Roger Olsen, a writer on Patheos has an entry up with the title: "Who’s Really a “Fundamentalist?” Again—the American Media Gets Religion Wrong".
He questions, rightly so, how the term "fundamentalist" is tossed around by the press and others when labelling religious groups. He goes on to explain how the word is used to label religious extremists of any religion and conservatives. It is true that the label does not apply because true fundamentalists are defined as thus:
Anyone who knows anything about fundamentalism knows that it arose in America (with simultaneous corresponding movements in Great Britain and Canada) as a militant (not violent) re-assertion of Protestant Christian doctrines in the face of the rise of liberal Protestantism.What makes his posting interesting is that he uses the United Church of God as an example. He apparently has relatives in UCG.
Most recently a prime time American television “crime documentary program” called the United Church of God—which follows the teachings of the late Herbert W. Armstrong—a “fundamentalist church.” True fundamentalists would consider any of the denominations that follow Armstrong’s teachings a cult (in the theological sense of the word). (The United Church of God was formed by former members of the Worldwide Church of God (now named Grace Community) when that denomination changed its theology be orthodox and evangelical—after the death of founder Armstrong. (Nothing I say here about the United Church of God is meant in any way to insult or demean it or its members. I have cousins who are members of the UCG. I only mean to point out that its doctrines are not consistent with true, historical fundamentalism.) Earlier in the two hour episode the presenter of the mystery referred to the church as “strict.” I assume, although I remain open to correction, that the writers of the program consider any “strict church” fundamentalist.
There are many problems with this use of “fundamentalist” but the main one I want to point out here is that this is simply dumb. I mean, it is part of the overall and general “dumbing down” of American culture about religion. There are too few labels and categories used and the ones they use become too “thin” to be very descriptive. To call the United Church of God “fundamentalist” is to loosen the label and category “fundamentalist” from history and theology entirely. It becomes nothing more than a label for any religious group that really takes its beliefs and life standards seriously. In that sense, then, one could label some liberal Protestant churches and people “fundamentalist!”What spurred this on was the 48 Hours recent piece on the murder Amy Allwine by her husband, a UCG elder.
Most know very little, almost nothing, about any church or denomination other than their own (if they have one). Those who are “nones” are woefully ignorant of religion. And part of the blame for that falls on the media who do not even seriously attempt to “get it right” when talking about or portraying religious groups and individuals.Of all the hundreds and hundreds of splinter groups of the old Worldwide Church of God, UCG is the more "liberal" of them all. even though they stick to the fundamental" roots of Herbert Armstrong. UCG members tend to believe and practice their belief in many different ways and many times not in alignment with the "official" stance of the church. This is what infuriates the Pharisaical legalists like James Malm and Bob Thiel. They look at UCG as "Laodicean", lukewarm in their message and actions.
P.S. The particular “crime documentary” program in question here has my e-mail address; the producer knows me and could easily have suggested that the writer(s) e-mail me about The United Church of God so that they don’t misrepresent it. The fact that the married couple at the center of the story belonged to the United Church of God was played up as important to the particular segment of the two hour episode. So what would I have told them to say about it? “Strict” is okay, but I would have suggested they say it is a church that follows the teachings of the late Herbert W. Armstrong who was a famous televangelist considered unorthodox in his teachings by most Christians. That would have been informative. Calling it “fundamentalist” was misleading.
UCG certainly is not fundamentalist, extremist or even conservative in their beliefs. What exactly would you call them?
37 comments:
There are about 20 postings of mine that say armstrongism is original fundamentalism. The entire autobiography is proof of this and says that HWA started investigating religion IN REACTION TO DARWINISM.
Fundamentalism is EXACTLY that. The american protestant reaction to darwinism overtaking science, religion, everything in the 1920"s.
If armstrongism isnt fundamentslism then nothing is.
Nck
Perhaps...FUNNY MENTAL! ??
Nck. Since when are you an authority? Oh wait, I forgot...on everything and yet nothing. Just like Bob Thiel! LOL
UCG sermons and articles are consistently flat. And that's flat by design.
