Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the

[One Bad Pig]

12-16-2003 @ 06:50 PM post located here
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...484#post331484


Back again, OBP. Sorry about the A/B confusion. This is following up on your post #74.




You said:

I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis.

Translation: "It doesn't matter what evidence you offer, you're wrong before you even start."

You rule out in advance any attempt to show it is dischronologized. That would qualify as begging the question as far as I know.

If a list of actions is sequentially numbered, why wouldn't it be chronological? It's kinda like asking why water is wet, IMO. If you found good evidence that the list had been rearranged at some point, or the numberings were a scribal addition, I would consider your position more tenable.

My paper provided several solid and unrefuted arguments that show dischronologization, far from 'nothing to warrant anything other...'. However, now the addendum has shown that the straightforward reading is intended to show that Moses was not enumerating time periods since he purposely avoided the grammatical pattern used for time-period-enumeration. He chose to use the countables pattern instead.

And when he did, he counted to seven. Your paper, IMO, took a pre-conceived notion (no light before sun) and then tried to mold the scriptures into justifying it.

And, on God not being limited...God is limited to human understanding when he is trying to get us to understand something.

However, God does not try to explain everything to us. "My ways are not your ways, and your thoughts are not my thoughts, says the LORD"(Isa. 55:8). The Israelites didn't have to understand how God did something, just that He did it.

You're being unfairly precise here. The ancient Hebrew language didn't have all that many words. There was no reason for them to invent a word for the concept of "evening to morning to evening again" without the sun present. I know you'll think I'm unfairly broadening the semantic field, here, but some days the sun isn't visible at all due to unbroken cloud cover. How do you think the Hebrews defined those days?

They didn't need to invent a new word if that was what Moses was trying to communicate. He could have avoided using 'yom', 'morning' and 'evening' altogether and instead made a point of talking about just the transition from light to dark.

If the transitions were on the same timescale as a typical day, why make a distinction?

On cloudy/overcast days they still defined it by the rising and setting of the sun.

Yes! Where was I going with this? On cloudy days, they had to infer the start of a new day by the transition to light (pre-Exile) without actually seeing the sun. I just don't see that great an intuitive leap from that to day/night transitions before the sun. The Israelites knew from personal experience (during the Exodus) that God Himself could manifest as light.

The other points I'm all set with just disagreeing on.

Okay. I was just trying to clarify my response there, as we didn't seem to be on the same wavelength.

v/r,

OBP

[rhart]

First, I will intro myself as the new guy. I have read the whole thread (Long). I will say that I feel there was error from the very beginning. Why only three methods to look at? You already submit creedence to pre-formed ideals. You worked from ideas backwards. I am not sure but this is not my favorite method.

Why dischronologization?

Ezra 4 never said Cyrus lead and was removed, the first leader.
Xerxes lead and was removed the second leader. ect.

Matt 4 never stated:
Jesus tempted to turn the stones to bread, the first temptation.
Jesus tempted to throw himself down, the second temptation.

luke 4 never stated in the same fashion.

Genesis, however, made such statements:

Genesis 1:5 (KJV)
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:8 (KJV)
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

This is cause for a demarcation from the text your theory of choice implies.

Your use of Randall Buth therefore doesn't apply here since it assumes there are "NO" grammatical indicators. Here there are.

You have not even considered the fact that this could be a re-generation of the earth.

Let me make an example I hope is useful (going on a limb here).

If I live here at a farm and I have bucket in my barn. I leave town and my wife writes me a tells me one of my helpers was in the barn feeding the horses and while he was working he kicked the bucket.

What context do I have to say he died. Even though our genre allows for such I would not force its use unless context was certain.

Why would we go to such extent to force such thinking in light of more obvoius direct context and language.

By this method one might dischronologize revelations prophecy and all kinds of wrongful interpretations would insue.

meanings beyond meanings beyond meanings, dangerous method indeed.

