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

[twohumble]

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here
jhappel:



But there is no number associated with this usage nor is there an evening and morning. So to compare this use of day to the days of creation is comparing apples and oranges.

Again, this numeric prefix is the basis for the agrument, but that is not a sound exegetical tool, from what I have read.

Also, the Genesis 2 "yom" usage clearly indicates an "indefinite" period of time, which would most definately support the idea that "yom" can be used in that context, and it does support the day/age theory.

In Christ
Dave

[tschmidt]

But there is no number associated with this usage nor is there an evening and morning. So to compare this use of day to the days of creation is comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, but as other poseters have shown, the "seventh day" refers to indefinite period of time. Check out Hebrews Chapter 4:3-11

3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.'
4And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."
5And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."
8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.
9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

Also, if we take the numbers in Genesis literally, then Noah was still kicking around when Abraham was in his 50's, despite their being a 10 generation gap between them. Shem, Noah's son, would have actually out-lived Abraham. I find it interesting that Arbraham is considered the head of the Family while clearly Shem was still alive and far older than Abraham.

I think that Christians need to start taking at least an agnostic point of view about the beginning of Genesis, and perhaps lean towards a figurative inerpretation of it.

[jhappel]

I guess my ignorance of the FH showed in one of my previous posts. Do supporters of the FH take all of Genesis as a rhetorical framework or just the creation account? Did a literal Noah, literal Abraham, literal Joseph exist in their view?

[Babaloo]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

The opening announcement stated this:

This commentary thread is not going to “open” debate but rather is restricted to theists who hold the book of Genesis to be authoritative to their faith and non-theists who can interact using the book of Genesis as authoritative. I also ask the participants that we do not make “science” the main focal point as the piece is a hermeneutical piece and not a scientific treatise. Of course the point will come up, just please do not make it the focus. Thanks – let’s discuss!

If Brian would like the text of Babaloo's statements forwarded to him to respond privately, I will do so, or Babaloo is welcome to start a separate thread in an appropriate area of the forum.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...986#post283986

Hi Ted, thanks for taking the time to read through the paper and offer your thoughts. Here are my own comments on your response.

Brian presents the parallel structure of the first six days of creation, arguing in essence that they are presented as a literary myth

I guess it depends on which definition of 'myth' you are using here. My understanding is that 'myth' can be used in different ways, among which are the following two:

1. A 'myth' is a story told to explain the origins of mankind/earth/universe _without_ any implications for truth or falsity.
2. A 'myth' is a factually untrue (false) story

It appears to me that you're using the second definition. If that is the case, then you have _seriously_ misunderstood the paper. The Framework Interpretation doesn't argue that the account is untrue at all. It holds the account to be utterly true. You say:

The literal fact of Yahweh as Creator is therefore necessarily called into some degree of question.

How in the world you got this is way beyond me. One of my points is that the purpose of the Genesis Prologue is to identify Yahweh, the covenantal suzerain of Israel, as the Creator King of all creation. It's exactly the opposite of what you've read into the paper. Has anyone else come to this conclusion by reading the paper? If so, please speak up, because if it's a result of bad writing I'll need to rewrite the paper specifically to clear up this misunderstanding.


As far as your response to the Two-Triadic structure, I agree with what you wrote about the Sabbath being an integral part of the structure as a capstone, so I don't see what your objection is.


Under 'toledoth' I completely agree that the account is authentic, so I'm not sure what your point is here either. As a side point, you're incorrect on the use of the toledoth. It's not a colophon. It's a prescript and goes with the following section, not what comes before it. If you'd like, you can take this up with GrayPilgrim or someone else who might like to pursue this tangent and has the requisite background. Perhaps in the future we could discuss it, but for now it'll have to go by the wayside. I'd recommend the book by Duane Garrett called Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Bible. Fascinating use of form-criticism to show the unity of the Genesis text. I'd recommend it for everyone interested in Genesis studies.


Under "Eight works in six days" you made quite a few assertions that need support before I engage them. I suggest you add support to this section before going any further. (example: the plants mentioned were only post-Fall)



Ted, please show me where the semantic field of 'yom' combined with a numerical adjective can be extended to what you want it to include. You appeal to an apocalyptic text written in the Greek language hundreds of years later. I must say I find this not only unconvincing, but indicative of the strength of my argument.

