Genesis 1: Exposition and Doctrine of Creation

[Calminian]

That's right, it can be used interchangeably with bara, if you bothered to read the lexicon definitions it's only used that way 60 out of 2600 times.

But you said 'asah can only mean created when used with bara'. Now that I've completely disproved that, you're saying it's not the norm. You keep moving the goal posts.

In fact, going back on this conversation you originally said, that if God wanted to express something created He would not use 'asah. Then when I showed you an example, you snapped back that it only means created when used with bara'. Then when I showed you another verse where it means creation and bara' wasn't present, you cite me statistics. Just how far will you move these goal posts?

Then you come up with these remarks.

Lexicons, dictionaries, concordances, the tools a proper exegetical study is done with, you wouldn't understand.

It's clear to me, you're not willing to reason through this as you originally stated in your OP. You're angry because your exegesis is not holding up under scrutiny.

God made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible....

Visible to who??

Again you're claiming that 'asah means made visible, but you're simply wrong. Had God wanted to say this, He could have. He would have used a word like ra'ah. But it would make no sense to use a word like this since there was no man or animal to view this visibility that happened on day 4. To be visible, requires some on to be able to see it that couldn't before. Who was seeing this newly made visible light, that was previously blocked?

Had God wanted to say the sun moon and stars were made visible, He would have. Instead He said He made them. The passage means exactly what is says.

Gen. 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.​

Try reading it in context:

"And God made H6213 the beast of the earth after his kind..." (Gen. 1:25)​

That verse is talking about procreation, thus 'after his kind'.

And now you're denying that land animals were made on day 6, and this illustrates just how toxic the gap theory is. It's demands endless hermeneutical backflips to make it work. Even an obvious statement about the creation of land animals can't be fit into this bizarre system.

That's not a proof, that's a point. After you abandoned all scholarship....

Mark, I don't think there are any scholars at all that follow you on everything point you're trying to make. I highly doubt there are any scholars that believe this passages is not talking about the creation of land animals.

Nothing to get excited about, it's actually kind of fascinating, I've never seen a Creationist chasing his tail in circles like this before. Usually when they want to debate something like this, they have a point. The only ones I ever seen argue in circles like this were Theistic Evolutionists.

Have a nice day
Mark

Like I said. I'll leave the insulting to you.

 

[mark kennedy]

But you said 'asah can only mean created when used with bara'. Now that I've completely disproved that, you're saying it's not the norm. You keep moving the goal posts.

Seriously Calminian, I think we have kicked that dead horse long enough. It made for an interesting study for a while but it's just going in circles now. It is used 60 times in that way out of the 2600 times it's used in Scripture. It can be used that way, you have to discern the context.

In fact, going back on this conversation you originally said, that if God wanted to express something created He would not use 'asah. Then when I showed you an example, you snapped back that it only means created when used with bara'. Then when I showed you another verse where it means creation and bara' wasn't present, you cite me statistics. Just how far will you move these goal posts?

That's straight out of the Vine's Dictionary. Originally when I quoted the definition for 'bara' I felt the discussion of asah was sufficient, then you kept insisting that they were synonymous, so I went back to the Vine's and included the definiton for asah.

Then you come up with these remarks.

No, I just paraphrased the definition.

It's clear to me, you're not willing to reason through this as you originally stated in your OP. You're angry because your exegesis is not holding up under scrutiny.

I'm not even annoyed let alone angry. There is nothing wrong with the exegesis I've just never seen a creationist act like this.

Visible to who??

The narrative is from the surface of the earth. Visible from the surface of the earth as opposed to hidden by thick clouds.

Again you're claiming that 'asah means made visible, but you're simply wrong. Had God wanted to say this, He could have. He would have used a word like ra'ah. But it would make no sense to use a word like this since there was no man or animal to view this visibility that happened on day 4. To be visible, requires some on to be able to see it that couldn't before. Who was seeing this newly made visible light, that was previously blocked?

