Hi, Marc and Tom.

Clearly, the language that is used in the Bible referring to what I
might call "God's activity" is different in different contexts. In
Isaiah, for example, it is extremely obvious that while the "bad
things" happening to the Israelites in having their city destroyed
and being carried off into captivity is attributed to "God's
activity," at the same time is "purely natural" in the sense that it
is *NOT* an instantaneous "unnatural" event but is done through
the "agency" of normal human events, in this case by a king from
another city coming over and doing it.

It is a FACT that the Bible uses language in reference to "God's
activity" that is metaphorical, and that at the same time the
language is referring to "purely natural" events, by which, of
course, I am referring to the same thing that others would apply the
phrase "providential work" or "divine providence" or "God working
through the natural world" to.

It is a question in the current discussion as to what the language in
Genesis 1 is.

But where the "Open Letter" authors screwed up badly is in making the
demonstrably false assertion that the Bible does not use the language
of God "speaking" or doing his work in a metaphorical manner, where
the metaphor is "God spoke" or "the hand of God" while the activity
in question is "natural" and the meaning of the metaphor is that God
is behind it. There are many examples of this language being used
metaphorically like this in the Old Testament, so the argument
the "Open Letter" authors make based on the false premise that the
language must be interpreted literalistically is itself a false
argument. When they say that in general and in all cases "God spoke"
is an instantaneous miracle (and thus this is what it is in Genesis
1), it is simply an absurd argument. I have great difficulty
believing that Bible preachers in the Church Of Christ are that
ignorant of phrases like this being used metaphorically elsewhere in
the Old Testament, which is why I believe that their YEC biases have
simply got the better of them.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

Hi, Rod and Tom.

I, too, am no Hebrew scholar or Bible scholar. However, it is plainly
evident that Genesis possesses a literary pattern that does not exist
in straightforward presentation of historical events. As far as I
know, the pattern of Genesis 1 (thru 2:4) might even be completely
unique in the entire Bible. But these patterns exist and are obvious
(Tom has already pointed some out).

On the other hand, the symbolisms are more obvious to those who are
familiar with ancient eastern mythologies (which Genesis 1 was
designed as an antithesis to) and with the Israelite cosmogony. I
mentioned the Old Testament scholar Nahum Sarna, in an earlier post,
and he specifically goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the
structure and the symbols used in Genesis 1 against the backdrop of
the surrounding mythologies and the Israelite's own cosmogony. (John
T. Willis points out some of these things too, but not in as much
detail.) I will look up some of Sarna's material and post some of his
relevant comments.

Regards,
Todd

Hi, Rod.

I think that perhaps you are arguing against one of the "concordist"
interpretations of Genesis 1. I could be wrong, but I don't think any
of the non-YECs in this discussion are arguing for a "concordist"
view.

For example, I'm pointing out that Genesis is metaphorical. I agree
that "yom" means "day," a 24-hour day, just as "eagle" in Ezekiel
means "eagle." I agree that Genesis 1 speaks of creation in six days
of a week. I have been pointing out that while these words are
literal, they are used in a metaphorical context, and that, as a
matter of fact, in this metaphorical context they have no technically
chronological meaning whatsoever - even though we know clearly what
the literal meanings of words like "day" are.

To say that the language of Genesis 1 must be interpreted, and can
only be properly interpreted, as a literal, historical version of
events, is to ignore these various aspects of the language that Tom
and I have been pointing out.

I will not claim to be sure of the specific approach Tom takes -
indeed, I'm not even sure if he takes a specific approach. I know
that in fact there are many Christians, including those who advocate
biblical inerrancy, who simply say - in a similar manner as with much
of the books of Ezekiel or Revelation, for example - "I'm not sure
specifically how to interpret Genesis, but I happen to know how
factual it is that the universe and earth have been around much, much
longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years (just like I know how factual
it is that the earth revolves around the sun), and I believe that the
Bible contains no error, so the idea that Genesis 1 is supposed to be
interpreted literalistically as history cannot be correct, and based
on what I know this is the only possible intellectually honest
position that I can take." As you can see from my short statement of
this general approach, it is possible to have some specific
information about Genesis 1 which supports a general view regarding
Genesis 1 without taking any position at all regarding the details of
a number of specific views compatible with this general view.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
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.

Tom, I recommend that Dr. Joseph Pipa rewrite Gesenius Hebrew Grammar text
first and publish the information.

Did this person do that?

The entire issue about Genesis chapter 1 can be broken down into three
simple test questions:

1. Is Genesis chapter 1 *historical narrative* in ancient Hebrew?
2. Is Genesis chapter 1 *historical narrative* showing consecutive events?
3. Is Genesis chapter 1 *historical narrative* structured around a short
chronology (6 days rather than 6 long ages)?

