Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed

It has been suggested that without the aid of divine revelation there may well not be any human word which would be reserved to mean creation ex-nihilo exclusively. Since it is not something mankind is cabable of doing, how would the concept be arrived at in human culture except with the help of God's revelation?Bara, therefore does overlap in meaning with asah. But at least in my Hebrew dictionary "create" is not one of the words used to define ASAH.Man as a life principle was created. Man as vessel for this life formed from the dust of the earth, was made. So the usage of bara and asah in reference to man coming into being is logical. As to his body he was formed, he was made. As to the life prinicple that is the essence of his being, he was created.In the New Testament Paul surely had rabbinical training. He seems to have a Hebrew concept of God creating ex-nihilo when he expounds on the birth of Isaac according to God's promise:' ... that which is the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (As it is written, "I have appointed you a father of many nations") in the sight of God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being' (Romans 4:17)Paul says here that Abraham's God called things that had no being into being.The concept of creation ex-nihilo may might reasonably have been noticed in the Hebrew in Psalm 33."Let all the earth fear Jehovah; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.

​

For He spoke, and it was, He commanded, and it stood"Similiar to Paul's utterance, God spoke the world into being.That Genesis 1:26 and 1:27 prove that asah and bara are exactly synonomous has been questioned also. While make is used for man in relation to image and likeness both in verse 26, create is used only for image but not likeness in verse 27.Some regard make in verse 26 to have the sense of "appoint". For example "Asahel" in 2 Sam. 2:18 means "God has appointed" and Asahiah (2 King 12:14) means "Jah has appointed".Strong's Concordance has "appoint" as one of the many meanings of ASAH but not "create" as a definition.Genesis 1:26,27 could mean that God appointed man to bear His image and likeness but creation ex-nihilo is used in reference only to man in God's image, while God's likeness was something man was to gradually arrive at by a process of achievment, being left to be wrought out of future experience. Perhaps the eating of the tree of life was implied as bringing man into God likeness to which he was appointed.The force of the serpent's initial temptation was that man might achieve this likeness, yet in an illegal way prohibited by God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

i'm really tired of these arguments. "creation ex nihilo" are human words. they describe creation ex nihilo, don't they? we are capable of expressing just about anything we want in human language. the argument that "we need god's help to get it" is frankly just an excuse for something not making sense as you think it should. it mean, primarily, that your reading is not based on the text. and if based on what god tells us in our own hearts -- why do we need the bible? these arguments make the bible a useless and ineffectual text, if god has to read it to us. they correlate more or less directly to their english equivalents. we're talking about distinctions of implications and flavor. really, they are interchangeable and it's a matter of taste and emphasis. if you pull out a thesaurus, you'll probably find them listed as synonyms. i doubt that. well, that's the problem. that's not a hebrew concept. the first verse of genesis can acceptably be rendered:"in the beginning of god's creating of heaven and earth, the earth was unformed..."genesis particulary describes god forming the earth. he creates by organizing; dividing something from its opposite. the description is of creation by way of making order from chaos. i don't see it. you might be able to read "was" as "existed." but that's a stretch. i'm not sure what you think that proves. both are in the image of god. one verse parallels "image" one way, the next a different way. if god "made" you king, what has he done? this is an acceptable usage in english, too.don't use strong's like a dictionary. it's not. it catalogs the usages throughout the bible, regardless of context, conjugation, or grammar. seeing the word used one way in a particular verse does not mean that you can use it that way in another verse. likeness and image are the same thing. there is no idea of gradualism in the text, even if the verb is imperfect. it's still a past tense, singular action. tricks and distortions of grammar, and creative usage of a concordance don't override the basic idea of the text, and a plain and properly grammatically correct reading. and the text of genesis 1 is not very complex hebrew. that's a different story, and still not a valid reading. in the image or likeness of god does not mean something is god, or has all of the properties of god. it means similarity, though obviously not in all aspects. in the most literal reading, it means we look like god. and that's about it. extended readings might refer to emotions, or intelligence (but not neccessarily awareness), etc.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

IIRC Paul was a member of the Pharisees and so would likely have had rabbinical training I suppose.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

entirely possible. but like i said, i doubt the story. there have been threads here before about paul that have suggested he wasn't even jewish at all.

