Evidence for God from Science

http://createdevolution.blogspot.com/20 ... ogies.html

If anyone knows Hebrew, can you please tell me if what's said in section 5 of this article is true. Thanks.

As far as I can see what the article is saying is correct, the genealogies are not fully complete and/or literal, our Earth is millions of years old.

I know that. I wanted to know if the word begat in Genesis being in the imperfect tense is correct, or just something the guy made up.

Ahhh, I have no idea myself but there are people here who will know, but be wary that everyone has a bias so their answers may vary.

He is sort of right and actually wrong.

He is right in that, strictly speaking, the verb in question is imperfect, and strictly speaking, imperfect verbs can be translated using the present tense (but PLEASE don't use this as some sort of rule by which you find helpful "translations" to this or that interpretation . . . that is absolutely horrid translational methodology).

Yet he is actually wrong because the imperfect verb is preceded by what Hebrew grammarians calla vav-conversive. Like all things in grammar, especially Hebrew grammar, there lots of technicalities and nuances, but the simple bottom line is that when you attach a vav (which is a letter that translates as "and") before imperfect verbs, it renders them perfect, and when you prefix it to perfect verbs, it renders them imperfect. So, actually, this word ought to be translated with a perfect aspect (Adam begat, not Adam was begetting), which is the way all translations have it, and for that reason.

As a general rule of thumb, be very wary of people who argue that something could be translated in a way that no major translation offers and then go on to build a theological position on that interpretation. Chances are better than not that they are, in those instances, reading their ideas into the text and using grammar to try to justify themselves. Again, that's always bad methodology. That doesn't mean that all translations can't be wrong. It just means that the bar is set VERY high when you are arguing for an unattested translation.

And full disclosure, I am YEC, although I do think the Hebrew text itself not only makes room for but strongly suggests that there are gaps in the genealogies.

Thanks. That being said though, is it still possible that the phrase "And someone lived some years and begat someone" could be used to refer to descendants and not immediate offspring?

Annonymus wrote:Thanks. That being said though, is it still possible that the phrase "And someone lived some years and begat someone" could be used to refer to descendants and not immediate offspring?

Yes. That point is lexical, not grammatical. The "begat" (yalad) certainly has the common meaning of producing a direct offspring, but it seems that it can be broader than that. The language allows that a yaled ("son or child") be both an immediate or even distant (but direct) descendant. So when the text says that X yalad Y, it can be best translated, "X 'became the father of' Y," where X and Y may be separated by several generations.

So there's no doubt about the basic flexibility of the word. The question is just how flexible it can be on a semantic level given teh application of the numbers. Let's illustrate this way:

Suppose John has a son, Mark, when he's 22, and Mark has a son, Frank, when he's 27 (meaning John is 49 when his grandson, Frank, is born). The question is, to we say that Mark "became the father of" Frank when he was 22 (because, in bearing Mark, he then became the father at that moment of Mark and all his descendents), or do we say that Mark became the father of Frank when he was 49 (because that is when Frank was born)?

I tend to side with the former, because while the latter makes more intuitive sense, that would mean that we could continue to speak of someone "becoming the father of" someone else long after they are dead. So Mark, on that view, might "become the father of" a great, great, great . . . great grandson Adam when he is 407! That might make some arguable sense on a philosophical of even genealogical level, but I think that would be an abuse of the Hebrew language. I also happen to think it's a philosophically absurd notion, too, but let's leave that aside as I don't think Moses was particularly interested here in parsing out a nice, formal philosophy.

So, all that is to say that I think the former view is better, and given that, if there are contextual reasons to believe there are gaps in the genealogies (just wanting them to account for an old earth doesn't suffice), then yalad allows for those gaps to exist. As it happens, I think there are such reasons, and so I do affirm some gaps in the genealogies, particularly in Genesis 4 and 5.

Annonymus wrote:I know that. I wanted to know if the word begat in Genesis being in the imperfect tense is correct, or just something the guy made up.

The article quoted this website as a reference in Point 5, which is the theme of your question:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ogies.html

Please take the time to read this as it raises many valid points on how the word translated “begat” - the Hebrew yalad (Strong's number 3205) was used in a broader sense due to the limits of ancient Hebrew vocabulary. For example Deut 32:18 God begat (yalad) the Israelites is one example how this word is used to mean many...

Young Earth folks view this word differently and thus fix their conclusions upon that view. John Millam's article linked to simply presents the case as how the word was used. A person is free to agree or disagree. Please note, I have discovered that Old Earth Creationist (OEC) let's a person freely come to his or her own conclusions on this matter and accepts you as you are no matter if one thinks in terms of YEC or OEC. We present the evidence - and let you decide. However, Young Earth (YEC) folks are most likely to dictate that you must believe as they do with a proverbial - or else - attached too it.

