How old do you think the universe is?

[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

[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

First of all let me say you could be right about all of this. but your conclusions are not conclusive like you think they are. I'll show why.

As I already laid out.

Right. Bara speaks of creation and does not involve taking then-currently existence material used to MAKE them. It speaks of LIFE because LIFE is always created. Evolution says life with DNA comes from matter that has no DNA, and somehow becomes ALIVE. No, LIFE requires creation. But the bodies of living creatures is distinct and is MADE from other material, like dust of the ground, etc. So when something that has life is said to be MADE it is referring to the bodies and material, but when the same things are CREATED it is solely referring to the LIFE, itself.

I am struggling to follow along on some of this, but here is my thoughts. Man was formed from the earth and God breathed the breath of life in us. Thus the life of man is God. Our breath of life or the ghost that mankind will give up belongs to God. The life is not created, but it simply exists. Just as God is eternal so is the spirit of man. I am not sure how all this works, but that is why we make statements like in the song, "the soul of man never dies". It never dies because it is infinite. It has no beginning and no end.

The above list shows the aspect of creatures' bodies which are distinct from their actual LIVES. You cannot take matter with no DNA and no life and then make life out of it.

God can. He took the elements of our earth (with no DNA) and made man (with DNA) and gave him life.

No. The LIFE of whales and sea creatures and birds was as much created as the life of land creatures. But their bodies were MADE from matter already in existence, which is why these bodies have the same elements found in dead (no DNA) matter.

Agreed, all animals (land and sea) where created from elements of this earth and sea.

Yes. His LIFE was created, but his BODY WAS MADE. That's the understanding to be had when reading these various terms. We do not have to read that land creatures were created, for that refers to their LIVES which is a given. And we do not have to read of whales having been MADE because it is also a given that their bodies were formed from matter.

God took earth and gave his breath of life and man became a living soul. The life part was not created but only the soul. The life part is from God and was not created, but simply is.

You will never read earth being CREATED in 6 days, only MADE, because the matter already existed after it was CREATED. So the reference to earth and six days will always use MAKE, ASA. 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.

I can agree with this. I still don't know where we can make a case for the periods of time. The how long part of this is only speculation.

Man is both created and made. I already noted the distinction between man's LIFE and man's BODY. Life is created, but not body. It is MADE.



Each were both. We only read one or the other since the specific aspect of body (which is made) is for some reason focused upon in one case where the specific aspect of LIFE (which is created) is focused on in the other. But both were made and create.

The body was created and/or made. The life was given from God. Again life simply is. I think you are trying to say that God formed the body and he created the breath of life. I think that he both created and made the body and filled the body with life that already and always existed.

We can conveniently miss the conclusion that does not agree with our stance, as in creatures either created or made. In fact, they're both created and made. Just because we do not read some were CREATED, does not mean they weren't. Vice versa with MADE.

That does not contradict my points. If a series of days are used in reference to being MADE, then the focus is on the forming from material, which is true of the earth and heavens in my model. But notice heaven and earth are summarized as being created, and also MADE. Which is true in my model! In a summary, we would see up to that point in time both creation and made were involved.

I don't think the terms created and made where meant to be understood differently. Just like terms today we have many terms to state the same things. I think made=created.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I am struggling to follow along on some of this, but here is my thoughts. Man was formed from the earth and God breathed the breath of life in us. Thus the life of man is God. Our breath of life or the ghost that mankind will give up belongs to God. The life is not created, but it simply exists. Just as God is eternal so is the spirit of man. I am not sure how all this works, but that is why we make statements like in the song, "the soul of man never dies". It never dies because it is infinite. It has no beginning and no end.

My point is that LIFE for some reason is always said to be created, not made. The bodies have DNA. But our life is not God. I cannot agree with that. His Spirit is Life and getting His actual Spirit in us is not the same as having natural life. Natural life can die. God cannot die.

And I do not believe the spirit of man is eternal either. Eternal has no beginning, and our human spirits had a beginning.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that LIFE is always associated with creation. Even the Psalm that parallels Genesis 1 in the same sequence notes life was created by earth was RENEWED.

Psalms 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

God can. He took the elements of our earth (with no DNA) and made man (with DNA) and gave him life.

DNA belongs to the body. But LIFE is something aside from even that. It is created.

Agreed, all animals (land and sea) where created from elements of this earth and sea.

As per their bodies, yes.

God took earth and gave his breath of life and man became a living soul. The life part was not created but only the soul. The life part is from God and was not created, but simply is.

That does not prove our spirits are God's life.

I can agree with this. I still don't know where we can make a case for the periods of time. The how long part of this is only speculation.

The body was created and/or made. The life was given from God. Again life simply is. I think you are trying to say that God formed the body and he created the breath of life. I think that he both created and made the body and filled the body with life that already and always existed.

I cannot see where there is foundation for saying man's life always existed because it is from God.

Again the issue is whether or not it is true that bara means to create from nothing and asa means to form already existing material.

I don't think the terms created and made where meant to be understood differently.

Only someone who knows Hebrew can tell us that, though.

Just like terms today we have many terms to state the same things. I think made=created.

In English, maybe. But not necessarily for Hebrew.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Since there were things involved in those days that were formed or renewed from existing materials, such as the items mentioned in associaiton with asa.



There were things listed in those days that were created! Creatures with LIFE had their lives created!



Because in those days there was both the work of creation and making, as I defined those terms.



As a video Bro Benincasa presented earlier, the "DAY" In Gen 2 4 would not refer to 24 hours. Did God make all in Genesis 1 in one 24 hour period? No. So, it is speaking of an AGE, as it were when we read day in 2:4. And creation was involved in the entire scope of information provided up until mention of the seventh day. So, how long is this DAY or AGE God is referring to in this verse? While I agree they're 24 hours days in Gen 1, it's not in Gen 2:4. So, does that AGE incorporate all the time up to the seventh day including the time back to creation in verse 1. which I claim could be multiplied millions of years before day 1? We do not know. But this shows the scriptures involved in your point do not contradict my view at all.


No they do not. Again, there would not be two different terms if you were correct. God picked ASA for certain things and BARA for certain things for very good reasons, and your conclusions are missing the fact the way those terms are used by God are FOR A GOOD REASON. Otherwise, He'd use one of the two. You will never see BARA when referring to bodies, and you will never see ASA when referring to LIFE. Look back and see.

"1:21 And God created/ḇârâ'; 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."

Wrong. ASA is MADE and that is why the word is used in six days. But BARA is only ever used when incorporating bot the initial creation of heaven and earth with the six days, as Genesis 1 certainly does. Try to find us a verse were bara is used in specifically seeing the BODY of living creatures provided for them.

Seems to me that ASA and Bara are being used interchangeably.

Right. As I said, BARA refers to the creation in verse 1. ASA refers to the renovation of the six days.

Again, because man has a body made from ground demanding it be ASA'd. But he also has LIFE which can only be CREATED unless you believe in evolution.

"1:26 And God said, Let us make/asa man in our image, after our likeness:and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created/bara he him; male and female created he them."

If you are saying God is speaking about making adam as a body, but creating him as a life that is inferring much. I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't come to the same conclusion.

Only the first verse would see anything non-living BARA'd. That's why CREATED or BARA'd is never used in the six days in reference to inanimate matter. And ASA is used for inanimate matter.

Incorrect as I have shown.



No. They are huge distinctions. Not subtle at all.
Since the understanding you have in your mind is English use of the words translated from Hebrew, and there is no major distinction in English between create and make. But in Hebrew there is. And you and I both can only go by the Hebrew scholars' words, for we do not personally know Hebrew.[/QUOTE]

I don't see a distinction by just reading the passage in the KJV and would have never seen a difference between made and created until someone pointed it out. You may be right, but I don't see the difference. I would suppose that all language just like English use multiple terms when implying to the same thing. I don't see why Hebrew is any different.

You make a logical fallacy by basing your conclusions on bara and asa upon English uses of created and made. We have to demonstrate what you're saying with the Hebrew use of the words ALONE. English words change all the time. Just because BARA is translated into CREATE in English does not mean everything we understand about CREATE in English equates with all there is to understand in BARA in Hebrew.

How do we know that Hebrew language ddin't change from Genesis to Malachi? I don't think it is only English that changes, but all languages change just as culture and everything else. I think we are just muddying the water on this. I don't think the KJV translaters had a different idea about created and made then what we do today. Language does change over time but it is very gradual. People with good reading comprehension can for the most part read and understand even old English with the exception of a hand full of words.

I would never have thought there was a difference in MAKE and CREATE in the English. But I know enough about languages to understand that there may be larger distinctions in the Hebrew from which those words are translated than there is in the english translations used for those words.

I agree that it could be, but it is only speculation. It makes more sense to me that it is not.

In other words, I have to disregard what I know about MAKE and CREATE in English, and get the Hebrew definitions of the original words from which they're translated, and think in THOSE HEBREW terms when I read CREATE and MAKE. And due to variations in the Hebrew that might not even exist in the English, I have to stick with the Hebrew definitions. when I read the english words. You totally bypassed that principle.

I try to do word searches when I get to things that are conflicting or hard to understand. It seems that you have taken something easy to understand and added something and made it complicated.

Right! BARA'd in the first verse when matter did not exist beforehand, but during the six days ASA'd to renew them.


Yes it can! Simply. If my model's correct, their initial existence was BARA'd, for they were created without using pre-existing matter. And after their ruin, they were ASA'd in the six days to RENEW them to proper order. So if you refer to BARA, you should understand that speaks of Gen 1:1. When you read they were ASA'd, you should restrict your thoughts to the six days of their renewal. But since man did not exist before the six days of earth renewal, you will have both CREATE and MADE in reference to his beginning since he not only had to have LIFE CREATED from nothing, but a BODY MADE from existing matter.

Without a purpose? On the contrary, it shows there was a period time that makes the earth very much older than the life created in those six days ever knew! It's the whole point of this thread!

I don't really see where bara and asa change our interpretation of the age of the earth. We don't how long the earth lay empty from verse 1-verse 3 and we don't really know for sure if the days were literal or 24hr time periods. The words Asa and Bara don't change that to me.

No, they show that the theme of this thread is answered by saying the earth is ancient although the current life is not.

You may be right, and maybe I missed something, but based upon what w'eve both said so far, and more, I think you are wrong.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

"1:21 And God created/ḇârâ'; 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."

And whales have animate LIFE as well as bodies. I already explained this.

Seems to me that ASA and Bara are being used interchangeably.[/quote]

What about the actual definitions? Is anybody concerned about actual definitions?

"1:26 And God said, Let us make/asa man in our image, after our likeness:and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created/bara he him; male and female created he them."

If you are saying God is speaking about making adam as a body, but creating him as a life that is inferring much. I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't come to the same conclusion.

Look at the instances the terms are used with my explanation and see if it fits. Like I said, I never came up with this. I checked the defintions.

Incorrect as I have shown.

I disagree. Creatures have life as well as bodies. What is interchangeable is using the two terms only when consideration create would refer to the creatures' lives, and make would refer to their bodies. Since whales have life and bodies then either word can be used. But the use of the word determines what God is focusing our attention on.. .the life or the body.

I don't see a distinction by just reading the passage in the KJV and would have never seen a difference between made and created until someone pointed it out.

Neither of us know Hebrew. I never saw the difference either because English is all I know and it never supplied something that the Hebrew DID supply.

You may be right, but I don't see the difference. I would suppose that all language just like English use multiple terms when implying to the same thing. I don't see why Hebrew is any different.

But we won't know til at least we actually ask someone who speaks the language and knows what places a word fits and where it doesn't..

How do we know that Hebrew language ddin't change from Genesis to Malachi? I don't think it is only English that changes, but all languages change just as culture and everything else.

Hebrew and Greek used in the bile became DEAD LANGUAGES.That is of God! Because a dead language does not change.

I think we are just muddying the water on this. I don't think the KJV translaters had a different idea about created and made then what we do today.

It's not the translators we should be concerned about. It's the Hebrew only.

Language does change over time but it is very gradual.

Not dead languages.

People with good reading comprehension can for the most part read and understand even old English with the exception of a hand full of words.

I agree that it could be, but it is only speculation. It makes more sense to me that it is not.

I try to do word searches when I get to things that are conflicting or hard to understand. It seems that you have taken something easy to understand and added something and made it complicated.

I don't really see where bara and asa change our interpretation of the age of the earth. We don't how long the earth lay empty from verse 1-verse 3 and we don't really know for sure if the days were literal or 24hr time periods. The words Asa and Bara don't change that to me.

Again, I am checking the Hebrew. You and all here should, too.

[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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

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.

Again, no. Hebrew is a dead language.