OEC and ID

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s

Actually the different Hebrew words are used interchangably, so there is no real difference.

 

Yes for some aspects of creation week they are used interchangeably, but regarding specifically the light, the sun, the moon, and the stars the word "bara" which means to create, is not used. Yet this word is often used regarding biological life.

ie during creation week God produced many things for mankind. He produced biological life through creating life. He produced light and lights in the sky through making them visible through the thick watery atmosphere. And so Genesis 1 freely uses the word "produced/observed" for all creation, and yet limits the word "bara" (create) to those things that did not exist before (dry land, the expanse in the sky, biological life).

 

No, that would be incorrect.   The word, 'asah" in Hebrew means that God made them with a purpose or intended function.   It doesn't mean and cannot be used to mean that God simply made them visible.   You don't get to assign what you want to the original Hebrew.  Hebrew is far more precise than English and when it says He made the stars, on day 4, it means He built them, designed them for an intended function.

 

You are trying to read into the text why you think bara was used in some places and why asah was used in other places. Both words are used for both biolocial and nonbiological creation in refrence to creation outisde of Genesis 1.    The word "made" is the correct translation of "asah."  

[ARGOSY]

1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s

Actually the different Hebrew words are used interchangably, so there is no real difference.

Yes for some aspects of creation week they are used interchangeably, but regarding specifically the light, the sun, the moon, and the stars the word "bara" which means to create, is not used. Yet this word is often used regarding biological life.

ie during creation week God produced many things for mankind. He produced biological life through creating life. He produced light and lights in the sky through making them visible through the thick watery atmosphere. And so Genesis 1 freely uses the word "produced/observed" for all creation, and yet limits the word "bara" (create) to those things that did not exist before (dry land, the expanse in the sky, biological life).

No, that would be incorrect.   The word, 'asah" in Hebrew means that God made them with a purpose or intended function.   It doesn't mean and cannot be used to mean that God simply made them visible.   You don't get to assign what you want to the original Hebrew.  Hebrew is far more precise than English and when it says He made the stars, on day 4, it means He built them, designed them for an intended function.

 

You are trying to read into the text why you think bara was used in some places and why asah was used in other places. Both words are used for both biolocial and nonbiological creation in refrence to creation outisde of Genesis 1.    The word "made" is the correct translation of "asah."

The one word means to create. the other word means to do/show. Its a generalised word of action, mainly translated as "to do" or "to make" but also translated as "to show". Some examples of actual uses of the Hebrew word "asah" are as follows:

Genesis 19:19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast SHEWED unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me

Genesis 24:12 And he said, O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and SHEW kindness unto my master Abraham.

Gen 32:10 I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast SHEWED unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands.

Exd 14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will SHEW to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

Num 14:11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have SHEWED among them?

Deu 34:12 And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses SHEWED in the sight of all Israel.

Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, SHEW them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof

To do/show the lights in the sky does not have to mean create. To restrict its meaning to "create" when that word was not used would be adding meaning to the bible that is not there.

[Guest shiloh357]

The one word means to create. the other word means to do/show. Its a generalised word of action, mainly translated as "to do" or "to make" but also translated as "to show".

 

You are confusing meaning with usage.   Asah, in Genesis 1 and everywhere else the Bible references creation is used to denote something built, something made and it carries the strong connotation of being made with a purpose.

 

Some examples of actual uses of the Hebrew word "asah" are as follows:

 

 

In Genesis 1 everything "made" (asah) serves an intended purpose.  It was not used to make reference to "show"  or "reveal" something.   The luminaries, according to Genesis 1 are for signs and seasons (appointed times) this is especially true of the moon.  God made the luminaries for a purpose.  The same holds true everything else in the earth.  Everything was designed for a purpose (asah). 

 

 

 

Genesis 19:19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast SHEWED unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me

Genesis 24:12 And he said, O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and SHEW kindness unto my master Abraham.

Gen 32:10 I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast SHEWED unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands.

Exd 14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will SHEW to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

Num 14:11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have SHEWED among them?

Deu 34:12 And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses SHEWED in the sight of all Israel.

Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, SHEW them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof

 

 

That is poor exegesis.   Asah may mean "show" in other contexts and pertain to other issues.   But this does NOT mean you can plug that meaning into the word "asah" in Genesis 1.   Meaning is determined by usage in a given context and you are grabbing "asah" from other contexts and other usages and inserting those usages into Genesis 1.  That is not legitimate exegesis.  That is eisogesis.  You are assigining meaning to the text that simply is not there.

 

 

 

To do/show the lights in the sky does not have to mean create. To restrict its meaning to "create" when that word was not used would be adding meaning to the bible that is not there.

 

 

I am not restricting the meaning of asah.   It is the context that restricts its meaning to a particular usage in a particular passage.   Again, context is the rule of law when it comes to exegesis.   Grabbing other verses that are not speaking to that issue, that due no operate in  parallel context, and using them to assign meaning to Genesis 1 is simply an incorrect approach.

 

Notice the folowing;

 

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Heb. asah); and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

(Gen 2:2)

 

 

For in six days the LORD made (Heb. asah)  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. (Exo 20:11)

 

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made (Heb. asah) heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed (Exo 31:17)

 

And notice this example:  

 

Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. (Psalm 148: 4,5)   

 

Notice in this  passage, that the things that are "made" (Heb. asah) in Genesis 1 are said to be "created"  (bara) in this psalm.  So create and asah are meant to both reference a creative act.   They are not identical words, but they are used to essentially mean the same thing.  The only real difference is that bara is a unique word that is only ever applied to God. 

[nebula]

Bump.  Never got a response from Nebula to the questions.  At least not that I could find.

That was my response.

 

 

What is there to say? I could post multi resources out there on the web with well-written, well-thought out explanations on how "yom" does not have to mean 24-hours, and any other alternate way of interpreting what the Hebrew is saying, but from what I've seen, you will just respond that this person does not know Hebrew as well as you do, or this person can't exegesis Scripture as well as you can, or the like.

 

When you won't even give a little credence that Jewish scholars disagree often, then really, our discussion is pointless.

[ARGOSY]

Notice in this  passage, that the things that are "made" (Heb. asah) in Genesis 1 are said to be "created"  (bara) in this psalm.  So create and asah are meant to both reference a creative act.   They are not identical words, but they are used to essentially mean the same thing.  The only real difference is that bara is a unique word that is only ever applied to God.

I already quoted bible verses when the word was used in a "showing" context. As you say, we have to look at context. You may read Genesis 1 and assume the context is about everything created from nothing. I read Genesis 1 and see the context is a dark and watery planet, that becomes filled with light and visibility and God-created animals and plants. We will just have to disagree regarding your view that the context of Genesis 1 can only be seen your way.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Bump.  Never got a response from Nebula to the questions.  At least not that I could find.

That was my response.

 

 

What is there to say? I could post multi resources out there on the web with well-written, well-thought out explanations on how "yom" does not have to mean 24-hours, and any other alternate way of interpreting what the Hebrew is saying, but from what I've seen, you will just respond that this person does not know Hebrew as well as you do, or this person can't exegesis Scripture as well as you can, or the like.

 

 

yeah, you could be like spock and post the words of people who are not actual Hebrew scholars and no matter how well=thought out their explanations appear to be, most of the time, they are in fact, wrong.  Most of the "experts" that get posted are people who have degrees in science, but don't know Hebrew and are misrepresnted as Hebrew scholars.  

 

In addition, yes, I may point out the fact that they are not skilled in exegesis and don't know Hebrew, but the difference is that I can and always have demonstrated why my assessment of their skills is correct.   I have found on numerous occasions that some people were posting "Hebrew scholars" who have no training in Hebrew at all, who have no degrees in any biblical language.  Their degree is usually in some area of science.   I can show why their exegesis is faulty.  It's not an empty accusation on my part. 

When you won't even give a little credence that Jewish scholars disagree often, then really, our discussion is pointless.

 

 

How can I give credence to these alleged jewish scholars if I don't know who they are and have their works to review.  One thing you need to understand is that Jewish biblical scholars are not necessarily working from the same paradigm we are, in that their handling of the Hebrew is not based on purely objective exegesis.  Their handling of the Hebrew is laced with mysticism and that means they take a kaballistic approach to the Hebrew, which to them is more authoritative than the Bible, itself.

 

You run to Jewish scholars, but they are not exegeting the text in question.  Look at the scientist Gerald Schroeder that you posted a few days ago.   In a different post, Schroeder was cited, concerning his theory of time dilation.  He referenced the Hebrew language, but he did so from the kabbalistic mindset in order to make Hebrew jive with his theory.   He could not have taken normative and objective exegetical procedures and arrive at the same conclusions.

 

So, that is why I asked who the Rabbis are.   Nebula, I know of what I speak on this.  

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

Bump.  Never got a response from Nebula to the questions.  At least not that I could find.

That was my response.

 

 

What is there to say? I could post multi resources out there on the web with well-written, well-thought out explanations on how "yom" does not have to mean 24-hours, and any other alternate way of interpreting what the Hebrew is saying, but from what I've seen, you will just respond that this person does not know Hebrew as well as you do, or this person can't exegesis Scripture as well as you can, or the like.

 

 

yeah, you could be like spock and post the words of people who are not actual Hebrew scholars and no matter how well=thought out their explanations appear to be, most of the time, they are in fact, wrong.  Most of the "experts" that get posted are people who have degrees in science, but don't know Hebrew and are misrepresnted as Hebrew scholars.  

 

In addition, yes, I may point out the fact that they are not skilled in exegesis and don't know Hebrew, but the difference is that I can and always have demonstrated why my assessment of their skills is correct.   I have found on numerous occasions that some people were posting "Hebrew scholars" who have no training in Hebrew at all, who have no degrees in any biblical language.  Their degree is usually in some area of science.   I can show why their exegesis is faulty.  It's not an empty accusation on my part. 

When you won't even give a little credence that Jewish scholars disagree often, then really, our discussion is pointless.

 

 

How can I give credence to these alleged jewish scholars if I don't know who they are and have their works to review.  One thing you need to understand is that Jewish biblical scholars are not necessarily working from the same paradigm we are, in that their handling of the Hebrew is not based on purely objective exegesis.  Their handling of the Hebrew is laced with mysticism and that means they take a kaballistic approach to the Hebrew, which to them is more authoritative than the Bible, itself.

 

You run to Jewish scholars, but they are not exegeting the text in question.  Look at the scientist Gerald Schroeder that you posted a few days ago.   In a different post, Schroeder was cited, concerning his theory of time dilation.  He referenced the Hebrew language, but he did so from the kabbalistic mindset in order to make Hebrew jive with his theory.   He could not have taken normative and objective exegetical procedures and arrive at the same conclusions.

 

So, that is why I asked who the Rabbis are.   Nebula, I know of what I speak on this.  

 

 

Which biblical language is your degree in?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Notice in this  passage, that the things that are "made" (Heb. asah) in Genesis 1 are said to be "created"  (bara) in this psalm.  So create and asah are meant to both reference a creative act.   They are not identical words, but they are used to essentially mean the same thing.  The only real difference is that bara is a unique word that is only ever applied to God.

I already quoted bible verses when the word was used in a "showing" context.

 

No, you just strung a bunch of Bible verses together and assumed that "asah" in Genesis 1 means what it means in those other verses.  That doesn't show context.  That violates context.

 

As you say, we have to look at context. You may read Genesis 1 and assume the context is about everything created from nothing.

 

No, I don't see it as a creation from nothing.

 

I read Genesis 1 and see the context is a dark and watery planet, that becomes filled with light and visibility and God-created animals and plants.

That is not what is meant by "context."   You probably don't care what context means, anyway.  It's just easier to make things up as you go, isn't it?

 

We will just have to disagree regarding your view that the context of Genesis 1 can only be seen your way.

 

No, the reason we disagree is because I can actually show facts.  

 

You operate from imagination and speculation and sloppy exegesis that is based on assigning your own values to what words mean rather than letting the words speak for themselves.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Bump.  Never got a response from Nebula to the questions.  At least not that I could find.

That was my response.

 

 

What is there to say? I could post multi resources out there on the web with well-written, well-thought out explanations on how "yom" does not have to mean 24-hours, and any other alternate way of interpreting what the Hebrew is saying, but from what I've seen, you will just respond that this person does not know Hebrew as well as you do, or this person can't exegesis Scripture as well as you can, or the like.

 

 

yeah, you could be like spock and post the words of people who are not actual Hebrew scholars and no matter how well=thought out their explanations appear to be, most of the time, they are in fact, wrong.  Most of the "experts" that get posted are people who have degrees in science, but don't know Hebrew and are misrepresnted as Hebrew scholars.  

 

In addition, yes, I may point out the fact that they are not skilled in exegesis and don't know Hebrew, but the difference is that I can and always have demonstrated why my assessment of their skills is correct.   I have found on numerous occasions that some people were posting "Hebrew scholars" who have no training in Hebrew at all, who have no degrees in any biblical language.  Their degree is usually in some area of science.   I can show why their exegesis is faulty.  It's not an empty accusation on my part. 

When you won't even give a little credence that Jewish scholars disagree often, then really, our discussion is pointless.

 

 

How can I give credence to these alleged jewish scholars if I don't know who they are and have their works to review.  One thing you need to understand is that Jewish biblical scholars are not necessarily working from the same paradigm we are, in that their handling of the Hebrew is not based on purely objective exegesis.  Their handling of the Hebrew is laced with mysticism and that means they take a kaballistic approach to the Hebrew, which to them is more authoritative than the Bible, itself.

 

You run to Jewish scholars, but they are not exegeting the text in question.  Look at the scientist Gerald Schroeder that you posted a few days ago.   In a different post, Schroeder was cited, concerning his theory of time dilation.  He referenced the Hebrew language, but he did so from the kabbalistic mindset in order to make Hebrew jive with his theory.   He could not have taken normative and objective exegetical procedures and arrive at the same conclusions.

 

So, that is why I asked who the Rabbis are.   Nebula, I know of what I speak on this.  

 

 

Which biblical language is your degree in?

 

I have four years of university/under grad/graduate  level Hebrew, and prior to that, I also studied Hebrew for two years under a Rabbi in addition to that.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

 

Bump.  Never got a response from Nebula to the questions.  At least not that I could find.

That was my response.

 

 

What is there to say? I could post multi resources out there on the web with well-written, well-thought out explanations on how "yom" does not have to mean 24-hours, and any other alternate way of interpreting what the Hebrew is saying, but from what I've seen, you will just respond that this person does not know Hebrew as well as you do, or this person can't exegesis Scripture as well as you can, or the like.

 

 

yeah, you could be like spock and post the words of people who are not actual Hebrew scholars and no matter how well=thought out their explanations appear to be, most of the time, they are in fact, wrong.  Most of the "experts" that get posted are people who have degrees in science, but don't know Hebrew and are misrepresnted as Hebrew scholars.  

 

In addition, yes, I may point out the fact that they are not skilled in exegesis and don't know Hebrew, but the difference is that I can and always have demonstrated why my assessment of their skills is correct.   I have found on numerous occasions that some people were posting "Hebrew scholars" who have no training in Hebrew at all, who have no degrees in any biblical language.  Their degree is usually in some area of science.   I can show why their exegesis is faulty.  It's not an empty accusation on my part. 

When you won't even give a little credence that Jewish scholars disagree often, then really, our discussion is pointless.

 

 

How can I give credence to these alleged jewish scholars if I don't know who they are and have their works to review.  One thing you need to understand is that Jewish biblical scholars are not necessarily working from the same paradigm we are, in that their handling of the Hebrew is not based on purely objective exegesis.  Their handling of the Hebrew is laced with mysticism and that means they take a kaballistic approach to the Hebrew, which to them is more authoritative than the Bible, itself.

 

You run to Jewish scholars, but they are not exegeting the text in question.  Look at the scientist Gerald Schroeder that you posted a few days ago.   In a different post, Schroeder was cited, concerning his theory of time dilation.  He referenced the Hebrew language, but he did so from the kabbalistic mindset in order to make Hebrew jive with his theory.   He could not have taken normative and objective exegetical procedures and arrive at the same conclusions.

 

So, that is why I asked who the Rabbis are.   Nebula, I know of what I speak on this.  

 

 

Which biblical language is your degree in?

 

I have four years of university/under grad/graduate  level Hebrew, and prior to that, I also studied Hebrew for two years under a Rabbi in addition to that.

 

 

So, you have no degree?   I only ask because above you dismissed the views of those who "have no degrees in any biblical language"