The timeline of the Bible

quote:

---

Um, you do realize that Biblical Hebrew doesn't really have a preterite, yes? It has two aspects: The perfect and the imperfect.

---

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever taken a course in biblical Hebrew? Which language text did you study?Biblical Hebrew certainly DOES have a preterite. It is not a unique verbal form, but a grammatical construction. It was formerly called the "waw-consecutive", but modern grammarians prefer to call it the preterite.

quote:

---

That said, the "waw" construction is a narrative device to indicate progression, furthering of plot, as it were.

---

Not a bad description. This construction follows a specific pattern. The first verb in the series is in the perfect, with no "waw". Subsequent verbs in the series are in the imperfect, with a "waw" prepended to the verb, but the verb is translated as a perfect. Again, I have described this in more detail in basic reading of genesis 1:1, and you could get a better description in a basic Hebrew grammar (e.g. Allan P. Ross).

quote:

---

"Something had happened. Here is how it happened."

---

False. The grammar implies, "First something happened. And then something else happened. And then something else happened, ..."

quote:

---

That is the narrative description of Genesis 1: First you get the really big picture, and then you get the details. The creation of life, the universe, and everything was not just a snap-of-the-fingers, now-you-don't-see-it/now-you-do event. God worked at it. It took, quite literally, days.

---

False. Not consistent with the Hebrew grammar. First you get the creation of the heavens and the earth. Next you get Day 1. Next you get Day 2 ...

quote:

---

So of course the description of what happened during the days where god made the heavens and the earth are going to be written using progressive narration. That's how you tell an interesting story.

---

Yes, and the first event in this progression is the creation of the heavens and the earth.

quote:

---

You still haven't answered the question, though: If the heavens and earth were already made, then why talk about the "beginning"?

---

Your question makes no sense to me. Verse 1 says that God created everything (the heavens and the earth). It tells us when He did this--"In the beginning". The verse could be translated, "In the beginning, God had created everything." I see no problem with this; can you explain your question better?

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for an explanation for why Genesis 1 talks about "the beginning" if life, the universe, and everything were already in existence. That necessarily means it isn't the beginning but rather "later." The grammar specifically says that the six days of creation were "the beginning," that there was no previous creation, that the appearance of the earth on the third day was its origination, etc.

---

False. The grammar of the preterite (i.e. waw-consecutive construction) clearly implies that the six days of creation occurred AFTER the "creation of the heavens and the earth" which occurred "in the beginning." You are ignoring the grammatical rules for the preterite. See Message 240 and basic reading of genesis 1:1 for more details.

quote:

---

Incorrect. It is exactly the other way around. The creation of the heavens and earth were during the six days delineated in Genesis 1. There was no "before." I see we're never going to get anywhere with this.

---

I don't see the confusion or misunderstanding. Here's the sense of the first three verses: The pattern of the account is that each "day" begins with "and then God said." Thus the first day begins at v. 3. Ther first two verses fall outside of the "day" pattern.Notice the start of verse 3, "and then." This means it is not the first event in the account. First, God created everything (v.1). Second, God said "Let there be light" (v.3). Nothing fixes the length of time between the first and second events. What is so difficult about this?Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The minute we get into the whole ‘how the text was probably read by the author and what it meant in its original language’, we begin digging a hole for ourselves one that once we fall inside we will never be able to come out of.

​

The thing is in line with your reasoning we can't really rely on our English bibles so we should toss out all our English bibles and enroll in Hebrew Greek and Aramaic language courses simultaneously given that these are the three languages the English bible is translated from.

​

Since this is highly improbable we might as well just stick to our current bibles and agree on the interpretations they offer us. We have no other choices but to put our trust in the translators believing that they did their best in view of all their linguistic skills to faithfully translate a particular passage and therefore the entire bible as a whole.

---

Sorry, but no. The goal of biblical interpretation is to determine the thing you wish to avoid, i.e. ‘how the text was probably read by the author and what it meant in its original language.’Some of the science discussion on EvC Forum gets quite detailed, and one would actually have to study science to understand it. Sometimes people even bring up new data or research results, which others have not studied. Let's just agree on ONE easy-to-read science text for all of our science discussions, shall we? Do you see how ridiculous this is?This sort of restriction might be fine for playing a game, but it is not acceptable in a search for truth. If we want to understand "What does the Bible really mean?" we cannot allow such restrictions in biblical study, either.The main message of the Bible is simple, cross-cultural, and clear, irrespective of Bible translation or language. But when one wants to dig into the details and nuances, it is necessary to work back as closely as we can to the original text, which means the original languages. For this it is best to actually learn the languages, of course, but much information can also be found in notes of good study Bibles, e.g. the NET Bible (Matthew 1 | NET Bible).

quote:

---

The relevant point I'm trying to introduce is that your view that 24 hour days were not the original intent of the authors is definitely a minority view within the broad range of Biblical scholarship. Certainly there are scholars on the other side of the issue, but they're in the minority. Being in the minority in a debate doesn't mean you're wrong, but you seem not to comprehend the minority status of your view. You propose it as if it's the most obvious thing, as if no one reasonable would ever think otherwise.