I never said that it means to 'make visible', it just means to make. In that context God's work cleared the atmosphere so that they were visible but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.

Had God wanted to say the sun moon and stars were made visible, He would have. Instead He said He made them. The passage means exactly what is says.

He does say let them be, I think the clear implication is let them be visible:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Gen 1:14

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (Gen 1:15)​

The term asah isn't used until verse 16, the clear indication is that they were made visible.

And now you're denying that land animals were made on day 6, and this illustrates just how toxic the gap theory is. It's demands endless hermeneutical backflips to make it work. Even an obvious statement about the creation of land animals can't be fit into this bizarre system.

It's so strange for someone to correct me for statements I made that never occurred to me. There are actual rules of exposition, the definition of the word used and the context it is used in. There is really no need to appeal to a hermeneutic principle, we never got that far. A text without a context is a pretext and if this isn't the clearest demonstration of the concept I don't know what is.

Mark, I don't think there are any scholars at all that follow you on everything point you're trying to make. I highly doubt there are any scholars that believe this passages is not talking about the creation of land animals.

If there were I doubt you would care.

Like I said. I'll leave the insulting to you.

Oh ok so now I have to do the expositions, the exegesis, the hermeneutics and the insulting to. Just make me do everything...

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that last one.

Look dude, we have argued this in circles long enough. I seriously enjoyed the back and forth about 'bara' and 'asah', just can't get enough of that sort of thing. However, most of the rest of it just seems pointless.

I promise you one thing and you can take it for whatever it's worth. I don't believe the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4 because of the text, not because of geology, not because of cosmology and not because I have the slightest interest in compromising with secular sources.

I think what we will have here when the smoke clears is an honest difference of opinion. Doctrinally I don't see anything effected, my thing has always been the creation of life in general and Adam in particular. That's why the only secular science that has interested me has been genetics.

Still it's very puzzling the way your arguing so relentlessly so I keep looking around, I found this:

It is also important to remember that the Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) in Genesis 1:1 encompasses everything in the physical universe. As previously discussed, this interpretation is supported by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 63 Vine 64 and Grudem. 65 Bruce Waltke also confirms that hashamayim we ha ‘erets refers to the totality of the physical universe, all matter and energy and whatever else it contains.66 Thus, the Hebrew text clearly states the Sun, Moon and stars were created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day. The Days of Creation​

Actually I think your going to the mat over an alternate reading, nothing more. I don't know what you get out of debates like these but I always come away with truly fascinating insights and source material. It's actually kind of nice to have an exchange like this with a creationist, don't think I've gotten the chance to before. I think the evolutionists are fading away since the culture war ran it's course, no one left but us dog eared creationists.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

Seriously Calminian, I think we have kicked that dead horse long enough. It made for an interesting study for a while but it's just going in circles now. It is used 60 times in that way out of the 2600 times it's used in Scripture. It can be used that way, you have to discern the context.

When have I ever denied the differences of 'asah and bara'? Studying my first-year hebrew grammar I learned that bara' is a word only used in relation to God. But that's very different from the erroneous claim you made that 'asah can never refer to a creative act of God, and I proved it was erroneous from usage in the text.

And what does the Vines Dictionary Definition have to do with your claim that if God wanted to express a creative act, he wouldn't use 'asah? Did Vines make that specific claim? And did I not prove you wrong from usage? Then you said, well, that's only because bara' is used with 'asah. Did Vines tell you that?? And did I not prove you wrong again from usage, showing you an example where 'asah is used of a creative act by itself. Instead of responding and acknowledging the point you cite statistics. Mark, don't blame your mistakes on Vines.

And I don't think you've even stopped to look at the dead horse. You're basically closing your eyes, and plugging your ears saying, "it's not dead, it's not dead.."

I'm not even annoyed let alone angry. There is nothing wrong with the exegesis I've just never seen a creationist act like this.