Members should ask themselves why they remain in the Flat Church of God.
It's a church:
Of the flat members.
By the flat members.
For the flat members.
There are no true biblical literalists. If there were, every believer's building would collapse because it was designed under the misconception that the value of pi is literally and precisely 3.
In the second decade of the 20th century, a group of American Protestants established a movement they called "Fundamentalism" and they published essays (eventually put together in a couple of compilation books) defining their desire to return to the "fundamentals" of Protestant Christianity. Groups like COG7 and the Mormons were wholly outside of that fundamentalism, and the fundamentalists' writings specifically attacked those groups for not adhering to the fundamentals of Protestant faith.
By now, however, the term "fundamentalism" has been so broadened and generalized as to be almost meaningless, but I do not believe Armstrongism can be included within it. The fundamentalist movement relied on no single charismatic figure other than Jesus Christ, and it held to particular doctrines that were developed over the previous 400 years. Armstrongism, however, changed its doctrine when Armstrong changed his doctrine. Fundamentalists have observed their liturgical Pentecost on the same day for centuries. By contrast, Armstrongism changed its Pentecost date when Armstrong changed his. Furthermore, fundamentalism rejected the notion that any one human figure, such as a Pope, could have authority over the faith and practice of believers. Armstrong relies on the premise that Herbert Armstrong has not only restored new doctrines unknown to the the fundamentalists, but that Herbie holds an office of spiritual authority not unlike the Pope's. No, Armstrongism is not fundamentalism!
12:20
I am an authority the moment you start getting an education or read a book and verify what I say and thank me for it. Only then will I accept the title you bestow upon me.
Nck
12:53
So its all happening in a vacuum? The 1920 reaction to darwinism, kkk revival, immigration quota, prohibition of alcohol, the many killed when the communist worker unions marched, protestantism defending the dominant culture versus the catholic irish, southern european immigrants and hwa writing entire pages in the autobiography how darwinism creeped into society.
The entire roaring twenties. Not am obscure grouping trying to find jesus.
Nck
If we want to be picky, and technically correct, like Olsen, we should first of all acquaint ourselves with the movement, it's context as well as figuring out what the "fundamentals" of "fundamentalism" are.
Nck makes a good point that fundamentalism was a reaction to Darwinism. It was an attempt to fight back against the rising tide of "apostasy" among the ranks of perhaps the laity, but more specifically, seminary students, which is what happened when faith came into contact with the evidence for Darwinian theory. In a defensive reaction to this apostasy, as it was defined by none other than Curtis Laws himself, "We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called 'Fundamentalists.'"
The theology of Herbert Armstrong was definitely unorthodox in Christian terms, but we were still fully in line with the 5 points of fundamentalism, though we did disagree with points 2, 11, and 13 of the 14 point Niagara Creed of 1878. And Armstrong's evangelistic mission was certainly to do "battle royal" for the fundamentals of his theology, and the members of his church were, and many in UCG and other spliters of the Armstrongist movement still are, fully committed to that mission, regardless of the sorry state that mission might be in these days.
Depending on which formulation of the "fundamentals" of "fundamentalism" you want to say must be present in order for a person or a church to be technically defined as "fundamentalist," in a technically correct sense, we certainly could be correctly defined as "fundamentalist." Where do we draw the line, and if there's a place it is drawn, why there and not somewhere else, contingent on the axis of some other facet?
Who gets to decide these things? Does the fact that our "fundamentals" were unorthodox, despite the fact that what we did with them was exactly the same as what the original fundamentalists did with theirs, mean we can't be true fundamentalists? Is orthodoxy the contingency? Perhaps, since hewing to orthodoxy was arguably the point of fundamentalism. Well, Prostestant orthodoxy at least. One man's fringe, unorthodox, heretical "cult" is another man's strict orthodoxy. Protestant fundamentalists are unorthodox heretics according to the Vatican, just for example.
Anybody can make a dogmatic bare assertion, but if you examine the details, all you have to do is concede that it's okay to extend the term to include people that weren't directly connected to the Niagara Bible Conference of the 19th century, and that indirect connections are acceptable—which is to say, a parsimonious extension—and it's hard to argue that Armstrongism isn't dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalism.
