|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
Total: 918,913 Year: 6,170/9,624 Month: 18/240 Week: 33/34 Day: 5/6 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 2129 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
rather me trying to keep jaywill specific. Wise guy. Let's keep you specific. Genesis 3:21 - "And Jehovah MADE for Adam and for his wife coats of skins and clothed them" Didn't those coats of skin exist as something else before God made them to function as Adam's clothing? Is it then impossible that the lightbearers in 1:14 were in existence as something else before they were MADE to be signs and markers for seasons? Genesis 18:6 - "And Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, Quickly prepare three measures of fine flour, knead it, and make cakes." Did not the flour exist before Sarah made three measures of fine flour, kneaded and made for cakes? Could not then the essential materials of the lightbearers in 1:14 exist before God made them for markers and signs for seasons? Genesis 27:9 - "Go now to the flock, and take two choice kids for me from there, and I will prepare them as a tasty meal for your father, such as he loves." Didn't the material for the tasty meal already exist before they were made or prepared into that function? Why couldn't the moon exist before it was made for a season marking sign in 1:14?
And God said, Let there be lightbearers in the expanse of heaven to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. And let them be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to give light in the earth, and it was so. And God made two great lightbearers, the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars also. And God set them in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth." According to the examples compared above what forbids the materials, albiet darkened by some reason, of sun, moon, and stars from being in existence before the fourth day? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Changed Subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 600 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes: ... what forbids the materials, albiet darkened by some reason, of sun, moon, and stars from being in existence before the fourth day? Your examples sound more like an argument against creation ex nihilo than an argument for a created/made distinction. Of course the materials for clothes and the ingrdients for meals existed before they were "made" into something different. Who is saying that the materials for the sun, moon and stars didn't exist before the fourth day? What seems pretty clear is that those materials were not made into "light-bearers" until the fourth day. Similarly, the skins were not made into clothes until they were made into clothes. The ingredients were not made into meals until they were made into meals. The logic is simple: pre-existence of the materials does not imply pre-existence of the artifacts made from the materials. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
why do you write reply after reply to one post? sometimes even replying to yourself? stop it, it's annoying.
Empty and without form is the state of the earth after it was created. It was not the state before it was created. the grammar in hebrew supports either reading.
Maybe they do not represent the majority opinion. Does going with the majority opinion always and without fail lead to the truth? Are there exceptions to the rightness of the majority opinion ever? irrelevant. "so and so said so" is not support for accuracy. not even if it's the majority opinion.
Saying that Rabbi Nachman said that no other word in Hebrew beside BARA would express creation from nothing may not prove my point. But it proves that Jewish interpretation does not die with you. nor with rabbi nachman, all due respect. in this case, he's probably right. but no one is saying that god did not use raw materials in his creation of the sun -- but the sun did not exist before god made it.
I can say that the function of the lightbearers did not come into existence. It is a simple concept.
The seer did not see the functioning lightbearers as distinct sources of light until the fourth day. then you contend the bible is wrong when it says that god made the sun and moon and stars on day four, or records the words of god inaccurately? or that god was stupid for commanding something into existance that already existed?
Behind the haze and the clouds they may have existed already. clouds did not exist until god made the sky.
If we say "Impossible" then we have to say that God used some other light to mark the previous three days of light. That is certainly possible. this is the only logical conclusion from the text.
The word "made" is enough to understand the verse in that way. That is if you assume the validity of the definition that "made" means to fashion or form something from material which already exists. does the meal exist before i make it? raw materials ≠ finished product.
Why could God not repair or restore the damaged function of lightbearers to mark seasons, had they been rendered unable to do this? because it doesn't say god "repaired" the sun. it says that god commanded the sun to exist. then it says god made the sun. it's not an issue of "could." god could do anything. the issue at hand is what the bible says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It has been rebuked as off topic, but it is an interesting study. Exodus says that they went out a mixed multitude. You say "No Egyptians in the crowd according to Numbers." faith corrected me -- and it's also irrelevant.
