Marc:

I am grateful (really!) that one of the sixty-seven took the occasion to
participate in a discussion.  I did not "memorize" all the names; no
offense.  But I have to ask you one question.  The Open Letter said:

". suppose that one concluded the man of Mark 2 was healed by Christ over a
period of 20 years through the natural laws which Christ decreed on the
occasion recorded. If one so affirmed, would we be ready to accept that
explanation as being in accordance with the Scripture? Obviously not. But
why not? We would no doubt answer that such is a denial of the clear
affirmation of the inspired record that the miracle was (a) instantaneous,
and (b) could not be explained by natural law. Brethren, if that reply is
proper with regard to the miracle of Mark 2, the same principles must apply
with respect to every miracle. Surely that includes the "grand daddy" of all
miracles, the Creation itself. All other miracles pale in comparison!"

Do you agree that all works of God are unexplainable by natural law?  Do you
agree that all miracles are "instantaneous"?

Thanks,

tom

FYI Tom----Rod


Subject: RE: Genesis 1:14-19 and Job chapter 38

Hi Rod,

Some people have argued that Job 38:7 indicates that the stars were already
created when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job 38:4-6).  You will
see that Job 38 is classical Hebrew poetry with parallelism in thought.
Take v6 for example:
  On what were its footings set,
  or who laid its cornerstone.

A repetition of thought.

So in v 7 we see a similar parallelism
  while the morning stars sang together
  and all the angels shouted for joy.

There is a good case that the morning stars were spiritual beings. If you do
a search on the word star you will find it often refers to spiritual beings,
as well as to real stars.   For example, Isaiah 14:12 refers to 'morning
star' and this is a person, Babylon in the text, often interpreted as
Lucifer.

Curiously, in the book of Revelation, 22:16 Jesus refers to himself as the
bright morning star.'

So I don't think there is a case to query Genesis 1 on the basis of Job 38.

In Christ

Tas



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
> [SMTP:Roderick Bernitt]
> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 5:44 AM
> To: 'Robert V. Gentry - D.Sc.Hon. ESA'; Tas Walker, AIG; 'Sherwin,
> Frank Home Acct'
> Subject: FW: Genesis 1:14-19 and Job chapter 38
>
> Anyone have any thoughts here?-----Rod
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
>> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 2:53 PM
>> To: 'CreationProcessAge forum'
>> Subject: Genesis 1:14-19 and Job chapter 38
>>
>> Todd and Tom, I will examine this more carefully about the word usage
>> here.  Context has a lot to do with it.  To my knowledge, the Hebrew
>> has only one word for stars and it is *kokkivm*.  Any light bearing
>> body in the heavens would have been called this, planets to (and
>> today asteroids, meteoroids.)  I will also check the Greek LXX
>> translation.  Why Job 38 mentions 'morning stars' rather than the
>> normal usage (what we find distinctly in Genesis 1:14-19, also there
>> is another word in Hebrew here for light bearing body which I don't
>> believe is in Job chapter 38) I don't know.  It is true that stars
>> can be seen in their helical rising and the reference in Job 38 may
>> indeed be to these (so old earth creationists may have a point that
>> the stars predate the foundation of the earth at least according to
>> this passage and possible interpretation.)
>>
>> Even if we accept that the stars were created before the earth, Sun,
>> and Moon (Genesis chapter 1:1  possibly could allow this if it is not
>> a simple introductory clause), this does not mean the big bang
>> cosmology is to be accepted by the Church or even correct.  I know
>> that such a statement of faith is consistent with the CRS in the US,
>> namely that the heavens could be much older than the earth.  It also
>> does not establish an *old earth* doctrine in the Bible or that
>> Genesis chapters 1-11 would even allow such a position.  The YEC
>> position in my view is better supported by the text and context.
>>
>> What I said earlier about when the first supernovae originated in
>> relationship to Genesis chapter 3 brings some of this out.  I agree,
>> supernovae are not created starlight, they are real, however they are
>> not *new stars* being created either.
>>
>> If the first SN took place after the Fall of Man in the Bible as well
>> as the entrance of death for mankind and the animal world, then your
>> approach collapses and indeed science has missed something critical
>> in nature so arguments from SN1987A explode, pun intended.  If the
>> first SN took place prior to the Fall of Man in Genesis 3, then it
>> opens the door to the possibility that the stars could be much older
>> than the earth and events recorded in Genesis 1-3.  I cannot say if
>> ICR or AIG has addressed this possibility in their writings.
>>
>> However some type of c-decay during creation day 4 or some type of
>> time dilation operating during creation day 4 may also work but
>> details are not available at this time (at least not by me.)  Real
>> evolutionists would never accept any of this including any OEC model
>> (Richard Dawkins or SJ Gould for example).
>>
>> Some YEC would not have trouble with this position (that the heavens
>> may be much older than the earth), just trouble with a 4.6 Gyr earth
>> and Sun and local Flood model.  However, keep in mind what I said
>> earlier.  The upper waters on creation day 2 may indeed have been
>> involved in the formation of stellar bodies on creation day 4.  This
>> too is a possible interpretation today.  The details in mechanics
>> have not been worked out by YEC.  Water molecules are H2O.  Getting
>> rid of the oxygen is part of the solution.  There is plenty of
>> hydrogen.  If this approach is taken, Kupier belt objects (which are
>> not at present an enormous number, I believe < 100 documented to
>> date) and the presence of gas giant planets is not a surprise to a
>> Biblical creationist because they would have formed via H2O
>> conversion into gas during the creation week (whatever the mechanics
>> by God.)  I admit, this is speculation on my part.
>>
>> Some YEC folks like Russ Humphreys have been working issues like this,
>> thanks----Rod

