Since bara’ means create ‘asah would have to follow. Image and likeness are made, image being not the actual thing but a representation in some way and likeness, similitude.
Bara’ is not used of human acts, only of God, while ‘asah is used of God and man, the two thus cannot be the same.
If you can find any Bible dictionary, translator or lexicographer that uses these two terms as interchangeable or synonymous, kindly let me know.
So why isn't 'asah' a statement of future or present action in Gen 1:16 wrt creating the sun, moon and stars? Why do you assign it a future action in v 26 and a past action in v 16?
"Since 'bara’ means create ‘asah would have to follow.
Aren't you just developing your theology based on an 'a priori' definition of 'bara' and 'asah'? Wouldn't that mean that your theology is wrong if your definition is wrong?
"Image and likeness are made, image being not the actual thing but a representation in some way and likeness, similitude."
Since man was fashioned from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7) and the earth was supposedly 'bara' in Gen 1:1 (according to OECs), how can 'bara' now be applied to the creation of man?
"Bara’ is not used of human acts, only of God, while ‘asah is used of God and man, the two thus cannot be the same."
I didn't say they were the same. The point we are trying to understand is your position that the sun, moon and stars were 'bara' in Gen 1:1 and existed in unobserved, ancient time and were only 'revealed' in Gen 1:16.
"If you can find any Bible dictionary, translator or lexicographer that uses these two terms as interchangeable or synonymous, kindly let me know."
Again, I never said they were the same. You are the one making that claim.
What we are trying to understand is how you can claim that the sun, moon and stars were 'bara' in Gen 1:1 and yet man (who was made of the dust of a supposedly old earth) was 'bara' in Gen 1:27. Please consult any Bible dictionary, translator or lexicographer that you need to answer the question and let me know.