Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 46 of 210 (327045)
06-28-2006 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by arachnophilia
06-14-2006 5:27 PM


Re:
from what does god "make" the sun, the moon, and the stars? from what does god "make" man, in genesis 1? god says in one verse, let us "make" (asah) man, and in the next verse, god "creates" (bara) man. earlier in the chapter, god "creates" (bara) the great sea serpents (or "whales"). why when the fish and animals are not made ex-nihilo?
indeed, even the op agrees that ‘ and are obviously synonyms. (yatsar) is clearly the one that means "formed" and implies a physical shaping process.
but they are, however, used as synonyms:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 06-14-2006 5:27 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 3:43 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 50 of 210 (327287)
06-28-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
06-28-2006 3:43 AM


Re:
i'm really tired of these arguments. "creation ex nihilo" are human words
I used the phrase because you used it first.
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.
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.
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.
likeness and image are the same thing. there is no idea of gradualism in the text,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 3:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 11:04 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 51 of 210 (327297)
06-28-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
06-28-2006 3:43 AM


Re:
"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.
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.
"'And the earth was desolate and void'. The earth will be desolate, for the shekeniah will depart at the destruction of the Temple, and hence it is said: 'And the Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the water': which intimates to us that even although we be in exile (after the destruction of the Temple) yet the Torah shall not depart from us; and therefore it is added: 'And God said, Let there be light'. This shows us that after the captivity God will again enlighten us, and send us the Messiah ...".
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 3:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 11:07 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 54 of 210 (327435)
06-29-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by arachnophilia
06-28-2006 11:07 PM


Re:
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:
"Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several other worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 11:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 06-29-2006 6:55 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 56 by jaywill, posted 06-29-2006 10:20 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 56 of 210 (327629)
06-29-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jaywill
06-29-2006 9:18 AM


Re:
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):
"Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in disorder before the regular re-ordering (disposito) of it was taken in hand? For the fact that the first substance of all things arose at the very beginning of time - or rather, with time itself - is settled by the statement that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. But how long it continued in this state of confusion, Scripture does not clearly show" [Hugo St. Victor 1097 - 1141 AD]
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jaywill, posted 06-29-2006 9:18 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 06-30-2006 5:20 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 57 of 210 (327791)
06-30-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by arachnophilia
06-28-2006 3:33 PM


Re: on Paul
never mind
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : Deleted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 3:33 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 61 of 210 (328747)
07-04-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by arachnophilia
06-30-2006 5:20 PM


Re:
no. there is clearly light before there is a light source. god makes the light sources on day four, not day one.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 06-30-2006 5:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2006 5:54 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 62 of 210 (328751)
07-04-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by arachnophilia
06-30-2006 5:20 PM


Re:
yes, actually, it does. it says the sun and the moon were made on day four.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 06-30-2006 5:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 63 of 210 (328754)
07-04-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by arachnophilia
06-30-2006 5:20 PM


Re:
illogical argument. the world of genesis is flat.
Excuse me, but the world that God created is round.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 06-30-2006 5:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AdminNosy, posted 07-04-2006 1:17 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 65 of 210 (328757)
07-04-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by arachnophilia
06-30-2006 5:20 PM


Re:
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.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 06-30-2006 5:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 66 of 210 (328758)
07-04-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by AdminNosy
07-04-2006 1:17 PM


Re: World Shape is off topic here
Ned,
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AdminNosy, posted 07-04-2006 1:17 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AdminPD, posted 07-04-2006 2:06 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 68 of 210 (328865)
07-04-2006 11:23 PM


genesis does not work as a book of origins if everything already exists.
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:
That first sentence is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom, to this effect: that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated or organized, and dependent, sentient, and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity, either in self-continuity or succession, but had a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will of one Being, the self-existent, independent, and infinite in all perfection; and that date of that beginning is not made known.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : typos
Edited by jaywill, : typos

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 74 of 210 (329246)
07-06-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by arachnophilia
07-05-2006 5:54 PM


Re: consolidated reply
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2006 5:54 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 75 of 210 (329248)
07-06-2006 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by arachnophilia
07-05-2006 5:54 PM


Re: consolidated reply
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?
That's off topic. We'll have to discuss that on another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2006 5:54 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 76 of 210 (329249)
07-06-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by arachnophilia
07-05-2006 5:54 PM


Re: consolidated reply
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?
Pre-Adamic events are off topic here.
I'm trying to stick with the word matter. Why didn't the writer use BARA with the fourth day light holders?
Better yet, do you believe that God is careful in choosing which word to use in the prophetic writings or is it rather arbitrary and up to man?
He's careful about the construction of a atom or a molecule or the exact structure of a wasp sting or human embryo. Would such a communicating God be sloppy about the words He inspires his prophets to write down?
I don't think so.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2006 5:54 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024