Lecture 06: The Book of Genesis - Dr. Bill Barrick

in saying that Genesis 1 is not poetry of what do we mean by that what are some of the pieces of evidence one is it lacks parallelism now it has repetition and it has a repeated formula for each day we saw that when we went through the chart on Genesis 1 but that is not the same as Hebrew poetic parallelism and there is a distinct difference there it doesn't match and then take a look at this text in Psalm 104 it's very clearly have it has it very clearly has poetic parallelism covering yourself light as with a cloak stretching out heaven like a tent curtain notice the paralleling they're covering stretching and you have the light and you have the heavens and then you have a cloak and you have a curtain he lays the beams of his upper chambers in the waters he makes the clouds his chariot he walks upon the wings the wind he makes the winds his messengers flaming fire his ministers especially verse 4 you see a parallelism that you do not find in Genesis 1 the grammar is not the grammar of poetry in Genesis 1 the grammar of poetry has a limited use of the definite article yet it's not rare in poetry it's relatively infrequent when you're translating poetry you're always having to add an English article the because it's not there in the Hebrew and if it's a none are thrust noun a noun without an article do we always translate it without an article no way and if not if you want to have smooth English and even the readers in Hebrew in their concepts are thinking of definite or identifiable entities they're not thinking of indefinite and so the limited use of the definite article in Hebrew is found in poetry also limited use of the relative pronoun a share in Hebrew poetry doesn't mean it doesn't exist it is used from time to time but it's infrequent it's infrequent and then there's a limited use of sequential verb forms the way you told form of the verb that's used primarily in narrative it is used in poetry it can be used in poetry it can be used with some of the same meanings or uses that you have it narrative it can be used to show sequence can be used to show contrast can be used to show background information it can be used to give an epic so jet achill explanation it can be used in a variety of ways the dominant one being sequential either chronological or logical sequence you find the same usage in poetry but it's far less frequent in fact it's so infrequent that when the way Tolle occurs in poetry you've got to ask yourself why did the author choose to use it that's one of the first questions and you've got to determine did he intend it to be taken as sequential or some other means why did he choose it is it barely variety for variety sake how does it bear vary and differ from the other verb forms used in poetry and then there's no imagery or metaphor in genesis one I mean just look again at that passage in Psalm 104 covering yourself as with a cloak anything like that in Genesis one at all or stretching out heaven like a tent curtain or the beams of his upper chambers when you're talking about the waters or is there any reference to his chariot or him walking enantiomorphic expression there upon the wings of the wind no none of that is there in Genesis one there is no imagery at all in Genesis one that's the fascinating thing now there are some hood identify imagery as being part of Genesis 1 2 and I would agree as far as we go with the participle america--the which has the idea of hovering or possibly brooding that it is a living creature like a hen or something brooding over her nest that is potential implied figure there that is found there it could be looked at as a theory or morphism making it like an act of a beast showing them that Ruach elohim is a sentient being a personal being as opposed to wind and so that is one that you'd have to look at and understand a little bit better but other than that there's nothing found in the way of figurative language imagery like what you have here this is very clearly the poetic account of creation as compared to Genesis one yes yes sometimes they bring that up you're talking about the biblical critics the higher critics bringing that up they'll bring it up on occasion however they will ignore it when it's an argument works contrary to them for example when they argue that the reference to Chaldeans in Genesis chapter 11 is a anachronism they will argue on the foundation of the Assyrian historical chronicles from the eighth century BC and say that since the Assyrian Chronicles referred to the Chaldeans as something that came about or happened or they become identified for the first time in ancient Near Eastern literature extra biblical literature in the eighth century BC indicates that Genesis 11 36 cannot be considered historically accurate that it has to be something that's put back in a text at a much later date and so it's an anachronism it's perhaps updating the text to a more contemporary people than what was originally in the text at the start and if you approach them and say but how do why do you trust the Assyrian histories more than the biblical texts they will absolutely forget about the political skewing and propaganda that is so obvious and blatant in those texts even though the asuri ologists themselves secular asuri ologists will point out that fact that those histories are terribly skewed in inaccurate and Kenneth kitchen has pointed out if you're going to accept what the Assyrian histories have to say then we're really in trouble because that means then that none of the Pharaohs of Egypt mentioned the Bible have any support in the Assyrian histories and therefore would have to be denied historicity because he says there's only three Pharaoh's in mention at all in all the Assyrian histories and so if we make the