|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I did notthing of the kind. I asked you if you thought he was not aware that daylight and night were caused by the sun. i just read what's there. evidently, there is daylight before there is a sun. the sun is created to GOVERN the daytime, not to create it. if you suspect that means that daylight does not come from the sun, so be it, but the two are grammatically linked.
The jist of this argument is that you say the text says God created the sun, moon, stars on the fourth day. because it does.
You say "Of course it is and you're chicken to admit it." I say "I don't have to say of course it is because it is not necessarily so if ASAH and BARA are not totally synonomous Hebrew words. Which they are NOT. Get over it." in this usage, they are synonymous.
It very well could be that the man had a prophetic vision or a dream. He writes what he saw and he saw it. Seven visions may have been presented to him in which the basic creation and formation events were revealed to his sight. again, you're making things up. you have quite an imagination, jay. the author says god made the sun. what do you suspect that means?
If he did not see the sun on days one through three but only a glowing and diffuse light and then noticed there distinct shapes, he could have said "He made the sun and the stars and the moon too." no, that would be "revealed." you are contending that the author of genesis is wrong.
I don't know why you have a problem with that. i have no problem with the author of genesis being wrong. but i suspect that you do.
Why would God have to say of Himself "Let there be light" on the first day. Did God turn Himself on as light for the day period and then dim Himself for the night period? Did He adjust Himself to not shine in the evening? where does the sun go at the end of the day?
Did the God whose way is perfect speak forth a world waste, void, dark, ruined, and chaotic? yes. at first. that was not the END or purpose of creation, however. although, as i explained above, it is an equally acceptable reading that the state of chaos pre-existed.
But you say "No the Hebrew says God created the sun on day four. The green vegatation was using something else as a light source. Don't blame me. And admit that that is the only way to understand it, as illogical as it is." again, it's not my fault if the text does not make sense. but, according to genesis 1, there was light before the sun was created.
Well, I don't think your fourth day lighbearer creation is the only way to understand it. you have to change the text to say otherwise.
And as you use a little common sense in reading ASAH in the context of trimming a beard or preparing a meal, so I also use a little common sense in the making of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. it's not trimming a beard or preparing a meal. it's creating the sun, the moon, and the stars. do you fail to see the difference? if genesis does not really explain the origins of the sun and moon and stars, what purpose does it serve? it's a story of creation. it's about creation. not reconstruction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If it was God's own light that was the day light for three days then the question of whether you believe that was the Shekinah glory of God in the temple, IS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE. i must have missed that question. no, the verbs are masculine. the shekinah is feminine. but again, my beliefs are irrelevant. really, they are. this is not about my belief. this is about what the text says.
And as for the robustness of certain physiological body parts, you were the one who jumped behind the irrelvancy of your personal beliefs, and at such a logical and relevant question. lol nice phraseology. but no, it is not logical, nor is it relevant. we're not talking about interpretation or belief. one does not even need to believe in the bible to read it and understand what it says. i have found quite often that belief just gets in the way -- and makes you create crazy ideas like this one you keep talking about as a way to justify actually believing in the bible. we are not discussing what i believe, or how i interpret genesis. we are discussing how what you believe does not fit what the text says. this is not a battle of my religion against your religion, this is a battle of the text of the bible against your idea.
I think that if you believe there was no sun until day four than as a serious Hebrew Bible reader a logical alternative was that it was the Shekinah glory of God as shinned in the Holy of Holies. as i mentioned, something similar to this idea is a rather common interpretation, and i think it's probably an acceptable one. though i do not think it is usually related in terms of god's female presence, the shekinah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It is usually used in working over something which already exists. yes, it is. does the meal exist before it is made? added by edit: the problem is that you are misapplying words found within idioms literally to other verses that do not contain the idioms. the base meaning of asah is "do." "make" is actually somewhat idiomatic, as well, it's just a common meaning. so for instance, regarding a meal, one "does" the meal. similarly, one "does" their hair, or "does" their nails (funny that these are both in english as well). so, literally:
quote: quote: quote: quote: So I expect a little more than, "Well, you can't really use that Dictionary you know?" it's not a dictionary. it's a list of usages. it tells you nothing of the grammar, the context, the idioms, or even WHY something is used that way. in english, we can say "she did her nails" and it means "got a manicure" or perhaps "painted her nails." but we cannot exchange "got" or "paint" for every usage of "do," can we? Edited by arachnophilia, : added edit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
To those who were of ancient times God also said "And the Lord said, Because the people draws near with their mouth, And with their lips they honor Me, Yet they remove their hearts far from Me ..." (Isa. 29:13). So in the case of Korah, King Saul, and Ahab, though closer in time as you point out, they more than nullified this by being far away in their heart from God, though their lips could probably recite His oracles with very proper Hebrew accents and annunciation. so how do we tell who's heart was with god, and who's was not? oh, yes, the bible tells us. which means paul's heart was, because he said it was. i see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Then next time be careful before you accuse me of disrespecting the book that I stake my life and eternal destiny on. i see. so the bible IS your god then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Arach,
By the way. I went too far to provoke you. I'm sorry.
again, you're making things up. you have quite an imagination, jay. the author says god made the sun. what do you suspect that means?] I do not change the text. That is the first thing. I interpret the meaning of ASAH to mean something other than that on the fourth day God created the sun, moon, and stars out of nothing. That is interpretation. That is not changing the text. Now let me ask you this: If ASAH does not mean create out of nothing AND the seer could not see the sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day, then why would this statment be a false one - "And God made two great light-bearers, the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heaven to give light on the earth and to rule over the day and over the night ... And there was evening and there was, a fourth day" Again my question is can this statement be true if the sun or moon or stars existed before the fourth day, if ASAH does not mean to create out of nothing? If ASAH does not mean create something out of nothing, then why should this passage not be thought of as conveying something possible? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I do not change the text. That is the first thing. I interpret the meaning of ASAH to mean something other than that on the fourth day God created the sun, moon, and stars out of nothing. you are making up a false dilemma. i have no claimed that god created the sun, moon, and stars "out of nothing." this is a phrase you have added to my claim, making it a strawman. in fact, i specifically made claims to the contrary.
