it does not prove that bara' can be applied to the work of man.
Strawman. I don't have to prove anything of the kind. God is called the potter. Man is a potter as well. The fact Moses
also used another Hebrew word for create doesn't prove it is devoid of work. That's just wild speculation.
It is a debate whether the work of creation can be said to be the same ("God worked as we do") or not.
And Hebrews says He did work as we did.
"For the one who has entered God’s rest has also rested from his own works,
just as God did from his" ( Heb 4:10)
You're artificially fabricating some weird work-less speculation about the Hebrew word "create" that is unfounded, unproven, and flatly contradicts the explicit teaching of Heb 4:10. (See below for more comments on this). This argument is rooted in Plato, not in Hebrew. Until Plato, anyone would have assumed that creating/making something requires effort.
And if even Hebrews didn't say it, it's implied, because only a jerk would author a book misleadingly suggesting He did real work and thereby
stealing the thunder of those who did. A good person gives credit where credit is due. He doesn't leave misleading hints that wrongly confer some of the credit to himself.
The difference is, that men cannot create in the sense of bara'.
You haven't prove that claim. You're introducing some wild speculation just to sustain your Platonic bias.
And so we debate whether the basis of your logical conclusions is valid. I pointed out that it is not: While words like "make" or "form" can be used referring to God and man alike, "create" (bara') cannot. This is a difference between creation and our work, so your conclusion which depends on there being no difference is not valid.
Speculation. Genesis had no obligation to apply both Hebrew words to man. For example whenever I write about Genesis, I
always use the English word "create". There are several other words I could use (such as produce, form, construct, manufacture, build, etc). I'm not thereby implying something unique to God. Look at what the text says:
"The LORD God
formed the man from the dust of the ground"
That's clay in the hands of a potter. Anyone can form a vessel from clay, although God has acquired more pottery skill than we.
I show verses which show that you have logical problems, and you discredit it by using the word "jerk", as if this would be an argument.
How is that not an argument? You're probably a Calvinist, then? Because Calvinists in particular paint God as a jerk and then pretend it's not an issue. Again, God's ways are supposed to be higher than ours. If your version of God behaves lower than our ways, it is a valid argument.
You haven't shown any
logical problems in my position. You've only concocted a questionable semantic fabrication devoid of any real support.
I'm no Calvinist, but I once read larger part of Calvin's institutiuo and found out that even Calvin himself had a concept of human making decision which makes your objection meaningless.
It's always the same problem with you: You read your presuppositions into texts that don't share them, and then conclude they are illogical.
An argument is not a "presupposition". Suppose we find out one day that God molests children. My protesting it is merely a "presupposition"? No, it's identifying a jerk. You're writing
very Calvinistically. You're saying that God
gets a pass on the standard for real merit just because He is God. That's like saying He is at liberty to molest children just because He is God.
Moral relativism. Newsflash: Moral relativism doesn't make sense.
But the illogical parts comes from you introducing concepts alien to that texts.
Merit is a concept alien to Scripture? Get real. Ever heard of the cross? The whole thing hinges on labor/suffering, right?
BTW, Luther also denied that there is free will - but AFAIK he didn't mean what you associate with that term.
I don't care who denies free will. It's impossible to make sense of justice and punishmeent without it.
No, the rest is set as a model.
False dilemma. It's both rest and work. It's not an EITHER-OR. It's both, as even a 1st grade reader could see. The text doesn't say:
"Be lazy for six days and rest on the seventh, just as God did".
Here's what Hebrew says:
"For the one who has entered God’s rest has also rested from his own works,
just as God did from his" ( Heb 4:10)
Rest from what? Rest from rest? No, we rest from work. It's both in tandem.
That man had to work hard is since the fall (Gen 3:19), so Ex 20:9-11 is no command to work, but rather to restrict work unto six of seven days.
I am not sure that farming began with the Fall. I think Gen 2 implies that God placed Adam in the Garden expecting him to farm it. The Fall introduced
excruciating work. But the point is moot. Free will always involves at least a small degree of laboring/suffering against the agony of temptation. Otherwise it has no merit.