For me the answer to 1-3 is indeed yes, no further debate.  Your alleged
contradiction in order of events between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis
chapter 2 has been around in liberal theologian circles for a long time.
Bible believing scholars have long since answered it, yet some how you are
not able to find any information from these sources and present it.

Clearly if the answers to my 3 simple test questions is yes, then the YEC
folks have the correct approach to Genesis chapters 1-11, otherwise it is
easier to dismiss Genesis chapters 1-11 as historical narrative but
containging only legends----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 2:26 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Use of the "Waw Consecutive" to designate
uninterrupted sequences of events

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

okay Todd, please go study the usage of the Hebrew *toledoths* in the book
of Genesis (example 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, etc.)  These are short titles showing a
history is to follow-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 2:49 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: For Rod: Poetic structure in Genesis 1

Hi, Rod and Tom.

I, too, am no Hebrew scholar or Bible scholar. However, it is plainly
evident that Genesis possesses a literary pattern that does not exist
in straightforward presentation of historical events. As far as I
know, the pattern of Genesis 1 (thru 2:4) might even be completely
unique in the entire Bible. But these patterns exist and are obvious
(Tom has already pointed some out).

On the other hand, the symbolisms are more obvious to those who are
familiar with ancient eastern mythologies (which Genesis 1 was
designed as an antithesis to) and with the Israelite cosmogony. I
mentioned the Old Testament scholar Nahum Sarna, in an earlier post,
and he specifically goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the
structure and the symbols used in Genesis 1 against the backdrop of
the surrounding mythologies and the Israelite's own cosmogony. (John
T. Willis points out some of these things too, but not in as much
detail.) I will look up some of Sarna's material and post some of his
relevant comments.

Regards,
Todd

Todd, please do post some of Nahum Sarna comments.  But first post when this
person claims the accounts originated (what time period), and when they were
recorded.  I want to see this first, thanks-----Rod

Tom,

Good to continue the discussion with you.

You said in your last post...
>>Do you claim that the only way God can carry out His
works is miraculously?  Please answer *that* question.<<

I did answer that question. Lest you missed it, let me quote myself from my
last post..."God can work in other ways, though - providence, for example. We
pray that His will be done." This would be non-miraculous. I am not in a
position to definitely point out such activity with precision because God has
not granted revelation about these matters today. But I continue to pray that
His will be done.

I understand instantaneous as being immediate. I do not know of a Bible
miracle that required vast ages to accomplish. If you want to quibble about a
few minutes, have at it, but the issue is about a creation supposedly
accomplished over vast ages.

You wrote...
>>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.<<

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand Hill Roberts position to be six
24-hour days with gaps of vast time in between each. The days may be
technically consecutive (in order), but not contiguous (adjoining with no gap
in between). This would assume something not revealed in the text. My
position and that of Hill Roberts would not be the same on this point, and it
is a significant difference.

In a related matter, the point about Ex. 20:11 is concerning how the
Israelites would have understood the pattern of  the Sabbath week as seven
literal, consecutive, and contiguous days if the Creation Week upon which it
was based was not already understood in the same way?? What would have kept
them from observing seven non-contiguous days over several months? Please
address this point, Tom, and its impact on the proper understanding of the
days of creation.

The miracle of creation is understood by faith: Where nothing was, God spoke,
and something was. Something came into being, where there had been nothing,
immediately by the word of His mouth. Hebrews 11:3

Thanks,
Marc

Marc, you said here [but I understand Hill Roberts position to be six
24-hour days with gaps of vast time in between each. The days may be
technically consecutive (in order), but not contiguous (adjoining with no
gap
in between).]

I don't know this position but if you are correct, to have 6 consecutive
days with a large time gap between them, seems to me to open the door to
more problems, like having plants on earth during creation day 3, and then
waiting until creation day 5 (a gap of long periods between each day, thus
possibly millions of years) for the fish to appear in the oceans.  Modern
science does not think like this at all.  Again it would be easier to use
the Hebrew olam rather than yom in Genesis chapter 1 and the long time
periods would clearly be taught-----Rod

Tom,

I want to concentrate on our discussion of Hebrews 4.

You wrote...
>>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.<<

I don't know what translation you are using, but let us be clear on what the
writer of Hebrews is saying. He said "the works were finished from the
foundation of the world." The "works" would be the creative works of the six
days of creation (v. 4). The "foundation of world" is the beginning, the
point of origin. All the works of creation were finished (completed) at a
collective point of origin. This is the teaching of the passage. Let's be
even more direct. The creation of...
the earth
light
seas
the firmament
plant life
sun, moon, stars
sea life
birds
land animals
man
...were all "finished from the foundation of the world." Get that? They were
all finished at the same period of time, namely, the creative week. This
passage confirms the historical and literal accuracy of Gen. 1-2. For your
further consideration:

1) Was not man's creation finished "from the foundation of the world" just
like the sun, moon, and stars' creation was finished "from the foundation of
the world"? Does the Scripture not say that all these works were finished at
the same beginning point?