Which means that God's word to the Hebrews was for them also in some regard. irrelevant. we're not talking about who god's word was written for, we're talking about the contents of it. i was trying to keep you specific to which words of god.
Now, your challenge to find "appoint" or "revealed" in any english translation I am willing to explore. you do that. but remember, in this verse, in this book (genesis).
But failing to find such a translation still makes ASAH include the definition of working with already existing material. i never argued otherwise. just that the sun itself did not exist prior to god's command for it to exist.
It would not prove that God could not work with an already existing but unseen, as of yet, lightbearer which entered into full function on the fourth day. it would prove that no one reads it that way. majority opinion, whatever. but if nobody agrees with you? maybe you're just wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
What about Psalm 104:19 which says in some English versions "made" and in other versions "appointed?" "He made the moon to [mark] seasons" (RcV) "He appointed the moon for seasons ..." ( 1901 ASV) It know it is not the Genesis verse. But its talking about the Genesis verse. it's not a strictly literal translation. this sort of word exchange happens a few times in the kjv, and other translations, to make concepts and grammar make sense in english (of the time). because the sentance is changed around in a strange grammatical way, gets an instance of "appointed" in the concordance, when really, "appointed" comes from the prepositional phrase —. really, the sentance reads, "made the-moon to-marked-seasons," because the verb is asah "made", and moadim are months. "appointed" is thrown in because moadim (months) lack the implication of marking found in the hebrew. so they take "marked" from "seasons" and make it part of the verb, rendering "make marked" or "appointed." it's NOT a literal translation of asah, in this regard. like i said, usage matters. in any case, i feel that — reads better as an infinitive in english. the jps and a many other translations agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
wow, a reply to a reply to an admin action. i guess i shouldn't have started it.
Genesis 3:21 - "And Jehovah MADE for Adam and for his wife coats of skins and clothed them" Didn't those coats of skin exist as something else before God made them to function as Adam's clothing? probably, but i'll bet you ten bucks i can get another fundie argue that god made them out of thin air. cause, you know, no death until the fall, no man using animal products until noah. but tell me, did the coats exist before god made them?
Genesis 18:6 - "And Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, Quickly prepare three measures of fine flour, knead it, and make cakes." Did not the flour exist before Sarah made three measures of fine flour, kneaded and made for cakes? wrong usage of asah. and anyways, were they three measures before sarah measured them?
Genesis 27:9 - "Go now to the flock, and take two choice kids for me from there, and I will prepare them as a tasty meal for your father, such as he loves." Didn't the material for the tasty meal already exist before they were made or prepared into that function? did the meal exist before jacob made it?
According to the examples compared above what forbids the materials, albiet darkened by some reason, of sun, moon, and stars from being in existence before the fourth day? materials -- nothing. the sun itself? no. the moon itself? no. the stars themselves? no. things do not exist before you make them, even if you make them from something else. if that's the case, the something else exists. Edited by AdminPD, : Change Subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The logic is simple: pre-existence of the materials does not imply pre-existence of the artifacts made from the materials. i'm glad i'm not the only who understands logic here.
Your examples sound more like an argument against creation ex nihilo than an argument for a created/made distinction. well, not exactly. bara may (or may not) be a different case. the three (bara, asah, yatsar) all have different shades of meaning, though it is incorrect to say they cannot be use synonymously. they very often are. in english, i might describe a piece of sculpture as my creation, but certainly it's something i made, and formed with my hands. "create" has an intellectual connotations -- it's something i planned, and executed. "form" refers to actual process of creation. the op means to say, essentially, is that genesis is a planning stage, and genesis 2 is the execution. but you cannot disconnect "create" from "formed" because "create" encompasses the execution. anyway, back to your regularly scheduled off-topic discussion. jay: i have a better place to read your gap theory into -- genesis 2:4. god goes through creation, at length, including the creation of man -- and then god does it all over again in the next chapter. why would god start over? must be the first one was destroyed. Edited by arachnophilia, : forgot the large tacky and arrogant hebrew font below.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
translation and understanding are terribly complicated things. languages carry from different cultures and denote disparate manners of thought.