Well thank you. I've never seen a guy so belligerent over an exegesis. But I'm glad you put it out there. I realize now you're not a young earth creationist. At least now I know where you're coming from.

The narrative is from the surface of the earth. Visible from the surface of the earth as opposed to hidden by thick clouds.

On day 4 who were these hidden from and then made visible to?

I never said that it means to 'make visible', it just means to make. In that context God's work cleared the atmosphere so that they were visible but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.

He does say let them be, I think the clear implication is let them be visible:

Mark the word "visible" came from you. I merely responded to it. Again, made visible to whom????????

Look dude, we have argued this in circles long enough.

As soon as you stop posting your gap theory nonsense, I'll stop responding.

I think what we will have here when the smoke clears is an honest difference of opinion. Doctrinally I don't see anything effected, ....

Well we disagree here too. I think the gap theory is perhaps the most hermeneutically destructive position one can take on Genesis. I know, because I was one myself. It literally throws hermeneutics out the window, and really establishes an anything goes mentality. Just look at how you moved the goal posts continually on the 'asah issue. That's the kind of stuff it breads. Without hermeneutics, all biblical doctrines are in jeopardy.

And you'll notice that nothing was ever said about this supposed gap until modern ideas of deep time came along. It was originally born out of a desire to reconcile Genesis with man's ideas of origins. From Wikipedia,

History
Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science. According to the doctrine of natural theology, science was in this period considered a second revelation, God's word in nature as well as in Scripture, so the two could not contradict each other.​

Mark, you yourself admitted that you were concerned about evolutionists running circles around creationists since they refused to accept the facts of science about the age of the earth. That is indeed what drives your hermeneutic, not the text.

It is also important to remember that the Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) in Genesis 1:1 encompasses everything in the physical universe. As previously discussed, this interpretation is supported by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 63 Vine 64 and Grudem. 65 Bruce Waltke....

LOL! Bruce Waltke, a theistic evolutionists, is now your star witness? Mark don't you realize Waltke disagrees with you about virtually everything you believe? How is citing him as an authority helping you?

I believe the heavens and the earth means the heavens and the earth. I guess I'm weird that way.

I think the evolutionists are fading away since the culture war ran it's course, no one left but us dog eared creationists.

Think again. Belief in evolution is on the rise in america, up 5% in the last five years as belief in essential christian doctrines like the resurrection and deity of Christ are down 5%. And the younger the american, the worse it gets. We have been declining for quite some time. Hermeneutical compromise is crumbling the church's biblical foundation.

 

[mark kennedy]

When have I ever denied the differences of 'asah and bara'? Studying my first-year hebrew grammar I learned that bara' is a word only used in relation to God. But that's very different from the erroneous claim you made that 'asah can never refer to a creative act of God, and I proved it was erroneous from usage in the text.

I'm over it, seriously...

And what does the Vines Dictionary Definition have to do with your claim that if God wanted to express a creative act, he wouldn't use 'asah? Did Vines make that specific claim? And did I not prove you wrong from usage? Then you said, well, that's only because bara' is used with 'asah. Did Vines tell you that?? And did I not prove you wrong again from usage, showing you an example where 'asah is used of a creative act by itself. Instead of responding and acknowledging the point you cite statistics. Mark, don't blame your mistakes on Vines.

It wasn't a mistake, I know what I'm talking about and I won't chase this in circles again.

And I don't think you've even stopped to look at the dead horse. You're basically closing your eyes, and plugging your ears saying, "it's not dead, it's not dead.."

No, I'm saying your being contentious over semantics and we have covered the material. Bara is used in connection with the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), life (Gen 1:21) and man (3 times in Gen 1:27). That means that the core doctrine regards the creation of life in general and man in particular, call it what you will, that's the clear testimony of Scripture. That's the only well determined doctrinal issue I see here. I don't know why the sun being created day 4 is important to you but it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I run into the same thing with evolutionists and after wrangling with them endlessly I simply have to tell them the plain truth, read my lips, I don't care about the age of the earth or the universe.

