Cheryl

Michael,

Thanks a bunch for posting some of your questions, because it helps me to understand your mindset and I am hoping I can help you understand my mindset too even if it is only a little. You said:

“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.â€

I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that the animals have anything at all to do with the fact that Adam was formed first since whether they were or were not created after him cannot change the fact that he was created before the woman. What I am saying is that the second creation of the animals has everything to do with the fact that Adam was not deceived. The biggest issue here is that Paul in 1 Timothy 2 makes an extraordinary claim to the steadfastness of Adam in that he was not deceived. He ties this in without a doubt to the fact of Adam’s first creation. So here is the challenge. 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 may be a real challenge for you, and it could certainly help me out if I have any blind areas and there is something that I have not seen. If you can’t, then is it wrong for me to use precise Hebrew grammar to point out that there was a second creation of animals or a special creation of the garden of Eden after Adam was created? How about working with me and having a look at the creation of the garden. Can you at least admit that the garden was planted (created) by God after Adam? If you can admit to this one fact, then is it possible that Adam saw the garden created by God and saw Him do his work as Creator? It would be wonderful if you could at least see this one point. Could you also agree with me that seeing God create anything (even the garden of Eden with all the fruit trees) would be a major reason why Adam would not have been deceived into thinking that he could become like God? Michael, iron sharpens iron and if you have iron to sharpen my iron, I welcome you my brother to sharpen me.

So just to summarize this first part: the second creation of animals is not vital to establishing the first creation status of Adam. However the second creation of animals is important to understanding why Adam was not deceived. Do you see the difference? First one created = not deceived. Second one created = fully and completely deceived. What’s the connection? You tell me. Let’s turn this around and look at it another way. What does the position of being the second one created have to do with why she was deceived? Paul emphasizes her position of second one created and then says that she was (Greek term) fully, completely and utterly deceived. Why was Eve deceived? What was lacking in the second one created that allowed her full deception?  You said:

“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.â€

Awesome, Michael!!! Knowledge is empowering and I sure do appreciate you checking up on me! I don’t think I succinctly defined the “rules of grammar†regarding pluperfect. I think this will help you to understand. In the second article that you sent me to, the critic charged Christians with illegally using the pluperfect form. The article then stated that a little knowledge can sometimes be dangerous because the critic failed to research the fact that there is an exception to the rule. They did admit that there is a rule that limits the use of pluperfect to the defined Hebrew. We can all agree that there is this rule, even those who are claiming an except to the rule say that there is a “normal†rule regarding the use of pluperfect. However the Christians in this article were also missing a portion of the rule. What they missed is that although there is an exception to the rule (and there are not many exceptions but there are indeed some exceptions) the rule that allows the exception is that the verb that is to be taken as pluperfect must have the action previously referenced so that it is repeated again in the passage.

So here’s the catch and what Bergen’s book clearly points out. The verb “formed†in Genesis 2:19 must have its action originating in chapter 1. However they say that the animals were not “formed†in chapter one therefore the verb “formed†cannot be a repetition of the verb in chapter one since it isn’t there and if there is no “forming†of animals in chapter one then chapter two cannot be a repetition of this “forming†and thus no allowance for the pluperfect. Now regarding the garden in Genesis 2:8. Can the word “planted†be pluperfect because it is a repetition of the verb “planted†in chapter one? Again they say no. The word “planted†is not in chapter one regarding plants neither is there a garden mentioned. Therefore since there is no verb that is repeated from chapter one to correspond with chapter two, the pluperfect tense is not an option since it does not meet the criteria of repetition. Repetition of the exact action = exception to the rule that limits the use of pluperfect. No repetition of the exact action = no allowance for having the verb qualify for an exception to the pluperfect rule of marked grammar. It does not qualify as an unmarked status.

Now I am not asking you to agree with me, I just want you to completely understand what the rule is and why the two verses don’t qualify. It makes perfect sense to me. I don’t have anything at all at stake in the rule against the use of pluperfect, except for the fact that if the precise grammar rule is wrong, then I don’t understand why Paul was leading us back to Genesis to understand why the first one created was not deceived and why the second one created was deceived. It doesn’t hurt my faith at all and I can take it or leave it. But the precise grammar rule is what caused my eyes to open up and since I believe that the grammar in the bible is inspired, I accept it as it is written.

So to summarize this section, “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.†Okay – here is the proof: They are in error because they have no repetition of the action that is stated in chapter two to be referenced back to the same action in chapter one, and with no repetition there is no basis for claiming to be an exception to the rule.

You said:

“I simply reject your elevation of Bergen to unquestionable authority on Hebrew grammar to which all other scholars much be measured.†(I fixed up the name in your quote 🙂 )

Okay, fair enough. How about you find out what the criteria is that qualifies the exception to the rule of pluperfect? Do some research and find out if there is an accepted Greek grammar source that states any other criteria than the criteria I quoted from Bergen’s book. I would also like to point out the fact that pretty much every bible except the NIV does not translate Genesis 2:8, 19 as pluperfect. That is a major problem I would think to anyone thinking there isn’t a precise rule. Why would every other translator keep to the rules and not translate this as pluperfect? Also why does the Septuagint the Greek translation of the Hebrew also translate the word “formed†from 2:19 as “formed yet further� That was done several hundred years before Christ was born and I don’t think they were influenced by any grammatical errors of today’s Hebrew scholars.