2) If man was created billions of years after the creation of the universe,
earth, and millions of years after plant and animal life, how could the work
of creating man on day six be "from the foundation of the world" just like
all the other works of creation? Please explain how man's creation can be
"from the foundation of the world" when OEC says that man could not have been
around since the foundation of the world. This gets to the heart of the issue.

3) Does not the literal, historical reading of Gen. 1-2 place all of God's
creative works "from the foundation of the world" just like Hebrews 4:3 says
indeed happened and that we are to accept by faith?

You wrote...
>> 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.<<

Yes, the overall context of scripture is human salvation, and it includes the
historical activity and word of God to explain where we came from, who we
are, and where we are going. It is a historical fact that God created the
universe and it is a historical (not scientific) fact that He did so in six
literal days. The testimony of the Lord is sure. It reveals facts of history
as to origins and man's need of salvation. Science is unable to discern
origins and the Divine activity in history.

>>So you agree with me that the seventh
day is still underway?<<

No. There is not a verse of scripture that states such. The "rest" of God
continues according to the text of Heb. 4, not the seventh day of the
creation week.  A principle or activity can continue after the day on which
it was started (or established) is over. Gen. 2:2 teaches what was done on
the seventh day, and v. 3 teaches how "then" God blessed and sanctified the
day because of what had been accomplished on that day. It was a completed and
blessed day that started a "rest" that has applications to this day.

Thanks,
Marc

Rod,

I agree with your assessment of the situation. Those who wish to inject vast
amounts of time (billions of years) into the text of Genesis may satisfy some
outside scientific concerns, but nearly always end up mangling the text and
creating more problems to solve. This should tell us something.

Marc

Todd,

Considering your points about metaphoric language and Genesis 1, I hope you
will answer the questions I sent in an earlier post exploring how far and
consistent you will take this matter in the book of Genesis. If you missed
this earlier post, I will be happy to send it again.

Marc

Marc:

Thanks for your response, and for your willingness to engage this issue.

You wrote, QUOTE:
I understand instantaneous as being immediate. I do not know of a Bible
miracle that required vast ages to accomplish. If you want to quibble about
a
few minutes, have at it, but the issue is about a creation supposedly
accomplished over vast ages.
UNQUOTE

No, I don't want to quibble about a few minutes, but I will ask:

How long, from the first prophecy, did it take God to bring about the birth
of His son?

For how long has Jesus been upholding the creation by the word of His power?

How long did it take God to accomplish the prophecy given in Hos 6:2?

How long did God work to accomplish the prophecy in Gen 49:10?  In Psalm 2?
Any other Messianic prophecy?

And, QUOTE:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand Hill Roberts position to be six
24-hour days with gaps of vast time in between each. The days may be
technically consecutive (in order), but not contiguous (adjoining with no
gap
in between). This would assume something not revealed in the text. My
position and that of Hill Roberts would not be the same on this point, and
it
is a significant difference.
UNQUOTE

That is not Hill's position.  You can find his position on his website:

http://lordibelieve.org/time/age8.PDF

And, QUOTE:
In a related matter, the point about Ex. 20:11 is concerning how the
Israelites would have understood the pattern of  the Sabbath week as seven
literal, consecutive, and contiguous days if the Creation Week upon which it

was based was not already understood in the same way?? What would have kept
them from observing seven non-contiguous days over several months? Please
address this point, Tom, and its impact on the proper understanding of the
days of creation.
UNQUOTE

I shall shortly do so.  But I have to deal with a point in your other
message on Heb 4.  Thanks for your indulgence.

tom

Hi, Marc.

No, didn't miss it, just spending more time on it. I'm already
working on it. :-)

Regards,
Todd


######## Marc Gibson ########
Considering your points about metaphoric language and Genesis 1, I
hope you will answer the questions I sent in an earlier post
exploring how far and consistent you will take this matter in the
book of Genesis. If you missed this earlier post, I will be happy
to send it again.

Some notes on Dr. Joseph Pipa based upon what Tom Couchman said about the
waw consecutive yesterday -
[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.]
The question that Dr. Joseph Pipa needs to answer is what is the dominant
and normal usage of waw consecutive with imperfect verb state?  The material
cited by Tom Couchman does not answer this.  Gesenius Hebrew grammar I cited
clearly does.  The definition provided by Gesenius is -
'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.' [1]

The position of Gesenius on Genesis chapter 1 is the most frequent use of
the waw consecutive with imperfect verb state.  It is not citing exceptions
or deviations from the normal usage as the basis for understanding Genesis
1.  Apparently Dr. Joseph Pipa is rejecting the most frequent use when
applied to Genesis chapter 1 and so is Tom Couchman.  I think Dr. Pipa needs
to rewrite Genesis chapter 1 and remove the 49 occurrences and show what is
the true sequence of events in Genesis chapter 1 if we are to accept such
claims.  I don't believe Dr. Pipa will do this and neither will Tom
Couchman.  Remember the Jehovah Witness have done this.  The Watch Tower
published the New World Translation.  I recommend the OEC folks publish
their version showing what the correct sequence is in Genesis chapter 1
because this group clearly rejects main stream Hebrew grammar usage.  The
Watch Tower publication has done some interesting things with the English
indefinite article in John 1:1 and also in Isaiah chapter 9 where nouns in
Hebrew are found in the construct state.