Marc and others:

Marc makes the following assertion, QUOTE:
If the phrase "the foundation of the world" has reference to the time of
the beginning, then the Hebrew writer says that all the "works" of the six
days of creation were finished, completed, at that time (Hebrews 4:3-4).
That includes man himself who Jesus said was "from the beginning of the
creation"

(Mk. 10:6). This can only make sense when taking Genesis 1-2 as a literal,
historical account. Man was created in the beginning, during the works of
creation accomplished in the foundation of the world. This would encompass
the six days of creation. OEC simply cannot have man created at the
foundation of the world, from the beginning of creation. Man is commonly
dated billions of years after this time period. The scriptures speak quite
to the contrary.
UNQUOTE

At the risk of abusing the privilege of the post, may I quote from Maurice
Barnett's review of my response to the Open Letter.  QUOTE:
Jesus said in Mark 10:6--"But from the beginning of the creation, male and
female made he them."  The phrase, "from the beginning of the creation"
places the creation of man and woman in the creation week. Notice II Peter
3:3-6:
(quote deleted)
The phrase, "from the beginning of the creation" is exactly the same in both
Greek and English as that in Mark 10:6. Here, Peter picks up with the claim
of the mockers and applies it to the very first day of creation! Mark 13:19
says:  "For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the
like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and
never shall be."
Notice how it is worded - "from the beginning of the creation which God
created." That identifies creation week.
One could as well have said that from the beginning of the creation God
"brought forth grass and herb yielding seed," though that was the third day
of creation week. The phrase is comparable to saying, as some passages do,
"the beginning" or "in the beginning." The parallel of Mark 10:6 is Matthew
19:4 that just reads "from the beginning." So, "from the beginning of
creation" and "from the beginning" mean the same thing. John 1:1-3 says, "In
the beginning ... all things were made through him." Day six was the
beginning just as day one was the beginning. And, we have not yet exhausted
the passages on this subject.
UNQUOTE

First, notice the curious handling of the phrase "from the beginning."
Brother Barnett asserts, and I gather Marc would agree with him, that the
language in Genesis 1 is sufficiently precise that we may know what took
place on each creation-day.  But as I pointed out in my response to the Open
Letter, the precise truth about marriage, to which the statements of Jesus
refer, is that it was the last act of creation.  Bro. Barnett makes the
triumphant statement:  "the entire history of the earth, as is that of the
Bible, is human history!"   Putting a "!" at the end of it doesn't make it
true.  Only the last 8% of the creation story is human history, and that
measurement assumes that there is no "gap" between the first two verses of
the Bible, something which no one can prove.

Second, so far as I can tell, the phrase "in the beginning" is dependent on
context for its meaning.  In John 1 "in the beginning" does not refer to the
creation at all, but rather to a pre-creation state.  In John 8:34 it refers
to the beginning of Satan's rebellion, which must not have taken place
within the creation-week as everything at the end of creation was "very
good."  There are many other texts where "in the beginning" has other
meanings, always contextually constrained.  It might be fairly argued that
Jesus' statement "from the beginning (of creation)" refers to the creation
of humans and/or marriage.

But my chief objection to Bro. Barnett's argument is that it is
question-begging.  The issue we are discussing is whether statements in the
Bible about creation are intended to be taken for scientific truths.  Bro.
Barnett assumes what has to be proved:  that Jesus intends to provide a
scientific description of creation in the texts in Matthew and Mark, just as
he believes the Holy Spirit had done in Genesis.  But I don't concede that
point, and his exposition of Jesus' teaching on marriage certainly does not
prove it.  Isn't it interesting how selectively we make use of context!
Jesus' teaching has to do with marriage, not with the scientific exposition
of creation.  Indeed, there is even less justification for making an
argument about the duration of the days of creation from Jesus' remarks than
there is from the statements in Genesis:  at least the Genesis text is a
creation story, which the gospel text is not.

The same points would apply to Marc's questions about the statement in
Hebrews 4.

Marc also asks, QUOTE:
While you are at it, Tom, would you comment on Ex. 20:11, as to:
1) The use of the term "made" (asah) used here as a comprehensive term for
the entire creation, even those things said to have been "created" (bara).
Is this not evidence that "asah" and "bara" are equal, synonymous terms in
the context of the six-day creation?
UNQUOTE

I don't know; it's possible.  My position on the creation is not based on a
distinction between "asah" and "bara."  It is also possible that since
Exodus 20 is not a "technical" description of creation God simply used a
"general" word for the work done, as was the case in Genesis 2:2-3.

And finally, QUOTE:
2) [comment on] The parallel pattern of the Sabbath week with the six days
of creation and one day of rest. Must not the basic pattern of the days of
creation be equal
to the Sabbath week in being literal, sequential, and contiguous? Otherwise,

how could any pattern be established?
UNQUOTE

Since Marc directs us to that context, and in preparation for my comments
concerning Marc's question about the days of creation being sequential and
literal as a "pattern" for the Sabbath-week, I would ask Marc to comment
upon Hebrews 4:6-"It still remains that some will enter that rest ."  To
what "rest" is the writer referring?

