You say the earth/ dry land did not exist as we know it until the third day. Are you saying the earth was there and the dry land appeared as we know it on the third day? Another things is we have the waters on the first, second and third days and on the the third day they are gathered together and called the seas. The earth must have existed from at least the first and second days because the waters there are the waters mentioned as being the seas gathered together on the third day. You see without an earth there could have been no seas.
Old Earth Creationism
- Thread starter inertia
- Start date
In Genesis 1:1 God created the heaven and the earth... what does that mean to you?
Gen 1:1 It's either a summary or a completed work.
Do you think God wanted it to be that way so that the ancient people might grasp a simpler way of understanding the world that was similar to that of their neighboring cultures, but then as civilizations grew in knowledge of the world through observation and science, God left room in Genesis to accommodate our advancing understanding?
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Why are you referring to a 400yo translation I've nowhere here cited from? The NRSV also adds the word "in" --- why? Because sometimes prepositions are elided in Hebrew and left to be inferred... you certainly weren't pointing out anything I wasn't already aware of --- I can read Hebrew, after all. In any case, even if you were to posit a slavish "for six days he made", what functional difference results versus "for in six days he made"? None whatsoever... indeed, it is simply replicating the syntax from verse 9 where the Israelites are told "for six days you will work".
That does appear in verse 2, yes... along with other descriptors of the state of things before the Israelite deity began to create by bringing order to the dark, watery chaos therein described.
What they disregard is your view... you don't want to know about that?
Excluding what they say for the sake of argument doesn't change anything since I agree with them that your view has very little going for it.Well if you read it somewhere, it must be true!
Nice try... you are on the hook to prove your libelous comments about Waltke being fired using a reputable source or retract them. Once again, you laughably direct your opponents to simply google for good {sic!} information, all the while evading the burden of proof you shoulder when making claims.
If one of my interlocutors in this thread (ie. s/he is not biased toward me or my interpretation since we disagree) is insufficient, directing you to others would be pointless. You are free to believe whatever you want about my knowledge of Hebrew, but if you doubt such proficiency, you only make yourself look foolish as I've been the go-to guy for all things Hebrew on this forum for over twenty years...
That is what the author claims... the heavens on the second day and the earth on the third day.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
He wasn't fired. He resigned. I'm not sure why this even matters in this discussion.
OT Scholar Bruce Waltke Resigns Following Evolution Comments
Denying data in favor of evolution "will make us a cult," said Reformed Theological Seminary luminary.
www.christianitytoday.com
inertia
Super Member
@ En Hakkore and I discussed this particular paper about a year ago and another paper recently, and we continue to steadfastly adhere to our different perspectives of Genesis 1:1 and 2:1.
Neither of us are likely going to our minds about this subject in the near future.
_____
En Hakkore
Well-known member
As I noted earlier today, I've already read it... the OP cited it last year in our ongoing discussions on this topic. Now unlike your superficial and sloppy engagements with Waltke's article, which degenerated into a personal attack on the man, here is how you properly interact with an article (numbers in brackets indicate page numbers in the published version and "ibid" means the same page as previously cited):
Poythress focuses his article on arguments for what he calls "the initiation view" (your view) and against what he calls "the summary view" (my view) --- he correctly identifies Waltke as having been the one to have most fully articulated the latter (98). Poythress states up front that he will "treat Genesis as a literary unity" yet this rejection of "the historical-critical tradition" (ibid) has repercussions insofar as he approaches the text far too simplistically. I agree with him that "the meaning of the text can differ from its sources" (99 note 7), but it can also be the same, which is a can of worms he doesn't want to open up because he thinks that reading verse 2 independently of verse 1 may lead one away from the idea of creation ex nihilo (ibid). He shuts down this avenue of discussion on theological grounds, not sound methodological ones... one of many criticisms I have of this article.