We find simple support in Psalm 136:5-9 for the consecutive sequence of
Genesis chapter 1.  Tom Couchman has remained silent on this because it
flatly contradicts OEC interpretation.  It shows the earth before the sun,
moon, and stars.  Dr. Joseph Pipa needs to study Gesenius teaching
concerning the Imperfect with Waw Consecutive.  So does Tom Couchman.  [2]
Good old Gesenius had something very important to say on the whole matter.

"This progress in the sequence of time, is regularly indicated by a pregnant
and (called waw consecutive), which in itself is really only a variety of
the ordinary waw copulative, but which sometimes (in the imperf.) appears
with a different vocalization...This name best expresses the prevailing
syntactical relation, for by waw consecutive an action is always represented
as the direct, or at least temporal consequence of a preceding action...The
fact that whole Books (Lev., Num., Josh., Jud., Sam., 2 Kings, Ezek., Ruth,
Esth., Neh., 2 Chron.) begin with the imperfect consecutive and others
(Exod., 1 Kings, Ezra) with waw copulative, is taken as a sign of their
close connection with the historical Books now or originally preceding
them."  I will stick with the most frequent use interpretation of the waw
consecutive and imperfect in Genesis chapter 1.  A close examination of the
Hebrew Bible shows that a number of books can be linked to each other this
way as Gesenius indicates, so too the order of events described in Genesis
chapter 1.

Again Tom Couchman said -

[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:]
I will only say that Dr. Pipa may not have read Delitzsch or S.R. Driver in
1892 which has long laid to rest this liberal theological myth about Genesis
chapters 1 and 2 and the alleged contradiction. [4]
What I find most appalling is that there are some in this newsgroup who
clearly believe that Genesis chapters 1-11 is some type of ancient literary
device not intended to be read as real history.  Apparently they believe
that ancient Hebrews would not have read the material as real history like
the YEC folks do today.

In the KJV Bible, we see the word 'generations' found at Genesis 2:4, 5:1,
6:9, 10:1, 11:10, and 11:27.  No less than 6 generation divisions are found
in Genesis 1-11.  I don't think the author could have been any clearer.  The
Hebrew word is toledoth and Gesenius tells us what it means.

"Generations, families, races...As a very large portion of the most ancient
Oriental history consists of genealogies, it means-history, properly of
families."[5]

So we see the word can be used for more than just a generation or race, but
literally 'family history'.   Now go back and read those toledoth divisions
translated as 'family history' or 'these are the family histories of' or
simply, 'this is the history of'.  The toledoth or family history of the
heavens and the earth begins at Genesis 2:4 and runs through Genesis 4:26.
Why would an ancient Hebrew read this toledoth as less historical than for
example, the toledoth of Terah? (Genesis 11:27-25:11).  Why would an ancient
Hebrew read the toledoth of Genesis 2:4-4:26 as less historical than the
toledoth of Aaron and Moses that begins at Numbers 3:1?  Why would an
ancient Hebrew read the toledoth of Genesis 2:4-4:26 as less historical than
the toledoth of Perez in Ruth 4:18-22?

Why do I put up with the utter nonsense that some in this newsgroup come up
with?

---Rod

References
1.  Kautzsch, E., and Cowley, A.E., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Oxford
University Press, p. 326, 1974.
2.  Ref. 1., p. 326-330.
3.  Ref. 1., p. 133.
4.  Free, J.P., Archaeology and Bible History, Scripture Press
Publications Inc., p. 29-30, 1973.
5.  Tregelles, S.P., Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament Scriptures, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 859, 1974.

Rod:

When you make an argument in terms of "absolutes," and somebody shows that
your argument, while it *might* be true, is not *absolutely* true, you have
two choices.  You can gracefully acknowledge that there are some exceptions
and restate your reasons for holding the position you do.  Or, you can react
hysterically and verbally machine-gun everybody who points out the
"non-absolute" nature of your alleged "absolute."  Clearly, you have chosen
the latter.

The fact is, Rod, that contrary to what you stated the "waw consecutive with
imperfect verb" does not *always* indicate a sequence.  Apparently--though I
would not be able to say, not being an expert in Hebrew--it does so most of
the time.  Most reasonable people would be content to make that point and
rest their argument.  Not you.

