From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat Oct 11 2003 - 10:39:43 EDT
allenroy wrote:
> George Murphy wrote:
> The order of creation of living things
> (plants, non-human animals,
> humans, male & female humans in one case & male human,
> plants, non-human animals, female
> human in the other) is one indication of that.
>
> Allen, I know that your inclination right now is to
> disagree with my last 2
> statements & argue that the accounts can be harmonized. But
> please try to resist that
> inclination & suspend disbelief for a bit. If you don't,
> you won't be able to
> appreciate the argument I'm presenting.
>
> Since these texts are true, they can't both be
> accounts of historical events.
> & that being the case, it might be that neither is an
> account of historical events. We
> have reached that conclusion from study of the texts
> themselves, from evidence internal
> to scripture.
>
> I suppose it depends upon which translation of the Bible you choose to
> read. For instance, the NIV reads:
Of course you are not required to accede to my request to "suspend disbelief"
temporarily, but you haven't, & that makes me wonder if it's even been worthwhile to
present the argument. What you have done is move immediately to "harmonizing" Gen.1 &
2, with the rather tendentious perfect tenses of NIV as support.
To all your comments in brackets below I (or any other critical reader) would
ask, "How do you know this?" To say that 2:4b is "a reference to the Creation Week"
assumes at the outset that the 2 accounts are to be harmonized as historical narratives
- which is the point in question. & to say that various things are "post-sin
developments" is just assertion with no support in the text.
You may say that your harmonizing approach is a possible interpretation. Of
course it is. But it is an interpretation which you bring to the texts, not one that
arises naturally from reading them.
On the NIV's perfect tenses ("had planted" &c.): Rendering of Hebrew verbs into
Indo-European tenses can be tricky because of course Hebrew doesn't have tenses in that
sense. But I see no justification for translating /wayita`/ &c as perfects rather than
as simple pasts. I yield to anybody on the list like Paul Seely who's more of a
Hebraist than I on this.
However, it is worth noting that no English translation I know of other than NIV
supports its translation. Of course I do not believe (as you suggest below) that KJV is
"the only version to use." KJV, RSV, NRSV, TE, NEB, Goodspeed, Moffat & Beck - as well
as the commentaries of von Rad, Westermann & Speiser, all render the Hebrew verbs as
simple pasts, indicating an order of creation in Chapter 2 just as I said.
You can call this "an appeal to authority" as you do below but what is really
happening is that you're appealing to the one authority you've found - NIV - that
translates the way you want it to be for your harmonization.
>
> Gen 2:4b [NIV]
> When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- [a reference to the
> Creation Week]
>
> (vs. 5
> 1. and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth
> [a post-sin development]
> 2. and no plant of the field had yet sprung up [a post-sin
> development]
> 3. for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [a
> post-sin development]
> 4. and there was no man to work the ground, [a post-sin
> development]
>
> vs 6,
> but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole
> surface of the ground -- [as originally created])
>
> vs.7
> -- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and
> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
> living being. [during the Creation Week of verse 4b.]
>
> vs. 8
> Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; [a
> reference to what had already been done during the Creation Week] and
> there he put the man he had formed.
>
> vs. 19
> Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the
> field and all the birds of the air. [a reference to the origin of
> beasts of the field and birds during the Creation Week] He brought
> them to the man to see what he would name them;
>
> vs. 20
> But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused
> the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took
> one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the
> LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he
> brought her to the man.
>
> So. the events of Chapter 2 are:
>
> 1. Adam created and put into the previously made garden.
> 2. Adam names those previously made animals that were brought to him
> by God [not every animal that had been created].
> 3. Eve is made from Adam rib.
>
> The related events found in Chapter 1 are:
>
> 1. Garden Created on Day 3.
> 2. Birds made on Day 5
> 3. Land animals made on Day 6
> 4. Adam and Eve made on Day 6
>
> Items 1 to 3 were all created previous to the creation of Adam and
> Eve. So, what's the problem.
The "problem" is simply that you've shoehorned the story of Chapter 2 into the
framework of Chapter 1 because of your a priori assumptions about the characters of
these accounts - & thereby do violence to both texts. In spite of your talk about
getting your interpretation from the Bible, you are simply imposing a traditional
interpretation on the Bible.
> All Chapter 2 does is tell us in more
> detail what happened on Day 6. [And there is a hint of what is to
> come after sin]
>
> Of course, if you believe that the KJV is the only version to use,
> then we have other issues to deal with. And just because some Bible
> scholars argue that "had been" is not a proper translation, so what,
> there are plenty of other just as competent scholars who say it is.
> [That argument simply degenerates into appeals to authority.]
