Religion and science

[Rob]

Well since you seem determined to believe that Moses contradicted himself greatly inside the space of a few sentences, even though I've provided sufficient evidence to the contrary (which you will no doubt deny), I suppose you are going to go your way and I mine, just as I suspect would be the outcome on just about anything wherein we disagree.

With regard to Josephus, I'd say his being in the 1st century C.E. puts him much closer to the event in question than modern critics. Higher critics of the Bible scoffed at and denied the existence of the Assyrian King Sargon also (Isaiah chap. 20), until archaeologists unearthed his palace. They denied Pontius Pilate existed until they found an ancient inscription identifying him. The book of Daniel correctly identified Belshazzar as Nabonidus' coregent in that he could only offer Daniel the third place in the Kingdom (Dan. 5:7). Critics claimed no evidence of Belshazzar existed outside the Bible until 1854 and later, when cuneiform tablets came to light that proved them wrong. In that respect, Daniel in fact gives us a clearer understanding of that period in Babylonian history than we could get from just Berossus, Xenophon and Heroditus. This stands to reason considering he was there and was an eyewitness to the events. The book of Daniel (in chapter 9) also correctly pinpointed the year 29 C.E. as the year when the Messiah would appear, which is pretty remarkable considering the fact that even its detractors admit to its writing being no later than the 2nd century B.C.E. The prophet Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel and refers to him in his prophecy as well. (See Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3.) The Maccabean history also refers to Daniel's prophecy.

The greatest testimony of all, however, is the fact that Jesus Christ at Matt. 24:15 quoted Daniel's prophecy. If I am to believe the book is not authentic, then I must also believe that Jesus Christ was duped by the clever fraud. And even after Jesus was raised to sit at God's right hand, he must have still labored under the misconception that Daniel's prophecy was was real, because the beasts described in the revelation he gave through an angel to the apostle John remarkably parallel those desribed in Daniel's prophecy. As a matter of fact, I guess Almighty God himself must have been fooled, because Revelation 1:1 says that Jesus got the revelation from God.

If I have to choose between Jesus Christ and the critics of the Bible, I think I'll take my chances with Jesus Christ, thank you very much.

[Karel]

So?

.....

I think the point is that a story by Josephus about something that happened 4 centuries earlier is not necessarily correct. As Josephus is the only one who mentions this visit to Jerusalem, the story would need a bit of contemporary (or intermediate) corroboration to defeat the deafening silence from all the other sources.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

Interesting find: from pp. 219-220 of "THE MEANING OF THE BIBLICAL HEBREW VERBAL CONJUGATION FROM A CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE" by David O. Moomo [emphasis added]: [snip quote]

This is very interesting, but even if true (and I have my doubts, see below), this is not shown to be applicable to events outside a narrative. Gen 1 and Gen 2 (roughly) are two distinct narratives, the Toledot ("these are the generations") formula alone makes this clear.

The examples you cite are strange, however. Why would not Rahab add a last piece of advice when the men have climbed down? From the story we know that "the men of Jericho" are off on a wild goose chase, so it is not likely that the walls would have been lined with watchers, rather the reverse.

In the Joshua text, the translation "routed" is not the only one possible. The King James has "discomfited", and in that case the "getting down" would surely follow the discomfiture. But even with "routed" we still have a normal narrative sequence:

1. God, through Barak routs Sisera, his chariots and all his host
2. Sisera leaves his chariot (to be less noticeable, my interpretation)
3. Barak continues to chase the chariots
4. and kills the army of Sisera
5. who escapes on foot, to meet his doom at the hand of Jael

While I am certainly not convinced by the examples given, I am open to the suggestion that wayyiqtols are not always in perfect chronology. This would even solve my problem with Gen 2:15, which I called a recapitulation, but would be better characterized as "taking up the thread of the story again". A typical marker for that in English would be "so": "So the LORD God placed Adam in the garden". I think it is perfectly acceptable for a story that forks to two separate endings, or two storythreads that join, and perhaps for my "so"-interpretation of Gen 2:15.

But this kind of "dischronology" does not apply to Gen 2:19, where there is no obvious sequence conflict in the narrative. For the dischronology the examples show up (if they do show it up), are each in one and the same narrative stream. To extend this principle (if tenable) to events taken from other narratives, in my opinion stretches the concept past breaking point.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Interesting Find

Interesting find: from pp. 219-220 of "THE MEANING OF THE BIBLICAL HEBREW VERBAL CONJUGATION FROM A CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE" by David O. Moomo [emphasis added]:

The statement above should not be taken as saying that wayyiqtol is always used to mark sequentiality in narratives. B[iblical]H[ebrew] scholars have recognised for quite some time that wayyiqtol may be used to present non-sequential events. One of such uses of wayyiqtol is what Martin (196 refers to as "dischronologized" narrative. He cites many examples among which Jos. 2:15 and 16 are just two.

‘And she (Rahab) let them down by a rope through the window opening, for her house was on the city wall, and she dwelt on the wall. Now she had said to them "Get away to the hill-country, lest the pursuers meet you …"’

Martin argues that the letting down of the spies could not have occurred before they were told what to do. While Martin refers to this use of wayyiqtol as "dischronologized" narrative, Collins (1995) observes the same use of wayyiqtol and he refers to it as "pluperfect."

Buth (1994) notes this phenomenon whereby wayyiqtol is used not to express sequentiality, but to repeat part of what had been stated by another wayyiqtol form. Buth (1994:139) explains the standard narrative vayyiqtol will be used as though the story is marching forward on its time line, but the story actually does an about-face and picks up the time-line at an earlier point that had already passed. Among Buth’s several examples, I cite just one for illustration. This is from: Ju. 4:15

‘And the LORD routed (wayyiqtol) Sisera and all the chariotry and all the camp with the sword before Baraq. And Sisera got down (wayyiqtol) from his chariot.’

On a careful reading of this text, one will note that the routing of Sisera by the LORD and Sisera’s getting down from his chariot are not sequential either in the real world or on the world of the narrator. The type of reporting what happened last before what happened first is reported, is what Buth refers to as "unmarked temporal overlay" (Buth 1994:139).

These examples are representatives of others that the scholars mentioned above have noted. They are evidences that wayyiqtol is not only used to present events in sequence in narratives. And, one may argue that the instances where wayyiqtol is used are not prototypical of the verb form, but possible extensions of its meaning. Although the use of wayyiqtol to present sequentiality of events in narratives may be statistically more dominant, other non-sequential use of wayyiqtol also exists in a significant number in the BH texts.

[Rob]

So?

.....

Uh, I wouldn't want to be one betting the house on Josephus. And when did he write about Alexander? In about the 1st c AD, so he's a bit removed in time from those events.

http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/josephus.htm

//
Jewish Antiquities

The twenty volumes of the Jewish Antiquities, in which Flavius Josephus explains Jewish history to a non-Jewish audience, appeared in 94. Its model is a book by the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote twenty books of Roman Antiquities. This time, Josephus wrote the text in Greek and did not use a translator. The result is a text which is less pleasant to read, even though its subject matter is very interesting. One of the author's aims is to show that the Jewish culture is older than any other then existing culture; the same idea can be found in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived in the first half of the first century CE.

The first half of the Jewish Antiquities is essentially nothing but a rephrasing of biblical texts: it tells the story of the Jews from the creation until the Persian rule. The second half, dealing with the centuries between Alexander the Great and the great war against the Romans, is based on previous historians (Polybius, 1 Maccabees, Nicolaus of Damascus, and the author of the Letter of Aristeas may be identified). Where the original sources are now lost, we may assume that Josephus has simply told in his own words what he has found in these sources. His value as a historian is as great as his sources. (Go here and here for stories from the Jewish Antiquities.)

