Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed

You have not been able to prove that rabbis of the close of the first century and early second century AD didn't know basic Hebrew because they saw previous worlds had been destroyed befire Genesus 1:2.You have not been able to prove that Formed and Created have to be regarded as exact equilavent terms in the Bible.You have established that you have an opinion about it. You have not established that only your opinion on it should be considered right. It was given to the Jews in Hebrew. And it is for the whole world.When God said that through Abraham all the families of the earth would be blessed don't you think that included the blessing of at least many of His words?How could God bless the nations through Abraham and not speak to the blessed people? I never said that it is not helpful to know how to read and write Hebrew. I did say that just because one does does not mean that you'll get good interpretations of the Bible from them."Trust me, I read Hebrew" doesn't cut it.

Enoch walked with God and was taken somewhere by God before the flood.Was Enoch a Israelite?How did Enoch walk with God if he had no words or speaking from God how to walk?So the word of God is for mankind. And the Bible is for mankind. That includes the five books of Moses too.Non Israelites who were convinced of its truth could become Jews. So the book must have been in some regards to them also.And the people went out of Egypt "a mixed multitude," meaning some Egyptians feared Jehovah and escaped judgement by the pascal lamb. God's word to the twelve tribes therefore also became a benefit to the reverent Egyptians who heeded it, believed it, and obeyed it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Now where from the plain words do I derive my understanding?"The earth was without form and void." That's the first place to look for plain words - Genesis 1:1.Dr. Donald Barnhouse wrote that the word pair might envoke the same kind of vision as the expression English or French speakers might envision at the expression "topsy turvy" - i.e. turned upside down, be in a mess, all messed up.The two words used as a pair in Genesis 1:1 occur together only in Isa. 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23:"But the pelican and the porcupine will inherit it, And the owl and the raven will dwell in it, And He will stretch over it the line of nothingness and the plummet weights of emptiness" (Isa 34:11)Here the word pair translated nothingness and emptiness signify the result of God's exacting judgment. God will precisely and deliberately bring Edom to a state of nothingness and emptiness. As a skillful builder measures out with line and plummet for contructive purposes God will do so in divine destruction."My people are foolish; They do not know Me. They are stupid children and have no understanding. They are wise to do evil. But they do not know to do good.

