POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[rakovsky]

Let's take a look at #1.

Water in space. Is that really far-fetched considering
all of the comets made of ice floating around? How
much water is in space? LOTS.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1769468/scientists-discover-oldest-largest-body-water-existence-space
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/22/in_space_theres_water_water_ev/

I agree that the Bible says this. So how come only about 1/5 of the creationists vote for number 1?

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, it is used to speak of the creation of the sun in verse 16, which is on day 4 .

Please click to expand what I highlighted :

Notice 1. The firmament means something hard like metal.

Your talking about the etymology of the word. God hammered out the atmosphere, it's as simple as that.

2. On day 4, asah is used parallel to bara, which the writer you quoted says proves that it means created here on day 4, just like God created, asah, not set, man.

Bara is not used for the creation of the firmament, it was made not created. Now aspects of creation were made as well but only when those terms are used in parallel are the two synonymous. God created man in the sense of bara, it's a term once used for the creation of the universe, once for the creation of life in general and three times in a three fold parallelism to describe the creation of man.

If you were able to write to the author he will agree with me and with calvin and with the young Earth website I pointed you to.
Feel free to contact several young Earth theologians who teach at colleges and whom you trust and they should be able to explain it to you.

No need to contact anyone, the text stands alone as the only account and source for the account from God himself. Young Earth Creationists are free to interpret as they see fit, I have no problem with them. However, I know the text and it is not necessary to embrace a young earth cosmology. The creation of life is another matter altogether.

Do note, bara is not used in Genesis 1:16:

And God H430 made H6213 two H8147 great H1419 lights; H3974 the greater H1419 light H3974 to rule H4475 the day, H3117 and the lesser H6996 light H3974 to rule H4475 the night: H3915 he made the stars H3556 also. (Gen. 1:16)
​

The sun, moon and stars already existed prior to God's work on day 4. The term asah only synonymous with bara when they are used together and clearly have two very different meanings. God making something from preexisting materials is different from an ex nihilo creation event.

Answer the question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[rakovsky]

Now aspects of creation were made as well but only when those terms are used in parallel are the two synonymous. God created man in the sense of bara, it's a term once used for the creation of the universe, once for the creation of life in general and three times in a three fold parallelism to describe the creation of man.

Mark, What you cited before says that the creation of the sun was one of the three times when the parallel with bara is used. What do you think the three instances are when he writes:
《Then three times used used in parallel with bara, saying that
God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16),
then later ‘made’ the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25)
and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).》
What are the three parallel instances that he has just stated?

 

[pat34lee]

But how long is a "literal day" in that sense besides the exchange of night and light?
A literal day on earth even today is not 24 hours by a stopwatch - it actually changes since the earth's speed of rotation changes.
The Bible never says how long the exchanges of night and light were in Gen 1.


The corners are not the only indication it gives of a flat earth.
It also talks about the ends of the earth. The head ends at the neck, and, since it's oblong, at the crown. But where does the earth end?

Further, the Bible several times speaks of people viewing the whole earth from a single point. Can that be said of a sphere?

We cannot go by what a day, or year is today because the
clock of the universe was broken when Adam fell. At the
beginning, I think the hours were perfectly 60 minutes or
3600 seconds. A day was 24 hours and a year 360 days.
Exactly.

I almost forgot the second problem with 'earth'. If you
look up the Hebrew, I would bet the word they used was
'eretz'. That can mean the world, or just the land (usually
Israel, but could be all nearby kingdoms).

Either way, if someone can see the throne room in heaven,
I don't think it's a stretch that spiritual powers can show the
whole earth. Think holograms or 3D TV.

 

[StanJ]

Stan,
What is your understanding of the meaning of humanism in Calvin's era of the 15th and 15th centuries?
Oz

I know you like to run down various rabbit trails, but let's stay on track okay.

 

[StanJ]

Never said that.

So it appears you're really don't want to discuss the issue?

The Bible never says, so I'm not going to guess.

So you have no problem making guesses based on appearances but you don't want to guess based on an example of God's creation?
Well we know he created man so what do you figure? What age was a man called a man at that time or was Adam the first example of a man?

 

[pat34lee]

I agree that the Bible says this. So how come only about 1/5 of the creationists vote for number 1?

