Whether one view has much going for it or not what I am trying to get you to answer is are they both grammatically sound when translated?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
Old Earth Creationism
- Thread starter inertia
- Start date
My position? You and someone else are agreeing that gen. 1:1 is a completed action because of the waw and pluperfect things. That is what I had been trying to tell you.
En Hakkore
Well-known member
From my last post:
En Hakkore:
it {your view} continues to have supporters ... and is syntactically possible...
There is nothing grammatically that precludes your view, though it's not entirely clear what translation of Gen 1:1-2 you are relying on so I can't make an affirmation one way or the other on that matter unless you supply it.
That "someone else" sounds like the OP as "waw" and "pluperfect" are not terms I would use in this discussion... indeed, the latter is entirely incorrect if this is the English tense suggested to translate the verb in Gen 1:1. This word (bara) is a Qal perfect and refers to a completed action... I have nowhere argued otherwise --- and it is best translated as it appears in almost every translation on the planet with a simple English past tense (ie. "created").
Kind regards,
Jonathan
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Thus far we are agreed... Gen 1:2, through the deployment of the vav disjunctive, provides the necessary background information to the deity's creative acts beginning in Gen 1:3. What we disagree on is the relationship between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 (to be discussed below).
This is now addressing the relationship between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, representing an articulation of your position --- this is not evidence of anything in and of itself and I trust you understand that.
You have correctly identified the verb in this clause as a Qal perfect, but the pluperfect rendering "had existed" is an unacceptable translation into English... none of the conditions whereby a Hebrew perfect verb could be translated using a pluperfect in English are present here.
Tehom functions as a proper noun, referring to a geographical place (the primordial waters) --- as such the construct chain is definite rather than indefinite.
You've missed the article on mayim (I've flagged it in red above), thus that construct chain is also definite... similarly if you understand Elohim as a titular reference to the Israelite deity. This mistake on the definiteness or indefiniteness of construct chains was made three times in two clauses so it is definitely (pun intended?) something you need to make a point of reviewing in your grammar and watching out for in future.
The root is actually היה and these are left unvocalized in discussion... if, on the other hand, you are offering the lemma of a particular verb, these are vocalized as Qal perfect third person masculine singulars.
You should be interacting with modern translations... archaic ones will act as a hindrance to a sound acquisition of the language integrated with the English you speak and write in everyday conversation.
Word order is irrelevant to whether an action is completed (perfect) or incomplete (imperfect)... this is determined purely by the verbal form --- for example והארץ היתה and ותהי הארץ both convey completed actions even though the word order is reversed.
The ordering (vav plus noun) creates a disjunction between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, which introduces the latter as background information to the reader when s/he comes to 1:3.
The mere repetition of a word carries no such syntactical force. While you acknowledge the disjunction between the verses, its force seems immediately forgotten in your haste to re-forge a link between them and this is where your interpretation goes off the rails... I've already raised the grammatical argument you could make using the disjunctive vav in my critique of Poythress' article (ie. a contrastive), though I'm not aware of any major translation that renders it so (ie. "but the earth was..." or "yet the earth was...") thereby establishing a direct connection between the clauses. Your paradigm shift is thus occurring at the level of interpretation, not syntax or translation.
Per above, a pluperfect is unacceptable... the inferred verb is simply "was".
Here you correctly render the construct chain definite, though leaving elohim untranslated is awkward and unncessary. We have not discussed it yet, but why do you choose "the spirit of God" rather than "a mighty wind" for רוח אלהים?
Gen 3:1 occurs approximately midway through the garden narrative (2:4b-3:24), signaling a significant turning point in the story and introducing a new and important character (ie. the serpent). Its value as a syntactical analogy for 1:2 is therefore quite limited since we are there dealing with the first two clauses of a narrative. Furthermore, 1:1-2:3 and 2:4b-3:24 are from two entirely different authorial hands... while Poythress, for example, is resistant to such diachronic analysis, it is nonetheless important to this topic since different authors have different styles of narration and one cannot be uncritically conflated with another.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
inertia
Super Member
It's evidence of a change in perspective after a newly completed action that occurred without specifying a duration. The choice of using the YLT "had existed" emphasizes the completed state better than using "was" in my opinion. Even so, I belief the meaning is identical. Indeed, "was" is better English.
Yes, it is a proper noun. "The deep" makes sense because there were no continents at this stage. Ancient and simple
Oops. You are correct. Point taken ( hopefully this mistake won't happen again ).
Thanks. I was trying to describe the verbal form and used "word order" in my description. Good call.
