Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You did:
"Yes, the word "tohu" occurs there too. And it is also used to characterize idols. So, what does this all mean, like I said before: "tohu" is not God's intent, God's way. Therefore it reinforces my belief that "tohu" in Gen 1:2 isn't so either."
We're not talking about "beginning" - we're talking about "THE beginning".
So, why is it that when Scripture mentions "chaos", or however you want to translate it, it always refers to the exact same one single thing, yet when Scripture mentions "the beginning", suddenly that can refer to any point you want it to?
You did:
"Yes, the word "tohu" occurs there too. And it is also used to characterize idols. So, what does this all mean, like I said before: "tohu" is not God's intent, God's way. Therefore it reinforces my belief that "tohu" in Gen 1:2 isn't so either."
No, I didn't say that.???
You DID say it "chaos" was always the same
Yes, that I did say.- you said it is always anti-God.
Who was talking about definite articles??? Nobody. And how does that change the meaning of beginning?And it IS significant that you want to change references of "the beginning" and remove the definite article.
Aren't you the same as the other guy?Sad, that you'd rather dismiss it "silly". I guess if you can't address problems in your arguemnt, it's easier to just take the position that any opposition is just "silly".
This is a reference of course to the creation. So, it confirms my point: God did do something to the "empty" (=waste) place. Not: He made the place such.
I think this is kind of a desperate stretch to make your point.Perhaps this is pretty far afield, but here is a good "tohu" (n Greek)
Phl 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
This is a reference of course to the creation. So, it confirms my point: God did do something to the "empty" (=waste) place. Not: He made the place such.I think this is kind of a desperate stretch to make your point.
Tohu is not in Ex. 20.As for Job, if we accept your argument, wouldnt that be rather like sweeping the tohu under the rug? A stronger point is that the more we broaden the use of tohu in its several uses, the more we have to look very carefully at the context, including Exod. 20.
Tohu is not in Ex. 20.
True enough.
Gen. 1 exists in the "context" of the "whole counsel" of God, including the following:
Exd 20:11
For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Hope that makes it clearer.
Lets ask this, are the gap folks agreeing that a six day period from Gen 1:1 to Gen. 2 is "allowable"?
I answered this objection somewhere already, but I don't know where anymore.
Basically, Ex 20:11 does not speak about creation but about making (=forming; dressing up) of the heavens and the earth.. That's what God did in 6 days.
he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:
It is interesting that up until Gen. 1:7, there is all this "let there be" talk, after which God is "making" (asah) things.
However, Bara from Gen. 1:1 is also used in Deut. 4:32 in talking of "making" man. But, in Gen. 1, man is asah, or "made".
Exod. 20 uses "asah."
There is allowance in reason for the "dressing up", but I just don't see that the language requires it.
If we only take Genesis into account, yes.
"Tohu" in the passage in Jeremiah unquestionably means "wreckage."Would you also agree that in Jeremiah 4, there is no other meaning for tohu that would be allowable apart from the idea of "wreckage?"
Would you also agree that in Is. 45, "gratuitous" is also an allowable meaning for "tohu", as in something unsuited to the purpose of habitation or for no particular purpose at all?
You didn't say it was always the same, but you said it was always anti-God.No, I didn't say that. Yes, that I did say.
That's my point, you SHOULD be. The texts we've discussed all say "THE beginning". Why omit half the phrase?Who was talking about definite articles???
Yeah, I changed my username. Problem?Aren't you the same as the other guy?
Yeah, I changed my username. Problem?
Why? I think because of the context of Jer. 4:26. The only image that complements that of destroyed cities is wreckage."Tohu" in the passage in Jeremiah unquestionably means "wreckage."
One of the interesting things about Hebrew and the Bible is the enduring use of key symbols/images. Tree of life, blood, the lamb, Jerusalem, son of man, image of God. Paul uses the images of the race, which was peculiar to the Greek way of thinking. It was effective, but the hebrew symbols/images were the ones that really carried the freight.
However, I sometimes find it disorienting to try to work in these two different languages (by concordance only).
Understood.In Isaiah 45, the exact meaning of tohu may be open to question. While I am not inclined to debate Holdon, my perspective is not what, exactly, tohu means in either Isaiah 45:18 or Genesis 1:2, but that Isaiah 45:18 expressly says the Lord did not create the world tohu, the condition it was in in Genesis 1:2.
