Cheryl

One last thought, Michael. Wasn’t there a mention of a special creation of animals in one of the links they gave me previously? I think it was from a young earth creationist. Looks like they at least are aware of others who held this view.

So I am hoping that you can at least admit that I have given you reasonable and logical reasons for why I hold my view. I have also given subtantial evidence of the Hebrew rendering (grammar, Hebrew rules and what has been described as the straight forwarding reading of the passage) even if you do not hold to this view.

If I don’t hear from you much before Christmas, have a wonderful family time and know that you are appreciated!  And Merry Christmas, my friend!!!

Hi Michael,

No your teacher analogy isn’t correct. I didn’t even think it try to pull it apart because it is meaningless to me. I would rather put my effort into the inspired Hebrew. English does not have markings regarding grammar. No commentator can use an example like that because Hebrew is specific and marked. We know when we can use the pluperfect because of specific Hebrew marking on the passage and when it is unmarked we have the criteria to evaluate whether it qualifies as an unmarked pluperfect. There is no question that Genesis 2:19 is not marked. No question at all. There is also no question that when we put this passage beside the criteria that it doesn’t fit the rules. The Hebrew book I have was very clear and I completely understood the rule and why the passage doesn’t fit. Because of the clear rule the majority of the bibles render verse 19 exactly as it should be – without the pluperfect. That isn’t a small point – that is very important!

As far as commentaries go I rarely read them because I read the passage with a Greek or Hebrew lexicon as my guide so I don’t know who else got it right, but the rendering of the Septuagint shows the understanding of the passage from the time before Jesus was born all through the time it was used as the bible of choice for Greek speaking Jews. We still have the Septuagint today and I use it as a reference. The Septuagint is what was most often used for quotes in the New Testament so we know this was the view of the early Christians. There is absolutely no question that the Septuagint is translated in a way that makes it as clear as it could possibly be that animals were created after Adam. That is good enough for me along with the Hebrew rules plus the fact that the other bibles do not render the verse as pluperfect. Three witnesses is enough for me. Since I have produced enough evidence to convince someone who is open even in the slightest that there is nothing in the text or the language that contradicts the creating of animals after Adam, and everything points to the fact of animals were created after Adam, I think my work has been done.

Thanks for providing the link to the other article. The first link didn’t work. The second link did. Much appreciated!

So I read the article and it was nice to see that he said that the straight forward reading of Genesis 2:19 was that animals were created after Adam. That was so nice to see that admission. It seems like his problem is that he sees this as contradicting chapter one. However it is not a contradiction at all. It could only be contradicting chapter one if one sees all animals only being created after Adam. If one understands the passage as the Septuagint renders it that animals were created before Adam as well as after Adam there is no contradiction. All his effort at trying to work out the contradiction is unnecessary.

From that point on he was jumping through hoops to try to understand the passage. His reasoning was all over the map and if that kind of complicated reasoning (which lost me in the double loops back and forth) is needed to understand the passage we are all in trouble because none of us will ever understand Genesis. However if he would have kept to the plain understanding and he would have understood that there was no contradiction to begin with, he should have stopped while he was ahead.

He also lost my respect when he said that God’s day 1 and 4 were the same creative work. That kind of reasoning takes God’s word and makes a mockery of it. If Days 1 and 4 were the same then God only had 5 days of creation not 6. He seems to be trying hard to see contradictions that aren’t there in the passage and to stop contradictions; he makes God out to be someone who says things that he doesn’t mean. I don’t think so. I am sorry but of all the links you have given me, this one was absolutely off the wall. It reminded me of the serpent saying, “Has God really said…” This guy was questioning that God really did create things on day 1 and day 4 and I can never accept a man’s misunderstanding to God’s clear word that on days 1 and 4 different things were created. Whatever God said he certainly did and that is without question in my mind. “Did God really say that there was a day one and a separate day four?” I can hear the serpent questioning.

Now it is one thing to say that days are long periods of time. It is completely another to say that these long periods of time intersect so that they are not distinct. I cannot accept that and reject God’s word by doing so. I will just take God at his word and if this kind of manipulating of the text is required to believe in old earth, I am completely amazed at how anyone could go along with it. Perhaps others don’t manipulate the text like this “scholar” did, but this kind of reasoning makes me ill. I will have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have other scholars that don’t manipulate the text like this fellow did.

Anyway the text still stands (verse 19) in a strong way exactly as I gave it. The only question at this point is what gender(s) did God created after Adam. All the animals were created again after Adam, but were they all the males and all the females, or just the females as I believe. That will be up to you to figure out what you believe.

I appreciate all your hard work, Michael, and how you have researched the subject to find the truth about the pluperfect. If you find a rule that contradicts the one I gave you from my Hebrew book, then we can look at that. I believe you won’t find a contradictory rule, since they were specific that the rule stands and any one who goes by the use of pluperfect in verse 19 is using a poorly defined older syntax. I don’t think we want any poorly defined older syntax and I hardly think you will find a bonafide Hebrew scholar who will contradict the clearly defined Hebrew rule.

Your love of truth is evident and I greatly appreciate your effort!!!

Blessings,
Cheryl

One last thing, if the complementarians can get away with teaching that Eve did not receive the command from God and God only wanted to communicate with her second-hand through her husband, then they use that point to say that women are not to teach God’s word because they were never given God’s word directly in the garden of Eden. I think this is a point that has not been dealt with in a decisive way by egalitarians and my talk refutes the myth that Eve didn’t hear from God directly and that she either added to God’s word when she talked to the serpent or messed up a very simple command mixing up what God said with what Adam commanded her. I think my refutation gives a death blow to that reasoning.

After my talk in PA, several women came up to me afterward to tell me that my reasoning had given them a sense of freedom to know that God really does give his word into the hands of women too along with men.  They each bought a copy of WIM to take home but expressed their gratitude to me that they now believe that God did give the commandment in the garden to both the man and the woman.

Michael,

You also said concerning Eve:

There is no teaching that touching the tree will lead to death.

Actually there is testimony that God told her not to touch the fruit from the tree. Eating the fruit caused death, but touching the fruit would cause her to desire the fruit thus causing her to sin. It is her testimony of what God said to her. If we do not accept her testimony, then we have the woman lying about God’s word in essence she sinned before she ate the fruit. This is illogical and not possible. I went through this reasoning piece by piece at a talk I gave in Pennsylvania in October. You can find it here http://mmoutreach.org/audio_jw.htm under my name and right now it is the first talk called “Jehovah’s Women on Trial”.

I would be interested to know what you think of my reasoning. Although it deals specifically with JW teaching, their teaching is pretty much identifical to CBMW and John MacArthur who teach that the word of God came to the man only. My talk refutes their teaching and shows how it is impossible for Eve not to have heard from God directly regarding the commandment.

Hi Michael,

Again you are bringing up scripture that fits the rules of using the pluperfect. You quoted:

Moses inserts a waw consecutive as a pluperfect into a sequential narrative in order to introduce a revelation previously given to Moses: “Now the Lord said to Moses, ‘One more plague I will bring on Pharaoh and on Egypt…’â€

The plagues had already been introduced and one final plague was mentioned. The multiple plaques (an obvious repetition of plagues given by God) seems clearly to fit the rule of repetition. It does not fit with Genesis 2:19 where unlike the plagues the action “formed” has not been previously introduced concerning the animals and thus does not fits the rule and Bergen’s book shows why it doesn’t fit.

Bergen also shows that chapter two with verses 8 and 19 are sequential in the Hebrew so I will continue to rest with that. It is not only a legitimate understanding of the passage, but appears to me with all the evidence to be the correct understanding of the passage with the Hebrew grammar being so precise.

You also asked if historical figures ever make this “obvious” conclusion that animals came after Adam. Yes. The Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew and is the work of 70 scholars translated Genesis 2:19 as “formed yet further”. This shows that animals had already been created but these ones were formed in addition to the ones already in existence. This was written several hundred years before Christ’s birth and shows a second set of animals came after Adam. Also the overwhelming majority of biblical translations do not use the pluperfect when they could have if it was legitimate to use it in this setting. You still have not given any reason for the legitimate use of pluperfect in Genesis 2:8, 19 so I see no reason to change my view.

Michael,

There is Hebrew and there is English. We are not talking about English but Hebrew. I am relying on the Hebrew experts to inform me of the grammar rules. If it was just a matter of how English sentence structure, then they wouldn’t have to study Hebrew structure. We don’t have the problems of the Hebrew marked and unmarked overlays so I’m sorry but you can’t compare languages. I am just going to stick to the experts who give the rules because I am surely not smart enough to judge their knowledge by my limited knowledge of English. So unless you can find a rule for the limited use for pluperfect that supercedes their rule for the Hebrew language then we must stick with those who actually translate the bible from Hebrew. Notice again that the over whelming majority of Bibles do not translate in the pluperfect.

No problem, Michael. I am behind a couple of answers that I owe you regarding several of your posts and it will take me awhile to catch up during this very busy time of year!  Blessings!

Michael,

Thanks a bunch for posting some of your questions, because it helps me to understand your mindset and I am hoping I can help you understand my mindset too even if it is only a little. You said:

“First, I want be sure we are clear about one thing. If I am right that there were are no animals created after Adam, then it doesn’t change the fact that Adam was formed first and was given the command before Eve was created. It still stands perfectly with you WIM claims about 1 Tim 2. So I see the “animals” as irrelevant to that issue.â€

I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that the animals have anything at all to do with the fact that Adam was formed first since whether they were or were not created after him cannot change the fact that he was created before the woman. What I am saying is that the second creation of the animals has everything to do with the fact that Adam was not deceived. The biggest issue here is that Paul in 1 Timothy 2 makes an extraordinary claim to the steadfastness of Adam in that he was not deceived. He ties this in without a doubt to the fact of Adam’s first creation. So here is the challenge. If I am wrong as you believe me to be, then look carefully at the creation account of Adam and everything that happened after he was created and before Eve was created. Can you find anything else that would account for the fact that Adam, the first one created was not deceived? If you can, then that would be further evidence I can use. This may be a real challenge for you, and it could certainly help me out if I have any blind areas and there is something that I have not seen. If you can’t, then is it wrong for me to use precise Hebrew grammar to point out that there was a second creation of animals or a special creation of the garden of Eden after Adam was created? How about working with me and having a look at the creation of the garden. Can you at least admit that the garden was planted (created) by God after Adam? If you can admit to this one fact, then is it possible that Adam saw the garden created by God and saw Him do his work as Creator? It would be wonderful if you could at least see this one point. Could you also agree with me that seeing God create anything (even the garden of Eden with all the fruit trees) would be a major reason why Adam would not have been deceived into thinking that he could become like God? Michael, iron sharpens iron and if you have iron to sharpen my iron, I welcome you my brother to sharpen me.

So just to summarize this first part: the second creation of animals is not vital to establishing the first creation status of Adam. However the second creation of animals is important to understanding why Adam was not deceived. Do you see the difference? First one created = not deceived. Second one created = fully and completely deceived. What’s the connection? You tell me. Let’s turn this around and look at it another way. What does the position of being the second one created have to do with why she was deceived? Paul emphasizes her position of second one created and then says that she was (Greek term) fully, completely and utterly deceived. Why was Eve deceived? What was lacking in the second one created that allowed her full deception?  You said:

“However, it does mean the burden of proof is on him and those who would use his “rules of grammar” to show why the consensus folks are in error. I have never examined this topic in the journal literature before but I will definitely do so know so I can be knowledgeable about the specifics of the debate.â€

Awesome, Michael!!! Knowledge is empowering and I sure do appreciate you checking up on me! I don’t think I succinctly defined the “rules of grammar†regarding pluperfect. I think this will help you to understand. In the second article that you sent me to, the critic charged Christians with illegally using the pluperfect form. The article then stated that a little knowledge can sometimes be dangerous because the critic failed to research the fact that there is an exception to the rule. They did admit that there is a rule that limits the use of pluperfect to the defined Hebrew. We can all agree that there is this rule, even those who are claiming an except to the rule say that there is a “normal†rule regarding the use of pluperfect. However the Christians in this article were also missing a portion of the rule. What they missed is that although there is an exception to the rule (and there are not many exceptions but there are indeed some exceptions) the rule that allows the exception is that the verb that is to be taken as pluperfect must have the action previously referenced so that it is repeated again in the passage.

So here’s the catch and what Bergen’s book clearly points out. The verb “formed†in Genesis 2:19 must have its action originating in chapter 1. However they say that the animals were not “formed†in chapter one therefore the verb “formed†cannot be a repetition of the verb in chapter one since it isn’t there and if there is no “forming†of animals in chapter one then chapter two cannot be a repetition of this “forming†and thus no allowance for the pluperfect. Now regarding the garden in Genesis 2:8. Can the word “planted†be pluperfect because it is a repetition of the verb “planted†in chapter one? Again they say no. The word “planted†is not in chapter one regarding plants neither is there a garden mentioned. Therefore since there is no verb that is repeated from chapter one to correspond with chapter two, the pluperfect tense is not an option since it does not meet the criteria of repetition. Repetition of the exact action = exception to the rule that limits the use of pluperfect. No repetition of the exact action = no allowance for having the verb qualify for an exception to the pluperfect rule of marked grammar. It does not qualify as an unmarked status.

Now I am not asking you to agree with me, I just want you to completely understand what the rule is and why the two verses don’t qualify. It makes perfect sense to me. I don’t have anything at all at stake in the rule against the use of pluperfect, except for the fact that if the precise grammar rule is wrong, then I don’t understand why Paul was leading us back to Genesis to understand why the first one created was not deceived and why the second one created was deceived. It doesn’t hurt my faith at all and I can take it or leave it. But the precise grammar rule is what caused my eyes to open up and since I believe that the grammar in the bible is inspired, I accept it as it is written.

So to summarize this section, “However, it does mean the burden of proof is on him and those who would use his “rules of grammar” to show why the consensus folks are in error.†Okay – here is the proof: They are in error because they have no repetition of the action that is stated in chapter two to be referenced back to the same action in chapter one, and with no repetition there is no basis for claiming to be an exception to the rule.

You said:

“I simply reject your elevation of Bergen to unquestionable authority on Hebrew grammar to which all other scholars much be measured.†(I fixed up the name in your quote 🙂 )

Okay, fair enough. How about you find out what the criteria is that qualifies the exception to the rule of pluperfect? Do some research and find out if there is an accepted Greek grammar source that states any other criteria than the criteria I quoted from Bergen’s book. I would also like to point out the fact that pretty much every bible except the NIV does not translate Genesis 2:8, 19 as pluperfect. That is a major problem I would think to anyone thinking there isn’t a precise rule. Why would every other translator keep to the rules and not translate this as pluperfect? Also why does the Septuagint the Greek translation of the Hebrew also translate the word “formed†from 2:19 as “formed yet further� That was done several hundred years before Christ was born and I don’t think they were influenced by any grammatical errors of today’s Hebrew scholars.

You said:

“But I think now this rather pointless, because unless it is a direct refutation of Bergen’s rules I don’t think it is going to be persuasive to you.â€

You are right. You will actually have to do more homework than just finding a site that appeals to the pluperfect. The Hebrew book that I have is not the work of just person. It comes from a two week seminar on Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew held in Dallas Texas in 1993 that was attended by 90 people with 60 of those being working translators, members of Wycliffe Bible Translators and other societies whose main vocation was translating the Bible. The other 30 were linguists and Bible scholars from around the world. These 90 professionals worked through the range of papers for two weeks and they worked together with mutual interplay regarding a range of topics regarding Hebrew discourse linguistics. The discourse linguistics papers that they worked through were approved and published in 1994 edited by Robert Bergen. So you can see that it is not Bergen’s rules (the rules of one person) but the rules upheld by a consensus of Bible translators and linguists.

In your fourth point you said:

“The claim is being asserted that people just assume the pluperfect because they are unwilling to allow for animals created after Adam. They are fudging on taking the Scripture at its word.â€

Michael, I don’t know where you are getting this from. I haven’t said it and I haven’t read it anywhere. When Bergen’s book discusses the error that the NIV made, it said that they apparently appealed to the pluperfect but don’t give the reason for why they think the NIV did this except later they mention “We will avoid a superficial harmonization.†So it seems they believe the NIV was trying to harmonize Genesis chapters 1 and 2. There was no charge of being unwilling to allow for animals to be created after Adam, no charge of sin and no charge of fudging. They just said that the NIV translation in these verses “must be rejected from a discourse syntax perspective as a misuse of a poorly defined older syntax.â€

You said:

“God created every beast of the field and bird of the air creates major tension with Genesis 1. Genesis 1 presents things in a highly sequential order. Animals are created and then humanity. Why would God create all the animals and then create each of them again for Adam to name.â€

That is of course a very good question and deserves to be answered! It seems to me that there was no other reason for God to create the same animals again, unless it was for Adam’s benefit. I believe that this second creation was used to educate Adam on the nature of God as Creator and to prepare him to withstand the lies of the enemy. In fact it helped Adam so much that Paul could say that Adam was not deceived.

You said:

“It is not expressed in terms of repeat creation or in the sense of creating a one sample of each kind already created. It says every. You suggested it could be that male animals were created but this time around it might be the females animals. The text doesn’t say that. So we find ourselves trying to massage the texts so they will fit.â€

You are certainly right in that the creation in chapter two is not a repeat of chapter one. It is the same animals created but in a different way – this time God formed them from the ground and he didn’t just speak them into existence. You are also right in that it says every animal. Every animal means dogs were formed and horses and cows etc, etc. But every animal doesn’t necessarily mean that each animal had to be male and female. It just means that there was every kind of animal. However if God created male and female animals before Adam and male and female animals after Adam, that doesn’t lessen my position. You are certainly right again in that my understanding that God created the males before Adam and the females after Adam may not be correct. Perhaps he created them both before and both after. That would allow your position of old earth to still stand, while creating the females after Adam would be a serious challenge since the animals couldn’t procreate without the females. However the bottom line is that God created animals after Adam. They were every animal i.e. every kind of animal. Male or female? That could go either way. It makes sense to me to say that the ones created after Adam were the females because that is how God created humanity. He created male and female in two separate acts. And since Adam was looking for a mate, it only makes sense to me that God created the females so Adam could see that only he was missing a corresponding mate. Adam was looking for a female mate and female animals were not found to be equivalent to him. Could God have created animals in two separate acts with male first and female second? Certainly, God can do that if He wants to. He is after all – God. However to not challenge your old earth position, let’s just say that God could also have created both male and female again after Adam was created. Does this concession allow you to accept the Hebrew grammar the way it was written? I am not trying to challenge your faith here in old earth. I am just trying to get you to open your mind to something that you may never have considered. Remember, I have already said that one can be a Christian and be an old earth advocate. It isn’t a hill to die on for me and not a hill that I have to force you off. If we can discuss the issues and glean some light for both of us on this journey, then that is all I am looking to do. The fact that you sharpen my iron by presenting objections to my view is perfectly acceptable and welcome to me! Sharpen away, my friend!

Lastly you said:

“I was interested to read what you said about new studies in Hebrew since the 1970s. I will tell you I that I am still suspicious about this new take on the passage that conveniently coincides with the agenda of YEC’s. I have just seen to much of this stuff on a host of other hot button issues let my suspicion drop.â€

As I said, there is nothing I have read concerning the grammar that even hints at negating the old earth view. It is a matter of grammar not science. It is okay to not let your suspicion drop. We all need to be cautious until we have seen the evidence proven. Just don’t let any prejudice of your own stop you from accepting evidence once you have checked the sources.

Let me finish with a challenge to you. Would you say that since the 1970’s that the old earth view has been sharpened? Didn’t the view used to say that the earth was millions of years old? What changed? Is it not the view now that the earth is billions of years old? If the old earth view can be “sharpened†by further “evidenceâ€, then please don’t discount the Hebrew grammar that has been “sharpened†by more evidence and a greater awareness of precise grammar. It is best if you hold the same measuring stick and not change the stick because it is measuring something you don’t like. If you allow the old earth view to be changed by further evidence, then would it not be wise to allow the Hebrew grammar to be “sharpened†too? And God can follow all the rules because he knew the precise Hebrew grammar before He wrote the bible. He never makes mistakes because he is perfect and he knows the beginning from the end. We are the ones who have changed, not God. We all know much more about Hebrew grammar, historical sources (like the Talmud) which have been only widely circulated since the 1960’s and archeology to say that what is older must be more correct. Can I persuade you on this one small point? Man, I’m working hard at looking at all angles to get you to see my point. You are a tough nut to crack, but I somehow believe that you are a truth lover like I am. Am I wrong?

Okay, I’m back. There must be a limit to how long these posts and comments can be because my post kept disappearing. Oh well, to carry on…

Michael you said “I am sleepless so I have been surfing the net a little on the perfect/pluperfect aspects of 2:19. I found two online resources of interest. One is from the Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne. Dr. Douglas McC. L. Judisch writes in EXEGETICAL NOTES ON GENESIS 2: 18-24“Such a usage of the conjunction often implies a pluperfect understanding of the verbal form which it precedes, as is reflected here in the rendering “had formed”.

This particular quote isn’t much help because although they say that the verse can imply a pluperfect understanding, they do not give the reasoning why a pluperfect is allowed in the sentence.

The second quote was more along the line of trying to find a reasoning for their rendering.

You said:”The other website is called tektonics. It is more polemic but goes into much more detail about the “waw consecutive.”

This site at least tried to give a reason for their belief that the grammar is pluperfect and that is certainly more of a help. To tell you the truth, I was turned off by the question “was the author of Genesis 1 & 2 a flaming knucklehead?” but I bit my lip and kept reading.

The thing that I noticed from this site is that they never gave the option that God created the first set of animals by commanding them into existence and the next set by forming them from the dust of the earth.  Their options were only that God either created the animals before man existed or he created them after man. They didn’t seem to reason through that there was a logical third option (therefore they didn’t even try to refute that option).

I picked this up that I saw was important from the article:  “there are places where a pluperfect can be rendered in accordance with a summarizing or recapitulating use of the waw consecutive. Collins [Coll.WAP] points out that there are cases of unmarked pluperfects in the OT, and that the specific verb in question in this verse itself often warrants a pluperfect translation.â€

This however is where the problem itself lies and that is cited by the book “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics†edited by Robert D. Bergen.  The link that you gave me is correct in citing the fact that there can be unmarked pluperfects in Hebrew and therefore there are examples of some scripture that do not have the “normal†Hebrew markings that cause translators to render them as pluperfect.  However a translator cannot just render a verb as pluperfect willy-nilly (that’s a technical term that I am sure you will need to look up in dictionary.com just as I had to look up “polemic†‘cause that’s not a word I normally use 🙂 ) because there are rules that must be followed that allow one to render it as pluperfect.

Chapter 5 in Bergen’s book is all about the rules and is sub-named The Problem of “unmarked Temporal Overlay†and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol.  In this chapter they go through examples of marked and unmarked overlays and explain what they are.  As far as the limiting factors go concerning this usage, they say “So we have extrabiblical attestation, motivation, and a hypothesis about a limiting definition.â€Â  After all the examples they give of the marked and unmarked overlays, they bring up Genesis 2 as a “nice test problemâ€.  They mention that the NIV has invoked a pluperfect wayyiqtol rule for verses 8 and 19 and they ask if these two verses meet the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay.  The answer, they say, is simply no.  They repeat the criteria and show how it is impossible for these two verses to be pluperfect.

Now what your source does not do is to show how they have met the criteria that allows them to take an unmarked Hebrew passage and make it pluperfect.  Therefore since the criteria is not met, by proper Hebrew grammar, this book says that it must be rejected from a discourse syntax perspective as a misuse of a poorly defined older syntax.

My understanding from what I read on the second reference you gave me is that they are trying hard to give an apologetic answer to a critic who charges the bible with contradiction.  However they do not have to use improper Hebrew grammar to defend the charge against the bible.  The option that they didn’t even consider clearly answers the charge of contradiction by the skeptic.  The answer is that the bible just means what it says and there were two separate and different creations of animals just as there were two separate and different creations of humans.

Let’s look at it this way.  If someone asked you how mankind was created and you said that mankind was created from the dust of the earth, the skeptic could also charge the bible (and you) with a contradiction.  After all, Eve was not created from the dust of the earth and she is part of mankind too, right?  The fact is that God chose to create the man from the dirt and he chose to create the woman from the man’s flesh.  No contradiction at all.

Now what about animals?  Were animals created at the spoken word of God or were they formed from the ground?  There is no contradiction at all.  The first set of animals God spoke into existence and the second set he formed from the ground.

You said: “Finally, one other observation. As I looked through the sites there were two types of sites that most adamantly subscribed to the perfect tense: Atheists and YECs. It appears to me that the first do so because atheists wish to discredit Christianity by showing “errors†in the bible and the second to discredit science.â€

I have a very different way of looking at people’s challenges.  I try really hard not to judge the heart and people’s motives because frankly unless they tell me their motives, I’m not very good at reading hearts.  When I see someone (a skeptic) challenge the bible, I have no problem with that at all if they are a truth lover.  If I wasn’t a Christian and I saw what I thought were contradictions, I would want these contradictions answered too so that I could have faith in God and his word.  When I give a person reasonable, rational and factual answers to their objections and they accept what I say, then I can say that they appear to be a truth lover even if they are a skeptic.  If a person challenges the bible and they are given good reasons to understand that their challenge is unjustified and they disregard evidence time after time again and they just keep on throwing “dirt†in my face, I will walk away because I feel that my time is wasted.  But someone who is a truth lover who will actually hear and listen and consider the evidence is worth spending all the time it takes to answer their questions.

So having said that I don’t try to judge motives unless the motive is stated and obvious without me having to read someone’s heart, I don’t think that just because someone disagrees with you that we should judge them as having a bad or ulterior motive.  As far as the Hebrew book I have, it is written regarding Hebrew grammar not biblical interpretation so I do not know whether the writer is a young earth creationist or an old earth one.  There is certainly nothing in the passage on Genesis that would tell me either way.  There is also not one thing that I have read in this book that even attempts to discredit science. All there is, is an appeal to proper grammar and proper criteria for the rules of grammar.  I can accept that.

Lastly, you also said: “I have yet to find one resource that argues for the perfect before the late 20th Century. I am not leveling this charge at you but I am wondering about the sources you may be using.â€

The refining of the Hebrew rules of syntax is an on-going work.  The first chapter in Bergen’s book explains the problems that Christians have had with the Hebrew language since Christian scholars of the Reformation began studying Hebrew with vigor.  As a result, Jewish scholars lost interest in Biblical Hebrew grammar and the Biblical Hebrew grammar was cut off from its only “living†tradition, namely the tradition that survived Rabbinic circles.  However since the 1970’s many Biblical Hebrew grammarians have pushed on to deal with the shortcomings of the traditional Biblical Hebrew grammars and lexica.  Since the 1970’s then, the research in Biblical Hebrew grammar and lexicography has flourished.  This has resulted in a sharpening of the grammar and a better understanding of the Hebrew.  As biblical interpretation has been sharpened through the years and we have much less perceived “contradictions†in the biblical text than we did 50 years ago, so too the grammar has sharpened through the years.

Now one thing that you can’t fault me for is being biased regarding Genesis 2:19 because of trying to contradict the old earth view.  When I first came across this passage in detail it was during my search on the women’s issue and I came to Genesis from Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14.  Paul makes a big deal about Adam’s first creation and that he, as the first one created was not the one deceived.  So I trotted on back to Genesis to keep my nose in that section until I could understand why Paul said that the first created one was not deceived.  I went over and over it and read the Hebrew until my eyes popped open with surprise.  I clearly saw what Paul was referencing about creation because truly the first created one who had creation happen after him was uniquely educated in the understanding of the Creator and the vast difference between those created from the dirt (himself included) and the unique One who is the only creator.  Adam was not deceived because he saw God’s works and knew who God was and he understood what a piece of dirt he (Adam) really was.  Was it a problem that Adam was not deceived?  Absolutely not!

Now I never want to come to scripture and say it can’t be true because of my own bias.  I want to keep scripture as my infallible guide and my own reasoning as limited and flexible to change when I see truth.  Now I want to challenge you to look carefully at scripture and see if you can find a way to make your old earth view fit with a second set of the same animals that God created before Adam, created again after Adam.  Now why can’t that fit?  Do you see any reason for it not to fit?  If you can’t make it fit, then perhaps you may want to ask yourself if you have made your own reasoning process a kind of untouchable god.  Now I am saying this in love, because I would want someone to tap me on the shoulder and say the same thing to me if I said to God he can’t do something because I don’t think he can.  You see, I can accept it either way because it doesn’t challenge my view either way.  So the way I see it, you either need to make it fit your view (shouldn’t be too hard to do that) or toss your view at the feet of Jesus and ask him to enlighten you about the way he wrote his word.  He either wrote it following the precise Hebrew rules of grammar or he didn’t.  If he didn’t write it following all the intricate rules of grammar and he got it wrong, then what else did he get wrong?

Mike,

“(Mike now clutching at his socks. 🙂 ) Thanks Cheryl. I am enjoying the conversation (for the most part) and I do feel you and I are having a conversation. I don’t spend this much time in conversation with people I don’t care about.â€

Tee Hee, Okay, I get it, socks are up! I am enjoying the conversation too. Believe it or not I have never actually had a discussion with a Christian who is an old earth advocate. Perhaps that is because I don’t go around asking people.

I’m going to answer your last post first and work my way through your other posts as I get time. I won’t be answering the ones you posted to Paula.

For some reason my post is getting cut off so I will finish my comments under the next post called “Why Adam wasn’t deceived part two“.

Hi Michael,

Boy, you are going to make sure my mind has no cob webs, eh? Well, once again I must say that iron sharpens iron. I also have to say that I will have to leave your recent comments for another day, hopefully tomorrow. I have run out of time today and I do want to answer you back when my mind is all there 😉 Not fair for you to have to deal with a woman with only half a brain (well that may be my natural state, but I’m trying!)

One comment before I go for tonight. It is important for me to reassure you of my respect and my care. I really want to do my best in sharing my scriptural view with a great amount of dignity and respect. The reason that I feel so strongly on this is because that is how I like to be treated. There are many times that I have been treated with disdain by complementarians and it felt yucky. I wondered if they knew how unloving they came across. It’s an amazing thing how even I can close my ears to really hearing the other person if I am being talked down to as if I was a terrible sinner.

By the grace of God, I hope I never walk that road of being judgmental and unkind. I have experienced too much of that and I do not want to keep that ball a rolling. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that this is how you were being treated and I prefer to keep out of that conversation! I just want you to know that you are welcome here and I intend to challenge your socks right off those feet of yours! (Or just pull them down around your ankles, in a gentle and kind way, if I can’t get them off 😉

Michael, on your fourth post concerning Genetics:

You said: “I didn’t say that woman came first or that Ross believes this. I said that scientific research suggests an earlier date for woman than for man.â€

I got the information from Ross’ web site and it says that science had dated the woman as older than the man. I did not mean to imply that you thought the woman was older or that Ross thinks that way now, but it appears that he either believed it in the past or was open to believing it because it seemed to be a scientific fact. This is where I balk at the “scientific evidenceâ€. I hope you don’t mind if I tell you that I wouldn’t have been one of those who would be able to say that science could be right and then changed my mind and accepted the dating of woman to almost 60,000 years later so that now the man is older than she is. My reason would be purely scriptural because either science is right and the bible is wrong, or the bible is right and science is wrong.

It seems that we no longer have to be concerned about the vast age difference because the DNA dating has changed and now the woman is 3,000 years younger than the man. So here’s the deal in my mind. Science will have to change that date again. Do you know why? Because the first woman was made from the first man and since he didn’t even live to be 1,000 years old, it is impossible for the first man to be 3,000 years older than the first woman.

I am not sure if you believe the dating of first man at 43,000 years and first woman at 40,000 years but when science changes those dates again, I won’t have to adjust my view. I have no doubt that the woman came from the man and therefore she was around while he was alive and was at least a partial day younger than he was. I am happy that there are at least some scientists who ask why the discrepancy exists. I am sure there are lots who just accept the evidence of science and never question it.

You said: “Therefore, if we began with Adam’s Y and Eve’s mito and trace it over thousands of years we should expect to see the same level of diversity in the DNA for both men and women. We don’t! We see a more diverse collection of mito than we do with Y.â€

Interesting. I can’t say that I understand everything you have written, because I am definitely not as smart as you are, but it is interesting.

You said: “However, since mito DNA is from mothers through daughters we have three separate women (son’s wives) contributing their mito DNA to the gene pool. We are all descended from these three women.â€

I may be dense here but I don’t quite see how that has much to do with going back to Eve. After all, Noah, his wife, the three daughters-in-law, and Noah’s three sons are all descendents of Adam and Eve. The ultimate DNA trace has to go back to Adam, not Noah. My contention is that Eve is a descendent of Adam as she was taken from his DNA so although every son or daughter of Adam is traceable directly back to Adam the sinner, there is one human who is traceable back to Eve and from her back to Adam before Adam sinned. So in our genetics discussion, we must be able to trace Eve back to Adam because she is not a separate creation from the dirt but a DNA descendent of Adam. If we understand this, I am wondering what Christian geneticist could not possibly cry “foul†with scientific data that makes her either 57,000 years older than Adam or 3,000 years younger than Adam. This is the part that I do not understand. I know that the old earth belief is not a matter of separation between believers but I would like to see those who have the old earth belief stand up for scripture and shout down the scientific data that contradicts scripture. That would make me a lot more confident that the old earth view is not disregarding scripture and setting up a worldview that makes the next generation distrust the inspired words (begat) or the inspired dates (ages of the fathers when they produced their heir and when they died).

Whew! I think I am finally caught up to you with your four posts. You certainly gave me a lot to work on for a couple of days, eh? Thanks, my friend!

Paula,

I edited out a couple of loose words that must have been left over from your “hasty pastie”. Very cute word usage!

On Michael’s Post #3 on Genealogies:

While “Father†and “Son†can be terms used for ancestors i.e. Jesus was the son of David (Matthew 1:1), the term “begat†cannot be used in this same sense. The Hebrew word “begat†is a verb meaning to give birth, to beget, to deliver. It cannot mean to bring forth eight generations later. It is always used of direct offspring. So in your example of your 8th great grandfather it could not be said that “John Cotton in his 55th year begat Michael Kruse.†That is not a proper usage of “begat†however you could say that “Michael Kruse is the son of John Cotton†or “John Cotton is father to Michael Kruse†because that would a proper usage for “father†and “sonâ€.  I am not sure who told you that “begat†could be used in this way, but they are not correct.  However you are correct that “son” can be used in the sense of ancestor.

If you were to do a search of the Hebrew Scriptures you will not find “begat†used in this way to make it mean some kind of ancestor.  It doesn’t mean that at all.  So in Genesis chapter 11:19 “And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters†this means only one thing – that Reu was conceived and brought forth through Peleg his father. If you read through Genesis 11, you will find it filled with those who “begat†their children, with their ages that the children were born to them and the age that they died. It is impossible for the Hebrew word usage to place 8th generation ancestors into the lines of lineage in the way it is written – absolutely impossible. If you have a reference for a Hebrew scholar that says the word “begat†can refer to someone in an 8th generational line, I would seriously like to see their biblical evidence.

In the 1 Chronicle 7 passage that you quoted, the word for “son†is the Hebrew word H1121 “bane†and it means son in the widest sense including grandson, nation, nephew. But in Genesis 11 the term is “begat†and it can only mean a direct son to the father.

So when we read the genealogies of Genesis 11, we are reading the direct ancestors in line with their ages when they procreated their son and the age that they died. With this genealogy we can see the generations back to Noah and the flood and we can produce an accurate timeline of those generations.

Here is a really good quote from an article titled “Theological disagreement and the emerging church”

My son pointed me to this article and I think it is good article detailing how we need to be careful to understand the other’s viewpoint. I needed to read this one for myself because I too am human.  My intention is to properly represent the opposing side while I carefully and thoughtfully express my viewpoint.
Here is the quote:

Understanding the other calls for imagination, because we have to provisionally assume the other may be correct – or at least partially correct – if we are to truly listen. We may have to hold our convictions in abeyance as we hypothetically consider the position of the other.

Coming to agreement requires confidence, because our self-worth cannot rest on our being merely right.

Finding Christ’s mind demands humility, because we don’t like changing our minds and acknowledging that the other has a good point. Our certainty is such a warm comforting blanket that we hesitate to toss aside.

What’s needed most of all is love – love for the other, love for God, and love for the truth – the three in balance.

But it’s hard. In fact, these kinds of conversations are so difficult that often the only way that we can even begin is by crying out to God that His Spirit would empower us to proceed.

God help us.

Michael: Regarding your post #2 on the length of days.

You said “The seventh day has not ended. Is Hebrews in error when it suggests the seven day was not 24 hours?â€

I understand and I think most people understand that the word in Hebrew as well as the word in English for “day†can mean several things depending on the context. I don’t think that is a point of contention at all. However I fail to see in the verses that you point to in Hebrews that says that the seventh day has not ended. The Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God is not God’s rest that he is doing but the rest that God provides for us. If God’s rest is still continuing i.e. the 7th Day has not ended, then I think that would contradict the words of Jesus. He said in John 5:17: But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” If the Father is working until now, then he isn’t resting, right? Perhaps I have missed something that you see clearly. Where in Hebrews in the passage that you quoted does it say that God is still resting? Also if you believe that God is still resting, how would you explain the apparent contradiction of the words of Jesus that the Father is working right now?

As far as some of the early Church fathers that thought that the days of creation were longer than 24 hour periods, I haven’t studied that so I can’t comment on it directly, but it doesn’t bother me any more than the same Church fathers who also believed that women were inferior to men. It isn’t an issue of salvation and the church certainly hasn’t been with one mind on many issues throughout our history. I don’t think we can condemn any of the church leaders for their position on secondary issues. I don’t anyway and I would hope you don’t either. That is why I have said that it is more important to me to give you reasons for why I believe as I do and why I reject the old earth theory rather than to try to convince you. It is an important matter to me, but it certainly doesn’t come close to a salvation issue.

As far as the Evangelical leaders who embrace an ancient earth, I’m afraid that doesn’t impress me. I have never been impressed with PhD degrees. I have seen many men with PhD degrees take a very unbiblical stand on the women’s issue. In fact I think pretty much everyone that I counter in my DVD has a doctorate degree. I have had people who have been so impressed with the quality of people on CBMW’s board and their board of reference that they ask me how I could produce a DVD disputing their interpretations of scripture. While I accept these men as my brothers in Christ, their PhD degrees don’t seem to have stopped them from making some critical errors regarding the women’s issue. I also am reminded of the scriptures that say that God uses the lowly and those of us who are nothing in the world’s eyes to confound the wise.

1 Corinthians 1:26– 29 in the Amplified Bible “For [simply] consider your own call, brethren; not many [of you were considered to be] wise according to human estimates and standards, not many influential and powerful, not many of high and noble birth. [No] for God selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame. And God also selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is lowborn and insignificant and branded and treated with contempt, even the things that are nothing, that He might depose and bring to nothing the things that are, So that no mortal man should [have pretense for glorying and] boast in the presence of God.

I am not against education, but I think that sometimes education can be used to put more weight onto a person’s opinion than it ought to. Okay, here’s one of my thinking outside the box thoughts. If God hasn’t chosen many wise in the world’s standards then we might be better off disregarding any weight that PhD degrees places on one’s opinion and just test to see if a person is consistent with scripture rather then how much education they have. A case in point, it seems like the balance is off on the women’s issue in that more PhD kinds are on the side of the complementarian position. I know that there are people who won’t even dialogue with other people who aren’t on their PhD level. One Pastor told me it was intellectual snobbery. But I read a blog of a Baptist Pastor that really touched my heart. He said that he can learn from anyone no matter how insignificant that person is in other’s eyes. When we stop learning from others in the body of Christ just because they don’t seem to have the right amount of education, I think we miss out on so much that our Lord Jesus has for us.

I agree with you when you say that we should not have any extra-biblical agenda, ignore what scripture does say and that we should not make scripture say anything that it does not say. I can’t speak for anyone else but myself, but I know that I want only the truth that scripture has and anything extra biblical that doesn’t line up with scripture, I want to reject. In my opinion, the view that is correct will always have all of scripture line up. When one must ignore scripture or rewrite it to fit one’s view, it becomes suspect in my eyes. One of the biggest objections that I have to the old earth theory is in how it changes the biblical account of the flood. I don’t want to assume that I know anyone’s motives on why they do that, but I just can’t see how one can take the flood account and make it a local flood.

In Genesis 6:17 God says that he will bring a flood on the earth, not a flood on Egypt or Israel, or wherever.

In Genesis 7:17 the flood lasted for 40 days and the waters came not just from the sky but the waters in the earth were opened up to gush out. In verse 18 the flood waters increased greatly on the earth. The Hebrew word for greatly is a word that can mean abundance, might or power. In verse 19 every mountain was covered “under heaven†and the waters were higher than the mountains by about 22.5 feet. I don’t see how a vast expanse of water that high above the mountains could possibly be a local flood.

I also have a problem with Genesis 2:19 in that the old earth view doesn’t even want to try to make the verse fit into their timeline using the grammar that animals were also created after Adam as well as before Adam. In my view, I don’t have a problem if animals were only created before Adam. I also don’t have a problem if animals were created both before and after Adam. My view cannot be shaken in any respect no matter how the grammar is viewed. However it seems to me that the old earth view must contradict the grammar and cannot accept the grammar either way. I am not sure why because one would think that there would be some way to put the second creation of animals into their view without having any contradictions. If one cannot (and I would encourage you to try to see if you can find room for it) then this means that someone like me who holds to a strong view of scripture with inspired words and inspired grammar could never be an old earth person. Do you understand the dilemma that I see?

Michael, Martin, Paula – go ahead and continue to discuss the issues as I work on my responses. I may not be as fast as you folks are 🙂

Michael:

Regarding your first post (#1).  You said:  “Cheryl, your last comment was four pages single spaced when I copied into a word document. This post and the comments we are all making here may be your first book! :)â€

Okay, I admit it, I am long winded.  In “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?†my original script was, I think, about 112 or so pages.  With hard work and some help, I managed to get it down to 73 pages which was 3.5 hours in the final production form.  Can you imagine if I had left it as it was?  You would still probably be working through all of my points!  Sadly, I had to take out a great section on the Trinity and the documentation regarding CBMW’s claim that makes Jesus out to be permanently subordinated to the authority of his Father (taking their view of the Trinity outside the historical position and making the Word in practice never exercising an equal authority with the Father.)  It made the DVD too long and there was a concern that the average person might not be able to understand the deep theological discussion.  Even with the use of graphics, it may still have been too deep for some.  I am hoping that this section will be used in a DVD teaching series on the Trinity that we hope someday to produce.

Secondly I am so glad that I have my own blog where I can say what I think without being censored for being too long.  I do have some posts that aren’t long winded at all, but on those I use graphics.  One graphic can shorten a post by a thousand words 😉

My husband has been pushing me to take my research that was used in WIM and expand on it and put it into a book.  I have been resisting the thought, not because I don’t think it is a great idea, but wondering if an unknown author would sell and if the video format of the material which is itself a unique product would be better left this way as people seem to have little time to read and are typically more visual.  I am still pondering on what the Lord would have me do.  I have no book publishers on my doorstep at the moment so it seems easier to let that project rest for the time begin.

Okay, now for your points.  You said:  “CBMW is fearful that if they let open the possibility that women are not subordinate then they will have opened the door to Scripture being discredited.â€

I agree with you for the most part.  However having read through reams of material from CBMW in my research project for WIM, and having listened to countless hours of their audio tapes from their web site, I have come to understand that they truly do believe that women are subordinate for eternity from their creation.  It isn’t that they even see a reason to open the door a crack to the idea that women are not subordinate, because they truly believe that women are subordinate to men in delivering God’s word and somehow God has ordained this subordination for a reason.  Because God himself has ordained the subordination of women, they will not give an inch to anyone who questions why a woman cannot teach the bible to men in her own home (even with her husband’s approval).  To them it is sinning against God and it is a serious matter to go against God’s “clear†prohibition.  So while they do not give an inch to the opposition, they are constantly pressing the point that if one does give women the opportunity to teach men and they bypass 1 Timothy 2:12 as God’s law against this teaching, then it becomes a slippery slope because one can do the same thing regarding many other things that some may not want to be a prohibition either – like homosexuality.

Now strange as it may seem, I can find myself agreeing with them in principle.  If one takes scripture and removes everything that they don’t personally like (by avoiding passages that have clear prohibitions or by reinterpreting God’s prohibitions to soften or avoid God’s words on the matter) then scripture loses its authority and we become the ultimate judge of God’s word.  It is with sadness that I agree that this is what some egalitarians have done.  I have read where Paul is disrespected as a male chauvinist or as someone who got it wrong in the beginning.  The problem with this view is that it disregards God’s Holy Spirit as the ultimate author of scripture and follows the reasoning that God would allow corruption into the text that would distort his will and his word.  I don’t believe that this is possible because I believe that God inspired every word and every piece of grammar and he said what he meant.  That doesn’t mean that there are not some hard passages, but some passages take a lot more work to pull out what has always been in the text in context.

When egalitarians disregard scripture like this, they unwittingly fall into a trap that allows complementarians to disregard our words and our reasoning process.  It is far better to take scripture as it is written and work through the difficult passages to understand what Paul is saying in context.  If we truly believe that scripture doesn’t contradict scripture, then it is in our best interest to “Study to showthyselfapproved unto God,a workmanthat needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.â€Â  2 Timothy 2:15.  If we can’t completely understand a hard passage, at least we can prove what it is not saying by appealing to a scripture that it would be contradicting if it was taken in the most straightforward way.  Disregarding scripture should not be an option.

Michael, you said “Answers in Genesis is a carbon copy of CBMW. They fear that anything other than a young earth 24-hour day interpretation will lead to discrediting the Bible and open the door secular evolutionism. They take passages that are ambiguous (like Genesis 2:19) and impose a narrow readings on the passage that supports their agenda and reject all other considerations.â€

I can’t say that I have read a whole lot of Answers in Genesis material from their web site.  I have been too busy on other projects.  However I have some DVD’s of their teaching and I have seen several debates between young earth versus old earth people and I have two books that go through Ross’ material and refutes him point by point.  However I wouldn’t say that they are a carbon copy of CBMW although I would think that both are concerned about people disregarding scripture.  In that point, I agree with them both.  The heresies of the past have come about because people have disregarded scripture and gone off on their own tangent while their views are in direct opposition to God’s inspired word.  I have worked intimately with the cults and with cult members who have left their organizations and I have a library of cult material that dates back to 1879.  I have spent years reading the twist that the cults put on scripture and I have seen them disregard other clear scriptures that refute their heresies.  I agree that we need to be careful that as Christians we do not do the same thing that got the cults into trouble.  This is one of the few points that I do agree with CBMW.

Now as far as rejecting other considerations, I think that is okay as long as you thoughtfully go through the other considerations and explain why they are not viable options.  I did this on WIM.  I went through the common explanations of 1 Timothy 2:15 and showed the reasons why I had to reject each of the other explanations of this verse.  These are serious objections.  However I agree with you that anyone who dismisses other renderings without a valid reason is being closed-minded.  I never want to fall into that category.

Finally, Michael, you said:  “I am unfamiliar with David Bergen. I would invite you to Did God Create Animals or Man First? Keil and Delitzsch disagree with your interpretation here as do every scholarly source I have consulted across a wide range of Christianity. To insist that God made animals after Adam and before Eve is to impose an esoteric and idiosyncratic a meaning on the text for ideological reasons, not because the text requires it.â€

To be fair, they list the reading that God created animals after Adam as an option.  “Although in my judgment it is very unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be named by Adam (after creating all others before the creation of man—Genesis 1:20-27), some commentators hold this view. After his comments concerning the translation of yastar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures mentioned in 2:19 refer “to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming†(p. 176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all the animals on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those mentioned in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam for the purpose of being named.â€

I also have not come upon the understanding I have because of ideological reasons.  I came across the understanding because I came across the Hebrew grammar that showed that the text required the passage to be read in the way that I read it.  While the article you sent me to claims that the Hebrew can be rendered in the pluperfect, and at least one of the references they gave was done four years before the Bergen book was published, they do not give the grammatical reasons why the grammar can be given in the pluperfect.  In Bergen’s book, however, the precise grammar is given to prove that this passage does not fit the requirements for the pluperfect tense and therefore this option cannot be considered an option in Genesis 2:19.  I have read through the explanation and the requirement for the pluperfect and it appears to be a very solid case.

Grammatically Genesis 2:19 cannot be properly rendered in the pluperfect and few bibles render it this way so it shows that the natural rendering is not the pluperfect because most bibles do not render it in the pluperfect.  Those who do render it in that way are said to be in error and unless this precise explanation of the grammar is refuted, and to my understanding it has not been refuted at all, I have to hold to scripture that Genesis 2:19 was written in such a way as to make it obvious to the original Hebrew recipients that Adam was privileged to some acts of God that no one else in history has even been privileged to witness.  I don’t think it is wrong to discard an inaccurate grammar reading of 2:19 if one has the Hebrew rules for rendering the pluperfect and this verse falls outside of those rules.

So as we discuss this issue, and I am looking forward to responding as I am able time wise to each of your comments, I want to say right off the start in this first post that I respect you and would not consider your view to be a view that would cause separation between Christians, neither will I disregard any of your points or look down on you in any way.  I will thoughtfully consider what you have written.  My place is not to try to persuade you to go against your conscience, or to change your viewpoint to something that you cannot accept, but my place is to give you reason for the hope that is within me.  I am taking this as a challenge to offer the reasoning process regarding why I believe as I do.  This is why I have made this a separate post outside of the 1 Timothy 2 discussions.  You and I and whoever joins in this discussion will have some freedom to discuss these issues with Christian love and I hope a deep respect for God’s word and the truth that it reveals.  In the end we may exhaust all of points that we both have and we may still agree to disagree, but that’s okay.  I think in the end we will be better equipped to fully understand the reasoning of the opposing viewpoint and understanding each other is always a good thing.  It will definitely help me to see outside of my own box and I am hoping it will do the same for you.

Okay does this qualify as chapter one of my new book?  Yikes!  I apologize in advance for my passion that will follow in the days ahead!  May God grant me the ability to be brief while still passionate for God’s Word which is The Truth!

Michael,

I am going to start another post on my blog to deal specifically with the issues that you have brought up regarding Genesis. I will move your comments over to that discussion so that we can keep the issue of the age of the earth separate from the 1 Timothy 2 passage comments. Hopefully that will make it easier to read.

Hi Paula,

You said: “Since non-YECs agree that science keeps changing its mind on what the facts are, science is therefore unreliable. The fact is that true science is not the issue at all, but interpretations of them based upon one’s worldview and philosophy.â€

That is the general idea that I get too from reading the material. When I have read Ross’ writings, I see that from his testimony he was looking for a religion that matched up with his worldview of an old earth. I find that when people come to the bible with a preconceived idea, they either find contradictions in the bible (because it contradicts their preconceived ideas) or they have to shoehorn the bible to fit into their worldview. That’s the part that I have a problem with. If we let the bible speak for itself instead of “fudging†to make the bible connect with our worldview, we usually have to change our worldview. The bible is just not going to be forced to fit someone’s idea. I am glad that you agree that scripture comes first.

I had a look at the chart you drew. It is interesting and some of the same things I found you show as well. You are one day off though. There are a couple of things that you missed. I will email you later with my findings and we can compare. It might take me a day or so to get things together to share with you. The biggest thing is that Jesus’ resurrection happened very shortly before he spoke to Mary at the tomb because he said that he had not yet ascended to the Father. If he had resurrected in the evening before that Sunday morning, he would have had plenty of time to ascend to the Father. Anyway, I’ll email and give you the whole scoop.

I appreciated your comments!

Thank you for the encouragement Martin!

Michael,

You said: “Genesis 2 does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them.â€

I agree with you that Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1. Additions are not contradictions. In Luke 8:27, Luke says that Jesus was met by a demon possessed man. In Matthew 8:28, Matthew tells about the same meeting but says that Jesus was met by two demon possessed men. Is one a contradiction of the other? No. Luke’s concern is only about the one demon possessed man that was healed. Matthew sees the importance in telling us that two demon possessed men met Jesus. One of them was important because he was the one that was healed. There is no contradiction in the stories even though one account has more information. In the same way, Genesis chapter one gives the details of what was created on the days of creation. In Genesis chapter two, the creation of man is the focus. Chapter two also tells us that God created animals after Adam, because this part of the creation account is important because it relates to what happened to the man. Now this is not a contradiction at all. The animals were still created before Adam. Let’s look at it this way….if I ask you when mankind was created – before or after the animals were named, what would you say? If you said before, you would be correct. If you said after, you would be correct. If you said before and after you would also be correct. Mankind was created in two separate acts. The male was created before the animals were named and the female was created after the animals were named.

You also quoted Douglas Jacoby as saying: “Chapter 2 seems to have the animals being created after man, rather than before him, as in the sixth “day†of creation in chapter 1. Perhaps 2:19, which in the NIV is translated “had formed,†solves the apparent problem. Most versions translate the verb “formed,†reversing the time sequence. In Hebrew the distinction between perfect and pluperfect must be determined by context, since there exists no separate form for the pluperfect (past perfect).â€

In this quote you will notice that chapter 2 *seems to have the animals being created after man*. Also he says “*Perhaps* 2:19…solves the apparent problem.â€Â  He says only *perhaps*.  Why? He also admits that most versions do not use the pluperfect and they leave the grammar as reversing the time sequence. Herein lies two problems. The first problem is that the Hebrew grammar in Genesis 2:8, 19 does not allow for the pluperfect tense to be used in these verses. As Robert Bergen’s book verifies, there is no linguistic justification for the NIV’s rendering of these two verses as pluperfect. They were apparently trying to harmonize the creation events in chapter two with the order of chapter 1. However there was no contradiction to begin with that needed justifying. God can create the same animals once, twice or as many times as he sees fit. There was a plan and a purpose for him to create all the animal kinds for Adam’s benefit after he was created and we can’t argue that it wasn’t effective. The things that Adam saw before Eve was created cemented his understanding of who God is and Adam was not deceived by the serpent’s lies.

You also said: “Looking at Jacoby’s second bullet, whether it perfect or pluperfect depends on context. It is not self evident from the text. Where should we look? To Genesis 1 where the animals were created before man.†Actually that is only half of the story. If you were to check the reference in “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics†you would see that the pluperfect tense *cannot* be used unless the context meets the “criteria for unmarked temporal overlayâ€. In other words the passage in question MUST repeat lexical material to refer the reader back to an event that had already been mentioned.

In verse 8, the book says that the pluperfect tense cannot be used because there is no earlier mention of a garden. They say “Just the opposite is true. The mainline verb ‘and he formed man’ in 2:7 explicitly happens in the midst of a background setting where there was not yet any plant life.†So there is no justification at all to use the pluperfect tense in verse 8.

What about verse 19 where the animals are mentioned? Here the book says “Similarly for v. 19 with…’form’. This was not mentioned earlier, though one could claim that animals had been mentioned in chapter 1. Even with the animals, however, one does not find a back-reference to which this account in 2:19 can be considered an overlay. Looking at the question of a natural semantic relationship, we find that neither v. 8 nor v. 19 is readily perceivable as a reason or explanation of the immediately preceding sentences. We *must* read these verbs as normal sequential wayyiqtol verbs. Consequently, the NIV translation of Genesis 2 *must* be rejected from a discourse syntax perspective as a misuse of a poorly defined older syntax.â€

In agreement with this precise grammar is the Apostles’ bible (the English translation of the Septuagint) renders this verse sequentially after the creation of Adam “And God formed *yet farther* out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and He brought them to Adam…†You cannot form “yet farther†in the past. This can only be done in sequence after Adam was created.

So the question, I think we need to ask ourselves, is there a problem with accepting the text as written that shows the animals were created again after Adam? I don’t see a problem. It is not a contradiction of chapter one at all. Again, the grammar cannot be a pluperfect tense because it doesn’t match the criteria. If anyone contradicts that, they will have to show how the criteria of a pluperfect tense is matched by the two verses in question.

Now I think the *only* problem one might have is if one believes that the animals were created many millions of years ago. Having them created AGAIN after Adam was created might be a hurdle to jump. However I believe that we should accept the bible with the grammar that it was written with even if it might contradict our views. It would be better to adjust our views (if that is needed) than to change the grammar to match our viewpoints. That’s the way I have always looked at scripture, because my human understanding is fallible and I figure that if I subjected scripture to my own understanding, then I would be judging scripture instead of having it judge me.

Michael, you said “As to genealogies, the Hebrew scholars I have talked with, to a person, do not consider these to be a complete catalog of the generations. There purpose was to lift key individuals out of the lineage to say something about origin of the descendant. Genealogies covering the same lines seem to conflict with each other yet the often list a symbolic number of people from beginning to end.†All I can say here is that scripture is accurate regarding the age of the person when their child was born and the age of the person when they died when it comes to the ancestor’s in Genesis. Whether each one of their children is listed wouldn’t make a difference in the time line. We have enough information to calculate the time line with people who we know lived and died at a certain age and had children at a certain age. When we intersect their life line with the age that they were when their child was born and add in their lifeline of the age that child died and use that to go down the line, it is impossible to get 100,000 years out of humans. Well I suppose you could if you believe that the Bible was completely inaccurate about the age that the father was when his child was born and the age he was when he died. These are either facts or they are not. If they are facts they create a timeline.

When you put together only the facts that are listed in scripture and intersect them with only the facts of the next generation (which can’t be wrong or there would be errors in scripture) then we have a good picture of how long humans have been on this earth. We can also chart the number of people on the earth and if humans have been on earth for 100,000 years, I am wondering why there is even a bit of earth left for humans? If we work backwards with the population, we only get about 6,000 years with the human population even including wars and pestilences.

You also said: “I find no problem at all with humanity being 50,000 to 100,000 years old. I see nothing in Scripture that precludes this… That the DNA suggests one date for the first man and an earlier date for the first woman is another puzzle the Bible might have the answer for. Everyone living is a descendant of Noah so all male genes trace to him. However, Noah’s sons each had wives, which means our common female ancestor is Eve through these three women. The diversity of the DNA trail for woman points to evidence for the Biblical Noah story.†The idea that the first woman could be much older than the first man is a big red flag for me.  It could not possibly have any agreement with the bible which clearly says that the first woman was made from the body of the first man. This part of Ross’ findings raises a big red flag for me. I don’t agree with his view that each creative day was millions of years long, but I can understand where he could try to fit that in. However there is no justification for having Eve older than Adam and if one just accepts that, one must reject the clear wording of scripture about the origin of the woman.

I also can see wonderful things that could come from the biblical Noah story that would trace humanity through one man once again; however that would have nothing to do with the origin of the first woman. Since the first woman got her DNA through the first man, we would have to end up with Adam no matter which way we looked at it. So if I read scripture and believe that Eve came from Adam, why would I accept a Christian journal that takes science’s calculations (that seem to change now and again) to make the first woman much older than the man? For me, and I am just talking about me here; it would be a crisis of faith. I would either have to accept scripture or accept science’s calculations. For me, it is a no-brainer. I just accept scripture and where it dovetails with science, I am fine and I accept both. Where it conflicts with science, I pick the bible.

I am not looking to convince you of anything, so I just shared how I test things and judge them. For me, it’s not an issue of Christian fellowship so it is not a hill to die on. I would like to challenge you, if I could with one thing. If Paul isn’t referencing the act of creation that Adam saw that would have solidified his understanding of who God is and how creation is only a work of his hands, then can you explain to me why Paul connects the order of creation to the deception of the deceived teacher in Ephesus?

Thanks for your input. It is always wonderful to dialogue with you. I appreciate your work and your obvious love for God!

Thank you Michael!

Sam,

I don’t think that these kinds of conversations expose ignorance at all. I think they are wonderful at helping us as Christians to experience “iron sharpening ironâ€.

When I first understood that “aner” and “gune” together in a passage in relationship should be translated as husband and wife, I pondered on the same type of reasoning that you came up with. I thought perhaps that if a wife was to judge her husband’s prophecy along with the others and she found him wrong, that would embarrass him. However as I expanded my look at the verses to a larger view to include the entire chapter as well as chapter one where false deceived teachers are introduced, that view just didn’t make sense in the bigger picture. I found I had more problems than I could answer.

Now in your explanation that only the man was entrusted to carry or be the repository for Jesus’ words of life or the gospel, that would sound reasonable due to the restrictions on women at the time, but it has a big problem. The problem is that Jesus entrusted women with the gospel and Paul could not forbid what Jesus allowed.

For example to whom did the angel first reveal the good news that Jesus was risen? It was to the women at the tomb. In Matthew 28:7 the angel told the women to tell the good news to the disciples. In verse 10 Jesus meets them in person and tells them to pass on his message to the disciples. Here the women were the repository of the good news. When Jesus was still alive on the earth, the woman at the well was another woman whom Jesus talked to about the gospel and she went and spread the message in the town. In the New Testament and in the history of the early church no woman was ever stopped from giving out the gospel.

Rather than stopping the giving out of the gospel by women, verse 12 should rather be looked on as a verse surrounded by the problem of deception. If one takes into consideration the fact that Paul never told Timothy to forbid godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine (or the gospel for that matter!) to men, and his only concern was false doctrine and false teachers, verse 12 can attach it’s prohibition only onto the deception of Eve and the stopping of false deceived teachers from chapter one. There is no other explanation given and if we work outside the given context of deception and false teachers, we must read another explanation into the text. I think we are better off sticking to the context of false teachers and see how that fits first.

The last test of any view is how it fits with verse 15. In your view we would input it into verse 15 as “she (the woman who passes on the gospel to men) will be saved if all women continue on in faith, love and holiness with self-control. The problem fitting it into verse 15 is that it questions the salvation of the one passing on the gospel. That doesn’t seem to make any sense. Also how does what all women do, relate to the salvation of the one who passes on the gospel to men? I think it makes much more sense that the question of whether one is saved or not is questioned because of false teaching, not because of speaking forth of the gospel.

You may need to ponder this for awhile. It is a new thought for you, I am sure. If you read through chapters one and two again and watch how easily and without forcing the explanations I gave, fit into the context verse after verse after verse. And when the last verse is considered, which is the questioning of her salvation in verse 15, the package is neatly tied up and it all makes sense. If you can do that with any other explanation going verse by verse through chapters one and two, I would love to hear it.

Hi Michael,

I am not a young earth type per se, because I just want the truth of God’s word and whatever that is, is good with me. I have looked at Hugh Ross’ material and I have seen his debates. Unfortunately I have a problem with his view of the bible. You see it is difficult to persuade me unless you use the bible and can show me from scripture the facts. I believe God’s word is fully inspired and if God’s word says it and confirms it, that settles it for me. I am not one who is easily persuaded by extra biblical evidence unless it also is able to be confirmed by the bible. Hugh Ross’ view of the flood is especially troubling to me. Also his dating of the first man and woman to about 43,000 and 40,000 years ago respectively just doesn’t match up to the bible. He has changed the age of the first man and woman several times and that also doesn’t sit right with me. Truth doesn’t change like that. My husband and I took the book of Genesis and mapped out a time line. Just taking the age of the parent when his son was born and the age that the parent died was fascinating. It really opened up the bible to us as we saw how many generations of Adam’s children were still alive that would have known the first human parents. I don’t know where we put the chart but going by memory even during Noah’s time before the flood there were still some of the original first generations of humans. It is impossible to map out Adam and Eve using births and deaths of children to go back 40,000 years. Some old earth advocates will even go so far as to try to take them back 100,000 years as Hugh Ross’ organization admits. They even say that originally the DNA of the first woman was dated to 100,000 years and then changed to 40,000 years after they figured out DNA mutates at a faster rate than assumed. That originally made her much older than the man. There is so much that doesn’t match with scripture. I never did figure out how the man lived 3,000 years before the first woman was created when we are told in scripture how old man Adam was when he died and he wasn’t even 1,000 years old. No, I don’t think that kind of back and forth dating and assuming rates of DNA decay will ever touch the inerrancy of the bible for me. Also making the biblical flood only a local flood when scripture says the waters were higher than the mountains is just plain….well, stretching facts to suit one’s theory. It would have taken a miracle for the waters to be that high above the mountains and not have the waters flow over the earth.

Now back to topic. You said that you think the emphasis is on the origin of the animals and not that God set Adam down and created the animals in front of him. If the second set of animals was created after Adam was created, it wouldn’t matter if the creative day was a long day or not. The fact is that they were created *after* him. Why would God create animals after Adam? I see no other reason than to educate Adam regarding the difference between God and creation. The Hebrew is specific in that the creation of the garden and the second creation of animals was *not* before Adam. That is the point that we have to deal with, not how long the creative day was. The Hebrew is written as a sequence of events in chapter two and that is proven by Robert Bergen’s book “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics†and unless you have a more accurate understanding of the Hebrew that you can show me, I will just have to stick with that precise grammar. I know that complementarians do not want to see this because they would prefer to believe that Adam was not deceived not because he had more knowledge of the Creator as the forming of the animals after Adam implies, but because he was the one that God communicated with personally and was given unique authority in the earth.

You also said that it might have taken Adam eight hours to name the animals. That’s possible, I don’t know. I only know that Adam was created on the same day as Eve and the animals were named before she was created. It certainly is possible that just as only two dogs were needed to take into Noah’s ark that could later mate and create all the different types of dogs and dog related animals, that Adam named the kinds of animals and not all the individual variations that we have today. Whatever the case, I believe scripture when it says he did the job and still had time to get his special bride.

I know you said that it is more plausible to you that the animals were created prior to Adam. That seems plausible to me too, however the text doesn’t say that and I find myself constrained by what the text literally says. I know that atheists have picked this up as well and challenged Christians with the second creation that seems obvious even to them. I think we would do well just to accept the text as written and admit that God did a special work of creation after Adam and before Eve. I say *special* work of creation because only one person ever was privileged to see that creative act. Wow! No wonder God blamed him for eating the fruit when he wasn’t deceived. He had no excuse at all!

Michael, I am so glad that we can discuss these things in a spirit of Christian love and these things don’t separate us as a brother and sister in Christ. I have seen more than enough separation of Christians these last three years to last me a life time. I pray that Christ will draw his body together in love so that we can use our gifts for mutual growth. There is so much for me to learn and I know that none of us is an island. We need each other’s wisdom and gifts as we all learn where we have missed the boat regarding truth. No one yet has arrived and knows the truth about everything.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Hi Michael,

You ask a great question about the creation of animals. First of all in answer to your question, the issue is not about animals ONLY being created after Adam. The Hebrew is specific in that animals were definitely created *after* Adam, but they were also created *before* Adam. This isn’t too hard to understand because just as mankind was created in two “acts” with the man created first and the woman created later after Adam had time to realize that he needed a mate, so the animals were created in two “acts” also for Adam’s benefit. The first set of animals was created before Adam and the second set was created as God formed each animal and brought the animal and its mate to Adam for naming. It only makes sense to me that the second set that God created was the mates to the ones that were created earlier. I can’t prove that one for sure, but it makes sense to me because that is how he created humans male first and female second.

For those who can believe in the inspired scriptures and still believe that the earth is billions of years old and animals were created hundreds of millions of years ago, they must be able to rationalize away some of scripture to do that. There are several things that make that belief untenable to me. If you want, I can let you know what those things are.

The bottom line is are we going to believe what God has said (his testimony) or are we going to believe the testimony of science? The one thing that I know for sure science has changed their dating system by billions of years just in my own lifetime. I remember in my early years of school being taught that the earth was millions of years old. I didn’t pay attention to when it exactly happened, but the earth got a lot older sometime through the years. Now we are told it is no longer millions of years old, but billions of years old. Animals now are not just millions of years old, but hundreds of millions of years. That is a significant change, but the truth hasn’t changed since truth is consistent.

I came to a crisis of faith myself in the mid 1980’s. I came face to face with something that I couldn’t make fit in the bible. It was on the resurrection. I couldn’t understand how Jesus could be dead for three days and three *nights* if he died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday morning. As I thought it through and reasoned within myself, I came to understand that I must accept the bible as God’s inspired word and accept that it was right even if I didn’t understand how it could be right. If I accepted that there were errors in God’s word and that it wasn’t completely inspired, then I could not have faith in the bible. I would have to say that it then would be hit or miss on whether it was truth or not and I couldn’t accept that. So I decided to believe God without having all the facts to convince me that it was truth. It was a definite turning point in my life. From that moment on, I have come to understand that scripture is God-breathed to the point that each word is inspired and each piece of grammar is inspired. I have seen it proved over and over again that God’s word is true even if every man is found a liar. Romans 3:4 says “By no means! Let God be found true though every human being is false and a liar, as it is written, That You may be justified and shown to be upright in what You say, and prevail when You are judged [by sinful men]. [Ps. 51:4.]”

Since that turning point in my life, I have been privileged to have visited Israel in 1986 and that trip opened my eyes up to the Jewish understanding of some things in the resurrection passage that I had not understood before. I now understand that it is our tradition that invalidated the word of God and made it look like it was in error. Our tradition says that Jesus was crucified on Friday, but God’s word doesn’t say that. I believed God first and then had it proved to me that his word prevailed and our tradition was the one that was faulty.

In a similar way I have come to understand that God’s word about creation is not a myth neither is it in error. Jesus believed that the first man was real and not a myth because he talked about the creation of the first man and woman. It is a test of our faith. Will we believe what God has said, or will we believe what has been a changing science throughout the years? I have lived long enough to see science change and it will continue to change. But God’s word does not change.

God has also provided a great deal of proof to back up his word, so that if we are open, I believe that there is enough evidence out there to prove God’s word regarding creation. Men can be wrong and have been proven wrong time and time again, but God’s Word has not been proven wrong. I recommend anyone to check out the facts before they ever consider disregarding God’s inspired words. I highly recommend Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/. Read the material. Listen to what they have to say. Remember again that our traditions are subject to change and subject to correction. If one uses science as a measuring stick to measure the bible by, they are trusting in man instead of God who cannot change and who cannot lie. Measuring God and His Word with human understanding is like trying to measure accurately with a rubber band that is one time stretched and the next time relaxed. It just doesn’t work. I have never regretted the day that I chose of my own free will to believe the bible and set aside my human fallible reasoning process. For me it was a chance to glorify God & to believe Him even though I couldn’t understand. Now I reason through scripture starting with the understanding that His Word is true and every man is a liar that discards the words and grammar of scripture. This thinking process has enabled me to see things that others have missed. Why? Because I trust God’s word with my life and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that every word is there for a purpose and every piece of grammar is there for a purpose. When I key in on things that others disregard as unimportant, understanding has been given to me that others have missed. God is the one who gets the glory, because He alone is worthy because His word is truth (and every man a liar!)

Hi Sam,

The interpretation that Paul is prohibiting a wife from “talking over†or contradicting her husband in public is an interesting one. However the problem you would have with this interpretation is three-fold.

1. It gives no explanation for the connection that Paul gives for the reason for the prohibition and that is the deception and falling into sin of the first woman. How is contradicting one’s husband in public connected to the deception of Eve and her falling into sin?

2. The restriction in verse 12 is “teaching” and “authenteo” not “talking over” or contradicting. I think you would have a difficult time connecting a public contradicting of one’s husband with the word “authenteo”. Titus 1:9 gives the Greek word #483 which is the normal word that means to speak against or to contradict. Since Paul had at his disposal the regular word that would describe the action of contradicting or “talking over” her husband, it would seem extremely odd to describe the prohibition of contradicting with the extremely rare word of “authenteo.”

3. In verse 15, the salvation of “a woman” is questioned. In what way would contradicting one’s husband result in having one’s salvation questioned?

I think my interpretation of Paul restricting a particular deceived woman from teaching or influencing her husband fits the context, fits the connection to deception in chapter one and in verse 14, and gives a very understandable answer to why the salvation of “a woman” is questioned in verse 15.

Blessings to you Peter!

Yup, you will need to get the DVD 🙂 It’s multi-media with high quality pictures and I think that helps to get the idea across succinctly. Well it’s me teaching so I am kind of biased, but I think you will like it. I will give you an idea of what you will see in it. If one sees with their very own eyes the Creator creating animals from the dirt and you know that you yourself were created by the Creator from the dirt, would you be convinced that you could be like Him? Or would you understand that there is a vast difference between creation and the Creator? Now how about if you didn’t have the opportunity to see this with your own eyes? Would it be easier to deceive you? Could you perhaps be convinced that you were only a bite of fruit away from being just like God? Is sound doctrine (about the difference between God and his creation) something that will keep us safe from deception and did Adam have special hands on training in sound doctrine in regards to who God is? I think we can safely say YES!

If we follow Paul’s lead back to Genesis, we can see how sound doctrine can keep us all safe from being deceived. It is also sound doctrine that will straighten out the deception and the deceived teachers.

So Paul’s point was that the first one created was not deceived (he had sound doctrine concerning the difference between God and creation). The second one created was deceived (she did not have the opportunity to see the difference between God and creation). The woman in verse 12 is deceived and teaching error. She needs to stop teaching and learn sound doctrine so that she too will not be deceived. Does that make sense?

Hey Peter,

You said “In verse 19, however, the group seems to have rejected conscience rather than faith, and Paul’s action in delivering two of them to Satan suggests that they had not voluntarily left the church.”

How about we both agree? My understanding of verse 19 says that they rejected *both* their faith and their conscience. I also agree that although some left the congregation on their own accord, (1 John 2:19 says “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” In this verse it does seem that some left on their own accord) there were definitely those who had to be given the “boot”. I fully agree with you on that point.

I consider it a privilege to be able to dialogue with someone who has the knowledge in Hebrew to own the Robert Bergen reference book. Most of the book is way over my head, but I feel it important enough to see the primary documents for myself so I purchased the book to check out the facts. This book really helped me to see Paul’s point in taking us back to the Genesis account in order to understand why Adam was not deceived and why Eve was.

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your comments. You asked why the biblical references are automatically linked to ESV. My son graciously gave me space on his site for my blog and he said he had found an add-on to automatically link to the bible. I asked him to remove the add-on. I am not really up on all these blog technical things.

It certainly is helpful when Bibles render the passages that refer to men and women in a way that we can understand. 1 Tim. 1:3 is generic to show that the false teachers can be men, women or both. Your point is well taken that 2 Tim. 2:2 “the faithful ones who are able to teach“ is also a gender generic passage.

I disagree with your point that the “certain people” from verses 3 and 6 are the same group as those of verse 19. Here is why I believe they are two separate groups of people.

1. The group of people in verses 3 and 6 are apparently false teachers who are in the congregation whereas the deceivers of verses 19 and 20 had already left the faith or were already removed from the congregation due to the seriousness of their teaching (saying that the resurrection had already happened).

2. The group of people in verses 3 and 6 are teaching myths, endless genealogies and speculations. They are not teaching outright heresy as are the two mentioned in verse 20. The fact that the teachings of the first group are also serious matters that could lead them away from God is certain because instead of following the faith some have “turned aside to fruitless discussion” Paul wants them to be instructed in the truth and stay away from the speculations.

3. The two deceivers mentioned in verse 20 are a part of the group mentioned in verse 19 which are again generic “some” showing that this group also could be men and women. However this group had rejected the faith: “which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” Since they have rejected the faith, they were no longer in the congregation.

4. Paul does not advocate teaching to this second group of people who are deliberate deceivers. The fact that Paul says Hymenaeus and Alexander should be taught does not mean taught by the church. Paul handed them over to Satan so that Satan will be used to teach them not to blaspheme. “Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.” This is certainly nothing like the teaching that the church gives, but is more like being “raked over the coals” by the enemy so that their suffering may convince them to stop their deception and their error. Paul does not say that he has handed them over to the church to be taught. No, he says he handed them over to Satan to be taught. Again, I repeat that Paul wants the deceived ones to be taught and the deliberate deceivers he shuns them until they have learned how to stop their blasphemous ways. The deceivers are not to be tolerated in the church. Their learning is outside the church and once they stop their deception, they are welcome back.

Peter, you also said “I don’t understand point 16.” The main reference to point 16 is found in the Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics book edited by Robert D. Bergen and published by the Summer Institute of Linguistics copyright 1994. Here the grammar from Genesis 2:8, 19 is analyzed and shown as the individual verbs in 2:8 and 2:19 are intended sequentially within that account. Their point is that the creating of the garden and the creation of the animals in chapter 2 is intended as a further act of creation after Adam was created. This is clearly shown in the Apostle’s bible link that I gave. The full quotes to the Discourse Linguistics book are given in our DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?”

Thank you for saying that the exegesis makes sense. At this point I believe that my exegesis makes the best sense because one must have a valid explanation for who is the “she” and who are the “they” of verse 15 to make sense of the entire passage. So far I have not read nor have I heard anyone give any viable other option to the “she” and “they” of verse 15. We cannot just ignore the grammar and the words to make sense of the passage. I have taken great pains not to ignore either.