Religion and science

[Rob]

If Genesis 1 were missing, we would have no reason to consider Genesis 2 not to have been presented in chronological order.

Perhaps, but Genesis 1 is not missing. Genesis 1 frames its content as a chronology, stating "first day," "second day," etc. In chapter two the focus changes from the act of creation to events during the sixth creative day that provide background information for man's rebellion against God, which occurs in chapter 3. (It should be noted here that when originally written, there were no chapter and verse divisions, but it was all written as one continuous scroll.) In order for there to be a major chronological contradiction from chapter one to chapter two, we must assume: (1) that for some reason the writer perceived some need to fall back and repeat a portion of the chronology just completed, (2) that the writer suffered from very poor short-term memory, (3) that the writer was at the same time quite careless in not going back to check what he had just written, and (4) that God must not have particularly cared that this account of his activity was erroneous.


Nevertheless, let's proceed based on your assertion that the events described in Genesis 2:7-9, 15-23, 25 must be in chronological order and see whether it makes sense. Vss. 7-9 in the King James Version read as follows:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If this is in strict chronological order: (1) Adam was created before God planted the garden; (2) Adam was placed in the garden before any trees had yet sprouted. This raises a couple of interesting questions: Where was Adam while God was planting the garden, and what was he doing? Also, what did Adam eat while he was waiting for the garden to grow? Then vs. 15 says:

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Why did he have to put him there a second time? That's very curious. Yet if, as you say, the verb forms demand that these events are written chronologically, then we must believe this is what happened, even though it doesn't make much sense.


I think the above is sufficient to prove that the verses under discussion in Genesis 2 are not to be interpreted in strict chronological order, but it gets more interesting in vs. 19, which is where I believe the crux of your arguement lies. Vs. 19 reads:

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

In this verse the King James translators translated the Hebrew verb יצר (yatsar) as "formed" in the simple past tense, which gives the idea of a complete action from start to finish. I see that a number of other English translations put the verb in past perfect tense, rendering it "had formed," which makes more sense. The Hebrew verb יצר is immediately preceded by the letter ו ("waw") in a construction know as the "waw consecutive." According to what I read from those knowledgeable about ancient Hebrew, the waw consecutive in this instance, because the verb starts with י ("yodh"), makes the tense of this verb—are you ready?—Qal imperfect third person masculine singular. (As I understand this, and correct me if I'm wrong, normally to make a Hebrew verb past imperfect you would add two letters to the verb's prefix, namely וי ("waw, yodh"), except where the verb already begins with yodh, in which case adding just the waw has the same meaning.) If so, a more accurate rendering would be the past imperfect "was forming," and this also makes more sense than the past simple "formed." 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.

The fact that the Creator "had formed" or "was forming" animals from the ground does not present a problem. We are all, animal and human alike, formed from the dust, as shown by Ps. 103:14 and Eccl. 3:20, even though all alive today were created long after the end of the sixth creative day. (See also Job 10:9 and Isaiah 64:8.)

I therefore conclude that there is no contradiction between the events related in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Jesus evidently saw no problem with it either, considering that in Matthew 19:4, 5 he quoted directly from that passage of Scripture. Would Jesus Christ appeal to an untrustworthy text as authority?

[ParkTwain]

Ghostwriter for Jerry Falwell's 1987 autobiography is gay

I'm not kidding.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5523909

I think we're looking at two very confused people here.

[Tatnic]

I'm not kidding.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5523909

I thought most bible thumping, gay bashers were gay? You know, like that guy from CO (some leader of a conservative, right wing christian church) last fall who finally, after many sermons demonizing gays admitted he was gay and that he liked having sex with men. Come on, its pretty common knowledge that most homophobes are just closet gays...and he proves the point. And if I recall, he had a pretty hot looking wife, go figure.

Does this mean that gerry falwell is gay? I don't know, but to have an androgynous name like that, and a gay biographer doesn't help either. How many late nights did they spend together, chatting away??

[Karel]

Perhaps, but Genesis 1 is not missing. Genesis 1 frames its content as a chronology, stating "first day," "second day," etc. In chapter two the focus changes from the act of creation to events during the sixth creative day that provide background information for man's rebellion against God, which occurs in chapter 3.

Thank you for confirming my viewpoint. To repeat: Genesis 2 on its own shows all the markings of a "chronological" text (I will address your objections when I come to them). 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. When you use language like "the focus changes", you argue at the interpretative level. My contention was that Gen 2 is marked at the grammatical and structural level as "chronological" (the official technical term would be: a narrative). Up to this point you have only confirmed my viewpoint. I will now follow your arguments to see what happens.

[snip interesting but irrelevant tidbit] In order for there to be a major chronological contradiction from chapter one to chapter two, we must assume: (1) that for some reason the writer perceived some need to fall back and repeat a portion of the chronology just completed, (2) that the writer suffered from very poor short-term memory, (3) that the writer was at the same time quite careless in not going back to check what he had just written, and (4) that God must not have particularly cared that this account of his activity was erroneous.

We have to assume nothing of these four points. We just have to give a due account of the grammatical structure of the text. If this poses problems for the interpretation, then we have to deal with them. Ignoring the grammatical structure of the text is not an answer, unless you consider the text itself secondary to your interpretation or dogma.

