==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.
“Who said anything about the need for a sun or a moon. God said let there be light and there was light.”
Unless you’re counting on star light, sun and moon would be the source, would it not?
But that last paragraph is a bit reaching, no a lot of reaching.
Go forth and slay the Dragon of Darwin . Cheers!
Even if? I think I've provided adequate indication that the two words, bara’ and ‘asah, did NOT mean the same thing, or have you come around?
To argue for a possible language convention to explain a possible goal of avoiding word redundancy (something that would require an explanation of why the writer might want to do this) is stretching, yes.
“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.”
Nearly so?
“That makes them referential synonyms (meaning the same thing, or nearly the same thing) in my book.”
Let's see if I do miss your point: If both (bara’ and ‘asah) were happening on any creative day then either (bara’ or ‘asah) could be used to refer to the same (same what? Could either word refer to create as well as make?)
Not that they mean the exact same thing.
As I've shown, bara’ is highly restricted in it's use so it not only doesn't mean the EXACT same thing as ‘asah, it cannot nor can the two Hebrew words be interchanged as though they were close enough in meaning as the lexicons I referenced show.
To sum up: By understanding bara’ (create) as close enough to ‘asah (make) to allow either to refer to the same act a straightforward reading of Genesis is not hindered.
On that I beg to differ as light (Day) and dark (Night) would come into existence before the sun and moon, that is unless there is another light source for the light (Day). What would that source be?