​

I looked at the earth, and there it was, waste and emptiness, And at the heavens, and they had no light. I looked at the mountains, and there they were, shaking, And all the hills were swaying ... and all the cities were torn down before Jehovah, before His burning anger." (See Jeremiah 4:22-26)Here again the word pair translated "waste and emptiness" indicate a terrible judgment of God upon some rebellion of His creatures.These instances of the precise word pair also used to describe the earth in Genesis 1:1 lead some to believe divine judgment is indicated there also.According to Author Custance oldest Aramaic version of the Old Testament written by Hebrew scholars is the Targum of Onkelos.
The Aramaic Targum of Onkelos dates back to the second century B.C. The translation of Genesis 1:2 is quoted by A. Custance as" w' aretsah hawath tsadh'ya "Where I cannot quote the text's quotation of Hebrew or Aramaic words I will put blanks. But Custance's comment on this tranalation reads: So over 1800 years ago Hebrew scholars understood the plain Hebrew words of Genesis to indicate a judgmental overthrow of some sort which rendered the earth in the condition it was in in Gen. 1:2. The Targum of Onkelos is the translation of the Hebrew Genesis. I am not basing my opinion on Jewish legends that Ginsburg collected. That would not be wise. However, I am only pointing out that such an old understanding had its counterpart in Hebrew legends. I am not placing the compilation of legends on the same level as the Scripture for authority.And I took you previous point that Edith was also a part of Jewish legends and she is not in the Bible. However as it stands the scholars who translated Hebrew into Aramiac, interpreted that the earth was laid waste. Thanks. And it is your opinion, humble or otherwise. I didn't change any text. It is not honest for you to charge me with changing a text. I interpreted a word usage differently then you prefer.Once again, I changed no text. You should not charge people with changing a text because they interpret the usage of certain words to come out to mean something differently from what you think they mean.When I put in another word or change a word then you can say I changed the text. You have said yourself that you are not trying to teach that BARA is exactly equivalent to ASAH everywhere in Scripture. Did you not say that?So my saying ASAH in relation to the lightbearers on day fourth does not insist that they were created on that day. It could be that the meaning is that they were appointed on that day - i.e. "He appointed the moon to seasons ..." (Psalm 104:19) Your charge of changing the text is dishonest. My interpretation is biblical. You just don't agree with it.You also don't believe that under inspiration the exact choice of words might express truth even beyond what the writer may have been aware of. I think that the process of divine inspiration caused the prophets to write with an accuracy which at times transcended their awareness.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 believe that the Jews had a special custodial relationship with the oracles of God written through Moses.But the Jewish text contains words for the world. What God told Noah and his descendents was for mankind as a whole. Those instructions are in the Jewish text of the books Moses wrote.So I think we are talking about the word of the living God. Whatever the genelologies in the book of Numbers say they don't render untrue that a mixed multitude left Ramses in the Exodus (Exd. 12:38).Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's interesting. A "pre-creation state." What's that the state of created things before they were created? You seem full of handy excuses for not considering the thoughts of other Hebrew readers besides yourself.
You say the legends of the Jews should be considered in how Hebrew readers thought. Then you say the writings in Akiba ben Joseph in Sefer Hazzohar shouldn't be considered as to how Hebrew readers thought. And now also you say the Targum of Onkelos should not be considered either.I think you are just coming up with handy excuses for disqualifying the reading comprehension of ancient Jews for various reasons. I don't need to research all the targumim to make my point that some Hebrew scholars read and understood Genesis 1:1,2 as I have proposed is proper. This is what they read and this is what they understood.I don't think you're pointing to some other alleged wacky ideas prove that they couldn't read or were inferior in translation skill to you. Light be is not exactly the same as lightbearers be. Light exist is not exactly the same as lightbearers exist.I didn't change a Hebrew word and that means I did not change the text. It also means that your accusation of me changing the text is not honest.I wrote the English version of the text. Before and after my proposed interpretation the words remain the same. I changed no word.I did not make ASAH mean something other than one of the valid definitions of the word ASAH.And there is nothing so outlandish about reasoning that the light which the seer saw from day one to day four was diffuse and indistinct sunlight. And there is nothing outlandish about reasoning that on the fourth day the distinct lightbearers were made known to him and he wrote that God made them then ASAH - as in appointed them for signs and seasons. As far as the seer is concerned day four was the first day that the distinct lightbearers existed.Genesis 2:3 uses two words "created" and "made".And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made"In the next verse it is interesting that created is used in reference with the heavens and the earth in that order. But made is used in reference to earth and heaven in that order."These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. When Jehovah God made earth and heaven ..."It is a plausible argument that the inspired writings are saying that God created the universe out of nothing in the beginning, at some undefined moment. And then he formed out of existing material already created the earth and heaven, which earth, was somehow put into a state of waste and void.Every example I point out of ancient Hebrew scholars ascertaining this kind of interpretation, you quickly dismiss for other supposedly encrementating reasons. Such comprehension on their part is not an endorsement of everything they ever wrote.You have expressed some opinions in life which others find wacky. And if not now, very likely someday. That does not prove you couldn't read and interpret what you read in all passages of Scripture.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Empty and without form is the state of the earth after it was created. It was not the state before it was created."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth was waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep" (RcV) Maybe they do not represent the majority opinion. Does going with the majority opinion always and without fail lead to the truth? Are there exceptions to the rightness of the majority opinion ever?At one time the majority opinion was that Moses should be stoned and the Israelites should return to Egypt rather than die needlessly in the wilderness.I only give so much credence to the fact that it was not the majority opinion. So that the majority thought otherwise also does not mean that they were right. I have not tried to say that it proves my point. I have only used the comparison to take the wind out of your sails that you alone can speak for valid Jewish thought concerning the subject matter.Saying that Rabbi Nachman said that no other word in Hebrew beside BARA would express creation from nothing may not prove my point. But it proves that Jewish interpretation does not die with you. I can say that the function of the lightbearers did not come into existence. It is a simple concept. The seer did not see the functioning lightbearers as distinct sources of light until the fourth day.Behind the haze and the clouds they may have existed already. They were not performing their function until God made them do so. If we say "Impossible" then we have to say that God used some other light to mark the previous three days of light. That is certainly possible.And as you are weary of repeating, so am I. I don't think the language insists that that is the case. The word "made" is enough to understand the verse in that way.
That is if you assume the validity of the definition that "made" means to fashion or form something from material which already exists.Why could God not repair or restore the damaged function of lightbearers to mark seasons, had they been rendered unable to do this?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Spelling

