Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:Abel, I'm not suggesting there is a contradiction. I'm making a more serious point. Ps 148:5 says the sun was created--bara. Gen 1:16 says the sun was made--asah. I'm not interested in some harmonization where you can try to preserve a distinction between the words. I've never claimed that the words are perfect synonyms. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. I said there was no difference in the meaning of the words in Gen 2:4. You asked how. I said because they have overlapping semantic ranges. Ps 148:5 demonstrates that. Again, you are free to try to claim words are being used in a technical sense in any given passage. There are rules for how you do that. I don't think you give them any thought, and I think you do so to your own detriment. Whenever you claim a word has a technical meaning, your position is immediately and necessarily weakened, if for no other reason than the fact that you have to give textual justification for your claim. That's just another reason, one of a great many, why I reject your interpretation of Gen 1 as unwarranted. But all of that is totally beside the point. I really hope that you can try to see the point I am making rather than reactively defending your own view. The only point I'm making is that bara and asah are synonyms in that they have a largely overlap semantic range, and Gen 2:4, they each bear a common meaning.


Jac,I'm not trying to be disrespectful but you said there is no difference between bara and asah and this is why I think there is disagreement.Now,I admit they are similar but I think you are wrong to believe there is no difference.

Here is why,Let's use Genesis 1:1 again.It uses the word bara when it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now if I asked you did God create the heavens and earth out of nothing? You would say yes based on John chapter 1 and yet eeverytime we see the word as ah or made God is building or working on something out of already existing materials orr things he had already created. And this is the difference in the words bars and as ah that I think must not be overlooked. This is not reading anything into the text or anything it is what we notice when we see the words bara and asah

Now keeping with this distinction we see the distinction in Genesis 2:4 where God both creates the heavens and earth but also made them too,and so the same thing applies to the earth,sun,moon,stars,etc like I said earlier.

I cannot control how you define bara and asah but yes if you believe three is no difference like you said above then you will read it like you do,but not if you notice the distinction as you read whenever the words bara and asah are used.

I think this is the real key and will greatly effect how we read Genesis.

Thanks for your explanation,you explain things so well.

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jac brought up asah of day 4 which sticks out to me.I see bara and asah when I read Genesis.But I'm wondering how Jac interprets Genesis 2:4 with both bara and asah in it.What is the difference?

There is no difference. The words are synonyms.

I wrote: I've never claimed that the words are perfect synonyms. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. I said there was no difference in the meaning of the words in Gen 2:4. You asked how. I said because they have overlapping semantic ranges.

• ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (Gen 1:1)
  καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς δύο φωστῆρας (Gen 1:16)

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think this is an interesting discussion from different viewpoints and while we may not all agree I still think this is a good discussion to have and I have definitely learned some things I did'nt know about like the HGM however IMO I don't like the HGM because of its restrictiveness and we must ignore other parts of the bible in order to hold yo the HGM.To me all scripture is inspired by God and I do not believe the bible can be fully understood if we can't use other scripture from other parts of the bible.

The bible yo me is like a big jigsaw puzzle and to get the full picture we must put scripture together in both the old and new testament.I know not everybody is interested in bible prophecy but it is especially important to do this in order yo understand or get the fuller picture, and yet things like bible prophecy cannot be done or understood if we went by the HGM.

Going by the HGM will actually cause a person to not understand the big full picture and understanding of God's word and even when it comes to creation there are many other places in scripture in different books that should be put together in order to understand creation,yet I now realize that every time I've done it on here to make a point it was ignored by those who go by the HGM.

