this order?:

1)    In 2.18 God purposes to make (asah) a suitable helper for Adam (“make” indicates something “not made”).

2)    He forms (not make, but then neither is the verb used of woman’s creation, so we have something being formed that wasn't) animals and presents them to Adam

3)    During the naming process (naming and “function” or “identity” I am told were intertwined in the ancient mind) it is realized that “for Adam there was not found a suitable helper fit for him”

4)    Then God makes (or rather “builds” or “fashions”) Woman

5)    This is a suitable helper, indicated by the name Adam gives her when she is presented to him.

Geisler points to the fact that Genesis 1 is a chronological order of creation and Genesis 2 points to a topical order which is why the first half of the creation in chapter 1 appears so different from the second half of the creation account in Genesis 2.  The author’s purpose in chapter two is different and focuses on the events of the sixth day, albeit in a topical order.

 

 

Does chapter 2 follow the same grammatical construction of (vav + verb + subject + object) which would render it also a historical narrative—could it be historical and topical?  What do you/they mean by topical?

 

Also, before reading the scholars above, tell me this, is one of the pieces of evidence for the meaning of yatsar the chronological consistency which it secures?  That is, is it “better understood” on grammatical grounds, or on chronological grounds (i.e. for the purpose of reconciling day 6 with chapter 2)?

 

For instance: when I read 2:8 I find yatsar in the Qal; in English it is translated as “had formed”, but then in the Hebrew it is preceded by a relative pronoun (אֲשֶׁר  ) which makes the translation very sensible: it is not, God put the man “whom he is now forming in this narrative” but “….man whom (rel pron) he formed (i.e. a process already completed).  But when I get to 2.19 I find Yatsar also in the Qal, but not preceded by anything but a vav.   Elsewhere in Genesis this construction (vav + verb in Qal+ Subject + object) denotes something being done “right there and then”.  In fact, 2.7 and 2.19 are the same grammatical construction, both involving the verb yatsar in the Qal.

 

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים (Gen 2:7 WTT)

וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים

 

The question for anyone will arise: Why should 2:7, on grammatical grounds, not be translated “and then the Lord God had  already formed man…”?

Or, conversely, why should 2.19, on grammatical grounds, not be “then the Lord God formed (something not already formed)…”?

 

By grammatical I mean without reference to context; if all we had were this one sentence what would be the most intelligent way to translate it?

 

These are honest questions.

 

Only a bias in favor of Genesis as a historical narrative would force me to accept such a choppy and inconsistent process of creation; I don't share that bias--nor am I greatly moved if the only sign of its being an historical narrative is a single grammatical construction, itself derived from a relatively small corpus of literature.

 

This is why your “exegesis” should not be taken seriously.   There is nothing choppy or inconsistent at all.   God is not bound by some set of rules an arrogant little man says He has to follow in order to be “consistent” in anyone’s eyes.  God is not limited to the logical box you seek to put Him in.   My assessment of your poor exegetical skills is more than warranted.

 

 

In my opinion I haven’t attempted any exegesis at all on this site.  The deleted posts were a summary of the “results” of exegesis (chiefly from John H. Walton—a lover of Jesus (unless you dismiss Biblical scholars at Wheaton College as apostates), and G.K. Beale, also a lover of Jesus; and J.D. Levenson—not sure about him, but, if I recall, he was countering some conclusions that arose from advocates of DH---he may not have opposed the DH itself, however). 

 

Oh, I’m six foot—I wouldn’t say that is “little”; but that is relative.  And arrogance is something I have rarely been accused of.  If you would like a list of my vices, declared by others and self-acknowledged, I’ll send you a PM.

 

Exodus, Joshua, the Samuels, Kings etc. all demonstrate that construction, yet no one doubts their intended genre.  .  Why is Genesis 1 made an exception? 

 

Why?  Unbelief?  Absurd, "strange things are afoot" in all those books yet pious Christians accept them. The obvious answer is that there is more than grammatical constructions to determining a genre--to say that there is not is to impose one's own rules on the text. 

 

Who doubts their “intended genre?”  There is no part of Genesis that is any less historical than Exodus or Kings or any other historical narrative.  I am not, for my part,  making Genesis 1 an exception.   The one imposing his own rules on the text is you.   No one said that grammatical construction is the only factor in determining genre, but it is an important factor. 

 

 

Who doubts “their” intended genre?  No one, that was my point.  Or do you mean “its genre” meaning Genesis 1?  Obviously numerous people including scholars, lovers of Jesus and not, do not assign it to the same genre as Joshua.

 

.  

The ongoing repitition of vav consecutives that occur throughout Genesis 1 demonstrate it is chronological.  To make such a basic error in exegesis shows why I simply cannot you seriously when it comes to exegesis or hermeneutics. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

For the Chronological inconsistencies: see above: the questions of plants still remains; as does the order in which the animals are created.

 

Again, you said above there was more to an historical narrative than the waw consecutive; here you make that the sole criterion.  Which is it?  Theoretically speaking, if I claimed every book recognized as historical narrative were…I don’t know…allegory…how would you respond?  Obviously you cannot appeal to the grammatical construction, since that is common to all of them.  You would have to appeal to other elements (as you did above when differentiating a parable from history).  If some of Aesop’s fables were translated into Hebrew, they too would probably follow the same construction (any "plot" would)—how would we know that they were not intended as history—because tortoises and hares do not have races? Neither do snakes speak; nor plants grow at an accelerated rate--not even by miracle in the experience of any Israelite.

 

It seems that the bulwark of 6dayers is the waw consecutive: this certainly eliminates it as poetry or proverb or law.  But that is its negative function (what it is not); how do I ascertain its positive function (what it is)?

 

Again, I appreciate your knowledge of Hebrew.  Perhaps through all this I too will come to regard Genesis 1 as meant to be the same as Joshua in genre.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

Did it ever occur to you that Genesis 1 could contain both a moral and a historical truth(s)?

It contains theological and historical truths.  I have no problem with that.  But that is not what you are arguing.  You are arguing that it isn't historical. You  are arguing that it is a parable.

 

"God made the world (historical) and saw that it was good (moral)" -- then came the fall of man.

How difficult is that?

 

Because none of that of is "moral" truth.  Both are historical.  That God say it was good doesn't establish a moral standard.  it simply means that God liked what He saw.  You are straining to force a moral truth that doesn't exist.

 

And IMO means "In My Opinion" -- so who gave YOU the "right" to tell me or anyone else here that I can't have one about Genesis? Unlike you, I am not peddling my own personal views as dogma that everyone must accept.

The problem is that you are claiming it is parable.  That takes this out of the realm of opinion.  You are making a textual argument and a textual argument is or should be based on fcct.  You have a right ot your own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts.   Your opinion that this is a parable is a wrong opinion and it demonstratably wrong.  

 

You took this out of the realm of opinion when you tried to make textual argumnets and you are making textual claims that you can't support with facts.  In the face of that, your opinion is meaningless and should be rejected by anyone who is familiar with textual analysis.  You don't have the right, on a textual or factual basis to claim Genesis is a parable.  Simple as that. 

 

You eventually turn every discussion on these forums into your own personal inquisition and frankly I am sick of it!

 

And I am sick of the way you mock the Bible with your false teaching and the way you equate Genesis 1-3 with fairytales.  I am here to make sure no one is led astray by the real fairytales and false teachings contained in posts that deny the historicity of Genesis 1-3

 

 

I do not see OldSchool equating Genesis with fairytales.  He simply sees parallels between inspired Scripture and pagan literature.  He supposes the pagan literature was "gutted" (his words) and reconstructed to teach real theology. If the offense is that Scripture is responding to error, then this misses the actual process by which good doctrine was formulated.  All of the doctrines of the Church were formulated as reactions to heresy.  Put baldly: someone said something that other people had a problem with; they thought more and more about it; then they realized "No, this is not right".  So they defined what was right; and behold a doctrine was established.  OldSchool (correct me if I am wrong OS) is describing a similar process--the author of Genesis (inspired) and its original recipients were raised in a culture in which various "myths" were spread and accepted (Cf. the mass of Hebrews/Israelites are depicted pretty much as pagans throughout the O.T. from the calf at Sinai to the institution of Baal almost as the national god of Israel.  It was idolatry (along with concomitant injustice) that led to the two exiles).

 

 Via the revelation of God Moses (or, I think OS would allow, its other contributors, also absolutely inspired) realized wherein the lie of these myths hid.  He (they) took existing material (containing bad theology)  and edited it to teach the Hebrews/Israelites real theology: i.e. who actually created the world; what the world is actually for; the character of this God; what he expects of humanity etc..  You may disagree as to the process of Scripture's formulation; but what is blasphemous about this?  My guess is you will say it makes Jesus and God liars....if this is your response, could you explain a little more?  So far all I've seen from you is Jesus' quote of Genesis regarding marriage and Scripture's reference to the Pentateuch as "the book of the law of Moses".  Would you mind expounding a bit?

 

 

clb

Edited March 11, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[a-seeker]

Here is I believe a summary of the situation in this thread.  Both 6dayers (by which I mean those who claim Genesis 1-3 is an historical narrative teaching a literal 6 24 hour process) and those who believe the 6 days were a literary device have obstacles before them.  The latter must reckon with the Waw consecutive—a grammatical device which outside of Genesis (and a few psalms; and in Job if Job is not to be taken as history) is always used to convey history.  It is also claimed that the New Testament as a whole regards Genesis as an historical narrative, and so to depart from their reading is to declare them wrong or liars.

 

6dayers must reckon with the chronological inconsistency between chapter 1 and 2:4 onward.  In general we have day 3 recording the creation of vegetation and without water.  But after 2.4 we learn that vegetation requires water.  Secondly, we have man being created before the fruit trees of Eden, when fruit trees are specifically said to have been created on day 3.  Thirdly, we see animals being created after Adam but before Eve as opposed to before both as the 6^th day has it. I begin with the problems that beset 6dayers.

 

Here is the sequence of events starting with day 3 according to 6dayers and the problems that arise, their counters, and my counter.

On day 3 God commands a variety of vegetation, including plants that yield seed and fruit trees that also have seeds in them, to sprout up.  These are maintained supernaturally (without sunlight or water) whereas those of 2.5 require water.  The claim here is that the plants of day 3 belong to a very distinct class, separate from the Hebrew terms which appear after 2.4 (bushes and “plants of the field”).  The key word here is “seed”; since that word does not appear after 2.4 then there we are dealing with seedless plants and bushes and on day 3 we are dealing with only plants that have seeds and are edible (since they are given over to man and animal to eat).  God created both species on day 3 but only allowed the some to grow to full maturity without water on day 3—the rest were pending.  A few difficulties should be noted.

 

Problems:

It is assumed that the term “seed” when used of plants specifies only vegetation with seeds—but this would mean that the Hebrew language had a clear distinction between plants that reproduced by pollen or spores and plants that reproduce by what we would technically call seeds.  Yet we have no word (that I know of) in the Bible that specifies either pollen or spores.  Indeed, the term for “seed” (zera) is generic enough to include even the human reproductive particle.  It would seem that “seed” cannot bear the specificity being laid upon it by 6dayers.  The text is merely focusing on the reproductive capability of all vegetation.  This is consistent with a major theme in Genesis 1, that of populating the earth (a command given to birds, fish, beasts and man.  Why is it not given to vegetation?  I think the author saw the clear distinction between sentient life and not, and would not have God talking to trees).

 

It is claimed by some (I am not sure if all 6dayers would hold this) that the “plants of the field” at 2.5 are not only seedless but also inedible.   Yet in 3.18 we are told that man must “eat the plants of the field”.  The same phrase used to describe the inedible plants in 2.5.  That certainly would be a harsh punishment; but man would not live very long on poison ivy.

 

Again, the phrase “plants of the field” which is supposed to refer only to seedless plants are destroyed by hail in Exodus chapter 9 we see hail obliterating every “plant of the field”.  There is no mention of “plants yielding seed”.  Should we not conclude that either the hail was very selective, or that “plant of the field” simply means “plants” seedless or not?

 

Current Conclusion:  Day 3 is incompatible with 2.5.  They are either contradictory accounts of history or one of them is not meant to be read chronologically in line with the other.

 

We move on to chapter 2.  2.4 announces (by inverting the phrase “heavens and earth” to “earth and heavens”) a different perspective.  6dayers claim we have now backtracked a bit to focus closer on day 6.  Thus everything that follows should be chronologically consistent.

However, it should be noticed that the introduction at 2.4 says, “in the day that the Lord God made…”.  That is, it seems as if the author now assumes creation took place in a single day.

 

The counter to this is that the Hebrew construct which translates “in the day” often can mean merely “when”, thus, this case, including all 6 days previous.  This to me is slightly deceptive.  Of course it can be translated “when”.  Anything that happens on a single day can be described as “when”:  “And Abraham made a great feast on the day Isaac was weaned” obviously can read “…made a great feast when Isaac was weaned”.  The real question is, when does this construct obviously include more than a single day? i.e. “IN the day Clinton was President we had economic stability”—this obviously is not referring to a single day.  I have made it up to Exodus and have yet to find a single occurrence in which the construct covers more than a literal day.

 

Conclusion:  None, except to say it seems as if the author does not care to maintain that creation took place over 6 days.  But this is not a hill for me to die on.

 

We move on to man’s creation.  At 2.7 man is formed, after which we are told that fruit trees are caused to grow—according to 6dayers this would mean that God, besides those fruit trees which He allowed to grow to full maturity on day 3, had also planted seeds which required water and would not sprout until day 6.  The same divine permission given in 1.30 is extended to these trees, excepting the two prohibited.

 

Problems:

There is no mention on day 3 of pending growth.  The Lord called it “good”, giving a sense of completion.

Man already had enough to eat; why another supernatural act of creation producing “more fruit trees”?  It might be claimed that God is not creating here; however a comparison between the verb “caused to grow” in 2.9 with “let the earth sprout” in 1.11 suggests that the same supernatural activity of creation is occurring.

