Wheaton's John Walton on Genesis 1

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I think you need to set your priorities Didaskomenos. Are you posting here about how powerful God is, or how much better science is than our Creator?

 

[Didaskomenos]

I love the way you don't make yourself clear...

LOL! I was thinking the same over your last post!

Or, did you intend to say that Scripture is fantasy, at times?

I did not mean "fantasy," because you're using that word to mean superfluous fiction: remember, I said, "A theist knows that God doesn't offer hogwash for his childrens' dinner." Doesn't mean he always offers the best history/science. One of the main points of the lecture is that God did not commission Genesis 1 to be written for history or science, but to correct a religious/theological error. He used a Hebrew version of ANE mythology to convey that truth. As Calvin said, God used baby talk to convey his truth to them. Walton says that God didn't see the need to revise their whole cosmology and views of science every time he wanted to convey an eternal truth.

 

[GenemZ]

LOL! I was thinking the same over your last post!


I did not mean "fantasy," because you're using that word to mean superfluous fiction: remember, I said, "A theist knows that God doesn't offer hogwash for his childrens' dinner." Doesn't mean he always offers the best history/science. One of the main points of the lecture is that God did not commission Genesis 1 to be written for history or science, but to correct a religious/theological error. He used a Hebrew version of ANE mythology to convey that truth. As Calvin said, God used baby talk to convey his truth to them. Walton says that God didn't see the need to revise their whole cosmology and views of science every time he wanted to convey an eternal truth.

Translation... "God lied to the babies." (The stork brought you, syndrome).

I don't buy it. The man made an attempt to re-explain a Hebrew word because he could not reconcile its usage according to his limited understanding of why it was used. If one realizes that God created (bara) "out from nothing" the souls of Adam and Eve in Genesis 1, and breathed the soul into the body which God formed (yatsar) in Genesis 2... Walton would not have to try and create an unintended meaning for Bara to begin with. That's my point.

It appears to me he wishes to reconcile a problem he is having with Bara when it speaks in reference of God creating man in his image. Its the soul that's in God's image. That is what was actually created in Genesis 1:27. God was not simply creating and initiating a new function that never existed before. God decided to "make" man in his image. That is when God initiated the new function. The Hebrew word "Asah," to "make," was when God initiated the function. Not with Bara!

God is immaterial. And so is the soul. God is invisible. So is the soul. God never dies and existed eternally. The soul came into existence, and will exist from then on, forever. God has volition, so does the soul, etc.

In Genesis 2, the body was not created "out from nothing." So, Walton attempts to reconcile what took place in Chapters 1 and 2, by saying God only initiated the function of man with Bara. He totally misses what was going on with the issue of the creation of the soul. The immaterial soul that requires a physical body in order to become a living soul, when living inside of the realm of time and space.

Now, if you claim to be able to comprehend Walton's rhetoric, mine should be quite simple for you. But, you fail to see what I am saying. And, "Bara" was used more than you appear to be claiming, in Genesis 1.

It is used in reference to the creation of the Heavens and earth. It is used in reference to only the sea and air creatures. The land creatures were not created "bara." If Walton's idea about "bara" is to remain consistent, he must explain the discrepancy he created by his new usage for "bara." It applies to the sea and air creatures? But not the land creatures? Think about Walton's definition, and think about the creation of animal and creature life on this planet. Does it make sense to you now? If you can not see what I am getting at, it may explain why you can not see what it is Walton is really getting at. He is attempting to answer one problem by creating a newer bigger one.

21~~ Then Elohiym/Godhead created out of nothing (bara')
'giant whales'/'great sea monsters' {water mammals}
{'old whales'-extinct today; whale bone (blue) whales; tooth
whales - sperm whales, porpoises, dolphins, etc.},and every living creature moving, with which the waters abounded/swarmed according to their own species, and every bird with wings according to their own species.
And Elohiym/Godhead saw that it was good."

25~~ And Elohiym/Godhead constructed
('asah - something out of something)
the wild animals of the land according to its own species,
and the cattle according to its own species,
and every thing that creeps on the ground according to its own species. And, Elohiym/Godhead saw that it was good ."

Why apply Walton's concept to only the sea and air creatures? And, not also to the land creatures? If Walton's concept were true, both would have to have been consistent. There was an initiation of function taking place at times in Genesis 1. But, it was not because of the word "bara.".