Since the Jewish War and the Jewish Antiquities both cover the period 175 BCE - 66 CE, we can compare the two works. It has been shown that the second version is never a simple revision of what Josephus had written before; usually, he goes back to the same earlier historians and rephrases what he has read. For example, the account in the Jewish War 1.358-2.117 of king Herod's rule is not simply revised in the books fifteen, sixteen and seventeen of the Jewish Antiquities; instead, Josephus has again retold what was written in one basic source, Nicolaus of Damascus. Furthermore, there are additions that must come from the oral tradition of the Pharisees.

The Jewish Antiquities are a kind of world history, and Flavius Josephus' view is biblical. In the past, God used the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Greeks to punish or to rescue His chosen people; now it was the Roman's turn to punish them. This was something the Greeks and Romans of his age could understand all too well. In almost every case, you can read 'Fortune' or 'Destiny' or 'Fate' instead of 'God'; on the other hand, when Flavius Josephus uses one of these common pagan expressions, he must have had the Jewish God in mind. ... [snippage]


Autobiography

Josephus' Autobiography appeared as an appendix to a second or third edition of the Jewish Antiquities. It is a reply to a libel by one Justus of Tiberias, who had portrayed Josephus' operations in Galilee as brutal and tyrannical. To Josephus, this was a dangerous publication, because people were reminded of the fact that he had once led an army against Rome and was responsible for the death of many Roman soldiers. Josephus had always been protected by the emperors of the house of Vespasian, but the behavior of the emperor Domitian was erratic, and Josephus was well advised to defend himself.

Josephus starts to tell about his aristocratic descent, devotes a few pages to his youth, and describes his activities as a general. It overlaps the story of the Jewish Wars, and comparison of the two narratives shows us that Josephus can simplify, exaggerate, invent, suppress, and distort his story as he likes.
//

[Rob]

Park, any arguement that intends to prove that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C.E. must reject the credibility of Josephus as an historian. In Josephus' Jewish Antiquities, XI.VIII.V, he relates that Alexander, upon his entry into Jerusalem (late 4th century B.C.E.), was shown the prophecy of Daniel and was flattered to see that the prophecy about a Greek ruler defeating the Persian empire apparently referred to him. Quoting Josephus, in part:

[. . .] and he [Alexander the Great] came into the city [Jerusalem]. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him (23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. [emphasis added]

Historicity of the Book of Daniel

As an undergraduate, I took a Religion course on the development of the apocalyptic literature in the Bible, which dealt in part with the Old Testament Book of Daniel. The material presented in the course was pretty devastating to the idea that Daniel was written in the 6th c. BC rather than the apparently more likely 2nd c. BC, which was a time of great "consternation" among the Jews. When you examine the broader context (non-orthodox Judaism, Essenes, other local sects, etc.) that produced the "raw materials" for the truly new ideas of the Judeo-Christian apocalyptic vision, you can see strong argument for the 2nd c. BC dating.

At the time (about 1976) that I took that course, I found it disturbing that the apocalyptic ideas ("end of the world") found in Daniel (unusual across the entire Old Testament; Judaism didn't have an idea of the "end of time" up to this point) and then later in the New Testament (found a few places in the gospels and mainly in the Book of Revelation, etc.) were actually a new religious conception produced by a certain generation of Judaistic practitioners in Palestine who were facing what was TO THEM unprecedented persecution (but not yet of the scale achieved in 70 AD by Titus's scattering of the Jews from Jerusalem), and that these ideas eventually metastasized into the grotesque teachings found later in the early Christian church and later all through Church history, eventually becoming a small industy among evangelicals and fundamentalists (books of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, among others) in our time. To the extent that these religious ideas affect the decision-making of our political leaders, apocalypticism is a very retrograde idea that RIGHT NOW could be hindering international relations and that engenders among the unquestioning masses a misanthropic fatalism regarding the notion of ongoing improvements in social justice. I never thought nor felt the same about American evangelicalism after taking this course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology

[Karel]

Tyndale Bulletin, Vol.46.1 (May 1995)

THE WAYYIQTOL AS 'PLUPERFECT': WHEN AND WHY

Pages 117-140
C. John Collins
Associate Professor in Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis

Summary
This article examines the possibility that the Hebrew wayyiqtol verb form itself, without a previous perfect, may denote what in Western languages would be expressed by a pluperfect tense, and attempts to articulate how we might discern it in a given passage, and the communicative effect of such a usage. The article concludes that there is an unmarked pluperfect usage of the wayyiqtol verb form; and that it may be detected when one of three conditions is met. Application of these results demonstrates that this usage is not present in 1 Samuel 14:24, while it is present in Genesis 2:19.