QUOTE:
Why do I put up with the utter nonsense that some in this newsgroup come up
with?
UNQUOTE

I don't have an answer for that question, Rod.  If you think any position
that is held honestly in disagreement with yours is "utter nonsense," I
would suggest you find a better way to spend your time.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 5:59 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Genesis 1-11 and Hebrew grammar

Some notes on Dr. Joseph Pipa based upon what Tom Couchman said about the
waw consecutive yesterday -
[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.]
The question that Dr. Joseph Pipa needs to answer is what is the dominant
and normal usage of waw consecutive with imperfect verb state?  The material
cited by Tom Couchman does not answer this.  Gesenius Hebrew grammar I cited
clearly does.  The definition provided by Gesenius is -
'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.' [1]

The position of Gesenius on Genesis chapter 1 is the most frequent use of
the waw consecutive with imperfect verb state.  It is not citing exceptions
or deviations from the normal usage as the basis for understanding Genesis
1.  Apparently Dr. Joseph Pipa is rejecting the most frequent use when
applied to Genesis chapter 1 and so is Tom Couchman.  I think Dr. Pipa needs
to rewrite Genesis chapter 1 and remove the 49 occurrences and show what is
the true sequence of events in Genesis chapter 1 if we are to accept such
claims.  I don't believe Dr. Pipa will do this and neither will Tom
Couchman.  Remember the Jehovah Witness have done this.  The Watch Tower
published the New World Translation.  I recommend the OEC folks publish
their version showing what the correct sequence is in Genesis chapter 1
because this group clearly rejects main stream Hebrew grammar usage.  The
Watch Tower publication has done some interesting things with the English
indefinite article in John 1:1 and also in Isaiah chapter 9 where nouns in
Hebrew are found in the construct state.

We find simple support in Psalm 136:5-9 for the consecutive sequence of
Genesis chapter 1.  Tom Couchman has remained silent on this because it
flatly contradicts OEC interpretation.  It shows the earth before the sun,
moon, and stars.  Dr. Joseph Pipa needs to study Gesenius teaching
concerning the Imperfect with Waw Consecutive.  So does Tom Couchman.  [2]
Good old Gesenius had something very important to say on the whole matter.

"This progress in the sequence of time, is regularly indicated by a pregnant
and (called waw consecutive), which in itself is really only a variety of
the ordinary waw copulative, but which sometimes (in the imperf.) appears
with a different vocalization...This name best expresses the prevailing
syntactical relation, for by waw consecutive an action is always represented
as the direct, or at least temporal consequence of a preceding action...The
fact that whole Books (Lev., Num., Josh., Jud., Sam., 2 Kings, Ezek., Ruth,
Esth., Neh., 2 Chron.) begin with the imperfect consecutive and others
(Exod., 1 Kings, Ezra) with waw copulative, is taken as a sign of their
close connection with the historical Books now or originally preceding
them."  I will stick with the most frequent use interpretation of the waw
consecutive and imperfect in Genesis chapter 1.  A close examination of the
Hebrew Bible shows that a number of books can be linked to each other this
way as Gesenius indicates, so too the order of events described in Genesis
chapter 1.

Again Tom Couchman said -

[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:]
I will only say that Dr. Pipa may not have read Delitzsch or S.R. Driver in
1892 which has long laid to rest this liberal theological myth about Genesis
chapters 1 and 2 and the alleged contradiction. [4]
What I find most appalling is that there are some in this newsgroup who
clearly believe that Genesis chapters 1-11 is some type of ancient literary
device not intended to be read as real history.  Apparently they believe
that ancient Hebrews would not have read the material as real history like
the YEC folks do today.

In the KJV Bible, we see the word 'generations' found at Genesis 2:4, 5:1,
6:9, 10:1, 11:10, and 11:27.  No less than 6 generation divisions are found
in Genesis 1-11.  I don't think the author could have been any clearer.  The
Hebrew word is toledoth and Gesenius tells us what it means.

"Generations, families, races...As a very large portion of the most ancient
Oriental history consists of genealogies, it means-history, properly of
families."[5]

So we see the word can be used for more than just a generation or race, but
literally 'family history'.   Now go back and read those toledoth divisions
translated as 'family history' or 'these are the family histories of' or
simply, 'this is the history of'.  The toledoth or family history of the
heavens and the earth begins at Genesis 2:4 and runs through Genesis 4:26.
Why would an ancient Hebrew read this toledoth as less historical than for
example, the toledoth of Terah? (Genesis 11:27-25:11).  Why would an ancient
Hebrew read the toledoth of Genesis 2:4-4:26 as less historical than the
toledoth of Aaron and Moses that begins at Numbers 3:1?  Why would an
ancient Hebrew read the toledoth of Genesis 2:4-4:26 as less historical than
the toledoth of Perez in Ruth 4:18-22?

