Cheryl

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?