Poythress then claims there are three main arguments for the initiation view, the first of which he identifies as "cohesion between verses 1 and 2" (99). He writes:
The syntactic linkage between the two verses consists in a waw-conjunctive, which, when followed by a noun and then the main verb of the clause, customarily introduces circumstantial information. (ibid)
The problem here is that Poythress misses entirely or deliberately suppresses the fact that the vav (waw in his parlance) at the beginning of verse 2 is disjunctive. The latter seems more probable as I can't imagine anyone familiar with Hebrew missing it... and this syntactical element is suppressed, otherwise he would then have to acknowledge the viability of the summary view alongside his own, which is not altogether incompatible with a contrastive type of disjunction (ie. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was..."). So instead of wading into the grey area the syntax itself demands (which is why the NET translators acknowledge both views as syntactically possible), he passes over it entirely and hastily concludes as follows:
The early unformed state of the earth is described by 1:2 with reference to the earth of v. 1. So 1:1 cannot be a summary. (ibid; italics in original)
Of course it can. Stating otherwise is lazy and unacceptable scholarship, pure and simple. Poythress then proceeds to his second argument for the initiation view, which is "theological purpose" (ibid). This is not drawn from the text of Genesis itself, but is his own theological position imposed upon it. Indeed, he refers matter-of-factly to the text's "majestic monotheism" and that "there is no plurality of gods" (100). That is certainly not the conclusion of critical scholars on the religion of ancient Israel at this time... indeed, the plural "Let us make..." and "in our image, according to our likeness" in Gen 1:26 embeds the type scene of the divine council of which the Israelite deity, as the speaking subject, is presented as its head. This is an example of one of those thorny source-critical problems he would rather ignore than have to deal with since it could easily be argued that the author embraces the polytheism implied therein.
Simply assuming (against the evidence) a monotheistic framework, Poythress claims that his deity's "comprehensive sovereignty must include the original earth... {o}therwise the earth is left as a potential independent entity" (ibid; italics in original). This has clearly departed from an implied critique of the summary view wherein the earth is created on the third day to envisioning a planet earth, thus reflecting not only the imposition of his own theological views, but scientific ones, as well. His claim that "the summary view postulate{} that the earth and the deep are already there...is in tension with the overall theological purpose of Gen 1" (ibid) reflects the circularity of his own argument... what evidence, outside of his own theological assumptions, does he offer? None whatsoever.
The third argument Poythress offers is "narrative structure" (ibid), claiming that "the use of the Hebrew perfect tense at the commencement of a narrative normally refers to an antecedent event" (ibid) and, citing Dan 1:1 and Ezra 1:1, "reason{s} by analogy" that "Gen 1:1 describes the first event, in relation to the narrative in vv. 2-31" (101). Of course, normally doesn't mean always and he fails to explain why he limits "the commencement of a narrative" to the beginning of books, except perhaps to avoid having to deal with counterevidence to his claim. For example:
And it came to pass in the first month in the second year on the first of the month the tabernacle was set up. (Exod 40:17)
This follows the pattern Poythress points to, including both a temporal marker and a perfect verb, yet it is clearly a summary of what follows in 40:18-33. The best he can assert using his examples is that Gen 1:1 could be analogous to the beginnings of Daniel and Ezra, which are not summaries, but then again a biblical author is free to start a book however he likes and there is clearly some variety here. Nothing whatsoever precludes the author from having started with a summary... and thus ends his three arguments for the initiation view. All of them are open to criticism and collectively not persuasive... in each case Poythress can be seen suppressing important elements of the discussion that speak to the viability of the summary view.
The remainder and bulk of the article attempts to critique Waltke's article, which is too much to address in a single post so I'll have to return to this at some point... I've got a lot on my plate at the moment.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
En Hakkore
Well-known member
It doesn't matter... it's a clear case of my interlocutor trying to poison the well.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Stick to your view unless there is something that can not be denied.
That is what I have trying to tell you the earth was there before day 3 and on day 3 he started to bring order to it by bringing up the dry land and so forth. And some articles say Waltke resigned and others say he was fired. I did not say he was fired or resigned for using a reputable source and instead it says it was because he became an evolutionist.Why are you referring to a 400yo translation I've nowhere here cited from? The NRSV also adds the word "in" --- why? Because sometimes prepositions are elided in Hebrew and left to be inferred... you certainly weren't pointing out anything I wasn't already aware of --- I can read Hebrew, after all. In any case, even if you were to posit a slavish "for six days he made", what functional difference results versus "for in six days he made"? None whatsoever... indeed, it is simply replicating the syntax from verse 9 where the Israelites are told "for six days you will work".
That does appear in verse 2, yes... along with other descriptors of the state of things before the Israelite deity began to create by bringing order to the dark, watery chaos therein described.