---

I used the phrase because you used it first. Why shouldn't we need God help to get it?There are many issues that are not explicitly dealt with in the Bible. It says nothing about crack cocaine, nuclear weapons, sex changes, and many other modern issues. Why should we not expect that what is written in the Bible might be illuminated upon in new ways by the Spirit of God to shine on our path through modern day life?Concerning Paul's training up under Gamaliel as a Pharisee - I doubt that you know a tenth of what he knew. And he was 2,000 years closer to the original writing of Genesis.I even doubt that you would have been as absolute and commited to destroying the threatening Christian church as Saul was. He understood the implications of the gospel and took the initiative to bind and jail those who were leaving Judiasm for it.They thought he had gone mad because of his great learning. He had a reputation. And they sent a seasoned Jewish orator to make charges against him in court because they knew he was very knowlegeable of Judiasm and a formidable debater on the subject. Maybe image and likeness are the same there. But Genesis is a record of life and life always grows and develops. Even to replenish the earth implies growth rather than a static situation.And saying the tree of life portion is not part of the text is wrong to me. Basically, not only the writers of the text but the compilers of the text, I regard as knowing more about the whole affair than modern opinions like yours would give them credit for.I think whoever was responsible for putting Genesis together as one scroll would probably laugh to hear you say that the tree of life had nothing to do with the text of which contained Genesis 1:26,27. They put the accounts together and I am don't think they would be happy with the modern slicing and dicing them apart again.I think they would regard these as your "tricks". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yet some Jewish commentaries regard the state of the earth to have been the result of destruction rather than simply unformed. For example Paul Isaac Hershon in his Rabbinical Commentary on Genesis applies Genesis 1:1,2 in this way concerning the Babylonian Captivity. He applies the state of the earth as a parallel to the destruction of the Temple in the capital city of the Promised Land where God's Shekenah glory is to reside. Though the Temple is destroyed and made empty, the Spirit of God still hovers over the place of His former glory. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

yes. i know. but you missed the point. clearly, the concept is able to be expressed in human language. i could probably even come up with a way to express it in hebrew. if god delivers us new revelations, in our own hearts, of what use is the bible? it either applies, or it does not. no, i doubt that paul was jewish. i'm not saying i disagree with it, i am saying that i'm skeptical of it. his words read like a fundamental reinterpretation of the text is some places (the wage of sin is death -- surely a pharisee would be more educated in levitical law) and entirely perushim in other places (subjugation of women). why do you think that i'm out to destroy the christian church? i'm out to understand my own faith and the traditions that influence it. it's a book of origins. of course there's more to it than static creation. but that has no bearing on whether we are made IN god's image, or TOWARDS god's image. the bible says "in." when we were made, not at some later point in time. no, the tree of life story comes from a different text. this is a matter of academic scholarly opinion. it has nothing to do with man being created in the image of god, the way you are reading it. you might read genesis 2 as a further explanation of how made was created in god's image, but the two are not actually related. they put them together from separate parts. and you have no idea how the original scrolls were divided.

---

we've debated this before. i find no indication of a prior creation in the text. i'm sorry, but it's not there. and these games about the english "replenish" sounding like it means "plenish again" (even though "plenish" is not a word hint hint), and desolation described as un-creation don't make a world before the world.genesis 1 starts, "in the beginning..."the book is a book of origins, and it makes no sense to just make up stuff and insert it before "the beginning."

---

You don't have to say you're sorry for not seeing something in the Bible. And you don't have to say you're sorry for expressing your opinion that its not there.Some Hebrew readers did see a pre-Adamic world. And yes, I think I have debated this before. We know that God created the world "in the beginning".The disjunctive accent [Rebhia] that the Massoretic Text inserted after the first verse to guide the reader as to the correct punctuation, has led some translators to render "but" rather than "and" as the beginning word of verse two.The notification of a pause or a break in the text before preceeding to the next verse was intended.This understanding of a pre-Adamic destruction indicated in verse two effected the Jew's legends bassed on their Scriptures. Louis Ginsberg's work The Legends of the Jews is a continuous narrative of their legends which as much as possible, were written with the original phrases and terms. In Volume 1 which covers the period from the Creation to Jacob Ginsburg has this sample: This would agree with a Destruction / Reconstruction view of Genesis 1:1,2. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

it doesn't say "but." it says "and." it flows as one sentance. in hebrew. there is a long and wonderful history of jewish rabbis reading a lot into the text where there is very little support. this is ONE of those traditions. i've brought up lilith before, and she comes from the same text.genesis 1 explains the origin of not just this planet, but this universe, in hebrew cosmology. god has to "recreate" the sun and the moon? redefine light and dark? that's a heck of a do-over. by contrast, look at where god actually DOES take a mulligan in the text, genesis 6-9. does he have to recreate the sun and moon? light and dark? day and night?it's QUITE a stretch, and i find no justification in the text, its grammar, its semantics, or its purpose. it's just not there.