Syrian histories our benchmark of historical accuracy it creates problems even with the historical documents in Egypt itself about the Pharaohs and so it depends on where you're going and what argument and what debate you're talking about is whether or not they'll claim that or well they'll bring it up okay now the problem is here sometimes we're the same way and that's where we need to be more consistent in the way we treat these things why adopt that characteristic of ignoring certain evidence when we need to really deal with it let's face it we can say I don't know how to respond to that I recognize that that's definitely true here but I'm working on it or I'm waiting for the right answer you know so there's there's ways to handle that without just ignoring it or denying it okay other imagery here you covered it with the deep as with a garment I at your rebuke they fled the sound of your Thunder they hurried away talking about when the waters leave the face of the earth and dry land appears we talk about historical narrative historical narrative has chronological sequence so we would expect chronological sequence in Genesis 1 if its historical narrative we can expect formulaic repetitions you have formulaic repetitions for example in historical narrative in numbers chapter 7 dealing with the 12 days of dedicated offerings that are highlighting the establishment of the tabernacle initiation of its ministry and by the way I think Daniel tasks a question if I remember right about the day 1 in number 7 it is not yell Mehcad I was wrong there it is it uses bad yo Maharis shown so different phrases used the phraseology on through the rest there other than the biome being used but it's yom and then you have a number is very similar to that in genesis but that first one is not identical wanted to clarify that and correct that before when a further but there you have formulaic very formulaic expressions you have twelve repetitions and you have a summary repeating it again in fact you have an introduction that also repeats you have fourteen formulaic repetitions of the offerings that were brought you have formulaic repetition in the genealogies so-and-so lives to a certain age and he begets a son names him this he lives so many years afterwards be getting sons and daughters and he dies at the age of such-and-such and it's repeated over and over and over again that's formulary formulaic and that is repetition and it is historical narrative and I think as I mentioned we were going through Genesis 1 that in reality that is where we have the best comparison where we're at this repetition of pattern God said God speech the result God's work naming God's view and the day that's close to the pattern of genealogies especially the way it's tied to a chronology day 1 day 2 day 3 day 4 etc and we can compare Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 where you have this is the record of the generations of it's used of the creation activity itself and it's used later of the count of men in a genealogy so it's very clear association of the record of creation as being a historical record of the same nature as a historical record of a genealogy using the toledo formula for it now in looking at that let's not misunderstand we can get so focused upon the historical narrative of genesis 1 that we forget to think about the aspect of the supernatural number one the supernatural nature of creation itself number two the supernatural nature of the revelation concerning creation there is no person there to view it no human being was in existence and so it's obvious that the record had to be supernaturally given it had to come from God himself or it had to be made up by man out of whole cloth with no basis whatsoever we're left with no other options gentlemen and as we mentioned for the secular scientists they have no witness therefore the origins of the universe or the origins of the earth or nor the origins of man and they're left in the same boat of having to deal with possible circumstantial evidence and they're dealing with what they think is a physical record in the earth or in the rocks whereas we're depending upon a written record in biblical account and we're looking at the special revelation as being god-given and that makes a huge distinction between us the secular scientists we're operating by faith they're operating by faith their faith is in the human methodology and human observation of physical evidence our faith is based upon God having given revelation supernaturally and believing that and accepting it and sometimes then we get involved in circular argument why do you believe the record because I believe it right because I believe it's dependable why do you believe it's dependable because I compared other passes of Scripture I see the dependability or we say well Jesus believed it therefore I believe it well what on what basis do you believe Jesus believed it because the scripture says so so you believe what the scripture says because the scripture says the only way out of that gentleman is just to say yes because that's exactly what it is all right there's comes a point at which even in the disposition of faith there is a certain amount of circular reasoning that we engage in and rather than avoid it or deny it let's be honest and say yes and that's what makes it really a total amount of faith and then you have to explain that faith and I think part of it is unexplainable because that faith is a gift of God it's his work in us Philippians 1:29 it is given unto you not only to suffer for his sake Christ's sake but to believe in Him and it's our spirit which sing together with his spirit that we are the children of God Romans 8:16 and we accept then the supernatural self witness of Scripture claiming that it's the Word of God we