Well thank you. I've never seen a guy so belligerent over an exegesis. But I'm glad you put it out there. I realize now you're not a young earth creationist. At least now I know where you're coming from.

Actually I did get a lot out of the discussion. When arguing endlessly in circles with evolutionists, a pointless exercise I might add, I always came away with something very interesting about genetics or the fossils. I guess with creationists it's a big dramatic thing over detailed expositions but the two key words are 'creation' and 'day', as they are translated in the English. The subtitles and semantics of the original Hebrew are well worth the trouble but I see no point in pursuing this line of argumentation.

On day 4 who were these hidden from and then made visible to?

Not to, from the surface of the earth.

Mark the word "visible" came from you. I merely responded to it. Again, made visible to whom????????

Given the context that is the implicit and explicit meaning. I seriously don't see us making any progress here, I simply don't have the time to pursue this any further.

As soon as you stop posting your gap theory nonsense, I'll stop responding.

I think a Gap Theorist would have even more problems with me then you do. With me all the Gap includes is the period between the creation of the universe and day one of creation week. It could be instantaneous, it could be billions of years. The most important thing is that no doctrine is remotely effected by that time line and I've seen it argued furiously on both sides.

The creation of life and Man is another matter altogether, the way 'bara' is used in that passage is vital but just as I would tell any evolutionist, creationist or otherwise, the timeline is of no consequence one way or the other until you get to living lineages.

Well we disagree here too. I think the gap theory is perhaps the most hermeneutically destructive position one can take on Genesis. I know, because I was one myself. It literally throws hermeneutics out the window, and really establishes an anything goes mentality. Just look at how you moved the goal posts continually on the 'asah issue. That's the kind of stuff it breads. Without hermeneutics, all biblical doctrines are in jeopardy.

There is no hermeneutic principle based on a gap between the creation of the universe and creation week. If it were otherwise I would have been into geology and cosmology like most creationists but I just don't see anything substantive or doctrinal connected to that. Essential doctrine is inextricably linked to the creation of life and Man, the historicity of Scripture is definitely in jeopardy if you compromise on that. That's it.

And you'll notice that nothing was ever said about this supposed gap until modern ideas of deep time came along. It was originally born out of a desire to reconcile Genesis with man's ideas of origins. From Wikipedia,

I seriously doubt I have a standard orthodox Gap Theory but apparently we would agree on one point. My guess is we would part company there.

History
Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science. According to the doctrine of natural theology, science was in this period considered a second revelation, God's word in nature as well as in Scripture, so the two could not contradict each other.​

There you go, the Flood happened exactly as described and the water covered the earth up to 8 feet (if memory serves) above the highest mountain top. I don't care what kind of dating techniques geologists use, my interest here is the exposition of the text. In school I'm getting a lot of higher criticism, JEPD, the mythical Q document, text variation... ad infinitum ad nauseum. In college it looks like I'm going to study about the Bible a lot and actually study the Bible very little which is incredibly disappointing.

I still use the KJV as a base line and see no problem with Texus Recepticus. I take the book of Revelations quite literally, the last of the 70, 7s that start with the opening of the first seal and end at the return of Christ when he sets up his literal thousand year reign in the literal 1,500 mile square Jerusalem. I hold firm to a Westminster Confession but must admit great difficulty finding other believers that do. I was astonished to learn that R.C Sproul and William Lane Craig have both attacked Creationism and I cannot tell you how much respect I lost for them.

I don't care about geology, I really don't. I enjoy archaeology but I don't stake my faith on what archaeologists think they know about the Scriptures. What I wanted to discuss here is a serious exposition of the text that addresses doctrinal and theological issues. I think we did that as far as we are going to on the points we two have discussed.

Mark, you yourself admitted that you were concerned about evolutionists running circles around creationists since they refused to accept the facts of science about the age of the earth. That is indeed what drives your hermeneutic, not the text.

