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.
Yes, I noticed that you were to leave out what the Hebrew included by default. Talk about arguing from the position of ignorance. which seeing that Hebrew grammars abound at the end of our fingers, there’s no excuse for such.
I did look at several lexicons but Smith’s Bible Dictionary summed it up pretty well.
Cheers and thanks.
Oh, this is a good one and I'm glad you brought this up. I can't believe that anyone with the least bit of critical-thinking ability can't see right through this claim. But, I'll play along.
Please tell me how SN1987A has 'refuted' a declining speed of light and I will demonstrate just how weak your supposed 'informed' thinking really is.
We can then be sure that the rest of your claims of having 'refuted' Setterfield are based on the same lack of critical-thinking ability.