Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed

So a light source and evening and morning for three days without the sun?I guess you and Young Earth Creationism would agree at least to that extent.

So "appoint" is not a valid translation of the word asah?The word is also used to discribe dressing a calf for a meal and trimming one's nails or beard.You're going to insist that it is created everywhere in Genesis?

Excuse me, but the world that God created is round. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The shape of the world is off topic here.If someone want to start a thread to point out that the world that God created is a sphere but that the description in genesis is that of a round, flat plate that is fine.Just not here.

I didn't say anything was created before Genesis 1:1.But between 1:1 and 1:2 it seems obvious that things were. The earth was found in a condition of waste and void and water was there.The light of the sun and moon certainly could have been damaged as it is clear from other Scriptures God could do so.Standing on the surface of a cloud shrouded Venus we might notice the sun light was impaired or damaged. God damaged the sun light over Pharoah and Egypt in Exodus. It is not a stretch that the cosmos were impaired or damaged before the discription of Day 1 through Day 7.And because I believe that the ultimate Author of Genesis is the Spirit of God guiding the writer, what the writer wrote may not be the full scope of what he knew.We just have different takes on the Scripture. I respect your familiarity with the Hebrew. But I think there is a word beyond the Hebrew called the word of God. The origin of the sky, the sun, the moon, the plants, and the animals are all recignized by me in Genesis. The manner in which the origin is conveyed may not be as you insist.No origin of water is really given. We are just told that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. It must be included in the sentence "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".No origin of darkness is said to have been created either. So the description is not exhaustive. That God is the Creator and responsible for the world is conveyed. And that it was created for man and man for God, is clearly conveyed.

Ned, If Arach moves his/her comment that the world of Genesis was flat then I'll move my comment that the created world was round.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jaywill,The shape of the world is off topic. If you wish to discuss why your post was off topic and not Arach's, then ask your question in the Moderation Thread.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Genesis does absolutely work as a book of origins if it begins "In the beginning God created ..." There is no way we can assume anything of the earth and heavens existed before Genesis 1:1.Now Isa. 45:18 says "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself, that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it; he created it not desolate (TOHU)' -ie. the action described by the word 'created', did not result in the state denoted by the word TOHU but the reverse - he formed it to be inhabited.Smith J. Pye contributes this: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : typosEdited by jaywill, : typos

I hope I spell this correctly, "semantics". I read the original post and for some reason there seems to be a manufacturing, terminolgy, misunderstanding. Try the non-literal interpretation and then perhaps the answer is clear. What would be the difference in pressurizing carbon if you used your hand or a driven press? We'll think that god made things with his hands. However, perhaps perfection, can cause preformation as in a mold. You do it once, you have some kind of cast to do it again. I'm still going to be argumentitive about why. It's the same thing ,once, twice, if it really don't work, what's the difference?

i whole heartedly disagree. the op *IS* the non-literal interpretation.

---

i just read what's on the page. don't blame me if what the bible says doesn't make sense. you know, there's something called "context." it's really a good idea to pay attention to it. and if you're not going to do that, at least pay attention to the rest of the sentance. if i make dinner, did i create it out of thin air? if i make my hair and nails short, have i created them out of thin air?we have different words for different usages. it's really just the same as the english. it's not an incorrect translation, it's just a less literal one. you can easily say that god "made" somebody king, and "made" means appointed. but that doesn't mean that "made" means "appointed" everywhere, or that you can make it mean whatever you want. context. is. important. that was the initial state of the creation -- before god created anything. god's process of creation is one of organization and division. there was nothing on the earth because god had not made anything yet. what do you propose happened, originally? god just poofed a whole functioning world into existance, with no particular steps? first there was nothing, then there was everything? and then god demolished it all, only to start over? and all this happens in the middle of a sentance?why not start genesis at noah, then? what purpose do the first 9 chapters serve? god whipes his entire creation out of existance, in much the same fashion, doesn't he? we're left with an earth with nothing on it, completely waste, covered by water.as i said, genesis does not work as a book of origins, and genesis 1 does not work as a description of god's creation of the earth if there was a prior existance on the earth. i realize this is a bit of heady concept, but it defeats the purpose the text; the reason it was written. if there was something before genesis 1, why not describe it? i could think up all kinds of great stories to go there. surely the kids learning their ancient traditions at some point must have looked up to their parents and rabbis and said "what came before the beginning?" ad-hoc.god did not DESTROY the sun over egypt. he covered it. god can surely destroy the sun if he so chooses -- but genesis 1 describes the CREATION of the sun. still ad-hoc, and designed specifically to prop up an idea that is by definition extra-biblical, and with no regard to what that sort of statement says about god. ? — — ‘ — ? — i don't like this idea that we need god to read the bible. if we do, his testament to us is useless -- he could just as easily tell us himself. further, i don't like the idea that one group has the exclusive word of god, outside the bible. this use of the phrase "word of god" is really nothing but elitism disguised as a poor excuse.read the words on the page, and read them as close as you can to the way the authors understood them. real knowledge of hebrew helps. but misuse and mangling on the language -- even the english language -- to support your own preconcieved ideas is not the word of god, and it's not honest interpretation no matter how you look at it. uncovering the sun is not creating it. yes, it is. the water pre-exists. god creates and but not . however, god does created from . darkness is the abscence of light. it does not need to be created. only light does. ie: darkness already exists. this ties into your next post: where there men in this prior creation of yours? you're reading this one little phrase -- and misunderstanding it. the very next part says, as you say, "he created it to be inhabited." well, unless you're postulating people before adam, this actually contradicts your point. because if there WAS a creation before man, according to this verse, it would have been a waste. and god did not create a waste.but instead, you have ignored the meaning of this verse in favor if fitting together a little over-literal puzzle. you've ignored the context of not only this verse, but the verse in genesis you're mis-applying it to. in the beginning of god creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was unformed and void. in the beginning. not the end. god started with a waste, and made it not a waste. the creation was the process of making it into something that wasn't a waste.

---

The light source most likely came from God himself. Like when God blinded Paul (Saul) with His glory. And when Moses was very bright because he was near the presence of God. Umm... he said damaged, not destroy. This is an english speaking forum, not a hebrew one. So could you explain what the stuff means? I agree he didn't make a point there.

---

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

that's the general reading, yes. still, genesis describes the creation of the sun. not the repair of the sun. who says i speak hebrew? i said, god creates ha-shamim (the heavens) and ha-eretz (the earth) but not ha-mayim (the water), but god does create yamim (seas) from ha-mayim (the waters).

---

So, you use a little common sense about how ASAH should be interpreted in the context of preparing a meal, but when I use a little common sense about light and dark for three days that's off bounds?You seem to want to imply that the writer himself had no common sense to know that day and night come from the sunlight. I think that it may be that he wrote as he had the vision. And if he saw diffuse light which on the fourth day cleared to reveal distinct light holders he wrote that God made [ASAH] the sun, moon, stars on the fourth day.You use common sense with the context of the preparation of a meal to understand ASAH. I use common sense in the context of three solar days to understand ASAH in Genesis chapter one. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's off topic. We'll have to discuss that on another thread.