Michael Kruse

“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?