Thanks,

Tom

Rod:

Interesting response.  I cannot say that it is not *the correct* one.

However ...

Is Genesis 1 lacking in language with the characteristics of "classical
Hebrew poetry"?

In the immediate context of Job 38 does not God speak of His creative act:
the setting of the foundations of the earth?

Isn't the point of Job 38 the demonstration of God's power in what He has
made?  Did God not make or create the stars?

In the other texts in which intelligent beings are called "stars," isn't
there an indentification of that fact right in the text:  Lucifer, the
morning star; Jesus: "I am the morning star"?

Isn't there a contrast of "the morning stars" to spiritual beings--"the sons
of God shouted for joy"--already in the text?

What contextual considerations in Job 38 would lead one to conclude that the
"stars" were spiritual beings?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 10:24 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] FW: Genesis 1:14-19 and Job chapter 38

FYI Tom----Rod


Subject: RE: Genesis 1:14-19 and Job chapter 38

Hi Rod,

Some people have argued that Job 38:7 indicates that the stars were already
created when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job 38:4-6).  You will
see that Job 38 is classical Hebrew poetry with parallelism in thought.
Take v6 for example:
  On what were its footings set,
  or who laid its cornerstone.

A repetition of thought.

So in v 7 we see a similar parallelism
  while the morning stars sang together
  and all the angels shouted for joy.

There is a good case that the morning stars were spiritual beings. If you do
a search on the word star you will find it often refers to spiritual beings,
as well as to real stars.   For example, Isaiah 14:12 refers to 'morning
star' and this is a person, Babylon in the text, often interpreted as
Lucifer.

Curiously, in the book of Revelation, 22:16 Jesus refers to himself as the
bright morning star.'

So I don't think there is a case to query Genesis 1 on the basis of Job 38.

In Christ

Tas

----- Original Message -----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
<Roderick Bernitt>
To: CreationProcessAge forum
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 11:23 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] FW: Genesis 1:14-19 and Job chapter 38

>
> FYI Tom----Rod
>
>
> Subject: RE: Genesis 1:14-19 and Job chapter 38
>
> Hi Rod,
>
> Some people have argued that Job 38:7 indicates that the stars were
> already created when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job
> 38:4-6).  You will see that Job 38 is classical Hebrew poetry with
> parallelism in thought. Take v6 for example:
>   On what were its footings set,
>   or who laid its cornerstone.
>
> A repetition of thought.

2 points:
A footing is not a cornerstone, so it is not a repetition of thought.
Why is repetition of thought only confined to poetry?

Job 38 reads like a list of Questions God has for "know-it-all" Job.

> So in v 7 we see a similar parallelism
>   while the morning stars sang together
>   and all the angels shouted for joy.

Again, are these parallel, or two different things?

Poetry, or not?  Sure doesn't read as poetry unless one
"knows" they aren't literally true.

But then, that is the whole problem, isn't it?

> There is a good case that the morning stars were spiritual beings.
> If you do a search on the word star you will find it often refers to
> spiritual beings, as well as to real stars.   For example, Isaiah
> 14:12 refers to 'morning star' and this is a person, Babylon in the
> text, often interpreted as Lucifer.

Why? Isaiah 14:2 said "thou shalt take up this parable against the king of
Babylon, and say..."
followed by a bunch of stuff to say *to* the king of Babylon about himself.

Was the king of Babylon Lucifer or any other spiritual being?

> Curiously, in the book of Revelation, 22:16 Jesus refers to himself
> as the bright morning star.'
>
> So I don't think there is a case to query Genesis 1 on the basis of
> Job 38.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Is Genesis 1 lacking in language with the characteristics of "classical
Hebrew poetry"?

Yes, it has the waw consecutive clause through the passage.  also Hebrew
uses an imperfect and perfect state of the verb.  I would have to check for
Genesis 1:1-2:3 but it sure looks like historical narrative to me.  Can you
cite a single Hebrew scholar who denies this?  I have not seen any other
position in Hebrew lexicons.  The lexicons and grammar texts see it as
historical writing.

Of course that does not mean the authors believe in a 6 day creation week
but admit this is what is taught----Rod

tom, even if we accept that stars were created before the earth during the
3rd day of creation in genesis 1, there are other problems with the order of
events in genesis 1 and modern science.  take for example that on the 3rd
day of creation, plant life was made before life in the sea on the 4th day.
also birds were made on the 5th day before land animals.

geologists believe life evolved in the sea long before there was plant life
on land (Precambrian evolution).
paleontologists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs, so land animals
existed before birds.

we still have problems here tom.  you could argue for some type of
progressive creation but i don't, rod

i said [take for example that on the 3rd
day of creation, plant life was made before life in the sea on the 4th day.]

i mean life in the sea on day 5, not day 4, sorry--rod

Hi, Rod.

You are clearly "overstating" your case. I cite Dr. Nahum Sarna (see
his authoritative commentary book on *Genesis*), Dr. Carl Schultz
(see, for example,
http://www.houghton.edu/personnel/cschultz/Genesis_lect.html), and
Dr. John T. Willis (see his commentary book on *Genesis*). All of
these men are Old Testament scholars who think that Genesis 1:1-2:3
is something quite different from historical narrative.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
Is Genesis 1 lacking in language with the characteristics
of "classical Hebrew poetry"?

