[Springfield Reformer]

If one accepts the Markan record as theopneustos (God-breathed), then we need not worry about the overlay of the hebrew, because only part of the statement is from Genesis.  the remainder is Jesus' own direct teaching, esp. "from the beginning of creation." The phrase "arches ktiseos," ("beginning of creation") was already an established term of art among the Jews and had reference to the temporal order, not a logical order.  This clarifies that "apo" has a distinctly temporal sense, and refers us back to that point in time.  See another example here:

Mark 13:19  For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

... where the exact same expression is used, and again has clear reference to a temporal framework inaugurated by God's act of creation.

So no, a modest complexity in the language is no safe haven from this problem.  Jesus meant pretty much exactly what it sounds like He meant, even in English, and we have to start with that, because he was there whern creation happened.

Peace,

SR   

[Hieronymus]

If one accepts the Markan record as theopneustos (God-breathed), then we need not worry about the overlay of the hebrew, because only part of the statement is from Genesis. the remainder is Jesus’ own direct teaching

---

Genesis is not the only source of Hebrew overlay. While I have no doubt that Jesus knew Greek, I highly doubt that he normally spoke in Greek. I trust that the Holy Spirit, acting through the Evangelists, gave a reasonably decent rendering of what He said in Hebrew/Aramaic, secondary meanings would still be both gained and lost in translation.

The Markan passage that you cite does nothing for the young-earth theory, even if it can be demonstrated that the term refers clearly to temporal rather than logical ordering. “Old Earthers” can still hold for creation in time. I’d be interested in substantial scholarly support (meaning a solid discussion of the linguistic evidence, not a list of scholars) to your claim that this term had an established technical meaning, but unless this meaning is both crystal clear and it can be shown that the phrase was only used with regards to the technical meaning, the linguistic difficulties, while not a completely “safe haven” to definitively end the argument, are considerable and cannot be brushed aside.