Again my question is can this statement be true if the sun or moon or stars existed before the fourth day, if ASAH does not mean to create out of nothing? no. in this context, it still means "make." you have not demonstrated a sufficient reason to that "doing" the sun, and "doing" the moon, and "doing" the stars should mean anything other than "make," in the context of creation. i understand that you do not believe genesis 1 is about creation. you have not demonstrated that, either. and to do so would require that we rob genesis 1 of most of its meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Arach,
you are making up a false dilemma. i have no claimed that god created the sun, moon, and stars "out of nothing." this is a phrase you have added to my claim, making it a strawman. in fact, i specifically made claims to the contrary. Oh Okay. Let's try it this way. If the prophet could not see the sun because of thick nebulous haze overhead, and he or we have no idea as to the sun's state of existence, and gradually the outline of the sun appears to him, how we do not know - then is it true that he saw God making [ ASAH] the sun? Again we don't know whether it was materially in the universe or not. We only see God "making" it as it being made distinguishable. Then can we say that means God made the sun on the fourth day? I think a Yes or a No will do it.
understand that you do not believe genesis 1 is about creation. you have not demonstrated that, either. and to do so would require that we rob genesis 1 of most of its meaning. For making charges of erecting strawmen it is funny that you turn around and make one yourself. I believe it is about creation and restoration with further creation. "In the beginning God created [BARA] the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1 That's about creation. His creating the life of man and the life of the sea creatures and the other life used with the word BARA is certainly about creation. If there is an eterval of time between "In the beginning" and the first day, I still think it is an account of creation and restoration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
i understand that you do not believe genesis 1 is about creation. you have not demonstrated that, either. and to do so would require that we rob genesis 1 of most of its meaning. Psalm 104:19 says "He appointed the moon for seasons". So Genesis 1:16 seems more a reference to God appointing of the sun, moon and stars as time markers for man and for signs for man. That is ASAH being used to give the quite legitimate meaning of giving a new role to something already in existence. I don't think this understanding takes away the overall concept of the Creator God being the ultimate source of all the creation. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If the prophet could not see the sun because of thick nebulous haze overhead, and he or we have no idea as to the sun's state of existence, and gradually the outline of the sun appears to him, how we do not know - then is it true that he saw God making [ ASAH] the sun? you are contending that the bible speaks in error, and in ignorance.
Again we don't know whether it was materially in the universe or not. We only see God "making" it as it being made distinguishable. Then can we say that means God made the sun on the fourth day? yes, that is what the text says.
For making charges of erecting strawmen it is funny that you turn around and make one yourself. I believe it is about creation and restoration with further creation. initial creation.
If there is an eterval of time between "In the beginning" and the first day, I still think it is an account of creation and restoration. there is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
no. in this context, it still means "make." you have not demonstrated a sufficient reason to that "doing" the sun, and "doing" the moon, and "doing" the stars should mean anything other than "make," in the context of creation. I gave plenty of reasons which I think are sufficient. You don't like me to refer to the Bible as a whole. You don't like me to refer to other parts of the Bible to supply those reasons. You talk about context. But you don't want to include the rest of the Bible as context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
you are contending that the bible speaks in error, and in ignorance.
On the contrary. I am saying that under inspiration of God the prophet used words which made an account even truer than he could imagine.
yes, that is what the text says. Okay then we seem to not have any argument then. We can be ignorant of the material existence of the body known as the sun previous to day four. From the seer's standpoint all we know is that for all practical purposes it was made when he SAW it. Are you sure you agree? Did I hear you right? Here again is the question in which you seem to answer in the affirmative:
Again we don't know whether it was materially in the universe or not. We only see God "making" it as it being made distinguishable. Then can we say that means God made the sun on the fourth day? You say
yes, that is what the text says. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Psalm 104:19 says "He appointed the moon for seasons" quote: yes, god made the moon as a marker for time. oh, and while we're at it, the other half of the verse:
quote: tell me, does the sun have a brain? i think you are misunderstanding anthropomorphizisation in poetry.
That is ASAH being used to give the quite legitimate meaning of giving a new role to something already in existence. the moon did not exist prior to day four, when god made it.
I don't think this understanding takes away the overall concept of the Creator God being the ultimate source of all the creation. no, but it takes away from the point and meaning of genesis a story that contains the origins of the heavenly bodies. why bother mentioning them at all, if it's not talking about their creation? Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle, broken tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
initial creation. What sentence in Genesis chapter one shows the initial creation of land?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
On the contrary. I am saying that under inspiration of God the prophet used words which made an account even truer than he could imagine. uh huh. tell me another one. you're saying that the author of genesis saw a vision (a story you've made up) in which he was unaware of the sun's existance, and then wrote "god made the sun" when god really just revealed the sun. you're saying he got it wrong out of ignorance. that is not the same as getting it right. have you no common sense?
Are you sure you agree? Did I hear you right? you did not hear me right. you did not hear anything, actually. you asked if we can know that god made the sun on day four. i said "yes" and "that is what the text says." contrary to your point.
Then can we say that means God made the sun on the fourth day? yes, that is what the text says. yes. we can know that it means god made the sun on the fourth day, because IT SAYS god made the sun on the fourth day. read my post, and genesis 1 a few more times. maybe it'll make sense.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024