Yes, it has the waw consecutive clause through the passage. Also
Hebrew uses an imperfect and perfect state of the verb. I would have
to check for Genesis 1:1-2:3 but it sure looks like historical
narrative to me. Can you cite a single Hebrew scholar who denies
this? I have not seen any other position in Hebrew lexicons. The
lexicons and grammar texts see it as historical writing.

Of course that does not mean the authors believe in a 6 day creation
week but admit this is what is taught----Rod

Hi, Rod.

In my recent post entitled "The Metaphorical Language Of Creation"
(prior to your post), I pointed out that:

     A young earth creationist might pose the question "How,
     in an 'old universe' view, would plants have been created
     before the Sun, Moon, and stars?" But this question
     doesn't even make any sense unless you already assume a
     literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation
     account. It is only from a literalistic interpretation
     that chronology has any specific meaning in the account.
     However, chronology is not its purpose. The "days" are
     simply part of a literary formula used to structure the
     account. Recall my point regarding "wings" and "eagle" in
     Ezekiel. Yes, we know the literal meaning of the words,
     but understanding the meaning of the words does not mean
     we understand the overall meaning of the text.
     Furthermore, to insist on a literalistic interpretation
     would be to genuinely *misunderstand* the text.

Additionally, I clearly recall reading Tom's words that he does not
go with a "day-age" interpretation of the text.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
Tom, even if we accept that stars were created before the earth
during the 3rd day of creation in genesis 1, there are other problems
with the order of events in genesis 1 and modern science. Take for
example that on the 3rd day of creation, plant life was made before
life in the sea on the 5th day. Also birds were made on the 5th day
before land animals.

Geologists believe life evolved in the sea long before there was
plant life on land (Precambrian evolution). Paleontologists believe
birds evolved from dinosaurs, so land animals existed before birds.

We still have problems here Tom. You could argue for some type of
progressive creation but I don't.

[All of
these men are Old Testament scholars who think that Genesis 1:1-2:3
is something quite different from historical narrative.

Regards,
Todd]

I would say this is the big difference between YEC, OEC and others.  For
YEC, Genesis chapters 1-11 is *real history*.  The problem is not just with
Genesis chapter 1 but all the way through chapter 11, events before Abraham
in Canaan.

Certainly Hebrew scholars like Gesenius and his works do not promote the
creation and flood stories as anything other than historical narrative.
However Gesenius would reject them (Gesenius was 19th century Hebrew
scholar.)  Josephus in the 1st century understood the text as historical
too.  I think it is far easier to dismiss the accounts in Genesis chapters
1-11 as *legends* rather than attempt to make them look like some type of
literary device that is not teaching real history.  Just look at Chronicles
in the Bible.  See the list of names recorded in the early chapters along
with all the other historical figures, same for Hebrews chapter 11 in the
New Testament -----Rod

Todd,

Quite a sermon there! But I must admit that it raised some significant
questions in my mind.

You wrote...

>>The Genesis account is embedded in the cultural metaphors of the
ancient Israelites, and today the religious motifs simply go over
most people's heads. Chaos, waters, darkness, abyss, Adam (man) and
adamah (ground). The Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil, Eve (living; Genesis 3:20), the serpent, cherubim with a
flaming sword. Step by step the creation account takes primitive
religious idolatry apart and places God (the One God) and the
creation in their proper perspectives. The next account goes further
and places human beings in perspective to God. The motifs are ancient
and ones that the ancient Israelites would have intuitively
understood as a common part of their religious heritage (and in
contrast to the idolatrous religions of the cultures surrounding
them). They would not have tried to treat this as a literal history
any more than you would think Paul Bunyon really lived or that a
witch really built a house out of candy and gingerbread (though I
realize my examples are quite a bit more mundane than Genesis).<<

1) Were Adam and Eve real, historical figures? Was there a real Garden of
Eden? Or are these just Israelite literary motifs? What about the flood,
tower of Babel?

2) Is the text of Genesis 1-11 historical or literary framework motif?

You wrote...

>>The Genesis creation account is clearly metaphorical, containing many
references to metaphorical language and symbols common to the culture
of the ancient Israelites (you know, the original audience), with
some parts of the metaphorical language being used in other places in
the Bible as well.<<

1) What in the text of Gen. 1-2 would demand that the language be understood
metaphorically as opposed to literal?

2) Since the text of Gen. 1-2 begins a historical prose that is consistent
through the rest of the book of Genesis, how may we determine what parts of
Genesis are metaphorical and not literal history? Could all of Genesis be
metaphorical? If not, why not?

I just wanted to test your particular interpretive approach by the evidence
in the text itself. The context of a passage will determine the use and
interpretation of the language in it.

For further consideration:
Do you believe that God expects us to understand the Bible alike? If Biblical
interpretation is subject to fallible human interpretation, how can we be
sure we can ever know what is true? How would we be able to discern truth
from error? How could anyone boldly proclaim truth or oppose error? It seems
that all these things are left up-in-the-air by your approach to the Bible.
Please explain.

Marc Gibson

Tom,

You asked...

