Correct Genesis interpretation by a rookie

[Augustine2004]

I believe I know English grammar. Maybe you can tell from this post. However, I have this vague impression that English grammar and Hebrew grammar are like, well, oranges and pizza.

One thing I would like to start with is this jussive thing. Strong's #H1961 in Genesis 1:3 and 6 etc. 'Let be.' The impression that I got from a brief explanation, God is commanding Himself, must be wrong.

[Socrates]

I believe I know English grammar. Maybe you can tell from this post. However, I have this vague impression that English grammar and Hebrew grammar are like, well, oranges and pizza.

One thing I would like to start with is this jussive thing. Strong's #H1961 in Genesis 1:3 and 6 etc. 'Let be.' The impression that I got from a brief explanation, God is commanding Himself, must be wrong.
Augustine2004 is referring to one of my posts. I have already explained why you can't expect to get grammatical fine points from a lexicon, especially such an outdated one like Strong's ("if it's from Strong's, it's probably wrong", say Jaltus and GrayPilgrim). Rather, the argument comes from Hebrew scholar Dr David Fouts. His credentials are:

David M. Fouts. Dr. Fouts holds a Th.M. degree and Th.D. in Old Testament Studies. He taught at Dallas Theological Seminary and is currently Professor of Bible and Hebrew at Bryan College. He has published in numerous scholarly journals and edited works, including the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Most recently, he contributed the article "Genesis 1-11" for the Bible Knowledge Key Word Study Series ed. by Eugene Merrill and published by Cook Ministries with the Victor imprint, 2003. He is currently working on the Joshua article for volume 2 and will be starting the Psalms article for volume three by the time of the 2003 ICC conference. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, Near Eastern Archaeological Society, and Institute of Biblical Research. Dr. Fouts authored one paper in the 2003 ICC and co-authored a paper in the 1998 ICC. He served as Foundations of Science Editor for the 2003 ICC.

Conversely, NO credentialled Hebrew scholar holds the risible "days of proclamation" eisegesis (as GrayPilgrim showed on this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8032&page=14&pp=16) .

Here is a short article (co-authored with paleontologist Dr Kurt Wise) where Dr Fouts explains the jussive verbs (among other things, so I've highlighted the section):

Biblical Evidences for an Immediate Creation Event
by David M. Fouts and Kurt P. Wise

Most young-age creationists believe the universe and the earth is young because theyare convinced that the Bible makes that claim. There are, however, those who have asstrong a belief in the claims of Scripture but who do not accept the claim that the universeand earth is young. Typically these people believe that God created over an extendedamount of time. Here we wish to briefly list Biblical and theological reasons for the positionthat God’s creation was immediate or instantaneous.

1) God created physical time (Genesis 1:1). Since this is true, it must be inferred that Godis independent of time. Given that is true, unless He had some specific reason to createotherwise, God’s ‘normal’ or ‘usual’ mode of creation would be expected to involve no elapsed physical time.

2) Because it is one of His attributes, God created with wisdom (Psalm 104:24; Proverbs 3:19: “The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth...”, KJV). Among other things, wisdom would include the idea of time efficiency (Ephesians 5:15-16; Colossians 4:5: “Walk in wisdom... redeeming the time”, KJV). Ignoring all other purposes God might have had in His creation, the most efficient creation (of a wise God) would involve no elapsed time.(Reynolds, John Mark, 1994, Gosse and Omphalos: A Defense of an Old Argument, pp. 459-466 in Walsh, Robert E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism… Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.)

3) God directly involved Himself in the creation event. In a sense God “got His hands dirty” in the creation. Examples would include the phrases “...the Spirit of God moved onthe face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2, KJV); “...the Lord God formed man...” (Genesis 2:7, KJV: the Hebrew verb here is used to describe the molding of clay by a potter); “...the Lord God...made... a woman...” (Genesis 2:22, KJV: the Hebrew verb here is used to describe the erection of buildings); “and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden” (Genesis 2:8, KJV). God also spoke the creation into being (Psalm 148:5; “andGod said, ‘Let there be...’” is used seven times in Genesis One). In other cases in theBible where God directly involves Himself and/or speaks things to be, the events almostalways seem to occur spontaneously. There appear to be only two exceptions to thisclaim. First, there are multiple-step events (like the healing of the Bethsaida blind man in Mark 8:22-6) where each step appears to be instantaneous. Second, there are eventswhich do not occur until some person’s obedience is complete (e.g. the healing of Naaman the leper in 2 Kings 5).