---

The word for light on the First Day is Or, but on the Fourth Day is Maor. The prefix makes it signify the place where light is stored., or a light holder.I think that the sun appears to the prophet to be a dark body enveloped in luminous clouds. In the Fourth Day God gave or restored to it the capacity of a well outlined photosphere. The diffuse light from the First Day appeared more definite as light holders on the Fourth Day.This does not require that God created the sun, stars, and moon of the Fourth Day and it doesn't say that He did. Of course if you make bara and asah exactly the same in meaning you have an argument that He did. But I don't think that arguement is 100% concrete.You have green things growing on the Third Day - Genesis 1:11. The growing green vegetation implies the benefit of sunlight, albeit diffuse. And you seem to have the rotating earth yielding the diffuse light into a perceptible evening and morning. So I believe that the light-holders were made to appear on the Fourth Day to the seer. It need not insist that God created them on that day.This "light" of the First Day must be carefully distinguished from the "light-holders" of the Fourth Day. The word for "light" of the First Day conveys in itself no idea of concentration or locality. Nevertheless it must have been confined to one side of the planet because from the First Day the alteration of day and night commence.If there was a pre-Adamic destruction that rendered the earth waste and void, the sealing up of the celestial bodies may have been a by-product of such divine judgment. Latter in the Bible we do see God dealing with the sun and the stars in cosmic calamities which bring about darkness over the earth both in Pharoah's experience in Exodus and also upon the kingdom of the Antichrist in Revelation.We could probably trade the statements forever that some Jews and Christians both saw an interval of unspecified time between verse 1 and verse 2. So it is clearly established that it was not read that way by all.Here is another sample from the Christian church of such understanding of Genesis from the 12th century (understanding that it means little to you): There is nothing in this comment indicating that Victor St. Hugo believed in a destruction event. But there is the indication that he did not equate the work of the first day with the act of creation. He sees an interval of unknown time between creation and re-ordering.Having been penned in the 12th century it is unlikely that accomodation to modern geological or evolutionary theories were his motivation for understanding Genesis in this way.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

never mindEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Deleted.

well, place of light is a better literal rednering of the word. "light bearer" is more accurate to the usage, conceptually. but in english, we use light (the noun) to mean both the source and the light it emanates. hebrew happens to have two different words. *shrug* no. there is clearly light before there is a light source. god makes the light sources on day four, not day one. yes, actually, it does. it says the sun and the moon were made on day four. it says they were made on day four. you are distorting the meaning of the text to suit your ends, and betraying the literal rendering. on the contrary, ALWAYS comes from . the two words are the same for a reason. illogical argument. the world of genesis is flat. genesis literally describes the creation of the sun and moon. if there was an existance before genesis 1 (and there was NOT), the sun and moon must have been destroyed.genesis does not work as a book of origins if everything already exists. the function of genesis 1 is describe the origin of the earth, the sky, the sun, the moon, the plants, and the animals. you are essentially re-writing the text as you please. again, it reads perfectly well as a single sentance in hebrew. i'm aware the gap idea goes a ways back, but it's an irrelevent argument from authority. this sub-thread started with my presentation of several arguments from authority from much, much more reputable rabbis: rashi and ibn ezra. those are BIG names -- but clearly their arguments contained some problems.genesis is a complex and puzzling text. and people have been reading stuff into it for nearly 3,000 years. quoting a rabbi or two, or a christian theologian or two as evidence of the validity of your point really is next to meaningless: there are probably at least 10x as many who disagree, no matter what the reading. and in this case, the gap "theory", there is no textual support, and i think you will find that vast majority of theologians and rabbis disagree with it.

---

If you make mistakes that's not holy. Would you like to be a mistake? Humans are not holy, they are but righteous. What about us holy creatures when do we get are space back and our peace from the debalchary of man's origin. You know apprx 10,080,000 earth years almost ended up in heaven's trash can in .835 heaven minutes. How many times in the first 1000 years of man's existence were we so happy that it might end. You know the happiest point was when men were finally condemned. I mean last time like. 70 years and maybe more. At least your emotions ain't played with. There's only a little turmoil and God is more peaceful.

Welcome to EvC, TC (ok if I call you that for short here?)I suggest you spend more time reading before you post.We try to keep thread here on a specific topic (which is not easy). You post doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand.If you clutter up too many threads with posts that don't apply you can loose your posting rights for some hours.Also you should use the little green reply button at the lower right of the post you with to respond to. This allows the person you answered to be notified of your response and allows others to follow the chain of thought.Thanks TC and welcome.

---

I have no problem with God; It's some of his fan club that I find irritating.