Yes, that is the article I was referring to. The university library I have access to doesn't carry a subscription to Tyndale Bulletin, so I had to make do with discussions based on the article on the Net.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Tyndale Bulletin, Vol.46.1 (May 1995)

THE WAYYIQTOL AS 'PLUPERFECT': WHEN AND WHY

Pages 117-140
C. John Collins
Associate Professor in Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis

Summary
This article examines the possibility that the Hebrew wayyiqtol verb form itself, without a previous perfect, may denote what in Western languages would be expressed by a pluperfect tense, and attempts to articulate how we might discern it in a given passage, and the communicative effect of such a usage. The article concludes that there is an unmarked pluperfect usage of the wayyiqtol verb form; and that it may be detected when one of three conditions is met. Application of these results demonstrates that this usage is not present in 1 Samuel 14:24, while it is present in Genesis 2:19.

[skiracer]

Well put Karel. I am by no means an authority on the Bible or Genesis 1 or 2. I read it with the simplicity of a layman's mentallity having no higher training in trying to define it's actually intent. I am going to have to read through your current post several more times and Genesis 1 and 2 again to try and put it all together. I feel more comfortable with your latest explanation of your point of view. Thanks and lets continue the commentary with points of view from both sides. The most important point is staying open minded towards one another and all points brought up in the conversation whether you agree or not with some of them. I too feel that we can live in both worlds without compromising any of our base beliefs. Thanks.

[Karel]

[B]I'm not sure where either Karel or Rob are trying to go with this dialogue. [...]

I was already coming to the conclusion that this part of the discussion was not going anywhere, so I am inclined to stop here, with a summary of my viewpoint.

This dialogue is part of a longer one about evolution/creation. I see this recent part starting at Rob's claim that science supports the Biblical order of creation. As it is commonly remarked that the creation orders in Genesis 1 and 2 differ, I was curious about the solution Rob could suggest for this discrepancy, from a more or less fundamentalist viewpoint. (I do not know how Rob would describe himself; I am interested to hear it, and I use fundamentalist in a loose sense here.)

It quickly became clear that Rob could not answer me on the level I would have liked, but that was an unrealistic expectation anyway (any other graduates in Theology here?), and in my opinion this means that the issues can not really be resolved. Everyone is free to draw his or her own conclusions, as I am doing now.

Rob did give two useful pointers that helped me form an opinion about the level of debate in fundamentalist circles. The first was the suggestion that Genesis 2 was not meant to be read chronologically, the second that Genesis 2:19 should be translated with a past perfect.

That Genesis 2 is not a chronological text is not tenable, in my conclusion. One can (and should) use context, logic and common sense when interpreting any text. The grammatical structure however always takes precedence. This may perhaps sound strange to someone who has had no introduction to linguistic text analysis in general, but it is still true. Most of the time this analysis is done automatically, as we are completely imbued with the grammar of our native language. We immediately hear or “feel” whether a text is a story or a poem, a text of law or an exposition, and it is the grammatical structure that gives us the first pointers for this recognition. In foreign languages, especially a language as foreign as Biblical Hebrew, we really need to start with the grammatical analysis. And even with an English text an explicit grammatical analysis may be useful.

The grammatical analysis of Genesis 2 is rather easy: it is a narrative, and this means that its ordering is chronological. This is so easy, because a narrative in Biblical Hebrew is marked with a special verb form, therefore called narrative, but also named wayyiqtol, or, with an outdated term, a consecutive imperfect. The same holds true for Genesis 1, by the way: this also is a narrative, and yes, its basic structure is a chain of wayyiqtols, just like in Genesis 2, marking the sequence of events. In my opinion, the claim that the interpretation of Genesis 2 should assume that the text is non-chronological, combined with the rather unescapable conclusion that the text grammatically is marked as chronological, would lead us to the conclusion that the writer of the text had a very imperfect grasp of the language used. I prefer the conclusion that the claim is unwarranted.