4) When a king mentioned in the Bible made a command he was almost always obeyed immediately. The only exceptions appear to be those situations where the king’s power is being challenged and/or is limited in some way. Given that God is the King of kings (ITimothy 6:15) and the all-powerful One (Job 42:2; Luke 1:37, etc.) His power is not inquestion. It would seem to follow that the commands of God should be obeyed withimmediate fulfillment. In Genesis One the verbs offering the content of what God spoke are in the jussive form. In Hebrew, jussives are either jussives of request—when a subordinate addresses a superior—or jussives of command—when a superior addressesa subordinate. Given that God is superior to His creation the verbs in Genesis Onecannot be jussives of request. They must be jussives of command. This means that God in Genesis One is commanding the creation to come into existence. Given that He is the all-powerful King of Kings, immediate obedience would be expected.

5) An examination of the life of Jesus indicates that at His command there was almost always immediate fulfillment. A good example would be the immediate response of the storm-racked Sea of Galilee with Jesus’ command “Peace be still” (Mark 4:39). The only exceptions appear to be those cases where whomever is being commanded rebels against Him. An example of this would be how the demons responded to Jesus’ command for them to exit the Gadarene demoniac (They requested to be sent into the swine). Since Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3), when He commanded the creation into existence, the creation would be expected to respond immediately—especially since the pre-Fall creation was not rebellious (it is, after all, repeatedly labeled “good,” and thenfinally “very good.”

6) The phrase “wayhî ken” (translated “and it was so” in Genesis One) is used only twoother places in Scripture (Judges 6:38; 2 Kings 15:12), but in those places it seems toindicate a state of completion within the context-specified time frame. This also seemsto be the case in Genesis One with the context-determined time frame being “day one,”second day,” “third day,” etc. It would seem that the events recounted in Genesis One occurred within the six days of creation.

7) Psalm 33 is a descriptive praise hymn, which is to say that it praises God for Who He is and/or His attributes. In Psalm 33:6-9 God is praised for being the awesome creator. It indicates that all of humanity should fear God because God “spoke” and the creation“stood fast,” He commanded, and it was done. The context indicates that God’s rapidity and power in creation give sinners reason to expect rapid and unavoidable judgment. If God was slow in His creation then the sinners have little to worry about—at least in their lifetimes! In sum, there are multiple, strong Biblical and theological reasons to believe that thecreation event was instantaneous and not extended over any substantial amount of time.

[Augustine2004]

Thank you, Socrates, for providing these details!

However, my interlinear Bible does not indicate that the verb in question is in the jussive form. I would like to know how to identify that form. Perhaps what I should do is to get a good ancient Hebrew textbook, but TWeb might be good enough for me to study Hebrew on my own (do you agree?).

One push-back that occurred to me is that Jesus frequently said, 'My time has not yet come' or words to that effect. Often crowds would try to stone him or arrest him, yet he always eluded or escaped them. I am not sure this is a good push-back yet, tho.

[Socrates]

Thank you, Socrates, for providing these details!
You're welcome.

However, my interlinear Bible does not indicate that the verb in question is in the jussive form.
Would it indicate that a noun is in the construct form? Interlinears have their uses but also their limits.

I would like to know how to identify that form. Perhaps what I should do is to get a good ancient Hebrew textbook, but TWeb might be good enough for me to study Hebrew on my own (do you agree?).
Probably need a Hebrew textbook really.

One push-back that occurred to me is that Jesus frequently said, 'My time has not yet come' or words to that effect. Often crowds would try to stone him or arrest him, yet he always eluded or escaped them. I am not sure this is a good push-back yet, tho.
Not really, I don't think. There is no such statement in Genesis that would hint that the jussives of command were not obeyed immediately. The Church Fathers all taught instantaneous creative acts for that reason.