Thanks for your comments, but you've got quite a bit of work to do in supporting your assertions if we are to proceed.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...770#post284770

Hi again Dave,

Today @ 03:05 AM post located here
twohumble:

Again, thank you for your response.

However, I am dubious on the position that the numerical prefix is a valid exegetical tool. Certainly some very credentialed exegetes, do not hold to that rule as it relates to Gen 1 (Walter Kaiser from Gordon Conwell being one, Gleason Archer another).

Yes, I do know that Archer holds the Day-Age view, and I was unaware of what view Kaiser holds, but I'd simply say that they are wrong on this issue. Don't get me wrong, I think they're awesome and have benefited from their works, but I just think they're wrong here.. I understand their desire to systematize the results of the research, and they believe that not only science, but other biblical texts (at least, speaking for what I've read of Archer) indicate that the Genesis 1 days could not be 24 hours long. Because they (positively) want to eliminate contradictions in the text, they had to go with what they considered to be the best interpretive option at the time that would eliminate the contradictions. However, I think the FI is a perfect fit. It allows the standard rules of exegesis to apply to the days of Genesis 1, and also allows the other texts to say that the actual days referred to could not be 24hrs long.

This is part of a wider problem of the methodological issues involved in systematizing various texts. As an example from a different field of biblical studies:

What do you do when the text says that this generation will certainly not pass away until the Son of Man comes on the clouds of heaven?
If you have only two options in front of you:
1. The son of man didn't visibly come on the clouds of heaven, so what Jesus meant by "this generation" must refer to the Jewish people, and not a generation time.
2. The son of man didn't visibly come on the clouds of heaven, and Jesus had to have meant the time of one generation when he said "this generation" therefore Jesus was wrong

I'd guess you'd pick option #1 and say that "this generation" didn't refer to the timespan of a generation. Fortunately, you learn of a third option called Preterism that allows both "this generation" to mean the time length of a generation _and_ for Jesus to be correct. (The Son of Man _did_ come on the clouds of heaven)

Perhaps it would have been best to live with the apparent contradiction and chalk it up to our lack of understanding rather than force the harmonization. Hmm, I went a little off tangent there. Ahh well.

In addition, this was not used as an position by early church fathers, and no one that I am aware, in the pre-16th century era believed Genesis 1 to be a 24 or 12 hr time frame.

I'm not really up on the ECF in regards to this issue other than my understanding is that the majority view was toward a literalistic 24/7 scheme.

In regard to the 7th day relating to Christs reign or enthronement, I am not sure where you place "His rest" with "His enthronement". He was enthroned, before His rest, and before the foundation of the world.

Hmm, well I wouldn't say that Christ was the one specifically who Moses had in mind when he wrote the creation text, but regardless...it's true that God has always been sovereign over the universe, but that doesn't preclude the theology of Genesis 1 to point to God symbolically taking his thrown above creation after he had created it.

The promise of a new creation, and not merely a remaking of the old, is a clear cessation from a rest from "creating". He will once again done the hat of "Creator" as he remakes the universe.

The Sabbath rest that Hebrews 4 refers to is certainly a rest from our work and toil, which brings our strife and anxiety. Since we will not ever need to "re-enter" our "work" we will remain in the sabbath rest forever. This does not support, in my view, your position.

As always, in Christ
Dave

I'm having a little trouble with this part. If we say that the author of Hebrews' argument is this:

"When we enter God's rest, all our work will stop because all God's work stopped when he entered his rest"

Then this would come into conflict with what Jesus says in John 5:17 where he says that his Father is always working. God stopping all his work (not just creative work) would be the parallel for us stopping our work, and I just don't see that. I don't think that's what your arguing, but if you're going to get a parallel here I don't think you can say "God stopped just his creative work, therefore we'll be stopping all our work". Hmm, I hope my points are coming across even if I'm having trouble saying them.

One question that comes to mind is, do you think we'll "work" after our glorification? My own view is that work itself is a positive thing, and we will be able to fully enjoy it once we've been glorified.

Thanks again, Dave!

Brian

[BrianB]

Today @ 05:00 PM post located here
jhappel:

I guess my ignorance of the FH showed in one of my previous posts. Do supporters of the FH take all of Genesis as a rhetorical framework or just the creation account? Did a literal Noah, literal Abraham, literal Joseph exist in their view?

