Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed

Arach,On disrespect - I believe that Genesis is the true living God speaking to man.You believe that it is just some pseudo mythological religious writing and end each post with a huge Hebrew letter.I think I respect the Hebrew Bible more than you do with your showy huge Hebrew fonts.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

strawman. i have said nothing about my beliefs. the irony being, of course, that you don't know what it says. if you did, we probably would not be having this discussion. it's a signature, jay. nothing more.and frankly, i don't consider twisting the bible to meet one's beliefs, or mangling the language, integrity, and meaning of the text all that respectful, or even respectable. you can talk about your beliefs all you want, but believing in a misrendering of the bible at the cost of the words of the page is not paying your respects. it's patronizing, is what it is.

---

it's not evasion.my beliefs do not change the words on the page. we are discussing the words on the page, not my beliefs. taking the bible at its word is disrespectful? assuming it means what it says is disrespectful? you were the one who proposed that the author of genesis 1 was too stupid to know the difference between the sun being revealed and the sun being created.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

and yet, light was created, and god existed before there was light. so you are wrong, qed. i did not provide my view. i mentioned that this was a fairly standard reading. have you listened to nothing i have said? the word used for "light" implies direct light, with a source.

---

Not impressed. I go to the Bible to find Yahweh.Guys like you go to the Bible to hide from Yahweh.King Saul's Hebrew was up to par as was Korah's and Jeroboam's and Ahab's. They came away from God's speaking totally in the dark.

and now you insult me.i am equally unimpressed.

---

and yet, they were three thousand years closer to the authorship of the bible than we are. so by your arguments regarding paul, "And he was 2,000 years closer to the original writing of Genesis," surely you must hold that they knew better than you and me, and paul.the bible is a text written in hebrew, aramaic, and greek. knowing hebrew may not neccessarily help you understand the bible -- but mangling it certainly does not, ever. somehow, the bible is the only foreign language text that one gets laughed at for studying in the original. if you wanted to study beowulf, wouldn't you want to understand a little old english? if you wanted to study the iliad, wouldn't you want to understand a little greek? why not hebrew, for the bible?you can talk all you want about god speaking to you, but at the end of the day you're only de-valuing the text. because, by your standard, god was not smart enough to make his message understandable by the outsider -- making the bible not only deceptive, but useless for evangelism. you turn a wonderful and broad text into a cryptic message to a particular little cult. you can talk about the language of god all you want, but unless it's there on the page, i'm going to continue to accuse you of making things up.when my god first spoke to man, he did so hebrew. when he first inspired people to write of his love, and the glory of his creation, they did so in hebrew. when he sent his son to teach the world, he did so in hebrew. when that son died for my sins on the cross, his last words were spoken in hebrew.god can speak to me or you in english. god understands when we speak to him in english. he can do so with things more important than words and language. but if we value the words he spoke to men 3,000 years ago, perhaps we should pay a little more attention to the language they were spoken in. i don't need the bible for god to speak to me; the bible is not my god. but i respect the traditions and sanctity of the text. i don't just go pretending it means whatever i want. it's not my problem if the bible seems silly to you as written, and it's not my fault that you do not have the balls to say that you accept the bible as written.and don't you dare ever insult my relationship with my god ever again. i don't talk about your relationship with god -- unless the bible is your god. and i don't need your condescencion, nor will it work as a ploy for you to disguise the fact that you cannot respond to the points i have brought up, regarding what the text actually says.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

Ok thanks, thats what I wanted to know.

That was not my only argument. It was a contributing factor.To those who were of ancient times God also said "And the Lord said, Because the people draws near with their mouth, And with their lips they honor Me, Yet they remove their hearts far from Me ..." (Isa. 29:13).So in the case of Korah, King Saul, and Ahab, though closer in time as you point out, they more than nullified this by being far away in their heart from God, though their lips could probably recite His oracles with very proper Hebrew accents and annunciation.

