27 thoughts on “Why Adam wasn’t deceived? Part Two”

  1. Okay, I’m back. There must be a limit to how long these posts and comments can be because my post kept disappearing. Oh well, to carry on…

    Michael you said “I am sleepless so I have been surfing the net a little on the perfect/pluperfect aspects of 2:19. I found two online resources of interest. One is from the Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne. Dr. Douglas McC. L. Judisch writes in EXEGETICAL NOTES ON GENESIS 2: 18-24“Such a usage of the conjunction often implies a pluperfect understanding of the verbal form which it precedes, as is reflected here in the rendering “had formed”.

    This particular quote isn’t much help because although they say that the verse can imply a pluperfect understanding, they do not give the reasoning why a pluperfect is allowed in the sentence.

    The second quote was more along the line of trying to find a reasoning for their rendering.

    You said:”The other website is called tektonics. It is more polemic but goes into much more detail about the “waw consecutive.”

    This site at least tried to give a reason for their belief that the grammar is pluperfect and that is certainly more of a help. To tell you the truth, I was turned off by the question “was the author of Genesis 1 & 2 a flaming knucklehead?” but I bit my lip and kept reading.

    The thing that I noticed from this site is that they never gave the option that God created the first set of animals by commanding them into existence and the next set by forming them from the dust of the earth.  Their options were only that God either created the animals before man existed or he created them after man. They didn’t seem to reason through that there was a logical third option (therefore they didn’t even try to refute that option).

    I picked this up that I saw was important from the article:  “there are places where a pluperfect can be rendered in accordance with a summarizing or recapitulating use of the waw consecutive. Collins [Coll.WAP] points out that there are cases of unmarked pluperfects in the OT, and that the specific verb in question in this verse itself often warrants a pluperfect translation.”

    This however is where the problem itself lies and that is cited by the book “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics” edited by Robert D. Bergen.  The link that you gave me is correct in citing the fact that there can be unmarked pluperfects in Hebrew and therefore there are examples of some scripture that do not have the “normal” Hebrew markings that cause translators to render them as pluperfect.  However a translator cannot just render a verb as pluperfect willy-nilly (that’s a technical term that I am sure you will need to look up in dictionary.com just as I had to look up “polemic” ‘cause that’s not a word I normally use 🙂 ) because there are rules that must be followed that allow one to render it as pluperfect.

    Chapter 5 in Bergen’s book is all about the rules and is sub-named The Problem of “unmarked Temporal Overlay” and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol.  In this chapter they go through examples of marked and unmarked overlays and explain what they are.  As far as the limiting factors go concerning this usage, they say “So we have extrabiblical attestation, motivation, and a hypothesis about a limiting definition.”  After all the examples they give of the marked and unmarked overlays, they bring up Genesis 2 as a “nice test problem”.  They mention that the NIV has invoked a pluperfect wayyiqtol rule for verses 8 and 19 and they ask if these two verses meet the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay.  The answer, they say, is simply no.  They repeat the criteria and show how it is impossible for these two verses to be pluperfect.

    Now what your source does not do is to show how they have met the criteria that allows them to take an unmarked Hebrew passage and make it pluperfect.  Therefore since the criteria is not met, by proper Hebrew grammar, this book says that it must be rejected from a discourse syntax perspective as a misuse of a poorly defined older syntax.

    My understanding from what I read on the second reference you gave me is that they are trying hard to give an apologetic answer to a critic who charges the bible with contradiction.  However they do not have to use improper Hebrew grammar to defend the charge against the bible.  The option that they didn’t even consider clearly answers the charge of contradiction by the skeptic.  The answer is that the bible just means what it says and there were two separate and different creations of animals just as there were two separate and different creations of humans.

    Let’s look at it this way.  If someone asked you how mankind was created and you said that mankind was created from the dust of the earth, the skeptic could also charge the bible (and you) with a contradiction.  After all, Eve was not created from the dust of the earth and she is part of mankind too, right?  The fact is that God chose to create the man from the dirt and he chose to create the woman from the man’s flesh.  No contradiction at all.