 

And now the chief problem: At 2.18 we see this sequence: God declares it is not good for man to be alone; God forms animals; God presents them to Adam for naming; no suitable helper is found; God creates (fashions) Eve.

 

 

Problem

 

Obviously this sequence differs from that given on day 6—animals do not come into the story between the appearance of man and woman.

The counter to this is supposedly grammatical:  it is claimed that the verb translated “formed” in 2.19 should be rendered “had formed”.  In other words, they were already made. This however is difficult to maintain on grammatical grounds, as well as on grounds of the overall sweep of the narrative—the logical sequence, we might call it.

 

Grammatical: there is no reason to translate the Hebrew “yatsar” “had formed” except to force this account into chronological congruence with the former.  The sentence of 2.19 follows the same pattern as all of the “waw consecutives” that show up from 1.3 onward.  Everywhere else the “waw consecutive’ is translated as something there being done.  Indeed, the very same verb in the very same form (Qal) appears in 2.7 “then the Lord God formed (yatsar in Qal) man”.  Look at the Hebrew and you will see that construction, from verb to subject, is identical.

 

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים (Gen 2:7 WTT)

וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים

 

Sequential: to say that God had already formed animals disturbs the obvious logic of the narrative:

1.       God sees that it is not good for man to be alone.

2.       God purposes to make (asah) a suitable partner—this implies that such is not yet made.

3.       We then see God forming out of the ground beasts.  Remember, this is the same grammatical construction used in 2.19 when Adam is obviously being formed for the first time.

4.       Adam names these beasts but cannot find a suitable partner.

5.       So then, Eve is made (or fashioned or built in Hebrew).

 

To propose that 3 has God presenting beasts already made 3 days ago obviously interrupts the sequence: God purposes to make something not yet made; and then puts that project on hold to present animals for naming.  Then, sure enough, just as was suspected, the animals are not fit!  The interruption is jarring.

 

Current Conclusion:  Genesis 2.4 onward is chronologically incompatible with Genesis 1.  The author either doesn’t have his facts right, or the two texts are not meant to be read in chronological order.

 

Any corrections before I address the obstacles that face the other side?  I have done my best to get the sequence down.  Nor do I claim to be very skilled in Hebrew.  So if I missed something please let me know.  This is about seeking truth, not winning an argument.

 

clb

[Sheniy]

Here is I believe a summary of the situation in this thread.  Both 6dayers (by which I mean those who claim Genesis 1-3 is an historical narrative teaching a literal 6 24 hour process) and those who believe the 6 days were a literary device have obstacles before them.  The latter must reckon with the Waw consecutive—a grammatical device which outside of Genesis (and a few psalms; and in Job if Job is not to be taken as history)

(snip for length)

  I...uh...what?!  The book of Job isn't history?

 

...Seriously?  I always just assumed...

 

 

  I have a question, though.  What you seem to be saying (and I don't disagree), is that Moses told the Israelites "the story of where we come from", aka Genesis, using a bit of creative license to teach theology as well.  Isn't that sort of the same as an historical narrative?  Isn't an historical narrative just a story of historical events?  He was saying, "hey, guys!  You know those vast, impressive temples for those other gods?  Well, our God gets a capital G, and HIS temple is the whole freaking world!  He totally PWNS!"  (In my example, Moses uses internet slang.  I...read too many web comics...) 

 

Anyway, he was less concerned with specific details and more with getting the point across.  It can still be historical (i.e. God made everything, Adam is a real person, etc). It can still be the seedbed of christian theology, the foundation of the truths that we live by, but it is a story.

 

 I've heard other people say that Christianity copied pagan religions, and some of it really is nonsense. But...maybe there are some similarities (divinely inspired!) in order for us to bring the Gospel to the people in those religions.  Why not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Side note:

   Moses using the pagan culture at the time to make a point is similar IMHO to Paul doing the same with the Unknown God in Athens (Acts 17).  In verse 23 he says "I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship".  He studied their religion to find a way to share the Gospel with them.  Instead of pointing to the false idols, saying, "Y'all are just plain wrong," he starts with what they know and believe, and he works from there.

 

 

In the atheistic worldview, they've reluctantly accepted that the universe had a beginning with the big bang, but they can't explain how it started or why.  (we can!)  Some are reluctantly conceding that life on this planet couldn't have started accidentally.  There must have been an intelligent hand in there somewhere.  Their answer?  Probably aliens. 

So...instead of telling them how and why they are wrong, why can't we do as Paul did and say, "Hey, you know that unknown intelligence you're looking for?  Let me tell you about Him."

 

Just a thought.