How old do you think the universe is?

[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.