[John Reece]

Thank you, Socrates, for providing these details!

However, my interlinear Bible does not indicate that the verb in question is in the jussive form. I would like to know how to identify that form. Perhaps what I should do is to get a good ancient Hebrew textbook, but TWeb might be good enough for me to study Hebrew on my own (do you agree?).

One push-back that occurred to me is that Jesus frequently said, 'My time has not yet come' or words to that effect. Often crowds would try to stone him or arrest him, yet he always eluded or escaped them. I am not sure this is a good push-back yet, tho.

Get a copy of Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (available at Amazon.com) and look on page 321 (paragraph 109 a and b) and page 360 (paragraph 116 r).

[kofh2u]

I believe I know English grammar. Maybe you can tell from this post. However, I have this vague impression that English grammar and Hebrew grammar are like, well, oranges and pizza.

One thing I would like to start with is this jussive thing. Strong's #H1961 in Genesis 1:3 and 6 etc. 'Let be.' The impression that I got from a brief explanation, God is commanding Himself, must be wrong.


Let there be light, and I am still a little in the dark about what it is that has your interest here. I read the opinions which followed, albeit very astute academician la yering about the matter, but it seems clear in Genesis one t
at an intercourse is taking place somehow.

"Let us make man in our...." And so forth. Your point that God appears to be commanding the Powers that Be.... seems hard to side step with a vocabulary lesson.

We also have the element of the Spirit of God,.... ?... distinct from God....?

It appears all to clear and rational that chucking the ancient ideas of men about this, ignoring their esteemed credentials from the middle ages, we should read the text with our own modern and invaluable advantage of superior education. We have a vast resouvier of knowledge from recent uncoverings in s ience and biology and geology. A new "common sense" is ehat I am saying.

Certainly, the eords choosen by God to write Genesis were intended to match the pre-set psychological outlooks of diverse generations and ageless millennia.

Surely, the invisible hand of God is recognizable in Natural Law, a body of understandings which we have carelessly reduced to mere science but which in reality are magnificient confirmations of the whole body of God, himself. Surely, you are correct, God does command himself.


Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"

[kuboes1831]

Actually if you find passages in Genesis difficult to work out you can follow what AIG man Terry Mortenson approves and simply say that the offending verse(s) was a later addition and thus can be excised and ignored.

Is this a case of excise-egesis?

[Abigail]

Actually if you find passages in Genesis difficult to work out you can follow what AIG man Terry Mortenson approves and simply say that the offending verse(s) was a later addition and thus can be excised and ignored.

Is this a case of excise-egesis?Where is the proof for this claim kuboes

[kuboes1831]

Where is the proof for this claim kuboes


On the AIG website.

But I have a higher doctrine of scripture than that

[Augustine2004]

On the AIG website.

But I have a higher doctrine of scripture than thatI just searched the AiG website (+Mortenson +addition) and (+Mortenson +ignore), which includes 'ignores' and 'ignored'. No such thing. I also tried (+Mortenson +excise), which includes 'execises' and 'excised'; returned "no results." It is possible I missed the place where you got such nonsense, tho.

[Abigail]

I just searched the AiG website (+Mortenson +addition) and (+Mortenson +ignore), which includes 'ignores' and 'ignored'. No such thing. I also tried (+Mortenson +excise), which includes 'execises' and 'excised'; returned "no results." It is possible I missed the place where you got such nonsense, tho.
He's shovelling it to us Augustine

[Augustine2004]

He's shovelling it to us AugustineThat's hard to believe. He has a low bad-rep count to total posts ratio. Maybe he should go to a doctor for a thorough checkup.

[kuboes1831]

He's shovelling it to us Augustine

It's there as clear as clear can be. And not even Saddam could swim out of this one as they were his rivers.

Look carefully at all Mortenson's stuff and you will find it. But nothing about animals floating on the flood waters because their bladders were full of air.

[Warcraft3]

I fail to see why the commands had to be fulfilled instantly.

There doesnt seem to be a time frame given for the fullfillment that makes sense within the text.




Russ

[dizzle]

Kuboes you are proving disruptive on this thread - you claim to have a source on the Net that you know of. Provide the link or I will have to deem you are playing games and edit out those posts.