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Abel, I'm not suggesting there is a contradiction. I'm making a more serious point. Ps 148:5 says the sun was created--bara. Gen 1:16 says the sun was made--asah. I'm not interested in some harmonization where you can try to preserve a distinction between the words. I've never claimed that the words are perfect synonyms. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. I said there was no difference in the meaning of the words in Gen 2:4. You asked how. I said because they have overlapping semantic ranges. Ps 148:5 demonstrates that. Again, you are free to try to claim words are being used in a technical sense in any given passage. There are rules for how you do that. I don't think you give them any thought, and I think you do so to your own detriment. Whenever you claim a word has a technical meaning, your position is immediately and necessarily weakened, if for no other reason than the fact that you have to give textual justification for your claim. That's just another reason, one of a great many, why I reject your interpretation of Gen 1 as unwarranted. But all of that is totally beside the point. I really hope that you can try to see the point I am making rather than reactively defending your own view. The only point I'm making is that bara and asah are synonyms in that they have a largely overlap semantic range, and Gen 2:4, they each bear a common meaning.


Jac,I'm not trying to be disrespectful but you said there is no difference between bara and asah and this is why I think there is disagreement.Now,I admit they are similar but I think you are wrong to believe there is no difference.

Here is why,Let's use Genesis 1:1 again.It uses the word bara when it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now if I asked you did God create the heavens and earth out of nothing? You would say yes based on John chapter 1 and yet eeverytime we see the word as ah or made God is building or working on something out of already existing materials orr things he had already created. And this is the difference in the words bars and as ah that I think must not be overlooked. This is not reading anything into the text or anything it is what we notice when we see the words bara and asah

Now keeping with this distinction we see the distinction in Genesis 2:4 where God both creates the heavens and earth but also made them too,and so the same thing applies to the earth,sun,moon,stars,etc like I said earlier.

I cannot control how you define bara and asah but yes if you believe three is no difference like you said above then you will read it like you do,but not if you notice the distinction as you read whenever the words bara and asah are used.

I think this is the real key and will greatly effect how we read Genesis.

Thanks for your explanation,you explain things so well.

So you are opting to claim that asah has a technical meaning rather than recognizing that word's common meaning. Fine. You can do that.You just have to show where your position is warranted and understand that you are severely weakening your position.

Beyond the fact that there's no warrant for Moses using asah in a technical sense, I think that there is good warrant for the claim that he is using it in the every day, normal sense of the word: God created (bara) the sea creatures (Gen 1:21). God made (asah) the land creatures (1:25). So you'd have me believe that God created the sea creatures ex nihilo but he fashioned the land animals out of preexisting material? REALLY? Or what about mankind? The text says that God created (bara) him (Gen 1:27). But the text also says that God made him (asah) only one verse earlier (Gen 1:26)!

The bottom line is that asah does not necessarily mean "to fashion out of preexisting material" and bara does not necessarily mean "to create out of nothing." The words are simply interchangeable. I'd encourage you to honestly consider whether or not you get this technical distinction between the two words from textual evidence (if so, where is it?) or if its being driven by a desire to see it to defend your gap theory. I'm afraid you're just reading the text in light of your theology, rather than letting the text inform your theology. . . .

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think this is an interesting discussion from different viewpoints and while we may not all agree I still think this is a good discussion to have and I have definitely learned some things I did'nt know about like the HGM however IMO I don't like the HGM because of its restrictiveness and we must ignore other parts of the bible in order to hold yo the HGM.To me all scripture is inspired by God and I do not believe the bible can be fully understood if we can't use other scripture from other parts of the bible.

The bible yo me is like a big jigsaw puzzle and to get the full picture we must put scripture together in both the old and new testament.I know not everybody is interested in bible prophecy but it is especially important to do this in order yo understand or get the fuller picture, and yet things like bible prophecy cannot be done or understood if we went by the HGM.

Going by the HGM will actually cause a person to not understand the big full picture and understanding of God's word and even when it comes to creation there are many other places in scripture in different books that should be put together in order to understand creation,yet I now realize that every time I've done it on here to make a point it was ignored by those who go by the HGM.

ACB,


I did read it and Kurieuo did a good job breaking down the HGM and the levels of strictness and I agree with the issues he brought up about it.I'm glad he explained it like he did and even about yom and how it can mean long periods of time and he used Genesis 2:4 too to make his point and I had overlooked it was in their too.Still I can definitely see how a case can be made that the 6 days of creation can be long periods of time instead of just normal days,I believe Moses already reveals the heavens and earth are old and not young and if so,then do we really need to stretch out the days too? I'm not sure but I can see how a case can be made that they can.I'm maybe open to the possibility we can have an old heavens and earth and stretch out the days to be long periods of time based on what all God did on certain days,this is a good point.