Hi again jhappel,

It's just the 'days' of Genesis 1 that are dischronologized and organized into a topical framework. The Framework Interpretation is specific to the temporal questions of these days and doesn't extend beyond those. It has no bearing on the other questions that you asked.

Oh, and my understanding is that the Genesis text describing the flood could mean either a global or a local (yet universal) flood, though I haven't studied it, so take it only as hearsay based on things I've read in the past. :)

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

• Edited by a Moderator •

edited as it was responding to a post editted in full

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Brian, I am actually considering synthesizing "some" of these ideas into my YEC view which is based upon much more than Gen 1. This fits in with my views on a lot of other Scripture and the typological majestic patterns. This of course is a very tentative comment on my part, but just wanted to let you know I am intrigued. Again, this has nothing to do with a rejection of YEC of which I am firmly, but of a way to understand the pattern of the passage in establishing the recurrent dominion theme etc that is part of the rest of my systematic theology.

[twohumble]

Yesterday @ 08:13 PM post located here
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...770#post284770

Hi again Dave,



Yes, I do know that Archer holds the Day-Age view, and I was unaware of what view Kaiser holds, but I'd simply say that they are wrong on this issue. Don't get me wrong, I think they're awesome and have benefited from their works, but I just think they're wrong here.. I understand their desire to systematize the results of the research, and they believe that not only science, but other biblical texts (at least, speaking for what I've read of Archer) indicate that the Genesis 1 days could not be 24 hours long. Because they (positively) want to eliminate contradictions in the text, they had to go with what they considered to be the best interpretive option at the time that would eliminate the contradictions. However, I think the FI is a perfect fit. It allows the standard rules of exegesis to apply to the days of Genesis 1, and also allows the other texts to say that the actual days referred to could not be 24hrs long.

This is part of a wider problem of the methodological issues involved in systematizing various texts. As an example from a different field of biblical studies:

What do you do when the text says that this generation will certainly not pass away until the Son of Man comes on the clouds of heaven?
If you have only two options in front of you:
1. The son of man didn't visibly come on the clouds of heaven, so what Jesus meant by "this generation" must refer to the Jewish people, and not a generation time.
2. The son of man didn't visibly come on the clouds of heaven, and Jesus had to have meant the time of one generation when he said "this generation" therefore Jesus was wrong

I'd guess you'd pick option #1 and say that "this generation" didn't refer to the timespan of a generation. Fortunately, you learn of a third option called Preterism that allows both "this generation" to mean the time length of a generation _and_ for Jesus to be correct. (The Son of Man _did_ come on the clouds of heaven)

Perhaps it would have been best to live with the apparent contradiction and chalk it up to our lack of understanding rather than force the harmonization. Hmm, I went a little off tangent there. Ahh well.




I'm not really up on the ECF in regards to this issue other than my understanding is that the majority view was toward a literalistic 24/7 scheme.



Hmm, well I wouldn't say that Christ was the one specifically who Moses had in mind when he wrote the creation text, but regardless...it's true that God has always been sovereign over the universe, but that doesn't preclude the theology of Genesis 1 to point to God symbolically taking his thrown above creation after he had created it.



I'm having a little trouble with this part. If we say that the author of Hebrews' argument is this:

"When we enter God's rest, all our work will stop because all God's work stopped when he entered his rest"

Then this would come into conflict with what Jesus says in John 5:17 where he says that his Father is always working. God stopping all his work (not just creative work) would be the parallel for us stopping our work, and I just don't see that. I don't think that's what your arguing, but if you're going to get a parallel here I don't think you can say "God stopped just his creative work, therefore we'll be stopping all our work". Hmm, I hope my points are coming across even if I'm having trouble saying them.

One question that comes to mind is, do you think we'll "work" after our glorification? My own view is that work itself is a positive thing, and we will be able to fully enjoy it once we've been glorified.

Thanks again, Dave!

Brian

Brian, on this board, how to you separate parts of a post to 'quote'? I seem to only be able to post the entire prior post as a quote.