Then next time be careful before you accuse me of disrespecting the book that I stake my life and eternal destiny on.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Arach,Do you think that "became" is not a good translation in Genesis 1:2?
If not what would be your reasons?" But the earth became waste and emptiness" (Rcv)"Now the earth had become waste and wild ...." (Emphasized Bible - Rotherham)" ... (then) the earth was waste and void" (Peter von Bohlem)" But (then) the earth became waste ..." (August Dillman)" ... yet the earth became waste and empty" (Concordant Version)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I did notthing of the kind. I asked you if you thought he was not aware that daylight and night were caused by the sun.I think that he was moved by the Spirit of God to write what he wrote. The process of inspiration is very mysterious to me. And at times the prophets probably didn't know the full import of what they were being moved to speak.The jist of this argument is that you say the text says God created the sun, moon, stars on the fourth day. I say that is not necessarily so according to the language expressions actually used.You say "Of course it is and you're chicken to admit it." I say "I don't have to say of course it is because it is not necessarily so if ASAH and BARA are not totally synonomous Hebrew words. Which they are NOT. Get over it."It very well could be that the man had a prophetic vision or a dream. He writes what he saw and he saw it. Seven visions may have been presented to him in which the basic creation and formation events were revealed to his sight.If he did not see the sun on days one through three but only a glowing and diffuse light and then noticed there distinct shapes, he could have said "He made the sun and the stars and the moon too."I don't know why you have a problem with that.Why would God have to say of Himself "Let there be light" on the first day. Did God turn Himself on as light for the day period and then dim Himself for the night period? Did He adjust Himself to not shine in the evening?You point out some problems with my interpretation. I think you could also consider some problems with yours."As for God His way is perfect" (Psalm 18:30)Did the God whose way is perfect have to discard the artificial light that He created after the third day? Did the God whose way is perfect speak forth a world waste, void, dark, ruined, and chaotic?But you say "No the Hebrew says God created the sun on day four. The green vegatation was using something else as a light source. Don't blame me. And admit that that is the only way to understand it, as illogical as it is."Well, I don't think your fourth day lighbearer creation is the only way to understand it. And as you use a little common sense in reading ASAH in the context of trimming a beard or preparing a meal, so I also use a little common sense in the making of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

If it was God's own light that was the day light for three days then the question of whether you believe that was the Shekinah glory of God in the temple, IS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE.And as for the robustness of certain physiological body parts, you were the one who jumped behind the irrelvancy of your personal beliefs, and at such a logical and relevant question.I think that if you believe there was no sun until day four than as a serious Hebrew Bible reader a logical alternative was that it was the Shekinah glory of God as shinned in the Holy of Holies.

Once again then:The word ASAH is used for dressing a calf for a meal as in (Gen 18.7,8 and Judges 13:15). The word ASAH is used for trimming one's beard in Second Samuel 19:25. In Duet. 21:12 it is used for the trimming of one's nails. In Esther 1:5 it is used for the preparation of a feast.The word ASAH is used in speaking of the cloths which God made for man (Genesis 3:21). It is used also in the making of cloths that man makes for himself (Exo. 28:2). It is usually used in working over something which already exists. It is sometimes meant as appointment as in the making is in the future: a multitude of descendents (Genesis 13:16).The word ASAH may be used in appointment in a more abstract sense like the making of a covenant between God and Israel (Gen. 9:12)..Now, why does not Strong's committee assign the English word CREATE to the definition of the Hebrew word ASAH? It assigns CREATE to the Hebrew word BARA. Why does it not use CREATE as a definition of ASAH?And I hope you won't just say that you know better than the Hebrew Chaldee Dictionary in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. They covered every single word in the Bible as to definition and usage. So I expect a little more than, "Well, you can't really use that Dictionary you know?"
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

no, i do not. we've discussed this before.genesis 1:2 says:

quote:

---

, ‘

​

v'ha-eretz hayetah tohu v'bohu

---

compare to a "become" verse, such as genesis 2:7:

quote:

---

, —

​

v'yahey ha-adam l'nefesh chayah

---

or genesis 20:12:

quote:

---

-—, —

​

v'tehey-li l'ishah

---

to neccessitate a "become" or "became" you need that lamed. other verses that translate read fine as "was" and the "became" aspect is implied from context. in this verse, there is no description of a prior state of creation, so there is no context to imply a change from. if there was a description of what came before the earth was waste and void (you know, that bit you're making up) IN the text of genesis 1, between verse 1 and 2, then "became" would be acceptable.as it stands, it's a relatively regular conjugation of hayah that means "was."Edited by arachnophilia, : messed up tag

---