Crap-U-la Rattimus! In an attempt to find a label for our past toxic cult, please do not tarnish the names and reputations of the fundamentalists! If Popeye were an Armstrongite, he’d want to eat spinach and verbally beat up Bluto the fundamentalist for not keeping shabbas, even though they both might be enjoying Handel’s “Messiah”
I watched the program and found it insightful. I recall I felt uncomfortable in the reporter’s describing the UCG as “fundamentalist” too. I guess I associate “fundamentalist” Christians with various Protestant groups like the Baptists. So I wouldn’t call the UCG “fundamentalist” in that sense. I’d probably call it “evangelical” though.
https://www.assembliesofyahweh.com/statement-of-doctrine/
This is a church group that was founded in 1936 with almost identical doctrines to the old WCG and the current splinters.
They give their local churches more autonomy. They believe in sacred names but are not part of the sacred names group.
I wonder how many other groups are out there with similar beliefs that are not offshoots from WCG.
5:10
I'm not labeling. I place a label in a historic context larger than narrow definitions.
I do get your point. I hope you get mine when I state the absolute recorded facts that Bluto was good enough to baptize HWA!!!! Are we getting any closer here?
Nck
***Correction***
In the picture there is a biblical mistake.
Man was not created in 6 literal days.
The heavens and earth and everything therein was.
But, mankind was created on the 6th day i.e. 1 day.
Anonymous 12:49PM said, "Members should ask themselves why they remain in the Flat Church of God".
MY COMMENT - Oh jump for joy!! We have a new and original name for an Armstrong Church of God. With all the splinters, the best names are already taken. :)
Richard
I like the Associated Systematic Sabbatarian Church of God (ASSCOG)
"**Correction***
In the picture there is a biblical mistake.
Man was not created in 6 literal days.
The heavens and earth and everything therein was.
But, mankind was created on the 6th day i.e. 1 day."
Could you please quote the scripture that says: "The heavens and earth and everything therein" were created in six days? I know the scripture that says they were "made" in six days but not the one that says created.
Thanks,
Kevin
Progressives are constantly redefining their terms. It's a form of manipulation and lying and treason.
The American civil war is coming. Left versus right.
How about The Splinter Church of God?
Man kind evolved over 2 million years. Only the most stubbornly afraid of this reality would be caught stating the ignorance of "man was created the 6th day" That is an absolutely stupid view in the 21st century
Man kind evolved over 2 million years. Only the most stubbornly afraid of this reality would be caught stating the ignorance of "man was created the 6th day" That is an absolutely stupid view in the 21st century
And science proves that some races are still half animals. Only the most stubborn and stupid refuse to see those facts.
Historically verifiable dates only go back 5000 years. Not two million years. Only the most stubbornly afraid of this reality would state otherwise. It's so obvious that even a child can see it. It's the plain truth. Otherwise they are accusing God of being a liar, and are not converted.
Kevin McMillen said: "Could you please quote the scripture that says: 'The heavens and earth and everything therein' were created in six days? I know the scripture that says they were 'made' in six days but not the one that says created. Thanks, Kevin"
Uh tbh I was simply using the word the cartoonist used in the picture i.e. "created" since the cartoonist wrote, "Man created in six literal days," which I believe needed correction since I believe the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything therein were created during creation week (i.e. 6 days) while mankind was created on the 6th day (i.e. 1 day).
And performing a rudimentary search of my Bible I came across a few verses that associate the word "created" with the heavens and/or earth. But, I hope Revelation 10:6 would best answer your question: "And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer."
Dennis Diehl said: "Man kind evolved over 2 million years."
And you know this exactly how? Oh right! You're over 2 million years old and saw this "evolution" happen in real time! My mistake Dennis. Carry on believing your own "sci-fi" fantasy.
I have read Dr. Olson's blog for years, have several of his books, and have had the pleasure of chatting with him briefly in peron. Anyone familiar with him would know that he is a stickler for accuracy when it comes to Christian labels, especially "evangelical", "fundamentalist", "Calvinist" and "Arminian" (he is the latter). He has a long and consistent track record of taking issue with sloppy theological thinking and lazy and uninformed writing about things Christian. I appreciate his approach and have learned a lot from him. Most of us who frequent the blogosphere would benefit from his love of precision in communication!
"And performing a rudimentary search of my Bible I came across a few verses that associate the word "created" with the heavens and/or earth. But, I hope Revelation 10:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) would best answer your question: "And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer."
Oh brother, there's no reasoning with ignorance. Just where does Rev. 10:6 say the creating lasted six days? That's what your original post said, that the heavens and the earth were "created" in six days.
The bible doesn't say that, the bible says made in six days not created. That's because two different hebrew words are used.
Gen. 1:1,2 says that God "created" the heavens and the earth, most likely billions of years ago. The Hebrew word is bara.
In Ex. 20 when God said he "made" the heaven and the earth in six days the hebrew word is asah.
Bara seems to mean to create from nothing while asah seems to mean to make from pre-existing material.
If all that's too complicated for you to understand please don't waste my time by responding.
Kevin McMillen
As an aside, I prefer to see Ge 1:1 as a heading for the creation of the cosmos out of chaos; similar to other headings; e.g.,
Ge 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Ge 1:1 In the beginning created (bara’) God the heavens and the earth.
Ge 2:1 Thus were finished the heavens and the earth and all the host of them.
“There are numerous explanations for the relationship of 1:1-2 to the account of the six days of creation... A fourth view takes verse 1, “God created the heavens and the earth,” as the heading of the account of creation... That first sentence came to possess concrete meaning only after the completion of creation. Verse 2 is a circumstantial clause about the unorganized state of matter before God began to create. A description of disorganized matter before speaking of creation accords with the ancient practice of beginning an account of origins by describing that which did not exist...” (John E. Hartley, Genesis, NIBC, p.41).
Ge 2:1 Thus were finished the heavens and the earth and all the host of them.
Ge 2:2 And ended God on the day seventh His work which he had made [‘asah] and he rested on the day seventh from His work which he had made [‘asah]
Ge 2:3 And blessed God day the seventh and He sanctified it; because in it He rested from all the work which had created [bara’] God and made (‘asah).
“1:1 - 2:3 form the first section of Genesis... 2:1-3 echoes 1:1 by introducing the same phrases but in reverse order: “he created,” “God,” “heaven and earth” [1:1] reappears as “heaven and earth” (2:1) “God” (2:2), “created” (2:3). This chiastic pattern brings the section to a neat close which is reinforced by the inclusion “God created” linking 1:1 and 2:3” (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1:15, WBC, p.5).
In Ge 2:4 “created” and “made” are in a synonymous parallelism:
Ge 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara’],
in the day that the LORD God made [‘asah] the earth and the heavens,
compare:
Ge 1:21 And God created [bara’] great whales...
Ge 1:7 And God made [‘asah] the firmament...
“This verse (2:4) serves both as a title to 2:5-4:26... The first and second halves of the verse are tied together with a deliberate use of a chiasmus: A, “Heaven”; B, “earth”; C, “created” - C’, “made”; B’, ‘earth; A’, heaven.” The word order in the second half of the verse is particularly unusual in that “earth” precedes “heaven... It looks as though the writer has intentionally inverted the usual word order here to link the two parts of the verse together. The opening clause “This ... the heaven and the earth when they were created” forms a looser chiasstic inclusion with 1:1, “God created the heavens and the earth,” thus binding 1:1-2:3 to the succeeding narratives. The pairing of “create” and “make” takes up the two key descriptions of divine activity in chap. 1” (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1:15, WBC, p.55).
Kevin McMillen said: “Oh brother, there's no reasoning with ignorance. Just where does Rev. 10:6 say the creating lasted six days? That's what your original post said, that the heavens and the earth were ‘created’ in six days. The bible doesn't say that, the bible says made in six days not created. That's because two different hebrew words are used. Gen. 1:1,2 says that God ‘created’ the heavens and the earth, most likely billions of years ago. The Hebrew word is bara. In Ex. 20 when God said he ‘made’ the heaven and the earth in six days the hebrew word is asah. Bara seems to mean to create from nothing while asah seems to mean to make from pre-existing material. If all that's too complicated for you to understand please don't waste my time by responding.”