carryv 1: move while supporting, either in a vehicle or in one's hands or on one's body; or 4: serve as a means for expressing something these are COMPLETELY different words. they express completely different ideas. one could say it's similar in that the latter "supports connotation" but it's a linguistic cartwheel. how you use words changes what they mean. i used the latter. i speak french. the first word would be translated 'porter'. but. it could also be translated as 'apporter' if it means to carry with or bring or convey (as in conveyer belt). the latter would most likely be translated "avoir l'aire de (qqch)" ('to have the air of (something)' or 'resemble'). but it could also be 'exprimer' (to express) or révéler (to make known, to impart). if i used the first instead of the second, i have not in your mind "changed the words" but i have incorrectly translated such that the original concept is no longer 'carried' into the translation. a concordance is not a dictionary. it is not a translation tool. it is a list of the various ways in which a certain word has been translated. it may or may not be a consistent, real source of actual word meanings. you may think that you can just pick and choose which english word you want to stick in place of a hebrew word, but you can't. to do that treats hebrew as a code for english. it is not thus. it is a language that grew from a culture and it is a whole and standing entity on its own even if english never existed. you cannot approach a language from your own. you have to learn it how it is used, not what it "translates to". btw. 'apporter' also is the word used for 'to wear clothing'. you are wearing a pink shirt = tu apportes une chemise rose. this is demonstrably not the same meaning as you brought your books to class = tu apportes tes livres au cours. but the word is the same. this is the argument that you are making. "if i want, i can say he is wearing his books to class and i haven't changed the words!" yes, my dear, you have changed the words. Edited by brennakimi, : changed french for precision Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 2129 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
probably, but i'll bet you ten bucks i can get another fundie argue that god made them out of thin air. cause, you know, no death until the fall, no man using animal products until noah. It is a comfort just to dismiss me as "a fundie". A good name calling will clear everything up, I suppose to some people. You are not dealing with another argument that they were made out of thin air. And I doubt that anyone would argue that they were made from thin air. And I probably would beat you out of ten dollars, if I cared or if it mattered. So this redicule ridden response is pretty weak.
but tell me, did the coats exist before god made them? No the coats for Adam didn't exist. They were coats for the animal who wore them in some respects. Now I don't know if the sun, moon, and stars were healthy or damaged. I think from the standpoint of the seer standing on the earth they were not there and they were not functioning properly as mankind is used to them in normal function. You see the whole story is very much centered on human experience. The creation is for man. And man is the center of this creation. Man is what is on God's heart.
wrong usage of asah. and anyways, were they three measures before sarah measured them? The three measures of the meal did not exist yet from her perspective. They hadn't been measured out yet. But the meal probably did exist. The three measures of meal was made from the already existing meal. Three measures were appointed and prepared for the specific use of serving for what we might call an afternoon lunch.
did the meal exist before jacob made it? No. But the materials for the meal existed.
things do not exist before you make them, even if you make them from something else. if that's the case, the something else exists. Okay then. For three days while the the prophet saw the earth grow dark and light again, SOMETHING in the center of the solar system existed which alternately bathed the planet in light and dark as it rotated. And millions of light years away other somethings may have existed which couldn't yet be seen performing their proper God prepared usage for man's world yet either. The earth being waste and void would have effected the human prophet's perception of other things in the universe and hindered their humankind appointed functions. The coming into proper function of those somethings was of God. And as in six days this divine preparation is revealed to the prophetic writer. Edited by AdminPD, : Changed Subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It is a comfort just to dismiss me as "a fundie". A good name calling will clear everything up, I suppose to some people. suppose what you wish. i was a fundamentalist myself.