They bought into the lie of humanism, that science
knows everything, and has proven the bible wrong,
when just the opposite is true.

 

[rakovsky]

We cannot go by what a day, or year is today because the
clock of the universe was broken when Adam fell. At the
beginning, I think the hours were perfectly 60 minutes or
3600 seconds. A day was 24 hours and a year 360 days.
Exactly.

One could guess that, but it never specifies. It says that the sun was made on day 4 to measure the days.
Since neither the measuring stick, the sun, nor man were made, it is hard for man to judge how long in man's time those days were.

We only have God, the exchanges of night and light, the heavens and the undivided primordial waters at that point. It never says how long the exchanges took.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well we know he created man so what do you figure? What age was a man called a man at that time or was Adam the first example of a man?

I already said I'm not going to guess.

So it appears you're really don't want to discuss the issue?

Where did you get that from? Please stop putting words in my mouth and just tell me what it is you want to discuss ... apparently nothing related to what I said.

 

[StanJ]

The verse you quoted only says that Moses wrote the ten commandments - not the whole pentateuch. The same goes for the verses OzSpen quotes. That's like saying that because I wrote the introduction for my friend's book, that I wrote the whole book. It's silly.

What's silly is your analogy and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge plain evidence right in front of your eyes. Moses was the only one that had the skills and the pedigree to be able to do this writing so if you refuse to accept him as the author of the Torah then that's basically your problem. I can't continue to give examples to someone who refuses to accept the premise for no valid reason.

Of course it was written down. We are discussing whether Moses did the writing for the whole pentateuch, or if he only wrote some of it. The fact that it was written down doesn't prove Moses wrote it any more than the fact that War and Peace was written down proves that Moses wrote War and Peace.

Again your analogies are ridiculously inane. That you refuse to see or recognize the importance of Moses in the Old Testament even though he appeared with Jesus and Elijah in the New Testament, doesn't bode well for your powers of deduction.

As I said before - there is no Biblical basis for Mosaic authorship of the whole pentateuch. It's a made made idea that goes against the testimony of scripture itself.

Denying what you've been given is your problem and doesn't support your assertion. Exactly what testimony of scripture are you referring to?

So your link shows that you just swallow what some minister with a website (who doesn't even speak Hebrew as far as I can tell), while you reject what most Biblical scholars, with hundreds of years of learning between them, agree is obvious? What's next - accepting your plumber's view of atomic fission over that of the physicists?

Well it's not quite that simple but yes Thomas I do accept a properly put together argument. You keep saying 'with most biblical Scholars', but you don't show any support for your assertion. It's obvious your mind is made up so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Um - you seem to have confused the words. Genesis says that God made a hard dome - a raqiya, and named it "Shamayim" or sky. It's still a hard dome, just as if I named my car "Fred" - it's still a car. You've mixed up "hard dome" (raqiya) with the name given to the hard dome (shamayim="sky")
I looked at several modern translations, and it's pretty clear:
Good News Translation:

Then God commanded, “Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places”—and it was done. So God made a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it. He named the dome “Sky.”​

ISV:

So God made a canopy that separated the water beneath the canopy from the water above it. And that is what happened: God called the canopy“sky.”​

CEB:

God made the dome and separated the waters under the dome from the waters above the dome. And it happened in that way. God named the dome Sky.​

NRSV:

So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky.​

As pointed out before - it's not "some liberal university" saying that. It's the literal meaning of the text, and the reference I supplied to show that is a peer-reviewed paper - meaning that this is agreed up by many Biblical scholars, who actually read Hebrew.

No, those are your words not what was translated. Genesis called it firmament or expanse, in God's name that 'sky'. Look up, it's still there.
Peer-reviewed paper means nothing to me especially given the Axiom that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Plus, as Rakovsky pointed out, it's that way in Strong's too.
I was talking about the verse on Firmament. Strong's says it means something beaten out:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm
"1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice,
2. the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it,"

Sadly he does have a bad habit of taking an out-of-context connotation and using it as the main one. Seems you have the same bad habit.
When you say you love your dog, or you love candy, or you love your wife, are you meaning the same thing every time? People know what you mean based on the context of when you're saying it, which is apparently something you're either not willing to admit or don't understand.

