Cheryl

Hi Michael,

No your teacher analogy isn’t correct. I didn’t even think it try to pull it apart because it is meaningless to me. I would rather put my effort into the inspired Hebrew. English does not have markings regarding grammar. No commentator can use an example like that because Hebrew is specific and marked. We know when we can use the pluperfect because of specific Hebrew marking on the passage and when it is unmarked we have the criteria to evaluate whether it qualifies as an unmarked pluperfect. There is no question that Genesis 2:19 is not marked. No question at all. There is also no question that when we put this passage beside the criteria that it doesn’t fit the rules. The Hebrew book I have was very clear and I completely understood the rule and why the passage doesn’t fit. Because of the clear rule the majority of the bibles render verse 19 exactly as it should be – without the pluperfect. That isn’t a small point – that is very important!

As far as commentaries go I rarely read them because I read the passage with a Greek or Hebrew lexicon as my guide so I don’t know who else got it right, but the rendering of the Septuagint shows the understanding of the passage from the time before Jesus was born all through the time it was used as the bible of choice for Greek speaking Jews. We still have the Septuagint today and I use it as a reference. The Septuagint is what was most often used for quotes in the New Testament so we know this was the view of the early Christians. There is absolutely no question that the Septuagint is translated in a way that makes it as clear as it could possibly be that animals were created after Adam. That is good enough for me along with the Hebrew rules plus the fact that the other bibles do not render the verse as pluperfect. Three witnesses is enough for me. Since I have produced enough evidence to convince someone who is open even in the slightest that there is nothing in the text or the language that contradicts the creating of animals after Adam, and everything points to the fact of animals were created after Adam, I think my work has been done.

Thanks for providing the link to the other article. The first link didn’t work. The second link did. Much appreciated!

So I read the article and it was nice to see that he said that the straight forward reading of Genesis 2:19 was that animals were created after Adam. That was so nice to see that admission. It seems like his problem is that he sees this as contradicting chapter one. However it is not a contradiction at all. It could only be contradicting chapter one if one sees all animals only being created after Adam. If one understands the passage as the Septuagint renders it that animals were created before Adam as well as after Adam there is no contradiction. All his effort at trying to work out the contradiction is unnecessary.

From that point on he was jumping through hoops to try to understand the passage. His reasoning was all over the map and if that kind of complicated reasoning (which lost me in the double loops back and forth) is needed to understand the passage we are all in trouble because none of us will ever understand Genesis. However if he would have kept to the plain understanding and he would have understood that there was no contradiction to begin with, he should have stopped while he was ahead.

He also lost my respect when he said that God’s day 1 and 4 were the same creative work. That kind of reasoning takes God’s word and makes a mockery of it. If Days 1 and 4 were the same then God only had 5 days of creation not 6. He seems to be trying hard to see contradictions that aren’t there in the passage and to stop contradictions; he makes God out to be someone who says things that he doesn’t mean. I don’t think so. I am sorry but of all the links you have given me, this one was absolutely off the wall. It reminded me of the serpent saying, “Has God really said…” This guy was questioning that God really did create things on day 1 and day 4 and I can never accept a man’s misunderstanding to God’s clear word that on days 1 and 4 different things were created. Whatever God said he certainly did and that is without question in my mind. “Did God really say that there was a day one and a separate day four?” I can hear the serpent questioning.

Now it is one thing to say that days are long periods of time. It is completely another to say that these long periods of time intersect so that they are not distinct. I cannot accept that and reject God’s word by doing so. I will just take God at his word and if this kind of manipulating of the text is required to believe in old earth, I am completely amazed at how anyone could go along with it. Perhaps others don’t manipulate the text like this “scholar” did, but this kind of reasoning makes me ill. I will have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have other scholars that don’t manipulate the text like this fellow did.

Anyway the text still stands (verse 19) in a strong way exactly as I gave it. The only question at this point is what gender(s) did God created after Adam. All the animals were created again after Adam, but were they all the males and all the females, or just the females as I believe. That will be up to you to figure out what you believe.

I appreciate all your hard work, Michael, and how you have researched the subject to find the truth about the pluperfect. If you find a rule that contradicts the one I gave you from my Hebrew book, then we can look at that. I believe you won’t find a contradictory rule, since they were specific that the rule stands and any one who goes by the use of pluperfect in verse 19 is using a poorly defined older syntax. I don’t think we want any poorly defined older syntax and I hardly think you will find a bonafide Hebrew scholar who will contradict the clearly defined Hebrew rule.

Your love of truth is evident and I greatly appreciate your effort!!!

Blessings,
Cheryl