1. THE JEWISH METHOD OF INTERPRETATION. Jewish exegesis from Ezra to Christ may be traced in the Apocrypha, the works of Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud. Interpreters of this period set a value on each letter and held each one to be the source of great mysteries. To every letter they attached a numerical value and imposed fantastic meanings on plain historical statements. For example, the letters in the name Eliezer have a numerical value in Hebrew of 318. In Gen. 14:14 we read that Abraham had 318 trained servants. This was made to indicate that Eliezer was equal in value to all these servants. The word Keturah in Hebrew means sweet odor. We are told that Abraham married Keturah. This was interpreted to mean that he wedded a holy life. In Gen. 25 we are told that Abraham had six sons by Keturah; so if we believed the Jewish method of interpretation, we could not believe the literal, which states that Abraham married a woman and had these sons by her.
The Scribes carefully guarded against errors and interpolations in the text, but they set up an oral law or tradition, which in time came to be looked upon by the Jews as equal in authority to the Scriptures. Christ swept away all these traditions and interpretations and accepted the plain literal written Word of God as the only truth (Mk. 7:1-13). Paul also rebuked the Jews for taking their traditions before they would the Word of God (Gal. 1:13-14; Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:4; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:14-16; Titus 1:14; 3:9).

The above type is evolved in D.A. Carson's quote.

2. THE ALLEGORICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION. The early Church Fathers, instead of following the plain literal meaning of Scripture as did Christ and the apostles, followed more or less the Jewish method of interpretation. The literal sense of Scripture was overlaid with the allegorical, moral and spiritual interpretations. Origin gave a threefold meaning to all Scripture corresponding to the body (literal), the soul (moral), and the spirit (spiritual or mystical). He greatly influenced others in the church for many centuries. Clement interpreted the scarlet cord out of Rahab’s window as meaning the blood of Christ. Chrysostrom believed the six steps of Solomon’s throne to mean six steps leading to God. And so it was with nearly everything in Scripture. The literal and historical meaning was almost completely done away with and the spiritual and mystical meaning took the place of the literal.
This method of interpretation continued to the Reformation. Since then the Scriptures have been more or less freed from the early traditions of men who began to study the Bible in a more literal sense. In spite of this new freedom of Scripture from much of the former spiritualizing tendencies and magical meanings, there are many ministers today who have gone back to the unintelligent methods of the past. We should reject and utterly avoid all such foolishness. The habit of these men is to disregard the common significance of words, the grammatical construction, and the literal intention of God in Scripture. They force into Scripture any meaning their fancy chooses, and they make the interpreter equal to God and his interpretations even better than the plain Word of God.

I will go further into the re-creation account if you so desire, but your request was more of our thought on your paper and not to intro other ones. It does however bridge the gap if you will between the semantic case of the 24hr. and the day-age desire to explain the problematic areas that to force the earths age, ect.

Since I am new here I will await responses. Hope to engage in many enlightening conversations here.

Grace and peace,

Richard

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 05:26 PM post located here
rhart:

First, I will intro myself as the new guy. I have read the whole thread (Long).

Welcome! You have much fortitude! I'll just comment on the things I disagree with. I haven't read much of the Patristic writings, so I'm not going to comment either way on what you have to say about them.

You have not even considered the fact that this could be a re-generation of the earth.

I find no support in the text for re-generation. Genesis 1:28 in the KJV may look like it supports this theory, but it really showcases how words can change with meaning over time. "Replentish" used to mean "fill", not "fill again". I grew up using the KJV. However, when even the 1769 revision (today's "KJV") is not easily comprehended correctly by today's typical layman, it's time for an update.

According to my Ryrie study Bible, the Hebrew word translated "created" doesn't rule out the use of pre-existing material in Genesis 1:1-2, but none is mentioned or implied here. Some people understand a 'gap' between vv. 1 and 2, but the construction of the Hebrew does not support it.

Since I don't know Hebrew, I rely on those who do.

I will go further into the re-creation account if you so desire, but your request was more of our thought on your paper and not to intro other ones. It does however bridge the gap if you will between the semantic case of the 24hr. and the day-age desire to explain the problematic areas that to force the earths age, ect.