You are not dealing with another argument that they were made out of thin air. And I doubt that anyone would argue that they were made from thin air. And I probably would beat you out of ten dollars, if I cared or if it mattered. yes, but i bet i know a few people here who would argue that they were. afterall, even lions ate grass on the ark.
No the coats for Adam didn't exist. They were coats for the animal who wore them in some respects. they were skins. god made the coats of skins. they did not exist as coats until god made the skins into coats.
Now I don't know if the sun, moon, and stars were healthy or damaged. they did not exist until god made them. the raw materials might have, but the end products did not. there was no sun on day one.
I think from the standpoint of the seer standing on the earth they were not there and they were not functioning properly as mankind is used to them in normal function. the "seer" is being given divine knowledge. his perspective is irrelevant, and frankly, you're still saying "i know better than the authors of the bible."
The three measures of the meal did not exist yet from her perspective. They hadn't been measured out yet. But the meal probably did exist. it's the three measures that was made, not the meal.
The three measures of meal was made from the already existing meal. Three measures were appointed and prepared for the specific use of serving for what we might call an afternoon lunch. you cannot substitute meanings like this. "prepared" works in english, appointed does not. i know you don't speak hebrew, i'm sure you speak english. and that doesn't make sense in english.
Okay then. For three days while the the prophet saw the earth grow dark and light again, SOMETHING [...] existed which alternately bathed the planet in light and dark yes. but not the sun.
in the center of the solar system ... as it rotated. doesn't make sense in the context of the story. this is not the cosmological picture that genesis draws. and whatever was providing light was not in the position or function of the sun. i agree, that's not very specific, but they story doesn't give a lot to work on.
And millions of light years away other somethings may have existed which couldn't yet be seen performing their proper God prepared usage for man's world yet either. no, the stars didn't exist until god commanded them to.
The earth being waste and void would have effected the human prophet's perception then the human prophet misunderstands, and the bible is inaccurate. we can divine a lot of stuff from the text if we just assume that it's wrong in places.
of other things in the universe and hindered their humankind appointed functions. The coming into proper function of those somethings was of God. And as in six days this divine preparation is revealed to the prophetic writer. no, this not about "coming into proper function." this is about creation. it's a creation story. god commands these things to exist not to change function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 2129 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
yes, but i bet i know a few people here who would argue that they were. afterall, even lions ate grass on the ark. Lions ate grass and three days of daylight without the sun? Hmmm.
they did not exist until god made them. the raw materials might have, but the end products did not. there was no sun on day one. Okay. There was no sun on day one. But there was some unknown something as a light source that acted very much like the sun. Maybe it was a proto sun. The indistinct light either crystalized into distinct lightbearers or a messy earth was the first thing to exist in the universe and the galaxies and stars were brought into being around it. I think we both agree that Genesis 1 is not an exhaustive scientific description of how God created everything. It communicates that He is the source and that He is orderly and purposeful. I think we agree that the account portrays these few essential things about God and creation.
the "seer" is being given divine knowledge. his perspective is irrelevant, and frankly, you're still saying "i know better than the authors of the bible." If the "seer" is being given divine knowledge I think that we necessarily cannot limit that to only what he understood. I think that we have to take into account that the transfer of divine knowledge could include matters which could also be outside of his understanding. Joseph received divine knowledge in the way of a dream which he did not appreciate fully until years latter when he was released from prison. At that time he saw his father and brothers bow down to the earth before him as he ruled Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar received divine knowledge about future empires which he did not understand at all. Daniel had to interpret it for him. Samuel received divine speaking which he could not understand until Eli helped him. Joshua received a divine vision which he did not fully understand until the one he saw explianed it to him. Jeremiah wrote of Israel's captivity for 70 years in Babylon. But Daniel looking back through history had more details about that captivity period then Jeremiah could have had. So it is possible that the seer faithfully wrote down things which latter generations had more understanding of in some aspects then the prophetic writer.
