Only God is the master of history.

My control text:

Ecc 3 9-15
What profit has the worker from that in which he labors? I have seen the God-given task with which the sons of men are to be occupied. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God.
I know that whatever God does,
It shall be forever.
Nothing can be added to it,
And nothing taken from it.
God does it, that men should fear before Him.
That which is has already been,
And what is to be has already been;
And God requires an account of what is past.

I guess I am a mysterian.

Why do you say Genesis was written so late? What’s the proof? Are you saying the same is true of all of the law? If so, are you saying that the Hebrew people lived the Law from Moses’s time but it wasn’t written down until later? Or are you saying that the Law (meaning the books) is mostly mythological?

I mostly agree with you about everything else you’ve said, but that part doesn’t sound right to me.

But son, please consider the admonition from the apostle Paul to Timothy “Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.

It’s over now. I think we’ve clarified everything between us. I’ll let Christopher answer the question about the relationship between #11 and #12.

Part of the challenge for me is that I have three wonderfully active children running around my house. Sometimes I leave posts partially finished and then return to them. In a fast moving blog, you can post and realize that you’re several steps away from your intended interlocutor.

In any case, with respect for Christopher, I’ll let you and others discuss his post. As for me, I need to return to class prep.

I think I can perhaps see the source of some of your confusion. He does not understand the historical/grammatical approach. He thinks these are gymnastics:

1. Understanding a passage within the near context (e.g., understanding Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 within the context of each other).
2. Understanding a passage within the context of a text within its book (e.g., understanding Genesis 1 and 2 within the context of the entire book of Genesis).
3. Understanding the structural elements of a book (e.g., understanding the recurring element, elleh toledoth and how it operates within the book of Genesis).
4. Understanding the meaning of words and phrases in a text and how they related to the context (e.g., understanding the meaning of “of the field,” that it refers to a cultivated land and relates to the Garden of Eden in the immediate context).

But none of these are gymnastics. They are not extraordinary interpretive measures, or extraneous to the historical/grammatical approach ~ they are standard elements of that approach. I have made not appeal to anything but what is in the text and its context.

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can be read quite cohesively together by the historical/ grammatical approach. Whether one likes that approach or prefers another is a different matter, and it is fair enough if someone prefers a different approach.

Regarding the light ~ God called it into existence on day 1. The text does not require us to understand it as the light of the sun (the greater light in relation to the moon) or the moon (the lesser light in relation to the sun). It is merely your assumption that it must be so.

Your objections are silly and unsubstantiated and do not constitute any sort of meaningful argument. It is merely plugging your ears with a la-la-la.

Both #8 and #9 were posted at 4:40, with #9 obviously referring to Frank. You’re really being a bit over-bearing, and (having not read through your dozens of comments) I can only hope that your reading of Genesis is more nuanced than you’re reading of Dale Coulter’s comments.

If you doubt my veracity in representing my own intentions, then how could we possibly get anywhere in a dialogue?

You do realize that there is a lapse time between composing a post and posting it? In the time it takes to write a response someone else can post without you realizing it because you’re not refreshing your browser while you’re writing. It’s that simple. No obfuscation; no mendacity.

I wrote #7 & #9 in reference to Frank Turk because of a post he wrote last night. Your response #8 slipped in before I could post #9 so I assumed that you thought my #9 was directed at you. In the meantime I was attempting to compose another response to your #8. This response is #13. When I posted it, I saw your responses #10 and #11, which I assumed was directed at what you thought I had said to you in #9. Hence I wrote #14.

So, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

Yeah, sure, I believe your comment #9 was in reference to Frank #4, but somehow it followed my comment to you in #8, which then followed in your comment #9, even though you didn’t give a heading as to who it was addressed to. Seems like you were referring to me Dale, your denial to the contrary.