Work is measured by result, someone did work iff there is a work he can present.
Ridiculous. Suppose a child is trapped under a car. You labor/suffer for hours trying to lift it, but fail. You did no work? You have no effort? You were
lazy? Or suppose your boss
unfairly gives you an impossibly heavy weight to move (a task you never agreed to). You struggled but failed. You don't deserve a paycheck?
All you're doing is fabricating superficial responses engineered to dodge a pretty reasonable stance on my part.
You again use a rather modern concept in order to misinterpret an ancient text.
See what I mean? Good character, versus being a jerk, isn't a "modern concept". Even a child molester will admit it.
Stop fabricating objections.
Exponentially higher in power, majesty, glory …
… which implies that he can do great works without effort.
He certainly can. Nowadays He is irreversibly holy.
The test says that God worked and rested, but it does not say that he worked and rested like men.
(Guffaw). Hebrews 4:10 says He behaved just like men. Note it doesn't say, "He rested from all his rest."
I looked into a dictionary (for English is not ma mother tongue), but I could not find any meaning of "jerk" which makes this statement true. it is a belief of you, so strong that you take it for granted for all men, probably because you never understood differences between cultures other than western. And so you think it is a logical statement.
And in some cultures, men are jerks. That doesn't count here. I don't believe you are a jerk. Again, consider two son:
...(1) The first one is a lazy sloth but inherits wealth.
....(2) The other is born poor but labors for decades to acquire wealth.
Which son merits more accolades? (Please don't tell me about the jerk-values of some evil Muslim culture. I'm talking to a Bible-believing Christian who is supposed to have good values).
This reminds me of a Muslim who takes it for granted that God...would be a jerk (to use your terminology) if he admits prophets to commit sins.
Now that's a legitimate question. Why does God allow evil. This is called the Problem of Evil. As far as I can see, my theology is the only one in Christian history to solve it. Not that the solution is "really" my invention. Atheists have pointed out for a long time that the solution is a finite God, meaning a God who has a
need to create a world with full freedom of the will, including the resulting evil/suffering.
Thus Problem of Evil is insoluble on the traditional definition of God.
I'm pretty sure that most (if not all) biblical authors would have difficulties to understand why God should be a jerk if he is omnipotent.
My version of God is not a jerk.
Jesus was 100% man, and therefore he had to learn. Are you a docetist that denies that Jesus is truly God and truly man?
Do you "believe" in the hypostatic union? Let me get this straight. God selected one of us human beings/souls and placed it in Christ's body. Had your soul been the one selected, we'd be worshipping it as part of the Trinity - Quadrinity? Is that what you believe?
Again, you presuppose what you want to prove: That praise cannot be based on inherent features. You did not giver any logical proof for it.
Oh but I did. Nobody merits praise for good DNA, or being born wealthy. He merits praise if he labored to acquire wealth.
Your attempt to defend jerk-values is not convincing.
It is your presupposition, that seems to be the outcome of modern thinking. I can't find this stuff in the Bible.
The definition of a jerk didn't change from Genesis to Revelation. The only reason you'd like to think so is to win this debate.
Never read classical texts where animals are praised, not individual animals, but the whole kind, because of their "virtues" (all inherited from the ancestors)? Whole God is a totally different "kind", you have the same situation: He can be praised for what He is.
For the millionth time, I acknowledged that anyone
can be praised for miscellaneous reasons. That's not the same as
meriting praise in a virtuous sense. Virtue is the sense that matters most, as will be seen on judgment day.
You don't see why God is said to be worthy of praise in these verses. No mentioning of any achievement, all, praise is to what He is. You could (if your prejudices allow this for you) see same in many other passages. But can you tell me one passage where Got is praised for skills he achieved?
Can you show me verses that say the word "Trinity"? Again it's a logical construct. I don't care if you have a million verses supporting an illogical conclusion.
The construct is solidified by the fact that Scripture indicates that God
had to work and then needed
rest. The
only way to make sense of that is that He had to put forth
some kind of effort. I tend to assume it means an effort to acquire knowledge and skills, but if you have a stronger theory, let's hear it.