How old do you think the universe is?

[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.

[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.

[shag]

I do not, at all, believe in a gap between Daniels 69th and 70th week nor between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2.
6 literal 24 hour days is good enough for me

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shag

I do not, at all, believe in a gap between Daniels 69th and 70th week nor between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2.
6 literal 24 hour days is good enough for me

The gap in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 means 6 literal 24 hour days anyway, if that's your issue.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

The "life" in the creatures was not created ex nihilo, as your statement here seems to suggest. The waters were commanded to "bring forth" the sea creatures and birds, the earth was commanded to "bring forth" animals (as well as plants). So the question is, where did their "life" come from? Was it created ex nihilo? No.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 KJV (18) I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. (19) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. (20) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. (21) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Here Solomon is commenting on the similarity between men and living creatures (beasts), that they have essentially the same apparent fate - death. Both are of the dust (earth) and both return to dust. But in his remarks is an interesting statement that the spirit of the beasts goes downward to the earth, whereas the spirit of men goes upward (obviously, to heaven and to God). This is further confirmed in the same book:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJV Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

From this we see that the spirit (of life, the animating factor) of beasts returns to the earth, and the spirit of man returns to God who gave it. This of course reflects the Genesis account where God "breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life".

Nothing is said or implied about the spirits of beasts or of people being "created ex nihilo", in fact the opposite seems to be suggested - that the spirit of beasts comes from the earth and the spirit of man comes from God.

In any event, the use of terms like "bara" and "asah" do not prove anything one way or the other in regards to these things, as shown.

Edit to add:

Psa 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

The word there is asah - God asah'd the angels as spirit beings. Apparently He did not bara them?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The "life" in the creatures was not created ex nihilo, as your statement here seems to suggest. The waters were commanded to "bring forth" the sea creatures and birds, the earth was commanded to "bring forth" animals (as well as plants). So the question is, where did their "life" come from? Was it created ex nihilo? No.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 KJV (18) I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. (19) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. (20) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. (21) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Here Solomon is commenting on the similarity between men and living creatures (beasts), that they have essentially the same apparent fate - death. Both are of the dust (earth) and both return to dust. But in his remarks is an interesting statement that the spirit of the beasts goes downward to the earth, whereas the spirit of men goes upward (obviously, to heaven and to God). This is further confirmed in the same book:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJV Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

From this we see that the spirit (of life, the animating factor) of beasts returns to the earth, and the spirit of man returns to God who gave it. This of course reflects the Genesis account where God "breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life".

Nothing is said or implied about the spirits of beasts or of people being "created ex nihilo", in fact the opposite seems to be suggested - that the spirit of beasts comes from the earth and the spirit of man comes from God.

In any event, the use of terms like "bara" and "asah" do not prove anything one way or the other in regards to these things, as shown.

Edit to add:

Psa 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

The word there is asah - God asah'd the angels as spirit beings. Apparently He did not bara them?

It seems to me that Solomon asks a rhetorical question in verse 21. He is not actually saying that the spirit of the beast and of man go two different places. He starts verse 21 out with the statement who knoweth? The same breath of life is in both man and beast. O coarse, mankind is given dominion over all the beast, foul, fish, etc... for we (mankind) are created in the image of God.

I have noticed although animals are not as intelligent as man, they have the capacity to love, fear, hate, etc... I am a dog catcher and have seen animals grieve over the death of their masters. I don't believe that there will be a doggy ressurection or anything (there is no biblical mention, although it is interesting that God did save a remnant from the flood of Noah) I think this verse in Ecclesiastes should cause us to value all life.

IMHO