Objections.
On Nov 19, 2:51 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> If you knew the details yourself, you would have known better than to
clai=
m that
> the difference was merely 'perspective'. For the very im****tant detail
you=
> conceal is that _both_ accounts rely heavily on a Hebrew construction
know=
n as
> "waw-consecutive": they imply that the things created were created _in
the=
order
> listed_ by each account. But these orders are different!
>
After a little more research, an easy thing to do, Matthew....
"Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?" Mark F. Rooker
=2E.quote
The Gap Theory
This view states Genesis 1:1 refers to the original creation of the
universe, and sometime after this original creation Satan rebelled
against God and was cast from heaven to the earth. As a result of
Satan=E2=80=99s making his habitation on the earth, the earth was judged.
God=E2=80=99s original creation was then placed under judgment, and the
resu=
lt
of this judgment is the state described in Genesis 1:2: The earth was
=E2=80=9Cformless and void=E2=80=9D (=E2=80=A6whOb=C3=8Ew =E2=80=A6wh;Ot).
I=
saiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23,
which include the only other occurrences of the phrase
=E2=80=A6whOb=C3=8Ew =
=E2=80=A6wh;Ot,
are cited as passages that substantiate the understanding of
=E2=80=9Cformle=
ss
and void=E2=80=9D in Genesis 1:2 in a negative sense, because these words
occur in both passages in the context of judgment oracles.
Waltke points out that this view conflicts with a proper
understanding of the syntactical function of the waw conjunction in
the phrase X=C2=AErDaDh=E2=97=8Aw, =E2=80=9Cand the earth=E2=80=9D (Gen
1:2)=
.. The construction of
waw plus a noun does not convey sequence but rather introduces a
disjunctive clause. The clause thus must be cir***stantial to verse 1
or 3. It cannot be viewed as an independent clause (=E2=80=9CAnd the earth
became=E2=80=9D) as held by the sup****ters of the gap theory.
Furthermore Waltke rejects the proposal that the occurrence of
=E2=80=9Cformless and void=E2=80=9D in Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 34:11
proves=
that
Genesis 1:2 is the result of God=E2=80=99s judgment. Scripture nowhere
state=
s
that God judged the world when Satan fell
In view of these objections, the gap theory should no longer be
considered a viable option in explaining the meaning of Genesis
1:1=E2=80=93=
3.
The view is grammatically suspect, and Scripture is silent on the idea
that the earth was judged when Satan fell. Waltke=E2=80=99s critique of
the
gap theory is devastating.
=2E.......In the summary-statement view of Genesis 1:1, grammatical
structure is intricately connected to the interpretation of the
phrases =E2=80=9Cheavens and earth=E2=80=9D (v. 2) as the completed
heavens =
and earth
and =E2=80=9Cformless and void=E2=80=9D as the antithesis of creation. In
th=
e previous
article these interpretations were shown to be open to serious
question. In addition Waltke asserts that the subordination of Genesis
1:2 to verse 3 should not be viewed as an anomaly, arguing that Young
listed several illustrations of the cir***stantial clause preceding
the main verb. This evidence is problematic, however, as none of the
examples cited has the same structure as Genesis 2:2=E2=80=933, that is, a
w=
aw
disjunctive clause followed by waw consecutive prefixed form. On the
other hand it seems that such passages as Judges 8:11 and Jonah 3:3
are more helpful parallels to the grammatical structure reflected in
Genesis 1:1=E2=80=932, where a finite verb is followed by a waw
disjunctive
clause containing the verb h=C3=8EyDh. This clause qualifies a term in the
immediately preceding independent clause. The independent clause makes
a statement and the following cir***stantial clause describes
parenthetically an element in the main clause. This would confirm the
traditional interpretation that verse 1 contains the main independent
clause, with Genesis 1:2 consisting of three subordinate
cir***stantial clauses describing what the just-mentioned earth looked
like after it was created.
end quote
Bruce K. Waltke in "The Restitution Theory" writes:
The Restitution Theory
By two contrasting grammatical analyses of Genesis 1:1=E2=80=932, this
mode=
l
is constructed. The majority of expositors advocating this mode of
thought regard verse 2 as a sequential clause after verse 1, but
Merrill F. Unger, while holding this model, thinks that verse 2 is a
cir***stantial clause with verse 1.
The View That Verse 2 Is a Sequential Clause after Verse 1
According to the majority contending for this understanding of
biblical cosmogony, Genesis 1:1 presents an account of an originally
perfect creation. Satan was ruler of this world, but because of his
rebellion described in Isaiah 14:12=E2=80=9317, sin entered the universe.
As=
a
consequence, God judged the world and reduced it to the chaotic state
described in Genesis 1:2. Later God recreated it according to the
description given in Genesis 1:3=E2=80=9331. Thus there is a time gap of
unknown length between verses 1 and 2. This theory is traditionally
referred to as the =E2=80=9Cgap theory.=E2=80=9D The view gained wide
accept=
ance
through The Scofield Reference Bible notes. Regarding the word create
in Genesis 1, Scofield wrote, =E2=80=9CIt refers to the dateless past, and
gives scope to all the geological ages=E2=80=9D; and concerning the words
without form he continued:
Jeremiah 4:23=E2=80=9326; Isaiah 24:1 and 45:18, clearly indicate that
the
earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of the divine
judgment. The earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe.
There are not wanting intimations which connect it with a previous
testing and fall of angels. See Ezekiel 28:12=E2=80=9315 and Isaiah
14:9=E2=
=80=9314,
which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon. The
proponents of this view translate the opening words of Genesis 1 in
this way: =E2=80=9CIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,
a=
nd
then the earth became=E2=80=A6.=E2=80=9D
Sup****t.
It should be noted that this view was not dreamed up merely to meet
the scientific challenge. D. F. Payne stated: =E2=80=9CThe
=E2=80=98gap=E2=
=80=99 theory
itself, as a matter of exegesis, antedated the scientific challenge,
but the latter gave it a new impetus.=E2=80=9D Arthur Custance, in his
book
Without Form and Void, attempts to show that this interpretation has
its roots in early Jewish tradition and throughout the history of the
church. Unfortunately, this book, which is filled with much helpful
information, is marred by egregious errors.
Defenders of this view also appeal to logic, philology, and theology.
Since =E2=80=9Cthe heavens and the earth=E2=80=9D in verse 1 means
=E2=80=9C=
the organized
universe,=E2=80=9D and verse 2 speaks of the earth in chaos, and verses
3=E2=
=80=9331
speak of the organization of the universe again, it is plausible to
suppose that verses 1=E2=80=933 describe three successive stages in the
history of the earth.
Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that simple hyh can mean =E2=80=9Cto
become=E2=80=9D as in Genesis 3:20 which reads: =E2=80=9CFor she became
[hyh=
without
l] the mother of all the living.=E2=80=9D
Moreover, in Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 34:11, the only other two
passages beside Genesis 1:2 where =E2=80=9Cwaste and void=E2=80=9D
(=E2=80=
=A6wht=E2=80=A6whbw) occur
together, the rhyming compound describes a state effected by God=E2=80=99s
judgment. It is argued, therefore, that since in these passages the
expression is used in connection with God=E2=80=99s judgment, the same
inference must be drawn in the case of Genesis 1:2.
Finally, this interpretation enables us to make sense of the career
of Satan which is otherwise fraught with mystery.
Commenting on Isaiah=E2=80=99s vision, =E2=80=9CHow art thou fallen from
hea=
ven, O
Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground=E2=80=9D
(I=
sa
14:12, AV), Scofield said, =E2=80=9CThis tremendous passage marks the
beginning of sin in the universe.=E2=80=9D In the record of the
=E2=80=9Cfal=
l of man=E2=80=9D
in Genesis 3, Satan appears without introduction; the chapter assumes
that he is already here on earth. Where did he come from? Is it not
probable, these expositors suggest, that his fall mentioned by Isaiah
should be connected with the judgment of the earth implied in Genesis
1:2? By systematic thought and with the help of Genesis 1:2, the
career of Satan is thus filled in.
Objections:
But this understanding has not been accepted by the overwhelming
majority of exegetes because it cannot stand the test of close
grammatical analysis. For example, the theory assumes that the
=E2=80=9Cand=
=E2=80=9D
which introduces verses 2 and 3 are identical in meaning and that both
have the idea of sequence, =E2=80=9Cand then.=E2=80=9D However, the
conjunct=
ions
introducing verses 2 and 3 are different in the original text. The waw
introducing verse 3 does in fact denote sequence and is called by
grammarians the =E2=80=9Cwaw consecutive.=E2=80=9D But the waw introducing
v=
erse 2 is
different in both form and function; grammarians refer to this waw as
the =E2=80=9Cwaw conjunctive.=E2=80=9D The waw conjunctive may introduce
var=
ious types
of clauses (to be discussed below) but it does not introduce an
independent sequential clause. It is inconceivable that Moses would
have used a construction which does not indicate sequence in contrast
to other constructions open to him, if this had been his intent.
Now let us critically reappraise the argument that =E2=80=A6whbw
=E2=80=A6w=
ht in
verse 2 came about through God=E2=80=99s judgment because elsewhere
God=E2=
=80=99s
wrath effected it.
These Hebrew words also appear in Jeremiah 4:23. Anderson says of
Jeremiah 4:23=E2=80=9326: =E2=80=9CThis moving ****trayal of threatening
chao=
s is
undoubtedly one of the finest pieces in the literature of ancient
Israelite prophecy and, for that matter, in world literature as a
whole.=E2=80=9D Jeremiah=E2=80=99s dire vision is as follows:
I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void [=E2=80=A6whbw
=
=E2=80=A6
wht] and to the heavens, and they had no light.
I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the
hills moved to and fro.
I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the
heavens had fled.
I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, and all its
cities were pulled down before the LORD before His fierce anger.
Scholars have not failed to notice that these verses serve as a
counterpart to the first chapter of Genesis . Fishbane noted the
following parallels between the two texts:
Gen 1:1=E2=80=932:4a Jer
4:23=E2=80=93=
26
Pre-creation =E2=80=A6whbw =E2=80=A6wht =E2=80=A6whbw =E2=80=A6wht
First day Light Light
Second day Heavens Heavens
Third day Dry land Mountains and hills
Fourth day Luminaries Light
Fifth day Birds Birds
Sixth day Man Man
Seventh day Sabbath Fierce wrath
But in almost unbearable words, Jeremiah sees the Creator undoing His
work. Note the bouleversement, the reversal, of the cosmos back to
chaos.
Earth =E2=80=A6whbw =E2=80=A6wht
Heavens No light
Mountains Shaking (a technical term for final shaking of the world at
the return of chaos)
Man No man
Birds Fled
Fruitful land A wilderness
Cities Dismantled
=E2=80=94
end quote.
I'm sure these quotes are going to come out all mixed up but they
will still introduce the reader to some of the issues involved. It is
also interesting to note that Zeph 1 also speaks of a de-creation
order during the judgment in the Day of the Lord.
These things are symbiotic and you can't play loosey goosey in
one passage without it causing effects on all of Scripture. Only
the historical/grammatical hermeneutic "rightly divides" the Truth
of Scripture.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