>>Do you agree that all works of God are unexplainable by natural law?<<

If by "works" you mean miracles, yes. A miracle in the Bible is something
"super"natural - above nature, or a suspension of the normal occurance of
natural law. Natural law cannot explain a supernatural work. It was a sign of
what could only be divine activity. God can work in other ways, though -
providence, for example. We pray that His will be done.

>>Do you agree that all miracles are "instantaneous"?<<

Yes, when God acts, it will be accomplished when He commands it. God is not
at the mercy of time or nature. He speaks, and it is done.

Tom, do you know of a miracle that could be explained by natural law alone?
Or a miracle that had to be delayed due to time or natural restraints that
hindered its accomplishment?

Marc Gibson

Tom,

Concerning my scriptural argument you said...

>> It might be fairly argued that
Jesus' statement "from the beginning (of creation)" refers to the creation
of humans and/or marriage.<<

Mark 10:6 says "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male
and female.'" The quote from Gen. 1:27 is what refers to the creation of
humans, and the quote of Gen. 2:24 in v. 7 is what refers to the creation of
marriage. That still leaves the phrase "from the beginning of the creation"
unexplained. Was not Jesus identifying an historical time period for man's
creation, and we can know what that time period was by the record in Gen. 1?
Jesus stated a historical truth confirmed by the testimony of divine
scripture.

>>The same points would apply to Marc's questions about the statement in
Hebrews 4.<<

Please look at that again. The Hebrew writer makes a direct reference to the
historical record of Gen. 1-2. His inspired commentary is that the six-day
works of creation were real works that were finished, completed at a real
time - "the foundation of the world." A foundation is at the beginning of
something. One of those works was the creation of humans. OEC insists that
humans appeared very late in the history of the earth and universe. This
scripture says that humans were one of the creative works of God that was
"finished from the foundation of the world." This would accord exactly with
the literal, historical record of Gen. 1, but OEC would have the earth and
universe far from its foundation (beginning) by the time man came along.
Please deal directly with this serious contradiction between OEC and
scripture.

>>Since Marc directs us to that context, and in preparation for my comments
concerning Marc's question about the days of creation being sequential and
literal as a "pattern" for the Sabbath-week, I would ask Marc to comment
upon Hebrews 4:6-"It still remains that some will enter that rest ."  To
what "rest" is the writer referring?<<

It is God's rest (v. 10), first refered to in Gen. 2:2 which is quoted in
Heb. 4:4. The seventh day of the creation week was sanctified because of what
God established (His rest) on that day (Gen. 2:3). The "rest" of God still
remains today for the people of God. It is accessable through Christ who said
we could find rest in Him (Matt. 11:28), and the hope of that eternal rest in
heaven (Rev. 14:13).

Thanks,
Marc Gibson

Todd,

Quite a sermon there! But I must admit that it raised some significant
questions in my mind.

You wrote...

>>The Genesis account is embedded in the cultural metaphors of the
ancient Israelites, and today the religious motifs simply go over
most people's heads. Chaos, waters, darkness, abyss, Adam (man) and
adamah (ground). The Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil, Eve (living; Genesis 3:20), the serpent, cherubim with a
flaming sword. Step by step the creation account takes primitive
religious idolatry apart and places God (the One God) and the
creation in their proper perspectives. The next account goes further
and places human beings in perspective to God. The motifs are ancient
and ones that the ancient Israelites would have intuitively
understood as a common part of their religious heritage (and in
contrast to the idolatrous religions of the cultures surrounding
them). They would not have tried to treat this as a literal history
any more than you would think Paul Bunyon really lived or that a
witch really built a house out of candy and gingerbread (though I
realize my examples are quite a bit more mundane than Genesis).<<

1) Were Adam and Eve real, historical figures? Was there a real Garden of
Eden? Or are these just Israelite literary motifs? What about the flood,
tower of Babel?

2) Is the text of Genesis 1-11 historical or literary framework motif?

You wrote...

>>The Genesis creation account is clearly metaphorical, containing many
references to metaphorical language and symbols common to the culture
of the ancient Israelites (you know, the original audience), with
some parts of the metaphorical language being used in other places in
the Bible as well.<<

1) What in the text of Gen. 1-2 would demand that the language be understood
metaphorically as opposed to literal?

2) Since the text of Gen. 1-2 begins a historical prose that is consistent
through the rest of the book of Genesis, how may we determine what parts of
Genesis are metaphorical and not literal history? Could all of Genesis be
metaphorical? If not, why not?

I just wanted to test your particular interpretive approach by the evidence
in the text itself. The context of a passage will determine the use and
interpretation of the language in it.

For further consideration:
Do you believe that God expects us to understand the Bible alike? If Biblical
interpretation is subject to fallible human interpretation, how can we be
sure we can ever know what is true? How would we be able to discern truth
from error? How could anyone boldly proclaim truth or oppose error? It seems
that all these things are left up-in-the-air by your approach to the Bible.
Please explain.

Marc Gibson

Tom,

You asked...

>>Do you agree that all works of God are unexplainable by natural law?<<

If by "works" you mean miracles, yes. A miracle in the Bible is something
"super"natural - above nature, or a suspension of the normal occurance of
natural law. Natural law cannot explain a supernatural work. It was a sign of
what could only be divine activity. God can work in other ways, though -
providence, for example. We pray that His will be done.

>>Do you agree that all miracles are "instantaneous"?<<

Yes, when God acts, it will be accomplished when He commands it. God is not
at the mercy of time or nature. He speaks, and it is done.