I posted to Holdon about the use of bara and asah. They are both used with reference to the creation of Adam in different places. I am not enough of a scholar to quite see a clear distinction based upon the grammar and vocabular. I fall back on the images, context and cross-references, such as Exod. 20.I am more interested in the difference between bara, created, as from nothing, and asah, made, as of out of something else. It is bara in isaiah 45:18 and Genesis 1:1, but for the rest of Genesis 1, it is always asah except when life is being created. (verses 21 and 27) In Genesis 2:3-4 both words are used in speaking of the entire process. But in Exodus 20:11 it is asah, not bara.
Perhaps you can provide some more precise comments on the Hebrew.So in every distinct reference to the six days, asah is used except when new life is being created. But bara is used in the places I interpret to refer to the original creation of the universe.
I agree in principle, though I can't always provide the proof. There are two different types of proof depending on whether you are working in Greek or in Hebrew. Lining up the images and stripping them various passages down to their lowest common denominator, is what suggests to me that a precise six day creation is in view. I would like a more technical person to work through the Hebrew.In my eschatological studies, I repeatedly stress that the wording of the inspired scriptures is extremely precise. Every sentence means exactly what it says, and it does not mean anything it does not say. If a seemingly obvious detail was omitted, it was omitted for a reason. We do not get to fill in the blanks.
I am an extremely visual person, which is probably odd for an English major and lawyer. The funny thing is that I am really over-compensating with the right lobe (spatial relations) for what should be a left lobe function (language). So, it would be fair to say that I would take a limited number of data points and connect the dots. That would be inferring definition where there is only space. Is that bad? Again, it goes back to how you translate hebrew.This is also true in regard to the question of origins. What the inspired record does not say speaks volumes. To my ears, the silences are almost as loud as the words themselves. But in my estimation you are filling in blanks intentionally left there by the almighty God. What I mean is, I think you are reading into the words a meaning that was not in the original document.
I was simply using the word you suggested. The plain meaning I see comes from the context, not the grammar.Why? I think because of the context of Jer. 4:26. The only image that complements that of destroyed cities is wreckage.
Sadly, I cannot. I am an advanced used or the reference works, but not a real scholar of Hebrew.I posted to Holdon about the use of bara and asah. They are both used with reference to the creation of Adam in different places. I am not enough of a scholar to quite see a clear distinction based upon the grammar and vocabular. I fall back on the images, context and cross-references, such as Exod. 20.
Perhaps you can provide some more precise comments on the Hebrew.
Agreed. This is a detail that unquestionably cannot be positively determined at our level, and I do not think it can be positively determined at any level.I am an extremely visual person, which is probably odd for an English major and lawyer. The funny thing is that I am really over-compensating with the right lobe (spatial relations) for what should be a left lobe function (language). So, it would be fair to say that I would take a limited number of data points and connect the dots. That would be inferring definition where there is only space. Is that bad? Again, it goes back to how you translate hebrew.
I was simply using the word you suggested. The plain meaning I see comes from the context, not the grammar.
Sadly, I cannot. I am an advanced used or the reference works, but not a real scholar of Hebrew.
Agreed. This is a detail that unquestionably cannot be positively determined at our level, and I do not think it can be positively determined at any level.
Is it worth thinking about what should be regarded as sufficient evidence in the text?
There are a number of areas where we extrapolate with confidence and others where we can't.
When is the picture more like a bunch of red, yellow and blue dots and when is it your favorite episode of The Brady Bunch?
The relationship between ordinary snakes and the serpent in the garden is just murky. But, I believe it was a talking reptile that was Satan. I don't expect that to come into focus in this life, nor the exact nature of the fall of Satan, for example.
The relationship between "three days in the heart of the earth" and Jesus being in paradise with the thief that very day is a little murky.
I am not finding the same types of cues in Is 45 or Gen. 1. My argument is that there are enough data points in Exod. 20. Even the different uses of bara and asah don't leave us with a distinct figure or idiom. There isn't another "picture" so to speak to go with the extrapolation you have offered. There are scenes with Satan and a post-crucifixion however that are manifestly trippy and beyond us.
Gen 1, by contrast, to me, has the feel of confident reference to a definite period of time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?