It was because of the words, "and God saw." God has the ability to see what will be, as if it already exists. That's where Walton needs to seek his meaning of creating a new function out from nothing. And, knowing where it applies. Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. Yet, he was not actually slain until about 30AD. Yet, God saw him as slain from the beginning. In God's eyes, it already was done. God was creating a function out from nothing in that case.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Sinai]

"Bara" was used more than you appear to be claiming, in Genesis 1. It is used in reference to the creation of the Heavens and earth. It is used in reference to only the sea and air creatures. The land creatures were not created "bara." If Walton's idea about "bara" is to remain consistent, he must explain the discrepancy he created by his new usage for "bara." It applies to the sea and air creatures? But not the land creatures? Think about Walton's definition, and think about the creation of animal and creature life on this planet. Does it make sense to you now? If you can not see what I am getting at, it may explain why you can not see what it is Walton is really getting at. He is attempting to answer one problem by creating a newer bigger one.

21~~ Then Elohiym/Godhead created out of nothing (bara')
'giant whales'/'great sea monsters' {water mammals}
{'old whales'-extinct today; whale bone (blue) whales; tooth
whales - sperm whales, porpoises, dolphins, etc.},and every living creature moving, with which the waters abounded/swarmed according to their own species, and every bird with wings according to their own species.
And Elohiym/Godhead saw that it was good."

Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.

 

[Curt]

Although this flash reproduction of a conference talk at Wheaton College might take a little while to load and then to watch/hear, it's worth the time, because it is truly one of the most remarkable insights/interpretations I've seen lately. It is a literary observation, and lends itself to no scientific YEC, OEC, or evolutionary theory. What do you think?
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html
The gist is that the "creation account" in Genesis 1 does not concern itself with the creation of matter and "things" in the universe, but rather was meant to establish God as the one who ordains the purposes and functions behind all things. Cross-referencing Genesis 1 with Ancient Near Eastern literature, Walton argues that the functions and roles of the sun, dry land, etc. are parallel to the Sumerian/Akkadian concept of the ME/parsu. It's rather compelling.

To me it would be a waste of time to read because what you state as the gist is nothing more than a man privately interpreting what God wrote in The Bible. And all the doctrines of men are nothing more than that. I will use my time to study Bible Doctrines.

 

[GenemZ]

Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.

.

Ani lo yodey-yah ev'rit... Do you understand?


The word you just threw in I never heard exegeted in reference to anything being created. Maybe you should fill us in? Can you give us all the Strong's number for this word, so we can all look it up?

In the mean time...

Every exegete I have studied from teaches this principle based upon "bara," to be found in verse 21. Even Strongs states this. The word you are phonetically spelling out does not make sense to me in relation to a creation word. There's "bara" ... "asah" ... "yatsar" ... "banah" ... used in Genesis 1 and 2. You look it up in Strong's. I would like to see the number reference.

I have various references on hand. None state what you just did to be the case.

In the mean time, if you can read Hebrew, I suggest you note what I have emphasized in the following text. Also, for those who do not know Hebrew, it is read right to left. The highlighted word is "bara" ...

ויברא אלהים את התנינם הגדלים ואת כל נפש החיה הרמשת אשר שרצו המים למינהם ואת כל עוף כנף למינהו וירא אלהים כי

Grace and peace, Gene

 

[artybloke]

Translation... "God lied to the babies." (The stork brought you, syndrome).

Bad translation. Firstly, it assumes that God wrote the Bible. He didn't: human beings wrote it, influenced by the Holy spirit yes, but still human beings nevertheless. Human beings tell stories; that's why there's so many novelists, dramatists, poets, artists, songwriters about. They tell stories to explain the world to themselves and to each other, and to explain their experience of God to themselves and to each other.

Secondly. you are once again making the Rationalist assumption that anything that isn't scientifically verifiable fact must either be nonsense or a lie. This is a 19th century to mid twentieth century modernist assumption that I think would baffle any writer from the ancient world, and just seems horribly limited as a means of conveying truth to the post-modernist world of today. The whole of the Christian faith is based on a scientifically-unverifiable truth: namely, the existence of God himself, so to base your interpretation of the Bible on a Rationalist assumption just seems folly to me.

 

[GenemZ]

Bad translation. Firstly, it assumes that God wrote the Bible. He didn't: human beings wrote it, influenced by the Holy spirit yes, but still human beings nevertheless. Human beings tell stories; that's why there's so many novelists, dramatists, poets, artists, songwriters about. They tell stories to explain the world to themselves and to each other, and to explain their experience of God to themselves and to each other.

Secondly. you are once again making the Rationalist assumption that anything that isn't scientifically verifiable fact must either be nonsense or a lie. This is a 19th century to mid twentieth century modernist assumption that I think would baffle any writer from the ancient world, and just seems horribly limited as a means of conveying truth to the post-modernist world of today. The whole of the Christian faith is based on a scientifically-unverifiable truth: namely, the existence of God himself, so to base your interpretation of the Bible on a Rationalist assumption just seems folly to me.

