How old do you think the universe is?

[Esaias]

Brother Blume, I read your response (both parts) and I noticed two things. One, you have asserted your position regarding the inferences that should be drawn from the various uses of bara and asah several times, but have not actually demonstrated your position is correct. There really hasn't been any new information brought forward in the way of proof that bara must mean created ex nihilo and asah must mean formed from pre-existing material(s). Two, you have made several erroneous statements, which I will address first, before dealing with once again with the issue of the Scriptural usage of bara and asah.

Erroneous statements that you made:

You cannot take matter with no DNA and no life and then make life out of it.

I certainly cannot, but God certainly can, if He so choose. We should not judge God by what is possible or impossible for us. Furthermore, I already pointed out that the "life" of man came directly from God (and thus came from a pre-existing material, if you will, namely God's life).

...you will never see ASA when referring to LIFE.

Job 10:11-12 KJV Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. (12) Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit.

The word "granted" is asah. God asah'd life.

You make a logical fallacy by basing your conclusions on bara and asa upon English uses of created and made.

My uses of English make and create were an illustration. My understanding of bara and asah are not based upon the English create and make and how they are used, but I was showing that bara and asah are used in the same fashion as create and make are used in English. What I was demonstrating was the fact that bara and asah are used for the same thing, as English create and make can be used for the same thing. There was no fallacy involved, I brought in the English create and make as an illustration, not a premise.

Now, as to your statements concerning bara and asah, again, you simply restated your claims many times but have not actually demonstrated them. You have said bara refers to certain things, and asah refers to certain other things, but I have shown that bara and asah are used to refer to all the same things. You are reading your interpretations into the text, telling you how to understand this verse and that verse based on your interpretations of bara and asah. Thus for example, when you read God bara'd great whales etc you ASSUME that means the "life" created ex nihilo without reference to their physical existence, while you simultaneously ASSUME that God asah'd the whales and further you ASSUME that asah'ing the whales (which is not actually stated in the text) means God formed their physical bodies. Please note, it is obvious that God made physical creatures in the sea possessing life. But you are assuming and eisegeting things into the text based upon a faulty understanding of Scriptural usages of bara and asah. Your approach is BASED UPON the terms bara and asah, whereas the fact is Scripture uses BOTH terms to refer to the same actions, that of bringing things into existence.

So, I'm going to leave off discussing bara and asah since there hasn't been any new additional information regarding how they are used in Scripture. Please understand, I am not saying God did not bara something, nor am I saying God did not asah something. I AM saying that everything that was said to be bara'd, was also said to be asah'd, which was proven already.

So in conclusion, as I stated before, the use of the term bara and the term asah don't provide us with any information whatsoever about time scales or gaps between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. If there is such a gap, it will have be proven by something other than the presence of the term bara or asah or any supposed distinctions between the two.

Just so this point is clear, let us assume for the moment everything you believe about bara and asah is correct. It still would not prove or demonstrate or imply a long gap of time of millennia or millions or billions or thousands or hundreds of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In verse 1 God bara'd the heaven and the earth.

That doesn't say anything about TIME, how long it took, or how long ago it was, or anything other than the fact that it happened. God could have bara'd the heaven and the earth and then .0000000000001 nanoseconds later began doing everything that is mentioned in 1:2b and the verses following. So again, whether there is a large gap of time or not is not impacted by the usages of bara and asah.


Now, as for making the case for a large gap of time between 1:1 and 1:2, you said this:

Earth was put in ruination after verse 1.

Genesis 1:2 says "earth was void..."

"WAS" is translated from :

hayah {haw-yaw} v AV - was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.

So, from the Hebrew HAYAH, we get the idea that the earth "became" void and without form. Or "was made" void and without form.

This necessitated a MAKING, or FORMING the material already created long before in renovation.

You have selected a possible definition based on how the word has been translated. but you have not shown that "became" or "was made" is the required and necessary definition in this instance. As I pointed out to Amanah, who referenced a similar translational claim from the website she quoted, I have not found any translation into English from the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin bibles that supports this reading of "became" or "was made". (On a side note, if the correct translation is "was made" then that would actually imply that when God bara'd the heavens and the earth, and the earth "was made" void and without form, then God bara'd the earth void and without form - meaning He had not yet furnished it with it's contents such as living creatures nor shaped it by separating the waters from the dry land, etc.)

Can you supply any English Bible translation where reputable translators who are fluent in the Hebrew translated the verse as you have proposed it should be translated?

