Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed

i just read what's there. evidently, there is daylight before there is a sun. the sun is created to GOVERN the daytime, not to create it. if you suspect that means that daylight does not come from the sun, so be it, but the two are grammatically linked. because it does. in this usage, they are synonymous. again, you're making things up. you have quite an imagination, jay. the author says god made the sun. what do you suspect that means? no, that would be "revealed." you are contending that the author of genesis is wrong. i have no problem with the author of genesis being wrong. but i suspect that you do. where does the sun go at the end of the day? yes. at first. that was not the END or purpose of creation, however. although, as i explained above, it is an equally acceptable reading that the state of chaos pre-existed. again, it's not my fault if the text does not make sense. but, according to genesis 1, there was light before the sun was created. you have to change the text to say otherwise. it's not trimming a beard or preparing a meal. it's creating the sun, the moon, and the stars. do you fail to see the difference? if genesis does not really explain the origins of the sun and moon and stars, what purpose does it serve? it's a story of creation. it's about creation. not reconstruction.

---

i must have missed that question. no, the verbs are masculine. the shekinah is feminine.but again, my beliefs are irrelevant. really, they are. this is not about my belief. this is about what the text says. lol nice phraseology. but no, it is not logical, nor is it relevant. we're not talking about interpretation or belief. one does not even need to believe in the bible to read it and understand what it says. i have found quite often that belief just gets in the way -- and makes you create crazy ideas like this one you keep talking about as a way to justify actually believing in the bible.we are not discussing what i believe, or how i interpret genesis. we are discussing how what you believe does not fit what the text says. this is not a battle of my religion against your religion, this is a battle of the text of the bible against your idea. as i mentioned, something similar to this idea is a rather common interpretation, and i think it's probably an acceptable one. though i do not think it is usually related in terms of god's female presence, the shekinah.

---

yes, it is.does the meal exist before it is made?added by edit: the problem is that you are misapplying words found within idioms literally to other verses that do not contain the idioms. the base meaning of asah is "do." "make" is actually somewhat idiomatic, as well, it's just a common meaning.so for instance, regarding a meal, one "does" the meal. similarly, one "does" their hair, or "does" their nails (funny that these are both in english as well). so, literally:

quote:

---

Genesis 18:7:

​

‘-‘

​

v'ben-ha-baqar asher asah

​

and-son-the-cow that (he)did

---

quote:

---

Judges 13:15

​

— ’ —

​

v'ne-asah l'paniq gedi ezim

​

and-may-do to-before(you) kid-goats

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 20:12

​

, -

​

v'asetah et-tsefareniah

​

and-did (d.o.)-nails(her)

---

quote:

---

2 Samuel 19:25

​

—- ’— —-

​

v'lo-asah regelio, v'lo-asah sefamo

​

and-not-did feet(his), and-not-did beard(his)

---

it's not a dictionary. it's a list of usages. it tells you nothing of the grammar, the context, the idioms, or even WHY something is used that way. in english, we can say "she did her nails" and it means "got a manicure" or perhaps "painted her nails." but we cannot exchange "got" or "paint" for every usage of "do," can we?Edited by arachnophilia, : added edit

---

so how do we tell who's heart was with god, and who's was not? oh, yes, the bible tells us. which means paul's heart was, because he said it was. i see.

---

i see. so the bible IS your god then?

---

Arach,By the way. I went too far to provoke you. I'm sorry. I do not change the text. That is the first thing. I interpret the meaning of ASAH to mean something other than that on the fourth day God created the sun, moon, and stars out of nothing.That is interpretation. That is not changing the text.Now let me ask you this:If ASAH does not mean create out of nothing AND the seer could not see the sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day, then why would this statment be a false one -"And God made two great light-bearers, the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heaven to give light on the earth and to rule over the day and over the night ... And there was evening and there was, a fourth day"Again my question is can this statement be true if the sun or moon or stars existed before the fourth day, if ASAH does not mean to create out of nothing?If ASAH does not mean create something out of nothing, then why should this passage not be thought of as conveying something possible?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

you are making up a false dilemma. i have no claimed that god created the sun, moon, and stars "out of nothing." this is a phrase you have added to my claim, making it a strawman. in fact, i specifically made claims to the contrary. no. in this context, it still means "make." you have not demonstrated a sufficient reason to that "doing" the sun, and "doing" the moon, and "doing" the stars should mean anything other than "make," in the context of creation.i understand that you do not believe genesis 1 is about creation. you have not demonstrated that, either. and to do so would require that we rob genesis 1 of most of its meaning.

---

Arach, Oh Okay. Let's try it this way.If the prophet could not see the sun because of thick nebulous haze overhead, and he or we have no idea as to the sun's state of existence, and gradually the outline of the sun appears to him, how we do not know - then is it true that he saw God making [ ASAH] the sun?Again we don't know whether it was materially in the universe or not. We only see God "making" it as it being made distinguishable. Then can we say that means God made the sun on the fourth day?I think a Yes or a No will do it. For making charges of erecting strawmen it is funny that you turn around and make one yourself. I believe it is about creation and restoration with further creation."In the beginning God created [BARA] the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1That's about creation. His creating the life of man and the life of the sea creatures and the other life used with the word BARA is certainly about creation.If there is an eterval of time between "In the beginning" and the first day, I still think it is an account of creation and restoration.

Psalm 104:19 says "He appointed the moon for seasons". So Genesis 1:16 seems more a reference to God appointing of the sun, moon and stars as time markers for man and for signs for man.That is ASAH being used to give the quite legitimate meaning of giving a new role to something already in existence.I don't think this understanding takes away the overall concept of the Creator God being the ultimate source of all the creation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

you are contending that the bible speaks in error, and in ignorance. yes, that is what the text says. initial creation. there is not.

---

I gave plenty of reasons which I think are sufficient. You don't like me to refer to the Bible as a whole. You don't like me to refer to other parts of the Bible to supply those reasons.You talk about context. But you don't want to include the rest of the Bible as context.

On the contrary. I am saying that under inspiration of God the prophet used words which made an account even truer than he could imagine. Okay then we seem to not have any argument then.We can be ignorant of the material existence of the body known as the sun previous to day four. From the seer's standpoint all we know is that for all practical purposes it was made when he SAW it.Are you sure you agree? Did I hear you right?Here again is the question in which you seem to answer in the affirmative: You say Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

, —

​

asah yarech l'moadim

​

made moon/month to-appointed-time.

​

...made a moon for months

---

yes, god made the moon as a marker for time. oh, and while we're at it, the other half of the verse:

quote:

---

, ‘

​

shemesh yada m'boao

​

sun knows introduction(his)

​

...a sun knows his introduction

---

tell me, does the sun have a brain? i think you are misunderstanding anthropomorphizisation in poetry. the moon did not exist prior to day four, when god made it. no, but it takes away from the point and meaning of genesis a story that contains the origins of the heavenly bodies. why bother mentioning them at all, if it's not talking about their creation?Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle, broken tag

---

What sentence in Genesis chapter one shows the initial creation of land?

uh huh. tell me another one. you're saying that the author of genesis saw a vision (a story you've made up) in which he was unaware of the sun's existance, and then wrote "god made the sun" when god really just revealed the sun. you're saying he got it wrong out of ignorance. that is not the same as getting it right. have you no common sense? you did not hear me right. you did not hear anything, actually.you asked if we can know that god made the sun on day four. i said "yes" and "that is what the text says." contrary to your point. yes. we can know that it means god made the sun on the fourth day, because IT SAYS god made the sun on the fourth day.read my post, and genesis 1 a few more times. maybe it'll make sense.

---