But I'm against uniformitarianism and see more catastrophism when I look at the evidence and the only reason to have it is because of life evolving,they always make sure at least some life survives through the extinction events and I know this is true because of " snow ball earth" when it was first proposed it was a completely frozen earth and based on Genesis 1:2 we Gap theorists watched and scientists because of evolution brought up evolution and would have rejected it if they could not show life survived it,so they weakened it for the sake of evolution and moved it so far out in time that when it happened hardly no life had evolved yet.
Also considering the science of today I'm not so sure I should accept the bbt because it is based on evolution and that is a problem for me,even though I can understand how it can fit into Genesis 1 and they make it fit well,but so can theistic evolutionists making revolution fit into Genesis. We all can't be right even though we each all have parts of the truth.

Also I have actually seen how the others with the exception of progressive creationism,but I have already seen how day age,YEC,theistic evolution and intelligent design have done against evolution but I have not seen how the gap theory or progressive creationism will do to evolution and I wish to see it someday and the sooner the church learns the truth we can.


Take a look at this post by Kurieuo. It explains different levels of strictness of the HGM. And included, is your issue about using scripture to interpret scripture.

Jac wrote:
Let me address some of the points you brought up. If I missed something important, let me know:

1. You claim that we can translate "God made [the sun]" as "God had made the sun." I disagree. If by "can" you mean that it is within the acceptable rules of grammar considered apart from context, then sure. But by that criteria, we can translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Now, if you want to talk about the translation of verbs and how that relates to this particular verse, we can. And perhaps after I make my case, you'll still disagree. But suffice it to say here that I do not think that we can translate the phrase as you suggest, and the fact that no one that I'm aware of has ever translated it that way should tell you something. Don't go ACB on me here and claim all those Hebrew scholars are wrong . . . (how is THAT for a rhetorical debate tactic! )

Jac wrote:
2. We had this little exchange:

The simple fact is that the sun comes after the creation of light. That is completely impossible to get away from. That's been my point the entire time.

And I disagree. It's not a simple fact. It's your interpretation. The sun existed on the first day. The sun is the source of light.

Jac wrote:
I overstated my case. What I should have said is that the simple fact is that the text depicts the sun coming into existence after the creation of light. THAT is what you can't get away from. And to demonstrate that is what was in my mind, look at my language later in the same post:

That which does not exist cannot produce that which does exist;
Evening/morning is depicted as existing before the sun, which is to say, evening/morning are depicted as having existed at one point in which the sun did not)
Therefore, the evening/morning cycle is not produced by the sun;
Side note: so produces the evening/morning cycle? Answer: the light, created on day 1

Jac wrote:
Now, if you are going to argue that even though light is depicted as coming first and the sun depicted as coming later that, despite the actual language of the text, that the text really wants us to understand that the sun was already in existence, then fine. You can make that argument. But, of course, you have to make that argument from the text. You don't get to appeal to things like the rotation of the earth to do it. And just offering a conclusion--a counter reading of the text--by claiming that we can interpret the fourth day to teach that "[the sun] just became visible" isn't sufficient. I don't need an interpretation. I need warrant for that interpretation.

Jac wrote:
3. Then you said:

You are the one practicing eisogesis, by saying that there was light other than the sun which existed on day 1. The text does not say that the light was something other than the sun. You just assume it was, because you wrongly believe the sun didn't exist until the 4th day.

And this I just disagree with you on, and very strongly. The text says there was light. Three days later, the text says there was the sun. It is not eisogesis to say that if there is no sun, then it cannot produce the light. Nor is it eisogesis to say that the light was there without the sun, because that is exactly what the text depicts.

Light first.
Sun later.