And furthermore, even assuming that your proposed translation is correct and all the translators of all English Bibles somehow missed this one, it STILL doesn't demonstrate anything whatsoever in regard to the length of time which passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2! Let's assume your proposed correction to the translations of the Bible is correct. Let's assume that God created heaven and earth, and THEN something happened and it got all wrecked. That in itself provides ZERO data regarding how long it was between the creation of heaven and earth and the wrecking, or how long between the wrecking and the start of the "renovation". God could have created heaven and earth, and five days later it all got wrecked. And sat there in a wrecked state for 18 seconds. I'm not saying that's how it went down, I'm saying such a scenario is POSSIBLE with the data we have been presented with so far, and assuming your proposed correction to the translation is indeed correct.

And regardless of any of this, it STILL doesn't tell us how old the earth is. Prior to the separation of night from day, there were no evenings and mornings. The night could have sat there for 100,000,000,000 years before God said "Let there be light", or it could have sat there for .00000000000001 nanoseconds for all we know.

Please understand I am not asserting there is no gap of time between verse 1 and 2, or that there was not a catastrophic wrecking of things. Neither am I saying there was. What I am saying is that so far there has been no real evidence presented that there was.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother Blume, I read your response (both parts) and I noticed two things. One, you have asserted your position regarding the inferences that should be drawn from the various uses of bara and asah several times, but have not actually demonstrated your position is correct. There really hasn't been any new information brought forward in the way of proof that bara must mean created ex nihilo and asah must mean formed from pre-existing material(s). Two, you have made several erroneous statements, which I will address first, before dealing with once again with the issue of the Scriptural usage of bara and asah.

Erroneous statements that you made:

You cannot take matter with no DNA and no life and then make life out of it.

I certainly cannot, but God certainly can, if He so choose.

I know God can. You missed my point likely due to my lack of explanation.

I was trying to say inanimate matter is not said to be created in the six days because LIFE (which has DNA) is "created". And when we speak of the creatures BODIES, there is the idea of making it from material in existence. That was my point.

...you will never see ASA when referring to LIFE.

Job 10:11-12 KJV Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. (12) Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit.

The word "granted" is asah. God asah'd life.

I would say that is distinct from anything done in the first chapter of Genesis. Life in Job's quote is from a mother and father, so "asa" would be involved. I was speaking about the first forms of animate life as in Genesis 1.

You make a logical fallacy by basing your conclusions on bara and asa upon English uses of created and made.

My uses of English make and create were an illustration. My understanding of bara and asah are not based upon the English create and make and how they are used, but I was showing that bara and asah are used in the same fashion as create and make are used in English. What I was demonstrating was the fact that bara and asah are used for the same thing, as English create and make can be used for the same thing. There was no fallacy involved, I brought in the English create and make as an illustration, not a premise.

Thanks for clearing that up. I got your point, really, but I was perhaps thinking you implied more than an illustration.

Now, as to your statements concerning bara and asah, again, you simply restated your claims many times but have not actually demonstrated them. You have said bara refers to certain things, and asah refers to certain other things, but I have shown that bara and asah are used to refer to all the same things.

I was showing how my model works with the points you made about why they are used where they are used, to show you that your conclusion for the reason is not the only one made from the evidence. By repeating my conclusions and explaining HOW they fit with the evidence, I showed that.

You are reading your interpretations into the text, telling you how to understand this verse and that verse based on your interpretations of bara and asah.

No, I got the interpretations from others who discussed the Hebrew. I do not know Hebrew any more than you do, and consulted some references. So, it is NOT me reading anything into it unless I made up my definitions.

Thus for example, when you read God bara'd great whales etc you ASSUME that means the "life" created ex nihilo without reference to their physical existence, while you simultaneously ASSUME that God asah'd the whales and further you ASSUME that asah'ing the whales (which is not actually stated in the text) means God formed their physical bodies.

I assumed nothing.

Again, I researched what the words' definitions are, and showed how they fit. I could say the same thing about you that YOU assumed they essentially mean the same thing.

Please note, it is obvious that God made physical creatures in the sea possessing life. But you are assuming and eisegeting things into the text based upon a faulty understanding of Scriptural usages of bara and asah.

No I am not. lol I got the definitions from Hebrew scholars and either THEY are wrong, or YOU are wrong. I did not read anything into anything.

Your approach is BASED UPON the terms bara and asah, whereas the fact is Scripture uses BOTH terms to refer to the same actions, that of bringing things into existence.

The fact is that you ASSUME they are the same actions because of your prior understanding. Again, I researched my definitions. I can say that ten more times if need be.

So, I'm going to leave off discussing bara and asah since there hasn't been any new additional information regarding how they are used in Scripture. Please understand, I am not saying God did not bara something, nor am I saying God did not asah something. I AM saying that everything that was said to be bara'd, was also said to be asah'd, which was proven already.