Why do I put up with the utter nonsense that some in this newsgroup come up
with?

---Rod

References
1.  Kautzsch, E., and Cowley, A.E., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Oxford
University Press, p. 326, 1974.
2.  Ref. 1., p. 326-330.
3.  Ref. 1., p. 133.
4.  Free, J.P., Archaeology and Bible History, Scripture Press
Publications Inc., p. 29-30, 1973.
5.  Tregelles, S.P., Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament Scriptures, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 859, 1974.

okay Tom, I have no problem with your criticism here about me.  Just
remember that a number of past posts (e.g. SN1987A, cDK and slow motion
effect) argue from an *absolute* which I know is not 100% factual so it
works both ways.  However what I said about offering up a new translation
for the market place concerning Genesis chapters 1-11 stands.  That would be
the only way to settle such discussions in my opinion and we must admit that
the Jehovah Witness with the Watch Tower did present the New World
Translation for all to see, thanks------Rod

Marc:

Good points.  You do an excellent job of arguing your position, without
showing scorn for opposing views.

My questions are these:

1.  Is the Genesis creation account intended as a "scientific" explanation
of how God brought the universe to the state of human habitation.

I say no, you seem to agree, QUOTE:
It is a historical fact that God created the
universe and it is a historical (not scientific) fact that He did so in six
literal days.
UNQUOTE

I am not inclined to quibble with your statement, though I would ask leave
to "refine" the word "literal."  The fact that we cannot say that the
description of the creation process in Genesis 1-2 is "scientific" is
sufficient for me, but probably not for others.  I will post my comments
upon that text by tomorrow morning.

2.  Are you willing to apply the same technical rigor to all statements in
scripture about "foundations of the world" and "God's work" that you are
trying to apply to the text in Hebrews?

Heb 4:4-5 says that "all his works" were finished when "the foundations of
the earth" were set.  Job 38:4 makes the "foundations of the earth" separate
from other creative acts (the creation of the "morning stars" and "the sons
of God").  John 5:17 says that God continues to work.  Is there a
*contradiction* here?  Not at all, unless we are required to take the
statements in Job 38 and John 5 as "technically true" in the same sense that
you mean the statement in Heb to be "technically true."  If you insist on
pressing the point that Heb 4 must be read to confine the works of God to
144 consecutive hours, I think you have a  problem, because someone else can
insist on the same type of exegetical treatment for Job 38 and John 5.  Heb
4 is an attempt to discuss the availability of the "rest" of God in the
context of the historical fact that God created heavens and earth.  "By
faith" I understand that point.  Furthermore, Heb 4 cannot impose a time
constraint on God's creation which Genesis does not impose, and I see from a
recent issue of "the papers" that James Needham says Genesis imposes no such
constraint:  so it must be true!

WHAT REST?

Heb 4:1--"Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest ..."

What rest does he mean?

Heb 4:4--"For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this
way:  'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works.'"

Is he not specifically talking about the seventh day rest of God?

Heb 4:5-6--"and again in this place:  'They shall not enter My rest.'  Since
therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first
preached did not enter because of disobedience ..."

Whose rest is he discussing?  What "it" is meant in "some must enter it"?
Where in the text is the change from the "rest" in "And God rested on the
seventh day from all his works" and the "rest" in "They shall not enter my
rest" and the "rest" in "it remains that some must enter it".  Is this not
"God's rest"?  When or what was/is "God's rest"?  Who can deny that "my
rest" is the seventh day?  Who can deny that "some must enter" "My rest"?

Heb 4:9-10--"There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.  For he
who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did
from His."

What "rest" remains?  Into Whose rest are we to enter, if not God's rest?
What is God's rest if not the seventh day? At the start of this text the
"rest" was the "seventh day."  At the end of this text the rest into which
Christians may enter is the same rest that God entered when He ceased from
His works.  Now how do you deny that the seventh day is still in existence?

tom

Hi, Rod.

Bad analogy.

The claim was made that all of the available evidence shows that
SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. The evidence is
clear and unequivocal.

The only criticism offered of this claim was the already discredited
YEC lightspeed decay argument (which you claim you do not support,
but interestingly enough you keep bringing it up as somehow
representing some kind of legitimate criticism). We thoroughly
thrashed the lightspeed decay argument, merely explaining that it is
an already discredited argument and why it is discredited. In doing
so, we actually further substantiated the claim about SN1987A
occurring 168,000 years ago by talking about the fact that a uniform
lightspeed is actually observed instead of assumed.

Therefore, it remains the FACT that all of the available evidence
shows that SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. You
certainly have not shown any evidence whatsoever to the contrary of
this claim, nor shown any flaw in the information about SN1987A
already presented.

