Cheryl

Sandy,
I too worry about what the effect CARM has on non-believers. I have seen reports of non-believers very hurt by their treatment on CARM’s discussion boards. May this never be! Unbelievers need to see that the church deals with those who are divisive. My blog is a testimony to the fact that we have called Diane and Matt to repent and to be restored. I also want this blog to be a testimony to the fact that we welcome with open arms Christian brothers and sisters who call themselves complementarians. This is a place where we can passionately debate in a respectful manner but in the end we are to love one another as Christ love us. This is not a suggestion from Jesus but his command and all true Christians will have this love for one another because Jesus dwells within us.

This loving attitude is not displayed at CARM. I will not recommend Christians or non-Christians to go on CARM’s discussion boards. I am certain there must be other good boards out there who treat people with respect. We are not to support divisive people but warn them that the Good Shepherd will bring them to account.

Thanks for posting your comments, Sandy. I know Diane at least will be reading your words from this blog and I hope that your words will have an effect on her.

It is interesting that Diane Sellner keeps repeating that “En” has refuted me regarding Dr. Buth’s work on the Hebrew grammar that proves that Genesis 2 has the animals and the garden of Eden created after Adam’s creation. I posted to CARM the refutation of “En” including a challenge to him regarding how he was going to square up the creation account in Genesis 1 where the birds are created on day 5 and the account in Genesis 2 where the birds are created after Adam’s creation on day 6. He had admitted that this was a problem. However as Dr. Buth says, we just need to accept the text as it is written and I completely agree with him. There is no contradiction when you see the genders created at different times. “En” will not see my answer unless he comes here because Diane will not allow my post to go through. By withholding the answer, Diane proves that saving face is more important than the truth.

This blog is dedicated to the truth and to checking the facts by going to the original source. Diane would rather rely on the information given by a Deist rather than go to the source. It is a pity but quite understandable since this is what her pattern is. She says that I won’t answer emails. I have never received an email from her. It is interesting that Diane had to correct a comment that she posted saying that she emailed me. Apparently she didn’t know that the person that posted on my contact form with an IP address from Pennsylvania had not sent me an email. If she had sent it herself she would have known that to begin with. It is also amazing that Diane has accused me of putting her “private” email on this blog. She said that since I put it up, she would also post it. How interesting. You can find her “private” email to me posted on CARM, yet you won’t find it on my blog. Why is that? It is because I didn’t post it. I merely said that I had received an accusation of a copyright infringement and I posted my defense. I never posted one word from Diane. The most amazing thing is that because Diane made her “private” email public, anyone with scruples can check my blog and can verify that I never posted her “private” email that she posted on CARM.

The question that I have is why would Diane post a “private” email on CARM when the very fact of her posting it completely disproves her accusation against me that I posted her “email”? And why would Diane accuse me of misrepresenting Buth and then refuse to allow my posts to go through on CARM? What is Diane afraid of? I think that a reasonable person could conclude that truth is not held high on CARM. I am very happy that it appears that the the gospel is held high and the death and resurrection of Jesus are held high. That is a good thing. But when Diane and Matt make the secondary issue of women in ministry to be an issue of salvation and they attack Christians who hold to all the same essentials of the faith as they do, they need to be called to account for their divisive attitudes.

It is time to have a full-scale CARM alert. I encourage every truth loving Christian to not support CARM until the divisive attacks and the lies against Christians are stopped. Anyone who wants a copy of the documented audio files can contact me. I also encourage people to check out Diane’s post where she copies her “private” email to me. It is at http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=97611 Note that the copy of the “private” email is on post #1 and starts “To Whom IT May Concern:”

Now look to see what I actually posted on comment #100 here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/02/28/please-welcome-diane-sellner/

Also see Diane’s accusation against me saying that I posted her email on my blog. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=97640 She says “The point is now she is denying posting the requests sent in private email.” Yes, I am denying that I posted Diane’s request. Anyone can verify that what I am saying is true and that Diane’s accusation that I posted her request to me is false.

How “private” was it if she could post it on CARM’s discussion board? I never posted it but she did! Diane also says that I didn’t answer her “email” on my contact page. I did answer it and perhaps she should check with the person who was the puppet who sent the contact form. Now I predict that Diane will not want too many people to actually go to CARM and see the documented evidence of her lie to verify that what I posted was nothing at all from the “private” email. Perhaps Diane will do what she always does and remove the evidence. The thread is called “EDIT to answer questions: Public Announcement Concerning Copyright infringements.” I have it saved in case she takes it down.

All those who are CARM followers and who are still lovers of truth need to check out the facts for themselves. Will Diane be held accountable for her lies or not? I guess you will have to decide that for yourselves but remember that what is done in the darkness needs to be exposed by the light. If you love Diane and Matt and want CARM to succeed, then the lies and the attacks posted on CARM need to stop. Send Diane and Matt an email. Post on their discussion board. Call them to account. And if they won’t repent, then leave. A divisive brother and sister in Christ is to be warned twice and then rejected. It is far better to care enough about them to call them to account than to allow this kind of sin to continue. You can also comment here on this post. Diane and her spies regularly watch this blog and this post. What you say here will be read by Diane.

tiro3,
It looks like the majority of the references say that DIAKONOS can be male or female. However diakonos is considered a male word even though it can be used with the feminine ending for women.