you cannot substitute meanings like this. "prepared" works in english, appointed does not. i know you don't speak hebrew, i'm sure you speak english. and that doesn't make sense in english. I would have to reveiw which particular verse you are speaking of. But I only quoted some English translations. And it is no secret that translators look at context and decide often what sense of the word is the best fit. "Appointed" for the word asah occured in the English tranlation of Psalm 104:19 in the 1901 American Standard. I was told by a Hebrew teacher that the 1901 American Standard Version has a reputation among Greek and Hebrew scholars of being a "wooden" translation. He explained that that means it leans towardss sacrificing good sounding English for the sake of arriving at the closest possible sense of the original language. You are correct. I don't read Hebrew. But I keep a number of Bible translations around. And I often look at the 1901 ASV to see how they translate a passage in thier "wooden" translation. Here are the credentials of the professor who gave me that explaination:
EUGENE VAN NESS GOETCHIUS, Ph.D., Th.D. Reverend Goetchius, now retired, was professor of Biblical Languages from 1963-1989, holding chairs simultaneously in the Episcopal Theological School and the Philadelphia Divinity School. He taught Greek and Hebrew and collaborated with colleagues from Harvard Divinity School and Weston School of Theology in teaching introductory courses in New Testament interpretation and exegesis. He wrote a Greek grammar book, The Language of the New Testament, with an accompanying workbook; The Teaching of the Biblical Languages and The Gifts of God. He received his Th.D. in New Testament Studies from Union Theological Seminary in New York in 1963 and his Ph.D. in Germanic Languages and Linguistics from the University of Virginia in 1949.
yes. but not the sun. Okay. Something but not the sun.Perhaps in the same sense that Venus is something but not a earth like life sustaining planet. Or a red giant is something but not a typical "sun" as we are accustomed to (in laymen's terms). Of course Venus is a planet and a red giant is a sun in strict scientific terms.
in the center of the solar system ... as it rotated. doesn't make sense in the context of the story. this is not the cosmological picture that genesis draws. and whatever was providing light was not in the position or function of the sun. We don't know what else this light source may have been doing. We are told only the things related to the ordely preparation of man's world of life as his home. I don't say that my speculation is equal to the Scripture in authority. I admit that my understanding is speculation. And I think it is plausible given the language. Your position is that it is not even plausible. I respect your view. But I don't agree with you. Your credentials as a Hebrew reader don't convince me that your opinion on it is more than that, an opinion which may or may not be the last word on the ASAH / BARA meaning issue. I think your strongest argument is that Genesis 1:26 and 27 might use the two words interchangeably. I think that may be a strong argument that ASAH is BARA and BARA is ASAH. But as I already pointed out that one Rabbi Nachman submitted that no other word in Hebrew - NO other word would express creation of something from nothing (as God is expected to do), beside the word BARA. I doubt that this Rabbi Nachman was a Christian fundamentalist. The reference is found in G.H. Pember's book "Earth's Earliest Ages."
no, the stars didn't exist until god commanded them to. The earth being waste and void would have effected the human prophet's perception then the human prophet misunderstands, and the bible is inaccurate. we can divine a lot of stuff from the text if we just assume that it's wrong in places. Are you saying that you believe that the Bible is accurate and the prophets are speaking the truth from God? And having asked that are you going to say "What I believe is not important"? Because if that is your response then I wonder how much of your exegesis of the Bible is simply motivated by the desire to chase Christians away from interpreting the Old Testament. Are you trying to just chase all us Christians out of the Old Testament? I know that you can slip quickly behind the "Off Topic" bolder and refuse to answer that question. But I am curious why you seem to want to push me into a corner that the Bible has untruth written in it. Are you suggesting that a strict Young Earth, Hyper Literal, Hyper Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis chapter one is alone valid to the original Hebrew? In other words I have to understand that God created first a messy earth and then created the universe around it, or else I don't understand what the prophet has written in Hebrew?
