How old do you think the universe is?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Carl

Thanks Esaias for these posts! Well researched and thought out.

You're welcome.

[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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

In the following citations, every occurrence of bara will be marked in red bold, and every occurrence of asah will be marked in green bold.

Genesis 1:1-31 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (10) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (13) And the evening and the morning were the third day. (14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (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. (22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (26) And God said, Let us make 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 he him; male and female created he them. (28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

As I already laid out.

Summary:

The following were bara'd:

• The heaven and the earth
• Great whales
• Every living creature brought forth by the waters
• Birds
• Man

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.

The following were asah'd:

• The firmament (heaven)
• The sun
• The moon
• The stars
• The beast of the earth
• Cattle
• Every creeping thing
• Man
• Everything

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.

Note: Trees are said to bara fruit.

Conclusion:

If the terms bara and asah indicate different actions, then whales, fish, and birds were created but land beasts, cattle, and bugs were made.

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.

Also, man was both created and made.

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.

Also, heaven was both created and made.

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.

Also, everything was both created and made. This however doesn't make sense. As can be seen from the text, God says "let's asah man" but instead He actually bara'd man.

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.

Sea animals were bara'd but land animals were asah'd.

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.

If this supposed distinction were correct, then God only said the land animals of the sixth day were "very good" since He actually bara'd man.

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.

But wait, there's more:

Genesis 2:1-4 KJV Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

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.

cont'd.

[mfblume]

• God rested on the seventh day from everything He had asah'd.

• 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.
  
  

  God rested on the seventh day from everything He had bara'd.

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

  God blessed the seventh day because in it He rested from all His work, which was both bara'd and asah'd.

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

  The heavens and the earth were bara'd in the day (time) they were asah'd.

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.

Again, the Scriptures use the two terms to refer to the same thing - God creating, or making, the heaven and the earth and all things in them.

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.

Exodus 20:11 KJV 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.

God Himself says that He asa'd the heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them (heaven, earth, and sea). He also claims He asah'd all these things in six days. Again, there is no substantive distinction between the uses of the two terms.

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.

It is argued that certain things are bara'd, and others are asah'd, and that those things which are bara'd have something in common, and those things which are asah'd have something else in common. Yet, the heaven and earth are said in Scripture to have been both bara'd, and asah'd.

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

Man was both bara'd, and asah'd.

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.

In fact, everything was said to have been both bara'd, and asah'd.

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.

So, again, there is no substantive difference between the uses of the term that have anything to do with the TIME of creation - how long it took, or how long ago it occurred.

Incorrect as I have shown.

Why two different terms? The same reason we have two different terms in English - "create" and "make". Each term has subtle distinctions of meaning, but those differences are one of emphasis, not a substantive difference.

No. They are huge distinctions. Not subtle at all.

for example, if I said "I made a meal", or if I said "I created a meal", absolutely nothing could be determined from the uses of the two terms as far as how long it took for me to produce the meal

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.

(ah, there's yet another word, a third term). "Creating" a meal CAN (but does not necessarily) imply that I thought the meal up on my own, and was thus an original creation. "Making" a meal implies (but again, not necessarily) that I simply produced a meal with no reference or implication to the originality of the recipe - I could have created it out of my imagination, or I could have simply prepared a meal designed completely by someone else.

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.

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.

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.

It is claimed that bara means creation "ex nihilo", whereas asah means "formed from pre-existing material". But the heaven and the earth were both bara'd, and asah'd.

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

Something cannot be both ex nihilo, and formed from pre-existing material...

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.

unless the terms are referring to the same action. And if it be argued that heaven and earth were created ex nihilo, and then afterwards formed to be what they eventually became, then the difference is a distinction without a purpose: What difference would it make to this discussion?

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!

Of course God started ex nihilo, nobody argues otherwise! The important thing is that the two terms are used to refer to the same things in the creation account, therefore the terms themselves provide ZERO DATA regarding the age of the universe.

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.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In the following citations, every occurrence of bara will be marked in red bold, and every occurrence of asah will be marked in green bold.