From this site: http://www.bfchistory.org/Studywomendeacons2005.htm It says:

“(re Romans 16:1) Here diakonos is clearly applied to a woman. The form is masculine. As noted above, the lexicons say diakonos can be either masculine or feminine. Paul did not use a distinctively feminine word despite Phoebe being “our sister.””

The feminine term “deaconess” was a third office in the term not the same as deacon.

“these women are not to be regarded as constituting a third office in the church, the office of ‘deaconess’ ….” Deacon is the term to be used. This is congruent with the Greek usage of diakonos as both a male and female noun: the word diakonos is one of fifteen nouns used in the New Testament that can be either masculine or feminine gender” (see the list in Trenchard, 296). A separate feminine word for “deaconess” (diakonissa) does not arise until the fourth century (Cross, 377).”

So it appears that the word deacon is considered a male term yet having both masculine and feminine grammar. Phoebe was not called a “deaconess” but a “deacon” and the name is the same as the name for the men. Whatever they were, she too would be.

tiro3,
Your observations were very good! All in all what I see in abusive forums is that there is no toleration for or love for the brethren who disagree. Good point about the Jewish Rabbis. I hadn’t thought much about that, but you are right. In the Talmud there is a lot of Rabbi one said this and Rabbi two said this. The rules and interpretations were very different between the two and they are stated as facts assuming that people will make a decision for themselves. However abusive moderators most often do not allow people to make decisions for themselves. They want to control the conversation to the point that a link to a Christian web site that disagrees on a secondary point or even mention that such a site exists is taken as a threat to their position. However, the way I see things is that if you have the truth why fear the opposition? Your truth will expose the error and those who are truth lovers should be able to see this.

We are not to be children in the body of Christ. It takes work and effort to search the scriptures for ourselves and to make a careful decision looking at the evidence. In the history of the church there has been much passionate debate but the church has not been held back seeing that debate.

What these abusive forums do is hold back the evidence because if a person sees all the evidence and sees it without the ridicule that the forum puts on the opposing view, then their “followers” may make a choice that is against the viewpoint of the forum and they cannot afford to lose followers.

Cults do the same thing. They hold back information so that one chooses the established view not because they have researched both sides and made a careful decision on which side meshes with scripture. Their decision has been made for them and they are not allowed to be mature and to weigh both sides carefully. Forums like CARM operate on fear and intimidation to keep the party line. This is unacceptable for a Christian organization whose goal it is, is to make mature believers who practice being Bereans not mindless zombies who hold to a position because they like CARM.

When anyone takes their pet “doctrine” that is a secondary issue into the church, and they add it to the essentials of the gospel, they have stepped off of the solid foundation and into error. It is time that we encourage those who hold to a position with a closed fist that faith is strengthened by testing all things. Only error needs fear tactics and intimidation to keep the masses believing.

Light,
Great idea. I think it is good to have a place to make known this kind of un-Christlike behavior of professing Christian discussion board administrators. I also agree that this would be a way to get them to understand their sin and to repent. Thanks for posting this link!

I think I know what is happening with the word “Deacon”. The word “deaconess” apparently didn’t come into use until much after the New Testament time, therefore the word “Deacon” that was used in both Romans 16:11 and 1 Timothy 3:8 is the term that was used for men (and at least one woman) and no strictly feminine word “deaconess” was used in scripture.

Regarding the sin that passed through the seed of the male alone, Here is a quote from Luther:

“Through the fall of Adam sin entered into the world, and all men in Adam have consequently sinned. For the paternal sperm (i.e., seed) conveys the corruption from generation to generation.” (Luther: in A History of Christian Thought, J. L. Neve, Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1946, vol.1, p 230.)

Luther also made a clear difference between the seed of the woman and the seed of man so that it was only the male seed that passed inherited sin to all of us.

While I am not a Calvinist, I certainly can quote from Calvin too:

“We are not corrupted by acquired wickedness but do bring an innate corruptness from the very womb. . . All of us, therefore, descending from an impure seed come into the world tainted with the contagion of sin.” (Calvin, Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 5.)

Ulrich Zwingli said:

“Original sin is inherited, a sickness (morbus est et conditio: it is both the disease itself and the condition), but not a guilt. . . . It is the root of all individual sins and it makes self-redemption impossible.” (Zwingli: in Neve, ref.2, p.244.)

This original sin cannot be “washed away” by baptism as the Catholics suppose. It can only be dealt with by Jesus Christ who alone came through the seed of the woman.

Don,
I find that interesting I also head that it was singular masculine, but when I checked the parsing it says singular feminine. See here http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom16.pdf

I am wondering if there is a different Greek text where it came out singular masculine??

Lin,
The word for Deacon used in Romans 16:1 is the same as 1 Timothy 3:8 except that the Romans word is singular feminine and 1 Timothy 3:8 word is plural masculine. Otherwise they are the exact same word. The reference in 1 Timothy 3 is masculine as the plural form of Deacons that would include both men and women would be masculine. All of the salvation passages are also in the masculine as that is the “default” language but does not exclude women.

Strong’s says Deacon is “specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): – deacon, minister, servant.”

Phoebe is the only one as far as I remember who comes “attached” to a church. She is said to be a Deacon of the church at Cenchrea. As a Deacon of a specific church, Paul writes the church in Rome to receive her, welcome her and give her whatever help she needs in going about her business for the Church at Cenchrea. She is also called a patroness which means leader, ruler, or director. Because Phoebe was a minister and a leader/ruler/director and came as a Deacon of a specific church, she appears to be a very important leader in the church who was trustworthy to do business for the Church and the Romans were to serve her in whatever she needed. Those who put down Phoebe as “only” a servant while describing male Deacons in 1 Timothy 3 as having an office of Deacon are imposing their own prejudice into the text. The early church had women Deacons up until I believe the 300’s. Phoebe was one of these early leaders but of course in the early church.

Metalwolf,
Absolutely, Amen!!! Our secondary issues of disagreement cannot and must not over shadow our love for Jesus and our love for each other so that we work together in reaching the lost. Those who separate because of these minor differences are abandoning the command of Jesus to love one another.

I know that Matt will never change his mind about the women’s issue because he has made it a hill to die on even if he is the only person in the world to hold this view, according to him, however if he would change his attitude towards the rest of us and embrace us as true brothers and sisters in Christ without charging us with sin or stopping fellowship or attacking our character, I would be grateful for at least that. Titus 3:10 says that we are to reject a divisive person after two warnings:

Tit 3:10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,

The word for divisive or “factious” is literally in the Greek a heretic. How ironic isn’t it that Matt calls all kinds of Christians as heretics if they don’t agree with him. The unity of the body is so important that we are not to tolerate those who separate and divide the body.

MetalWolf,
Amen! You are also one brave soul. I pray for many more like yourself who will openly call CARM “higher ups” to task for their un-Christlike attitude. When we call people like this to account in a large group of voices, I hope that Matt Slick and Diane Sellner will hear the call to repentance and heed that call.

Don,
You said:

“I think there is also an aspect of fear, so the world keeps changing and there are some real concerns with some of the changes.”

This is another profound thought! There is amazing wisdom coming from you folks today. I believe, Don, that you have spoken the truth. I have long sensed that there are fear-based reactions coming from people and your point is well taken that the fear is based on changes that are perceived to be threatening thus the slippery slope argument. Great thoughts!

Cindy & Lin you have given me so many things to think about that I feel a bit overwhelmed this morning. Thank you both for pushing the edges for me.

Cindy,
You said:

Again, I think of how “You only intimidate the weak.”

Wow, that was so profound. That really gets me thinking!

Lin,
You said so much for me to contemplate and think deeply on. You also said this that really summarized it well:

“It is so much easier to follow laws than it is to have faith and an intimate relationship with our Savior.”

I think you have really nailed this one. Thank you both for really challenging me with your thoughts today!

Question and advise for people who are still able to post on CARM,
Please use a different name on my blog and do not make any reference to who you are on CARM or you will be shut down on Matt’s discussion board. It appears that Diane Sellner may have gotten a lot of flack by people who saw the ungodly double standard where she was kicking people off the discussion board left and right. Now it appears that she is “ghosting” people allowing them to read the posts but with no ability to have their posts appear. I am wondering if this is being done to make it look like they are not dumping people off the boards while doing the work rather under handed? It appears to me that CARM is spinning out of control. Oh and I would like the CARM puppet that visits here to let Diane Sellner know I said that. Yes please do copy this as you copy everything that is posted here. CARM is spinning out of control. This is what happens to those who use ungodly control tactics. Such a shame Diane that you have to go to this level to do thought-stopping practices and information-stopping practices. You will not prosper this way. God sees everything you do in your “ministry” at CARM.

Don,
I should have made myself a little clearer. I am somewhat spaced these days so it is easy to think that everyone knows how I think 😉 The “timeline” for Jesus is not a “timeline” of the events of his life, but rather who he is and how that can be expressed graphically. It shows how he is eternal as spirit and then takes on flesh and what happens when his flesh dies. It is a “timeline” that shows in pictures what happens during the resurrection. It is absolutely fascinating to watch a JW “get it” when they see that there is no physical connection at all between the Jesus who died and the “Jesus” who was resurrected as Michael the Archangel. Another thing the “timeline” shows is that there is no way to get around it other than to see that their “Jesus” actually died twice. Like I said I have been toying with the idea of putting this onto a DVD as a teaching series and my hsuband is really pushing me. He is sitting in on the sessions and he can see how the JWs are having their eyes opened by the “timeline”. It is an idea that I should be sharing so that others can understand and use this way of teaching.

Thanks mrsflib,
Exegetist is welcome to post here or get your email from me. Blessings back!

mrsflib (Robin)
I edited one little part of your post to make a “name” for a ministry not personal. I hope you don’t mind.

What you have said is very sobering and I agree with you. I have so often wondered why God doesn’t do something about the abuse and he has reminded me that he is way more long-suffering than I am. He is giving them every opportunity and every avenue to change and to repent. He loves them both very much even though we see them as contentious. But God does call people to account and he will take away their “lampstand” of influence if they do not turn away from ripping at God’s flock.

Accountability is so very important. Your suggestion about how they could have done that is very, very wise!

Robin, I am so glad that you found us! I have said much the same thing to my husband, that what Matt Slick and Diane Sellner have done is actually drive people away and drive them to find the truth for themselves. When one shuts down dialog and stops people from even having an opportunity of hearing the opposition, one has to wonder if fear is not the foundation of the strict control of information that is going on over at CARM. Pretty much all cults restrict access to information that might damage them. They refuse to allow you to read opposing material or to watch shows that might expose them. Matt Slick and Diane Sellner should know this. They have studied the cults. See what the fact.net says about coercive mind-control tactics:

Tactic #3:

Prohibit disconfirming information and non supporting opinions in group communication. Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders. Communication is highly controlled.

Is communication highly controlled on CARM’s discussion boards? Absolutely! Do they say they allow non supporting opinions, but have rules that apply to egalitarians that don’t apply to complementarians? Absolutely!

What about Tactic #7:

“Intimidate the person with the force of group-sanctioned secular psychological threats. For example, it may be suggested or implied that failure to adopt the approved attitude, belief or consequent behavior will lead to severe punishment or dire consequences such as physical or mental illness, the reappearance of a prior physical illness, drug dependence, economic collapse, social failure, divorce, disintegration, failure to find a mate, etc.”

Has CARM Slick/Sellner ever spoken about the “evils” of a church allowing women to minister? Have they suggested that churches will be punished by God for allowing women to use their God-given gifts for the common good? Absolutely, they have. Why is it that a group that exposes cults would stood to use the same tactics as these cults they expose? One must wonder.

Anyways, Robin, I am so happy to have you here. I hope you feel welcome and loved as a sister in Christ. We do not let the secondary issue of women in ministry divide us here. We may be passionate in ministry, but we are also passionately love the entire body of Christ and that goes equally for complementarians. It is Jesus who desires this and we are very happy to follow his command.

Jael,
You are so funny! 🙂 Some, you know, see my name as a swear word. That just blows me away!

I am very interested to find out what Dr. Buth thinks about my DVDs and the exegesis in Genesis and 1 Timothy 2. I brought in a lot of material from the Hebraic point of view that we often miss by our English minds. It will be interesting to see what someone who lives in Israel and who teaches Hebrew responds. I got an email from a Messianic Rabbi who loved the DVDs and was extremely happy with the Hebraic point of view on the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue.

Don,
Thanks, I appreciate that thought.

For me, I see something more than general principles. As an apologist I am trained in looking for the details especially those details that others gloss over. I am amazed at what God has revealed. Much of the detail in Genesis 1 & 2 are details that would not be available to us without revelation. No one was there when God created the heavens and the earth. Without his revelation of the details, we would not know what happened. But God chose to pull back the curtain of time and reveal his work of creation with us. Is his revelation helpful to us? I definitely believe it is. I believe it reveals God’s pattern. It allows us to dispel the myth that if one only saw God’s works or his miracles that this person would believe and would act on that belief. Adam had the privilege of seeing parts of God’s creation as God formed the animals and brought them to him, but Adam did not let this knowledge change him.

In my own ministry work, I have found that paying attention to the details has helped me immensely. For example, many claim that God chose not to talk to Eve and give her the prohibition directly. By paying attention to the details in the creation account, one can dispel this myth and free a person from thinking that God favors men and talks to them alone.

I do not want this to mean that I don’t think that the big picture is important. I appreciate those who have a real gift of painting the big picture for me and who keep reminding me of that big picture. My gift is not so much in the big, but in the little. I am a detail person and a logical person. I work at issues until they can make sense to me in all of the detail in the passage. Then I pray and ask God to help me to “paint” the detail for others so that they can “get it” too. This is why I so often use graphics to express my thoughts.

Right now I am witnessing to two Jehovah’s Witnesses and we are going through the “time line” of Jesus on paper. I have come up with a visual way of expressing the details of the events in time that point to who Jesus is and how this differs with who the JW’s say that Jesus is. It is so amazing! The JW’s can view my timeline and see things that they have never before considered. I am thinking that when these JW’s come free in Christ, I would like to put this teaching onto DVD to show others how they can effectively witness to Jehovah’s Witnesses in a gentle, respectful and visual way. I have used this method for years when I led a support group for ex-JW’s. It is what kept them coming back time and time again to learn. It is non-threatening, visual and helps people to think outside the box.

Don,
This is the way that I see it – when someone takes a secondary issue in the church, such as the women’s issue, and they make it a “hill to die on” so that they are divisive and abusive towards those who do not agree with them, they simply cannot afford to lose. If it appears they are losing, they will manipulate the stats, control the conversation and force out any who are dismayed at their double standard. Without checks and balances, all they will do is spin out of control and go deeper and deeper into bitterness. If there are no checks and balances, I believe that God will eventually give them over to their ungodly ways. I just hope that they do not take too many with them because bitterness and anger are not only spiritually destructive but they can contaminate many others and the enemy uses these things to destroy us if we let him.

davidbmc,
Yup, I know what you mean. There is a time to decide on whether one is being fruitful of not. I find CARM very unfruitful, yet I am very welcoming of those who post on CARM to come here. I guess it is that “support group” person inside me. I led a support group for ex-JW’s for 16 years and I was so happy to teach them how to think for themselves and how to test doctrine by scripture and unravel all the false doctrine they had been taught as witnesses. When I am given the opportunity to help some who considers themselves to be a complementarian, to be open enough to test all things by scripture and to hold fast to what is good, I am very happy to be of service to them as well!

As far as Matt Slick and Diane Sellner go, I pretty much have known for a long time that they are unreachable. They are doing a service to the body of Christ in one valuable way. The treatment of Christians on their discussion board is very helpful to get some to consider the opposition just because of the oppressive attitude that is encouraged in that place. I remember years ago a young man told me that he left that hierarchal “camp” when he could no longer stand the vitriolic attacks that were gaining in momentum.

So here I am while dusting my feet off 😉 I am still ready and willing to be a help to those who need to hear what I have to say. I guess that God has given me a love for women’s gifts in the body of Christ in the same way that he gave me a love for Jehovah’s Witnesses in the late 1980’s. Many said that JW’s were unreachable but I sincerely believed that Jesus could reach anyone. What a joy it was to spent my time reaching out to so many people who were ignored by the Church. And…I proved it to myself that they can be reached with the truth of the gospel. It just takes patience and love. I have a lot of patience 🙂 and I really desire to love.

Sandy,
One other thing, do you sense the childishness of not allowing people to read and decide for themselves if something is truth or error? It is an interesting lesson in “double-think” when one can wield this kind of control over others, but then deny that you are doing such a thing.

Sandy,
You are so right in that we need to watch how we word things especially in writing. Often my son asks me to read what he has written and he asks if it sounds at all harsh. I am just like everyone else. I can have blind spots. It is good to have others read and give us advice on what we have written especially if we think we might be misunderstood.

Oh Lord, help us to LOVE your body so much that our words will be gracious even in the midst of an attack.

tiro3,
I too had heard that my name was not to be mentioned on CARM. This just shows that what they speak is not the truth. They say that they do not have a view to “rule over” others, yet when the actions are seen not just the words heard, this is exactly what they are doing. I do want to give credit to other groups who believe in hierarchy but do not live out an abusive rule. CARM unfortunately is not like these others . They say that they are doing this for good reasons i.e. they have been attacked first (gotta love this one – it was the reason given for why Matt went on the attack against me – Matt Slick and Diane Sellner say that I attacked first! My Pastor says I couldn’t have been nicer to Matt on his radio programs so if someone with a gentle spirit could be said to have “attacked” Matt, can you imagine what they would do to someone who actually said something less than kind?), they have been threatened with lawsuits so they need to be tough (actually it has been CARM’s practice to be the ones who threaten, just ask me) and so on…

So how do we make any of this make sense? They say that I don’t answer the challenges even when I am not made aware that there has been a challenge. I have also made them aware that I have very little time to try to page through hundreds of comments from dozens of posts. Yet when I do try to answer a challenge, I am blocked from posting. Make sense? Well I guess it does make sense to those who just HAVE to have control over people. When one kicks out people who speak respectfully but their only “sin” is to disagree with the CARM party line, then I wonder how is this any different than the way that cults keep their groups “pure”? The JW’s know it very well. They are either forced into silence or they are booted out. What a sad state of affairs when an organization thinks that these tactics are the right way. It seems to me that these tactics ARE required when the Holy Spirit is not welcomed to bring peace and bring people together. Honestly, I think He was kicked out a long time ago because HE didn’t follow their rules. I think He spoke up about one of the moderators 🙂

tiro3,
EXCELLENT points and suggestions for us to work on. Often I don’t work on my thoughts in word and this is a good reminder. What my husband often tells me too, is to write my response and then sleep on it. The next day when the emotions have subsided, it is amazing at the things I change before finally sending it.

I also wanted to make a note here that Diane is still not putting my comments up and is holding them in the moderation. Is this wise? Apparently she thinks that it is unhelpful for me to tell people here that I moderate people’s first post and I will also moderate people who are abusive to my invited guests (Diane Sellner was one of those invited guests although she never did show up). Yet she puts my apologetic responses to their challenges into moderation. Interesting. While I cannot judge her heart, her actions speak to me of one who is fearful of the refutation that I provide of her “expert” Hebrew source. When someone really has the truth there should be no fear of having it tested. I am not afraid. I would encourage Diane to work these issues through so that she does not come out looking like one fearful of having her position challenged.

Diane Sellner posted “En Hakkore’s” “refutation” of me on CARM and here is my answer:

Originally Posted by Diane S (Quoting “En Hakkore”)
“Firstly, you baited with the name Bergen for three posts, using lead in clauses such as these in the last two of those:”

Diane is now apparently copying “En Hakkore” citing him as her source instead of going to the actual source. This is a serious judgment error.

Now regarding “En Hakkore’s” post. Regarding a “bait” of using Bergen’s name. – using the editor’s name from the book is not uncommon, and since the editor gives his stamp of approval on the book by putting his name there, it was not such thing as a “bait” when I used Bergen’s name. This is entirely irrelevant anyway. I cited “Bergen” as he is the one whose name is on the cover of the book and I referenced him as “edited by Robert D. Bergen”. When I cited the complete name of the chapter that I was referring to, I made the distinction that the chapter was itself written by Randall Buth (although edited by Bergen). Anyone who was willing to go to the source would have seen this. The fact is that Bergen is the one who has compiled the articles and puts his stamp of approval on them, the particular author who wrote the article is Buth.

I am not the one who made it an issue of who wrote the chapter. It is in the book that I quoted and edited by the author that was quoted. I am not holding you responsible because you have not bothered to get the book for yourself to check the evidence.

“Quote from “En Hakkore”
Secondly, whether the argument is Bergen’s or Buth’s is ultimately irrelevant (unless these two men do not agree with one another). “

That is my point exactly, and thanks for agreeing with me. They are in agreement that the birds and the animals were created after Adam in Genesis 2.

“Quote from En Hakkore:
Whoever stated the words immediately below is not in agreement with your two-act creation…

…because he articulates a singular creation account told from two different perspectives and that these chapters reflect different sources.”

Oh really? And you have asked Dr. Buth this, have you?

The fact is that the “one creation” is the entire act of creation. There is a singular creation story told in Genesis 1 and 2. In this “singular creation story” there are additional details told in chapter 2. Dr. Buth has clearly said that he is not doing a “superficial harmonization” of the text. Instead of a “superficial harmonization” of the text that the NIV imposes on the text by changing the grammar of the two verbs in chapter 2, Dr. Buth says that he takes the text as it is written.

So here is where “En Hakkore” has a big problem, Diane (pay close attention because you are citing him as your source and proof that he has refuted me). “En Hakkore” takes the creation of the animals as a single creation act and the creation of the birds as a single creation act yet in the “one creation story” we have the birds created on day 5 in Genesis chapter 1 and the birds created after Adam’s creation in Genesis chapter 2. How is this “one act” if the birds are created on two different days?

The fact is that if we follow what Dr. Buth states and we avoid a “superficial harmonization” we are left with only one “creation story” from chapters 1 and 2 but without a “superficial harmonization” that makes chapter 2’s creation of the animals and the birds as harmonized to be the same creative act as in chapter 1.

I agree with Dr. Buth. He says that what is important here is not where the original story came from or how many authors there might be, but the fact that it is a “final product” of one period of creation (7 days) but two perspectives that allow for the birds to be created on day 5 in Genesis 1 and the birds to be created on day 6 in Genesis 2. There is no error in this account, there is two creative “acts” with the genders created separately just as the genders for mankind were created separately and not simultaneously.

So now I want you to answer this question. This is for Diane, who is standing behind the Deist “En Hakkore”, or for “En Hakkore” himself – How do you get only one “act” of the creation of the birds when Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have them created on different days?

“Quote En Hakkore:
Once again, Cheryl, you are misunderstanding your source. The grammatical argument you supplied only supports the argument that Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 do not refer back to prior creations”

Once again, Diane and En Hakkore you are the one misunderstanding MY source. The grammatical argument that I supplied refutes the attempt to make the creation of the animals and the birds in chapters 1 and 2 to be the same event. Otherwise it is impossible for the birds to be created on two different days? It is not impossible for the birds to be created on day 5 and on day 6 if the genders were created on separate days. This is not a Sunday School chart that says what day were the birds created and forcing us to say “day 5”. God said that they were created on day 5 AND day 6. Two different acts one two different days but one creation story.

“Quote En Hakkore:
The planting of the garden in Genesis 2:8 was done after the creation of the man in verse 7 of the same chapter… this is the extent to which your source has correctly argued”

Absolutely not true! Not only does my source correctly prove that the garden was created after Adam’s creation (and thus show that Adam was privy to the creative work of God’s hand in the creation of the garden) but my source also proves that the birds were created on day 6. This cannot be the same creative act as day 5 and again I point you to Dr. Buth’s words in the book “We will avoid a superficial harmonization” and from his email to me his commendation of those who have a “willingness to let the text be whatever it is and not to sub-ordinate it to “presuppositionalism”.”

The text will be whatever it is in that the birds were created on day 6 in chapter 2 and they were created on day 5 in chapter 1. We cannot do a “superficial harmonization” and destroy this evidence that God has put right in front of our face. Diane you err in your false harmonization!

“Quote En Hakkore:
(4) I view Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4b-25 as two different accounts of the same creation, each account written by a different author and later compiled and placed side by side by a later redactor.”

Then you, my friend, are the one with a problem, because you now have two different authors supposedly compiling the exact same information together (although two different accounts of exactly the same event) but having two completely different dates for the creation of the birds! No, this is not correct. Dr. Buth has made it clear that the creation of the birds, the animals and the garden in Genesis chapter 2 are not the same events that had already happened in chapter 1 although together they are the one creation account. He says they are not events that had already happened. Why do you try to make him say the opposite of what he says? You have not been honest with the writings of a bona fide Hebrew scholar.

“Quote En Hakkore:
(6) Bergen (Buth?) and I are therefore in agreement on a singular creation reported from two different perspectives… the creation of humanity in one version corresponds to the creation of humanity in the other, the creation of vegetation in one version corresponds to the creation of vegetation in the other, the creation of animal life in one version corresponds to the creation of animal life in the other.”

Why do you keep misrepresenting Dr. Buth? I quoted you from the book where Dr. Buth says that the creation of the animals from Genesis chapter 2 is not the the creation of the animals in chapter 1 since they are not created in the same way. In chapter 1 the animals are spoken into existence and in chapter 2 they are formed from the ground. Why do you take Dr. Buth’s words and try to make him say that these two “acts” are the same “act”?

“Quote En Hakkore:
The chronologies of these two versions conflict with each other

Here you go again. You say that the chronologies “conflict” with each other.”

So it is another problem of the text having errors, is it, Diane? Since you, Diane, are standing behind the claims of the Deist “En Hakkore”, then you too must be accepting that the chronologies “conflict”! Dr. Buth does not say that the chronologies “conflict” with each other and neither do I. In fact he says that the text is God’s inspired word as it is written. This is very commendable and very true. God’s word does not have an error, neither does it “conflict” with itself in the chronologies. The fact is that the birds were spoken into existence in Genesis chapter 1 on day 5 and this was “act one” of the creation of the birds. In Genesis chapter 2 they were “formed” from the ground on day 6 (Dr. Buth says that this is not the same act as their creation in chapter 1). Therefore we do not have a chronological “error” or “conflict”. What we have is two “acts” where God creates the genders separately just as he did for man and he chose to create the birds separately on two completely different days which is entirely his perogative. Makes me wonder if he did this just to prove those who would like to do a “superficial harmonization” to look foolish.

“Quote En Hakkore:
If, as you claim, Bergen (Buth?) supports you, cite it now where he articulates this… something to the effect that he believes the animals created in verse 19 are a completely new and distinct batch of animals from those created in chapter 1.”

Why do I have to keep presenting the same quotes again and again? Okay, once again for the record – Dr. Buth writes:

“The verbs do not repeat lexical material to refer the reader back to an event that had already been mentioned. There is no earlier ‘planting’ to refer to and there is no previous mention of a garden. Just the opposite is true. ”

And again:

“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.”

If one cannot find a back-reference to tie Genesis 2:19 back to chapter 1, then there is no overlay of this event. This means that although you would like Genesis 2:19 to be a different perspective to what was already mentioned in Genesis chapter 1, Dr. Buth says that this verse is not an overlay. It is NOT an overlay. It is act “two” of the creation of birds and animals which is not part of the act “one” from Genesis 1. Dr. Buth could not be more clear. He told me that I understand what he has written. Apparently you do not understand. Apparently you have a problem with the text because you see day 6 as an overlay for day 5. This cannot be.

“Quote from En Hakkore:
This rhetoric is misplaced and actually applicable to you, Cheryl. Please see above for how you might lay aside your own faulty presuppositions and read your source for what it is actually articulating.”

Diane and “En Hakkore”, I have done my homework in a very careful way. I not only have the book that I quoted from but I have also gone to the source to ask him if I have interpreted his English words the way he meant them. He said:

“shalom Cheryl,

It sounds like you have understood my writings”

You, Diane and “En Hakkore” do not have the book that I am quoting from (am I not correct?) and you did not know that Robert D. Bergen is responsible for the material in the book as he took the responsibility as the editor but he was not the original author of chapter 5. Although I do not make a big issue of whether we credit the editor for the material or the original author, the fact is that you have not gone to the source. That is such a shame especially when you are accusing me of “rhetoric that is misplaced”. I have done my homework well and I recommend that you check your sources before you accuse someone of not having the truth.

So, now is the time for you two, Diane and “En Hakkore” to either reconcile the day “discrepancy” of the creation of the birds. Were the birds created on day 5 or day 6? Is this another one of your “grammar errors”, Diane, that you credit to the Bible? Or are you willing to concede that the Bible is correct and God created the birds on BOTH day 5 and day 6? If God created the birds on day 5 AND day 6 then the birds created on day 6 could not be the same birds that were created on day 5 could they? How about you consider the two “acts” of the creation of males and females, created in this case of the birds, on two different days? Would this be better to say than to attribute error to God’s word?

“My Quote:
Originally Posted by WIM
Buth says nothing of the sort that there is a “two-source” singular creation. Rather Buth clearly points to “one source” by stating:

On the positive side, we are led to interpreting whole stories as the author/redactor intended.”

“Quote from En Hakkore: Buth clearly believes in one source not two. You are clearly over the edge by imposing your belief on Buth. Buth does not believe in your “two source” creation.
I have taken the liberty of underlining and boldfacing in red the word ‘redactor’ that you seem to have conveniently ignored (or you are simply not aware of what it means)… a ‘redactor’ is one who compiles, revises, edits and rearranges prior literary sources into a new singular literary piece. In the case at hand, Buth (Bergen?) is referring to the author of these chapters as a redactor. “

I have not ignored this at all! In fact I discussed this with Dr. Buth and told him that while I agree with him that the creation of the animals and birds were not the same creation as the animals and birds from chapter 1, I do not believe these were from different authors (although it wouldn’t matter if there were a couple of authors and one compiler who put God’s words given to different people together, it still would be presenting exactly what God wanted in his word as God’s word is completely inspired and Dr. Buth agrees that more than one source would not take away from God’s inspiration). I told him that my view ties Genesis 1 & 2 into 1 Timothy 2:13, 14 and would he like to see it? He was extremely interested and as I said the copy of my DVD has been sent to him in Israel.

Thank you, Diane, for pushing me to go to the source. You have given me the opportunity to defend my integrity and also to get the information that I have written into the hands of a very important man. I would never have thought of this myself. Your pushing me was a very good thing and once again God brought good out of your accusation that I was speaking “rhetoric” and not truth.

“Quote from En Hakkore:
In conjunction with the comments I highlighted earlier (ie. references to ‘two different perspectives’ and ‘certainly different sources’) this is further evidence that Buth (Bergen?) supports me and not you.”

Since I have gone to the source and asked Dr. Buth and you have not and I have also cited Dr. Buth’s public words that prove that the two verbs in chapter 2 cannot refer back to what was created in chapter 1 of Genesis, I stand firm that Dr. Buth agrees with me and not you. You have failed to go to the source. I have not failed to do that. Truth is worthy of verification. Truth does not run and hide. Truth will stand the test. Error will not stand the test but will claim a “victory” without ever going to the source.

Diane, you are standing behind the claims of a Deist. You are thus aligning yourself with one who claims that there are “conflicts” with the chronologies. You are aligning yourself with someone who speaks as an authority but who does not have the ability to refute Dr. Buth or answer the challenge about the birds being created on two different days. Diane, it is time for you to make a stand on your own. Are you going to let the Bible speak for itself, or are you going to stand behind the claims of a Deist who thinks there are “conflicts” a.k.a. errors in the text?

Martin,
The NIV and the ESV are two versions that use the past tense in Genesis 2:19 “God had formed” instead of “God formed”. I also found two other versions that I hadn’t realized also translate the verb in the past. They are the Catholic version the 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible and the 1889 Darby Bible. Every other bible translates the verb correctly as “formed”.

What Dr. Buth says is that he has avoided a “superficial harmonization” of the text. Yet at the same timek he says “we are led to interpreting whole stories as the author/redactor intended”. How can one avoid a “superficial harmonization” of the text as the NIV and ESV have? One avoids that by taking the text as it is written and not changing the tense of the verbs.

What “En Hakkore” on the CARM discussion board was denying was that there were two “acts” of the creation of animals just as there were two “acts” of the creation of man. Part one of the creation of man was the creation of the male before the animals were named. Part two was the creation of the female after the animals were named. While “En Hakkore” denies there were two creative “acts” of the animals, he is left with a dilemma. On what day were the birds created? Genesis chapter 1 says it was on day 5 and Genesis chapter 2 says they were created after Adam’s creation on day 6. Either the birds were created in two “acts” just as the animals were or we are left with an irreconcilable problem. No matter how many times “En Hakkore” denied that there were two parts to the creation of animals and birds, the fact that Dr. Buth proves that animals and birds were created after Adam’s creation proves this fact. It now becomes not a “superficial harmonization” of the text to try to make the creative act as one “act” but an part one and part two act of the creation of animals and birds just as God also created mankind with part one and part two and not at the same time.

Cindy,
“finding the hardships as pathway to peace”.

Amen!! This is why I find myself peaceful in the midst of a storm. God is able to turn hardships on their head and bring good from evil. How can we worry or fret when we have a God like this?