    Now what about animals?  Were animals created at the spoken word of God or were they formed from the ground?  There is no contradiction at all.  The first set of animals God spoke into existence and the second set he formed from the ground.

    You said: “Finally, one other observation. As I looked through the sites there were two types of sites that most adamantly subscribed to the perfect tense: Atheists and YECs. It appears to me that the first do so because atheists wish to discredit Christianity by showing “errors” in the bible and the second to discredit science.”

    I have a very different way of looking at people’s challenges.  I try really hard not to judge the heart and people’s motives because frankly unless they tell me their motives, I’m not very good at reading hearts.  When I see someone (a skeptic) challenge the bible, I have no problem with that at all if they are a truth lover.  If I wasn’t a Christian and I saw what I thought were contradictions, I would want these contradictions answered too so that I could have faith in God and his word.  When I give a person reasonable, rational and factual answers to their objections and they accept what I say, then I can say that they appear to be a truth lover even if they are a skeptic.  If a person challenges the bible and they are given good reasons to understand that their challenge is unjustified and they disregard evidence time after time again and they just keep on throwing “dirt” in my face, I will walk away because I feel that my time is wasted.  But someone who is a truth lover who will actually hear and listen and consider the evidence is worth spending all the time it takes to answer their questions.

    So having said that I don’t try to judge motives unless the motive is stated and obvious without me having to read someone’s heart, I don’t think that just because someone disagrees with you that we should judge them as having a bad or ulterior motive.  As far as the Hebrew book I have, it is written regarding Hebrew grammar not biblical interpretation so I do not know whether the writer is a young earth creationist or an old earth one.  There is certainly nothing in the passage on Genesis that would tell me either way.  There is also not one thing that I have read in this book that even attempts to discredit science. All there is, is an appeal to proper grammar and proper criteria for the rules of grammar.  I can accept that.

    Lastly, you also said: “I have yet to find one resource that argues for the perfect before the late 20th Century. I am not leveling this charge at you but I am wondering about the sources you may be using.”

    The refining of the Hebrew rules of syntax is an on-going work.  The first chapter in Bergen’s book explains the problems that Christians have had with the Hebrew language since Christian scholars of the Reformation began studying Hebrew with vigor.  As a result, Jewish scholars lost interest in Biblical Hebrew grammar and the Biblical Hebrew grammar was cut off from its only “living” tradition, namely the tradition that survived Rabbinic circles.  However since the 1970’s many Biblical Hebrew grammarians have pushed on to deal with the shortcomings of the traditional Biblical Hebrew grammars and lexica.  Since the 1970’s then, the research in Biblical Hebrew grammar and lexicography has flourished.  This has resulted in a sharpening of the grammar and a better understanding of the Hebrew.  As biblical interpretation has been sharpened through the years and we have much less perceived “contradictions” in the biblical text than we did 50 years ago, so too the grammar has sharpened through the years.

    Now one thing that you can’t fault me for is being biased regarding Genesis 2:19 because of trying to contradict the old earth view.  When I first came across this passage in detail it was during my search on the women’s issue and I came to Genesis from Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14.  Paul makes a big deal about Adam’s first creation and that he, as the first one created was not the one deceived.  So I trotted on back to Genesis to keep my nose in that section until I could understand why Paul said that the first created one was not deceived.  I went over and over it and read the Hebrew until my eyes popped open with surprise.  I clearly saw what Paul was referencing about creation because truly the first created one who had creation happen after him was uniquely educated in the understanding of the Creator and the vast difference between those created from the dirt (himself included) and the unique One who is the only creator.  Adam was not deceived because he saw God’s works and knew who God was and he understood what a piece of dirt he (Adam) really was.  Was it a problem that Adam was not deceived?  Absolutely not!