Genesis 1:1-31 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (10) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (13) And the evening and the morning were the third day. (14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (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. (22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (26) And God said, Let us make 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 he him; male and female created he them. (28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Summary:

The following were bara'd:
[*]The heaven and the earth[*]Great whales[*]Every living creature brought forth by the waters[*]Birds[*]Man


The following were asah'd:

[*]The firmament (heaven)[*]The sun[*]The moon[*]The stars[*]The beast of the earth[*]Cattle[*]Every creeping thing[*]Man[*]Everything


Note: Trees are said to bara fruit.

Conclusion:

If the terms bara and asah indicate different actions, then whales, fish, and birds were created but land beasts, cattle, and bugs were made. Also, man was both created and made. Also, heaven was both created and made. Also, everything was both created and made. This however doesn't make sense. As can be seen from the text, God says "let's asah man" but instead He actually bara'd man. Sea animals were bara'd but land animals were asah'd. If this supposed distinction were correct, then God only said the land animals of the sixth day were "very good" since He actually bara'd man.

But wait, there's more:

Genesis 2:1-4 KJV Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

[*]God rested on the seventh day from everything He had asah'd.[*]God rested on the seventh day from everything He had bara'd.[*]God blessed the seventh day because in it He rested from all His work, which was both bara'd and asah'd.[*]The heavens and the earth were bara'd in the day (time) they were asah'd.


Again, the Scriptures use the two terms to refer to the same thing - God creating, or making, the heaven and the earth and all things in them.

Exodus 20:11 KJV 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.

God Himself says that He asah'd the heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them (heaven, earth, and sea). He also claims He asah'd all these things in six days. Again, there is no substantive distinction between the uses of the two terms.

It is argued that certain things are bara'd, and others are asah'd, and that those things which are bara'd have something in common, and those things which are asah'd have something else in common. Yet, the heaven and earth are said in Scripture to have been both bara'd, and asah'd. Man was both bara'd, and asah'd. In fact, everything was said to have been both bara'd, and asah'd. So, again, there is no substantive difference between the uses of the term that have anything to do with the TIME of creation - how long it took, or how long ago it occurred.

Why two different terms? The same reason we have two different terms in English - "create" and "make". Each term has subtle distinctions of meaning, but those differences are one of emphasis, not a substantive difference. for example, if I said "I made a meal", or if I said "I created a meal", absolutely nothing could be determined from the uses of the two terms as far as how long it took for me to produce the meal (ah, there's yet another word, a third term). "Creating" a meal CAN (but does not necessarily) imply that I thought the meal up on my own, and was thus an original creation. "Making" a meal implies (but again, not necessarily) that I simply produced a meal with no reference or implication to the originality of the recipe - I could have created it out of my imagination, or I could have simply prepared a meal designed completely by someone else. Two terms, with slightly different meanings, but not used in such a way as to REQUIRE two different mechanisms or two different actions: both terms can refer to the same act.

And that is the point, the bible uses both terms, bara and asah, to refer to the same acts.

Again, the heaven and the earth are said to have been "created" in Genesis 1:1, but in Exodus 20:11 the heaven and the earth are said to have been asah'd. And again, the heavens and the earth are said to have been both bara'd, and asah'd, in the summary of Genesis 2:1-4.

It is claimed that bara means creation "ex nihilo", whereas asah means "formed from pre-existing material". But the heaven and the earth were both bara'd, and asah'd. Something cannot be both ex nihilo, and formed from pre-existing material... unless the terms are referring to the same action. And if it be argued that heaven and earth were created ex nihilo, and then afterwards formed to be what they eventually became, then the difference is a distinction without a purpose: What difference would it make to this discussion? Of course God started ex nihilo, nobody argues otherwise! The important thing is that the two terms are used to refer to the same things in the creation account, therefore the terms themselves provide ZERO DATA regarding the age of the universe.

If there is a "gap" of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, the terms bara and asah have nothing to do with it and inform us of nothing concerning that supposed gap. The gap would have to be proven by other means.

Fantastic post

[jfrog]

How long was adam in the garden of Eden before he fell? What was happening outside the garden during that time?

[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.