Hmm ok I respect your interpretation Kevin (which conforms to the “gap theory”) and don’t discount its possibility at all.
But, tbh when I wrote the heavens, earth, sea and everything therein was created in 6 days I was looking broadly at creation week from Gn 1:3 onwards.
You mistakenly thought I was looking to engage in a debate over whether the earth is young or old; whether there’s a gap of undefined time between vv. 1 and 2 of Gn 1; whether the Hebrew words for “create” or “make” mean this or that, etc.
And I misunderstood you as I thought you were asking for Scriptural support that God created EVERYTHING in the heavens, earth and sea in 6 days. But, with clarification I learned you were in fact asking for Scriptural support that God created the entire universe IN 6 DAYS. I failed to discern that distinction in your question till now.
So I apologize for wasting your valuable time (as if the time of a 60yo is more precious than everyone else’s that comments on this blog).
Suffice to say thanks for your snarky put-down since it led me to study God’s Word further and I’ve learned:
1) According to Vine’s the Hebrew word “bara” means “to create, make” and “has only God as its subject. Only God can ‘create’ in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses creation out of nothing…A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few non poetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.”
2) Vine’s states the Hebrew word “asah” means “to create, do, make” and “There is nothing inherent in the word to indicate the nature of the creation involved; it is only when asah is parallel to bara that we can be sure that it implies creation…It is unwarranted to overly refine the meaning of asah to suggest that it means creation from something, as opposed to creation from nothing. Only context can determine its special nuance. It can mean either, depending upon the situation.”
(CONTINUED)
3) It’s possible there was no gap of undefined time between Gn 1:1 and 1:2. Dennis Petersen’s “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation” supports this possible interpretation as he states: “…God himself is eternal so it is reasonable to think ‘the beginning’ refers to the beginning of TIME, a dimension like a window in the midst of eternity. What did He do? He ‘created the heavens and the earth’ but what does that mean? The stars weren’t made until the fourth day, so what happened? It’s sort of like when you begin a construction project. What do you start with? Basic materials, of course, like lumber, nails and paint. But what raw materials did God provide first? ATOMS? What are they? The building blocks of all physical reality, atoms are composed essentially of three things: SPACE, MATTER, ENERGY…SHAMAYIM…simply means stretched out space!…ERETS…simply means the dirt or MATTER from which everything else is made, but it was not yet as we see it today. So what was the condition of these RAW MATERIALS in the beginning? God says they were…’without form and void.’…And then, in that same creative instant, God said ‘Let there be light!’Light includes the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just the narrow band of color we ‘see’…So what do we now have? ENERGY…At the instant that matter was energized, basic elements took on specific form. Particles were ow in motion and operating in TIME. When physical matter ceases to be, time shall be no more. In a very simple, yet profoundly scientific way, the Genesis account of God’s first creative act logically defines the basis of all physical reality; Space, Matter & Energy…” (pp. 18-19).
4) The Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles quoted from the Septuagint Version on numerous occasions. And it supports this possible interpretation as well since Gn 1:1-2 states: “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep…” And later in 2:1-4 it states: “And the heavens and the earth were finished, and the whole world of them. And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, and he ceased on the seventh day from all his works which he made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it he ceased from all his works which God began to do. This [is] the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth...” This is possible why even Christ when He referred to the creation of mankind refers to it as occurring “at the beginning” (Mt 9:4, 8; Mk 10:6).
Anyway I’m sure there’s much more to learn, unlearn and relearn and meekness (or humility) is necessary to such. It’s also a fruit of the Holy Spirit and a little humility Kevin wouldn’t go astray as Paul wrote: “And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know” (1 Cor 8:2). Tbh you kinda came across imho as a self-righteous, arrogant, know-it-all. I hope you’re not like that all the time otherwise I pity those around you who have to put up with such an uncivil and frankly unChristian attitude.