believe it because it says it and that is something that cannot be accepted by someone who's an unbeliever that doesn't fit their worldview we do have a different worldview and so rather than the diet rather than try to explain the way we've just got to accept that and say the only answer for you to see and understand what I believe about this is for you to come by faith to Christ - and then come back to the word and see what God the Holy Spirit teaches you and what his spirit witnesses with your spirit about in confirming its truthfulness the reality everything's here something happened we got here some way it's talking about something that is real not something is hypothetical it's not talking about something abstract it's talking about something that's physical there is a reality here and as we look at it that reality of according to Scripture includes a God who is creator and as control of all who's sovereign we accept the historical testimony confirmed by the historical testimony of those who come along who are trustworthy such as Jesus himself such as for example and again here we have - it's a matter of faith the secular scientists or secular historians isn't going to believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments written by God on the tablets of stone there's no way they're going to accept that that involves a miracle and a miracle is a supernatural intervention into the natural processes of and the secular scientist does not leave room for that at all and so we look at historical testimony they will not look at that but I look at that fourth commandment as absolute testimony of God Himself saying not man that that's what occurred the chronological data we're still working on a lot of that but I believe there's sufficient chronological data and the Scriptures to give us some clothes configuration of some dates for perhaps for the flood dates for the patriarchs dates for perhaps creation in a general sense not putting it in millions of years but perhaps in thousands of years it give us a pattern a biblical history if we accept the pattern given here in Genesis 1 to 11 except his history then that's a pattern with which we continue to apply the same hernán hermeneutic to watch what follows in Genesis 12 and the rest of the Old Testament if we can't apply the same hermeneutic to the first 11 chapters as to those which follow why why not what prevents it and usually the answer has to do with human reason or secular science etc now let's talk a little bit about the framework hypothesis there's an article an essay in your textbook on the framework hypothesis by Robert McCabe he's professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary a very dear and close friend he sent one of the students here to give us dr. doctor's degree Kyle Dunham who's now teaching at Mid America not meet America excuse me Central Baptist Virginia Beach and it's where he's teaching and Bob and I have interests in Genesis and Ecclesiastes I wrote a commentary on Ecclesiastes he's writing a commentary on Ecclesiastes now for us in the evangelical exegetical commentary series I'm writing commentary on Genesis he's always had a interest in Genesis and you see that by a very excellent response to the framework hypothesis here and the framework hypothesis comes about by the way that we look at or some have looked at the six days of creation when I look at it I see a parallel here to the unformed and unfilled the idea of unformed and empty or void that we have info who ovo who in chapter one verse two so there are three acts of forming or three instance of forming light from darkness the upper from the lower waters and lower waters from dry land so you have the rising of the dry land and then you have light givers filling the firmament and providing additional light in fact a light that replaces the light of God that I believe is what is used in the first three days then you have fish and birds that fill the waters and the air that's expanse that is between the waters as well as the lower waters and then on the dry land you have land animals and man now some in looking at this rather than seeing it as a reasonable logical order in sequence are saying that these are really parallel the way I put it here in the chart they would emphasize keep it that way they would say get away from the numbers here of taking them literally that that is merely a literary convention and therefore the way ik toll forms the verb used between and the references to the day being there came to be evening and there came to the morning day such-and-such also ought not to be taken as literal time references and that really it is a literary organization that helps parallel so that it's using the six days to come about with a seventh day the seventh day being the Sabbath perhaps an implication as Mark foo tato takes it that this is a sabbatical arrangement and therefore it was probably written or composed in the time of the battle against the prophet Bale the false defaults God excuse me Bale during the time of the prophet Elijah Elijah and so he's really attributed to a yahwist ik document in essence and he sees this as framework hypothesis that it's a framework a literary framework to describe and organize what happened in creation without having any true chronological or sequential implications but merely being parallels of perhaps existence or preparation or fulfillment yes right just been trying to confuse us with these numbers did they provide any biblical or biblical examples of authors using not in that particular sense they do offer examples from ancient Near Eastern literature where the number 7 plays a major role in some of the creation accounts but the number 7 is not relegated to 7 days and it's certainly in the ancient Near Eastern accounts outside