    Now I never want to come to scripture and say it can’t be true because of my own bias.  I want to keep scripture as my infallible guide and my own reasoning as limited and flexible to change when I see truth.  Now I want to challenge you to look carefully at scripture and see if you can find a way to make your old earth view fit with a second set of the same animals that God created before Adam, created again after Adam.  Now why can’t that fit?  Do you see any reason for it not to fit?  If you can’t make it fit, then perhaps you may want to ask yourself if you have made your own reasoning process a kind of untouchable god.  Now I am saying this in love, because I would want someone to tap me on the shoulder and say the same thing to me if I said to God he can’t do something because I don’t think he can.  You see, I can accept it either way because it doesn’t challenge my view either way.  So the way I see it, you either need to make it fit your view (shouldn’t be too hard to do that) or toss your view at the feet of Jesus and ask him to enlighten you about the way he wrote his word.  He either wrote it following the precise Hebrew rules of grammar or he didn’t.  If he didn’t write it following all the intricate rules of grammar and he got it wrong, then what else did he get wrong?

  2. A few quick observations and hopefully I can write more later.

    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. I just wanted to be clear there.

    Second, we are talking about grammar rules. What are rules of grammar? They are not edicts handed down by God (and thank God for that or I would be in big trouble.) They are patterns of usage discerned by scholars. One scholar sees one pattern and another scholar sees another. The debate and refine and consensus often develops. I willing to bet big money that Barnes position at this point is not the consensus position. That does not make wrong! 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. Therefore, just to say that someone did not meet Barnes’ rules is unpersuasive to me. How did Barnes’ rules become the gold standard and not another scholar’s rules? For instance the scholar from Concordia appears to me to be someone who has studied every bit as much as Hebrew as Barnes. Why is he not aware of these incontrovertible rules Barnes has discovered? Has Barnes over reached on certain things he calls rules? I simply reject your elevation of Barnes to unquestionable authority on Hebrew grammar to which all other scholars much be measured.

    Third, I want to stress again that the sites I linked are not because I like the people who wrote them or agree with anything else they said. I am trying to find some easily internet accessible alternative arguments. But I think now this rather pointless, because unless it is a direct refutation of Barnes rules I don’t think it is going to be persuasive to you.

    Fourth, there is the “ockham’s razor” idea at work here (the most straightforward answer usually is the right answer.) 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. Yet to say in 2:19 that 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. 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. The most straightforward answer is the 2:19 is pluperfect and it is talking about the same events in Genesis 1:24-25 account that occurred prior to humanity. It requires no contingencies or qualification of either passage. That doesn’t make it right but it is not inconsequential.

    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.

  4. 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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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 “evidence”, 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?

  5. Cheryl, I wanted you to know I am not ignoring you. 🙂 I am just swamped with several things. Your post has helped me clarify a couple of important issues that I had not picked up on before. I will be back but it may be a couple days. Peace!

  6. No problem, Michael. I am behind a couple of answers that I owe you regarding several of your posts and it will take me awhile to catch up during this very busy time of year!  Blessings!

  7. Cheryl, a couple of quick questions. I want to ask this question. Look at this sentence:

    “The teacher formed a curriculum and brought it to the class to see how well they would learn from it.”

    I think I have worded this in the perfect tense. Did the class exist prior to the teacher’s formation of curriculum? Am I correct in asserting that because this is in the perfect tense that the sequence of events is that the class formed first and then the teacher formed the curriculum? From the context, I think the answer is no.

    The wording of the sentence is structured to highlight the authorship and work of the teacher not the order of sequence in events.

    Gen 2:19

    19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them:…ASV

    God formed the animals prior to Adam foreknowing he would create Adam, just as the teacher formed a curriculum foreknowing the formation of a class. The sentence is structured to highlight the “authorship” and work of the creator not the order of sequence in events.

    Your claim is that Genesis 2:19 precludes any other reading other than that animals were formed after Adam. If we would not demand that the first sentence be interpreted that the curriculum was formed after the class, why would we insist in Genesis 2:19 that the animals were created after Adam?