Anyway thanks for the Hebrew lesson! ;-)
"Anonymous said...
But, tbh when I wrote the heavens, earth, sea and everything therein was created in 6 days I was looking broadly at creation week from Gn 1:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) onwards.
You mistakenly thought I was looking to engage in a debate over whether the earth is young or old; whether there’s a gap of undefined time between vv. 1 and 2 of Gn 1; whether the Hebrew words for “create” or “make” mean this or that, etc."
Wrong again, whatever your name is. I was not looking for a debate on the age of the earth. I don't care. What I do care about is accuracy and you'll find no scripture that says God "created" the heavens and the earth in six days. What you will find is that God "made" the heavens and the earth in six days.
Again, I don't care one way or the other about the gap theory, but if we're going to make reference to the bible we need to be accurate.
Apparently you don't have a clue what I'm saying so quit wasting my time. As for your WCG label of "bad attitude", I really don't care what you think as long as you reference the bible correctly next time, it really does show your ignorance.
Kevin McMillen (If you want to judge me as uncivil or unchristian at least be a man or woman about it and give us a name)
"Anonymous said...
(CONTINUED)
3) It’s possible there was no gap of undefined time between Gn 1:1 and 1:2. Dennis Petersen’s “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation” supports this possible interpretation as he states: “…God himself is eternal so it is reasonable to think ‘the "
I see you learned how to copy and paste too. Good job. Now take the time to improve upon your reading comprehension skills and you won't have to apologize again for misunderstanding straight forward questions.
As for my explanation of bara and asah, there was no need to go in depth, nor is copy/paste my style. There was a reason translators used bara in Gen. 1:1 and asah in Ex 20 and who cares what Vines says?
Next time be more accurate in your comment and before you answer a simple question make sure you understand it.
Kevin McMillen
addendum:
As for my explanation of bara and asah, there was no need to go in depth, nor is copy/paste my style. There was a reason translators used created for bara in Gen. 1:1 and made for asah in Ex 20 and who cares what Vines says?
Kevin
Also, before you lecture me on bara and asah re-read what I wrote.
"Bara seems to mean to create from nothing while asah seems to mean to make from pre-existing material."
I guess you don't understand what "seems to mean" actually means. So I'll make my concluding comment again.
"If all that's too complicated for you to understand please don't waste my time by responding.”
Kevin McMillen
Yes and No to HWA said...
As an aside, I prefer to see Ge 1:1 as a heading for the creation of the cosmos out of chaos; similar to other headings...A fourth view takes verse 1, "God created the heavens and the earth," as the heading of the account of creation... That first sentence came to possess concrete meaning only after the completion of creation. Verse 2 is a circumstantial clause about the unorganized state of matter before God began to create.
Very interesting and useful information shared! Thanks so much for that! I think I recall HA originally taught dinosaur fossils were caused from the destruction of the world after Lucifer's fall. I didn't believe this, however, as I'd already learned from various creation science websites that they were caused by the global flood of Noah and agreed with this view. But, I still was of the opinion that there was an indefinite gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that would've included Lucifer's fall. But, now after reading the information you, Anon 2:32 and Kevin all posted I'm starting to question my understanding! Maybe there's more to learn about the origins of the devil after all that disproves what we've been taught as true for so long? Anyway an article I just found helpful on bara and asah is AIG's Did God create or make in Genesis 1? Cheers to y'all!
"""Anyway an article I just found helpful on bara and asah is AIG's Did God create or make in Genesis 1? Cheers to y'all!
October 10, 2018 at 5:37 PM"""
--------------------------
Helpful? How can it be helpful when it doesn't even mention the only times that the bible specifically talks about the heavens and the earth being made in six days? Those verses use asah not bara.
Are we going to let the bible interpret itself or not?
Ge. 1:1 says God created (bara), verse 2 says the earth was without form and void. I don't care whether the word "was" should or shouldn't have been "became", it doesn't matter.
What we have here is God created and the earth was without form and void. Yep the ol' tohuw and bohuw.
The word created "bara" in verse 1 is in the perfect tense, meaning a completed action.