Nevertheless, let's proceed based on your assertion that the events described in Genesis 2:7-9, 15-23, 25 must be in chronological order and see whether it makes sense. Vss. 7-9 in the King James Version read as follows:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If this is in strict chronological order: (1) Adam was created before God planted the garden; (2) Adam was placed in the garden before any trees had yet sprouted. This raises a couple of interesting questions: Where was Adam while God was planting the garden, and what was he doing? Also, what did Adam eat while he was waiting for the garden to grow?

This kind of questions is hardly relevant for the text. 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?

Then vs. 15 says:

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Why did he have to put him there a second time? That's very curious. Yet if, as you say, the verb forms demand that these events are written chronologically, then we must believe this is what happened, even though it doesn't make much sense.

Part of the problem is that I accepted your use of "chronological", for what really is a narrative structure. The other part of the problem is that you do not look at the text. You isolate vs 8 and vs 15, ignore what happens in between, and conclude to a problem. But when we really look at what happens in between, we see an excursus about the rivers of the garden that is about as long as the whole of the narrative part before it. Is it really so unreasonable to view vs 15 as a recapitulation? In English, after an explanation that has interrupted the flow of a narrative significantly, one might say something like: "As I was saying", with a short recapitulation, to take up the narrative again. In Hebrew the return of the narrative forms alone mark that the narration is taken up again, without the need for extra markers.

I think the above is sufficient to prove that the verses under discussion in Genesis 2 are not to be interpreted in strict chronological order, but it gets more interesting in vs. 19, which is where I believe the crux of your arguement lies. Vs. 19 reads:

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

In this verse the King James translators translated the Hebrew verb יצר (yatsar) as "formed" in the simple past tense, which gives the idea of a complete action from start to finish. I see that a number of other English translations put the verb in past perfect tense, rendering it "had formed," which makes more sense. The Hebrew verb יצר is immediately preceded by the letter ו ("waw") in a construction know as the "waw consecutive." According to what I read from those knowledgeable about ancient Hebrew, the waw consecutive in this instance, because the verb starts with י ("yodh"), makes the tense of this verb—are you ready?—Qal imperfect third person masculine singular. (As I understand this, and correct me if I'm wrong, normally to make a Hebrew verb past imperfect you would add two letters to the verb's prefix, namely וי ("waw, yodh"), except where the verb already begins with yodh, in which case adding just the waw has the same meaning.) If so, a more accurate rendering would be the past imperfect "was forming," and this also makes more sense than the past simple "formed."

I am glad you have found meanings for wayyitser that make more sense to you. Unfortunately, they are ungrammatical. The verb form does not allow of such a translation. The Bible translations you mention apparently considered a (perceived!) need for harmonization more important than a correct translation. There have been some attempts to defend the anomalous use of "had formed" out of the need for harmonization. The large majority of experts in Biblical Hebrew doesn't see that need, and if they did, would never dream of mistranslating a word to facilitate that harmonization. And anyway, when you change the translation of word to facilitate your harmonization, it doesn't do to argue: you see, the word can be translated like this, so there never was a problem. That is called circular reasoning.

Another significant error here is to call the form under discussion a "past imperfect". The traditional, now outdated, term is "consecutive imperfect"; more modern designations are "narrative" and "wayyiqtol". These forms should be translated with forms that are used for a running narrative in the target language; usually a simple past tense, with possibly an occasional marker like "then" thrown in for good measure, like: "he went to town, he did some shopping and then he returned home".

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.

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

The fact that the Creator "had formed" or "was forming" animals from the ground does not present a problem. We are all, animal and human alike, formed from the dust, as shown by Ps. 103:14 and Eccl. 3:20, even though all alive today were created long after the end of the sixth creative day. (See also Job 10:9 and Isaiah 64:8.)

Well, both forms are equally ungrammatical, so take your pick. I would like to point out however that "was forming" suggests that the creation of man coincided with the creation of all animals. This is of course perfectly in accordance with evolution theory. It really is a pity that I cannot accept your translation!

I therefore conclude that there is no contradiction between the events related in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Jesus evidently saw no problem with it either, considering that in Matthew 19:4, 5 he quoted directly from that passage of Scripture. Would Jesus Christ appeal to an untrustworthy text as authority?

Well, since you have not even adressed my basic issue, your conclusion seems to be a bit hasty. And I consider your arguments obviously as either fallacious or irrelevant. I have asked you to do what should be a joy for every Christian: to really read the texts, to really let them speak for themselves. Yet at every point I have to counter your attempts to change the meaning of the text, to put your interpretation and dogma first, and generally to ignore the text itself.

The proper procedure is first to establish the text, well we will skip that. Then we need to establish the grammatical structure of the text, for that will need to be our frame of reference. After that, we can talk about the interpretation of the text, and the problems that may arise in that interpretation, and base our interpration of the text on its structure. So, if this is not a chronological (or better: narrative) text, what grammatical pointers do we have for this conclusion in Genesis 2 itself? My proposal is: none whatsoever.

My prediction is that you will not do this groundwork, and instead hare of into interpretation, before you have established the necessary groundwork. Read the text, don't assume that you know it.

No mainstream expert in Biblical Hebrew and no mainstream exegete would call the text untrustworthy. The normal interpretation of the texts discussed implies that the order of creation events is of absolutely minor importance. Of course, with your claim that science supports the creation order in Genesis, we do have to examine that order in detail. If you fail to back up that claim, it is not the text that is in trouble, but just your interpretation of it.

Regards,

Karel

[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.

[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.

[Karel]

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

Regards,

Karel

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[ParkTwain]

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

[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]

[ParkTwain]

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]

So?

.....