  8. Michael,

    There is Hebrew and there is English. We are not talking about English but Hebrew. I am relying on the Hebrew experts to inform me of the grammar rules. If it was just a matter of how English sentence structure, then they wouldn’t have to study Hebrew structure. We don’t have the problems of the Hebrew marked and unmarked overlays so I’m sorry but you can’t compare languages. 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. Notice again that the over whelming majority of Bibles do not translate in the pluperfect.

  9. “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.”

    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.”

    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 Beginning Biblical Hebrew. The article (in pdf) is at:

    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.”

    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?

  10. “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 issue in Timothy is error made because of inadequate instruction.

    Gen 2:16-17
    “16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.””

    Gen 3:2-3
    “2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'”

    There is no teaching that touching the tree will lead to death. Furthermore, Eve fails to correctly respond to the serpent’s deception, unlike Jesus did in the wilderness. She wasn’t equipped to be able to challenge the serpent’s deception.

  11. Hi Michael,

    Again you are bringing up scripture that fits the rules of using the pluperfect. You quoted:

    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…’”

    The plagues had already been introduced and one final plague was mentioned. The multiple plaques (an obvious repetition of plagues given by God) seems clearly to fit the rule of repetition. It does not fit with Genesis 2:19 where unlike the plagues the action “formed” has not been previously introduced concerning the animals and thus does not fits the rule and Bergen’s book shows why it doesn’t fit.

    Bergen also shows that chapter two with verses 8 and 19 are sequential in the Hebrew so I will continue to rest with that. It is not only a legitimate understanding of the passage, but appears to me with all the evidence to be the correct understanding of the passage with the Hebrew grammar being so precise.

    You also asked if historical figures ever make this “obvious” conclusion that animals came after Adam. Yes. The Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew and is the work of 70 scholars translated Genesis 2:19 as “formed yet further”. This shows that animals had already been created but these ones were formed in addition to the ones already in existence. This was written several hundred years before Christ’s birth and shows a second set of animals came after Adam. Also the overwhelming majority of biblical translations do not use the pluperfect when they could have if it was legitimate to use it in this setting. You still have not given any reason for the legitimate use of pluperfect in Genesis 2:8, 19 so I see no reason to change my view.

  12. Michael,

    You also said concerning Eve:

    There is no teaching that touching the tree will lead to death.

    Actually there is testimony that God told her not to touch the fruit from the tree. Eating the fruit caused death, but touching the fruit would cause her to desire the fruit thus causing her to sin. It is her testimony of what God said to her. If we do not accept her testimony, then we have the woman lying about God’s word in essence she sinned before she ate the fruit. This is illogical and not possible. I went through this reasoning piece by piece at a talk I gave in Pennsylvania in October. You can find it here http://mmoutreach.org/audio_jw.htm under my name and right now it is the first talk called “Jehovah’s Women on Trial”.

    I would be interested to know what you think of my reasoning. Although it deals specifically with JW teaching, their teaching is pretty much identifical to CBMW and John MacArthur who teach that the word of God came to the man only. My talk refutes their teaching and shows how it is impossible for Eve not to have heard from God directly regarding the commandment.

  13. One last thing, if the complementarians can get away with teaching that Eve did not receive the command from God and God only wanted to communicate with her second-hand through her husband, then they use that point to say that women are not to teach God’s word because they were never given God’s word directly in the garden of Eden. I think this is a point that has not been dealt with in a decisive way by egalitarians and my talk refutes the myth that Eve didn’t hear from God directly and that she either added to God’s word when she talked to the serpent or messed up a very simple command mixing up what God said with what Adam commanded her. I think my refutation gives a death blow to that reasoning.

    After my talk in PA, several women came up to me afterward to tell me that my reasoning had given them a sense of freedom to know that God really does give his word into the hands of women too along with men.  They each bought a copy of WIM to take home but expressed their gratitude to me that they now believe that God did give the commandment in the garden to both the man and the woman.

  15. “You also asked if historical figures ever make this “obvious” conclusion that animals came after Adam. Yes. The Septuagint which is the Greek translation….”