So the heavens and the earth were completely created before we get to verse 2 where it says the earth was tohuw and bohuw.
The problem is that Is.45:18 says that God did not create (bara) the earth in vain (tohuw).
You can dis herbie all that you want but that's what the bible says.
If, as Gen. 1 says, that God created the heavens and the earth, and the perfect tense shows a completed act (not just a creation of the atoms or just a bunch of matter unformed) how did the earth become tohuw when Is. 45 says God did not create it tohuw?
It's one thing to debunk ol' herbie, it's another not to agree with the bible.
I wasn't there so I don't know for sure what happened but I do know that to twist what the bible actually says to fit ones theology is disingenuous. And that is what the AIG article is doing.
Kevin McMillen
I would not be surprised that the Scofield Reference Bible played a part in HWA’s coming to his understanding of the gap-theory and ’elohim.
In the first edition (1909) Ge 1:1 is preceded by the heading “The Original Creation”. After Ge 1:1 and before Ge 1:2 is the heading “Earth made waste and empty by Judgment (Jer 4:33-36).
The first foot-note, notes that ’elohim is a uni-plural noun. (As an aside other ’elohim in the Bible are Moses (Ex 7:1); Ashtoreth (a female ’elohe/goddess), Chemosh and Milcom (1 Kgs 11:33). Ephraim also ends in a masculine plural. (’elohe is the masculine plural in the construct state - god of).
The link could have been more specific on “create” [br‘]:
“The verb “create” ... always has God as the subject (in qal and niphal forms) and has accusatives which represents the products of divine actions” (Marvin E, Tate, Psalms 51-100, WBC, pp.22-23).
In Ge 1:1 bara’ is the pointed Qal perfect third person masculine singular verb.
With br‘ occurring seven times in Ge 1:1 to 2:4a it is used in support that this is the first section of Genesis. In Ge 1:1-2:3, the alternative division, br’ is used six times in the Qal, which would make a neat six “creates” (qal) and six “days”. Just saying.
As noted earlier my preference is that Ge 1:1 is the heading for God creating and Ge 2:4 is the heading for the next section which in chapter 3 begins the path back to chaos.
“Here [the introduction] and throughout the Flood story, there are numerous ties established with the creation account in chapter 1. The effect is to show that the Flood was a reversal of God’s work of Creation” (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC, Vol.2, p.80).
The link also noted that “A few times in the Old Testament man is the subject of that verb (e.g., Joshua 17:15, 18 and 1 Samuel 2:29”. But these verses use the Piel and Hifal stems, if in fact they are from the same root - Piel stem in Joshua, and Eze 21:19 (twice) and 23:47) and Hifal in 1 Sam.
(Using 1 Samuel terminology the heaven and the earth were fat (br’) with life after the days of creating/making/forming).
Daniel Block’s footnote to Eze 21:19 [H 24] reads “bara’ denotes fundamentally “to fashion, to form by cutting” according to A.H. Hanson. (Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, p.681).
K.H. Bernhardt suggested that bara’ had an original meaning of “separate, divide” (TDOT, p.245). While there is no real evidence for it, it is interesting the creation involved acts of separating/dividing:
Ge 1:4b and separated [badal] God between [beyn] the light and the darkness (IHGEB).
“Inherent in such a conceptualization of creation is the idea that order of creation was brought about through the separation and classifications of the basic elements of creation. Order is brought about through divisions, separations, and distinctions between one element and another. It is only as these lines of demarcation, or boundaries, are established that order is realized. If true, it means that these divisions must be recognized and maintained if the created order is to continue to exist and not collapse into confusion and chaos...
“The worldview of the Priestly writers has as its framework three distinct orders of creation - the cosmological, the societal, and the cultic...
Lev 10:10 And that ye may put difference [badal] between [beyn] holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
“The conceptual element that holds these three order together is that of order through separation...” (Frank H. Gorman, Jr., Ideology of Ritual - Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology, pp.41-44).
As seen from Ezekiel 44:23 this will be a key to maintaining the created order in the Millennium.
Post a Comment