What they disregard is your view... you don't want to know about that?
Well if you read it somewhere, it must be true!
Nice try... you are on the hook to prove your libelous comments about Waltke being fired using a reputable source or retract them. Once again, you laughably direct your opponents to simply google for good {sic!} information, all the while evading the burden of proof you shoulder when making claims.
If one of my interlocutors in this thread (ie. s/he is not biased toward me or my interpretation since we disagree) is insufficient, directing you to others would be pointless. You are free to believe whatever you want about my knowledge of Hebrew, but if you doubt such proficiency, you only make yourself look foolish as I've been the go-to guy for all things Hebrew on this forum for over twenty years...
That is what the author claims... the heavens on the second day and the earth on the third day.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
It means exactly what it says in the beginning he created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void and then on the 3rd day he started making the earth habitable.
It does not matter what you think about the other view. Now just say they supported it does the other view hold as much weight as the one they support? If it was not relevant they would not even mention it correct?Why are you referring to a 400yo translation I've nowhere here cited from? The NRSV also adds the word "in" --- why? Because sometimes prepositions are elided in Hebrew and left to be inferred... you certainly weren't pointing out anything I wasn't already aware of --- I can read Hebrew, after all. In any case, even if you were to posit a slavish "for six days he made", what functional difference results versus "for in six days he made"? None whatsoever... indeed, it is simply replicating the syntax from verse 9 where the Israelites are told "for six days you will work".
That does appear in verse 2, yes... along with other descriptors of the state of things before the Israelite deity began to create by bringing order to the dark, watery chaos therein described.
What they disregard is your view... you don't want to know about that?
Well if you read it somewhere, it must be true!
Nice try... you are on the hook to prove your libelous comments about Waltke being fired using a reputable source or retract them. Once again, you laughably direct your opponents to simply google for good {sic!} information, all the while evading the burden of proof you shoulder when making claims.
If one of my interlocutors in this thread (ie. s/he is not biased toward me or my interpretation since we disagree) is insufficient, directing you to others would be pointless. You are free to believe whatever you want about my knowledge of Hebrew, but if you doubt such proficiency, you only make yourself look foolish as I've been the go-to guy for all things Hebrew on this forum for over twenty years...
That is what the author claims... the heavens on the second day and the earth on the third day.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Try https://bobcargill.wordpress.com>2010/0409religion and Waltke was dismissedWhy are you referring to a 400yo translation I've nowhere here cited from? The NRSV also adds the word "in" --- why? Because sometimes prepositions are elided in Hebrew and left to be inferred... you certainly weren't pointing out anything I wasn't already aware of --- I can read Hebrew, after all. In any case, even if you were to posit a slavish "for six days he made", what functional difference results versus "for in six days he made"? None whatsoever... indeed, it is simply replicating the syntax from verse 9 where the Israelites are told "for six days you will work".
That does appear in verse 2, yes... along with other descriptors of the state of things before the Israelite deity began to create by bringing order to the dark, watery chaos therein described.
What they disregard is your view... you don't want to know about that?
Well if you read it somewhere, it must be true!
Nice try... you are on the hook to prove your libelous comments about Waltke being fired using a reputable source or retract them. Once again, you laughably direct your opponents to simply google for good {sic!} information, all the while evading the burden of proof you shoulder when making claims.
If one of my interlocutors in this thread (ie. s/he is not biased toward me or my interpretation since we disagree) is insufficient, directing you to others would be pointless. You are free to believe whatever you want about my knowledge of Hebrew, but if you doubt such proficiency, you only make yourself look foolish as I've been the go-to guy for all things Hebrew on this forum for over twenty years...
That is what the author claims... the heavens on the second day and the earth on the third day.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
inertia
Super Member
Yes, Genesis 1:2 is a disjunctive statement using three clauses that are necessary for understanding the first creative day initiated in Genesis 1:3. Genesis 1:2 supplies background conditions to the reader. It is where the paradigm and contributing factors changed from the creation of the Universe, that was completed in Genesis 1:1 to now focus entirely on events that occurred from the perspective of earth.
וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ
And the earth (waw + noun) had existed (Qal perfect) tohu and bohu
וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם
and darkness over face of deep
וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם
and spirit of Elohim moving over face of waters
-----
First clause:
The Qal perfect verb הָיְתָה (hay-eta) embodies the concept of a finished task and its root הָיְתָ means “to be” or “to exist”. The King James Version uses the term “was”, and the YLT uses “hath existed”.