 

[StanJ]

Where did you get that from? Please stop putting words in my mouth and just tell me what it is you want to discuss ... apparently nothing related to what I said.

From the words you wrote down but again apparently you don't want to discuss them so I guess I really don't want to discuss anything with you.

 

[Resha Caner]

From the words you wrote down but again apparently you don't want to discuss them so I guess I really don't want to discuss anything with you.

Shrug. If you wish. I just don't see how what you said related to what I said. But it seems you have some point you want to make, so ...

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, What you cited before says that the creation of the sun was one of the three times when the parallel with bara is used. What do you think the three instances are when he writes:
《Then three times used used in parallel with bara, saying that
God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16),
then later ‘made’ the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25)
and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).》
What are the three parallel instances that he has just stated?

Consider the actual meaning of the words, you are equivocating bara with asah. There is no reasonable basis for this. Why don't you take a good look at the actual definition and realize there is a progression of thought here.

1 Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...all other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning. a carefull study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses, primarily in Genesis, the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistant material. Things created, made and set by God: the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); lsalvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10).' (Vine 51)

2 Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Used once of how God ’made’, the ‘firmament’ (Gen. 1:7), aka, ‘sky’ or ‘atmosphere’. It is, 'analogous to the sky being hammered out like a silver or gold overlay. Used once for plants ’yielding’ fruit (Gen. 1:11, 12), aka, procreation. Then three times used used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16), then later ‘made’ the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25) and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).
​

Answer the question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

What's silly is your analogy and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge plain evidence right in front of your eyes. Moses was the only one that had the skills and the pedigree to be able to do this writing so if you refuse to accept him as the author of the Torah then that's basically your problem. I can't continue to give examples to someone who refuses to accept the premise for no valid reason.

I don't want to interfere but Papias almost has a point here. Moses was a Levite, the Pentateuch was put together by the Levites, Moses was just the chief scribe. There is a point late in Genesis where it says Moses died, we don't really believe Moses wrote that. Mosaic authorship is not in question, even if he did not write every single word. The Pentateuch was complete before the children of Israel crossed Jordon, Moses overseen the compilation. There can be no serious question about that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[rakovsky]

2 Made ‘asah’(H6213) "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation."... Then three times used used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16), then later ‘made’ the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25) and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).​

You have just quoted to me for the second time a scholar who says that When asah is parallel to bara we can be sure that it implies creation, and that it is "used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun".

Why do you reject what you have just quoted to me as authority?

 

[mark kennedy]

You have just quoted to me for the second time a scholar who says that When asah is parallel to bara we can be sure that it implies creation, and that it is "used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun".

Why do you reject what you have just quoted to me as authority?

I don't, they are sometimes used in unison. There is just no reason to conclude that the sun, moon and stars were created on day four. The term is not used to describe day four, have you missed that? Why won't you answer the question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?

only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).​

It's not parallel, pay attention to the semantics.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[rakovsky]

I don't, they are sometimes used in unison. There is just no reason to conclude that the sun, moon and stars were created on day four. The term is not used to describe day four, have you missed that?

It is talking about Day 4 here:
13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Both Calvin and the source you just cited to me teach that the Bible says that the sun was made on the fourth day. Why do you fight against admitting what the Bible says?

Your premise seems to be that it is 100% impossible for there to be days and nights without the sun, and so you fight against accepting that the Bible says what it says.

 

[rakovsky]

only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).​

It's not parallel, pay attention to the semantics.

Have a nice day
Mark

What part of what you have quoted to me do you not understand:

Then three times used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16),
then later ‘made’ the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25)
and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).

If I wrote the writer a letter and he wrote back that he was saying what I said he was saying, would you believe that he said it?

 

[mark kennedy]

What part of what you have quoted to me do you not understand:

Then three times used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16),
then later ‘made’ the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25)
and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).

If I wrote the writer a letter and he wrote back that he was saying what I said he was saying, would you believe that he said it?

Bara is not used in that passage. Why don't you answer the question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?

 

[rakovsky]

Bara is not used in that passage.

You have just quoted me a passage saying that the direct presence of Bara doesn't matter because it is used in parrallel.

Why are you in disagreement with what you cited as authority?
Why not accept that the Bible says what it says:
On the fourth day God "made" the sun, just like he later "made" man, using the same verb in both cases with bara as a parallel.