Ok, now, you say Archer and Kaiser are awesome, and I agree. Their command of biblical languages far exceeds most we could quote, yet you simply say "they are wrong" and use their method to eliminate 'contradiction. I find this unconvincing. Your, and YEC assertion in the 'numerical prefix' rule is not considered valid by these learned scholars. That is the hinge on which they deny your assertion. The day/age interpretation lets the context of all passages speak for themselves quite well, it seems to me.


Your question on the 'generation is one I have not read on, and I must rely on commentaries, since I do not read OT Hebrew. Sorry to not be able to address that at this time.

In regard to the ECF's , I have yet to see anyone that is a YEC or FI proponent. This seems odd to me. YEC's, like to think OEC's are the new fad, that succumbs to modern secular influence. On the contrary, the YEC model seems to have come about as a direct offshoot trying to combat naturalism, and is not sound exegesis at all.

Your ideas seem to skirt the idea ( I may be wrong here ) that the narration is trying to put an orderly historical perspective on the creation event. In fact, God knowing man would one day be able to verify the cronological sequence, would certainly give us more "evidence of the unseen" as the author of Hebrews tells us.

[Dee Dee Warren]

hey twohumble, use the quote tags ....

[quote]INSERT TEXT[/QUOTE]

Enclose each part you want to quote in that fashion.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 02:35 AM post located here
tschmidt:

Yes, but as other poseters have shown, the "seventh day" refers to indefinite period of time. Check out Hebrews Chapter 4:3-11

Still other posters have shown that it is the most appalling eisegesis to lengthen the seventh day. AiG points out in Is the seventh day an eternal day?:

Hebrews 4:1–11 teaches that the seventh day of Creation Week was a parallel to the spiritual rest found through Christ alone. Only those who have believed in Christ enter this rest. If the Bible was speaking of an actual continuation of the seventh day of rest, then all would already be in this rest. The rest referred to is obviously a spiritual rest.

Verse 3 teaches that God has been resting since the creation of the world.3 But the parallel would make no sense unless the seventh day was an ordinary day. Hebrews never says that the seventh day of Creation Week is continuing to the present (in fact it says the opposite; see point 3 below), it merely says that God’s rest is continuing.

Could God not have rested on a real 24-hour day in the past and then continued to rest up until the present? If someone says on Monday that he rested on Saturday and is still resting, it in no way implies that Saturday lasted until Monday.

Systematic theologian Doug Kelly replied to a pathetic argument by Ross involving the different closing sequence of the seventh day (Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1–2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms, Mentor (Christian Focus Publications), Ross-shire, UK, p. 111, 1997):

To say the least, this places a great deal of theological weight on a very narrow and thin exegetical bridge! Is it not more concordant with the patent sense of the context of Genesis 2 (and Exodus 20) to infer that because the Sabbath differed in quality (though not — from anything we can learn out of the text itself — in quantity), a slightly different concluding formula was appended to indicate a qualitative difference (six days involved work; one day involved rest)? The formula employed to show the termination of that first sabbath : “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made” (Genesis 2:2) seems just as definite as that of “and the evening and the morning were the first day”.

Hebrew and OT scholar Andrew Steinmann analyses the pattern of cardinals and ordinals and articles in Genesis 1 and concludes(Echad as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, JETS 45(4):577–584, December 2002):

…by omission of the article it must be read as “one day”, thereby defining a day as something akin to a twenty-four hour solar period with light and darkness and transitions between day and night, even though there is no sun until the fourth day [so much for Brian's bleating about the term “solar day” before the sun was created, one of his major points—Soc]. … On the sixth day, the article finally appears. But even here, the grammar is strange, since there is no article on יום as would be expected. This would indicate that the sixth day was a regular solar day, but that it was also the culminating day of creation. Likewise, the seventh day is referred to יום השביעי (Gen 2:3), with lack of an article on יום. This, also, the author is implying, was a regular solar day. Yet it was a special day, because God had finished his work of creation.

Also, if we take the numbers in Genesis literally, then Noah was still kicking around when Abraham was in his 50's, despite their being a 10 generation gap between them.

So? I have yet to see a refutation of my post Why the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies must be tight chronologies. Exegesis must trump your fallible opinions about whether Noah should overlap Abraham.

Shem, Noah's son, would have actually out-lived Abraham. I find it interesting that Arbraham is considered the head of the Family while clearly Shem was still alive and far older than Abraham.