Scripture doesn't tell us a sequence of days or use numbers with those days at all but there is a dominant use of the number 7 and then they will hypothesize that here it is applied to days because in the Hebrew culture and society this meant more because of the sabbatical concept and so in essence this is taking either a Yahweh stick document that is a few titles way of taking it or some take this as the priestly document and this is a means of helping to establish the authenticity and the authority of the Sabbath observance and so it is written as a theological treatise or argument supporting the observance of Sabbath and therefore since that's its only purpose it should not be taken as a record of actual creation no he does not he doesn't accept that dock merit pots he will accept the framework hypothesis but not the documentary okay all right as you read McCabe's essay I think you're going to find the best response he has a fuller essay that is published in two parts in the Detroit Baptist Theological Journal that was published prior to his publishing this essay in coming to grips with Genesis and it has a few more things in there he had a little bit more space in which to do it but also in this one since it's later he has refined some of his argumentation and he has purposely eliminated some of the things he thought were really minor to focus on the major and so overall you'll find this probably the better written of the two but you will find a few extra things in the other especially perhaps some more references to some of the other people who hold the documentary hypothesis not documentary but excuse me framework hypothesis so you'll find it very good I've had many people ask me you know where do I get a response to the framework hypothesis this is the best place it really is that in his to his two-part article in the Detroit Baptist Theological journal very excellent very well done there have been a few tried to respond to his essay here usually it's in a book review where they've attempted a very limited response but I've not read anything yet that has really taken it on and tried to answer in fact to tell you the truth this book has been virtually ignored out there by most scholars they they know that we hold to a young earth they know that that is one of the things being pointed out here and they just absolutely ignored I talked to one of them about it who said why I just ignored that because after all I I terry Martinson this is associated with Answers in Genesis Ken Ham because I wasn't the slightest interested in reading your propaganda and I said but you if you haven't looked at it you don't even real you don't know if it's really scholarly or starlings approach I asked him also about the rate books that Stephen Boyd published his article I said have you looked at that oh no no no I see are again there their apologetics are for a young earth I say well don't you realize that they're the more research-oriented branch of Genesis and creation studies and that that volume is intended to respond to things like the use of dating methodologies for determining the date of rocks or the earth everything and that the one article and there has to do with statistics in an analyzing Hebrew literature and they say no didn't realize that at all but they purposely ignored that's why for example in Matthew's commentary you go through and figure out how many times does he refer to some of the creationist materials he's one of the few who even mentions them but I think he has two references and that's it ice talked to our seas pearl junior and we were talking about the the idea that creation literature creationists and literature is ignored by all the scholars in fact I was even talking to John Collins about that who wrote this volume and I told him I said you know you have very little reference to creationist materials interpretation anything here it's as though you don't believe creationists can even exegete the Genesis text why have you ignored it and he says well because I just have an inherent suspicion of the arguments and the persuasion and your approach primarily because of dealing with Ken Ham well Ken Ham is like wellhausen he's a popularizer of the creationist viewpoints and he's an evangelist and he's constantly using that type of approach and that fit well or sit well in scholarly context but unfortunately then he colors all of us with that same blanket and says oh you're all like can him no we're not and I'm not saying Ken Ham is wrong as approach but the fact is there are those who are seriously engaging the text exegetically and the original languages there are those who are engaging the scientific evidence out there in a serious fashion and they aren't just people that you can write off their Harvard graduates there's Princetonian z-- there are people here who are recognized scientists in their fields and recognized exegetes who are publishing and judged by their peers some whom you accept and some you don't and why are you ignoring us and the answer I always get is that well it's not put out by the normal publishers this is put out by master books why didn't you publish this by someone more dependable and more recognized as a scholarly publisher like Baker or like Birdman's or Zondervan or PNR well we tried to get it published by those they would not publish it and it's happened with a large number of works in that fashion it is plain ignored the head of Crossway told me very specifically I'm sorry we've chosen whom we will support in this debate and we're not going to publish anything to the contrary that's it end of story end of argument and that that is a prejudice that exists out there gentlemen that you just have to realize is there you face it and unfortunately that has led to some of our evangelical brothers