I prefer that conclusion also because I could not find any fundamentalist analysis of the text that took this problem even into account. And the most academic discussion of this harmonization problem I did find, was based on the past perfect translation “he had made” in Gen 2:19, and rather seemed to acquiesce in a chronological reading of Genesis 2. (This may be wrong; I had no access to the full text of the article.) So what about the second suggestion? It is an attempt to introduce a new grammatical interpretation on the strength of a harmonizing interpretation, more or less as follows: “As the writer of Genesis 1 and 2 would have viewed both chapters as complementary, and this would have made some harmonization necessary, it is not unreasonable to assume that instead of “he made”, the translation “he had made” is justified.” Since the stated necessity is by no means viewed as such by the majority of Biblical experts, and this also would mean that a higher level analysis would upset a grammatical analysis, which generally is unjustified, and since thirdly, as far as I can see, this grammatical variant is only invoked in one or two other places that pose a similar problem, I am not convinced. On the contrary. By the way, the version of the argument I gave is rather free, but I forgot to make a bookmark, so I can not do better. Sorry. I gave it so everybody can make his or her own assessment, but of course a solid grounding in Biblical Hebrew would be a great help in that case.

I conclude that there is no satisfactory way to harmonize the creation sequences in Genesis 1 and 2. Feel free to differ.

Did I now prove that the Bible is not inerrant and therefore false? No. These games about inerrancy and proving the Bible false or right may keep fundamentalists and atheists off the streets, but I think it is a false problem, and so does the majority of Biblical experts. There are two points here. The first is that facts were for a long time in human history, say up to the 19th century, a lot less important than they are now, simply because people were not equipped to establish facts as well as we are now. A television series with fact finding as its main theme, like CSI, would have been unthinkable, and not just because it is a television series. People then would have been much more tolerant of factual discrepancies than now. A positive way of putting this, and the second point, is that they would have been more interested in wisdom than in knowledge, and when they mention knowledge, they invariably mean wisdom. Wisdom is the, OK, knowledge that directly concerns you and your life, and that of the people around you. You gain it by experience and intellect, but experience is the more important factor, and a fool is characterized as someone who is not able to turn experience into wisdom. We are better now in knowledge, but whether we are better in wisdom is much less clear. Well, it is to be hoped we have made some progress there too.

When during the 19th century science and its fact orientation became increasingly successful, this was perceived as a threat to religion. One answer to that threat was the claim: “Our Bible is just as factual as your science,” and that is what led to Biblical inerrancy. The other answer was to reconsider the relation between Bible and fact, which led to Higher Criticism and further, and which rediscovered the predominance of wisdom over factual knowledge in Biblical times and most other times of human history.

From the viewpoint of Biblical inerrancy, modern theology and exegesis give away too much. From the viewpoint of modern theology, Biblical inerrancy makes an unsupportable claim, that, when shown to be insupportable, might drive people just as effectively away from Christ as Biblical inerrantists claim modern theology does. Perhaps even more effectively. Rob of course does maintain that the claim is supportable. We were just starting on that discussion when I introduced the matter of the (in)consistency of Genesis 1 and 2 which is of course much more relevant for a Biblical inerrantist view than for the mainstream view. We could now start the discussion of that claim.

I do believe that it is possible to live in both the world of science and that of religion, without forcing our religious notions on science, and certainly without forcing our scientific notions on the Bible, including, ironically, the insistence that the Bible be historically and scientifically factual. I therefore think that showing that science does not support the Biblical order of creation, whether you take Genesis 1 or 2, is actually doing a service to both Bible and science.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

Ski, I really want to post an answer, but right now I am really pressed. Stay tuned.

