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.
“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.