Oh Arach, on the Numbers geneology matter -It has been rebuked as off topic, but it is an interesting study. Exodus says that they went out a mixed multitude. You say "No Egyptians in the crowd according to Numbers."Well, I will look into the matter for my own edification. However, "mixed multitude" should mean that some who were not descendents of Jacob went with them - Egyptians or not. So the point stands that they must have believed in the God of the Jews and acted accordingly so as to escape with the Jews. Which means that God's word to the Hebrews was for them also in some regard.Now, your challenge to find "appoint" or "revealed" in any english translation I am willing to explore. But failing to find such a translation still makes ASAH include the definition of working with already existing material.It would not prove that God could not work with an already existing but unseen, as of yet, lightbearer which entered into full function on the fourth day.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What about Psalm 104:19 which says in some English versions "made" and in other versions "appointed?""He made the moon to [mark] seasons" (RcV)"He appointed the moon for seasons ..." ( 1901 ASV)It know it is not the Genesis verse. But its talking about the Genesis verse.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Wise guy. Let's keep you specific.Genesis 3:21 - "And Jehovah MADE for Adam and for his wife coats of skins and clothed them"Didn't those coats of skin exist as something else before God made them to function as Adam's clothing?Is it then impossible that the lightbearers in 1:14 were in existence as something else before they were MADE to be signs and markers for seasons? Genesis 18:6 - "And Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, Quickly prepare three measures of fine flour, knead it, and make cakes." Did not the flour exist before Sarah made three measures of fine flour, kneaded and made for cakes?Could not then the essential materials of the lightbearers in 1:14 exist before God made them for markers and signs for seasons?Genesis 27:9 - "Go now to the flock, and take two choice kids for me from there, and I will prepare them as a tasty meal for your father, such as he loves."Didn't the material for the tasty meal already exist before they were made or prepared into that function?Why couldn't the moon exist before it was made for a season marking sign in 1:14? According to the examples compared above what forbids the materials, albiet darkened by some reason, of sun, moon, and stars from being in existence before the fourth day? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Changed Subtitle

It is a comfort just to dismiss me as "a fundie". A good name calling will clear everything up, I suppose to some people.You are not dealing with another argument that they were made out of thin air. And I doubt that anyone would argue that they were made from thin air. And I probably would beat you out of ten dollars, if I cared or if it mattered.So this redicule ridden response is pretty weak. No the coats for Adam didn't exist. They were coats for the animal who wore them in some respects.Now I don't know if the sun, moon, and stars were healthy or damaged. I think from the standpoint of the seer standing on the earth they were not there and they were not functioning properly as mankind is used to them in normal function.You see the whole story is very much centered on human experience. The creation is for man. And man is the center of this creation. Man is what is on God's heart. The three measures of the meal did not exist yet from her perspective. They hadn't been measured out yet. But the meal probably did exist.The three measures of meal was made from the already existing meal. Three measures were appointed and prepared for the specific use of serving for what we might call an afternoon lunch. No. But the materials for the meal existed. Okay then. For three days while the the prophet saw the earth grow dark and light again, SOMETHING in the center of the solar system existed which alternately bathed the planet in light and dark as it rotated.And millions of light years away other somethings may have existed which couldn't yet be seen performing their proper God prepared usage for man's world yet either.The earth being waste and void would have effected the human prophet's perception of other things in the universe and hindered their humankind appointed functions. The coming into proper function of those somethings was of God. And as in six days this divine preparation is revealed to the prophetic writer. Edited by AdminPD, : Changed Subtitle