Jac wrote:
4. Then you said:

I can say that ordinary days didn't exist if there was no sun, for the same reason we can't use the earth spinning on its axis as an argument.

You've contradicted yourself here. The second part is right. We cannot talk about the earth spinning on its axis. As you point out, that's modern science. Moses wouldn't have known about it. In just the same way, you canNOT say "that ordinary days didn't exist if there was no sun." That statement assumes that the sun defines the day based on the rotation of the earth. And what I am telling you--and if you respond to nothing else, please just respond to this--is that the definition of a morning/evening is the presence or absense of the light. Look at these two statements side by side:

The definition of a morning/evening is the presence or absense of the light
The definition of a morning/evening is the rising or setting of the sun

Jac wrote:
Now, MODERN SCIENCE tells us, due to the rotation of the earth, that these sentences mean the same thing. But exclude modern science. Imagine a world in which light exists apart from the sun, that the sun is certainly a light giving body such that when it is there, night is not, but that it comes with the light, governing and marking it--it does not determine the light. That shouldn't be a hard picture to imagine. Maybe it is easy for me because I have a five year old daughter. She thinks the sun wakes up first thing in the morning. Do you see that? Morning comes. It starts to get light outside. And the sun comes up! The, then sun gets tired. It starts to get dark. And that tells the sun that it is bedtime.

Do you see that difference? If so, you should be able to see that those two statements are NOT the same thing.

Jac wrote:
5. Finally, you want to talk about the meaning of boqer and ereb. I grant that part of their meaning is "sunrise" and "sunset" respectively, that is, that those ideas are within those words' semantic range. But that is not the same thing as saying that evening (ereb) means a sunset. What it means is just that: the evening. You can, of course, use the word to refer to the sunset, to the time of the day in which the sun sets. But there is no 1:1 correspondence there. That's just not how definitions work.

Jac wrote:
Given all that, I won't retract my claim of dishonesty. I'm not, in that, leveling a charge of malice, because I'm not sure tha the dishonesty is intentional. Moses would certainly know an ordinary day if the sun didn't exist. He'd look for an evening/morning cycle based on the light that God created on day 1. To claim that Moses couldn't know such because the light necessarily presumes the sun is correct scientifically, but we aren't reading science into the text. So the argument is dishonest because it claims not to rely on science but then smuggles it in through the backdoor

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Jac3510 wrote:Rick, I'm not going to respond to your post. The reason is that I find myself restating the same case over and over again and you aren't interacting with my positon as I hold to it. This notion you've invented of "some special light that [God] removes and puts back every day" sounds stupid because it is stupid. That's not what I have ever said, it's not what I'm saying, it's not what I hold. You can try to say that's what my words mean all you want. I am informing you that you have misinterpreted my words for the ten millionth time, and I don't know how many times to restate my case in different words. You're just not seeing it, and that's fine. You don't have to. But I can assure that our failure to communicate on this has colored everything else, so there's not reason to respond to it any further. You aren't even critiquing my position, so what's the point? Meh.

• That absence/presence of light is because of either a light God created, or God Himself is the light.
  In order for there to be an absence/presence of light, God has to remove the light(if the light is a creation), or God has to remove His presence(if His presence is the light).

Jac3510 wrote:I've not given up on responding to you Rick. I said I wasn't going to respond to that post because it didn't represent my position. As to your question, you went wrong here:

• That absence/presence of light is because of either a light God created, or God Himself is the light.
  In order for there to be an absence/presence of light, God has to remove the light(if the light is a creation), or God has to remove His presence(if His presence is the light).

Ignore the struck out material. That's in a different universe from what I'm saying. Anyway, I'm not saying God created "a" light, as if there was some placeholder light source. I'm saying He created light. I'm not saying God has to remove the light for there to be evening anymore than I would say God has to remove the ocean for there to be lowtide in the tide cycle. You're making it sound like three days of special creation of light. I've repeatedly said that the first three days are exactly the same as the last three days, including the nature of the light. The first three days are just like today, including the nature of the light.