So? Some ancient Jewish commentators thought that Shem was Melchizedek.

I think that Christians need to start taking at least an agnostic point of view about the beginning of Genesis, and perhaps lean towards a figurative inerpretation of it.

I think that Christians need to start returning to what Scripture actually says, including the traditional view of the beginning of Genesis as held by the vast majority of Church Fathers and Reformers, and lean away from a figurative inerpretation of it motivated by compromises with uniformitarian “science”.

[Socrates]

11-14-2003 @ 01:05 PM post located here
twohumble:

However, I am dubious on the position that the numerical prefix is a valid exegetical tool.

It is, and means 24-hour days. And contrary to the Framework eisegesis (motivated, as Kline is forthright in admitting, by trying to agree with uniformitarian "science"), on these days, God spoke, it happened, and God assessed it "very good". The Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1--with the first verb a qatal and the verbs continuing the sequence wayyiqtols--is typical of biblical historical narrative, not poetry or any other type of literary device.

Certainly some very credentialed exegetes, do not hold to that rule as it relates to Gen 1 (Walter Kaiser from Gordon Conwell being one, Gleason Archer another).

Actually, Archer is on record saying that the straightforward reading of Genesis is 24-hour days. But because of "science" he has decided that this can't be right, so he calls the straightforward reading "superficial" and rationalizes it away with eisegesis never dreamt of before the rise of uniformitarian "science".

In addition, this was not used as an position by early church fathers, and no one that I am aware, in the pre-16th century era believed Genesis 1 to be a 24 or 12 hr time frame.

You have evidently been misled by Hugh Ross, like so many others who don't check the primary source. My post http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...3088#post53088 documents how people Ross claimed as ancient day-agers were all actually YECs and most believed in 24-hour creation days. The Reformers were practically unanimous -- Luther, Calvin, the WCF ...

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:33 AM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

Hey Brian, I am actually considering synthesizing "some" of these ideas into my YEC view which is based upon much more than Gen 1. This fits in with my views on a lot of other Scripture and the typological majestic patterns. This of course is a very tentative comment on my part, but just wanted to let you know I am intrigued. Again, this has nothing to do with a rejection of YEC of which I am firmly, but of a way to understand the pattern of the passage in establishing the recurrent dominion theme etc that is part of the rest of my systematic theology.

Blake Reas is a Framework advocate who favors YEC because of the strength of the biblical sin-death causality http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...858#post217858 This is the strongest argument for YEC from most informed 24-hour day supporters too, although to read our detractors you wouldn't think so.

But while leading frameworkers rightly chide day-agers for letting "science" govern their exegesis, they are guilty of the same thing. In the very paper cited by Brian, Kline sez:

‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins. ...

‘In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man.’

And as GP said, one should be suspicious of novelties in theology, and the Framework view was never dreamed of till early last century, when uniformitarianism had become the dominant paradigm.

[Ted]

Brian,

This may be my last post for a week or more (going out of town).

I guess it depends on which definition of 'myth' you are using here. My understanding is that 'myth' can be used in different ways, among which are the following two:

1. A 'myth' is a story told to explain the origins of mankind/earth/universe _without_ any implications for truth or falsity.
2. A 'myth' is a factually untrue (false) story

It appears to me that you're using the second definition. If that is the case, then you have _seriously_ misunderstood the paper. The Framework Interpretation doesn't argue that the account is untrue at all. It holds the account to be utterly true.

My intention in using the term is to express the idea that the original story was constructed in such a fashion as to support the authority of Yahweh, without regard for whether the result is true. The result can be true, but prima facie appears at least slightly less than true (otherwise, why the need to revise/rearrange/adjust the story?). If any element of the story is less than true, then the overall truth of the story comes into question. That is why it necessarily calls Yahweh’s creatorship into question. If the Framework Hypothesis does not mythologize at all, then this would not be the case. But if it does not, what is the point? It would then be the same as a simple literal historical account. But you say:

It's just the 'days' of Genesis 1 that are dischronologized and organized into a topical framework.

In an account that presents itself as a direct historical record, dischronologization is a form of mythologization, and is necessarily slightly removed from the truth.

