gen 1:3 Light

[djbcrawford]

On the other hand, here is the opinion of a theologian and Bible scholar I highly respect, who was educated in the original languages- Adam Clarke (1762-1832):

Job 38:7
"When the morning stars sang together—This must refer to some intelligent beings who existed before the creation of the visible heavens and earth: and it is supposed that this and the following clause refer to the same beings; that by the sons of God, and the morning stars, the angelic host is meant; as they are supposed to be first, though perhaps not chief, in the order of creation. For the latter clause the Chaldee has, “All the troops of angels.” Perhaps their creation may be included in the term heavens, Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” These witnessed the progress of the creation; and, when God had finished his work, celebrated his wisdom and power in the highest strains."

I have a vague recollection to Lucifer being referred to pre-fall as a morning star, which would support the view that the morning stars were heavenly beings which existed pre-creation.

 

[FallingWaters]

I have a vague recollection to Lucifer being referred to pre-fall as a morning star, which would support the view that the morning stars were heavenly beings which existed pre-creation.

According to the editors of the New King James Version of the Bible, 'Lucifer' literally means 'Day Star'.

 

[IisJustMe]

How does YEC explain these verses:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This passage isn't about the creation of the world. It is about God chastising Job for His arrogance in thinking he was somehow being treated unfairly. While this establishes the obvious fact that man wasn't around when God created the universe, and the earth in particular, that doesn't imply it is a chronological order, or that its statements are directly relevant to creation events.

This is more like the owner of the company saying to an arrogant employee, "Where were you when I was working 18-hour days to meet a payroll I couldn't afford? And Where were you when I started this firm in my garage?" Its doubtful the boss wants an answer to either question, and it probably isn't in chronological order. The purpose is to put Job in his place, not teach him how God made the earth.

 

[LoG]

This is more like the owner of the company saying to an arrogant employee, "Where were you when I was working 18-hour days to meet a payroll I couldn't afford? And Where were you when I started this firm in my garage?" Its doubtful the boss wants an answer to either question, and it probably isn't in chronological order. The purpose is to put Job in his place, not teach him how God made the earth.

To make your analogy a little more realistic, the boss would also be mentioning how his employees were celebrating his efforts at the time he was putting the hours in. Then in an another conversation he tells everyone that he hired those employees after all the hard work was done.

A human boss may have a tendency to exaggerate his efforts but lets not put God in that kind of light just so our belief systems are not being challenged by the words of God Himself.

 

[IisJustMe]

A human boss may have a tendency to exaggerate his efforts but lets not put God in that kind of light just so our belief systems are not being challenged by the words of God Himself.

My point was to what God's intent was in delivering the lecture. Surely it wasn't a lesson on creation. But in that the analogy fails because of its comparing God's motivations to a mere man's is absolutely correct.

 

[LoG]

My point was to what God's intent was in delivering the lecture. Surely it wasn't a lesson on creation.

I do realize that it wasn't meant as a lesson in Creation and yet in spite of that I am unwilling to believe that any words that come from the Creator of the Universe are not 100% accurate. If during the course of chastising Job He mentions that the morning stars were singing while He was laying the foundations of the Earth then that statement is something we can take as being just as truthful as the verse:

Gen 1:16 And 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.


Now we have an apparent contradiction until we look at the word "made"and the various interpretations of the word in Strong's, see that it does not necessarily mean "create" but could also be interpreted as "appoint" as well as a host of other meanings that does not imply that He brought forth something that didn't exist previously.

 

[IisJustMe]

Now we have an apparent contradiction until we look at the word "made"and the various interpretations of the word in Strong's, see that it does not necessarily mean "create" but could also be interpreted as "appoint" as well as a host of other meanings that does not imply that He brought forth something that didn't exist previously.

