Yeah, I understand your reasoning but if that reasoning is correct, i.e., that bara’ and ‘asah are the same in meaning or nearly so, then what you called an “oops!” in an earlier post is, in fact, a logical consequence of your reasoning.
If, in Gen. 1:16, during day 4, the sun and moon are (created or made, the same or nearly the same thing) then there was Day and Night of vs. 4 before the sun and moon of vs. 16 were made, created.
And if made and create are the same or nearly so then 2:3 could just as easily be, ‘He rested from His works that He had made and made’, or ‘created and created’.
I don’t think that’s a correct reasoning if it leads to the conclusions above.
==then what you called an “oops!” in an earlier post is, in fact, a logical consequence of your reasoning.
Not at all.
==If, in Gen. 1:16, during day 4, the sun and moon are (created or made, the same or nearly the same thing) then there was Day and Night of vs. 4 before the sun and moon of vs. 16 were made, created.
Who said anything about the need for a sun or a moon. God said let there be light and there was light.
==And if made and create are the same or nearly so then 2:3 could just as easily be, ‘He rested from His works that He had made and made’, or ‘created and created’.
I think you missed my point. I said they are likely referential synonyms. That is, if both were happening on any given creation day, then either could be used to refer to the same. Not that they mean the EXACT same thing. But even if they did mean the same thing with respect to creation, then they may have been used as a language convention to avoid word redundancy (or both). In either case (or both), a straightforward reading of Genesis is not hindered in the least.
I gave up in a earlier post where I was chided for putting (in square brackets) the indefinite article "a" in sentences. Never mind that in Hebrew, "all nouns are assumed to be indefinite unless they are made definite."
Oh, I was also slammed for pointing out that Bary Setterfield's theory of a decaying speed of light has been thoroughly discredited (short list here). It has also been refuted observationally by Supernova 1987A. Even the leading YEC group is embarassed about Setterfield's work.
But who cares about facts when you've got a wonderful medieval interpretation of Genesis that must be proved at all costs?
I'm sure you've done this, but here are lexicon results for asah and bara. Here's a word study on bara that compares it to asah and another on bara that goes into detail as to how it us used in the Bible.
You are correct in your understanding. And if you're still frustrated, listen to the woes of this poor man as he tries to explain the difference between 0.002 cents and 0.002 dollars.
Best of luck in your endeavors.