willing to say okay I'm going to play an agnostic role from now on because I want to be published I want to be heard I want these publishers to accept accept me and therefore in order to get that done I will give up my convictions about Genesis one and other matters as well it's not just Genesis one where this happens it happens in other areas has areas of prophecy as well I'll give up even writing about it I'll give up arguing I'll give up studying I'll give up publishing in order to become published to become recognized and to have a name out there and I think that's sad because it demonstrates a certain amount of hubris on our part in and in the sense selfishness and greed that we're only in it to have a name and we want to be known as academics and so we'll give up something if need be in order to be still considered academics I found in the Grand Canyon ministry as I gone through and even had old earthers in the canyon that once they have heard us out they often say I will never ignore that literature again the next time I write I'm going to be citing it I had one pastor of a church who's a key leader in the UK who is a member of an evangelical organization tell me he said look he says I don't believe what you believe about Genesis 1 he says my church has always told what I believe but you're welcome to come to my church any time and take the pulpit and explain to them what you believe in why because he says you you have a viable explanation and he says I would not mind my people hearing it and being faced with it and coming to a new appreciation of the work that's gone into it that's what we ought to be doing instead of abandoning it instead of taking an agnostic approach we ought to be apologists for it we ought to stand firm for the faith we ought to count the cost if we don't get published we don't get published the biggest surprise I've ever had was to be asked by Lagos to do the Genesis commentary because the general editor wanted it written by a young earth creationist who would unapologetically present his view but what honestly and faithfully deal with all the other views it'll be the first of its kind and that's sad and I'm very thankful for the opportunity in fact every day I think man if I don't get this thing done what if they changed their mind but what's helped out a lot too is my involvement in the debate on historical Adam at ETS being involved men like John Walton Dennis Lamar you see John Collins and that has given some viability we've been treating and working with each other as co-equals and as scholarly and we've done it in an ironic fashion I've listened to their arguments I've sought to respond fairly and accurately and debris and present my viewpoint without compromise and I found that they're accepting of that and they willingly interact with that now and I to me that's progress and we just need to keep going well we only have two minutes left here the precedence regarding God and his work I've mentioned that before God provides for his own he provides all the way through here we're gonna see more of that when we come to chapter 2 this helps to establish our faith the unity of the Scriptures testimony we find it unified if we accept this as historical narrative it fits all the subsequent references back to the creation account back to farm criticism now we've answered that on the poetry what are the problems with form criticism one is that the pretextual overshadows the textual in other words it's always the oral always that which comes before the text they want to establish and work on it really isn't the text they're interested in and the text to them is never the same as the oral the oral is the original where's the oral gentlemen does anyone know what the oral was they have no recordings it is merely a hypothetical it is there's no substitute you can't deal with the hypothetical and the unknown that's one of its greatest faults don't think we can deal with us what we have and that's the written form they also were those who've taught that Israel was not literate until about the eighth century BC but now we find out that Israel was literate far earlier than we thought take the Egyptian turquoise mines that date back to the 20th century BC it Sarab it L Kadeem there you have on the walls of the wadi el of kitab this inscription written in old paleo symbolic script picked a graphic script even uses a word divider though right there these are slaves literate in the 20th century BC and they write on the wall to the lawmen or for l olam the eternal God the same title of DITA used in Genesis 21 33 and that's not the only writings that are there how can it be that Israel is illiterate in the eighth century BC but you have submitting slaves working the Egyptian turquoise mines in the Sinai Peninsula that are writing graffiti all over the walls the mines and the waters 12 centuries earlier as my Jewish rabbi lay Orthodox rabbi friend tells me he says always says the only way they can deny it is because they're anti-semitic he's the camp believe the Jew can be literate they've got to be some ignorant animal back in the past and that's the way they just put off our religion and what we believe I think he's got a point I think some are that way it's just due to anti-semitism in fact that's what happened in Germany and historical criticism that's where Hitler's anti-semitic movements began was with the radical historical critical literature about the nation of Israel that's where it all came from and Hitler adopted that and began the extermination of Jewish people

Channel: The Master's Seminary

Views: 5,675

Rating: 5 out of 5

Keywords: The Master's Seminary, John MacArthur, Expository Preaching, Inerrancy, Biblical Teaching

Id: vu8-ctRUDHg

Length: 35min 29sec (2129 seconds)

Published: Sun Sep 25 2016