[Augustine2004]

Here is a short article (co-authored with paleontologist Dr Kurt Wise) where Dr Fouts explains the jussive verbs (among other things, so I've highlighted the section):

:snip:
list Biblical and theological reasons for the position that God’s creation was immediate or instantaneous.
:snip:
One particular non-AiG interpretation may indeed include the point that this was instanteous (no time at all). However, it would not be instanteous from the standpoint of human beings within the creation. I will put forward the interpretation later, though I fear it will prove unpopular except with people like Calvinists.

I already pointed out to Socrates that Jesus did not immediately go out of Mary's womb to get himself crucified. He took all of 30 or more years. (My actual words were not these, but something else to that effect.) Another reason to doubt instant obedience is the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice story. When God commanded Abraham to sac Isaac, was that done instantly? No. "Abraham got up early in the morning. . . " He didn't even do it the day God told him to sac Isaac. "On the third day [of the journey to the place of sac] . . ." Need I say more? Moreover, if Abe did it instantly, the angel of the Lord would not have been able to stop him in time. The words, "Abraham! Abraham! . . . Don't kill your son or hurt him in any way. Now I can see that you trust God and that you have not kept your son, your only son from me." They had to take some time to be spoken and heard. Also, there is no indication that Abraham ever disobeyed in any way, such as figuratively dragging his feet.

Regarding Jesus' command to the wind and waves to be still, the Bible does not actually say it was done in no time at all. We just do not know for sure. The healings each may have taken some time. I question whether anyone can deduce 'no time' fulfillment from the Scriptures for them.

[Augustine2004]

It's there as clear as clear can be. And not even Saddam could swim out of this one as they were his rivers.

Look carefully at all Mortenson's stuff and you will find it. But nothing about animals floating on the flood waters because their bladders were full of air.Do we have to look at all of Mortenson's stuff to find the basis of your allegation? Your head may be so full of air that you could float off earth, flooded or not. Better go to your doctor.

[kuboes1831]

Go to Aig site

go to Mortenson

and then to article on Granville Penn.

It should be easy to find and I will explain it later on a new thread..

No game playing here but telling it slant

[Augustine2004]

Go to Aig site

go to Mortenson

and then to article on Granville Penn.

It should be easy to find and I will explain it later on a new thread..

No game playing here but telling it slantOK I have found the page. It was actually Granville Penn himself who used the apparent age idea, not Mortenson. Do you really think Mortenson himself also uses that idea? AiG also uses that idea? No, D. R. Humphreys rejected that idea in Starlight and Time (book available from the AiG online bookstore).

What does it really matter anyway in this thread? Well, I can accept the idea that Adam was created adult right from the start = apparent age of maybe 19. (However, I am not sure the possibility that Adam started as an egg in a womb has been soundly ruled out yet, has it? If it has, any references, please.) As for applying the apparent idea to geological stuff and astronomical stuff, I did see TWeb posts that questions this logical equation: appearance of age = God lies. Perhaps we should discuss them. I have not really pondered those posts yet.

[kuboes1831]

OK I have found the page. It was actually Granville Penn himself who used the apparent age idea, not Mortenson. Do you really think Mortenson himself also uses that idea? AiG also uses that idea? No, D. R. Humphreys rejected that idea in Starlight and Time (book available from the AiG online bookstore).

What does it really matter anyway in this thread? Well, I can accept the idea that Adam was created adult right from the start = apparent age of maybe 19. (However, I am not sure the possibility that Adam started as an egg in a womb has been soundly ruled out yet, has it? If it has, any references, please.) As for applying the apparent idea to geological stuff and astronomical stuff, I did see TWeb posts that questions this logical equation: appearance of age = God lies. Perhaps we should discuss them. I have not really pondered those posts yet.

Iwas not referring to the farce of apparanet age, but excising verses which are not convenient to one's position. Would it be reasonable to excise the verses in Gen One which refer todays?