Tom, do you know of a Bible miracle that could be explained by natural law
alone? Or a Bible miracle that had to be delayed due to time or natural
restraints that hindered its accomplishment?

Marc Gibson

(I have sent this post a couple of times to the list but have not seen it in
my mailbox. I am sending it again in hope that it will get through this time.)

Todd,

Quite a sermon there! But I must admit that it raised some significant
questions in my mind.

You wrote...

>>The Genesis account is embedded in the cultural metaphors of the
ancient Israelites, and today the religious motifs simply go over
most people's heads. Chaos, waters, darkness, abyss, Adam (man) and
adamah (ground). The Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil, Eve (living; Genesis 3:20), the serpent, cherubim with a
flaming sword. Step by step the creation account takes primitive
religious idolatry apart and places God (the One God) and the
creation in their proper perspectives. The next account goes further
and places human beings in perspective to God. The motifs are ancient
and ones that the ancient Israelites would have intuitively
understood as a common part of their religious heritage (and in
contrast to the idolatrous religions of the cultures surrounding
them). They would not have tried to treat this as a literal history
any more than you would think Paul Bunyon really lived or that a
witch really built a house out of candy and gingerbread (though I
realize my examples are quite a bit more mundane than Genesis).<<

1) Were Adam and Eve real, historical figures? Was there a real Garden of
Eden? Or are these just Israelite literary motifs? What about the flood,
tower of Babel?

2) Is the text of Genesis 1-11 historical or literary framework motif?

You wrote...

>>The Genesis creation account is clearly metaphorical, containing many
references to metaphorical language and symbols common to the culture
of the ancient Israelites (you know, the original audience), with
some parts of the metaphorical language being used in other places in
the Bible as well.<<

1) What in the text of Gen. 1-2 would demand that the language be understood
metaphorically as opposed to literal?

2) Since the text of Gen. 1-2 begins a historical prose that is consistent
through the rest of the book of Genesis, how may we determine what parts of
Genesis are metaphorical and not literal history? Could all of Genesis be
metaphorical? If not, why not?

I just wanted to test your particular interpretive approach by the evidence
in the text itself. The context of a passage will determine the use and
interpretation of the language in it.

For further consideration:
Do you believe that God expects us to understand the Bible alike? If Biblical
interpretation is subject to fallible human interpretation, how can we be
sure we can ever know what is true? How would we be able to discern truth
from error? How could anyone boldly proclaim truth or oppose error? It seems
that all these things are left up-in-the-air by your approach to the Bible.
Please explain.

Marc Gibson

Tom,

You asked...

>>Do you agree that all works of God are unexplainable by natural law?<<

If by "works" you mean miracles, yes. A miracle in the Bible is something
"super"natural - above nature, or a suspension of the normal occurance of
natural law. Natural law cannot explain a supernatural work. It was a sign of
what could only be divine activity. God can work in other ways, though -
providence, for example. We pray that His will be done.

>>Do you agree that all miracles are "instantaneous"?<<

Yes, when God acts, it will be accomplished when He commands it. God is not
at the mercy of time or nature. He speaks, and it is done.

Tom, do you know of a miracle that could be explained by natural law alone?
Or a miracle that had to be delayed due to time or natural restraints that
hindered its accomplishment?

Marc Gibson

FYI, apparently there are a number of folks on this newsgroup who believe
that Genesis chapter 1 is not *historical narrative* in ancient Hebrew.
Last week there were comments posted to this effect in my inbox.  I consider
such arguments another example of disinformation.-----Rod

These are some notes on Hebrew grammar in Genesis chapter 1.

Genesis 1:1, 'created' is the Hebrew bara, Qal perfect [1]  The Qal or Kal
stem in Hebrew is used in verbs to express 'states and qualities'. [2]  Is
Genesis chapter 1 historical narrative or something else like Hebrew poetry?
The answer is very simple.  Genesis chapter 1 starts out with the perfect
state of the verb and proceeds with the waw consecutive and imperfect.  This
is simple and straightforward historical narrative in ancient Hebrew.

'Since a historical narrative is a series of actions in consecution, either
in time, purpose, or result, it is only logical that the first action
expressed would be in the historical narrative form, i.e., the perfect, and
that each successive action would be the Waw Consecutive with an imperfect'.
[3]

'The imperfect with waw consecutive serves to express actions, events, or
states, which are to be regarded as the temporal or logical sequel of
actions, events, or states mentioned immediately before.  The imperfect
consecutive is used in this way most frequently as the narrative tense,
corresponding to the Greek aorist or the Latin historic perfect.  As a rule
the narrative is introduced by a perfect, and then continued by means of
imperfects with waw consecutive...The continuation of the narrative by means
of the imperfect consec. may result in a series of any number of such
imperfects, e.g. there are forty-nine in Gn. 1.' [4]

'One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses
is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the
first verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the
imperfect.  Conversely, the representation of a series of future events
begins with the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect.' [5]

References

1.  Brown, F., Driver, S.R., and Briggs, C.A., A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford University Press, p. 135, 1978.
2.  Kautzsch, E., and Cowley, A.E., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Oxford
University Press, p. 119, 1974.
3.  Yates, K.M, Owens, J.J., The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew, Harper &
Row Publishers, p. 104-105, 1954.
4.  Ref. 2, p. 326.
5.  Ref. 2, p. 132-133.

