It doesn't. It just conflicts with thee narrow viewpoint that they were indoctrinated with..
Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to keep it afloat. One of these is “inflation,” which attempts to explain the apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I didn't post #302. That was you.
"It shows that you don't particularly care much for real scientists."
All it shows is that you are forced to use an out-of-context quote to have a point. Otherwise you would have referenced my post. But that might have drawn attention where you didn't want it.
==Where in Scripture is bara’ used to describe other than acts by God? However ‘asah is often used of humans AND God. The two words are thus not interchangeable or synonyms. Where ‘asah is used for acts by humans bara’ cannot be and never is interchanged or treated as a synonym.
As far as I know, bara is only used with respect to acts of God. However, asah is also used to describe acts of God. Thus if God both created and fashioned on the same day, it seems to me that either one can be used to refer to that same day (or days).
==I know you the take the phrase where made is used as a repetition of the phrase where create is used but what translator interchanges the two words, make for bara’ or create for ‘asah, in any Scripture? Any at all?
I don’t know the answer to your question with respect to the translators. To be honest, this thread is the first time I can remember ever really thinking about about these two words. But if the Bible refers to any given creation day, or days, using both words to describe them, then it seems reasonable to me to conclude that God was both creating and fashioning during creation week. And if he was doing both on any given creation day, then it stands to reason that either word can be used to refer to the same. That makes them referential synonyms (meaning the same thing, or nearly the same thing) in my book.
Your point just hit me with the full force (I’m sure) you intended. Excellent, excellent observation!
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.
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.
Count me "in".. I simply "have" to be "there"..
where-ever and what-ever "there" is..
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.
It doesn't. It just conflicts with thee narrow viewpoint that they were indoctrinated with..
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.
“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!
==But that last paragraph is a bit reaching, no a lot of reaching.
Well don’t just leave me hanging. Why, in your opinion, does my last paragraph represent “a lot of reaching.” My inquiring mind wants to know :o)
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?
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.
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.
==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?
There is no reason for me to come around, since I never closed-off the possibility that they have different definitions with respect to creation week. Although, GourmetDan’s point with respect to asah preceding bara in Gen. 1:26 strengthens the argument that they can both be used as standard synonyms —and/or— referrential synonyms.
==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?
Still not sure if you fully understand what I’m trying to say. My point is that since the Bible tells us that both happened on a given creation day, then either can be used to refer to said day. So even if we accept that asah and bara have different meanings, either can be used as referential synonyms to refer to a creation day where they both occured. For instance, if I went on a holiday that both involved water skiing and fishing, I could use either word to refer to the same holiday. As such, the use of asah and bara in reference to any given creation day in no way hinders a straigtforward reading of creation week where “evening and morning” are used in conjunction with an ordinal number attached to a specific day/yom. This language is a direct appeal to our own experience with respect to what is meant by “day”, where each day is defined by an ordinal number and “evening and morning.” To my mind, it is those who try to read-in long ages who are engaged in all the twisting and stretching.
==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 did some checking and discovered I am not alone in my understanding of how asah and bara are used with respect to creation week in Genesis. Although, I must admit others have communicated the idea much better than my feeble attempts to describe the same. As it turns out, what I was driving at is known as “Synonymous Parallelism.” To wit:
“A synonymous parallelism is where a thought is stated in one phrase and then repeated in different words in the next phrase. The following synonymous parallelisms show the equivalent meanings of bara and asah.
Genesis 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Exodus 34:10 And He said: “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do (asah) marvels such as have not been done (bara) in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD. For it is an awesome thing that I will do (asah) with you.
Isaiah 41:20 That they may see and know, And consider and understand together, That the hand of the LORD has done (asah) this, And the Holy One of Israel has created (bara) it.
Isaiah 43:7 Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him.”
Notice that these examples strengthen GourmetDan’s argument that these words can be used as standard synonyms (not just referrential synonyms). I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but one thing is clear—neither asah or bara in any way hinders a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation week in Genesis.
Does this have anything to do with Genesis 1 stating that animals came before man and Genesis 2 stating that animals came after man?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.