Word order also indicates a completed action with a “waw + noun” followed by a perfect verb, and this ordering functions as background information at the start of the narrative before Genesis 1:3 begins. Syntactically, the term “earth” links Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2, and the paradigm changes from the whole universe to “face of the deep”.
Second clause:
This clause doesn’t supply a verb and directly refers to the first clause that supplies the governing verb “had existed”.
Third clause:
This clause shows a participant change from Elohim, to “the Spirit of Elohim”.
Genesis 3:1 is another good example where using the disjunctive waw is applied to introduce a theme within a continuing narrative. “ Now the serpent was more crafty…”. (Pratico and Van Pelt, “Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar”, pages 272-273, Zondervan Academic, 2019)
___
Last edited:
inertia
Super Member
The "initiation view" makes sense especially as our understanding increases. John 1:1-3 is a relevant example penned well after Genesis was written.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created." (NET)
If matter was not created by God and co-existed with God, then ^this^ realization expressed by John is not truthful. Truth matters.
___
What was created in verse 1? Just the heaven and the earth or the heaven and the earth and the things other things?
That is more than I asked about. Did God create the earth in a formless chaotic state? underwater? Were there stars, sun, and moon created also?
What happened between vs 1 and the third day?
It says in the beginning (which is separate from the days) God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. And yes the stars, sun, and moon were created in the beginning too, but were not placed to shine directly on the earth until the third day.
En Hakkore
Well-known member
What was there before creation started was a dark, watery chaos... the Israelite deity begins bringing order to this chaos by bringing light upon it (first day), separating the primordial waters and creating habitable space by installing a dome (second day) and then gathering the waters to expose dry ground (third day) --- this dry ground is what the author defines as "earth" and before this day it didn't exist as such. What is so difficult to understand about this concept?
So clearly there is a need to adjudicate which articles have reported it correctly and which have not... you began by saying he was fired. Was that correct?
Where did I claim you said he was fired "for using a reputable source"? Here is what I actually wrote (underlined emphasis mine):
En Hakkore:
Nice try... you are on the hook to prove your libelous comments about Waltke being fired using a reputable source or retract them.
This was a follow up from what I posted earlier in the day:
En Hakkore:
I would like to see you document from a reputable source your allegation that Waltke was fired for being an evolutionist. Good luck with that!
Both references to "a reputable source" concerned where I expected you to cite from to document your claim. Please pay closer attention to what you're reading...
I've addressed this already... no, it doesn't or else they would have asserted the views were equally viable.
Because it continues to have supporters (such as the OP and yourself) and is syntactically possible... that doesn't mean it is the best option and, indeed, the translators stated the other view (the one I hold to) was strongly favored by the following narrative and thus assumed it as they continued on in their notes.
You read this and (perhaps) the second blog posted ten days later here about as well as you read my posts and Waltke's article, which is to say not very well at all. It's clear Waltke resigned from his position at RTS and the blogger shows nothing but disdain for the seminary's position in curtailing academic freedom and creating this mess in the first place. In both blogs, he is clearly supportive of Waltke, finishing the first one with these words:
in the end, waltke is correct. until christians wrest the faith away from evangelical fundamentalists and the power brokers at christian colleges and seminaries, christianity will continue to appear like a backwards faith that is completely incongruent with modern society. the sooner christians can come to an educated understanding of the biblical texts – not simply the recitation of memory verses and confessional creeds, but the true understanding of the text, its context, and its interpretation in the light of critical study – the better off the faith will be. the more the likes of glenn beck are looked to as the champions and representatives of the christian faith, the more the church will hemorrhage parishioners. academics and biblical scholars must stand up. we must stop talking only to ourselves and must begin addressing the public directly via blogs, online lectures, and other digital media. for the sooner the public is disabused of the notion that in order to be a real christian, you must be an evangelical fundamentalist, the sooner they will demand that the schools they choose not teach nonsense, which is exactly what is going on at reformed theological seminary: nonsense.
That word also sums up most of your posts... and your attempt to poison the well by bringing this matter up at all shows how bankrupt the defense of your own position is.
Kind regards,
Jonathan