Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Yes, and I've never understood that. The literal translations correctly use the indefinite article, but even the best of the regular English translations mostly use the definite article when the indefinite article is already there by default.
Note how the Jews translate Genesis -- they correctly use the indefinite article.
I fully agree with you, metmom. In my life away from work, YEC versus OEC never comes up as an issue.
I know this doesn't surprise you because you're a strong Christian, but I'm still amazed at how many people want you to pray for them. Restaurant servers, people in hospital and nursing homes, people waiting in doctors' offices, even cashiers. When we see someone who looks troubled and offer to pray for them, they never turn us down. We pray for God to use us as witnesses, and he answers that prayer in great abundance.
On the other hand, my work life is quite different. All of my workers are very highly educated scientifically and are intellectually curious. I work with a few Christians, but not many.
Even though my co-workers know that I'm not a YEC Christian, the topic still comes up because they read news stories about teaching YEC in school (it's a hot topic in Texas) and they always point it out to me. the few who are the ardent atheists love to bring up the topic because they know how much YEC hurts the cause of Christ.
YEC is not something that I have to deal with on a daily basis at work, but it pops up at least every couple of weeks.
The extent to which YEC is an issue depends upon the type of people that you're around. I happen to work in a field where people are likely to talk about the issue and I've seen YEC become a stumbling block to becoming a Christian.
I do, too. I didn't look back at my post but, if I didn't say it, what I meant to say is that I'm a semi-preterist (also known as partial-preterist). I was already heading that direction, but Hank Hanegraff and R.C. Sproul pushed me along.
Semi-preterism means that most -- but not all -- of the "end time" prophecies were fulfilled when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The Olivet discourse is an excellent example -- it makes so much more sense when you realize that Jesus was talking about the end of the Jewish age (aeon) and not the end of the world.
The actual end-time prophecies have yet to be fulfilled. Joel's Trumpet is an excellent site. He's not a partial preterist, but he has dug deeply into the Bible about the end times -- not just Daniel and Revelation -- and has some very interesting ideas.
Again, semi-preterism is not a hill I would die on. It just seems to me to be the eschatology that fits the Bible best. Your mileage may vary and that's okay.
Would you like to buy an argument?
I always liked Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion as well.
C'mon... That link was to a FR YEC CrEvo thread posted by GGG -- right?... '-)
” Asah is used to refer to the creation of man in 16 and 26,..”
The two ideas, create and make are distinguished by two different words in Hebrew and translators for 400 years have recognized this difference by using two different English words.
No where in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), that I have found, (perhaps you have?) is the word bara’ used except to mean create or bring into existence by God something that did not already exist.
Nor is ‘asah used to refer to creating. Rather ‘asah is used to to mean perform, to do, bring to pass, function.
Isa. 45:18 is such an example where bara’ and ‘asah are used,
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed1 it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.”
Create and made, not create equals made. Over and over there is a distinguishing between the two, not an interchange of meaning.
God can ‘asah, humans can ‘asah, but only God can bara’.
That is how the words are used, one distinguished from the other and a Bible dictionary will recognize this difference as I pointed to in Strong’s.
These folks are not atheists. They are anti-theists. They are not intellectually curious, rather they have an axe to grind, and they are looking for a fight.
Actually, I'm a credentialed scientist - an organic chemist, in fact - with a real-live post-graduate degree from one of them big ol' university-type places, and I don't believe in evolution, nor in any of the philosophical rigmarole used to support it.
Tell us, what are you're scientific credentials?
Maybe you serve a different christ than Christians do, eh?
Well it is question that I’d like to look into more insofar as I can. I do note that Lamsa’s translation based upon the Peshitta follows the same pattern.
Besides the translation found at the link provided, another translation that uses “a” is the New World Translation (NWT).
That all depends on the context. For instance, not only is asah used to refer to the creation of man (day six) in Genesis 1:16 and 1:26, but as I said before, asah and bara are also interchangeably used to refer to the creation of heaven and earth (day four) in Genesis 2:4:
"4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made (asah) the earth and the heavens,"
The context suggests that God means he was both creating and making, and thus either word can be used to refer to day four of creation. And in any case, neither word undermines a straightforward reading of Genesis re: creation week.
==Isa. 45:18 is such an example where bara’ and ‘asah are used,
Again, it would seem that God is indicating that he was both creating and making during creation week. As such, He can use both bara and asah to refer to the same creation event.
