Summer School Grammar Lesson

(Warning: this is going to put you to sleep unless you are into in-depth apologetics. I should have another post by this Sunday or Monday)

            It’s been awhile since I’ve written explicitly about Genesis, so I’m going to write about it right… now. Dr. DeYoung, in his book “Thousands… Not Billions”, wrote a layman’s level interpretation of an eight-year long project called RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth). This research project was conducted by scientists and challenged the assumptions of today’s dating methods. It also explored dating evidence for a young earth.

            But I’m not writing about science today. At the end of the book, Dr. Steven Boyd (Biblical scholar) wrote a gem of a chapter on the Hebrew behind Genesis. As the Bible has been reinterpreted to accommodate naturalist theories (Evolution, uniformitarianism, Big Bang, etc.), Christians who have compromised based on secular pressure have spread the belief that the Creation account is allegorical. If so, then we can interpret it very broadly. Sort of like how one can interpret a poem broadly because the author gives him license to do so.

            However, what is the correct thing to do? At its most general level, there are two methods of interpreting scripture: exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is using the Bible to interpret itself. When an interpretation is produced, does it stay faithful to what the text itself says?

            Then there is eisegesis. This method of interpreting scripture involves taking something external to the Bible as true, and interpreting the Bible off it. The Bible is true as long as it accommodates this external truth.

            Theistic evolution (TE) and progressive creation (PC) take external theories (naturalism, Evolution, Big Bang, Uniformitarianism) as truth... and the Bible has to be interpreted to accommodate these truths. This is eisegesis because there is precious little Biblical support for these two positions. How can you tell? If someone wants to learn about TE and PC, the Bible is the last place they go.

            Biblical Creation (BC) takes the beginning of Genesis as literal history. This is exegesis because the authority of scripture is absolute, and used to interpret itself. How can you tell? When someone wants to learn about BC, the Bible is the first place they go.

Steven Boyd

            

            So what Dr. Boyd did was look at the Hebrew itself to see if it supports the notion that Genesis is poetical. Now, all it should take is directing someone to Proverbs and Psalms (biblical poetry), then directing them to Genesis (biblical history). The following comparison should dismiss that idea pretty instantly. Proverbs and Psalms are nothing like Genesis*.

            But because many Christians are heaven-bent on reinterpreting Genesis, it’s not that easy. But let’s get to the actual study. Before I do that, I have to define finite Hebrew verbs (the focus of the study). Finite verbs are those that have different forms based on person (I, you, he, they), gender (masculine, feminine), and number (singular, plural). There are four types of finite verbs:

1. Preterite - history - “She swam”
2. Imperfect - present/future/general - “She is swimming/will swim/swims”
3. Perfect - single historical action - “She swam”
4. Waw-perfect - habitual or repeated historical action - “She would/used to swim

            He then took a statistical analysis of clear historical and clear poetical passages of scripture to see if he could find patterns in the verb forms. These patterns might be able to indicate whether or not the beginning of Genesis was meant to be read literally or poetically.

            Also, there are helpful passages called “paired texts” that made the study a little easier. “Paired texts” means that there is both a literal and poetic passage to a single event. Examples are Exodus 14 (history) and Exodus 15:1-19 (Song of Moses, poetry), and Judges 4 (history) and Judges 5 (songs of Deborah and Barak, poetry).

            What did he find? He found that historical passages used preterite verbs an average of 52% of the time (compared to other finite verbs). Poetical passages used preterite verbs an average of 4% of the time. HUGE difference between history and poetry, obviously.

            Before I get to Genesis, I’ll mention specific examples. Judges 3 (history) used preterite verbs 81% of the time. Deuteronomy 32 (poetry) used preterite verbs 17% of the time. So Judges 3 is clearly history, Deuteronomy 32 is clearly poetry.

            It really is that simple.

            Now let’s look at the first two chapters of Genesis. *Drumroll* The beginning of Genesis uses preterite verbs… around 65% of the time! CLEARLY historical. Now, if you did the whole “read biblical poetry, then read biblical history, then compare” test at the beginning of the section, you would’ve come to the same conclusion.

            So grammatically, the Creation account is clearly historical, and should be read as such. Where does this leave TEs and PCs? They have three options: 1) admit their position is unbiblical and switch, 2) interpret ALL other historical passages poetically (to be consistent), 3) keep on keepin’ on. My guess is they’ll go with #3 because they didn’t use the Bible to come to their interpretation of Genesis anyway.

*A mark of poetry is that you can make music to it or you can sing to it. Sing Genesis 6:14-16 with me! Or, if you aren't the best of singers, grab a guitar and play a tune. The passage goes like this:

            "So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.

            This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.

            Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks." (NIV)

            Oh, that does't make for good music or lyrics, does it? I wonder why… hmm… I got it! Maybe that's because it's supposed to be history! So just like you wouldn't go around singing paragraphs from your history textbook, you wouldn't go around singing historical Bible passages! It makes sense… unless you eisegete and are reinterpreting the Bible to fit unbiblical ideas. You would probably sing obituaries at this point ;)