I hope that makes you feel better. For you took me, put me in a box. Wrote on that box what its contents are. And, then condemned what you claim is inside.

You are totally wrong. But, if it makes you feel good, it must be right.

Leaving you in your pacified state... GeneZ

 

[KleinerApfel]

Why does everything always have to get so plain NASTY on this forum?

I shall not even bother to contirbute further to this.

 

[GenemZ]

Why does everything always have to get so plain NASTY on this forum?

They get nasty when they want to win, but have no answers. That is what makes people nasty. A desire to have something, but not having the substance needed to have it. I supplied answers with facts. One jumps in and only spouts off nasty opinion while the other keeps away. Diversionary tactics. In case you do not know it, this is not mere debate. Its a spiritual issue... Certain folks get nasty when their apponent is prepared, and they have no pat answers left to confuse the issue left to try. They may resort to the same old worn cliches. But, when no answer of substance is to be offered, nastiness fills the vacuum. It chases off those not willing to fight. That's all they have left in their cherished "image arsenal" of so called ideas.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Ephesians 6:12 niv

To quote Bob Dylan... "You're going to have to serve somebody."

Nastiness is to be expected in debates over Scriptural issues if one side is not seeking Scriptural truth, but has this driving need to win arguments. Once you learn this as, " the way it is," you don't run and hide. You stick around to see what truth may come out of it. After all, Jesus gave truth as Satan threw out distortions and lies in Matthew 4. If we ran and hid, we would have never learned the mind of Christ when confronted by nastiness.

Believers are the worst enemy of believers.

"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. " Philippians 3:18 niv

And, Jesus warned in principle, that this will be the case. For when we become believers we all become a part of one family...


"....a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
Matthew 10:36 niv

If you do not want to contribute from here on, I can understand. But, please stick around. We all may learn something. Don't let the nastiness chase you off and rob you of what the nasty ones can not deal with, and do not want others to know.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.

Where did you go, Sinai? I answered you with detail and facts. Now you are gone? Why's that?
Grace and peace in Him, GeneZ

 

[Didaskomenos]

They get nasty when they want to win, but have no answers. That is what makes people nasty. A desire to have something, but not having the substance needed to have it. I supplied answers with facts. One jumps in and only spouts off nasty opinion while the other keeps away. Diversionary tactics. In case you do not know it, this is not mere debate. Its a spiritual issue... Certain folks get nasty when their apponent is prepared, and they have no pat answers left to confuse the issue left to try. They may resort to the same old worn cliches. But, when no answer of substance is to be offered, nastiness fills the vacuum. It chases off those not willing to fight. That's all they have left in their cherished "image arsenal" of so called ideas.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Ephesians 6:12 niv

To quote Bob Dylan... "You're going to have to serve somebody."

Nastiness is to be expected in debates over Scriptural issues if one side is not seeking Scriptural truth, but has this driving need to win arguments. Once you learn this as, " the way it is," you don't run and hide. You stick around to see what truth may come out of it. After all, Jesus gave truth as Satan threw out distortions and lies in Matthew 4. If we ran and hid, we would have never learned the mind of Christ when confronted by nastiness.

Believers are the worst enemy of believers.

"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. " Philippians 3:18 niv

And, Jesus warned in principle, that this will be the case. For when we become believers we all become a part of one family...


"....a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
Matthew 10:36 niv

If you do not want to contribute from here on, I can understand. But, please stick around. We all may learn something. Don't let the nastiness chase you off and rob you of what the nasty ones can not deal with, and do not want others to know.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Wow. Who was nasty? I don't think Susan was referring to Artybloke, who just disagreed with your translation (much as you do Sinai's) and pointed out what he thought was a false assumption in your argument. Gene must not like to have people disagree with him. That's what makes him nasty.

You (over-)generalized my statement to "God lied to the babies." Are you telling me that's not the whole put-me-in-a-box scenario you cried about when Artybloke simply attacked a philosophical underpinning of your argument? His statement wasn't an ad hominem, and I'm not going to take your "God lied" remark to me as such either.

I've been out of town for a few days, but if you'd like to stick around and talk about the topic, I'll be here.

 

[GenemZ]

Wow. Who was nasty? I don't think Susan was referring to Artybloke, who just disagreed with your translation (much as you do Sinai's) and pointed out what he thought was a false assumption in your argument. Gene must not like to have people disagree with him. That's what makes him nasty.