of other things in the universe and hindered their humankind appointed functions. The coming into proper function of those somethings was of God. And as in six days this divine preparation is revealed to the prophetic writer. no, this not about "coming into proper function." this is about creation. it's a creation story. god commands these things to exist not to change function. I don't think coming into proper function means that it is not a creation account. The dry land appeared on the third day. It says nothing about it being created. It says it appeared from underneath the water. That certainly entails the wet land becoming dry that it might fulfill a function to support the living creatures created upon it. I don't think coming into proper function means it is not a creation account. Everything was dark. And God divided the dark from the light so the dark could fulfill a proper function of serving as limited night rather than eternal night. The limitation of what existed that it might function properly does not make the account not a creation account. I think you have a false dichotomy going there. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : Spelling Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Lions ate grass and three days of daylight without the sun? Hmmm. not claims i made up. and one of them is in the bible.
Okay. There was no sun on day one. But there was some unknown something as a light source that acted very much like the sun. Maybe it was a proto sun. no, it was something that was not the sun.
The indistinct light either crystalized into distinct lightbearers or a messy earth was the first thing to exist in the universe and the galaxies and stars were brought into being around it. yes. the universe in genesis is geocentric -- actually, it's centered around one particular inhabitant of the earth, mankind. everything is made around man. this should not be a startling conclusion.
I think we both agree that Genesis 1 is not an exhaustive scientific description of how God created everything. it is contrary to science in almost every way. why do you think we have most of this debate, on this board? genesis describes us (mankind) as having a central and special place in the universe, and science describes the exact opposite. modern science and genesis are completely unable to be reconciled. why try to match the cosmology? genesis is a mythological description of how god created everything that hebrew authors cared to write about. i have no problem saying that genesis has it wrong -- but i suspect that you do. yet, you seem to use "genesis has it wrong" to try to justify genesis having it right. which just doesn't make sense. i'll take a consistent and accurate picture of genesis, regardless of its accuracy.
If the "seer" is being given divine knowledge I think that we necessarily cannot limit that to only what he understood. no, this is still a double standard. you cannot say that god has given the author of genesis divine knowledge to the extent of controlling which words he used -- and that the text is limited by the author's understanding. those are directly contradictory statements. if the author is being given divine inspiration down to precise word choice, then either everything is correct, or god is lying to the author.
Joseph received divine knowledge in the way of a dream which he did not appreciate fully until years latter when he was released from prison. At that time he saw his father and brothers bow down to the earth before him as he ruled Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar received divine knowledge about future empires which he did not understand at all. Daniel had to interpret it for him. Samuel received divine speaking which he could not understand until Eli helped him. Joshua received a divine vision which he did not fully understand until the one he saw explianed it to him. but did any of them recieve divine knowledge that was wrong? if genesis presents an account that is colored by the authors misunderstandings, than word choice is not important. you are saying that the text is in error. i have no problem with saying the text is in error, but you cannot say "the text is in error" and pretend that it is still accurate, and god gave the author his very words.
Jeremiah wrote of Israel's captivity for 70 years in Babylon. But Daniel looking back through history had more details about that captivity period then Jeremiah could have had. So it is possible that the seer faithfully wrote down things which latter generations had more understanding of in some aspects then the prophetic writer. so it's a "santa claus" lie then?
"Appointed" for the word asah occured in the English tranlation of Psalm 104:19 in the 1901 American Standard. I was told by a Hebrew teacher that the 1901 American Standard Version has a reputation among Greek and Hebrew scholars of being a "wooden" translation. He explained that that means it leans towardss sacrificing good sounding English for the sake of arriving at the closest possible sense of the original language. the kjv is generally regarded as the most "wooden" literal translation. it still makes this change. translations are subjective, and done by multiple people, with varying standards of literalness versus grammatical sense. but look back a few pages, i personally translated this verse for you, word for word, without making it make sense in english, and then with. there is nothing in the verse that neccessitates anything other than a usage of asah meaning "made" as in creation.