> Further, the context of Genesis 1 and 2 together calls for the use of
> "had been" because it resolves all apparent conflicts.
>
> [please note, this is not MY invention or interpretation, but I like
> it. :) ]
Of course you like it! It supports your preconceptions!
> You said:
> "The internal evidence (comparison of Gen. 1 & 2) has
> already given us some reason to believe that the Bible
> doesn't have to be interpreted in a way that requires YE."
>
> I don't see that a comparison of Gen 1 and 2 calls for any other
> reason than to take the Creation Week as 7 rotations of planet earth.
> [Of course I believe that "the beginning" of Gen 1:1 was an event long
> before the Creation Week that begins with vs. 2. See why below.]
>
> You said:
> External evidence - from science - points to OE. [i.e.
> radioisotope abundances]
>
> Since I already believe in an OU, radioisotope abundancies are not an
> issue with me. [more below]
>
> You said:
> Therefore interpreting both Genesis and the scientific data
> in a way consistent with OE is the best choice.
>
> The way I see it, Genesis is consistent with 1) an Old Universe with
> radioisotope abundancies [not to mention vast distances] and 2) a
> Creation Week of 7 planet rotations dealing with planet Earth. I
> don't see that an Old Earth (meaning life on the planet is old as the
> universe is old) has any support.
>
> Note that this does not mean giving science based on
> MN a magisterial role in
> theology. OTOH, we have to recognize that we haven't
> reached the conclusion that the
> earth is old simply from studying scripture. That study may
> open the possibility, but
> it is only the study of the world itself that tells us that
> that's the best option.
>
> My conclusion that Gen. 1:1 refers to the universe and not the
> Creation Week is based on a literary structure noticed first by
> Wiseman that implies that Moses edited about 11 old manuscripts into
> the one account of Genesis. That structure, still found throughout
> Genesis, consists of 1) a genealogy, 2) a narration, and 3) a
> colophon. As seen in Genesis 1:1-2:4a we have 1) 1:1, genealogy; 2)
> 1:2-2:3, narration; and 3) 2:4a, colophon. Thus 1:1 is a distinct
> event from and antecedent to the narration given in 1:2-2:3. [We
> could look at the other 11 sections of Genesis that have this same
> literary structure sometime if you want.]
>
> How long of an interval is there between 1:1 and 1:2-2:3? It is
> possible to put into this time interval the creation of the angels,
> including Lucifer, the fall of Lucifer, and the resulting war in
> Heaven by which Lucifer was cast to this planet, where we have become,
> through the choice of our first parents, actors in a theater for the
> universe, displaying the ultimate result of sin to the rest of the
> universe. Since it is inconceivable that all this could happen in
> less than 3 rotations of planet earth (i.e. when the garden was
> planted and the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was put in it),
> then the universe is older than the Creation Week -- perhaps vastly
> older. So, when one looks at the universe and finds that it is
> possible to interpret vast distances as involving millions and
> billions of light years, or when one finds radioisotope abundancies
> which can be interpreted to imply vast ages, once can possibly accept
> such interpretations as having some validity for the universe as a
> whole.
>
> Thus, my acceptance of an Old Universe is based upon interpretation of
> the Bible and not upon empirical, physical data.
This is flatly wrong, as is shown by the fact that nobody started promoting such
"gap" theories until geological & other evidence for the antiquity of the earth started
emerging. Trying to put a gap between 1:1 & 1:2 is forced & unnatural & no one would
have done it if scientific evidence hadn't forced them to look for a place in the
creation stories to put millions of years. Of course traditional interpreters knew
about the questions of when the angels were created, when some fell, &c. But they never
thought they had to have millions of years to do it.
You say "Since it is inconceivable that all this [creation of angels &c ...]
could happen in less than 3 rotations of planet earth ... "
Nonsense! How long did it take God to create angels? How long did "war in heaven"
last? Do you really imagine that you can measure these things by terrestrial time
scales, that it took as long as WWII to cast Satan out of heaven &c. This is just a
pretext for arguing that there is internal evidence for a long period of time between
1:1 & 1:2.
That data is,
> instead, interpreted within my world view based upon a Biblical
> interpretation. I don't believe this because, as you say above,
> "[its] the study of the world itself that tells us that that's the
> best option." Rather, its the Bible that does.
>
> Of course there is still a lot that has to be dealt
> with. E.g., how does one interpret Ex.20:11 or Mk.10:6-8?
>
> Lets go for it!
I didn't start this converstion with the intention of watching you play "I can
harmonize it for you." Until you show some willingness to take what I'm saying
seriously, there's nothing to go for.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 11 2003 - 10:40:59 EDT