I promise you it does not, they do not impress me with their science (falsely so called), supposition or their debate antics. When I debate them I go to the peer reviewed scientific literature, not creationist website and certainly not Talk Origins. The Theistic Evolutionists have not shown me one shred of theological or scientific acumen and creationists, God bless them, are usually not that helpful either. The Scriptures are the only standard I care about and like the scientific arguments I've been fielding for years I reserve the right to remain unconvinced.

With all due respect and all the sincerity at my disposal I find your arguments, frankly, unpersuasive.

LOL! Bruce Waltke, a theistic evolutionists, is now your star witness? Mark don't you realize Waltke disagrees with you about virtually everything you believe? How is citing him as an authority helping you?

I have no idea, I can't find the context he made the statement in. I suspect we agree on that one point but not on the implications of Genesis 1:1 being the creation of the entire universe 'in the beginning'.

I believe the heavens and the earth means the heavens and the earth. I guess I'm weird that way.

I don't think there is any indication that it includes the abode of angels, I guess I'm weird that way, since it's obviously the skies and space above the surface of the earth.

Think again. Belief in evolution is on the rise in america, up 5% in the last five years as belief in essential christian doctrines like the resurrection and deity of Christ are down 5%. And the younger the american, the worse it gets. We have been declining for quite some time. Hermeneutical compromise is crumbling the church's biblical foundation.

The US is going the way of Europe, the Scriptures and Biblical Christianity are being deprecated, especially in Christian seminaries. The churches are teaching a steady diet of emotionally based revivalism or Liberal Theology. Of course we are seeing a decline in a profession of faith, Church going Christians are being fed sawdust for doctrine.

God bless you Calminian, I appreciate the exchange and may God richly bless you as you strive to to grow in wisdom and stature before God and men.

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints (Eph. 1:17,18)​

I simply don't have time to pursue this discussion any further and based on the circular nature of the arguments I don't see anything coming of it anyway.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

I simply don't have time to pursue this discussion any further and based on the circular nature of the arguments I don't see anything coming of it anyway

Brother, you posted this exegesis seeking feedback. I did that to the best of my ability.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi SW,

Really????

You don't see any mention of age or years there? Ok

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I was wrong. I withdraw my statement.

 

[SkyWriting]

Based on the following Scriptures the following dates can be calculated. Have you never Read?


Would you like to see the dates through the United Kingdom? The reason it's called Genesis is because of the genealogies and you want to pretend they don't make mention of 'age or years'? Seriously!

I first read the New Testament. In my new testament studies, I reviewed references to OT supportive material. Anything in the OT not referenced in the NT, I skimmed and considered irrelevant. Over time, I've concluded that no scripture is completely irrelevant. But Jesus made it clear that there are priorities. Healing on the Sabbath and others.

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

I was wrong.
Is there any new testament support for making these determinations?
When the church was born, did congregations care what year Creation
week historically occurred?

"You have read that Creation was some 5000 years ago.
But I tell you, such ideas are distracting from our goals.."

 

[SkyWriting]

Nearly half of the Nicene Creed discusses the creation:

Do I need more creeds than scripture already provides?
Why do I need a creed?

 

[mark kennedy]

I first read the New Testament. In my new testament studies, I reviewed references to OT supportive material. Anything in the OT not referenced in the NT, I skimmed and considered irrelevant. Over time, I've concluded that no scripture is completely irrelevant. But Jesus made it clear that there are priorities. Healing on the Sabbath and others.

Creation is a priority, it's essential doctrine, John 1 and Hebrews 1 both start off with it.

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

I have no idea what this quote has to do with what your saying.

I was wrong.
Is there any new testament support for making these determinations?

Absolutely

When the church was born, did congregations care what year Creation
week historically occurred?

No one had to, no one questioned, much less argued against it.

"You have read that Creation was some 5000 years ago.
But I tell you, such ideas are distracting from our goals.."