That was nasty.

You (over-)generalized my statement to "God lied to the babies."

It was? It was a very fitting illustration of how adults treat babies with no capacity for what requires maturity to understand.

Are you telling me that's not the whole put-me-in-a-box scenario you cried about when Artybloke simply attacked a philosophical underpinning of your argument? His statement wasn't an ad hominem, and I'm not going to take your "God lied" remark to me as such either.

He projected his own view upon not what was happening. If you can not see that,,, be my guest.

I've been out of town for a few days, but if you'd like to stick around and talk about the topic, I'll be here.

I would like that. I would like for you to start with what Sanai said...

Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.

I have no idea what he was trying to prove by making such a false statement. Not only false, but easily verified as being false. Why should he even try to pull that off? Does he have the only copy of Scripture, and no one else? The word is "bara." I even provided the Hebrew... which should not have been needed by anyone who does know Hebrew. For they would have already known he was speaking something that was not so.

Let's stick with what is the truth here, rather than get sidetracked by a false issue over who has a better approach in their presentation? After all, Jesus was quite blunt when need be, and even turned off a vast majority of the disciples who had been following him, who turned to follow him no more.

Jesus never commanded that we "seduce" others with the truth. Present it. If the other be walking in the Spirit, it would not matter if I belched in the middle of what I said. It would be the truth that the Spirit would have the believer grab onto. When others look for presentation as being the first criterion, they are missing the point. And, they fail to see why so many prophets were murdered in the OT. They fail to see.

Bible teaching is not for the weak and timid.


2 Timothy 1:7 niv

"For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline."

If grace is with them, they will learn to become courageous and bold in the Lord. Nothing will offend them.

Psalm 119:165

"Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."


The issue will be truth. Not what color the plate was it was served on. That it was chipped. Or, that it will always have the possiblity of having some dirt on that plate... for we are yet sinners saved by grace. The issue should be the truth being presented...

Is it truth? Or, is it not truth? Not, how was it presented. That is, how it was presented within reason. I say that for some idiots out there who would use some off the wall example to disprove what I am saying.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Sinai]

I would like that. I would like for you to start with what Sanai said...

Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.

I have no idea what he was trying to prove by making such a false statement. Not only false, but easily verified as being false. Why should he even try to pull that off? Does he have the only copy of Scripture, and no one else? The word is "bara." I even provided the Hebrew... which should not have been needed by anyone who does know Hebrew. For they would have already known he was speaking something that was not so.

Wow, Gene. I didn't mean to pull your string. I thought you had made some excellent points in the post to which I was responding, but merely suggested that you take a closer look at the verb used in Genesis 1:21.

Since I can't find any Hebrew fonts, I'm afraid I'll just have to use the transliterations. Hope that will suffice. Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.

 

[GenemZ]

Wow, Gene. I didn't mean to pull your string. I thought you had made some excellent points in the post to which I was responding, but merely suggested that you take a closer look at the verb used in Genesis 1:21.

Since I can't find any Hebrew fonts, I'm afraid I'll just have to use the transliterations. Hope that will suffice. Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.

The highlighted word in the Hebrew I provided is the word, "bara." Unless you are speaking a different dialect, I have no idea where you are getting this from. I have reference books, and my own pastor teaches fluently from the Hebrew and Greek. Your "verb" is a first for me. I am willing to learn, but all those I have been taught by have always referred to "bara", either on the written page, or when hearing it being taught. I am willing to find out we are all wrong. But one more thing... ever since I was Bar Mitvah'd , I can read phonetically, Hebrew. I see "bara" appearing in the Hebrew, too.

I have finally was able to look up what you speak of. It is... first, a dialect problem with me. That is why I could not find it. I remember in Hebrew School they taught us about the two basic dialects. It seems you are working with the one my rabbis did not. I would pronounce it, " b'ri-ah." Not, "yivra." Its a derivative of "bara." And, second, its not what appears in Genesis 1:21. Its different letters in the Hebrew, more than "bara." "Bara" contains only three letters in the Hebrew. Your's, contains at least four. It does start out with basically the same three letters, but your's also has a modifier that does not exist with "bara." That is, if you are not trying to pull a fast one, and are simply making something up.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove by this. But, in the meantime, I have emailed my Israeli cousin with a transcript of the Hebrew passage. I will wait and see if for some reason he agrees with you. Nu?

But, you might be right. So I will keep an open mind.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Wow, Gene. I didn't mean to pull your string. I thought you had made some excellent points in the post to which I was responding, but merely suggested that you take a closer look at the verb used in Genesis 1:21.

