“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?”
Notice how vss. 14 and 15 begin, “Let...” this or that take place and then vs. 16 says God does what He said Let take place, “He (’asah) made...”, made (’asah) not create (bara’). Look at the tense of “made”.
The context of Gen. 1:14-18 shows while the sun and moon were in existence they did not light up the enough for either to be prominent or dominate the night or day as respects shining on the earth. Vs. 26 says, Let us make...” , make (’asah) and vs. 27 says God created (bara’) man. Man could not be made before he was created as the two words mean two different things, GOD ALONE being said to CREATE (bara’) while God and man are able to MAKE (’asah).
Or, one cannot make a house a home before the house is built.
“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?”
The definition or meaning of a word is largely derived from how it is used. Example: the English word Vulgar. It was once used to mean common, ordinary but because the common person was considered low class the word vulgar today is used almost exclusively to mean in poor taste, off color, not suitable for polite conversation. It's original meaning has largely been supplanted by the word popular or of the population in general.
Lexicographers look at how a word has been used so the users of the word reveal how they defined the word by their use. Since a writer in Hebrew knew what the words he used meant we can look at how he used them to get the meaning of those words.
So. yes, we start out with an appreciation of what the Hebrew words mean in order to understand their English meaning. Don't translators do exactly that?
I don't believe God or His Word is contradictory to it's self.
But a good point, If I understand the use and meaning of certain to mean something that they do not then it's going to be difficult to understand what is being said in God's Word, to gain that “ginosko” or knowledge with the implications thereof spoken about in John 17:3.
Back to your question:
“Wouldn't that mean that your theology is wrong if your definition is wrong?”
It's not my definition as I've shown and yes, If i understand the words wrongly how could I possibly understand their meaning and draw the right conclusions?
“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?
I can't fathom what your point is here. Gen.1:1 USES bara’ create of the earth. It isn't ‘supposedly’, it does. Thus man was bara’ created AFTER Gen.1:1 and Gen. 2:7 does not use the word bara’.
“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.
Who am I speaking to? You or We? Unobserved by whom? What in the world is ancient time? Revealed to to whom? Read what you're referring to, the context, for once.
If I'm speaking to We, then We did say they two words were synonymous, create and made. Don't attribute We’s statement to me!
“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.”
What was created in Gen.1:1 if not the heavens and earth???
Gen. 1:27 doesn't say man was made from the dust, it says he was created on the 6th day, which came after the 1st. day. Gen. 2:7 says he was FORMED (yatsar) and says nothing
about the age of the dust.
“Please consult any Bible dictionary, translator or lexicographer that you need to answer the question and let me know”.
WHY RECOMMEND THAT OTHERS DO WHAT YOU ARE UNWILLING TO DO YOURSELF.
You toss out comments that clearly demonstrate you haven't or are unable to comprehend what is written though the former is more likely.
And I've already let You and We know, repeatedly.
“The definition or meaning of a word is largely derived from how it is used. Example: the English word Vulgar. It was once used to mean common, ordinary but because the common person was considered low class the word vulgar today is used almost exclusively to mean in poor taste, off color, not suitable for polite conversation. It’s original meaning has largely been supplanted by the word popular or of the population in general.”
I pointed that out a long time ago on here in an entirely different context and got laughed off the thread, good luck.
Problem is, there's no 'let' there. Only the word 'ma'owr' for 'lights' so your argument falls apart right away.
"The context of Gen. 1:14-18 shows while the sun and moon were in existence they did not light up the enough for either to be prominent or dominate the night or day as respects shining on the earth."
No, the context does not show that. You impose that context on it. Big difference. The context is six 24-hour days and was always understood that way until it became popular for 'man' to say differently. That's why the verses say "evening, morning, day x". As we have seen, there is no place in the Bible where evening, morning, day x" is used to refer to anything but literal 24-hour days. This is why OECers fixate on the word 'yom' and ignore the 'evening, morning' words. It's the only way they can get around the 'evening, morning' distinction.
"Who am I speaking to? You or We? Unobserved by whom? What in the world is ancient time? Revealed to to whom? Read what you're referring to, the context, for once. If I'm speaking to We, then We did say they two words were synonymous, create and made. Don't attribute We’s statement to me!"
Please remain calm. I realize that we are getting close to some paradigms that you would rather not relinquish, but please remain calm. You cannot think rationally if you are emotionally freaked-out.
'We' are those who hold to the clear truth of the Bible in holding to a literal six 24-hour creation. Are you or are you not claiming that the sun, moon and stars were created in Gen 1:1 and 'revealed' in Gen 1:14-19?
"I can't fathom what your point is here. Gen.1:1 USES bara’ create of the earth. It isn't ‘supposedly’, it does. Thus man was bara’ created AFTER Gen.1:1 and Gen. 2:7 does not use the word bara’."
I didn't say that Gen 2:7 used the word 'bara', so I can't fathom what your difficulty is. Gen 2:7 was used to show that man was fashioned from the dust of the earth even though Gen 1:27 says man was 'bara'. So if man was formed of the dust of the earth in Gen 2:7, what part of man was 'bara' in Gen 1:27?