I know what you are not saying and hat you are saying. I am saying you're choosing the definitions you want to believe for those words, though. Bro.., THE ONLY way we can talk Hebrew words is to consult Hebrew scholars for the definitions. So far you have not done that. I started out by doing that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The fact is that you ASSUME they are the same actions because of your prior understanding. Again, I researched my definitions. I can say that ten more times if need be.

What prior assumptions? I began studying the uses of bara and asah IN THIS THREAD! lol I simply looked up their occurrences in the Bible, and saw how THE BIBLE uses those terms, and made my conclusions, which I documented. I looked up the definitions in Strong's, I saw how they had been translated in the Greek, I looked at how Jesus Himself referred to the subject. And I posted all my findings.

Are you saying bara MUST NECESSARILY MEAN "created ex nihilo"? Is that what "Hebrew scholars" have said? Then please explain this:

H1254

בָּרָא
bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
Total KJV occurrences: 54

I don't see how the word is REQUIRED to mean "created ex nihilo", even from Strong's. But let's look at something:

Joshua 17:15 KJV And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.

He literally said "get thee up to the wood country and bara for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites, etc." Create ex nihilo for yourself?

1 Samuel 2:29 KJV Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?

"...to bara yourselves with the chiefest offerings..." To create yourselves ex nihilo with the chiefest of all the offerings?

Brother, the word has a range of meanings determined by usage. I simply pointed out the usage, in regards to creation, which shows your proposed usage doesn't conform to the Bible's own usage.

Brother, are you saying we cannot understand what God said and did unless we call up the rabbis? Surely that is not what you are saying!

And as for "Hebrew scholars", were the translators of practically every single English Bible just pseudo scholars who somehow missed that the earth "became" void and without form? Surely that is not what you are saying!

[Evang.Benincasa]

I want to thank my two brothers for having this pleasant discussion.
It is beautiful and very good points made by both Brothers Blume, and Esaias.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I want to thank my two brothers for having this pleasant discussion.
It is beautiful and very good points made by both Brothers Blume, and Esaias.

I agree, I appreciate the time, study, and thoughtfulness of my Brothers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I agree, I appreciate the time, study, and thoughtfulness of my Brothers.

Amen, I thoroughly enjoy this discussion.

Also your input as well.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What prior assumptions? I began studying the uses of bara and asah IN THIS THREAD!

Uses are not definitions. People can get assumed definitions from looking at uses, and never actually get the definitions.

lol I simply looked up their occurrences in the Bible, and saw how THE BIBLE uses those terms, and made my conclusions, which I documented.

Which is more complicated and not as accurate as getting the actual definitions. By looking at their uses, one can indeed make assumptions of their definitions. Why not just go to the definitions?

I did that today. I am awaiting word from a rabbi on the two words since this rabbi knows Hebrew. I already got the definitions from one source online, but now I am distinctly asking a Hebrew rabbi.

I looked up the definitions in Strong's, I saw how they had been translated in the Greek, I looked at how Jesus Himself referred to the subject. And I posted all my findings.

Stick to definitions. Simple.

Are you saying bara MUST NECESSARILY MEAN "created ex nihilo"? Is that what "Hebrew scholars" have said? Then please explain this:

H1254

בָּרָא
bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
Total KJV occurrences: 54

I don't see how the word is REQUIRED to mean "created ex nihilo", even from Strong's. But let's look at something:

Joshua 17:15 KJV And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.

He literally said "get thee up to the wood country and bara for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites, etc." Create ex nihilo for yourself?

1 Samuel 2:29 KJV Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?

"...to bara yourselves with the chiefest offerings..." To create yourselves ex nihilo with the chiefest of all the offerings?

Brother, the word has a range of meanings determined by usage. I simply pointed out the usage, in regards to creation, which shows your proposed usage doesn't conform to the Bible's own usage.

Brother, are you saying we cannot understand what God said and did unless we call up the rabbis? Surely that is not what you are saying!

I am saying we can make assumptions that are off the mark somewhat without knowing actual Hebrew. So, partially, YES, I am saying we have to talk to a rabbi or someone else who knows Hebrew. Sorry, it's the most logical conclusion about the issue. What's bad about getting an actual Hebrew definition from someone who speaks that language? LOL

And as for "Hebrew scholars", were the translators of practically every single English Bible just pseudo scholars who somehow missed that the earth "became" void and without form? Surely that is not what you are saying!

I will get back to you with what the rabbi says. I am saying we need to talk to someone who knows Hebrew.

[mfblume]

When we read passages translated from a foreign language, and use that basis alone for understanding the definition of a word, and not deal more with the definitions from lexicons, themselves, there is chance to be subject to some error. Languages often involve a different thinking process altogether. A different paradigm of reality, even. A different viewpoint and perspective. Phrases will often include manners of speech that are foreign to us, aside from the foreign language itself. And we can easily confuse our perspective from our culture into the manner of speaking and get a completely incorrect concept of exactly what is being said, which further confuses the actual meaning of the words in question.