As a side point, you're incorrect on the use of the toledoth. It's not a colophon. It's a prescript and goes with the following section, not what comes before it.

Since you flag this as a side issue, I will merely state that we will have to agree to disagree here.

Two creation accounts?
There were three terms I asserted to refer to post-fall items
1. siyach hasadeh - shrub of the field
2. ehseb hasadeh - plant of the field
3. man to till the ground.

There are only two other uses of the siyach referring to plants in scripture (Gen 21:15 & Job 30:4, 7). The ISBE Bible Dictionary says: “(Heb: siach "plant," Gen 2:5; "shrub," Gen 21:15; "bush," Job 30:4,7). In the first reference any kind of plant may be meant, but in the other passages the reference is to the low bushes or scrub, such as are found in the desert.” Notice the first statement. “any kind of plant may be meant.” I must answer this by the words of my friend, Dr. Randall Younker (Ph.D. Biology, professor of Archeology, Andrews University), who wrote the biology entries in Eerdman’s new Bible dictionary.

When they assign such a meaning to the word in Genesis 2:5, they are guessing.

The statement that in 2:5 siyach can mean “any plant” is simply a guess, and it’s not very good exegesis. When we have a word with two consistent uses in scripture, and one unknown use, does it make sense to give it a different meaning? No! We are bound by basic principles of interpretation to take the consistent usage and apply it to the unknown, unless there is an overwhelming scriptural reason to do otherwise. Our presuppositions don’t qualify. Thus, siyach hasadeh should be understood as a low brush, typically of useless variety. Dr. Younker goes on to discuss the etymology of the word in cognate languages, developing the definition of “thorny xerophyte.” No one else, to my knowledge, has done this work until Dr. Younker did it. (I can’t give a paper reference, since this is from a taped lecture I attended.)

Incidentally, the three other uses of this form of siyach that I have found all refer to "complaining" or similar. That is certainly not something from before the curse! As an aside, I have a family limited partnership named Siyach Properties to deal with the issues of estate planning. I certainly COMPLAIN about the THORNY tax code!


In the immediate context, we find ehseb hasadeh in Gen 3:18, where Adam is cursed to eat “plants of the field” that he has to toil and sweat to grow and harvest. The next occurrence in is Exod 9:22, 25, where the hail destroys the crops of Egypt. Next it appears in Isa 37:27, where the identity of the item is not so certain, but it again fits the definition I have proposed. And that is the entire list I have found.

On “man to till the ground,” we should note that tilling the ground is a result of the curse. Dr. Younker is again my source, but he points out cross-checking with Hebrew scholars that the construct is compound. The statement is not “there was no man,” but is “there was no man to till the ground”. Tilling is an inseparable part of the description. Thus, it is not applicable until after the curse.

Ted, please show me where the semantic field of 'yom' combined with a numerical adjective can be extended to what you want it to include. You appeal to an apocalyptic text written in the Greek language hundreds of years later. I must say I find this not only unconvincing, but indicative of the strength of my argument.

I must admit that I do not follow your reasoning here. The semantic field arguments have been made fully by others in this thread. My point had to do with the definition of “day.” And appealing to the Apocalypse is not a distant connection.

In the book of Revelation, there are over 800 quotations and allusions to the Old Testament, about 2 per verse. The very structure of the book is drawn from the festival calendar, in the legislation of Moses, whom you state wrote the entire five books of the Pentateuch. Thus, John is reaching directly into your area of discussion for his sources. Further, the motif of Revelation is deliverance from Egypt. Note that the Trumpets and Bowls are explicitly drawn from the plagues of Egypt, and delivered saints sing the “Song of Moses and the Lamb” (Rev 15:3), while standing on a “Red Sea” (lit. “sea of glass mixed with fire” 15:2). Finally, Gregory Beale has shown that John, over 30 times, uses Hebrew wording in Greek (Dionysius called them solecisms) which are bad Greek grammar, but perfect quotations of the original. Finally, the imagery of the New Jerusalem being lit at night is from the pillar of fire by night during the Exodus.

Thus, your identified author of Genesis is used intensively by John the Revelator. I would say that satisfies ad fontes.


Socrates,
Thank you for your well-considered discussion of Hebrew verb forms. That should settle the question of the intent of the author. And I like your cell membrane avatar!

Ted