Please do. I've never heard a detailed argument in favor of the re-creation theory before. I'll be honest, and state up-front that I'll probably disagree with the theory, but who knows? You might change my mind.

v/r,

OBP

[Ted]

OBP,

The Ryrie Bible suggests the idea that “the earth became unformed and unfilled” as part of developing a Dispensational theology. That is, it allows a Dispensation before Adam and Eve (in its radical form) where God eventually destroyed everything and started over. Of course, this would deny Paul’s theology that death came as a result of sin...

I have three close friends who are professors of biblical Hebrew. They are unanimous in their conclusion that the Hebrew does not allow “the earth became unformed and unfilled.” It says, “the earth was unformed and unfilled.” And this brings us to bara.

Dispensationalism, at least in one form, now suggests that this first, failed earth, was now “re-formed” into the present earth. While I will not argue that the earth in an unformed and unfilled state did not exist prior to creation week, (after all, the text says, “the earth was...”), Genesis 1:1 does declare that God is the creator of all that exists. My professor friends are again unanimous. When bara is used of God’s actions, it specifically refers to creation ex nihilo. That is, God created out of nothing.

There is no temporal link between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. 1:1 is a complete statement that stands by itself. 1:2 is the introduction to the poem of creation. While answersingenesis will argue contra me, I see no problem with asserting God as the ultimate ex nihilo creator while suggesting the possibility that he made the earth in a preliminary form, then, during the creation week, “terraforming” it and filling it with life. This is consistent with the Hebrew and with Paul’s theology.

I hope this helps with the Ryrie comment.

Ted

[rhart]

Here is the site describing the theory. If you have questions, please repost.

http://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/


Here is the site against:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9407a.htm

It nothing else you will see it should have been included in the paper of BrianB.

To be fair I gave you both to help in your research.

Thanks for the welcome..

Grace and Peace,

Richard

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 08:19 PM post located here
Ted:

OBP,

The Ryrie Bible suggests the idea that “the earth became unformed and unfilled” as part of developing a Dispensational theology. That is, it allows a Dispensation before Adam and Eve (in its radical form) where God eventually destroyed everything and started over. Of course, this would deny Paul’s theology that death came as a result of sin...

I have three close friends who are professors of biblical Hebrew. They are unanimous in their conclusion that the Hebrew does not allow “the earth became unformed and unfilled.” It says, “the earth was unformed and unfilled.”

Ted,

My Ryrie Bible (NASB 95 Update, to be precise) argues against using the word "became" here, and suggests that "was" rules out an indeterminate 'gap' in time between vv. 1 and 2.

And this brings us to bara.

Dispensationalism, at least in one form, now suggests that this first, failed earth, was now “re-formed” into the present earth. While I will not argue that the earth in an unformed and unfilled state did not exist prior to creation week, (after all, the text says, “the earth was...”), Genesis 1:1 does declare that God is the creator of all that exists. My professor friends are again unanimous. When bara is used of God’s actions, it specifically refers to creation ex nihilo. That is, God created out of nothing.

What is their proof for this interpretation?

There is no temporal link between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. 1:1 is a complete statement that stands by itself. 1:2 is the introduction to the poem of creation. While answersingenesis will argue contra me, I see no problem with asserting God as the ultimate ex nihilo creator while suggesting the possibility that he made the earth in a preliminary form, then, during the creation week, “terraforming” it and filling it with life. This is consistent with the Hebrew and with Paul’s theology.

I agree with all this. The text itself intimates that water was used as the starting material. I believe that Gen. 1:1 is an abstract, if you will, of creation account. Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 are not temporally linked per se, but there isn't any room for a gap, either.

I hope this helps with the Ryrie comment.

Ted

Yes; reasoned discourse typically does.

[One Bad Pig]

01-13-2004 @ 10:27 PM post located here
rhart:

It nothing else you will see it should have been included in the paper of BrianB.

I see that now, thanks. Ockham's Razor causes the Gap Theory to bleed all over the place, IMO, but then again I think the same of the FI.

OBP

[BrianB]

Just an update. This paper is also found in PDF format here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/bbbweb/fra...pretation.html

Also, a followup paper, "One, Two, Three, and an Ordinal for Thee - Grammatical Irregularities, Definitions, and Genesis One" is found at the same link, and was discussed here on TW at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15129

Hope everyone is doing well!

Brian B