You are correct. I don't read Hebrew. But I keep a number of Bible translations around. And I often look at the 1901 ASV to see how they translate a passage in thier "wooden" translation. i keep around a modern jps (which you can't get free online), a parallel english/hebrew chumash, an old niv someone gave me when i first converted, a kjv, an interlineal greek/english new testament (which as sees very little use), a hebrew dictionary, and commonly refer to multiple translations online, including the hebrew/old jps at http://www.mechon-mamre.org/ i can pull very wooden literal translations on my own, and i frequently do for debates here. i also consult other translations in the process to make sure i'm not totally misunderstanding something. and in this particular verse, the 1901 asv is not expecially wooden.
Okay. Something but not the sun. Perhaps in the same sense that Venus is something but not a earth like life sustaining planet. Or a red giant is something but not a typical "sun" as we are accustomed to (in laymen's terms). Of course Venus is a planet and a red giant is a sun in strict scientific terms. it would be something that is not the sun in any manner. god may have used raw materials, but the creation of the sun was still a creative act, not just re-appointment or repair or a mild transition. it was a substantial shift. whatever was providing the light for the first three days was not what would become the sun. many have suggested that god personally provided the light.
Your position is that it is not even plausible. I respect your view. But I don't agree with you. Your credentials as a Hebrew reader don't convince me that your opinion on it is more than that, an opinion which may or may not be the last word on the ASAH / BARA meaning issue. the grammar and context of the story does not support your view (regarding the sun's prior existance) in hebrew, nor english for that matter. this is not my opinion, this is what the text says. you cannot read a text which says "on day four, god told the sun to exist. then god made the sun" to mean the sun existed before day four. you just can't. you can say the text is wrong, but i suspect you don't want to say that.
I think your strongest argument is that Genesis 1:26 and 27 might use the two words interchangeably. I think that may be a strong argument that ASAH is BARA and BARA is ASAH. no, i have suggested that they have slightly different connotations. just as synonyms in english do. they are often used interchangeably to describe the same thing. if i make a sculpture in my sculpture class, it's my creation (intellectual connotation), but it's also something i made (physical connotation), that i formed (connotation of process) with my hands. we could say, in genesis, that bara refers to god's special creations, the planned-in-detail, intellectual efforts. we could say that asah refers to things that aren't as grand. genesis 1 uses these two words to describe a carefully planned and meticulously executed creation. genesis 2 uses yatsar to describe a more in-touch physical creation, a process of god actually using his hands. the stories have different foci, so different vocabulary.
But as I already pointed out that one Rabbi Nachman submitted that no other word in Hebrew - NO other word would express creation of something from nothing (as God is expected to do), beside the word BARA. actually, if you're interested, i could make an argument that he's wrong. but since you don't accept the basic logic that the sun didn't exist before god made it, there's no way you'll accept this -- considering that it's actually the same argument.
Are you saying that you believe that the Bible is accurate and the prophets are speaking the truth from God? And having asked that are you going to say "What I believe is not important"? no, but frankly this is about what you believe. i do not believe the text to be accurate. but i do believe that we should treat it with integrity and take it at its word, even if it's wrong. you try to subtely say "it's wrong" and make it sound like that's not what you're saying in order to prove it right. you cannot use error as a basis for accuracy. if the author of genesis misunderstood, and recorded his misunderstanding, then the text is wrong. stop beating around the bush about this, and pussyfooting around the issue. if you think the text is wrong, just say so. do i think the text is wrong in places? yes. but i don't say "it's wrong here" with the goal of distorting what the text is saying, to prove its accuracy. i think it's just plain inaccurate, and a human text, inspired (in a loose sense) by god. if i think it's wrong, it's because what the text is actually saying does not reflect reality -- not because there's some coded message in there that's really right, and the author simply didn't understand what he was writing. that's a little convuluted. i'm just saying, stick to one or the other -- but either way, do NOT distort the meaning of the text.