That's not true, creation is essential, foundational and transcend the entirety of Scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do I need more creeds than scripture already provides?
Why do I need a creed?

The rule of thumb for posting to a Christians only forum is that you believe the Nicene Creed. Check the rules.

 

[mark kennedy]

Brother, you posted this exegesis seeking feedback. I did that to the best of my ability.

You misrepresented or misunderstood my views. I have no problem with an honest difference of opinion but I have never argued against the literal history of the Genesis account of creation. Until we get that straightened out I'm going to have a hard time believing you made a serious effort to respond to my exegetical treatment of the text.

 

[SkyWriting]

The rule of thumb for posting to a Christians only forum is that you believe the Nicene Creed. Check the rules.

If the contents of the Creed are not in the scriptures, then burn your copy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Creation is a priority, it's essential doctrine, John 1 and Hebrews 1 both start off with it.

Neither suggests a "young" earth or any dating method to be used for any reason.

I have no idea what this quote has to do with what your saying.

Priorities.

No one had to, no one questioned, much less argued against it.

The age of the earth? Correct. Irrelevant.

That's not true, creation is essential, foundational and transcend the entirety of Scripture.

The date is not even important enough to be noted.

 

[mark kennedy]

If the contents of the Creed are not in the scriptures, then burn your copy.

The first three stanzas of the Nicene Creed are very close to John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 1 with regards to creation and the Incarnation.

Neither suggests a "young" earth or any dating method to be used for any reason.

All we know about the age of the earth is that it was created 'in the beginning'.

The age of the earth? Correct. Irrelevant.

Exactly!

The date is not even important enough to be noted.

I regard the age of the earth as irrelevant, the creation of life in general and man in particular to be about 6,000 years ago.

 

[Calminian]

You misrepresented or misunderstood my views. I have no problem with an honest difference of opinion but I have never argued against the literal history of the Genesis account of creation. Until we get that straightened out I'm going to have a hard time believing you made a serious effort to respond to my exegetical treatment of the text.

Mark, what other response would I possibly want to make except a serious one?

And compromisers of the Genesis account virtually never deny the literal historicity of Genesis. Even Hugh Ross makes this claim. In fact, I put you guys it the same exact category. Both of you are old earthers, and both of you make unwarranted interpretations to somehow reconcile the book of Genesis with deep time. He does it by reinterpreting the days of Genesis, you do it by imagining a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and then reinterpreting the terms created and made. They're old tricks (relatively old), and neither you nor Ross invented them.

I'm merely exposing the faulty logic. The meanings of 'asah is not precluded from meaning creation by God, as you originally said. It can and often does mean creation, even in the same way bara' means creation. And I showed you an example of this right in chapter 1.

I also wanted to expose the hyper use of dictionaries without providing context of the usage of a particular word. This is how guys like Ross confuse people about the word yom, and how you confuse people about the word 'asah. In discerning these matters, usage and context are everything, and you misrepresent this word, just as Ross misrepresents yom.

Now just keep in mind, I'm not questioning your sincerity. I just think you're sincerely wrong, and have fallen prey to some really bad reasoning. That's my honest humble opinion on this matter.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, what other response would I possibly want to make except a serious one?

And compromisers of the Genesis account virtually never deny the literal historicity of Genesis. Even Hugh Ross makes this claim. In fact, I put you guys it the same exact category. Both of you are old earthers, and both of you make unwarranted interpretations to somehow reconcile the book of Genesis with deep time. He does it by reinterpreting the days of Genesis, you do it by imagining a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and then reinterpreting the terms created and made. They're old tricks (relatively old), and neither you nor Ross invented them.

I didn't catch on to that for a while, as a matter of fact the thought had not occurred to me. I wouldn't bother reading Hugh Ross let alone compromise with something he got piecemeal from geologists. I just think the debate over the age of the earth and the cosmos is pointless, nothing doctrinal is involved and it's a distraction from the actual doctrinal issues of the creation of life in general and man in particular.

