More on Turkels latest (Part 5)
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:50:31 -0500 (00917934631, 23482766903159@unifour.com)
Section 5 of my critique of
http://www.integrityonline15.com/jpholding/tekton/tekton_05_03_03.html
(presented primarily for Jason Carter, the person I refer to when I say
"you" in this post)
(note, this statement in section 4 incorrectly labelled it as section 3.
Fortunately the subject line was correct. I do not claim to be inerrant,
especially toward the end of the day. :')
Last time I examined Turkels contention that Genesis 2:19 should be translated
in the pluperfect rather than the present. In the first three sections of this
post, I examined arguments which I think I showed were completely indefensible,
however the argument for the translation of 2:19 in the pluperfect I is an
esoteric one that neither Turkel nor I are competent to judge. The best I can
do is note that Turkel's argument relies on authorities, and by my tally the
count is around 26-4 to against, so I state that his argument is possible but
improbable, and note that even if it holds it resolves only one of several
apparent contraditions.
I shall now examine the rest of his post.
Turkel:
> In Case You Want to Argue
>
> So the pluperfect is a more than acceptable reading; but since we are facing the
> sorts who believe that merely quoting versions is a way to prove that one is
> correct, and since most versions do use the simple past tense (although as we
> have noted, even commentators who use it do not necessarily agree that it
> constitutes actual contradiction!), we had better have another line of defense
> for them to gnaw on -- and indeed, there is another, one that relates back to
> our indication of the garden as a special sort of "domestic creation" for man to
> do his service in.
Achilles
I think that what we have actually seen is that the pluperfect is a possible,
but very unlikely, reading. I appears that Turkel realizes he has greatly
exaggerated it's strength, since he feels it is necessary to offer another
argument.
Turkel:
> The naming of the animals was not simply a pre-Linnean classification exercise;
> it was a demonstration of Adam's dominion over the entirety of nature. The
> giving of names, in ancient oriental thought, was an exercise of soverignty and
> command. One may compare here the idea of bringing subjects before a sovereign,
> and this will come into play as we develop our argument that assumes reading
> "formed" as a simple past tense.
Achilles
I agree that this section was intended as just the sort of rhetorical
"demonstration" that Turkel posits. This agreement does not rule out the
possibility that the passage was intended to convey ONLY that, however.
Turkel:
> Now for recollection and rhetorical purposes, let's once again quote the key
> passage:
>
> Gen. 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;
> I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed
> every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
> to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
> creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to
> the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not
> found an help meet for him.
>
> Does anyone notice something? God "formed" beasts and fowl here -- but he brings
> before Adam beasts, fowl, and cattle -- the domestic creatures! Where did they
> come from? The answer, under this proposition, is that they were already in Eden
> (a place of domestic specialty set aside!), and that the "forming" of the beasts
> and fowl is an act of special creation, giving Adam "samples" of these beasts
> and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth's
> appointed sovereign. (For after all, why should a king have to wait for his
> subjects to wander in when he can have them brought to him at once?) In this
> passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been
> created in G1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes
> that they don't need to be created. Even without the pluperfect rendering, G1
> and G2 demonstrate a perfect consistency. (This explanation is also supported by
> the chiastic structure of the report of the animals: They are cited in the
> order, "beasts...fowl...cattle...fowl...beasts" -- suggesting that the report is
> done by design, not because the writer was a knucklehead who couldn't see
> contradiction so plainly in front of him.)
Achilles
Once again Turkels argument turns out to involve more hair-splitting legalism
based on what he thinks particular hebrew words mean. Once again his miraculous
insight (for a person we know does not speak Hebrew) looks suspiciously like it
is based, not on the Hebrew, but rather on the words the KJV translators chose
to use in rendering them.
Let's take a look at the Hebrew words translated here "beast" "fowl" and
"cattle" and see if there is any reason to believe his argument.
"The Lord God formed every beast of the field"
Beast here is "chay" (Strongs #2416,) derived from "chayah" (#2421.) In various
places "chay" is rendered in the KJV as "live," "life," "beast," "alive,"
"creature," "running," "living thing," and even "raw." It is, in fact, an
adjective, in the interlinear it shows up at this point in the verse attached
to another word which is not translated, suggesting strongly that the sense of
the word is "living thing." In the same verse, where the KJV reads "whatsoever
Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." - the word
translated "living" is the very same word, "chay" - in this case followed by
"nephesh" (Strongs #5315) - from a root meaning to breathe. In this verse, the
KJV translators rendered this "creature" but it is worth noting that this is
the same word those same translators occurred in the vast majority of it's
occurrences (475 of them!) as "soul."
"Field" in this case is "sadeh" (strongs #7704) which we found cause to examine
in a previous instalment. As I am sure you will remember, it can refer to a
cultivated field, a wild field which is home to wild animals, land (as opposed
to sea,) and plain (as opposed to mountain.)
I could fairly stop my analysis here - this is more than sufficient to show
that the distinction Turkel claims, between wild and domestic animals, is
something that he has read into the verse, not an accurate reflection of the
text at all. I have a few more words to say, however.
Turkel claims that only a "knucklehead" would have written this account, if it
contains contradictions. But if you have been reading the recent posts to the
list, you have already seen several instances where people that are certainly
not "knuckleheads" have written errant texts. It is certainly not unusual or
surprising to find errors and even internal contradictions in literary works
from all time periods and all places.
To expect an ancient Hebrew historian to have produced an account which is
perfect in all ways is simply not reasonable, and to call him a 'knucklehead"
for doing what so many very intelligent, well educated authors have done
throughout history is also unreasonable. It once again shows you that Turkel
has no respect for the authors or the text of the book he proclaims as the
"Word of G-d." If they did not produce a text that fits HIS expectations and
HIS needs, well then they must be "knuckleheads."
Furthermore, he refuses to even consider the implications of the JEDP
hypothesis scholars hold (he led us to believe he would deal with this, by the
way, but we have now seen the entire text of his argument, and I haven't seen
him do this, have you?) - if the JEDP hypothesis is correct, then G2 and G1
were written by different men, in different settings, at different times and
for different purposes. If that is the case, then it is even more senseless
and, yes, I will even say arrogant, for Turkel to castigate the poor fellow who
wrote this for failing to anticipate G1 and harmonize his account with it, when
G1 had not even been written yet, and would not be for around 110 years!
I have now dealt with the entirety of Turkels latest offering, from beginning
to end, excepting his conclusion. I think it speaks for itself, so I will give
Turkel the last word and conclude this series with his own words. You be the
judge as to who is lost and needs to get a map.
Turkel:
> Conclusion
> The attempts by the thralls of Farrell Till to upset the traditional arguments
> for the harmony of G1 and G2 have failed. Once again it is obvious that they are
> hiking into our territory without so much as a map or directions -- and little
> wonder that they end up lost!
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
Random thought for the moment:
In a society in which it is a mortal offense to be different from your
neighbors your only escape is never to let them find out.
-- Maureen Johnson in To Sail Beyond the Sunset