PS Synonyms can either be identical or similar.
Do you not realize that many parts of the Bible are symbolic?
Do you actually think that we do not understand what a symbol is, so that when we read something like, "He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge", that we therefore believe that God is a literal bird?
Do you really think that we do not understand the difference between historical narrative and poetry, or the difference between a symbol and the thing represented?
In fact a symbol is only intelligible because it has first has a literal meaning, as your examples of the Passover and the Festival of Booths amply prove. Otherwise, you've got something like the Bill Cosby routine where God tells Noah to build an Ark, and Noah says, "What's an Ark"?
So, in our ancient historical narrative describing the Creation, prior to which Creation presumably there was no such thing as "day", the ancient author first introduces the term, and carefully defines it:
"4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."Now, please tell me, oh Great Cosby, what does "day" symbolize in its first use, and why bother defining it if everybody already knew what it was?
Do you care to posit a response to my question in #407? How would you, the ancient author, have made it any clearer if that's what you intended to convey?
Cordially,
From Genesis to Revelation, Alpha and Omega - "all that there is" unfolds to that final cause.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20
To God be the glory!
The bottom line to Schroeder (and me) is that YEC v OEC is a false dichotomy when we consider relativity and the inflationary theory. It is not an either/or.
Even though many are aware of General Relativity, they rarely finish the sentence: the universe is approximately fifteen billion years old from our space/time coordinates.
And conversely: the universe is approximately seven days old from the inception space/time coordinates.
Now there is a question.. what is all there is...
I have a BS in chemistry and a BS in chemical engineering -- both from major universities. I worked 16 years using both degrees, and owned an environmental consulting for 6 of those years. For the last 8-1/2 years, I've been in computer science.
We may not be that far off. While I believe that evolution produces some changes -- like a mutating virus or even a different species of seal -- I don't believe that all life evolved from, say, a single amoeba. My problems with evolution as it is taught today are scientific, not religious. God certainly created life, but Genesis really does not go into the how.
By attempting to make the two, create and made, synonymous you would be led to that conclusion though the heavens and earth were already created before day 4.
Where in Scripture is bara’ used to describe other than acts by God?
However ‘asah is often used of humans AND God. The two words are thus not interchangeable or synonyms. Where ‘asah is used for acts by humans bara’ cannot be and never is interchanged or treated as a synonym.
NO lexicon that speaks of bara’ and ‘asah treats them as interchangeable, as synomyms, Not one that I’ve looked at least amongst Gesenius, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Strong's, even the humble Smith's Bible Dictionary explains the difference under the heading “create”.
I know you the take the phrase where made is used as a repetition of the phrase where create is used but what translator interchanges the two words, make for bara’ or create for ‘asah, in any Scripture? Any at all?
Those phrases are not just two ways of saying the same thing if one word means something the other cannot and that is the case of bara’ and ‘asah.
The lexicographers, the translators, the dictionary makers are looking at the same context you and I are and they make a distinction in their use of ‘asah and bara’.
If there are substantial exceptions, kindly inform me.
==If the creation of heaven and earth took place on (day 4) where does that leave days 1-2-3?
Oops. That is what we used to call a brain fart in the Marine Corps. Earth = Day 1.
==By attempting to make the two, create and made, synonymous you would be led to that conclusion though the heavens and earth were already created before day 4.
See above.
I have run out of time at the moment. Will return with the rest when I come up for air.
All the best—GGG
Indeed.. in the "new" heaven and earth(Rev.) we (like God) may have no need of air to breath, water to drink and food to sustain us.. Heat to warm us, cool breeze to cool us, or entertainment to amuse us.. Space travel could be normal possible and exciting.. with no space ship even needed to protect and transport us..
The new H&E could be an ugh!.. "hoot"... Making "Star Trek" a cartoon.. and "Star Wars" primitive monkey shines... Home could be where ever we are.. And HELL could be a lack of all that.. imprisoned in a human-like body.. some-what as we currently are.. A virtual slave to grooming, upkeep, and entertainment... Oh! and gender.. Maybe gender will be a curse..
Yeah... "I'm guilty" of just having fun(here).. Woo Hoo..
Which is why I asked you that if God 'asah' man in Gen 1:26 why did he need to 'bara' him in Gen 1:27. If your position is true, how can God 'bara' man in v 27 if he already 'asah' him in v 26?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.