Therefore, your analogy is bad, because your statement that the
SN1987A information presented "I know is not 100% factual" is false.
If you know it is not 100% factual, then the burden is on you to
present genuinely contrary information or to show a legitimate flaw
in the information we have already presented about SN1987A. You have
done neither one. Every time you try to misrepresent this crystal
clear example of SN1987A, I will comment on it. You have made
comments in previous posts that you would drop discussion of the
fallacious lightspeed decay idea, and I recommend that you follow
through. As long you continue to bring it up, I will continue to
point out that it is a false, untrue concept.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/27/00 10:23 am ########
okay Tom, I have no problem with your criticism here about me. Just
remember that a number of past posts (e.g. SN1987A, cDK and slow
motion effect) argue from an *absolute* which I know is not 100%
factual so it works both ways. However what I said about offering up
a new translation for the market place concerning Genesis chapters 1-
11 stands. That would be the only way to settle such discussions in
my opinion and we must admit that the Jehovah Witness with the Watch
Tower did present the New World Translation for all to see, thanks----
--Rod

okay Todd, it appears that you know about Setterfield work but what about
others?  Setterfield is not the first here, see my comments.  2 arguments
were advanced in this newsgroup against cDK and Setterfield slow motion
effect:

1. fsc proves that c has not changed-(absolute position)
2. rapid rotation of pulsars proves c has not changed (absolute position)
because of max spin rates would be to fast.  However these rates apply only
to equations of state for neutron star matter in a *c constant universe*.
One would have to show that in a cDK universe, the same equations of state
apply.  *I don't have proof of this* and unless you do, the argument is not
absolute.

These 2 arguments are not absolute evidence against cDK.  Perhaps you would
do better to use neutrino momentum and the necessary change in a cDK
universe or Cherenkov radiation effects, but I feel these 2 items should not
be used as absolute arguments against cDK, that is my point to this
newsgroup-----Rod


ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Physical constants and evolution of the universe
Authors:  Troitskii, V. S.
Affiliation: AA(Nauchno-Issledovatel'skii Radiofizicheskii Institut, Gorki,
   USSR)
Journal: Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 139, no. 2,
   Dec. 1987, p. 389-411.
Publication Date: 12/1987
Category: Astrophysics
Bibliographic Code: 1987Ap&SS.139..389T

          Abstract

A cosmological model is discussed in which the red shift is explained by the
hypothesis of the continuous decrease of the light speed in vacuum beginning
from a certain moment of time in the past everywhere in the universe. The
model employs a c-metric in which light speed depends on time and in which
the radius of the curvature of three-dimensional space remains constant. The
c-metric is found to lead to the same observed effects as the metric of
standard cosmology as a consequence of the conformity of spaces defined by
both metrics. The present model is shown to account for phenomena such as
the high isotropy of the relict background and superluminal speeds in
quasars.

Rod's note > can a cDK type model be built where the radius of the universe
expands with time?  As c decreases and time expands and also the radius of
the universe?


ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Physical constants and the evolution of the universe
Authors: Troitskii, V. S.
Affiliation: AA(Gor'kovskii Radiofizicheskii Institut, Gorki, USSR)
Journal: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Doklady (ISSN 0002-3264), vol. 290, no. 1,
   1986, p. 58-62. In Russian.
Publication Date: 00/1986
Category: Astrophysics
Bibliographic Code: 1986DoSSR.290...58T

          Abstract

It is demonstrated that a cosmological model with time-variable fundamental
constants which does not contradict the laws of physics can be constructed
on the basis of the hypothesis that explains the red shift by a decrease in
the speed of light in vacuum with time. Agreement with experiment is
achieved by the assumption that a series of constants varies synchronously
with the speed of light.

Rod's note > fsc/c shows that the fine structure constant is inversely
proportional to c today.   However if c was decreasing in the beginning
could this become?

dfsc/dc = fsc/c  (1.0)

Equation (1.0) could suggest that we may not observe changes in fsc in
remote star light spectra if c was rapidly decreasing during the creation
week.  c would be a constant today.


ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: The general metrical fundamental form of the de Sitter universes
Authors: Treder, H.-J.
Affiliation: AA(Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sternwarte,
   Babelsberg, East Germany)
Journal: Astronomische Nachrichten, vol. 296, no. 1, 1975, p. 15-18.
Publication Date: 00/1975
Category: Astrophysics
Bibliographic Code: 1975AN....296...15T

          Abstract

The general characteristics of a de Sitter universe are considered, taking
into account the Riemannian curvature tensor. The metric of a de Sitter
world is conformal to the Minkowskian metric. This metric can be written in
a Robertson-Walker form.  Attention is given to the three forms of the de
Sitter universe and to the dependence of the radius of a de Sitter universe
on the other parameter values. An equation is obtained which defines a
spherical three-dimensional space with an oscillating radius.

Rod's note > can the radius of the universe also depend upon time?  As time
increases could the radius of the universe expand?

Hi, Rod.

So the truth of this matter is that you *do* support the lightspeed
decay idea, even though it carries the implication that astronomers
should observe, as a result, slow motion effects with various
processes, proportional to their distance from the earth, and even
though astronomers do not in fact observe such slow motion effects.

I have to tell you, Rod, that offering a speculation does not
constitute a legitimate criticism of a claim (in this case, against
the claim that SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago).
Moreover, it is wrong to continue to proffer a speculation that has
been directly falsified (because a necessary effect that it predicts -
slow motion effects - are not observed, but instead uniform rates
are observed) as being something we should continue to consider as a
possibility. (By the way, you neglected to mention the uniform
supernovae radioactive decay rates, which I pointed out to you a
number of times. Additionally, I'm sure someone who works in that
field could point out at least a dozen examples of uniform process
rates being observed - regardless of distance from the earth - off
the top of his head. Here's a couple more for you that I know, and I
am not a professional astronomer: Cepheid variable star luminosity
cycles and galaxy rotation rates.)

Of course, you could easily "blow a hole" in my criticism of your
support of lightspeed decay: Simply provide examples where astronomers
observe the predicted slow motion effects.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
okay Todd, it appears that you know about Setterfield work but what
about others? Setterfield is not the first here, see my comments. 2
arguments were advanced in this newsgroup against cDK and Setterfield
slow motion effect:

   1. fsc proves that c has not changed-(absolute position)
   2. rapid rotation of pulsars proves c has not changed
      (absolute position) because of max spin rates would be
      too fast. However these rates apply only to equations
      of state for neutron star matter in a *c constant
      universe*.

One would have to show that in a cDK universe, the same equations of
state apply. *I don't have proof of this* and unless you do, the
argument is not absolute.

These 2 arguments are not absolute evidence against cDK. Perhaps you
would do better to use neutrino momentum and the necessary change in
a cDK universe or Cherenkov radiation effects, but I feel these 2
items should not be used as absolute arguments against cDK, that is
my point to this newsgroup-----Rod

Todd, did you read the Russian reports?    Todd, you said [Simply provide
examples where astronomers observe the predicted slow motion effects.]

the point of slow motion effect in Setterfield cDK (not same metrics as the
Russian) is that we would observe radioactive decay rates (among other
variables and possible constants) in proportion to c today - 3 x 10^10
cm/sec, not in proportion to say c at 3 x 10^15 cm/sec.  Same applies to the
fine structure constant so I stand by my criticism posted yesterday.  You
would probably do better using neutrino momentum change(s) and possible
Cherenkov radiation observed as a side effect from cDK but the 2 arguments
used in this newsgroup are in my opinion, not an absolute refutation of
Setterfield cDK slow motion effect.  You can disagree with me and that is
okay, no more on this topic from me, thanks----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:43 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] The Fallacy of Lightspeed Decay

Hi, Rod.

So the truth of this matter is that you *do* support the lightspeed
decay idea, even though it carries the implication that astronomers
should observe, as a result, slow motion effects with various
processes, proportional to their distance from the earth, and even
though astronomers do not in fact observe such slow motion effects.

I have to tell you, Rod, that offering a speculation does not
constitute a legitimate criticism of a claim (in this case, against
the claim that SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago).
Moreover, it is wrong to continue to proffer a speculation that has
been directly falsified (because a necessary effect that it predicts -
 slow motion effects - are not observed, but instead uniform rates
are observed) as being something we should continue to consider as a
possibility. (By the way, you neglected to mention the uniform
supernovae radioactive decay rates, which I pointed out to you a
number of times. Additionally, I'm sure someone who works in that
field could point out at least a dozen examples of uniform process
rates being observed - regardless of distance from the earth - off
the top of his head. Here's a couple more for you that I know, and I
am not a professional astronomer: Cepheid variable star luminosity
cycles and galaxy rotation rates.)

Of course, you could easily "blow a hole" in my criticism of your
support of lightspeed decay: Simply provide examples where
astronomers observe the predicted slow motion effects.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
okay Todd, it appears that you know about Setterfield work but what
about others? Setterfield is not the first here, see my comments. 2
arguments were advanced in this newsgroup against cDK and Setterfield
slow motion effect:

   1. fsc proves that c has not changed-(absolute position)
   2. rapid rotation of pulsars proves c has not changed
      (absolute position) because of max spin rates would be
      too fast. However these rates apply only to equations
      of state for neutron star matter in a *c constant
      universe*.

One would have to show that in a cDK universe, the same equations of
state apply. *I don't have proof of this* and unless you do, the
argument is not absolute.

These 2 arguments are not absolute evidence against cDK. Perhaps you
would do better to use neutrino momentum and the necessary change in
a cDK universe or Cherenkov radiation effects, but I feel these 2
items should not be used as absolute arguments against cDK, that is
my point to this newsgroup-----Rod