Cheryl

Michael,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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