Common Knowledge? Was it written in the original English? Or perhaps its an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew translation of an Aramaic. If so, how do you know what words were used?
Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)
- Thread starter Arioch
- Start date
Common Knowledge? Was it written in the original English? Or perhaps its an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew translation of an Aramaic. If so, how do you know what words were used?
It states QUITE CLEARLY that your differentiation between "create" (bara) and "make" (asah) is specious.
They are, as in English, synonymous.
Therefore your claim that the two lights made on the fourth day were already in existence (although that too is contradicted by Genesis) is false.
THEREFORE, we are back, once again to "where is the second light in the day if, as you claim, the Sun was created on the first?" What was created on the fourth day as "the greater light to rule the day"?
Why do we not have two Suns in the sky if your claim is correct?
I would say that some scripture must be taken literally or it is fairly useless. I am thinking of the scriptures I have read and if they were meant to be entirely metaphorical I am not sure they would 'work' or be that meaningful. And what would a parable be, for example, if 'Jesus', the teller, is himself 'really' a metaphor.
As far as Genesis, well, it is already assumed that God can make a universe so he could probably make it in an odd order. I can't see this as a specific balking point.
,Dywyddyr,
Because they say it does?
Show me where they actually show that the two words are interchangable,
that doesn't amount to their own opinion.
The words, and meanings are there for anyone to see, you can't change that.
These people refuse to acknowledge the true meaning of the word ''replenish'' most probably because it completely contradicts the whole of their belief system.
It's not contradicted by genesis according to the meaning of the words, you are lieing.
Wrong! There is no ''therefore''.
The luminaries were not created on the fourth day.
''God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.''
Comprende!
Tell me if you see anything resembling ''creation'' (ex-nhilo)
jan.
Because they say it does?
Show me where they actually show that the two words are interchangable,
that doesn't amount to their own opinion.
The words, and meanings are there for anyone to see, you can't change that.
These people refuse to acknowledge the true meaning of the word ''replenish'' most probably because it completely contradicts the whole of their belief system.
It's not contradicted by genesis according to the meaning of the words, you are lieing.
Wrong! There is no ''therefore''.
The luminaries were not created on the fourth day.
''God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.''
Comprende!
Tell me if you see anything resembling ''creation'' (ex-nhilo)
jan.
I quoted the relevant parts: here, again -Because they say it does?
Show me where they actually show that the two words are interchangable,
that doesn't amount to their own opinion.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make
Are you truly that dishonest?
And you're still making a false claim.
What? Another diversion?
Only if you ignore facts.
Ah! here we go. Jan resorts to false accusations. Again.
I do. And I have linked you to a relevant page that supports my contention. All YOU have on your side is a translation dictionary and a lack of actual knowledge of the language.
We ALSO have Arauca's statement (as a student of Hebrew), post #93, which you carefully ignored.
Therefore you are one lying, despite your accusation of me.
Jan:
I notice you ignored my last post.
Do you think that Genesis is not a creation story, but rather a story by which God simply "revealed" things that already existed?
Once again, doesn't that go against your advice that we should read Genesis literally?
I notice you ignored my last post.
Do you think that Genesis is not a creation story, but rather a story by which God simply "revealed" things that already existed?
Once again, doesn't that go against your advice that we should read Genesis literally?
Sorry James, I was going to respond but got side tracked.
I think it is both.
I think if we want to understand something like the bible, it is more
beneficial to read it literally.
''In the begining God created the heavens and the earth'' is different to
''Let there be light, and there was light'', to God ''formed'' Adam out of the dust. I can see how we can just lump them all into one specific action, but I don't see how that kind of thinking will develop our understanding of the overall thing.
jan.
In the original English, right?
We have to make the best sense we can, will the tools we have to work with. Right?
jan.
Yiou can't?
God "formed" Adam?
You sure?
Genesis 1:
Genesis 2:
Oh, form = make = create.
Hard luck.
In your case a working brain and some honesty would help.
If you don't have the original meaning, how are you supposed to believe it literally? You don't know what literally is. What you're really doing is substituting your own interpretations for what you consider to be the Word of Dog.
Isn't one of our tools the ability to recognize metaphor and allegory?
God is describing His forthcoming action as ''make'', most probably because the form of man is nothing new to Him.
The author describes it as ''created'' because from his perpective there were no people on the planet previous to that, then all of a sudden there were people. IOW, from his perspective it was ex-nihlo.
Only, he didn't use the word create, nor does the act of creation figure
in the many different uses of the word, that I have looked at.
Maybe there are some that do, who knows.
jan.
AlexG,
''Word of Dog''?
Is that really necessary?
jan.
''Word of Dog''?
Is that really necessary?
jan.
Oh, is this yet another spurious justification?
One minute you're telling us we should read the bible literally (especially with regard to the usage of "make" and "create") and NOW you're claiming that on this occasion that's not the word we should be looking at.
Who didn't?
I've given the quotes, here's the link.
http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1.htm
More dishonesty from you.
How about
are meant to be taken literally, at least portions of them, but the humans who heard from God may not always have interpreted correctly the words or images God showed them.
Jan:
But you are going out of your way to read in distinctions that aren't apparent in the text and aren't apparent in ordinary usage - e.g. "make" vs. "create". Also, you're apparently introducing extraneous information that isn't in the bible - e.g. the claim that the Sun existed before God "revealed" it. A literal reading of Genesis has nothing to support such suppositions. Any sensible person would read it that God created the Sun.
I notice that you're still dodging the question of what the lights are that God created on day 4. Why?
But you are going out of your way to read in distinctions that aren't apparent in the text and aren't apparent in ordinary usage - e.g. "make" vs. "create". Also, you're apparently introducing extraneous information that isn't in the bible - e.g. the claim that the Sun existed before God "revealed" it. A literal reading of Genesis has nothing to support such suppositions. Any sensible person would read it that God created the Sun.
I notice that you're still dodging the question of what the lights are that God created on day 4. Why?
Dywyddyr,
On the contrary.
I am reading the bible from a literal point of view.\
I am specifically looking at the words, using their meanings to get a better understanding.
All the translations I've read use ''formed'' not create.
jan.
On the contrary.
I am reading the bible from a literal point of view.\
I am specifically looking at the words, using their meanings to get a better understanding.
All the translations I've read use ''formed'' not create.
jan.