Marc and others following this discussion:

From your latest post, QUOTE:
Concerning my scriptural argument you said...
>> It might be fairly argued that
Jesus' statement "from the beginning (of creation)" refers to the creation
of humans and/or marriage.<<
Mark 10:6 says "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male
and female.'" The quote from Gen. 1:27 is what refers to the creation of
humans, and the quote of Gen. 2:24 in v. 7 is what refers to the creation of

marriage. That still leaves the phrase "from the beginning of the creation"
unexplained. Was not Jesus identifying an historical time period for man's
creation, and we can know what that time period was by the record in Gen. 1?

Jesus stated a historical truth confirmed by the testimony of divine
scripture.
UNQUOTE

Was Jesus "identifying an historical time period for man's creation," which
is given us in Gen 1?  As I said, not necessarily.  If the meaning of "in
the beginning" is contextually determined, given that the context of Jesus'
remarks was marriage, the creation of the universe may not be what He had in
mind at all.

But if we agree that was what He had in mind, what tells you that "in the
beginning of creation" means "at the end of the creation-week"?

And if we agree that "in the beginning of creation" means "at the end of the
creation-week," then we are still left with the dispute whether the period
described in scripture, from "In the beginning" to the creation of the
woman, is meant to be understood as 144 consecutive hours as we keep time
today.  That's what we're arguing, Marc.  That's why Barnett's assertion is
question-begging.

And, QUOTE:
Please look at that again. The Hebrew writer makes a direct reference to the

historical record of Gen. 1-2. His inspired commentary is that the six-day
works of creation were real works that were finished, completed at a real
time - "the foundation of the world." A foundation is at the beginning of
something. One of those works was the creation of humans. OEC insists that
humans appeared very late in the history of the earth and universe. This
scripture says that humans were one of the creative works of God that was
"finished from the foundation of the world." This would accord exactly with
the literal, historical record of Gen. 1, but OEC would have the earth and
universe far from its foundation (beginning) by the time man came along.
Please deal directly with this serious contradiction between OEC and
scripture.
UNQUOTE

Ok, I looked again.  I don't see your exposition of the text anywhere in my
translation of Hebrews.  Was "the foundation of the world" finished before
light was created?  Your answer would have to be, "by my definition, no; the
foundation of the world was finished when man and woman were created."  Your
definition isn't in the Bible.  "The literal historical record of Gen 1" is
the issue we're discussing.  Is the Gen 1 account intended to be a
"literal-scientific" account of how God brought the universe into being.  I
say no, based on the fact that the overall context of scripture is human
salvation, not science.  It is a historical fact that God created the
universe.  It is not a scientific fact that He did so in 144 hours.  In
fact, *scripture* doesn't even say He did so in 144 consecutive hours, as I
have demonstrated.

And, QUOTE:
It is God's rest (v. 10), first referred to in Gen. 2:2 which is quoted in
Heb. 4:4. The seventh day of the creation week was sanctified because of
what
God established (His rest) on that day (Gen. 2:3). The "rest" of God still
remains today for the people of God. It is accessible through Christ who
said
we could find rest in Him (Matt. 11:28), and the hope of that eternal rest
in
heaven (Rev. 14:13).
UNQUOTE

I don't disagree with a word of that.  So you agree with me that the seventh
day is still underway?

Tom

Marc and others following this discussion:

I had asked about the Open Letter argument concerning the
"instantaneousness" of miracles, and further whether all works of God must
be miraculous.  Marc, I assume you have followed the discussion of this
point in the papers, so you must understand the dispute.

My first question was:  Do you agree that all works of God are unexplainable
by natural law?

Your response, QUOTE:
If by "works" you mean miracles, yes. A miracle in the Bible is something
"super"natural - above nature, or a suspension of the normal occurrence of
natural law. Natural law cannot explain a supernatural work.
UNQUOTE

Come on, Marc.  Do an algebraic substitution.  "If by 'works' you mean
miracles, yes."  That would make my question, "Do you agree that all
miracles are unexplainable by natural law?"  That's a tautology, and it's
not what I asked.  Do you claim that the only way God can carry out His
works is miraculously?  Please answer *that* question.

And, QUOTE:
Yes, when God acts, it will be accomplished when He commands it. God is not
at the mercy of time or nature. He speaks, and it is done.
UNQUOTE

That isn't what the OL argued about the "instantaneous" nature of miracles,
though a lot of "backing-and-filling" has been attempted by the Watchmen and
the Anchors since.  The example used in the document you signed was of a
miracle that was both *begun* and *concluded* instantaneously, and the
argument made in the document *you signed* was that *all* miracles have to
be that way.  I'm asking if you have changed your position, or perhaps you
simply overlooked that part of the OL.

BTW, your statement--"God is not at the mercy of time or nature.  He speaks,
and it is done"--is exactly the position Hill Roberts takes on the six days
of creation.  The Watchmen and the Anchors obviously haven't read Hill's
position.  He believes the time of creation was six consecutive 24-hour
days.  Before I termed someone's position a "damnable heresy" I would take
the time to understand it.  But you didn't sign Dan King's other articles,
and I appreciate that fact.