[Augustine2004]

Iwas not referring to the farce of apparanet age, but excising verses which are not convenient to one's position. Would it be reasonable to excise the verses in Gen One which refer todays?I apologize for my confusion. I'll go look for your new thread, but let the U.S.A. celebrate the 4th of July before, if that is all right with you.

[LeiLani]

I already pointed out to Socrates that Jesus did not immediately go out of Mary's womb to get himself crucified. He took all of 30 or more years. (My actual words were not these, but something else to that effect.)
It's hardly surprising he ignored such a facile argument. Jesus took all of 30 years so He could be like us in all ways apart from sin (e.g. Heb. 2:18). Aug, you have a very limited view of Jesus's mission, ignoring his healing and teaching ministries.

Another reason to doubt instant obedience is the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice story. When God commanded Abraham to sac Isaac, was that done instantly? No. "Abraham got up early in the morning. . .
"
That is pretty early. Abraham was not an inanimate object, but he still did not delay but evidently arose as early as possible.

He didn't even do it the day God told him to sac Isaac. "On the third day [of the journey to the place of sac] . . ."
This is silly -- the sac had to be done in a place three days journey away. Abraham didn't delay -- he obeyed as quickly as humanly possible.

Need I say more?
Quite a lot more, if you want to advocate a novel view even though you are a self-confessed rookie in Hebrew! :bonk: And have you checked the reference that John Reece gave you?

Moreover, if Abe did it instantly, the angel of the Lord would not have been able to stop him in time.

You'll have to do a lot better than that, Aug. Abraham, as a being in hisown right, had to prepare the sacrifice. The journey and preparation werepart of the command -- you should quit trying to read the Bible in a low context way.

Regarding Jesus' command to the wind and waves to be still, the Bible does not actually say it was done in no time at all. We just do not know for sure.

Yes we do. Luke 8:23 As they sailed, he fell asleep. A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger. 24 The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Master, Master, we're going to drown!" He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. 25 "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him."
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the storm just abated naturally? If you do, you're even further from biblical authority than I thought. :sad:

The healings each may have taken some time. I question whether anyone can deduce 'no time' fulfillment from the Scriptures for them.
Nonsense. That was the whole point -- the miracles were very fast, not slow and gradual healing. Jesus commanded a paralytic to walk, and the lameness left him immediately.

Likewise, when God commanded the inanimate creation, it didn't take its normal course. Basil the Great says:

"At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up . Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants - rose, myrtle and laurel - all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth" (Hexaemeron, V, 6).

"'Let the earth bring forth.' This brief command immediately became mighty nature and an elaborate system which brought to perfection more swiftly than our thoughts the countless properties of plants" (V, 10).

"The command came. Immediately rivers were productive and marshy lakes were fruitful of species proper and natural to each" (VII, 1).

Your namesake Augustine of Hippo went too far and claimed that everything was done in an instant, as opposed to instantaneous acts over six days. But this shows that the greatest Christian leaders always understood creation as rapid, not slow. You really must have a lot of pride to think that you can come up with a brand new interpretation that the greatest scholars missed for 2000 years even though you know next to nothing about Hebrew.

[LeiLani]

I fail to see why the commands had to be fulfilled instantly.
Because they are commands of God Himself to His creation, as Post #2 says. Certainly, the whole of the church understood this as instantaneous creation for about 1800 years.

There doesnt seem to be a time frame given for the fullfillment that makes sense within the text.
So Russ, why do you believe only the proclamations were in those six days, when the text says that the fulfilment and the assessment were in the same six days? If you don't believe the fulfilment was in those days, then on what grounds do you claim the proclamations also occurred in those days?

And if "days of proclamation" is the correct interpretation of Genesis, how come no Hebrew scholar supports it? How come no one had even thought of it till only about 20 years ago? What makes you think that people with no qualifications in Hebrew at all can somehow come up with an explanation that Hebraists had missed for 2000 years? You're asking a lot of us if you want us to believe your view.

[Augustine2004]

Luke 8:23 As they sailed, he fell asleep. A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger. 24 The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Master, Master, we're going to drown!" He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. 25 "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him." You failed to include the previous verse:'And He said to them, "Let us go to the other side of the lake," and they put out to sea.' Need I explain why I pointed out your failure?