What's wrong with my thinking?

[holdon]

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".

This is just too silly to continue. Bye, have a good day.

 

[HypnoToad]

???

You DID say it "chaos" was always the same - you said it is always anti-God.

And it IS significant that you want to change references of "the beginning" and remove the definite article.

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".

 

[busterdog]

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?

I was sort of getting that sense too.

Certainly there is an order of things between Gen. 1:1 and 2 that could make that case. But, in none of the scriptures is there a word for the time element that would make the point that is otherwise implied (as some argue).

The idea that there was something wrong about eretz in Gen. 1:2 is the other argument. I think "unfinished" works fine there and I am not worried about questioning God's handiwork in Gen. 1:2. But, I see the point.

As for the consistency or specificity of the use of "chaos" as a translation, I may have missed something, but I am fuzzy about how the gap case is being built in that respect. I am having a hard time going from "allowable" to "required" for the translation here.

I will say that Jeremiah is useful as a model of clarity. I think there is no doubt about how tohu is being used there. Gen. and IS are something else.

Lets ask this, are the gap folks agreeing that a six day period from Gen 1:1 to Gen. 2 is "allowable"?

 

[busterdog]

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."

Not exactly a "good" tohu attributed to God, but pretty close:

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out 05186 the north 06828 over the empty place 08414, [and] hangeth 08518 the earth 0776 upon nothing 01099.

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:

 

[holdon]

???

You DID say it "chaos" was always the same

No, I didn't say that.

- you said it is always anti-God.

Yes, that I did say.

And it IS significant that you want to change references of "the beginning" and remove the definite article.

Who was talking about definite articles??? Nobody. And how does that change the meaning of beginning?

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".

Aren't you the same as the other guy?

 

[holdon]

Not exactly a "good" tohu attributed to God, but pretty close:

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out 05186 the north 06828 over the empty place 08414, [and] hangeth 08518 the earth 0776 upon nothing 01099.

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.

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:

I think this is kind of a desperate stretch to make your point.

 

[busterdog]

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.

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.

I don't know about desperate. I think when you argue against an implication (as in implied, rather than specified), such as gap and the "bad tohu", many responses are going to be the long way around. I think the plain text is pretty plain the more I look at it. I also freely admitted that the reference was a bit removed from the subject matter.

 

[holdon]

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.

 

[busterdog]

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.

 

[holdon]

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.

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.

 

[Biblewriter]

Lets ask this, are the gap folks agreeing that a six day period from Gen 1:1 to Gen. 2 is "allowable"?

If we only take Genesis into account, yes.

 

[busterdog]

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.

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.

From Is 45:

he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:

Why isn't then end of that phrase enough to tell you what "vain" means?

These passages place such emphasis on God's eternal promises to Israel, his nation of prophets, on which he stakes his reputation, why isn't creating habitation the central idea here? That speaks of purpose. Tuho would mean "gratuitously." Doesn't this make some sense?

 

[holdon]

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.

You see both words in Gen 2:4 as I pointed out earlier.

Now, while you seem to be at this point willing to consider the "gap theory", it may be important to say that I (but that's just me; contrary to a whole slew of other "gapists") do not think all the strata of the earth with their fossils stem from that period. But that's a whole other discussion

 

[busterdog]

If we only take Genesis into account, yes.

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?

 

[Biblewriter]

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?

"Tohu" in the passage in Jeremiah unquestionably means "wreckage."

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[HypnoToad]

No, I didn't say that. Yes, that I did say.

You didn't say it was always the same, but you said it was always anti-God.

That IS saying it's always the same.

Who was talking about definite articles???

That's my point, you SHOULD be. The texts we've discussed all say "THE beginning". Why omit half the phrase?

Aren't you the same as the other guy?

Yeah, I changed my username. Problem?

 

[Biblewriter]

Yeah, I changed my username. Problem?

Then what was your old user name?

 

[busterdog]

"Tohu" in the passage in Jeremiah unquestionably means "wreckage."

Why? I think because of the context of Jer. 4:26. The only image that complements that of destroyed cities is 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).

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.

Understood.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps you can provide some more precise comments on 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 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.

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 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.

 

[Biblewriter]

Why? I think because of the context of Jer. 4:26. The only image that complements that of destroyed cities is wreckage.

I was simply using the word you suggested. The plain meaning I see comes from the context, not the grammar.

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.

Sadly, I cannot. I am an advanced used or the reference works, but not a real scholar of Hebrew.

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.

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.

 

[busterdog]

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.