And, QUOTE:
Tom, do you know of a Bible miracle that could be explained by natural law
alone? Or a Bible miracle that had to be delayed due to time or natural
restraints that hindered its accomplishment?
UNQUOTE

By definition, no miracle can be explained by natural law alone.  But that's
different from saying that every work of God involves only the miraculous,
isn't it?  No miraculous act of God can be "delayed due to time or natural
restraints that hindered its accomplishment," since, as you stated yourself,
God is not at the mercy of either time or nature.  But that statement has
nothing to do with what we're discussing, which is whether some works of God
took place within a possibly extended time and partially using natural
means.  That's the point you need to address, and I certainly hope you can
distinguish your position from that of the Watchmen and the Anchors.

Tom

Rod and others following this discussion:

Rod, you have not given a whisper of an explanation what a "Waw Consecutive
with an imperfect" is, or why the fact that the Genesis account represents
an example of this structure has anything to do with whether it is a
"literal-scientific" narrative.  I respect the fact that you are an educated
man with a lot of background that many or most of the rest of us do not
possess.  That fact does not give any value to irrelevant arguments.

I am astounded that you should claim that there are no examples of Hebrew
poetical structure contained in the Genesis account.  How many do you want?

1.  The overall structure consists of two triplets, each one addressing in
turn the sky, the sea and the land.

2.  The phrase "let there be ..." is repeated throughout.

3.  The phrase, "And God said ..." is repeated throughout.  Note that this
phrase has no historical or scientific significance whatsoever; it is purely
a feature of the narrative structure.

4.  The phrase, "There was dusk, there was dawn, there was day xxx" is
repeated throughout.

5.  The phrase, "And God saw that it was good" is repeated.  Again, this
statement comes close to being a pure literary device.  At the end the
phrase "and God saw that it was very good" cannot be anything but a poetic
resolution of the narrative.

I am not a Hebrew linguist, but I could find these examples of poetic
structure, and I'm sure if I spent more time in the text I could find more
subtle examples.  If a novice like me can see these things, I doubt that the
experts would have any trouble demonstrating that the Genesis account is a
very highly structured literary form, in fact much more structured in such a
way than the Job creation account.  I am not saying that the fact that it is
a literary form excludes the possibility that it is a historical narrative,
but I don't think you do your case any good by denying the obvious.

tom

Tom, I believe this is what you said here -

[It is a historical fact that God created the universe.  It is not a
scientific fact that He did so in 144 hours.  In fact, *scripture* doesn't
even say He did so in 144 consecutive hours, as I have demonstrated.]

Tom, as I said yesterday, the usage of the perfect state of the verb in
Genesis 1:1 followed by 49 occurrences of the waw consecutive with imperfect
state of the verb in Genesis chapter 1, demonstrates that the 6 days are
*consecutive*, it is simple ancient Hebrew historical narrative structured
around a very tight time scale for the creation week (yom followed by the
cardinal or ordinal number vs. the Hebrew *olam*.  Olam could have been used
instead which would be unambiguous that the days are very long, indefinite
periods of time but the author did not chose *olam*.)  The author clearly
went out of their way to establish a short chronology for creation in
Genesis chapter 1 and a series of events that is consecutive based upon
Hebrew verb usage.

Genesis chapter 1:1 speaks of a creation in the past (perfect state of the
verb bara) followed by a tight consecutive narration of the events related
to that creation which occur in logical sequence based upon Hebrew verb
usage (the waw consecutive with imperfect) in Genesis chapter 1.  While
Genesis chapter 1 is not strictly speaking scientific as we understand
science today, it clearly is intended to be read as *history*, and a
*consecutive history* that teaches a framework for understanding the origin
of the universe by the power of God.

Thanks for your insights Tom-----Rod

Rod and others following this discussion:

There is a passing discussion of the use of the "waw consecutive" structure
found at:

<http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm>

Please note that the writer of this article, Dr. Joseph Pipa, rejects
non-literal and non-consecutive interpretations of the Genesis creation
account; indeed, the purpose of his article is to demonstrate the inadequacy
of the "framework" hypothesis.

In the process of this attempt, however, Dr. Pipa acknowledges some
difficulties with the thesis that the "waw consecutive with imperfect verb
tense" structure always records a sequence of events.  For example, he
points out that Genesis chapter 2 also records events using the "waw
consecutive."  This fact presents a problem when one encounters the
statement in 2:19:

  Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I
  will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the
  Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and
  brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

If the "waw consecutive" always records a strict sequence, we have Adam
created before the beasts and birds which he is called upon to name.  Dr.
Pipa suggests two possible explanations for this construction, but the point
is that he maintains that beasts were created first not *because of* the
"waw consecutive" but *in spite of* it.  He also points out other uses of
this construction to describe non-consecutive events (Ruth 2:3, Jud 16:23,
1Sam 18:11, Num 1:47-49, Ex 11:1).

So it would appear that, far from requiring a consecutive sequence of
events, the "waw consecutive with imperfect verb tense" has multiple uses,
one of which is to describe a consecutive sequence.  If one assumes that
Genesis 1 is the "scientific" narrative of the creation and Genesis 2 is the
"literary" narrative, then one can explain the discrepancy between the two
which would exist if both narratives had to be regarded as "scientific."

Or one could claim, as I do, that the overall context of the purpose of
scripture overrides any grammatical construction, and that neither text in
Genesis is intended to be "scientific" account, notwithstanding the use of
the "waw consecutive."

tom