So, someone who knows Hebrew is essential as a reference. That's the only sensible conclusion, and sorry if you disagree. I stand by it.

[mfblume]

I saw this on a discussion forum, similar to this forum:

Both imply God’s direct involvement, but asa indicates that God made human beings from existing material, whereas bara signifies the creation of something entirely new.

I saw this on CARM:

The difference between something being created and something being made is that when something is created it is brought into existence out of nothing. But, when something is made it has been formed out of something else that already exists.

I saw this as well:

When describing God's creative acts in the Bible there are several different ways of expressing His actions, including the use of different words which have different shades of meaning. For example, different words are often used to describe if God is creating something out of nothing (ex nihilo), or if He is creating something from existing material. There are mainly three different Hebrew words used in the Old Testament to describe God's creative work. They are: ASAH - TO MAKE; BARA - TO CREATE; YATSAR - TO FORM.

ASAH is a very general word; it is used thousands of times in the Bible. I counted almost 100 different English words (not including different forms of the same word, e.g. make, made, making, maker, etc.) used to translate ASAH! The general sense of the word is to MAKE or DO something. Of course, when something is made it must be composed of pre-existing material, i.e. unless God is the One making it! He can make something out of nothing. So we find another word, BARA, that is used much less often than ASAH, but which also refers to God making something.

BARA is translated almost exclusively with the English word, CREATE or one of its forms. BARA tends to indicate ex nihilo creation. So in Gen 1:1, "In the beginning God created (BARA) the heavens and the earth," the use of the word BARA indicates that God made the heavens and earth out of nothing. The term BARA also is used consistently when speaking of the creation of Man, e.g. Gen 1:27, Gen 5:2, Deut 4:32. However, the use of this Hebrew word, BARA, should not be understood to be a code word requiring the meaning, ex nihilo creation. We find it in Exo 34:10, (produced, done KJV) describing miracles which appear to involve supernatural manipulations of the existing world. In Num 16:30 (brings about, make KJV) it describes a miracle, but not technically an ex nihilo event. In Josh 17:15 (clear, cut down KJV) the word has the meaning of cutting down or clearing away trees. There are several similar uses in the book of Ezekiel. In the well-known petition of king David, "Create in me a clean heart, O God." (Psa 51:10); he uses the word, BARA.

The third word,YATSAR, is not too common, and is usually translated FORMED, e.g. Gen 2:7, Psa 95:5, Isa 29:16b. The sense of this word is to make or shape something out of existing material, like a potter uses clay to form a pot. In fact the word occurs in certain forms and is translated, POTTER, cf. Isa 29:16a.

The important thing to remember when interpreting these words is that they do have overlap in their meaning, and are even used interchangeably to a certain extent, e.g. Gen 2:7 cf. Gen 1:26, 27; Gen 2:19 cf. Gen 1:25; Gen 1:21 cf. Psa 104:26. Gen 5:1 uses both BARA and ASAH to describe the making of Man. We even find verses where all three Hebrew terms are used together to describe God's creative activity, Isa 43:7; 45:18. Given these variable and overlapping uses, one should be careful not to force the meaning of these words into a "box" and interpret the Bible in ways not intended by the author, but God did indeed inspire the writers of Scripture to use different words to indicate different nuances in the meaning for MAKE or CREATE when describing God's actions in or on His creation.

And many more sources.

I tend to believe create is ex nihilo, and make is ex materia. We will see what the rabbi says.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When we read passages translated from a foreign language, and use that basis alone for understanding the definition of a word, and not deal more with the definitions from lexicons, themselves, there is chance to be subject to some error. Languages often involve a different thinking process altogether. A different paradigm of reality, even. A different viewpoint and perspective. Phrases will often include manners of speech that are foreign to us, aside from the foreign language itself. And we can easily confuse our perspective from our culture into the manner of speaking and get a completely incorrect concept of exactly what is being said, which further confuses the actual meaning of the words in question.

So, someone who knows Hebrew is essential as a reference. That's the only sensible conclusion, and sorry if you disagree. I stand by it.

Do you think that it is possible that Hebrew terms of usage could have changed over thousands of years. Do you think that Abraham and a Jewish rabbi's today speak identically. I would not want a new Christian convert to think much on all of this because I think it could cause them to discard their Bible in despair of never knowing. We can trust the English Bible preferably the KJV.

I am not against word studies, but any word studies that would cause me to have to go back and change multitudes of scriptures sounds dangerous. As for rabbi's,I don't know any rabbi's to ask. Do they not reject Christ. I certainly do not want an anti-christ interpreting the scriptures for me.