I've noticed you have had nothing to say about that, just some pointless posturing over a line of interpretation

I'm merely exposing the faulty logic. The meanings of 'asah is not precluded from meaning creation by God, as you originally said. It can and often does mean creation, even in the same way bara' means creation. And I showed you an example of this right in chapter 1.

I think you have ignored the meaning of both which is odd if you're purpose to to defend the doctrine of creation. You're going out of your way to make divisive and contentious arguments toward another creationist that doesn't effect the doctrine of creation at all. You've shown no interest in the New Testament witness regarding creation nor have you taken even a cursory look at creation as it's described in Job or Isaiah.

You have ignored the lexicon and dictionary definitions and fixated on demeaning an alternate reading of the text. It's fine if you disagree that there is a logical break between Genesis 1:1 and creation week, that's common. I'm not opposed to that line of interpretation but becoming divisive and contentious over semantics with no regard for the underlying doctrinal issues is telling me something about you.

I also wanted to expose the hyper use of dictionaries without providing context of the usage of a particular word. This is how guys like Ross confuse people about the word yom, and how you confuse people about the word 'asah. In discerning these matters, usage and context are everything, and you misrepresent this word, just as Ross misrepresents yom.

It would appear that any use of lexicons, dictionaries or Christian scholarship of any kind is objectionable to you. I know exactly what 'yom' means as well as 'asah', I know because they are well defined in numerous lexicons and dictionaries supported by 2,000 years of Christian scholarship. The term 'yom' simply means a normal day with only slight contextual variations. The term 'asah' has a much broader range of meaning from being synonymous with 'bara' (some 60x) to a vast array of other context driven meanings.

I don't care what Hugh Ross has to say, Darwinians are useless when it comes to expositions and exegetical studies. My only concern is the doctrine of creation as it relates to New Testament theism and the exposition of Genesis 1 as it relates to the Gospel. You seem unconcerned about the doctrinal issues which is making me suspicious.

Now just keep in mind, I'm not questioning your sincerity. I just think you're sincerely wrong, and have fallen prey to some really bad reasoning. That's my honest humble opinion on this matter.

There's nothing wrong with my exposition of the text, you may not agree with it but I've supported everything I've said with sound Christian scholarship. It should be little more then a difference of opinion unless you want creationists locked into an old earth cosmology.

I say again, nothing doctrinal is tied to the age of the earth. What concerns me about this line of argumentation is that it's all you can focus on. You have dismissed and deprecated all relevant source material regarding Genesis 1 in the original and have demonstrated no interest in the doctrinal issues. I've never seen a Creationist do that before, they always take a careful exposition seriously and never neglect the doctrinal issues. You're the only one I have ever seen do that. It's what I have come to expect from Theistic Evolutionists, not from a serious student of the Scriptures.

 

[Calminian]

..I've noticed you have had nothing to say about that, just some pointless posturing over a line of interpretation

But that's what your exegesis is about, isn't it? You posted your interpretation and wanted feedback. Now you're upset.

I think you have ignored the meaning of both which is odd if you're purpose to to defend the doctrine of creation. You're going out of your way to make divisive and contentious arguments toward another creationist that doesn't effect the doctrine of creation at all. You've shown no interest in the New Testament witness regarding creation nor have you taken even a cursory look at creation as it's described in Job or Isaiah.

What on this young earth are you talking about??? You're now fixated on what I'm thinking and my motives and the N.T. and huh??

You have ignored the lexicon and dictionary definitions and fixated on demeaning an alternate reading of the text. It's fine if you disagree that there is a logical break between Genesis 1:1 and creation week, that's common. I'm not opposed to that line of interpretation but becoming divisive and contentious over semantics with no regard for the underlying doctrinal issues is telling me something about you.