All we can ask is for your to look over the evidence that John Millam presented in the linked article to this site. Do your own research and sort through all the points of view and reach your own conclusion.
-
-
-

And I would just note, Annonymus, that statements like this:

Young Earth folks view this word differently and thus fix their conclusions upon that view. John Millam's article linked to simply presents the case as how the word was used. A person is free to agree or disagree. Please note, I have discovered that Old Earth Creationist (OEC) let's a person freely come to his or her own conclusions on this matter and accepts you as you are no matter if one thinks in terms of YEC or OEC. We present the evidence - and let you decide. However, Young Earth (YEC) folks are most likely to dictate that you must believe as they do with a proverbial - or else - attached too it.

are common out of the OEC camp. They often prefer to burn down straw man arguments and to poison the well when it comes to the YEC/OEC debate, looking to besmirch those who disagree with them under the guise of being reasonable open minded.

As noted above, I am a YEC advocate who takes yalad in the broader sense when dealing with the genealogies in Gen 4 and 5. Some, of course, take it in a narrow sense. But YEC advocates in general do NOT that yalad can ONLY refer to production of a direct descendent. Like the use of yom ("day"), the argument is how it ought to be understood in its particular context.

Just FYI.

Jac3510 wrote:And I would just note, Annonymus, that statements like this:

Young Earth folks view this word differently and thus fix their conclusions upon that view. John Millam's article linked to simply presents the case as how the word was used. A person is free to agree or disagree. Please note, I have discovered that Old Earth Creationist (OEC) let's a person freely come to his or her own conclusions on this matter and accepts you as you are no matter if one thinks in terms of YEC or OEC. We present the evidence - and let you decide. However, Young Earth (YEC) folks are most likely to dictate that you must believe as they do with a proverbial - or else - attached too it.

are common out of the OEC camp. They often prefer to burn down straw man arguments and to poison the well when it comes to the YEC/OEC debate, looking to besmirch those who disagree with them under the guise of being reasonable open minded.

As noted above, I am a YEC advocate who takes yalad in the broader sense when dealing with the genealogies in Gen 4 and 5. Some, of course, take it in a narrow sense. But YEC advocates in general do NOT that yalad can ONLY refer to production of a direct descendent. Like the use of yom ("day"), the argument is how it ought to be understood in its particular context.

Just FYI.

A debate - no - actually helping to provide an answer to the original question... using the reference from the poster's article since it is from this website

I do not think OEC are strawmen poisoning the well either
-
-
-

Jac3510 wrote:And I would just note, Annonymus, that statements like this:

Young Earth folks view this word differently and thus fix their conclusions upon that view. John Millam's article linked to simply presents the case as how the word was used. A person is free to agree or disagree. Please note, I have discovered that Old Earth Creationist (OEC) let's a person freely come to his or her own conclusions on this matter and accepts you as you are no matter if one thinks in terms of YEC or OEC. We present the evidence - and let you decide. However, Young Earth (YEC) folks are most likely to dictate that you must believe as they do with a proverbial - or else - attached too it.

are common out of the OEC camp. They often prefer to burn down straw man arguments and to poison the well when it comes to the YEC/OEC debate, looking to besmirch those who disagree with them under the guise of being reasonable open minded.

As noted above, I am a YEC advocate who takes yalad in the broader sense when dealing with the genealogies in Gen 4 and 5. Some, of course, take it in a narrow sense. But YEC advocates in general do NOT that yalad can ONLY refer to production of a direct descendent. Like the use of yom ("day"), the argument is how it ought to be understood in its particular context.

Just FYI.

So why do you believe that there are gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?

To quote from a very old thread:

• I would point out that there are two geneologies that have to be dealt with, not just the one in Gen 11. So let's start with Gen 5, which is both in the context of 11 and prior to it. Now, there is every reason to believe that Gen 5 does contain gaps. The reasoning is simple. As you know, the word for "begat" or "became the father of" doesn't mean "became the biological father of" any more than "yom" means "solar day." It CAN mean that. But it doesn't have to. So this is where standard context comes in mine. Does it mean "became the father of" or "became the ancestor of"? A comparison to Seth's line with Cain's line is very good reason to believe the choice of names was selective. Second, the number of generations between Adam and Noah and the total number of families between Adam and Lamech's children are both 10. This, again, tells me the geneology is likely selective. Finally, an important theological comparison is being made between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain, a context that is extremely important for a proper understanding of the Genesis flood. If the geneologies were not selected to bring out that point, it would have been lost, and the basis for the Flood would have been obscured.
  
  Genesis 11 shows the same pattern. You have ten generations between Shem and Abram. Further, chapter 11 is separated from the table of nations in chapter 10, and Shem's line is repeated, which tells you that Moses had a special interest in Shem's line (for obvious reasons). Since, then, we have very strong evidence that there are gaps in the geneologies in 5, there is very good reason, given the similarities between 5 and 11, to posit the same in 11. That other passages of Scripture assume this in their giving of the geneology is a nice confirmation, but unrelated to the exegesis of these passages in and of themselves.

In the next couple of posts I offer more details and examples of the kinds of similarities I briefly mention here.