All of the secondary meanings listed under the primary must be used in connection with the primary. In the case of "to appoint" it must be be in conjunction with the meaning under which it is mentioned. That is "to do, fashion, accomplish, make." So one cannot just pull out the meaning "to appoint" and say that is the meaning of `asah in this case. It must mean "to fashion by appointment" or "to accomplish by appointment" or "make by appointment." That not only does not eliminate the sense of creating from nothing, but it adds the sense of divine will in doing so.

 

[djbcrawford]

I do realize that it wasn't meant as a lesson in Creation and yet in spite of that I am unwilling to believe that any words that come from the Creator of the Universe are not 100% accurate. If during the course of chastising Job He mentions that the morning stars were singing while He was laying the foundations of the Earth then that statement is something we can take as being just as truthful as the verse:

They would be 100% accurate in the context of whom they were spoken to. There is no mention of a timeline so each statement can be 100% accurate, yet not be in any cronological order. The morning stars could, and probably were, singing together throughout all creation and might be singing still for all we know.

I wonder if God indulges in poetic prose at all. A poet describing nature uses many allegories to describe a scene. I wonder if God does the same, realising that our limited minds perhaps cannot comprehend the real truth of creation and Godhood.

Incidentally, do you have any ideas on who the sons of God that were, that shouted for joy in the second half of the verse?

 

[jbran555]

i think all light, and what is really amazing is God calls himself light, and refers to light soo many times later on in the bible and no one knows what light is today, and if you travel at the speed of light you won't age, but if you travel that fast you will also implode, and we can't see light, we can only see what light touches. And God is light. so he doesn't exist. But yet he does, it is truly amazing.

 

[vossler]

According to the editors of the New King James Version of the Bible, 'Lucifer' literally means 'Day Star'.

Very true!

It's nice to see you back here FallingWaters; please stick around, we sure could use a sweet and lovely person such as yourself around here. Your views sure can take the sharp edge off of some of us men usually present and give an alternative perspective that is quite different to the status quo.

 

[chaoschristian]

i think all light, and what is really amazing is God calls himself light, and refers to light soo many times later on in the bible and no one knows what light is today, and if you travel at the speed of light you won't age, but if you travel that fast you will also implode, and we can't see light, we can only see what light touches. And God is light. so he doesn't exist. But yet he does, it is truly amazing.

Light is a fanscinating phenomenon. Take for instance the fact that under the terms of how we currently understand physics it is impossible to accelerate any amount of mass to the speed of light. It would take an infinite amount of energy, even for the teeniest little bit.

And as I understand it the only one who embodies any meaningful quality of infinite is God.

 

[sjdennis]

Gen 1:16 And 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.


Now we have an apparent contradiction until we look at the word "made"and the various interpretations of the word in Strong's, see that it does not necessarily mean "create" but could also be interpreted as "appoint" as well as a host of other meanings that does not imply that He brought forth something that didn't exist previously.

Most words can mean many different things. What is important is not what they "could also be interpreted as" but what they ACTUALLY mean in that particular context.

The debate centers around the Hebrew words "asa" (made, appoint) and "bara" (create). In the Genesis account of creation, the word "bara" is used to describe creation in verse 1 and the creation of a few specific things through the rest of the chapter. Elsewhere the word "asa" is used to describe the creation of the stars etc. Gap theorists argue that this means that the stars were actually created at the start of creation, and only "appointed" or "made visible" on day 4 of creation week, for the previous days they had been hidden by some sort of cloud layer or something. Young earth creationists instead argue that the words "asa" and "bara" can both refer to creation, and can be used interchangably. Please note that although asa has a wide range of meanings, "create" is in fact one of those meanings. This meaning is NOT given in Strongs concordance (a point that Gap theorists often point out with glee!), but is listed in respected lexicons such as Brown, Driver & Briggs, and Koehler & Baumgartner. These lexicons give the usage of "asa" in Genesis 1 as one example of where it means create, along with other verses in Nehemiah, Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Nehemiah 9:6 states that God made "asa" the heavens, the heavens of heavens, the hosts of heaven (probably the angels), the earth, everything contained in or on the earth, the seas and everything they contain.