So by me focusing on actual usage, rather than looking at the wide semantic range of a word in a lexicon, I'm being divisive? Did you know that if you studied biblical hebrew, your professor would tell you to do this very same thing? Usage and context are everything.

The term 'asah' has a much broader range of meaning from being synonymous with 'bara' (some 60x) to a vast array of other context driven meanings.

And yet prior to this you claimed that if God wanted to suggest creation He wouldn't have used 'asah. I merely corrected you on that, and you flipped out. Seems to me, you're the divisive one.

I don't care what Hugh Ross has to say, Darwinians are useless when it comes to expositions and exegetical studies.....

But Ross is a vehement anti-darwinist, just as you are. He accepts deep time, but rejects evolution. You opt for gap, while he opts for day-age.

I say again, nothing doctrinal is tied to the age of the earth.....

Ross says the same thing. He denies evolution, and accepts deep time. You're not identical, but very close. You're both old earthers/old earth creationists. I just happen to think you're both wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

But that's what your exegesis is about, isn't it? You posted your interpretation and wanted feedback. Now you're upset.

Which makes me wonder if you have ever actually tried doing an exegetical study. You certainly don't appreciate one when you see it.

So by me focusing on actual usage, rather than looking at the wide semantic range of a word in a lexicon, I'm being divisive? Did you know that if you studied biblical hebrew, your professor would tell you to do this very same thing? Usage and context are everything.

You never did focus on the usage and my Old Testament professor considers Genesis 1:27 a parallelism. The definition is clear enough from the Vines which describes a couple of the words used to describe God creating 'bara' and 'asah', the actual definitions and lexicon discussions regarding usage seemed to annoy you.

And yet prior to this you claimed that if God wanted to suggest creation He wouldn't have used 'asah. I merely corrected you on that, and you flipped out. Seems to me, you're the divisive one.

How should I know what 'He wouldn't do', it's used as a synonym for 'bara' sixty times, out of the 2600 times it's used in Scripture. You flipped out because you didn't like my source material and then failed to recommend your source material, because you had none.

But Ross is a vehement anti-darwinist, just as you are. He accepts deep time, but rejects evolution. You opt for gap, while he opts for day-age.

Huge Ross is nothing of the sort, he is vehement anti-creationist. He denies the literal meaning of the word 'day' in Genesis 1. Like you, Hugh Ross will never address, much less defend, the doctrine of creation as essential Christian theism. I fail to see how a Christian trying to defend the doctrine of creation could do so without reference to the New Testament witness regarding creation, but that's something you two have in common.

God's creation days is several hundred millions years long.(Hugh Ross, Genesis 1: A Scientific Perspective)​

That doesn't sound like a rejection of evolution, it's Hugh Ross accommodating the Darwinian dogma of exclusively naturalistic causes.

Ross says the same thing. He denies evolution, and accepts deep time. You're not identical, but very close. You're both old earthers/old earth creationists. I just happen to think you're both wrong.

The difference is that I take everything literally, Ross denies the literal meaning of 'day'. I never claimed to know the age of the earth like you and Hugh Ross have, and I think you are both wrong. The Scriptures are silent on the age of the earth while being explicit, with regards to, creation week being exactly one week.

I don't go around changing the meaning of words like 'bara' in Genesis 1:1, everything in the heavens and the earth including the sun and moon were created before creation week started. I didn't have to change the meaning the way you would have to, to argue the sun was created the fourth day.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[miamited]

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."

God bless
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."

God bless
In Christ, Ted

I did actually learn something this week:

Jesus uses an interesting term for the 'Our Father', instead of the more personal 'Abba', Jesus here just uses the normal word for a 'natural father' or the 'founding member of a tribe' ('Father' πτωχός Strong's G4434). In it's simplicity it speaks volumes for how to approach God in prayer, as we would our natural fathers and in acknowledgement of God who is source or our race through creation.

9 After this manner therefore pray ye:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Matt. 6:9-13)​

Grace and peace,
Mark