Michael Kruse

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.