Nehemiah 9:6 is stating that God "asa" EVERYTHING. This is clearly referring to the creation of everything. Asa must mean create, other this verse says that God made the angels out of something preexisting, He made the earth out of something preexisting etc. However Genesis 1:1 clearly states that He "created" (bara) the heavens and the earth. If "asa" here cannot mean "create", this is a direct contradiction of Genesis 1:1.

Gap theorists generally state that certain things were made, recreated or appointed during creation week. However to be consistent with Nehemiah they would need to say that God recreated the Entire Universe, INCLUDING THE ANGELS, out of preexisting matter, which is another thing entirely.

There are many, many other verses which show that "asa" and "bara" must be able to be used interchangably for the bible to make any sense. Some more examples:

Psalm 100:3 "Know that the LORD Himself is God, it is He who has made (asa) us, and not we ourselves". This verse states that God made (asa) man. But Genesis 1:27 states that God created (bara) man. If "asa" cannot mean create, then Man must have been created once, then made once, these verses must describe two seperate events, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Genesis 1:21 states that God created (bara) the sea creatures and the birds. Genesis 1:25 states that God made (asa) the land-dwelling creatures. Why would God create the sea creatures and birds out of nothing, and make the land animals our of pre-existing matter? Wouldn't he create both in a similar way? The passage makes much more sense if asa and bara are interchangable, and can both mean create.

Genesis 1:26-27 states: "And God said, Let us make (ASA) man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created (BARA) man in his own image, in the image of God created (BARA) he him; male and female created (BARA) he them. " In these verses Asa and Bara are clearly used interchangably.

Genesis 2:7 states "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..." So man was created from pre-existing matter. But Genesis 1:27 stated that man was "created" (bara), and according to the strict definition gap theorists would like to impose on "asa" and "bara", "bara" can only mean creation out of nothing. This verse says man was made, ie "asa", giving the same contradiction as in verses 1:26-27 unless "asa" and "bara" can be used interchangably.

Exodus 34:10 states "Then God said, 'Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform (asa) miracles which have not been produced (bara) in all the earth...'". Here these two verbs clearly refer to the same event, and are used interchangably, by God Himself.

I could give many other examples. It appears clear to me anyway that the terms "created" and "made" in the creation account are interchangable, otherwise the passage (and other passages in the bible) do not make sense.

Asa can mean "appoint", such as in 1 Kings 13:33 (appointed priests from among the people), 2 Chronicles 2:18 (appointed 70,000 of them to carry loads). Where "asa" means "appoint" it is very obvious from the context. Making "asa" mean "appoint" in Genesis 1 is stretching its contextual meaning considerably.

Therefore the sun, moon, and the stars, were created by God on day 4 of creation week. There is no reason to believe otherwise, and to do so stretches the meaning of the Hebrew significantly.

 

[LoG]

Asa can mean "appoint", such as in 1 Kings 13:33 (appointed priests from among the people), 2 Chronicles 2:18 (appointed 70,000 of them to carry loads). Where "asa" means "appoint" it is very obvious from the context. Making "asa" mean "appoint" in Genesis 1 is stretching its contextual meaning considerably.

It only stretches the meaning if you believe the morning stars didn't preexist the laying of the Earth's foundations as mentioned in Job. It leaves you to stretch the chronology or contextual meaning of Job 38:7

Therefore the sun, moon, and the stars, were created by God on day 4 of creation week. There is no reason to believe otherwise, and to do so stretches the meaning of the Hebrew significantly.

Thanks for your opinion.

As to the rest of your post, man is a 3 part being. Two parts were "asa" and one part was "bara". As to why land animals were made but whales and fowl created likely had to do with whether they existed in a previous creation or not. The angels we don't know much about as to their beginnings but being that they are called the sons of God in a number of verses, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that they were asa from some aspect of the essence of God Himself.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

These two verses state that there was more than one generation of the heavens and Earth just as a new one is to come in the future. Nehemiah was correct in his usage of "asa" to signify he was speaking of this present creation which was in a large part made from a preexisting one.