Regards,

Karel

[skiracer]

I'm not sure where either Karel or Rob are trying to go with this dialogue. Why are you arguing the chronological order of events in Genesis 1 when it is clearly stated in the order in which God did his work and the tasks God performed each day are also clearly defined.
If one does believe in God and takes the Bible's context verbatim as to the order and events that took place those first six days then Genesis 2 isn't meant to change what was stated in Genesis 1, regardless of verb form and tense, but only to elaborate on those events and to possibly give a clearer picture of what was done and took place. In my own opinion, and I am a firm believer in God, Jesus, and the Bible as written, I don't see the need to try to justify Genesis 1. It is exactly as it was written and happened that way if you believe in God and creation as stated in Genesis 1. Everything else from that point on in Genesis 2 through the old testament is only to enlarge on what transpired in Genesis 1 and to give a history of how the Creation in Genesis 1 eventually evolved and populated the earth in those times through all the things that God provided for man and woman during his creation of the earth. The element of time is never really specified, other than the initial 6 days of work and the 7th day as a day of rest. There is no talk of 10,000 years or 1 million years except for the number of years Adam and Eve's offspring lived as they spread out across the regions that were known as the habitable earth at that time, mainly the Tigris-Euphrates river areas.

On the other hand if you lean towards the scientific definition of the creation of our universe and how the evolution of all living things took place over the course of millions of years through many distinct and diverse periods the time element becomes significant because it plays such a large part in the formation of life as we know it and how long it took for all living things to get to this point. Also how all living things may or may not have passed through Darwin's Theory of Evolution in that process of developing necessary traits and discarding the unnecessary ones over the course of milions of years.

In trying to link the two arguements together through the element of time and a chronological order of events for the purpose of proving or disproving either side as true or false is the wrong approach and I personally don't feel that in presenting an arguement from either point of view can or should be done in that fashion. The Creation according to the Bible is based on the belief and faith in God and the Bible as written. Factual evidence is presented as written and handed down over the course of time in the Bible and is expected to be taken as the truth if you are a believer and have faith. Scientific evidence is factual in that there can be evidence provided to back up their propositions. They are two entirely different perspectives and trying to equate them to one another through defining chronological events and time will not work because it's comparing apples to oranges. The beliefs of either side are based in different perspectives.

I was hoping that we might forego the basic givens on both sides and present more of the basic principles to support either side of the dialogue. I don't see it as trying to prove either right or wrong as we are all entitled to our own beliefs and should respect that in one another. I was hoping to hear more about the concepts of how the scientific approach envisioned our development from the so called beginning versus the Bibles view of Creation and our evolution along those lines. Right now I think we could be getting mired down in some area that isn't really that important in support of either side. I am also starting to feel that because believing in the Bible, as written, isn't based entirely on fact but more on the written word and faith in the belief of those words that the arguement is always going to come back to factual versus not factual in a scientific sense. It's hard to present an arguement based in faith against one based in scientific fact because of the lack of similarities. One good thing is that it has made me go back and read through the First Book of Moses, Genesis 1 thru 50 and to look into some material on the scientific side of how it all started and came about from the beginning. I don't think that believing in the Bibical account of Creation and our evolution prohibits anyone from listening to and educating themselves on the scientific view and perspective.

[Rob]

Genesis 2 on its own shows all the markings of a "chronological" text.

Translation: "If we ignore the context, i.e. the content of chapter one, Genesis 2 shows all the markings of a 'chronological' text." Also, could you please expand on the grammatical basis for your contention, explaining the necessity of a chronological interpretation?

I find it rather remarkable that you insist on ignoring the context. I insist that the context not be ignored.

The fact that Genesis 1 spells out the chronology, does not make make Genesis 2 unchronological.

I agree with that. But as I have shown, logic and common sense dictate that Moses would not write one chronology in one section and then proceed to contradict himself only a few sentences later.

When you use language like "the focus changes", you argue at the interpretative level.

I believe interpretation is what we are aguing here.

We have to assume nothing of these four points.