Since I can't find any Hebrew fonts, I'm afraid I'll just have to use the transliterations. Hope that will suffice. Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.

Response number ll...

So? You are really telling me its the same word? Only a different tense? That it is not a different Hebrew word being used in its place? When exegeting it is correct to give the word in its basic form, then explain that there is a modifier to this word. "Bara" is a correct way to explain the word.

"Johnny was running down the street."

It would be correct to say the word is "run." Then to explain the word in the tense it appears in. What I believe you may have been saying, is that you want to say in the tense it appears, that the sound makes it a different word for "create." But, in exegetical protocol it is not a different word. Only a modified version of the word. "Run." "Ran."

Yet, from what I can see in the Hebrew, I only see "Bara." I did gain some benefit from learning to read my Haftorah prior to my Bar Mitzvah. From what I can read, your version of the word is not there. But! I may be missing something.

Again... awaiting my Israeli cousin's response on the matter. His second language is English.

Grace and peace, Gene

 

[GenemZ]

Wow, Gene. I didn't mean to pull your string. I thought you had made some excellent points in the post to which I was responding, but merely suggested that you take a closer look at the verb used in Genesis 1:21.

Since I can't find any Hebrew fonts, I'm afraid I'll just have to use the transliterations. Hope that will suffice. Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.

Response lll ...

My Israeli cousin returned my email. Here's what he said, concerning Genesis 1:21.

"The word highlighted here is Bara and there is no Vayivra.

But anyway, Vayivra means Bara in the future tense.

Hope this info is helpful."

Are you still saying its, "vayivra?" Just the same, it is "Bara." Not another word other than "Bara." Its only a tense variation.

What text are you using?

ויברא אלהים את התנינם הגדלים ואת כל נפש החיה הרמשת אשר שרצו המים למינהם ואת כל עוף כנף למינהו וירא אלהים כי טוב׃

Sinai? Where did you go?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Sinai]

I was using The Complete Biblical Library, which includes the Hebrew, the transliteration, several English translations, and commentary on each verse. What were you using? Thank you.

 

[GenemZ]

I was using The Complete Biblical Library, which includes the Hebrew, the transliteration, several English translations, and commentary on each verse. What were you using? Thank you.

I grabbed those fonts from the Modern Hebrew Bible. I can read Hebrew to an extent, and I know I saw only "bara." My Israeli cousin confirmed it.

http://www.crosswire.org/sword/biblenew/fulllibrary.jsp?show=HebModern

And, here's a second opinion...

Parallel English/ Hebrew Bible

This is what this one says.


וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים; וְאֵת

The Hebrew going right to left does strange things with the cut and paste. But, its the word "bara" again. I highlighted it again.


Over the years every exegete I have ever learned from stated that it is "bara." I knew they all could not be wrong.

As my Israeli cousin explained, even if it were the word you said it is, it would still be "bara", only in the future tense. Either way, it still is the same word. Not another verb in "bara"'s place, as you claimed.

" So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." niv

Even if the word was in the future tense, an accepted correct protocol for exegeting would be for the one teaching to say, "this is the word 'bara' appearing in its future tense. Then he may give the word as it sounds. A good exegetetical teacher will give "bara" first. I have wondered why that was so. Maybe, its to avoid the very kind of confusion your commentary has just caused? Might be so!

Now... we can agree that the word is "bara?" That it is not another different verb for creation? That, even if it is your word, that it would only be "bara" as it appears in the future tense?

And, I haven't forgotten that a point I was making was diverted by all this. Shall we go back and start over where we left off? Better yet, now that we know that it is the same word.... please, go back and see how Walton can not be correct. Thank you...

Grace and peace, Gene

 

[Sinai]

I grabbed those fonts from the Modern Hebrew Bible. I can read Hebrew to an extent, and I know I saw only "bara." My Israeli cousin confirmed it.

http://www.crosswire.org/sword/biblenew/fulllibrary.jsp?show=HebModern

And, here's a second opinion...

Parallel English/ Hebrew Bible

This is what this one says.


וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים; וְאֵת

The Hebrew going right to left does strange things with the cut and paste. But, its the word "bara" again. I highlighted it again.

Thank you. I think that probably explains the problem. The Modern Hebrew Bible you were using (top link above) does not appear to have the guttural punctuation marks included; thus, you get the prime word but without the markings that indicate tenses in verbs, for example. The second link you included does have those marks, however. Closely examine the difference between the beth in the verb used in Genesis 1:1: בָּרָא
and the beth in the verb used in Genesis 1:21: וַיִּבְרָא

As I mentioned earlier:

Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.