The Distant Starlight Problem

[LookingForAnswers]

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

 

The word used in verse 1 is "bara"

The word used for day 4 ( and others) is asah

 

They have different meanings.

[Spock]

Except that God didn't make the stars on "day" 3, He made visible what was already in existence. The word that is translated as "made" or "created" is not the same word used in earlier verses. This word means to "accomplish, bestow, or bring to completion".

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh

I am a YEC. I do not see why this is significant.

Well, many YEC people say the universe is 6000 years old too. Why not consider the universe to have already been laid for a long time before God recreated the earth from darkness and void?

In the beginning God CREATED the heavens (stars)and the earth. Dateless past.

Now here comes the restoration/recreation-the six day story as you insist is literal. Maybe it is.

The 6000 year thing is a product of Bishop Unger and Lightfoot.  It is plagued with problems and assumptions.

 

We do not know how old the universe is.

 

The difference between YEC and Old earthers is that YEC's believe that God created "all that there is" in 6 literal days, and old earthers believe that God is not capable of doing it.

 

That is rather unflattering, but that is the nuts and bolts of it.  I do not apologize or compromise my beliefs to fit the modern dark ages of science.

Ouch! Not capable? Where or when did we add that condition?

All things are possible for our God.

Oy ve

Sigh

Shaking my head....

Believe what you want, but please don't misrepresent the basis for what I believe (small God).

Well, if it quacks like a duck?

 

The bible clearly states that God created "all that there is" in 6 literal days, the bible also shows that the people of those times and culture understood it to be 6 literal days, the terms in the argument (God) is defined as capable of doing so, and the argument you are using against it is forensic science-appealing to natural law show that the universe is old because it appears to be old?

 

Question, using your forensic science argument, appealing to natural law, how old would Adam be when he was created by God? Would forensic science state that the speaking, walking, breathing Adam was less than a day old?

 

Dude, its a duck.

 

I love ya man, nothing personal.

 

intentionally misrepresenting another's view is not an act of love, it is an act of deceit.  Love never acts in that manner.

Actually that would be slander, and slanders do not inherit eternal life, according to Paul.  I did not misrepresent him, I did not say that he said that God is not capable.  Your misrepresentation of my statement was actually me talking about Old earthers in general,  I have no idea if Spock is an old Earther, an evolutionist, a christian wiccan, or ?????

 

But this is generally the way non-YEC's defend themselves when they are faced with the facts.

 

Has any non-YEC been able to defend their non literal belief in creation with other than an appeal to "natural law".  Follow the argument all the way.

Vulcan. Spock is a Vulcan.......

[Enoch2021]

"Bara" and "Asah" ......

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

 

 

[Spock]

"Bara" and "Asah" ......

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

I read it and found his inferences to be wanting (unconvincing). Sorry.

[nebula]

Has any non-YEC been able to defend their non literal belief in creation with other than an appeal to "natural law".  Follow the argument all the way.  

 

I gave mine.

 

If Matthew's 14 generations can be "literal" by the understanding of the people back then, than Genesis' "day" being something other than 24 hours can also be "literal" by the understanding of the people back then.

[Dwark]

 

 

 

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

 

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would.

 

Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal?

 

Matthew's "14 generations" corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision.  Just like God incarnates stating that mustard seed is the smallest of seeds corresponds to the subsistence farmers and herders of that area knowledge of seeds.

 

I find this amusing. "Matthew's '14 generations' corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision." But yet Genesis 1 corresponds to our ethnocentric idea of historical precision?

 

In ancient times, the concept of time was not heeded with our historical precision. Likewise, chronology was not heeded with our historical precision. Nor was the description of events heeded with our historical precision.

 

Yet people claim the days of Genesis 1 were regarded with our historical precision, the chronology presented was regarded with our historical precision, and the description of events was heeded with our historical precision.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Google Matthew 1:17 and look for the wiki as a start.  There are explanations all over the web for your tangent on Matthew's genealogy counting.

 

If you have some insight as why you think that Genesis is not to be taken literal, that would be on topic.

[Enoch2021]

 

"Bara" and "Asah" ......

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

I read it and found his inferences to be wanting (unconvincing). Sorry.

 

 

Can you be a little more Specific and show where your concerns are Specifically?

 

Thanks

[Dwark]

 

Has any non-YEC been able to defend their non literal belief in creation with other than an appeal to "natural law".  Follow the argument all the way.  

 

I gave mine.

 

If Matthew's 14 generations can be "literal" by the understanding of the people back then, than Genesis' "day" being something other than 24 hours can also be "literal" by the understanding of the people back then.

 

This is a logical fallacy.  Specifically it is can be classified as a Genetic Fallacy.  An example would be that "Most US presidents are not assassinated, there for Lincoln was not assassinated.  

 

Even if it were true that Matthew's 14 genertations is "something" it does not correlate that therefore Genesis is also that "something". 

[Spock]

"Bara" and "Asah" ......

 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

I read it and found his inferences to be wanting (unconvincing). Sorry.

 

Can you be a little more Specific and show where your concerns are Specifically?

 

Thanks

Ok, against my better judgment, I'm not a fan of arguing Hebrew study, I'd rather others play that game, but here you go-

Bara and asah are not used interchangeably. Bara is a formative, creative process. Asah is not, it is to accomplish, appoint, gather, bestow, etc. The writer uses bara in verse 1 and then when animals and man are created. In verses for days 1-4, the word is asah. The verses referenced in the article that tries to associate create with made fails. Each time the word made is used is in reference to that which was already existing. Such as, Adam and Eve made coverings out of fig leaves, that already existed, God made coverings for them out of animal skins that already existed, He rested on the 7th day after all he created and made, two different processes referring back to the distinction between days 1-4 and days 5-6, the expanse in the sky on day 2 is different from the heavens in verse 1. The article is twisting the meanings and intention.

Besides, do you know how many times I've heard Shiloh say, " if God intended to say this word, he would have said it...."

Spock out

Ps I've said my peace on this, so I hope you don't think me rude if I do not have a further rebuttal

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

"Bara" and "Asah" ......

 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

I read it and found his inferences to be wanting (unconvincing). Sorry.

 

Can you be a little more Specific and show where your concerns are Specifically?

 

Thanks

Ok, against my better judgment, I'm not a fan of arguing Hebrew study, I'd rather others play that game, but here you go-

Bara and asah are not used interchangeably. Bara is a formative, creative process. Asah is not, it is to accomplish, appoint, gather, bestow, etc. The writer uses bara in verse 1 and then when animals and man are created. In verses for days 1-4, the word is asah. The verses referenced in the article that tries to associate create with made fails. Each time the word made is used is in reference to that which was already existing. Such as, Adam and Eve made coverings out of fig leaves, that already existed, God made coverings for them out of animal skins that already existed, He rested on the 7th day after all he created and made, two different processes referring back to the distinction between days 1-4 and days 5-6, the expanse in the sky on day 2 is different from the heavens in verse 1. The article is twisting the meanings and intention.

Besides, do you know how many times I've heard Shiloh say, " if God intended to say this word, he would have said it...."

Spock out

Ps I've said my peace on this, so I hope you don't think me rude if I do not have a further rebuttal

 

 

No Problem,

 

I am not a Hebrew Scholar and will Bow out Graciously as I can not speak to it....only things I've read that said that they can be used interchangeably.  Hopefully, Shiloh will pass by and give his take.  (I think I already read his take on another thread)