I categorically disagree. Those four points must be assumed if one is to accept the idea that the events in chapter one and chapter two are contradictory. Further, your arguement presumes a perfect understanding of ancient biblical Hebrew, when in fact there are scholarly disagreements among some of the most learned in this field. So it seems to me a bit magisterial to insist that grammatical rules absolultely mandate thus and so even if the result flies directly in the face of logic and reason.

Ignoring the grammatical structure of the text is not an answer, unless you consider the text itself secondary to your interpretation or dogma.

Up to now, I have only your word that I am "ignoring the grammatical structure." I am not doubting you have some basis for this charge, but I have reservations about your strict application and believe that alternative explanations must exist. Admittedly I am coming to this arguement with a preconceived notion, namely that Moses was not a moron.

You claim that these actions take so much time that it raises certain problems. Were does the text say that these actions actually take so long as to cause problems? Are you adding to the text of the Bible?

No, I am not adding to the text, just looking at it in strictly chronological order and noting that it seems a little silly for God to create Adam first, then plant the garden and cause fruit bearing trees to grow before Adam even works up an appetite. That's why I said those questions were "interesting." This point is minor to the others, I admit, but still supportive of my position that these things are not necessarily listed in order of chonology.

Part of the problem is that I accepted your use of "chronological", for what really is a narrative structure.

Whoah, whoah, whoah! Hold the phone right there! Did you not just say earlier in this same post: "The fact that Genesis 1 also is a 'chronological' text doesn't make Genesis 2 less so. The fact that Genesis 1 spells out the chronology, does not make make Genesis 2 unchronological." Either Genesis 2 is chronological or it is not! You seem to want to unilaterally impose a non-negotiable standard on me that you are unwilling to abide by yourself. I accept your characterization of Genesis 2 as "narrative," and in fact that has been my contention from the start.

Is it really so unreasonable to view vs 15 as a recapitulation?

Absolutely not. And neither is it unreasonable to view vss. 4-25 as recapitulation and amplification of some of the latter events described just prior, as a sort of preamble to what occurs in chapter three.

Now that we agree the events are not strictly chronological, the only disagreement apparently seems to lie in which verses must be absolutely sequential in time and which may not.

With regard to wayyitser, I accept your point about its being incorrect to refer to it as "past imperfect." In fact I came to that realization independently after I had written yesterday's post, as I did some further reading on the subject. However, the waw-consecutive construction of the verb still means it is Qal-imperfect, which, if translated into the English simple perfect tense can be misleading. You say that I am wanting to force the grammar to fit my preconceived notion, as though I am nefariously trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. But my only "preconceived notion" here is that Moses, not being a moron, did not contradict himself. The fact that the waw-consecutive grammar fits this notion is a problem for your side of the argument, because you are the one who insists on ignoring the context, and you are the one who wants to force an interpretation of that verse in isolation so that it contradicts the chronology in chapter one. It is a mistake to ignore the context when it favors a particular rendering of a verb in question. And for one to insist the verb must disagree with the context when there is a perfectly legitimate alternative rendering of that verb, which brings it into harmony, suggests that that one also comes to the table with a preconceived conclusion.

To my brief synopsis of Genesis 2:

In other words, during the undetermined length of time between Adam's creation and Eve's creation, the man was given work to do, namely to cultivate the garden and to name the animals over which he was to exercise dominion.

You charged:

I see you feel some need to expand on the text of the Bible. I prefer to stick to the text as it stands.

I have expanded nothing. Your charge is baseless. If you think it is not, please explain.

Well, both forms are equally ungrammatical.

Again, only when you insist on ignoring the context.

I would like to point out however that "was forming" suggests that the creation of man coincided with the creation of all animals.

I already answered that in the previous post.

Well, since you have not even adressed my basic issue [. . .]

Another baseless charge.

And I consider your arguments obviously as either fallacious or irrelevant.

I'm sure this is very convenient for you. Thankfully your opinion does not establish that which is true. If it were not so then I guess that Moses fellow really was kind of stupid after all.