    This isn’t exactly what I was getting at. If my teacher/curiculum analogy is correct this still doesn’t resolve the problem. What I was referring to was commentators who were applying the 2:19 passage in some way that would indicate what they understood the passage to mean. I am trying to established the tradition for how the passage was understood by Jewish scholars and early Church leaders.

  16. 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

  17. One last thought, Michael. Wasn’t there a mention of a special creation of animals in one of the links they gave me previously? I think it was from a young earth creationist. Looks like they at least are aware of others who held this view.

    So I am hoping that you can at least admit that I have given you reasonable and logical reasons for why I hold my view. I have also given subtantial evidence of the Hebrew rendering (grammar, Hebrew rules and what has been described as the straight forwarding reading of the passage) even if you do not hold to this view.

    If I don’t hear from you much before Christmas, have a wonderful family time and know that you are appreciated!  And Merry Christmas, my friend!!!

  18. Interesting debate, my head has just stopped spinning 🙂

    Merry Christmas to everybody! Jesus lives and His love brings tears to my eyes, you are so wonderful Jesus!

  19. Cheryl, At the risk of intruding into areas I know nothing of, namely Hebrew grammar and construction, I’ve heard it said that Hebrew thought is far different than the Aristotelian (Hellenist) logic we are accustomed to. If it can be shown that this is indeed the case, it would account for much of the difficulty in rendering that I see in my ESV translation’s margin notes as I go through the old testament. Please shed some light on this as I am eager to learn.
    Respectfully, H.

  20. Hi “H”,

    Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

    hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

    So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

    I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

  21. Hi “H”,

    Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

    hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

    So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

    I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

  22. Hi “H”

    Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

    hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

    So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

    I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

  23. Hi “H”

    Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

    What I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (almah) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

    So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

    I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

  24. Cheryl, Thank you so much for your patience and understanding. I too hold fast to God’s word as breathed out by him personally and that it is the final arbiter of faith and sound doctrine. Notwithstanding, I must also issue the caveat that though we have inerrant scripture, we do not necessarily have inerrant interpretation. That is why as you say, we must check and sharpen each other. Thanks also for your lucid illustration of how God broke the sin line of Adam and corrupted human male DNA. You made it crystal clear of how dangerous it is to tamper with the language simply because we don’t see how God could make a virgin conceive. How else could the person of Jesus be without sin and therefore God’s spotless passover lamb for us?
    Respectfully, H.

  25. My respectful friend “H”,

    I fully agree with you that although scripture is fully inspired, our interpretation is not and we must be willing to check and sharpen each other. Great thoughts.

    The post shows the absolute necessity for the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not an optional doctrine for without it Jesus could not be our kinsman redeemer. My idea was to draw it out for people so that they too could understand that the virgin birth along with the fact that Eve was taken out of Adam was the only way possible for Jesus to be connected to Adam as his descendant yet without sin because of the virgin birth. People have told me that for the first time they have understood the virgin birth and for that I am grateful.

  26. Cheryl, After doing some research on Hebrew vs Greek thought, it occurs to me that the topic is indeed voluminous. The dissertations written on this subject alone could probably fill a wing of the Alexandrian library (if it still existed). If you’ll permit me, I’ll attempt a brief encapsulation here. Two key words are in order here, dynamic(Hebrew) and static (Greek). Take a sheet of paper and place five dots roughly in the shape of an archway. Now connect the dots with a straight edge. The straight-line segments are rigid, fixed, and unbending (static). Now take a French curve and fit a smooth path through the same points and you’ll see a graphic demonstration of the dynamism of Hebrew thought as opposed to the “either/or” , “if/then” constructs of the Hellenistic mind-set. Again, what’s the point of all this? The apostle Paul had a gentile and largely Greek thinking audience in mind when he wrote his epistles. He became as a Greek in order to win hearts and minds.
    Respectfully,
    H.

  27. It is good to have someone who thinks outside the box around this blog! Thanks for those thoughts. Yes, Paul was always thinking about how he was going to reach those who existed outside the Jewish world. He definitely was an outside-the-box thinker too!

Comment to join the discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: