How old do you think the universe is?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's not just as God said, first of all.

Is this the inerrant infallible Word of the true and living God who cannot lie, or not:

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.
Exodus 20:11 KJV


And is it not the old portion in all of scripture actually "written" by God himself?

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Exodus 31:17-18 KJV

Originally Posted by mfblume

Anyway...

Hail to the closed minded!

I suppose if believing that makes me close minded, then, hail

[Amanah]

http://ichthys.com/sr2-copy.htm

. . .

II. The Context of Judgment in Genesis Chapter 1: If the language of Genesis 1:1-2 argues for a gap between original creation and the seven days of re-creation, the context of what follows the first sentence in the Word of God would seem to demand it. The contextual problems involved in taking Genesis 1:1 as a summary rather than an event in its own right are daunting indeed, especially if one stipulates a grammatically correct translation of the two verses:

Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters.

. . .


5. The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Is this the inerrant infallible Word of the true and living God who cannot lie, or not:

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.
Exodus 20:11 KJV


And is it not the old portion in all of scripture actually "written" by God himself?

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Exodus 31:17-18 KJV


I suppose if believing that makes me close minded, then, hail

This is the most common, yet really absurd, form of logical fallacy there is, brother. Please. Just because I disagree with your interpretation does not mean I disagree with the bible. And if that's the level you're at, then hail!

Made is not Create.

Why are there two different Hebrew words, Made and Create?

[mfblume]

bara (בָּרָא, to create)

asah (עָשָׂה, to make or do).

The difference between something that's created and something that's made is that when something is created it is brought into existence out of nothing. But, that which is made has been formed out of something else that already exists. God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), so He did not form them from something already in existence.

Read Genesis 1 and keep the difference in mind when you come across created and made.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Amanah

http://ichthys.com/sr2-copy.htm

. . .

II. The Context of Judgment in Genesis Chapter 1: If the language of Genesis 1:1-2 argues for a gap between original creation and the seven days of re-creation, the context of what follows the first sentence in the Word of God would seem to demand it. The contextual problems involved in taking Genesis 1:1 as a summary rather than an event in its own right are daunting indeed, especially if one stipulates a grammatically correct translation of the two verses:

Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters.

. . .


5. The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).

That's how I see it. It keeps the days literally 24 hour days, and it also accounts for obvious issues that should not be brushed beneath the carpet b y saying the world was made to LOOK old when it is not.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is the most common, yet really absurd, form of logical fallacy there is, brother. Please. Just because I disagree with your interpretation does not mean I disagree with the bible. And if that's the level you're at, then hail!

Made is not Create.

Why are there two different Hebrew words, Made and Create?

Originally Posted by mfblume

bara (בָּרָא, to create)

asah (עָשָׂה, to make or do).

The difference between something that's created and something that's made is that when something is created it is brought into existence out of nothing. But, that which is made has been formed out of something else that already exists. God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), so He did not form them from something already in existence.

Read Genesis 1 and keep the difference in mind when you come across created and made.

JasonB did you deal with the above?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

bara (בָּרָא, to create)

asah (עָשָׂה, to make or do).

The difference between something that's created and something that's made is that when something is created it is brought into existence out of nothing. But, that which is made has been formed out of something else that already exists. God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), so He did not form them from something already in existence.

Read Genesis 1 and keep the difference in mind when you come across created and made.

Psalm 148 uses bara in reference to the heavens, stars, sun, moon, etc, and by implication in reference to the earth and its contents as well (by parallelism).

Exodus 20:11 uses asah in reference to the heavens, and earth, and their contents.

Thus, according to scriptural usage, there is no substantial difference between bara and asah in regards to the Creation. This is further proved by the NT usage, and the LXX usage, of epoiesin and cognate terms in reference to Creation.

A quick look at Genesis 1 proves the terms are used synonymously:

v 26 God says let us make (asah) man, v 27 so God created (bara) man.

Etc.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Psalm 148 uses bara in reference to the heavens, stars, sun, moon, etc, and by implication in reference to the earth and its contents as well (by parallelism).

Exodus 20:11 uses asah in reference to the heavens, and earth, and their contents.

Thus, according to scriptural usage, there is no substantial difference between bara and asah in regards to the Creation. This is further proved by the NT usage, and the LXX usage, of epoiesin and cognate terms in reference to Creation.

A quick look at Genesis 1 proves the terms are used synonymously:

v 26 God says let us make (asah) man, v 27 so God created (bara) man.

Etc.

For one thing, there would not be two different Hebrew words in existence if they meant exactly the same thing.

Also, I already noted that MADE can cover a more general concept while CREATE in Hebrew narrows it down further. Again, All living in Austin are in Texas. But not all Texans live in Austin.

Let's not be too quick to skim past the distinctive uses in Genesis. Man was created in one sense but made in another, keeping in mind the distinctions I noted. His being was created. But His body was made of dust of ground. Breath of life and dust of ground show heaven and earth as components of man's existence. LIFE was created from nothing, but not his body.

If we speak of things FORMED through the six days then they're MADE. But many things were not made during the six days. Notice where create is used and try not to dismiss the idea of a distinction, but see if you can find a commonality that just doesn't necessarily fit with the position you're retaining.

[mfblume]

"CREATED"

The Hebrew bara.
"to create from nothing."
Used only three times in Genesis 1 because only three acts of creation occurred.

Creation of something from nothing -- Gene 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Creation of life -- Gene 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Creation of man -- Gene 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Nowhere else is CREATE mentioned in Chapter 1.


Gene 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gene 1:7 And God made the firmament, ,...
Gene 1:16 And God made two great lights; ...
Gene 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, ...
Gene 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, ...
Gene 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God ...

Can there be a reason you never thought of that accounts for create being used in those instances alone? Is there a commonality between what was CREATED that's not found in what was MADE? Is there something significant about something that is said to both be MADE and CREATED, while other things are only said to be MADE?

Seems to me that creatures have both CREATE and MAKE associated with them because of animate life being involved that needs to be created, while only the material things are MADE, seeing as animate life also has material MADE aspects.

[mfblume]

Only LIFE is said to be CREATED anywhere after verse 1 in Genesis 1.

Since creatures had LIFE as well as material bodies MADE FROM something else, we can see creation and making in both instances. But the creation would refer to life in creatures alone, and not their material aspects.

In regards to the Greek, if there is no distinctive words in Greek for these two concepts like there is in Hebrew, then it would not be possible to relate the distinction that's found in Hebrew when speaking or writing in Greek. You could only use on Greek word for both, since at least the one is CLOSEST to the Hebrew that's not translatable into Greek. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Hebrew uses two different words in the same verses the Greek doesn't. So, because Greek uses the same word, that is not solid grounds to say there is no difference between the two Hebrew words. That's not the only conclusion one can draw from the Greek comparison to the Hebrew. Would you dare exchange asa for bara in one verse that bara exists in in the inspired word of God? Many words exist in languages that are not translatable to other languages.

Are we going to choose the option that only suits our view already held by us, or consider there may be other options for conclusions? It's like we dismiss conclusions without consideration of their possible viability just because we adhere to a different conclusion already. hence, my signature. That's been going on a lot here lately. Something is ILLOGICAL if we do not already hold such an interpretation. There's no consideration that there just might be some massive solid thought put behind such conclusions that we currently disagree with that we never thought of.

Anyway, I digress.