bara and asah

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

bara and asah

Postby Derek Potter » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:30 pm

Regardless of particular interpretations of Genesis, am I correct in believing that the word asah is applied just three times in the creation story and that it is better translated as "create" rather than "made"?. The reason I'm interested is because ages ago I heard something similar and I was slightly flummoxed to discover that, on this understanding, God "created" just three times, the first and final ones being the creation of matter and the creation of man in God's image, but the second one was not "life" as one might reasonably expect, but "animals". It then occured to me that the animals in question are just what people popularly mean by the word, i.e. animals with advanced CNSs - conscious creatures. It seemed therefore that there was an implicit recognition here of three classes of creation: the material, the mental and spiritual. Unfortunately, I have just found that the Discovery Institute recognises this idea - ouch! However, I'm glad to say they're quick to distance themselves from it, citing a different usage of the word, bara, by a much later prophet, Nehemiah, and imputing the interpretation solely to the absurd Gappists...

Anyway, this is what they say, and it's pretty well what I thought of myself

In Genesis 1:1, bara is used of the creation of heavens and earth.
In Genesis 1:21, bara is used of the creation of the first conscious animal (or nephesh) life.
In Genesis 1:27, bara is used of the creation of the first man, i.e. human life—made in God’s image.


Anyone know whether the idea is viable?

.
User avatar
Derek Potter
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:32 pm

Re: bara and asah

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:25 pm

Derek(UsefulIdiot)Potter wrote:Regardless of particular interpretations of Genesis, am I correct in believing that the word asah is applied just three times in the creation story and that it is better translated as "create" rather than "made"?. The reason I'm interested is because ages ago I heard something similar and I was slightly flummoxed to discover that, on this understanding, God "created" just three times, the first and final ones being the creation of matter and the creation of man in God's image, but the second one was not "life" as one might reasonably expect, but "animals". It then occured to me that the animals in question are just what people popularly mean by the word, i.e. animals with advanced CNSs - conscious creatures. It seemed therefore that there was an implicit recognition here of three classes of creation: the material, the mental and spiritual. Unfortunately, I have just found that the Discovery Institute recognises this idea - ouch! However, I'm glad to say they're quick to distance themselves from it, citing a different usage of the word, bara, by a much later prophet, Nehemiah, and imputing the interpretation solely to the absurd Gappists...

Anyway, this is what they say, and it's pretty well what I thought of myself

In Genesis 1:1, bara is used of the creation of heavens and earth.
In Genesis 1:21, bara is used of the creation of the first conscious animal (or nephesh) life.
In Genesis 1:27, bara is used of the creation of the first man, i.e. human life—made in God’s image.


Anyone know whether the idea is viable?

.


I can't hep on this Derek but I note you refer to the Discovery Institute - the very same DI that has procalimed in public and under oath in a court of law that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion and is purely science.

Oh dear!

Yet again the're caught lying.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: bara and asah

Postby Derek Potter » Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:48 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Derek(UsefulIdiot)Potter wrote:Regardless of particular interpretations of Genesis, am I correct in believing that the word asah is applied just three times in the creation story and that it is better translated as "create" rather than "made"?. The reason I'm interested is because ages ago I heard something similar and I was slightly flummoxed to discover that, on this understanding, God "created" just three times, the first and final ones being the creation of matter and the creation of man in God's image, but the second one was not "life" as one might reasonably expect, but "animals". It then occured to me that the animals in question are just what people popularly mean by the word, i.e. animals with advanced CNSs - conscious creatures. It seemed therefore that there was an implicit recognition here of three classes of creation: the material, the mental and spiritual. Unfortunately, I have just found that the Discovery Institute recognises this idea - ouch! However, I'm glad to say they're quick to distance themselves from it, citing a different usage of the word, bara, by a much later prophet, Nehemiah, and imputing the interpretation solely to the absurd Gappists...

Anyway, this is what they say, and it's pretty well what I thought of myself

In Genesis 1:1, bara is used of the creation of heavens and earth.
In Genesis 1:21, bara is used of the creation of the first conscious animal (or nephesh) life.
In Genesis 1:27, bara is used of the creation of the first man, i.e. human life—made in God’s image.


Anyone know whether the idea is viable?

.


I can't hep on this Derek but I note you refer to the Discovery Institute - the very same DI that has procalimed in public and under oath in a court of law that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion and is purely science.

Oh dear!

Yet again the're caught lying.

I don't think there's any question over the Hebrew words used. I was faintly amused that they took the straightforward interpretation that I do but instead of finding it reassuring in its philosophical depth, they dismiss it out of hand because they're committed to everything being "created". Another own goal for the fundies :/

As for their integrity, I'm sure they think it's science. That's why I'm thrashing around at the moment trying to get a clear sense of what is science and what isn't.
.
User avatar
Derek Potter
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:32 pm

Re: bara and asah

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:05 pm

Derek(UsefulIdiot)Potter wrote:As for their integrity, I'm sure they think it's science. That's why I'm thrashing around at the moment trying to get a clear sense of what is science and what isn't.
The muppets might be sincere, but I can't believe that their leaders like McIntosh don't know that it's not science.
Brian
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4172
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: bara and asah

Postby Derek Potter » Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:51 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
Derek(UsefulIdiot)Potter wrote:As for their integrity, I'm sure they think it's science. That's why I'm thrashing around at the moment trying to get a clear sense of what is science and what isn't.
The muppets might be sincere, but I can't believe that their leaders like McIntosh don't know that it's not science.
Brian

McIntosh's Law I can cope with. McIntosh's mind-set is completely obscure to me.
.
User avatar
Derek Potter
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:32 pm

bara and asah

Postby Dave Oldridge » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:07 am

On 16 Mar 2007 at 13:48, Derek(UsefulIdiot)Potter wrote:


Roger Stanyard wrote:
Derek(UsefulIdiot)Potter wrote:
Regardless of particular interpretations of Genesis, am I
correct in believing that the word asah is applied just three
times in the creation story and that it is better translated as
"create" rather than "made"?. The reason I'm interested is
because ages ago I heard something similar and I was slightly
flummoxed to discover that, on this understanding, God "created"
just three times, the first and final ones being the creation of
matter and the creation of man in God's image, but the second
one was not "life" as one might reasonably expect, but
"animals". It then occured to me that the animals in question
are just what people popularly mean by the word, i.e. animals
with advanced CNSs - conscious creatures. It seemed therefore
that there was an implicit recognition here of three classes of
creation: the material, the mental and spiritual. Unfortunately,
I have just found that the Discovery Institute recognises this
idea - ouch! However, I'm glad to say they're quick to
distance
themselves from it, citing a different usage of the word, bara,
by a much later prophet, Nehemiah, and imputing the
interpretation solely to the absurd Gappists...
Anyway, this is what they say, and it's pretty well what I
thought of myself
In Genesis 1:1, bara is used of the creation of heavens and
earth.
In Genesis 1:21, bara is used of the creation of the first
conscious animal (or nephesh) life.
In Genesis 1:27, bara is used of the creation of the first
man, i.e. human life—made in God's image.
Anyone know whether the idea is viable?

.


I can't hep on this Derek but I note you refer to the
Discovery Institute - the very same DI that has procalimed in
public and under oath in a court of law that Intelligent Design
has nothing to do with religion and is purely science.
Oh dear!

Yet again the're caught lying.

I don't think there's any question over the Hebrew words used. I
was faintly amused that they took the straightforward
interpretation that I do but instead of finding it reassuring in
its philosophical depth, they dismiss it out of hand because
they're committed to everything being "created". Another own
goal for the fundies :/

As for their integrity, I'm sure they think it's science. That's
why I'm thrashing around at the moment trying to get a clear
sense of what is science and what isn't.

Every SERIOUS Hebrew scholar I've asked about it suggests that
the phrase 'miyn bara' *from which the creationists have derived
"baramin" pretty much refers to what we, today, mean by
'species.'

There is, of course, nothing in Genesis or any other part of
scripture that states that species are etched in stone at
creation. That's them reading their own values into scripture.

--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

bara and asah

Postby Dave Oldridge » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:07 am

On 16 Mar 2007 at 13:48, Derek(UsefulIdiot)Potter wrote:


Roger Stanyard wrote:
Derek(UsefulIdiot)Potter wrote:
Regardless of particular interpretations of Genesis, am I
correct in believing that the word asah is applied just three
times in the creation story and that it is better translated as
"create" rather than "made"?. The reason I'm interested is
because ages ago I heard something similar and I was slightly
flummoxed to discover that, on this understanding, God "created"
just three times, the first and final ones being the creation of
matter and the creation of man in God's image, but the second
one was not "life" as one might reasonably expect, but
"animals". It then occured to me that the animals in question
are just what people popularly mean by the word, i.e. animals
with advanced CNSs - conscious creatures. It seemed therefore
that there was an implicit recognition here of three classes of
creation: the material, the mental and spiritual. Unfortunately,
I have just found that the Discovery Institute recognises this
idea - ouch! However, I'm glad to say they're quick to
distance
themselves from it, citing a different usage of the word, bara,
by a much later prophet, Nehemiah, and imputing the
interpretation solely to the absurd Gappists...
Anyway, this is what they say, and it's pretty well what I
thought of myself
In Genesis 1:1, bara is used of the creation of heavens and
earth.
In Genesis 1:21, bara is used of the creation of the first
conscious animal (or nephesh) life.
In Genesis 1:27, bara is used of the creation of the first
man, i.e. human life—made in God's image.
Anyone know whether the idea is viable?

.


I can't hep on this Derek but I note you refer to the
Discovery Institute - the very same DI that has procalimed in
public and under oath in a court of law that Intelligent Design
has nothing to do with religion and is purely science.
Oh dear!

Yet again the're caught lying.

I don't think there's any question over the Hebrew words used. I
was faintly amused that they took the straightforward
interpretation that I do but instead of finding it reassuring in
its philosophical depth, they dismiss it out of hand because
they're committed to everything being "created". Another own
goal for the fundies :/

As for their integrity, I'm sure they think it's science. That's
why I'm thrashing around at the moment trying to get a clear
sense of what is science and what isn't.

Every SERIOUS Hebrew scholar I've asked about it suggests that
the phrase 'miyn bara' *from which the creationists have derived
"baramin" pretty much refers to what we, today, mean by
'species.'

There is, of course, nothing in Genesis or any other part of
scripture that states that species are etched in stone at
creation. That's them reading their own values into scripture.

--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

bara and asah

Postby Anonymous » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:11 pm

I "hate" to break it to you Tony but the Kings James translation is not
exactly the most accurate going.
Anonymous
 

Re: More on 'bara'

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:16 pm

Joachim Schlick wrote:It’s a great time of year for appreciating the beauty and magnificence of God’s creative work in the design of the natural world
Magnificent? Maybe, but a bit too variable. Why tell the daffodils to grow to a convenient height, but order the grass to go crazy? Bloody incompetent, that's what I call it/him/her. Or have they an investment in scythes?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/quote]
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4172
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Ian Lowe » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:29 pm

blah, blah, blah, blah.

Hello Tony.

Goodbye Tony.

translation - apologies for anyone interested in reading Tony's tedious arguments, however, as the guy who actually feeds the meter around here, I am no longer willing to pay the cost of providing this jerk with a platform.
Ian Lowe
 

bara and asah

Postby Anonymous » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:38 pm

Joachim Schlick wrote:
Mike Brass wrote: I ‘hate’ to break it to you Tony but the King James translation is not exactly the most accurate going.

REPLY: Tens of thousands of experts on Bible translation disagree with you.

Actually my statement derives from theologians (including two Jesuit
colleagues, one of whom is a professor of near eastern studies) and Near
Eastern historians who know the original texts extremely well.

*All* the translations contain faults. Verbs and tenses are occasionally
mistranslated in the King James version, as are various phrases.
Transliterations are also present, which we can pick up today because of
our increased knowledge of Aramaic.

You may want to stop and consider why the King James version is *not*
considered to be terribly reliable by the Roman Catholic Church and why
the RCC does not use it today (hint: it is not because of historical
theological reasons).

You really need to stop this matrydom complex of yours, Tony. One of the
people (me) telling you that you are talking rubbish is a practising
Christian.
Anonymous
 

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:41 pm

Ian Lowe wrote:blah, blah, blah, blah.

Hello Tony.

Goodbye Tony.

translation - apologies for anyone interested in reading Tony's tedious arguments, however, as the guy who actually feeds the meter around here, I am no longer willing to pay the cost of providing this jerk with a platform.
Suits me - my scythe shop is now closed. Pity yours got a sale first, though :-))
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4172
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

bara and asah

Postby Dave Oldridge » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:35 am

On 20 Apr 2007 at 16:24, Joachim Schlick wrote:

Mike Brass wrote: I `hate´ to break it to you Tony but the King
James translation is not exactly the most accurate going.

REPLY: Tens of thousands of experts on Bible translation
disagree with you. The `Received Text´, on which the KJV is
based, is generally acknowledged as the original intended words
of the authors of the NT and the King James version is widely,
though not universally, acknowledged as the best word-for-word
translation. That does not necessarily mean it is 100%
infallible, but scholars would generally agree that its accuracy
is 99.99%, which is as good as makes no difference. You could
not refer me to even one translation that is more accurate and
tell me why it is. See for example:

http://www.thestreetpreacher.co.uk/kjv.php

What an unmitigated attempt at historical revisionism.

First of all the "Textus Receptus" was a collection and collation
of available Greek NT texts by Erasmus. It was as good as it got
at that time, probably, but it is by no means authoritative and
is no closer to being the original words of the authors of the NT
than any similar collection from that era. I do have, in my
possession, copies of the most ancient texts available and they
do agree substantially with the KJV. But I'd not give it
authority over other translations and certainly not over the
original language texts available. And I will not ignore
Sinaiticus or Vaticanus just because some idiot latter-day
heretics don't like them for some inscrutable reasons.
Nor is Alexandrinus to be ignored.

The KJV was a very good attempt and should not be disrespected.
But you should know that its translators not only used Erasmus'
text (which went through several editions) but relied heavily (as
do I) on St. Jerome's Vulgate. The real problem with KJV is the
same as that with the Vulgate. They are translations into
languages now dead.

To date, the least error-prone and most complete translation I've
found into modern English is the (via French) New Jerusalem
Bible.

--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest