“You also asked if historical figures ever make this “obvious†conclusion that animals came after Adam. Yes. The Septuagint which is the Greek translation….”

This isn’t exactly what I was getting at. If my teacher/curiculum analogy is correct this still doesn’t resolve the problem. What I was referring to was commentators who were applying the 2:19 passage in some way that would indicate what they understood the passage to mean. I am trying to established the tradition for how the passage was understood by Jewish scholars and early Church leaders.

Cheryl, I see the article I linked by Futato didn’t take. I will try again.

Because it had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis1:1-23

If the link doesn’t work I will try cutting and pasting the below in your url:

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/79611~10_4_99_5-20-49_PM~TH.Futato.Rained.2.pdf

“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 issue in Timothy is error made because of inadequate instruction.

Gen 2:16-17
“16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”â€

Gen 3:2-3
“2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'”

There is no teaching that touching the tree will lead to death. Furthermore, Eve fails to correctly respond to the serpent’s deception, unlike Jesus did in the wilderness. She wasn’t equipped to be able to challenge the serpent’s deception.

“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.â€

This is from a staunch YEC in a book intended to rebut Hugh Ross.

………

In discussing this passage, Hebrew grammarians Waltke and O’Connor say:

“Moreover, wayyqtl in the received text, the object of our grammatical investigation, must be understood to represent the pluperfect.â€

They demonstrate two examples of this usage from the Pentateuch (Num. 1:47-49; Exod. 4:11-12, 18). There are a number of other places throughout the Pentateuchal narrative where Moses uses the waw consecutive for logically anterior acts or as a pluperfect throughout Pentateuchal narrative. For example in Exodus 11:1, 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…’†This section begins with the waw consecutive, but Moses introduces it in the middle of his last interview with Pharaoh (Exod. 10:24-11:8). So Exodus 11:1-3 actually provides the prior background of God’s command before Moses’ interview with Pharaoh. The NIV translates Exodus 11:1 with a pluperfect, too, as with Genesis 2:19, “Now the Lord had said to Moses…†For the sake of emphasis, Moses used the waw consecutive as a pluperfect, and then resumed the chronological sequence in his narrative.

(From B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), p. 552. Found in Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise (Green Forest, AR: 2004), p. 92.)

……….

Mark David Futato, Ph.D., has written an article that refutes Bergen’s position. Futato is Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL. Among other books he has written is http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Biblical-Hebrew-David-Futato/dp/1575060221/â€">Beginning Biblical Hebrew. The article (in pdf) is at:

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/79611~10_4_99_5-20-49_PM~TH.Futato.Rained.2.pdfâ€">Because it had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis1:1-23

My take is that Bergen’s position is the minority position among experts but I can’t confirm that just yet.

“Notice again that the over whelming majority of Bibles do not translate in the pluperfect.â€

But the passage has been read to like my teacher/curriculum example. Stating things in perfect does not always necessitate a sequential order. When I get around to getting to a seminary library I will investigate further but I would be curious to know if there are any historical figures that have held the animals came after Adam. You are saying the translations have always translated that way. Did historical figures ever make this “obvious†conclusion that animals came after Adam?

Cheryl, a couple of quick questions. I want to ask this question. Look at this sentence:

“The teacher formed a curriculum and brought it to the class to see how well they would learn from it.”

I think I have worded this in the perfect tense. Did the class exist prior to the teacher’s formation of curriculum? Am I correct in asserting that because this is in the perfect tense that the sequence of events is that the class formed first and then the teacher formed the curriculum? From the context, I think the answer is no.

The wording of the sentence is structured to highlight the authorship and work of the teacher not the order of sequence in events.

Gen 2:19

19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them:…ASV

God formed the animals prior to Adam foreknowing he would create Adam, just as the teacher formed a curriculum foreknowing the formation of a class. The sentence is structured to highlight the “authorship” and work of the creator not the order of sequence in events.

Your claim is that Genesis 2:19 precludes any other reading other than that animals were formed after Adam. If we would not demand that the first sentence be interpreted that the curriculum was formed after the class, why would we insist in Genesis 2:19 that the animals were created after Adam?

Cheryl, I wanted you to know I am not ignoring you. 🙂 I am just swamped with several things. Your post has helped me clarify a couple of important issues that I had not picked up on before. I will be back but it may be a couple days. Peace!

I wrote Barnes in the above and meant Bergen. Trying to do to much to fast. 🙂

A few quick observations and hopefully I can write more later.

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. I just wanted to be clear there.

Second, we are talking about grammar rules. What are rules of grammar? They are not edicts handed down by God (and thank God for that or I would be in big trouble.) They are patterns of usage discerned by scholars. One scholar sees one pattern and another scholar sees another. The debate and refine and consensus often develops. I willing to bet big money that Barnes position at this point is not the consensus position. That does not make wrong! 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. Therefore, just to say that someone did not meet Barnes’ rules is unpersuasive to me. How did Barnes’ rules become the gold standard and not another scholar’s rules? For instance the scholar from Concordia appears to me to be someone who has studied every bit as much as Hebrew as Barnes. Why is he not aware of these incontrovertible rules Barnes has discovered? Has Barnes over reached on certain things he calls rules? I simply reject your elevation of Barnes to unquestionable authority on Hebrew grammar to which all other scholars much be measured.

Third, I want to stress again that the sites I linked are not because I like the people who wrote them or agree with anything else they said. I am trying to find some easily internet accessible alternative arguments. But I think now this rather pointless, because unless it is a direct refutation of Barnes rules I don’t think it is going to be persuasive to you.

Fourth, there is the “ockham’s razor†idea at work here (the most straightforward answer usually is the right answer.) 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. Yet to say in 2:19 that 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. 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. The most straightforward answer is the 2:19 is pluperfect and it is talking about the same events in Genesis 1:24-25 account that occurred prior to humanity. It requires no contingencies or qualification of either passage. That doesn’t make it right but it is not inconsequential.

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.

(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.

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:

“19. For the LORD God had formed from the ground every living thing of the field and every bird of the heavens, and now He brought [each] to the man to see what he would call each; and, indeed, everything which the man would call each living being that was its name.

The initial word in the translation of this verse represents the strong waw being used to indicate positive logical consequence, since temporal consequence is excluded by the chronology of the creation clearly enunciated in Genesis 1. In this verse, indeed, the waw of logical consequence introduces not, as more commonly, a conception which logically proceeds from the preceding conception (as does the strong waw translated “and so” beginning the ensuing verse), but rather a conception which is required as the logical basis of the preceding conception (listed as IV.D. 2.e.(1.) in CHEL). 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” of the breviate aspect of ytzr (BDB, 427b- 428a).â€

The other website is called tektonics. It is more polemic but goes into much more detail about the “waw consecutive.†I found other sites with seemingly scholarly hosts linking this site as their argument for the pluperfect.

I stumbled on another site where Josh McDowell advocated the pluperfect tense without giving strong details.

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. 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. If I stop by the seminary later in the week I will do a little more digging.

“Indeed, judging in a mature and honorable way is not as Mr. Grudem claims only a male activity – it is an activity that is to be practiced by all mature members of the body of Christ – even women!”

Amen!

Cheryl, this thing with the genetics really has me flustered and I can’t help but feel it is my fault.

The bottom line of the DNA evidence is that there was a first man and woman (Adam and Eve) and that there was a flood. Hugh Ross has never believed or taught that woman came before man. We are all descended from Adam and Eve through Noah his wife, his three sons, and their daughters. I will try this from another angle.

Adam and Eve had children. Adam passed on his Y chromosome to his sons. Eve passed on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters. However, we know that with each generation there is a miniscule mutation of DNA each time it is passed on. Adam and Eve’s grandchildren’s DNA will be a miniscule amount difference from their parent’s DNA but just slightly more different from their grandparents. Keep following this out for several generations. Each individual has their parent’s unique contribution yet there is enough in common we can see the specific lines they came from like branches from a tree all the way back to the root.

If it helps, think of a genealogy chart. We put Adam at the top and trace only his sons because the Y comes only through sons. Now we create a second chart with Eve at the top that traces only daughters because mito. DNA comes only through mothers. Just to make up a number, let us say that at the time of the flood there were 10,000 male lines and 10,000 female lines.

When the flood occurs how many of these lines survive? One male line, because all living males have now come form Noah. All other men are dead with no survivors. But we have three female lines from the son’s wives who were likely each born of different mothers.

* One surviving male line from whom everyone is descended (ulitmately from Adam)
* Three surviving female lines from whom from whom everyone is descended (ulitmately from Eve.)

The scientists know the rate of mutation of the DNA. The DNA can be likened to a time machine that will go back as far as the flood. The scientists go back 100 years take samples from a number of men and determine they diversity of lines is slightly less than today. They go back 100 years more. Slightly less still. They finally get to Noah and they stop because there are no other men alive to compare to and the diversity of the DNA diversity has vanished. Thus it falsely appears that Noah is the first man. They have no way of knowing of earlier generations because there is no other male DNA to compare to.

Now our scientists get in the time machine and do the same for the women. They go back and back and come to Noah’s day and are left scratching there heads when they compare the DNA of the three wives. Because while the DNA has become far more similar it is not yet the same. It suggests (correctly) that there are earlier generations unaccounted for. But how can there be earlier women with out being earlier men? Thus, measuring the beginnings of humanity by this method falsely suggests a later date for man than woman.

Ross has never taught that Eve came before man. He has reported what the science experiments showed. Those experiments indicated and earlier date for woman than man. No scientist believed this finding including Ross. It was impossible. But how to explain it? Ross’ point was that when we insert Noah and the flood into the picture everything falls into place. The Bible supplied the answer to this scientific mystery. The generations from Adam to Noah were hidden because of the way the experiment is conducted and what it measures. The anamoly in the experiment affirms the biblical account.

I really regret raising this issue now. It was not my intention to say that the Bible is true because of something science said but rather to illustrate how the Bible actually provided the answer to a scientific question. I underestimated how complex this example was to grasp for folks who don’t read a lot of science. I have taken the discussion far a field from anything dealing with the post. I apologize for that. I just want to close making these observations of which I am certain:

1. Ross has never believed or taught that Eve came before Adam or woman came before man. That is a misunderstanding of his report on the findings of science experiments, which has always included his biblical solution to the mystery, takes us back to Adam and Eve.

2. Everyone is descended from Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons’ three wives. All other DNA lines were destroyed in the flood.

3. It gives evidence that the flood account of the Bible is historically accurate.

I hope I have explained it better but if it is still makes no sense I am content to leave it there. I hope you can at least trust me that my three statements are true.

With regard to generations:

“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. …I am not sure who told you that “begat†could be used in this way, but they are not correct.â€

The Hebrew yalad is the same term used in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 for begat in the KJV and ASV. It is translated “became the father of†in other translations. Yalad is the exact word in Exodus 6:20 in my third comment above!

“Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.†NIV

As I showed in my comment, Amaram married his aunt, Levi’s daughter. Yet she literally gave birth to Aaron and Moses 400 years and eight generations later? As we can see from the Exodus list, folks are no longer living beyond about 140 years.

I see only two alternatives:

A. Yalad is used to indicate what “became the ancestor of.â€
B. Exodus is in error.

Do you see another?

You mention Genesis 11:19. Back up to verses 12-13.

“12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.â€

Turn to Luke 3:35-36

“35…Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, …â€

Genesis 11 – Arphaxad to Shelah
Luke 3 – Arphaxad to Cainan to Shelah

Which is in error? Neither. The genealogies do not indicate the direct father to son relationships of contemporary Western genealogies. While Christians in the West, starting with Lightfoot and Ussher, have tried to calculate using these biblical genealogy dates. Why do you suppose we have no records of Jews doing this? Because they understood the purpose and use of the genealogies and knew that entire centuries are missing between named individuals. Such a calculation was pointless.

Acutually, the recently departed Paula is correct in that I confused my ordinal and cardinal numbers. (I always confuse those for some reason.) That is what I get for writing off my head without refreshing my memory. The Zechariah and Hosea examples should be reversed. To illustrate my respective points. Sorry about that. The point still remains we are taking about unique periods prior to human history and there is no rule of Hebrew grammar that requires day with an ordinal mean a 24-hour day.

Paula,

I posted the above before I realized you had made a post. All through this you tone has been utter contempt and meaness. You have no respect or care for as a brother in Christ. Therefore, you are right. I do not think it is possible for us to have meaningful conversation. I will just say close my conversation with you with this:

Num 6:24-26

24 “‘”The LORD bless you
and keep you;
25 the LORD make his face shine upon you
and be gracious to you;
26 the LORD turn his face toward you
and give you peace.” ‘

Paula,

“I didn’t say they were equal in length, but that the days would be equal to ages, that is, they would stand for ages.â€

I went back and reread. You are correct, my error. I misread.

“How do you know Adam was created near the end of the sixth day, just because he was created 2nd last? Or that the 6th day ended right after Eve’s creation? … So even on the 6th day, we have no idea how long it was or how much of it was left after humans were made. I have to conclude that your statement here is a baseless assertion.â€

You definitively said:

“One is that Adam had to have been thousands of years old instead of what the Bible states.â€

No one knows about the timing a specific events. I was presenting you with a scenario that fits the era theory that refutes your claim, “Adam had to have been thousands of years old.†It is your claim that is the baseless assertion and my plausible scenario illustrates that.

“My point was that there is no objective way to measure time if day-age is true. But as I already stated, yom with an ordinal always means a literal solar day, especially accompanied by “evening and morningâ€.â€

I wrote the comment above that starts “Day age issue..†above after you had posted this. Please scroll up for my response.

From your comment:

…….

My dad is retired Ph.D….I have a long time friend … I have a MA… I have spent the last 25 years…I have been around scientists all my life and I have read …

This is an appeal to credentials, and as I’m sure you know, is only logically valid if all people with similar credentials agree on a given subject. That is not the case at all, so this is an irrelevant point.

I did peruse the speakers lists at AIG and found maybe four with Ph.Ds in relevant fields. Of those, it was unclear whether they believed in a young earth or were simply opposing evolution. The young earth folks at AIG are in an exceedingly small minority of even Evangelical Christians. I have been around Evangelical Ph.D scientists all my life and don’t recall ever meeting one although clearly some exist.
Here we have an attempt to “poison the wellâ€, along with an appeal to majority view. Both logically irrelevant.

…….

Please scroll up to your first response to me and reread these words you wrote to me:

“The people at AIG also have spent their lives studying science, and many were teachers of biology etc. before the evidence convinced them that YEC is true.â€

EXCUSE ME!!! Who was making the appeal to credentials? Again you wrote in response to me:

This is an appeal to credentials, and as I’m sure you know, is only logically valid if all people with similar credentials agree on a given subject.

When Paula points to credentials that is legit but when I do it is an attempt to “poison the well�??

I was not writing to demonstrate that my position has to be the correct because of credentials. I offered my credentials as context. I was trying to give you some background about myself so you know who you are in conversation with and what has shaped my convictions. Furthermore, while no argument can ultimately be settled on the basis of credentials neither are they irrelevant. Scientific fields are exceedingly complex requiring the comprehension abstract processes and relationships. That someone has gone through the rigor of being competent with these topics and has established credentials is relevant, not decisive. You offered credentials which I am to accept unquestioningly. I offered credentials and you become dismissive and trivializing.

“Evolution is the only reason day-age was concocted. It is the reason, as has been documented, that so many people have rejected Christianity because they see the futility of trying to make Genesis fit with an old earth.â€

This is false. Did you not read my second post above? Evolution emerged as a coherent theory with the publication of Darwin’s book in 1859. Did Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas come up with these theories because of evolution? It is irrelevant how they came to their conclusions. The point is that they concluded it could was consistent with the Bible for there to be other than 24-hour days in Genesis without ever having heard of evolution.

Did orthodox bible believing clergy in the 1600s and 1700s, venturing into geology, conclude that the earth must be ancient because of an idea that was 100-200 years away? Science emerged in Western Civilization like it did nowhere else because Christians believed in a God of order and reason. By systematically studying the material world they felt themselves entering into the very mind of God. Many of my scientist friends I know today express this same thrill. The overwhelming majority of scientists before the 19th Century were very solid Christians of this variety.

The old-earth idea came first from people who believed in the authority of the Bible and God. That doesn’t make it right but it did not emerge because of evolution. It was one of the pieces that made Darwin’s theory plausible but it categorically was not constructed to support it. You have the order of events reversed.

“Not true at all. But what good would it do for me to list the proof? If PhDs at AIG, ICR, and a host of other groups don’t mean as much as your MA etc., then what credentials are required?â€

Appeals to credentials again Paula? More sarcastic dismissive trivialization? Accept the unquestioningly accept the credential’s experts and then trivialize all dissenters? Nice!

How about scientific credentials in the areas of biology, geology and astronomy which actually relate to science that deals with age of the earth. I counted maybe four with Ph.D. degrees that relate to this. As I said, of those four, I can’t tell if they are simply opposed to evolution or they are the age of the earth. My MA in social science academically qualifies me to speak with every bit as much authority on these scientific issues as all but four or five listed based on their academic credentials. Meanwhile, I know a whole world of Evangelical scientists in these specific areas who disagree with them.

But we are going on a tangent. To me the specifics of science aren’t really central to the topic at hand. The assertion has been made that Genesis 1 must be 24-hour days and that animals must have been created after Adam and before Eve. None of us here that

“Who is militant, if not the OECs? They are every bit as narrow, every bit as biased, every bit as dogmatic about their view.â€

This says more to me than anything you have written. You are convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is a militant, biased, dogmatic tyrant. I am not a brother in Christ to have a conversation with; possibly to be persuaded to a more biblical view. I am an enemy to be destroyed and humiliated if possible. At least you are honest. You wrote “every bit as†meaning you acknowledge the YEC narrowness, bias, and dogmatism you project on me.

I am a busy a person who came her for conversation, I have no time for a flaming war. Paula, if you want to have a conversation lets have it and enough with the spite.

Cheryl,

“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.â€

You should listen to him! 🙂

“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.â€

I am in full agreement with you here. There are those who have taken the their position not because of scripture but I spite of it. Curiously, in a book a just read about theology in the civil war there were many abolitionists who did the same. They opposed slavery in spite of the Bible not because of it. That undermined the authority of scripture on a host of issues. The same is true with this one.

“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.â€

And this is precisely what I have feared! How would you react to me as complementarian critic of yours said that I has never watched WIM but I had a point-by-point critique of WIM’s most adamant opponents and therefore know WIM to be in error?

Prov 18:17

“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.†(NIV)

If you have not read at least “The Genesis Question†and hopefully “A Matter of Days,†then you have not really listened to this other perspective! I encourage you to read for yourself what he says. I have read “Genesis Flood†and at least four or five other book length presentations of the Young-Earth view. I have occasionally visited websites of YECs and read articles written by them. I have truly listened to multiple sides of this debate and with a father and friends as scientists I have been around this debate a lot.

“To be fair, they list the reading that God created animals after Adam as an option.â€

“I have read through the explanation and the requirement for the pluperfect and it appears to be a very solid case.â€

I am aware of they allow the alternative but you are missing my larger point. Your claim was that it must be read this way. This article was written by YEC folks. What the article highlights is that it is not a cut-and-dry case, open-and-shut case, even among YEC. That is my primary point.

“I have read through the explanation and the requirement for the pluperfect and it appears to be a very solid case.â€

But did you read alternative views in their own words, not through the filter of their opponents? (Proverbs 18:17) Almost any case can be made to appear solid if you are only exposed to one side of it. The article makes clear that they believe the minority position to be that animals were created after Adam. Possibly the most widely referenced resource on such topics “Keil and Delitzsch†disagrees with your analysis. (That doesn’t make them right but it does mean the burden is on dissenters to make their case and refute the conclusion of the opponent.) I disagree that other translations have said this in the perfect sense. I think they have stated things ambiguously, sometimes using punctuation to set off one part of the verse from the other. I need to know not only what Barnes thinks but what his opponents think and why they are wrong.

“Okay does this qualify as chapter one of my new book?â€

Just add this comment to it and you are there! 🙂

Paula wrote

“On top of all that, we have the differing orders of creation week and evolutionary theory, and the enormous difference in time scale even if we allow thousands of years per day.”

You are in error here. Both astronomy and the order things purportedly evolved in match the Gensis 1 account. That is wha makes it so astonishing.

Day Age issue…

The Hebrew translated day in Genesis yom.

Genesis 2:4 at the beginning of the second creation account:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day yom) that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. (ASV)

Yet we just read Gen. 1 where it took six days for creation. Here “day†is used to describe this multiple “day†process.

Yes, I have seen the widely circulated and erroneous claim that day with an ordinal must mean 24-hour day. (Even my “Mounce’s Expository Dictionary†gets this wrong.) Van Bebber and Taylor claim that in 358 cases out of 359 where day is used with an ordinal it represents a 24-hour day. However, in only 249 of those cases is an ordinal number with the singular use of day and all refer to events within the context of human activity and human history. In Genesis one, we are talking about a period in natural history before humanity.

But what of our 359th case that did not meet the rule. Turn to Zachariah 14:7. This verse uses precisely the same Hebrew wording as Genesis 1:5, yowm-‘echaad.

It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light. (NIV)

but it shall be one day which is known unto Jehovah; not day, and not night; but it shall come to pass, that at evening time there shall be light. (ASV)

And there shall be continuous day (it is known to the LORD), not day and not night, for at evening time there shall be light. (RSV)

But it shall be one continuous day, known to the Lord–not day and not night, but at evening time there shall be light. (Amplified.)

The most literal reading of this verse would be:

“And it will be day one which shall be known to Jehovah.â€

The day is the “Day of the Lord,†which all biblical scholars agree is an era in history not a 24 hour day. Furthermore, it is instructive that it is used to indicate a unique and special kind of day.

Then there are other passages like Hosea 6:2:

After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.

This in not a literal 24 hour day. There is no rule of Hebrew grammar that requires yom with an ordinal to mean 24-hour day and biblical evidence of to the contrary. The Zachariah 14 passage actually strengthens the idea that something unique is meant by the Gen. 1:5.

The Gen. 1 passage also includes the expression “there was evening, and there was morning†with each day. While we can find other verses that use both “evening†and “morning†in close proximity no where else in scripture is this phraseology used.. Thus almost certainly suggests something atypical is intended.

Furthermore, as noted earlier, Hebrew is a very limited language that frequently resorts to metaphors and euphemisms. There was no Hebrew word for “long age†or “long period†in biblical times. Some have suggested olam could be used but it did not carry these connotations until long after the Bible was written. It is used in scripture to indicate a an indefinite extension into the future or past (usually the future) but it is never used in the sense of a lengthy era in the past with a fixed beginning and end. Therefore, in biblical Hebrew, if we wish to speak of fixed lengthy era in the past were are constrained to use the word yom with some qualifier, like maybe “there was evening, and there was morning†to euphemistically indicate a definite beginning and end.

1. yom can mean era. It must be determined by context.
2. There is not rule of Hebrew grammar that requires yom with an ordinal number to mean 24-hour day. There is biblical evidence to the contrary.
3. “there was evening, and there was morning†is unique and almost certainly indicates that something is unique from the passage.
4. There was no easy non-euphemistic way of communicating an ancient era of fixed duration in biblical Hebrew.

My Conclusion:

The Genesis “days†are specific epochs in history with fixed starts and ends (evening and morning) expressed in the preliterate and pre-scientific poetic language of biblical Hebrew.

“Note: It’s JOHN Ankerberg, not Jack.”

Paula, I think you know full well that Jack is a nickname for John, just like John Kennedy was known as Jack. Ankerberg goes by both. What earth does this have to with anything we are talking about?

Paula, I will break these into multiple posts. I think they will be easier to address that way.

“If the 7th day has not ended then you could say the days of Genesis equal ages. But there are several problems with this.â€

I am not saying that individual days are equal lengths, only that they are unspecified lengths of time but distinct periods.

“One is that Adam had to have been thousands of years old instead of what the Bible states.â€

I am unclear why you think this would be the case. The last thing that happened on the sixth day (period) was the creation of Adam and Eve. The length of time between Adam and Eve’s creation was in the sixth day (period) but when Eve was created the sixth day (period) ended. Apparently nearly all of Adams 930 years were in the seventh day (period).

“Do years mean ages too? Why not?â€

Again, you have lost me. The Hebrew yom is the word translated day. Hebrew has a thousand times fewer words than English. Many words in Hebrew carry many meanings that can only determined by context. Yom can be the period between sun-up and sun-down. It can be a 24-hour period. It can be an endless era.

“The people at AIG also have spent their lives studying science, and many were teachers of biology etc. before the evidence convinced them that YEC is true.â€

My dad is retired Ph.D. chemist who among other things taught at a Nazarene University for ten years. I am in a bible study together with a Christian brother who is head of the science division of a local university with a Ph.D. from MIT in astronomy. I have a long time friend who is a physicist at Kansas State University who attends an Evangelical church along with her husband. I have a MA in the social sciences and have graduate work in the philosophy of science. I have spent the last 25 years on these topics as well. I have been around scientists all my life and I have read more than 25 books and countless articles on this topic from many perspectives.

I did peruse the speakers lists at AIG and found maybe four with Ph.Ds in relevant fields. Of those, it was unclear whether they believed in a young earth or were simply opposing evolution. The young earth folks at AIG are in an exceedingly small minority of even Evangelical Christians. I have been around Evangelical Ph.D scientists all my life and don’t recall ever meeting one although clearly some exist.

“Not so! The facts are not the problem, it’s the interpretation of them. That’s philosophy, not science. There is not one shred of proof that anything existed for millions of years. Not one. There are even open challenges for million-dollar rewards for anyone who can prove evolution, and they’ve never been claimed.â€

First, how did evolution get into the picture? I don’t recall saying anything about evolution. Second, “not one shred of proof.†The evidence for an ancient earth has been consistent and overwhelming and it has been so more at least 300-400 years. It was quickly determined that earth was at least millions of years old. As more evidence has been accumulated and measuring devices have become more precise scientists have been able to pinpoint with ever more accuracy dates of major celestial and earthly events. Scientists have learned more in the past decade than they have learned in all of previous human history. There has been consistent accuracy that the earth is ancient and that has varied is the precision of measurement.

“Why do some of us insist that the days of Genesis were 24-hr. periods? I’ll tell you, but I could easily turn the question back on you: why do you insist that they are not?â€

Paula, I was already asked that by question Cheryl. That is most of what most of my comments were in response to. You have missed the point of my listing the early church fathers, the early scientists, people like William Jennings Bryan, and current Evangelicals. I wasn’t talking about their scientific credentials. I was talking about their strong Christian character and commitment to the authority of scripture. These folks saw no issue in non-literal 24-hour days based on reading of scripture. So the reason for the my question back was that if all of these witnesses from the beginning of the church to the present have seen no issue with it why are those militantly insisting on a 24-hr day doing so?

I’ll stop here and write more later.

As to the issue of genetics, you have completely misunderstood my point and it is partly because I did elaborate on the nature of the DNA analysis.

“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.â€

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. Scientist see that as discrepancy. Woman could not have predated man by 10,000 to 20,000 years. How would humanity reproduce? Therefore, the scientist asks why the discrepancy exists. I didn’t fully explain how the DNA analysis works. I will elaborate a little more.

The dating for males comes through studying the Y chromosomes which is passed from fathers to children. The dating for females is through mitochondrial DNA passed from mothers to her children. Over generations DNA tends to mutate at a very constant rate. We follow the Y from father to son, to son, to son… and the mito from Mother to daughter, to daughter, to daughter … 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.

Yes, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve. At the flood only Noah, his wife, three sons and their wives were spared. Correct? Therefore, since the sons all have Noah’s Y all Y DNA can be traced back to Noah. All of us have Noah as common ancestor. 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.

So at departure form the ark, we hit the “reset button†for or experiment of studying the mutation. But now, instead of having one Y and one mito, we know have one Y and three mito lines to deal with. The story of the flood explains why the DNA record appears to indicate that woman came 1,000s of years before man.

Genealogies…

My 8th great-grandfather was John Cotton (1585-1652). In 1640, at age 55 he had my 7th grandfather John Cotton (1640-1699). If a Hebrew writer writing a genealogy wanted to emphasize my 8th great grandfather and me in the genealogy he could write:

“John Cotton, in his 55th year begat (became the ancestor of ) Michael Kruse. He lived 67 years and had other sons and daughters (lines of descent).â€

This may sound odd to us but because of the use and purposes of genealogies in Hebrew culture, this was a legitimate use. The term for father in Hebrew can mean father, grandfather, or ancestor. Hebrew is a very limited language with same word having many meanings that have to be determined by context.

Two Genealogies covering 430 years:

1. Joseph to Joshua
2. Levi to Moses.

(Joseph and Levi were brothers, and Moses and Joshua were contemporaries.)

Joshua’s Ancestors:

1 Chron 7:20-27 (Ephraim was Joseph’s son)
20 The descendants of Ephraim: …
23 Then he lay with his wife again, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. He named him Beriah, because there had been misfortune in his family. 24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built Lower and Upper Beth Horon as well as Uzzen Sheerah.
25 Rephah was his son, Resheph his son,
Telah his son, Tahan his son,
26 Ladan his son, Ammihud his son,
Elishama his son, 27 Nun his son
and Joshua his son.

Summary

Joseph
Ephraim
Beriah
Rephah
Resheph
Telah
Tahan
Ladan
Ammihud
Elishama
Nun
Joshua (Hoshea)

Moses’ Ancestors:

Ex 6:16-20
16 These were the names of the sons of Levi according to their records: Gershon, Kohath and Merari. Levi lived 137 years.
17 The sons of Gershon, by clans, were Libni and Shimei.
18 The sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. Kohath lived 133 years.
19 The sons of Merari were Mahli and Mushi.
These were the clans of Levi according to their records.
20 Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.

Moses Summary

Levi
Kohath
Amram
(Eight Generations Missing)
Moses

We use genealogies in our culture to organize a comprehensive tabulation of our ancestors. The ancients used genealogies to establish origins and tribes for legal and religious purposes. Comprehensiveness was not their agenda.

There several more less stark examples throughout scripture. When we read our culture back into the Word we have it saying things that are foreign to the text.

On Length of Days:

Heb 4:4-11

4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.†5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.†6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day — “today†— saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.â€

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day . 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.

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

I have done considerable reading and study in the history of science over the last twenty years. Church fathers like Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas suggested periods of longer than 24 hour days. Some speculated that each day was a thousand years. It was solid devout Christians, many of them clergy, that were the first geologist in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were the ones who first concluded that the earth was far far more ancient than we realized. They saw no issue. (It was Darwin, Marx and others who tried to co-opt science for secular humanist agendas in the mid-19th Century.) B. B. Warfield and William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes Monkey Trial fame believed in an ancient earth. Belief in secular evolutionism is not prerequisite for having an old earth perspective nor is a belief in the inaccuracy of the Bible.

As for Contemporary Evangelical leaders, all of the below at a minimum allow for an ancient earth and almost all actively embrace it.

Jack Akenberg (apologist)
Gleason Archer (Prof. of OT/Hebrew, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
Jack Collins (Prof. of OT at Covenant Theological Seminary)
Chuck Colson
Norman Geisler (theologian, apologist)
Hank Hannegraff (apologist author)
Jack Hayford (Pastor of Church of the Way, Four Square Gospel)
Walter Kaiser (Prof OT and President of Gordon-Conwell Seminary)
Greg Koukl (apologist)
C. S. Lewis (apologist)
Paul E. Little apologist, author)
Mark A. Noll (Prof. Christian Thought at Wheaton College)
Bernard L. Ramm (Eminent Evangelical theologian and defender of inerrancy)
Francis Schaeffer (apologist)
Chuck Smith, Jr. (pastor)
Lee Strobel (apologist)

These are just the Evangelicals.

You wrote:

“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.â€

Yes, and why do they believe animals have been around for millions of years. Because those are unequivocally and incontrovertibly the facts! The question is why those who insist on a 24 hour period insist on a more narrow interpretation than is warranted. This interpretation needlessly creates a barrier to people hearing the gospel as it seeks to promote some extra-biblical agenda. While we dare not ignore what scripture does say we also dare not make it say things it does not say.

1

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! 🙂 I am going to address several issues you raised but I am going to break them in to multiple posts. But first I want to lay some cards out on the table.

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. They insist on things like “head = authority.†They take passages that are ambiguous and impose a narrow reading on the passage that supports their agenda and reject all other considerations. They even try to redefine the nature of the nature Trinity in order to protect their agenda.

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.

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.

1

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! 🙂 I am going to address several issues you raised but I am going to break them in to multiple posts. But first I want to lay some cards out on the table.

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….

(Note from CHERYL: Michael has brought up some points that deserve to be answered regarding old earth versus young earth. I have moved all of his comments over to a new blog post called “Why was Adam not deceived?” in order to give that issue attention without tying up the 1 Timothy 2 post.  All of Michael Kruse’s comments can be read here. I will also answer his comments as I am able to get to them.  Thanks Michael for dialoguing in a respectful way 🙂

I really like these to posts. This is a really fresh way to present the problem. I especially liked.

“This interpretation forces the teaching of God’s word to be considered an evil thing depending on who the bible is taught to or who does the teaching.”

That is a powerful point!

I forgot to add.

“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.”

Amen! Keep up the good fight (for the truth that is, not with me. 🙂 !

Hi Cheryl,

In Norman Geisler’s “When Critics Ask†writes (p. 35):

Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more content about them. 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. The focus of Chapter 2 is on the naming of the animals, not on creating them. Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details. Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events. The differences, then, can be summarized as follows:

Gen 1 vs Gen2

Chronological order vs Topical order
Outline vs Details
Creating animals vs naming animals

Douglas Jacoby in “Genesis, Science and History†writing about the alleged contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2, p. 102.

* To begin with, the focus of Genesis is man, not the creation. Genesis 1 gives us a panorama, then chapter 2 zooms in on man and his relationship with God. The focus will narrow further as Genesis moves from Abraham to his descendants through Isaac and to Isaac’s descendants through Jacob.

* 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).

* On the other hand, we are probably imposing our chronology on the text. The two accounts should be read as complementary, rather than as intersecting.

* To sum up, Genesis 1 shows man’s special place in the creation, while Genesis 2 shows man’s special relationship with God. No contradiction.

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.

As to Ross, I find him exceedingly persuading. The fact that an ancient pre-scientific and pre-literate people could come up with a creation sequence that matches everything we know about the formation of the earth from science (allowing for non 24 hour days) is absolutely startling! 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.

Furthermore, because scientists have made revisions to their estimates speaks to imprecision not inaccuracy. I find no problem at all with humanity being 50,000 to 100,000 years old. I see nothing in Scripture that precludes this. However, this does provide a difficult riddle for the strict evolutionist since Neanderthal is the only potential hominid ancestor known to have survived to overlap with existence of modern humans and he has been eliminated and as genetic predecessor.

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.

I’ve gone too long, so I’ll leave it there for now.

Thanks Cheryl. I can see so many avenues to go with this but all would lead far afield of your post here. I will just say that I am an old earth type and do not subscribe to the Answers in Genesis take on the Bible. I wonder if you have ever investigated Hugh Ross’ work. I would especially recommend “The Genesis Question” and “A matter of Days.” He also has an exceptional website Reasons to Believe.

A few observations. First, the early verses do not appear to be giving a chronology of events but rather describing the habitat of the Garden and pointing out God’s care in creating a place for man to live. The story notes in verse 18 that it is not good for man to be alone. I understand verse 19 not to be describing a sequence of events.

“Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, ” NASU

This is stated to emphasize the origin of the animals and God’s provision for man, not the idea God set man down and created the animals in front of him. Remember that his day is a very long day.

Gen 2:4
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. NASU

The “day” here is clearly being used in the sense of an era not a 24 hour day for as we just saw, even if you believe in literal 24 hour days, this Chapter two story is creating the whole creation in a “day.” Thus to say God created something present tense could mean anywhere along the six day timeline before bringing them to Adam.

Furthermore, the Gen 1 passage says animals were created were created on the sixth day. God ceased creating on the seventh day. Let us assume these are twenty-four hour days. Here is what has to happen for this to work. God creates the animals. Then God creates man. Then God creates every one of thousands of animals again and brings them to the man. One stat I read estimated that if Adam had named every animal at the rate of about 1 every two seconds he might have completed his task in eight hours! Then God creates woman. Adam meets woman and we have completion.

It seems much more plausible to me that the animals have been created prior Adam and are brought to Adam over an extended time to name them. Also, I don’t know of any teaching in the history of the church that holds that animals were created after Adam or that they were formed first as one sex and then another. That doesn’t mean it can’t be so but I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Peace to you!

Cheryl, (or Peter if you are still checking in, my Dad is a scientist and I have been around scientists all my life who fully embrace the authority of scripture. Some I know have studied theology along with their science. To a person, they see no conflict between the earth being billions of years old and animal life originating 100s of millions of years ago. I have never heard this claim before that this passage must mean that animals were created after Adam.

I would appreciate more on the idea that animals were formed after Adam and before Eve. IMO, if so, then the creation story is not a historical account but rather a nonhistorical construction to illustrate theological truths, much like the discussion at Jesus Creed awhile back. In your estimation, does the language necessitate such a reading or is it merely a possible reading?