Lions ate grass and three days of daylight without the sun? Hmmm. Okay. There was no sun on day one. But there was some unknown something as a light source that acted very much like the sun.Maybe it was a proto sun.The indistinct light either crystalized into distinct lightbearers or a messy earth was the first thing to exist in the universe and the galaxies and stars were brought into being around it.I think we both agree that Genesis 1 is not an exhaustive scientific description of how God created everything. It communicates that He is the source and that He is orderly and purposeful. I think we agree that the account portrays these few essential things about God and creation. If the "seer" is being given divine knowledge I think that we necessarily cannot limit that to only what he understood. I think that we have to take into account that the transfer of divine knowledge could include matters which could also be outside of his understanding.Joseph received divine knowledge in the way of a dream which he did not appreciate fully until years latter when he was released from prison. At that time he saw his father and brothers bow down to the earth before him as he ruled Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar received divine knowledge about future empires which he did not understand at all. Daniel had to interpret it for him. Samuel received divine speaking which he could not understand until Eli helped him. Joshua received a divine vision which he did not fully understand until the one he saw explianed it to him.Jeremiah wrote of Israel's captivity for 70 years in Babylon. But Daniel looking back through history had more details about that captivity period then Jeremiah could have had. So it is possible that the seer faithfully wrote down things which latter generations had more understanding of in some aspects then the prophetic writer. I would have to reveiw which particular verse you are speaking of. But I only quoted some English translations. And it is no secret that translators look at context and decide often what sense of the word is the best fit. "Appointed" for the word asah occured in the English tranlation of Psalm 104:19 in the 1901 American Standard.I was told by a Hebrew teacher that the 1901 American Standard Version has a reputation among Greek and Hebrew scholars of being a "wooden" translation. He explained that that means it leans towardss sacrificing good sounding English for the sake of arriving at the closest possible sense of the original language.You are correct. I don't read Hebrew. But I keep a number of Bible translations around. And I often look at the 1901 ASV to see how they translate a passage in thier "wooden" translation.Here are the credentials of the professor who gave me that explaination: Okay. Something but not the sun.
Perhaps in the same sense that Venus is something but not a earth like life sustaining planet.
Or a red giant is something but not a typical "sun" as we are accustomed to (in laymen's terms).Of course Venus is a planet and a red giant is a sun in strict scientific terms. We don't know what else this light source may have been doing. We are told only the things related to the ordely preparation of man's world of life as his home.I don't say that my speculation is equal to the Scripture in authority. I admit that my understanding is speculation. And I think it is plausible given the language.Your position is that it is not even plausible. I respect your view. But I don't agree with you. Your credentials as a Hebrew reader don't convince me that your opinion on it is more than that, an opinion which may or may not be the last word on the ASAH / BARA meaning issue.I think your strongest argument is that Genesis 1:26 and 27 might use the two words interchangeably. I think that may be a strong argument that ASAH is BARA and BARA is ASAH. But as I already pointed out that one Rabbi Nachman submitted that no other word in Hebrew - NO other word would express creation of something from nothing (as God is expected to do), beside the word BARA.I doubt that this Rabbi Nachman was a Christian fundamentalist. The reference is found in G.H. Pember's book "Earth's Earliest Ages." Are you saying that you believe that the Bible is accurate and the prophets are speaking the truth from God? And having asked that are you going to say "What I believe is not important"?Because if that is your response then I wonder how much of your exegesis of the Bible is simply motivated by the desire to chase Christians away from interpreting the Old Testament. Are you trying to just chase all us Christians out of the Old Testament? I know that you can slip quickly behind the "Off Topic" bolder and refuse to answer that question.But I am curious why you seem to want to push me into a corner that the Bible has untruth written in it. Are you suggesting that a strict Young Earth, Hyper Literal, Hyper Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis chapter one is alone valid to the original Hebrew?In other words I have to understand that God created first a messy earth and then created the universe around it, or else I don't understand what the prophet has written in Hebrew? I don't think coming into proper function means that it is not a creation account.The dry land appeared on the third day. It says nothing about it being created. It says it appeared from underneath the water. That certainly entails the wet land becoming dry that it might fulfill a function to support the living creatures created upon it.I don't think coming into proper function means it is not a creation account. Everything was dark. And God divided the dark from the light so the dark could fulfill a proper function of serving as limited night rather than eternal night. The limitation of what existed that it might function properly does not make the account not a creation account.I think you have a false dichotomy going there. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : SpellingEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.