You said:

“But I think now this rather pointless, because unless it is a direct refutation of Bergen’s rules I don’t think it is going to be persuasive to you.â€

You are right. You will actually have to do more homework than just finding a site that appeals to the pluperfect. The Hebrew book that I have is not the work of just person. It comes from a two week seminar on Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew held in Dallas Texas in 1993 that was attended by 90 people with 60 of those being working translators, members of Wycliffe Bible Translators and other societies whose main vocation was translating the Bible. The other 30 were linguists and Bible scholars from around the world. These 90 professionals worked through the range of papers for two weeks and they worked together with mutual interplay regarding a range of topics regarding Hebrew discourse linguistics. The discourse linguistics papers that they worked through were approved and published in 1994 edited by Robert Bergen. So you can see that it is not Bergen’s rules (the rules of one person) but the rules upheld by a consensus of Bible translators and linguists.

In your fourth point you said:

“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.â€

Michael, I don’t know where you are getting this from. I haven’t said it and I haven’t read it anywhere. When Bergen’s book discusses the error that the NIV made, it said that they apparently appealed to the pluperfect but don’t give the reason for why they think the NIV did this except later they mention “We will avoid a superficial harmonization.†So it seems they believe the NIV was trying to harmonize Genesis chapters 1 and 2. There was no charge of being unwilling to allow for animals to be created after Adam, no charge of sin and no charge of fudging. They just said that the NIV translation in these verses “must be rejected from a discourse syntax perspective as a misuse of a poorly defined older syntax.â€

You said:

“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.â€

That is of course a very good question and deserves to be answered! It seems to me that there was no other reason for God to create the same animals again, unless it was for Adam’s benefit. I believe that this second creation was used to educate Adam on the nature of God as Creator and to prepare him to withstand the lies of the enemy. In fact it helped Adam so much that Paul could say that Adam was not deceived.

You said:

“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.â€

You are certainly right in that the creation in chapter two is not a repeat of chapter one. It is the same animals created but in a different way – this time God formed them from the ground and he didn’t just speak them into existence. You are also right in that it says every animal. Every animal means dogs were formed and horses and cows etc, etc. But every animal doesn’t necessarily mean that each animal had to be male and female. It just means that there was every kind of animal. However if God created male and female animals before Adam and male and female animals after Adam, that doesn’t lessen my position. You are certainly right again in that my understanding that God created the males before Adam and the females after Adam may not be correct. Perhaps he created them both before and both after. That would allow your position of old earth to still stand, while creating the females after Adam would be a serious challenge since the animals couldn’t procreate without the females. However the bottom line is that God created animals after Adam. They were every animal i.e. every kind of animal. Male or female? That could go either way. It makes sense to me to say that the ones created after Adam were the females because that is how God created humanity. He created male and female in two separate acts. And since Adam was looking for a mate, it only makes sense to me that God created the females so Adam could see that only he was missing a corresponding mate. Adam was looking for a female mate and female animals were not found to be equivalent to him. Could God have created animals in two separate acts with male first and female second? Certainly, God can do that if He wants to. He is after all – God. However to not challenge your old earth position, let’s just say that God could also have created both male and female again after Adam was created. Does this concession allow you to accept the Hebrew grammar the way it was written? I am not trying to challenge your faith here in old earth. I am just trying to get you to open your mind to something that you may never have considered. Remember, I have already said that one can be a Christian and be an old earth advocate. It isn’t a hill to die on for me and not a hill that I have to force you off. If we can discuss the issues and glean some light for both of us on this journey, then that is all I am looking to do. The fact that you sharpen my iron by presenting objections to my view is perfectly acceptable and welcome to me! Sharpen away, my friend!

Lastly you said:

“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.â€

As I said, there is nothing I have read concerning the grammar that even hints at negating the old earth view. It is a matter of grammar not science. It is okay to not let your suspicion drop. We all need to be cautious until we have seen the evidence proven. Just don’t let any prejudice of your own stop you from accepting evidence once you have checked the sources.

Let me finish with a challenge to you. Would you say that since the 1970’s that the old earth view has been sharpened? Didn’t the view used to say that the earth was millions of years old? What changed? Is it not the view now that the earth is billions of years old? If the old earth view can be “sharpened†by further “evidenceâ€, then please don’t discount the Hebrew grammar that has been “sharpened†by more evidence and a greater awareness of precise grammar. It is best if you hold the same measuring stick and not change the stick because it is measuring something you don’t like. If you allow the old earth view to be changed by further evidence, then would it not be wise to allow the Hebrew grammar to be “sharpened†too? And God can follow all the rules because he knew the precise Hebrew grammar before He wrote the bible. He never makes mistakes because he is perfect and he knows the beginning from the end. We are the ones who have changed, not God. We all know much more about Hebrew grammar, historical sources (like the Talmud) which have been only widely circulated since the 1960’s and archeology to say that what is older must be more correct. Can I persuade you on this one small point? Man, I’m working hard at looking at all angles to get you to see my point. You are a tough nut to crack, but I somehow believe that you are a truth lover like I am. Am I wrong?