Because if that is your response then I wonder how much of your exegesis of the Bible is simply motivated by the desire to chase Christians away from interpreting the Old Testament. Are you trying to just chase all us Christians out of the Old Testament? don't be silly. i'm a christian, and we're talking about the old testament. i'm trying to chase people away from misinterpretting the bible to support extra-biblical dogma. i am often the first to commend yec's in the religious fora for their courage of recognizing that the bible and science utterly disagree on very many things, and siding with the bible. it's the people in the middle i have problems with. they bend science, and bend the bible to get them to fit. they are only betraying both.
But I am curious why you seem to want to push me into a corner that the Bible has untruth written in it. because that is your claim, and you are not fessing up to it. i suspect that you are not trying to make this claim, yet you persist in saying that authors misunderstood, or weren't aware of something (yet god gave them their very words). if you think the bible is correct to that degree, more power to you. but evidently, you do not.
Are you suggesting that a strict Young Earth, Hyper Literal, Hyper Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis chapter one is alone valid to the original Hebrew? i'm not suggesting it. i'm saying it.
In other words I have to understand that God created first a messy earth and then created the universe around it, or else I don't understand what the prophet has written in Hebrew? that is what the text says.
The dry land appeared on the third day. It says nothing about it being created. It says it appeared from underneath the water. That certainly entails the wet land becoming dry that it might fulfill a function to support the living creatures created upon it. yes, let's look at that. "appeared." is that word asah? Edited by arachnophilia, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuteleach Inactive Member |
I'm not sure if those qualify to make your point valid. For example I will eat a hamburger
I put a hamburger in my mouthI chewed it up. I swallowed it. The acids in my stomach broke it down. Did God create man? YesDid God form man? Yes Did God make man? Yes If I was an architect I would create a building on blue prints.Next I would form it out of materials. And about the creation of Eve. Correct me if i'm wrong, this is just a quick thought, I havn't done a lot of research into it. It seems to me that when God goes from non-living to living, or from living to living he forms. When he goes from non-living to non-living he creates, or makes? I dunno, just a thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If I was an architect I would create a building on blue prints. Next I would form it out of materials. what, to you, indicates that either genesis 1 or genesis 2 is a blueprint? and why does god then deviate from the blueprint?
And about the creation of Eve. Correct me if i'm wrong, this is just a quick thought, I havn't done a lot of research into it. It seems to me that when God goes from non-living to living, or from living to living he forms. When he goes from non-living to non-living he creates, or makes? I dunno, just a thought. no, man in genesis 1 ("created" and "made") is clearly a living entity, as are the animals. in fact, the word for "beast" in genesis 1 is actually derived from the word "life" chay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReformedRob Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 143 From: Anthem AZ, USA Joined: |
There is no contradiction of Genesis 1 & 2. Genesis 1 details the week of creation including the timeline. Genesis 2 is not a timeline but simply what happened on day 6. As was correctly pointed out earlier this follows writing style of the time of writing. An overview then the details. If one looks up the original words in Hebrew there is no significant difference between the words formed and created and the context says the animals in Genesis 2:19 were formed from the dust of the earth paralelling Genesis one which says the same thing.
There is only a contradiction if one reads into Genesis 2 a timeline which is not given as it is in Genesis 1. That's eisogesis and it is flawed. Genesis 2 gives the details but not in a chronological order but merely states God created/formed the animals and brought them to Adam to be named. It does not say that Adam was created first THEN the animals were brought to him for naming but only says God formed the animals AND brought them to Adam. So there is no contradiction and the point is the creation of a mate for Adam and the story flows accordingly. So what one is left with is on the Sixth day the animals were created then Adam then the animals were brought to Adam to be named...no suitable mate for Adam was found then eve was made for Adam. No contradiction unless one reads into the text that the point is a chronology instead of the making of a mate for Adam. "...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024