Lastly if the two words were truly interchangable, then why does God frequently use them in the same verse?

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Isa 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Isa 45:18 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 in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

You think maybe it was so He didn't overuse a word as human authors do? But then we get a verse like:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Although it may appear that there is some overlap in various hebrew words, each would still have a slightly different connotation. I think God used the perfect word each time to convey what He wanted to say and from that perspective asa and bara are not interchangable.

 

[sjdennis]

I actually think you have given us a great series of verses in which asa and bara are obviously being used to refer to the same creative action, in the same sentence. God repeats his verbs sometimes - you have one example of that here, Genesis 1:27, where he uses exactly the same verb (bara). Sometimes he repeats by using both asa and bara to refer to the same thing, as in your above verses. I find them no contradiction to the YEC reading of the passage, and if anything a confirmation.

 

[shernren]

Just popping in to say that I've always wondered just why "asa" and "bara" are used in the way they are in Genesis 1. I like what's happening in this discussion and I'm keeping my eyes peeled!

 

[LoG]

I actually think you have given us a great series of verses in which asa and bara are obviously being used to refer to the same creative action, in the same sentence. God repeats his verbs sometimes - you have one example of that here, Genesis 1:27, where he uses exactly the same verb (bara). Sometimes he repeats by using both asa and bara to refer to the same thing, as in your above verses. I find them no contradiction to the YEC reading of the passage, and if anything a confirmation.

I can see where a superficial reading of the verses would lead one to believe that God repeats himself in the same verse with different words.
However, you failed to explain then how the morning stars were singing when God was laying the foundations of the Earth prior to (or on) day one when they weren't supposed to be created until day four.

 

[djbcrawford]

Since it says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", wouldn't this be before "time" began and before "Day 1". Since there is nothing but "the heavens and the earth", this suggests everything was created prior to Day 1.

The difference between created and made could be: "created" - create something out of nothing; and "made" - shape or change something already existing: Therefore when God "makes" Adam out of clay, technically he both "creates" him (he created the clay he came from) and "makes" him (shapes him out of existing material).

 

[sjdennis]

I can see where a superficial reading of the verses would lead one to believe that God repeats himself in the same verse with different words.
However, you failed to explain then how the morning stars were singing when God was laying the foundations of the Earth prior to (or on) day one when they weren't supposed to be created until day four.

Already dealt with:

I have a vague recollection to Lucifer being referred to pre-fall as a morning star, which would support the view that the morning stars were heavenly beings which existed pre-creation.

According to the editors of the New King James Version of the Bible, 'Lucifer' literally means 'Day Star'.

 

[LoG]

Already dealt with:

I have a vague recollection to Lucifer being referred to pre-fall as a morning star, which would support the view that the morning stars were heavenly beings which existed pre-creation.

If you agreed that the morning stars preceeded the creation of the Earth, what were you debating with me about? Am I missing or misunderstanding something?

 

[sjdennis]

I do not fully understand when angels were created in relation to creation week, it is not directly stated in the account. For this reason I have no problem with the angels being created before the earth, and therefore being present to sing at the laying of it's foundation. They may have been created long before or just a few minutes before the actual creation of earth, I do not know. If you can find somewhere in the bible where it directly states when angels were created I would be very interested.

Note that I am considering angels for these purposes as seperate from the physical lights (sun, moon, stars) created on day 4. I am reading "morning star" as angel, in the sense of Lucifer meaning "day star", "morning star" or something like that. I do not necessarily know all the answers, and you may be able to pick holes in this. However I feel this understanding of the passage works, and fits in well with the natural reading of the creation account, with creation occuring over the period of six days.

I have not debated this point with you. Rather I have debated the need for a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.