Well, the linkage is important because it shows the relationship between the completed action in Genesis 1:1 with the continuing narrative describing earth as the primary focus. It wasn't the primary focus in Genesis 1:1 and the reader is made aware of the new environment. Here the activity of the waw + noun - perfect verb, a waw disjunctive presents the reader with the initial conditions of a different paradigm.
רוּחַ is translated with the English word "Spirit" 232 times in the KJV. The makes sense because the Spirit is also described by Jesus, who was a Jew, using the wind as an analogy. The Hebrew word can be translated as "wind", or "breath", or "Spirit". In Genesis 6:17 it is translated as "breath of life" for example. - God's רוּחַ is the source of life.
""Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all humankind, appoint a man over the community," (Numbers 27:16, NET)
"The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8, NET)
I thought the similarities were helpful to supply understanding. Genesis 1:2 also introduces an important character ( the Spirit ) using the disjunctive waw to "introduce a new idea or theme within a narrative". Sometimes the verbal form is used as a parenthetical comment in an introduction that supplies additional information, but Genesis 1:2 is too fundamental to treat it as a parenthetical thought.
__
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Here is the promised continuation of my engagement with Poythress' article, picking up on his own critique of my source (Waltke) --- as before, numbers in brackets refer to the page numbers of the article and "ibid" refers to the page previously cited. After this I will briefly respond to the OP and then "retire" from the thread as I'm heading off early for my next sabbatical from the forum... I should be back mid-December for a few weeks at least before I am back on sabbatical for spring conferences.
Poythress matches each of his three arguments for "the initiation view" with one of Waltke's arguments for "the summary view" (or in critique of "the initiation view"). He spends an inordinate amount of time (14 pages!) on the first and I cannot hope to engage with all of his points in a single post so I will do so in overview. He rejects Waltke's argument that "the heavens and the earth" in Gen 1:1 designates the organized cosmos (101), outlining three sub-points, not all of which he disagrees with. For example, he agrees with Waltke on (a) that "the heavens and the earth" is a merism, but suggests "it does not help Waltke's case" (102). Poythress objects to understanding the phrase as a unity since otherwise the connection between "the earth" in 1:1 and 1:2 is lost (103), yet this is only a problem for Poythress, not for Waltke. If it is a true merism (which it is), a singular concept such as "the world" could be substituted without loss of meaning. This is true for Waltke's position, but not for the alternative hinging on some sort of connection between terms in the opening verses, which suggests Poythress does not fully appreciate how a merism works.
With respect to (b), Poythress stresses the distinction between sense and referent (105), which is fine and Waltke does slip between them, but Poythress' position is not strengthened as a result of this... indeed, his comments specific to Gen 2:1 and the addition of "all the host of them" undermines identification of "the heavens and the earth" there as a merism at all (106-7) --- he appeals to flexibility of the term "earth", but this does nothing to obviate the problem. All that can is acknowledging the author's imprecision, at least by our standards, in redeploying the merism from Gen 1:1 with the afterthought that creates tension. His further comments that the "earth" of Gen 1:2 displays a level of organization (107) concedes that the merism implies order of some sort, just not to the degree Waltke argues for --- far from "Waltke's argument los[ing] all force" therefore (108), it puts Poythress onto the defensive to establish how much organization is sufficient enough, which is a matter of pure speculation and something he never provides. Poythress instead backpeddles and focuses on how the "earth" is designated such even though it is "without form and void" in 1:2 (109), but this is irrelevant to how it might be functioning within the merism, at least within Waltke's understanding of the compound phrase. His excursus, as I would call it, on the spatial dimensions of "the heavens and the earth" and surveying their paired use elsewhere (109-12) is a waste of time, having nothing to do with how the merism should be understood.
Poythress' claim that (c) is "only a summary of the subpoints ... already discussed" (112) leads to a superficial summary of issues concerning philology, all of which have already been addressed above. He then moves into the second argument (mislabeled as the third), which is "the theological issue of God creating a formless earth" (114), which is not something I have any interest in unpacking because it reflects on both sides an imposition of their respective theologies --- and it would seem, if Poythress' claim about a revision Waltke made in his 2001 commentary (I don't have access to it at home to check) is correct, they no longer disagree on this point (117). Appeal to the notion of Waltke having made "an unbiblical claim" (ibid) is something canonical readers can hash out amongst themselves, it doesn't concern me in the least except to point out I reject this reading strategy altogether and that, absent such a bias, the summary view stands unchallenged in this regard.
Finally, Poythress turns to the (actual) third argument, the "structural evidence" (119). He tackles appeals to Gen 2:4-7 (119-20) and 3:1 (120-21), both of which were made by Waltke to demonstrate subordination of Gen 1:2 to 1:3 rather than anything with respect to the relationship between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 on which the difference between the two views actually hinges. As such, there is nothing here worth engaging with.
Poythress concludes that "all three of the main arguments for the summary view have superficial plausibility, but none has weight" (121). In reality, he has done very little to critique the summary view... his first counterargument reflects his own misunderstanding of how a merism functions, his second is irrelevant and his third misses the point entirely. As I said when this article was reintroduced to this thread, I don't think much of it...
Kind regards,
Jonathan
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Appealing to unspecified "duration" recycles one of your arguments from last year... I rejected it then and similarly here, though there is little to specifically refute since it is presented in passing. As I mentioned in my last post critiquing Poythress, I am off on early sabbatical (Aug 1 through mid-December) as I have an overflowing plate of writing commitments. Perhaps over the next few months, you can continue with your study of Hebrew and revisit this "duration" claim to prepare some sort of grammatical case for it or, as I would suggest, drop it altogether as it is unsound.
But they are not identical... "was" sufficiently conveys a completed action and is the appropriate translation rather than the better translation.
Props for acknowledging the oversight... awareness should help avoid such in future.
Props again for the acknowledgement.
Your description embeds the problem you keep facing... "initial conditions" is, of course, precisely what we find in Gen 1:2, this is the force of the disjunctive vav and the subordination of the clause to that of 1:3 --- your addition "of a different paradigm" is, as noted previously, moving outside the purview of syntax into the realm of interpretation. If the latter is correct, it needs to be established on something other than syntax, which is far more compatible with the summary view than it is with yours.
Thanks for the explanation... appeals to New Testament texts are irrelevant, at least from a philological and non-canonical perspective. See below for further analysis within the context of Genesis.
The problem with your claim here is that if "the Spirit" is such an important character --- similar to the serpent of the garden narrative --- why does he disappear from the creation account? You appear above to be inferring, on the basis of Gen 6:17 and Num 27:16, that this divine spirit is the origin of the animating force of all living beings --- this is certainly possible, though the author doesn't bother to make this explicit, which is an obstacle to your interpretation. The role of a wind, while also relying on inference, is much less of an exegetical stretch... first, the ruah is situated in proximity to the water, implying that if there is any function it might play in the unfolding narrative, it concerns this substance. Second, the use of wind to shift water and expose dry land is attested in the flood tradition (Gen 8:1) and exodus tradition (Exod 14:21), both of which would be well-established in the oral traditions of the reader. Third, the narrative pattern deviates after the divine fiat for the waters to be gathered together, leaving the agent that accomplishes it implied, a lacuna that would seem naturally filled by a wind, reinforcing the two previous observations. Since I won't be here to respond, these comments are offered as something for you to think about and perhaps we can pick up the dialogue when I return at the end of the year.
It is difficult to follow the claim in the first clause as it is not clear what verb you're referring to... in any case, I've nowhere argued that Gen 1:2 is a parenthetical thought --- it is the start of the narrative proper, providing the necessary information to establish the chaotic setting into which the Israelite deity intrudes to bring order and create the known world beginning with verse 3.
All the best with whatever course the thread takes from here and I'll be back in a few months...
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Since Gen. 1:1 is a completed action, then Gen. 1:1 is separate from the second and third days correct?
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
IOW, they changed their intepretation to match the facts.
No what is so difficult to understand when I said he started to bring order to it by bringing up the dry land and so forth and then you say after gathering the waters and exposing the dry land that the earth had not existed as such before this day? We were saying the same thing that the earth was formless and waste and only existed as such on the second and third days.
inertia
Super Member
...just as the the authors of Proverbs provided people for the 10th century B.C.:
(Proverbs 4: 7-9,NIV)
"
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.
Cherish her, and she will exalt you; embrace her, and she will honor you.
She will give you a garland to grace your head and present you with a glorious crown.
"
-
Credit: The Hubble Space Telescope
...and the Psalmist writes: (Psalms 19:1-3, NET)
"
The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork.
Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals his greatness.
There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard.
"
Interpretations with understanding
___
Last edited:
JNelson
Well-known member
Right, which means that since day 1-6 are literal 24 hours days then the immediate context dictates that the 7th day is the same length as the first 6.
Yes, I agree.
Using a simile to express how short our lives are compared to God’s eternity doesn’t mean that any of the 7 days in the genesis creation is longer than 24 hours.
I am using the Bible to define what a day is in the immediate context of Genesis 1-2, one evening and morning.
I don’t see why you think that a simile in the Psalms overrides the clear description of what a day is in Gen. 1-2
In the context of Psalms 90, yes but it’s a poetic passage to show how short our lives are compared to the eternal God. Using one morning and even as a simile for beginning and end in a poetic passage doesn’t negate or redefine the literal 24 hour days of Genesis.
If the 7th day did not end then the bolded verbs below in Gen. 2:2-3 would not have been in past tense.
And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
JNelson
Well-known member
Common sense says that if days 1-6 are comprised of one evening and one morning then the 7th day is as well. God rested on the 7th day and every day henceforth.
inertia
Super Member
- It's a merism that describes a gradual beginning and a gradual ending.
From Moses -
"Even before the mountains came into existence, or you brought the world into being, you were the eternal God. You make mankind return to the dust, and say, "Return, O people!" Yes, in your eyes a thousand years are like yesterday that quickly passes, or like one of the divisions of the nighttime.
You bring their lives to an end and they "fall asleep." In the morning they are like the grass that sprouts up; in the morning it glistens and sprouts up; at evening time it withers and dries up." (italics mine)
A thousand years are like yesterday and they quickly pass. What should be absolutely clear by this passage is the merism doesn't indicate a strictly defined timeframe.
...but Genesis 1:1-2 doesn't use the merism "And there was evening, and there was morning..". Each creative day begins with: "And God said...", right?
There is no - "overriding" - here. Psalm 90 is from Moses and Genesis employs the same merisms.
Using the bible to define itself is standard practice. It's how differences of opinion about the extent and the sequence of events in Genesis chapter 1 are resolved. The meaning of words in biblical Hebrew are important too.
The basics -
I think we can both agree that the Hebrew text did not have chapter divisions.
The divisions were produced in ~1155 - 1228 A.D.. So, the summary that concludes the whole creative narrative in Genesis chapter one is actually provided in Genesis 2:1-4.The word translated in English as "finished" in Genesis 2:1 ( וַיְכֻלּוּ ) kala, is a plural passive imperfect verb is prefixed with a waw ( וַ ) meaning a completed action. The plural indicates "the heavens and the earth" with all that there is [ hosts ] צְבָאָֽם , is finished. That is all that occurred is completed - past.
"By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing." (Genesis 2:2, NET)
So, when the seventh day began, God was finished with the work he was doing.
Of course, and the standard refrain "And there was evening and there was morning.." is not included.
The author of the book of Hebrews explains:
"Consequently a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God. For the one who enters God's rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his own works. Thus we must make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by following the same pattern of disobedience." (Hebrews 4: 9-11, NET, red mine)
One cannot enter that rest if it isn't ongoing.
___
Last edited:
JNelson
Well-known member
What is absolutely clear is that God, as the only eternal being, is not constrained to time nor experiences time like we do. This is the emphasis here and it in no way changes that an evening and morning is one literal day.
Gen 1:1-2 is part of day one.
In Gen. 1 evening and morning refer to a literal day as it marks the beginning and ending of that day. That is the basis on which we measure a day for a reason. In Psalms 90 Moses uses a simile to make the point that the length of our life is nothing compared to the eternal God. This usage is poetic not literal.
You keep saying “using the Bible to define itself” yet you refuse to accept the literal meaning of evening and morning which means one literal day. Genesis plainly says “let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years”.
yes, we most definitely agree here.The basics -
I think we can both agree that the Hebrew text did not have chapter divisions.
I agree
Correct
Doesn’t need to be. Thus far the first 6 days are literal days so the seventh day can only be understood as the same exact length of days 1-6, evening and morning.
Yes, the sabbath rest remains but the 7th day on which God rested ended about 6,000 years ago. That doesn’t mean God ceased resting from his work of creation as he is still resting from that creation and will be forevermore. Find me a verse that states the sabbath day continued not just the rest.
At gen. 2:4 each day could be different lengths in time as he puts all the creative periods together and calls them one day.
If the days were 24 hours long. Try https://www.thegospelcoalition.org>blog>justin-taylor
JNelson
Well-known member
Each day of creation had the same specific timeframe, evening and morning which is a 24 hour period.
In Gen. 2:4 the phrase ”in the day” is a figure of speech similar to how we would say “in my day” when referring to our childhood. This in no ways refutes that each creation day was a 24 hour period as clearly indicated by the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning”.
Link did not work
Then just type it in on google.
JNelson
Well-known member
Justin Taylor response
Responding to Justin Taylor of The Gospel Coalition regarding the length of the creation days.