POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[mark kennedy]

I think that modern educated Calvinists/Reformed like Hoghead do not realize the full implications of their unique teachings when it comes to the supernatural.

You honestly think he is a Calvinist? You get to be putting me on.

 

[Hoghead1]

There probably is a rule here about not making onerous posts by copying & pasting, but it has to be reported in order for it to be addressed.

Gen 2:4-25 is a breakdown or a more detailed account of Gen 1:26-31, just as it is a breakdown of Gen 1:1.

No, it is not a refer3ence back to Gen. 1. That would require translating 2 in the pluperfect. If you would have carefully read what I had to say, you would realize there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew.

 

[Hoghead1]

I - Master of Thread.

However now I will say my opinion about Mosaic authorship. I think that whoever wrote Genesis was probably the same person or it was a group of people intentionally working together. There is a secret in the Torah that shows Genesis was deliberately written as one whole work:

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/a-hidden-torah-secret/
This must mean at the least that whoever wrote Genesis 2 intentionally wrote its words to fit with Genesis 1. They are not two totally independent separate stories by two totally separate authors.

The claim that Genesis 1 and 2 present two separate contradictory accounts of the same creation activities so that they must be made by different writers is actually a broken claim. It relies on demanding a rigid absolutist reading of Genesis 1 and 2 that does not allow any potential confusion by the reader or inaccuracies or even potential nonchronologies.

To demand that they were two different authors, it looks like advocates of that allegation claim that there are contradictions and that BECAUSE there are contradictions, therefore they must have two different writers, as if the same author could not have missed potential significant conflicts in his own lengthy story.

Therefore, I personally reject the claim that Genesis 1 and 2 had two totally different authors.

HOWEVER, was that author a person who exactly personally matched the name and title and biography of Moses we read about in the Torah? I don't know how that could be proven one way or the other especially if the Bible nowhere directly spells that out, other than just calling this section of the Bible the Torah of Moses.

This is about as direct as we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship

Beyond this we don't have a specific direct answer as to how much Moses himself wrote, especially if we mean completely by himself and with no help.

Yur post overlooks way too much solid biblical scholarship.

 

[rakovsky]

You honestly think he is a Calvinist? You get to be putting me on.

What is he doing spending his time translating Calvin's sermons then?

 

[rakovsky]

No, it is not a refer3ence back to Gen. 1. That would require translating 2 in the pluperfect. If you would have carefully read what I had to say, you would realize there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew.

"Pluperfect"? I don't even know what that is. AND you have translated Calvin from the original? I am impressed with your knowledge
I as a modern academic also feel sympathetic to your idea that the creation of the world was a wholly natural event and not miraculous or supernatural. Can you please point me to any leading or founding Reformed writers who teach this?

 

[rakovsky]

Yur post overlooks way too much solid biblical scholarship.

I think you have not even seriously considered what I wrote, and instead are defaulting to various "experts" that conservative Protestant and traditional non-Protestant theologians would probably not agree with on this matter.

 

[StanJ]

The four bullet points below are what I understand your positions to be. I have given a quote to show how I got #2 and #4 is a direct quote.
1. Every "Day" in Genesis 1 before humans were made must be 24 hours by a modern human stopwatch.
2. About half of the Creationists polled do not reject "Young Earth" theory.
3. The Sun was made on Day 1, not on Day 4, which is what the Bible says according to Calvin.
4. Hence: "Calvin... was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible."
Please let me know if you disagree with these and if so, what you would say instead.

Like I said, quote what I said this by using the proper quote facility here and I'll address it, because it is very obvious that your comprehension level of the English language is severely lacking or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I say, at this point I haven't decided which but I am leaning towards the latter.

 

[StanJ]

Yes. I don't believe God dictated Scripture word for word to purely passive scribes who took it all down like automatic writing. Divinely inspired as it may be, Scripture was still written by human beings. Knowing who wrote it and when helps greatly in understanding its message.

