From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Sat Oct 11 2003 - 19:53:59 EDT
George Murphy wrote:
> > 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.
I did "suspend disbelief" for a while, but it leads no where but confusion. Besides, I
believe that you are being inconsistently super-literal. (see below).
> 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.
The first creation account ends with these word which refer back to the just completed
Creation Week, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." En
2:4a
So, when one reads in Gen. 2:4b "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--" it is
obvious that this second phrase is a reference to, in fact, a repeat of, the first phrase
(2:4a) which is talking about the just completed Creation Week. Therefore, 2:4b can be
nothing else but a reference to the Creation Week.
> & to say that various things are "post-sin developments" is just assertion with no support
> in the text.
I inserted these "assertions" to show that these 4 points refer to something yet to happen.
These can be discussed at a later time. I didn't go into discussing these points now
because it would have distracted from the main point being discussed here.
> 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.
Of course it is interpretation. Like you said, the Bible needs interpreting. And I believe
that it does arise naturally unless you are trying to be super literal.
> 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.
> [snip]
> 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.
What it all comes down to is whether one chooses to be a super-literalist--insisting that
the verb tenses be followed precisely --which results in contextual conflicts between the
two chapters, or whether one recognizes that subtle difference of meaning of just two verbs
will result in complete contextual harmony. And, contextual harmony is exactly what one
would expect and desire.
I believe that in this case, you are more literal--super-literal--than those you denounce
for being literalists. And because you are being super literal here, you insist that these
two accounts cannot be harmonized and that gives you liberty to be much less than literal
with the rest of the creation accounts, inventing redactors to serve your purpose.
> 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.
We know that Angels exist.
We know that they exist and work within the universe.
We know that they are created beings.
We are not told, however, when they were created.
We know that Lucifer was created a perfect being.
How long would it take for anyone, created perfect, with no bent to rebel, to reach the
point of considering rebellion?
How long would it take for the seeds of rebellion to grow in an environment that promotes
love and acceptance?
How long would it take for Satan to begin to make headway in convincing others of his
position in an environment that is antithetical to his views.
How long would God be patient with Satan.
How long would it take for Satan's views to be come powerful enough to cause disruption of
heaven so that he must be removed from his position.
We know that there was war in heaven and Satan was cast out. Rev 12.
We know that Jesus said "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." LK 10:18
Satan's fall happened before Jesus became incarnate because His fight on the cross had not
yet happened.
We are not given any time spans for all this, but surely, to think that all this happened in
split seconds is stretching credulity.
And since sin was present in the Garden of Eden from the beginning, as symbolized by the
tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, then all of it had to happen before the Garden of
Eden existed. So, when one looks that the Creation account of Genesis, where does on put
all this terror? Since they exist and work in the universe, their creation had to be after
the creation of the universe. Since there could be no garden until day 3 (or possibly by
day 6) then we can place it as all happening long before verse 1:1 (if we assume that the
universe existed before verse 1:1) or sometime between vs 1:1 and the beginning of the
Creation Week (vs. 1:3).
The texts do not give any time for all this to have happened, but from the apparent vast
distances in the universe we might be able to interpret very long ages indeed.
And what's, so terrible about it taking huge amounts of time for sin to begin, take root,
grow and be plucked out? Could that not point to the long suffering of God and the
stability of Good over Evil?
> >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.
I dare you to show how it cannot be harmonized.
Allen
> En 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 11 2003 - 19:54:55 EDT