---

You are probably correct that the majority throughout history have seen the "days" as literal, 24-hour periods. However:
1) There has always been a significant minority who did not see them as literal days. This includes Augustine in the 4th century, who believed all of creation occurred in a single instant and that the "days" were figurative.
2) Many who held to literal 24-hour days did not hold to a recent creation of the earth and cosmos. Many have viewed the "days" as a completion or re-creation of what had already been created in Gen 1:1, which could have been long earlier. This was a dominant view (probably the majority view) from the mid-19th through mid-20th centuries.

quote:

---

And your obsession with verses is touching considering that there are no verses in the original text. The line breaks are impositions we have put upon the text to help make it readable.

---

I agree that the line breaks or verse breaks are irrelevant to the grammar. But at least for the first few verses, the verse breaks (but not the line breaks) occur between clauses. Each verse starts a new clause.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Notice the start of verse 3, "and then."

---

Not in my translation. Both my Torah and my KJV both simply say, "And god said." Again, you are seemingly fixated on this idea that the line breaks actually mean anything.

---

Are you reading the Torah in the Hebrew, or in an English translation? The original was written in Hebrew, not in English. The implication of the Hebrew is "and then God said". Or you can check a number of other translations (NASB, NKJV, Geneva Bible, God's Word, Holman, NLT, NRSV) which all render it "then God said." This is the second event in the account, not the first one.

quote:

---

You keep claiming that the earth existed before "the beginning" ..."

---

False. I have never claimed this.My claim is that "the beginning" occurs before "and then God said."

quote:

---

Too, the text directly and clearly states that the earth didn't exist.

---

False. The text says that the land was "tohu wa bohu" i.e. "shapeless and empty" or "waste and empty", i.e. not yet finished. It does not say "non-existent."

quote:

---

When did "unformed and void" come to mean "existing and present"?

---

Always.This phrase "tohu wa bohu" occurs one other place in the Bible, in Jer. 4:23: And the two words "tohu" and "bohu" occur near one another in one other passage, Is. 34:11: In neither instance do the words "tohu" and "bohu" mean "non-existent." They refer to something which is "existing and present," but is in some way incomplete.Once again, here is the sense of the first few verses (but this time with commentary):

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You keep claiming that the earth existed before "the beginning" ..."

---

False. I have never claimed this.

---

Now, you're being less than truthful here, aren't you? Do you really want me to go back through your posts in this thread and find your direct statements about how there was an earth before the creative days that was then laid waste, how the earth existed under the water so that the water could then part and form the dry land, etc.?

---

I have already explained my position on this numerous times.You equate "the beginning" (Gen 1:1) with the start of the First Day (Gen 1:3), and you apparently cannot accept that I see it differently. I see "the beginning" as occurring before the start of the First Day.Thus:
1) Everything was created "in the beginning". This includes the land/earth. The earth did not exist before "the beginning."
2) Day One began with "and then God said." This occurred after "the beginning". The land/earth already existed before Day One began.

quote:

---

Incorrect. I do accept that you see it differently. I also accept that you have no textual justification for your claim.

---

The primary justification for my claim is textual, and this evidence has been repeated numerous times in this thread. It is precisely the textual evidence (the Hebrew grammar and the literary structure of the Days) which led me to the position that I now hold.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I see "the beginning" as occurring before the start of the First Day.

---

Which would mean that the "first day" wasn't actually the first and thus what is described as "the beginning" wasn't actually "the beginning" but was really sometime "later" than "the beginning."

---

Correct. The "first Day" was not "first" in an absolute sense, but was "first" in relation to the following days. It was the first of the six. Note that the text does not call it "the first", but "Day One." The text does not imply that it is the absolute first.

quote:

---

The "first day" necessarily ends 24 hours after "the beginning."

---

False.

quote:

---

You seem to want there to be something between "the beginning" and the "first day,"

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

which is not justified by anything in the text.

---

False. It is the text itself which led me to this position.

quote:

---

So "first" doesn't mean "first," "the beginning" doesn't mean "the beginning," and you wonder why we have spent 300+ posts on this matter?

---

False. "The beginning" is the absolute beginning of all things. After this we get a sequence of six "days." There is no textual reason for your assumption that the first "day" must start at the absolute beginning of all things.

quote:

---

When the imagery is to start at "the beginning" and then tell you that "a day" has passed, it is not talking about "10 billion years later."

---

But that's not the imagery in Gen 1. It starts at "the beginning" where "everything" is created. The sequence of six "days" don't start until after this. Thus, the six days do not describe the original creation of "everything" from nothing. Rather, they describe a final forming, shaping, and filling of "everything", mostly using already existing material that was created "in the beginning."Like it or not, this is the implication of the Hebrew grammar. My view used to be more similar to yours. But then I learned biblical Hebrew and went through the Hebrew grammar of the passage verse-by-verse with a Hebrew scholar. This forced me to change my view to agree with the grammar of the text.

quote:

---

Then it isn't the "first" day, is it?

---

Of course it is the "first day." But the question you are ignoring is, "The first day of what?" Monday is the first day of the week. Does that mean there were no days before it, that it was the first day of all time? Of course not. Likewise, Day One is the first day of the six-day account of the completion of creation. This does not mean that there were no days ever before it.

quote:

---

How is that not the imagery of the text? The text directly tells you that god created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" and the six days are the description of how it happened. There is no textual evidence, either direct or implied, that there was some "before." There certainly isn't an grammatical indication of such. After all, the text uses the "tohuw and bohuw" construction which is indicative of "unformed and void."

---

We've been over all of this before. There is nothing in the six day account that describes the creation of either the heavens or the earth. We have descriptions of separations in things that already exist (separations of waters above and below, separation of water and dry land). But the creation of these elements is not part of the six days; it happened earlier (in v. 1).I've repeatedly detailed the grammatical evidence that v.1 was prior to v.3 (i.e. the preterite or waw-consecutive construction). If you disagree, please provide an alternate, scholarly explanation of the Hebrew grammar of vv 1-3.Edited by kbertsche, : added first paragraph

quote:

---

quote:

---

Of course it is the "first day."

---

Then it started at "the beginning." That's what makes it "first." If it didn't start at "the beginning," then we're either talking about "later" or we're talking about some other day than the "first."

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that "Day One" (or "One Day") is the absolute first day in existence, not simply the first in a sequence of six days.

quote:

---

But the text doesn't say that. It says that the heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning" and then it describes the six days of "the beginning" and what happened on each of them, starting from the first.

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that the six days are days of the beginning. The text does not say this.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But the question you are ignoring is, "The first day of what?"

---

Of everything.

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that this is the first day of everything, not simply the frist day of six.Your theory would have more support if the text said the first day, the second day, etc. This would not prove your case; it would only make it somewhat more likely. But the text does not say this. Instead, it says "One Day" (or "Day One"), then a second day, a third day, etc. There is no definite article on "day" until "the sixth day." the fact that the first five days are indefinite suggests that they are not viewed as starting at the beginning of everything.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Day One is the first day of the six-day account of the completion of creation.

---

Which commenced at "the beginning."

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that the six days start at "the beginning".

quote:

---

That's what the text directly says: The heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning" and then we get a description of the six days and what happened on them. The heavens were created on day two,

---

False. The text says that this is a separation of already-existing material.

quote:

---

the earth on day three.

---

False. The text says that this is a separation of already-existing material.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This does not mean that there were no days ever before it.

---

Incorrect. That is precisely what it means. For if there were days before it, then it wouldn't be "the beginning" and it wouldn't be the "first" day.

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that "Day One" (or "One Day") is the absolute first day in existence, not simply the first in a sequence of six days.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is nothing in the six day account that describes the creation of either the heavens or the earth.

---

(*blink!*)

​

You did not just say that, did you?

---

Of course I did. Again you are ignoring the Hebrew grammar. "Heavens and earth" is a merism (a figure of speech) for "everything." I.e., verse one says that "in the beginning" God created "everything."You quoted the KJV: Note that the actions on Day Two are a separation of waters which already existed. These waters were not created on either Day One or on Day Two. So when were they created? Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence for the creation of "the waters."Perhaps you are allowing yourself to be misled by the KJV translation of verse 8, with its capitalized "Heaven". The NIV and NET do a more accurate job of translating this verse (except that the NIV, like the KJV, erroneously adds an article to "second day"): You quoted the KJV: Note that the actions on Day Three are a separation of water from land which already existed. God decrees to let land "appear" (ra'a, literally "be seen") not "be created" or to "come into existence." The land was not created on any of the first three days. So when was it created? Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence for the creation of the land.Perhaps you are allowing yourself to be misled by the KJV translation of verse 10, with its capitalized "Earth". The NIV and NET do a more accurate job of translating this verse:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I've repeatedly detailed the grammatical evidence that v.1 was prior to v.3

---

No, you've asserted it, but you haven't shown it.

---

No, I've detailed the Hebrew grammar in basic reading of genesis 1:1. You have yet to respond to any of this evidence in a scholarly fashion. Please try to engage the textual evidence, i.e. the Hebrew grammar and the literary structure of the account.