And that is not what inspired or breathed of God means. Despite not having the autographs we can be assured that what God's word says is true and absolute. Discrepancies aside there is no reason whatsoever to have the veracity of God's word be based on who wrote it.

 

[StanJ]

"Pluperfect"? I don't even know what that is. AND you have translated Calvin from the original? I am impressed with your knowledge
I as a modern academic also feel sympathetic to your idea that the creation of the world was a wholly natural event and not miraculous or supernatural. Can you please point me to any leading or founding Reformed writers who teach this?

And yet you can't support one thing in creation that did occur naturally unless you defer to the modern so-called science of evolution, can you?

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you have not even seriously considered what I wrote, and instead are defaulting to various "experts" that conservative Protestant and traditional non-Protestant theologians would probably not agree with on this matter.

No, I'm going on solid biblical scholarship.

 

[Hoghead1]

"Pluperfect"? I don't even know what that is. AND you have translated Calvin from the original? I am impressed with your knowledge
I as a modern academic also feel sympathetic to your idea that the creation of the world was a wholly natural event and not miraculous or supernatural. Can you please point me to any leading or founding Reformed writers who teach this?

Pluperfect means "had," refers to father back in the past. Some self-styled apologists want to argue that Gen. 2, in reference to the animals, should be translated in the pluperfect, so as to refer back to Gen. 1. I am arguing that is illegitimate, as there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
Also, I did not yet give my view on creation. However, I hold that God works in and through evolution, that evolution would be impossible without God. I don't view God as supernatural or the chief exception to all metaphysical principles; I view God as supra-natural, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles.
Why on earth would you expect the Reformers to teach creation as a wholly natural event? They all strongly believed in God as the Creator. I know another member claimed otherwise abut Calvin, but that is definitely not true at all.

 

[StanJ]

No, it is not a refer3ence back to Gen. 1. That would require translating 2 in the pluperfect. If you would have carefully read what I had to say, you would realize there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew.

Well as that is only used as a modern verb form then it wouldn't apply to the ancient Hebrew which doesn't have those type of verb forms, which was indeed my point so I'm not really sure what you're saying now?
Gen 2:4 brings us back to Gen 1:1 and 2:5 takes up the details by using the word NOW here and subsequently in verses 8 & 19.

 

[OzSpen]

Well as that is only used as a modern verb form then it wouldn't apply to the ancient Hebrew which doesn't have those type of verb forms, which was indeed my point so I'm not really sure what you're saying now?
Gen 2:4 brings us back to Gen 1:1 and 2:5 takes up the details by using the word NOW here and subsequently in verses 8 & 19.

No, Stan, the pluperfect tense is not only a modern verb form. The pluperfect (i.e. past perfect) is used in the LXX and Koine Greek of the NT.

 

[StanJ]

No, Stan, the pluperfect tense is not only a modern verb form. The pluperfect (i.e. past perfect) is used in the LXX and Koine Greek of the NT.

That's nice but we're talking about ancient Hebrew not Koine Greek. As far as I know it's rare in NT Greek, so I assume it would be even rarer in the Greek used in the LXX, given the Hebrew never contained any. But what do I know I don't have a doctorate in any of this. I do however know how to read.

 

[rakovsky]

That's nice but we're talking about ancient Hebrew not Koine Greek. As far as I know it's rare in NT Greek, so I assume it would be even rarer in the Greek used in the LXX, given the Hebrew never contained any. But what do I know I don't have a doctorate in any of this.

OzSpence is arguing that Genesis 1 does not contradict Genesis 2, even though Genesis 2 uses the expression that God made animals. Why do you think he is wrong? Do you even realize that OzSpence was discussing this in order to treat the two chapters as consistent in order to deal with HogHead's propositions of contradiction?
Since you mentioned getting a doctorate, may I ask if you received a degree in higher education? (Not that it's a requirement, it would just help us understand our background here.)

 

[rakovsky]

I don't view God as supernatural or the chief exception to all metaphysical principles; I view God as supra-natural, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles.
Why on earth would you expect the Reformers to teach creation as a wholly natural event? They all strongly believed in God as the Creator. I know another member claimed otherwise abut Calvin, but that is definitely not true at all.

Here is how we got on this topic. You wrote:

MARK: do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?
HOGHEAD: Mark Genesis does not use anywhere near what we would term as "scientific language." Also, miracles aren't the issue here. The issue is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through that. Miracles and the supernatural belong in a separate thread.​

So basically your position appears to be "NO", God is "supranatural" as you call it and "the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles."

Are you familiar with the concept of Panentheism, and do you consider that any different than basic Christian theology?
Can you point me to foundational Reformed writers who lay out in detail their beliefs that miracles aren't an issue for the Creation and that God is NOT supernatural, but rather is "the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles."

I have heard about Neo-Calvinists like Kuyper teaching a version of supranaturalism, eg. that the manna from heaven was natural:

Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism

Notwithstanding Kuyper's recognition of the importance of Christian experience, of conversion and communion with God, there is a strain in his teaching that pulls in a contrary direction. In one of its aspects, this strain may be considered naturalistic in character, and humanistic in another.

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/historic-calvinism-and-neo-calvinism.php

However, I am really looking for broad, major, main, foundational Reformed writers like Gill, Sproul, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, etc. who lay out their either "supranaturalistic" or naturalistic explanations and premises.

 

[StanJ]

OzSpence is arguing that Genesis 1 does not contradict Genesis 2, even though Genesis 2 uses the expression that God made animals. Why do you think he is wrong? Do you even realize that OzSpence was discussing this in order to treat the two chapters as consistent in order to deal with HogHead's propositions of contradiction?
Since you mentioned getting a doctorate, may I ask if you received a degree in higher education? (Not that it's a requirement, it would just help us understand our background here.)

That is not what Oz is arguing about and your reading and comprehension skills in English seem to be getting worse.
I disagree with hoghead and I'm sure I do agree with Oz in this matter.

 

[OzSpen]

That's nice but we're talking about ancient Hebrew not Koine Greek. As far as I know it's rare in NT Greek, so I assume it would be even rarer in the Greek used in the LXX, given the Hebrew never contained any. But what do I know I don't have a doctorate in any of this. I do however know how to read.

No, Stan, that is not what you were discussing regarding the pluperfect tense. You stated, 'Well as that is only used as a modern verb form'. No it is NOT a 'modern verb form'. It is quite ancient. You are ducking and weaving, brother!

Sarcasm about my doctorate is totally unnecessary in this thread, as is sarcasm about knowing how to read. You only know about my doctorate from our participation in another forum and not on this one. Brother, these kinds of comments are detrimental to congenial discussion on this forum.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That is not what Oz is arguing about and your reading and comprehension skills in English seem to be getting worse.
I disagree with hoghead and I'm sure I do agree with Oz in this matter.

Stan,

That is exactly what I'm arguing about - that Gen 1 and 2 are in agreement. I think you are in agreement with me on this, aren't you?

It's not about rakovsky's English comprehension skills, in my understanding.

See my article, Alleged discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2

Oz

 

[StanJ]

No, Stan, that is not what you were discussing regarding the pluperfect tense. You stated, 'Well as that is only used as a modern verb form'. Not it is NOT a 'modern verb form'. It is quite ancient. You are ducking and weaving, brother!
Oz

What I said was correct as is the following; http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/hebrtens.htm
There is no such thing as "tense" in biblical Hebrew. (Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, does have tenses.) Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. The most well known grammatical cue is the "vav-consecutive" that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past.
Therefore it is wrong to say that Isaiah 53 or other prophecies are in the "past tense." BIblical Hebrew has no tenses. There are many examples of what is wrongly called the "past tense" form (properly called "the perfective" or "perfect") being used for future time.
This fact was recognized by the medieval commentators as well as by modern grammarians.