Jac3510 wrote:To quote from a very old thread:

• I would point out that there are two geneologies that have to be dealt with, not just the one in Gen 11. So let's start with Gen 5, which is both in the context of 11 and prior to it. Now, there is every reason to believe that Gen 5 does contain gaps. The reasoning is simple. As you know, the word for "begat" or "became the father of" doesn't mean "became the biological father of" any more than "yom" means "solar day." It CAN mean that. But it doesn't have to. So this is where standard context comes in mine. Does it mean "became the father of" or "became the ancestor of"? A comparison to Seth's line with Cain's line is very good reason to believe the choice of names was selective. Second, the number of generations between Adam and Noah and the total number of families between Adam and Lamech's children are both 10. This, again, tells me the geneology is likely selective. Finally, an important theological comparison is being made between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain, a context that is extremely important for a proper understanding of the Genesis flood. If the geneologies were not selected to bring out that point, it would have been lost, and the basis for the Flood would have been obscured.
  
  Genesis 11 shows the same pattern. You have ten generations between Shem and Abram. Further, chapter 11 is separated from the table of nations in chapter 10, and Shem's line is repeated, which tells you that Moses had a special interest in Shem's line (for obvious reasons). Since, then, we have very strong evidence that there are gaps in the geneologies in 5, there is very good reason, given the similarities between 5 and 11, to posit the same in 11. That other passages of Scripture assume this in their giving of the geneology is a nice confirmation, but unrelated to the exegesis of these passages in and of themselves.

In the next couple of posts I offer more details and examples of the kinds of similarities I briefly mention here.

One final question. If the ages of the fathers aren't meant to set up a timeline, then what are they used for. I heard somewhere on this site that it was because old age at fatherhood is a sign of blessedness, but what about in Genesis 11, where the ages of fatherhood are much shorter.

On my view, for several reasons:

1. It was actually the case that they lived that long. For all the conversations about literary and theological points, let's not forget the importance of historical accuracy; as to why Moses felt the need to raise that particular historical point, we can further say,
2. To show that early mankind lived much longer due to their closer proximity to Adam, which is to say, that sin was in the process of infecting the world more and more; note that right after the genealogy in Gen. 5, you have the story of the Flood in Gen. 6, and the impetus for that being that mankind had become terribly wicked; and,
3. To show that no matter how long mankind lived, that he would die due to his sin; that is, sin and death are not the natural state of man. If you read the texts carefully, you will see that though people lived a very long time (which suggests that our present relatively short lives are not normal), it was still always the case that "he died." It's a terrible refrain that is repeated and repeated and repeated . . . "and he died," almost like a dirge, the only exception being Enoch, whom we are told "walked with God."

In short, the long ages (in Seth's line, mind you, not Cain's) followed by death shows that sin and death are unnatural, that they are consequences of the fall in chp 3. The vivid picture for the first readers--and for us--is that sin brings death, but that it ought not be so; we are not made for sin, but we are made instead for continued existence in righteousness.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

edit: by the way, I think Gen. 11 pretty strongly supports this view. You have 900yo men shortly after the fall; you have 400yo men after the flood; you have Moses being very old at 120; and by his day, the average life expectancy was barely 50. Any reader can see a trend there, and in the context of Gen 1-11, it seems clear enough to me that the presence of sin is what accounts for it.

Jac3510 wrote:On my view, for several reasons:

1. It was actually the case that they lived that long. For all the conversations about literary and theological points, let's not forget the importance of historical accuracy; as to why Moses felt the need to raise that particular historical point, we can further say,
2. To show that early mankind lived much longer due to their closer proximity to Adam, which is to say, that sin was in the process of infecting the world more and more; note that right after the genealogy in Gen. 5, you have the story of the Flood in Gen. 6, and the impetus for that being that mankind had become terribly wicked; and,
3. To show that no matter how long mankind lived, that he would die due to his sin; that is, sin and death are not the natural state of man. If you read the texts carefully, you will see that though people lived a very long time (which suggests that our present relatively short lives are not normal), it was still always the case that "he died." It's a terrible refrain that is repeated and repeated and repeated . . . "and he died," almost like a dirge, the only exception being Enoch, whom we are told "walked with God."

In short, the long ages (in Seth's line, mind you, not Cain's) followed by death shows that sin and death are unnatural, that they are consequences of the fall in chp 3. The vivid picture for the first readers--and for us--is that sin brings death, but that it ought not be so; we are not made for sin, but we are made instead for continued existence in righteousness.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

edit: by the way, I think Gen. 11 pretty strongly supports this view. You have 900yo men shortly after the fall; you have 400yo men after the flood; you have Moses being very old at 120; and by his day, the average life expectancy was barely 50. Any reader can see a trend there, and in the context of Gen 1-11, it seems clear enough to me that the presence of sin is what accounts for it.

Thanks. I personally consider myself an Old Earth Creationist, but I don't look down on people who believe the Earth is young. The important thing is that Jesus loved us enough to give his life for us, and that if we believe then we'll be in heaven one day.