How do we know Genesis was intended to be a metaphor?

[Justin108]

Other than our current understanding of science clearly contradicting Genesis, what reason is there to believe Genesis was written as a metaphorical account of creation?

[Justin108]

The text in English (correctly) says "made" the Hebrew is "asha"
The text in English (correctly) does not "create" in Hebrew its "bara"

The two words are not the same, they are not absolute synonyms in English and they are absolutely not synonyms in Hebrew.

Is there anything you contest in the above?

I agreed earlier in post 52 that "make" is indeed the correct word, yes. So now that we have reestablished this... can you please finally tell us what "make" means in this context? All you keep telling us is that "make does not mean create". Fine. Then what does "make" mean?

The text most certainly does not use both words, it uses one, therefore your implying by using the forward slash that the two words are either interchangable or that the text uses both is inaccurate.

I am not implying both are used. I am merely stating both as options. If you are so horribly against my use of the word "create" then excuse me...

So we can once again establish what has been established over and over again that the correct word here is "make". Can you please explain to us what is meant by Genesis 1:16 stating that God "made" the luminaries and stars on day 4? What does "make" mean in this context? Now I wish to be absolutely clear here. I am NOT asking what make does not mean so please don't reply with "make and create don't mean the same thing". I get that. I am asking what "make" does mean?

the text does not use the word create but make (which is perfectly acceptable in English) and that the Hebrew for "make" and "create" carry different but related meanings.

As has been established, I acknowledge that "create" and "make" mean different things. So please explain to us what "make" actually means in the context of Genesis 1:16. Explain to us in simple terms what God did with the stars on day 4?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 80 by rikuoamero]

Why not just stick to the word in the text and accept the meanings I have presented as per the original?

Why is 'yes, the verses in question do say "made" not create and that word has a specific meaning in Hebrew. I am confused as to why nobody can simply type the above. What is the objection to saying "Yes you are right, on this point"?


JW

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 82 by JehovahsWitness]

A few of us have acknowledge that yes you are right, on this point, and are waiting for your follow up. What is the significance of God making, instead of creating the stars on the forth day?

[bluethread]

I simply said it was a function as a result of the sun. I did not give specifics, without the sun it doesn't matter how much the earth is spinning there is no day and night. I did not talk about rotation around the sun either so your Uranus point is moot.

No need to mention how it is useful as that wasn't the question asked nor statement made we can discuss that in the science and religion section if you wish.

My point is that, in a world of tyrannical demigods that kill and enslave people on the basis of a world view where every year is the same subject to random conflict between disparate forces restrained only by a single unifying principle that only the demigod can effect, I do not think the lack of a detailed explanation of the "greater light" in the sky is significant. What is important is the presentation of a world view where time is linear, not circular, and the elements interact in a fairly predictable manner, subject to the influence of any and all humans. Though this is for the most part taken for granted these days. It is a revolutionary concept and without it all is divination and mystical powers, and science can not work.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 82 by JehovahsWitness]

Why is 'yes, the verses in question do say "made" not create and that word has a specific meaning in Hebrew.

Like Justin up above, you're not telling us what the word does mean. All you've told us is what it is not. So I'm completely at a loss as to what JW thinks the passage in Genesis 1, with regards to Days 3 and 4, is about, if apparently we can't use the word create.

Apologies are in order though - in an earlier comment of mine, I said that JW had provided a translation of the Hebrew word for make along with a list of synonyms. That actually was DanieltheDragon.

JW - it's not only myself who is at a loss as to what you mean and want to say. At best, I can understand that the word 'create' is not used in reference to Days 3 and 4. I am apparently told that the original Hebrew word does not mean the same as 'create'.
From my side of the table, I am at a loss as to why you are hung up over this word. I don't see how changing the word in the English translation makes a difference. My argument is that Day 3 has an event happening that, per science, cannot happen before the event that is talked about as happening on Day 4.
Quibbling over the word 'create' or 'made' or whatever does not alter my argument.

[JehovahsWitness]

A few of us have acknowledge that yes you are right, on this point, and are waiting for your follow up. What is the significance of God making, instead of creating the stars on the forth day?

I actually entered the discussion here (see below).

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

Can plants grow without sunlight?

Why do you ask?

Should be obvious. Genesis 1 says that plants are created and grow on the third day, yet stars are not created until the day after.

Genesis says nothing of the kind. Please provide the quote that says "the stars were not created until the day after".

JW

The implication was that the bible was scientifically inaccurate BECAUSE it stated that light/stars were created after plants. My point was to establish that this was inaccurate since the bible makes no such statement.

I think that has been done. It doesn't get "undone" if that alternative is not explained. If it's established that I didn't run over my dog, the conclusion isn't reversed because I don't tell you who did. The bible isn't scientifically inaccurate when it states that the stars/light were created after plants because that is not what it says. I do believe I that proposal was what is commonly called a "straw man" argument?


JW

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Well make and create are still synonyms even in Hebrew.

No they are not.

Yes they are


bara (135b); a prim. root; to shape, create:—
NASB - brings about(1), clear(2), create(6), created(32), creates(1), creating(3), Creator(4), cut them down(1), make(2), produced(1).

Tell me the difference in this sentence


I made a piece of art.

I created a piece of art.

Are they conveying different meanings?
Are they conveying similar meanings?

Can some words share si liar meanings even though they are different words?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 86 by JehovahsWitness]

The implication was that the bible was scientifically inaccurate BECAUSE it stated that light/stars were created after plants. My point was to establish that this was inaccurate since the bible makes no such statement.

Okay, JW. Let's try to get down to brass tacks.
How about instead of using the word create, we refer to the problem of Days 3 and 4 as this?
Day 3 - Plants come into existence via some method or phenomenon.
Day 4 - Stars, moon and sun come into existence via some method or phenomenon, following the event(s) of Day 3 in succession in time, in a linear fashion.

The current scientific consensus is that what is referred to up above is impossible, given that Earth formed out of gas, dust and other materials that was acted upon by our sun's gravity, over a period of millions of years. So plants could not have existed on Earth in a moment of time before the coming into existence of the sun. Not only do most plants require sunlight to make (most of) their food, there wouldn't have been a planet for them to grow on without the sun.

Is there anything at all up there that you are in disagreement with? If yes, please explain yourself to the best of your ability.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 87 by DanieltheDragon]

No they are NOT!

In English we can sometimes use the same word interchangably but not always (Do we create or make a cake? When do we make a mistake and when do we create one? Do we create or make a phonecall?). In Hebrew there are clear distinctions between the two, ("bara" can encompass the idea of "make", but "asah" does not carry the meaning of "create" - see below)

[Replying to post 54 by JehovahsWitness]

Here is the Hebrew word in question and all possible context. I trust the readers will be able to understand.


#6213a.
עָשָׂה
asah (793c); a prim. root; do, make:—
NASB - accomplish(8), accomplish much(1), accomplished(4), accomplishing(1), achieve(1), acquired(6), act(22), acted(12), acts(7), administer(1), administered(1), administered*(1), apply(1), appointed(3), artificial(1), attain(1), bear(4), bearing(2), behave(1), bestowed(1), bring(4), bring it about(1), bring about(1), bring forth(1), brought(1), brought about(4), brought forth(1), build*(1), built(3), busy(1), cared(1), carefully(3), carefully observing(1), carried(3), carries(2), carry(8), carved(5), cause(3), causing(1), celebrate(19), celebrated(12), celebrates(1), certainly carry(1), certainly make(1), certainly makes(1), certainly perform(2), commit(8), commits(7), commits and does(1), committed(35), committed and practices(1), committing(6), construct(3), deal(30), deals(1), dealt(22), desisting(1), destroy*(2), developing(1), did(310), did not do(1), displease*(1), do(479), do as has been done(1), do as i have done(1), doer(1), doers(1), does(48), doing(63), done(327), done you will do(1), done*(1), earns(1), established(1), establishes(1), evildoer*(2), evildoers*(1), execute(24), executed(10), executes(5), executing(1), exercise(1), exercises(1), exerted(1), fared(1), fashions(1), fit(1), follow(1), followed(1), fulfill(1), fulfilling(1), gather(1), gave(4), give you over(1), grant(1), granted(1), greedily(1), happen(1), happened(1), held(2), help(1), hold(1), imitate(1), imparted(1), inclines(1), indeed perform(1), industrious*(1), inflict(1), inflicted(1), inlaid(1), instituted(2), introduced(2), keep(1), kept(1), labored(1), laborers(1), made(369), maintain(6), maintained(1), make(200), make your ready(1), Maker(13), maker(4), makes(19), making(5), obey(1), observe(33), observe them carefully(1), observe to do(2), observe carefully(2), observed(12), observes(5), offer(35), offered(4), offering(1), oppressed*(1), ordained(1), perform(31), performed(23), performers(1), performing(2), performing the made(1), performs(3), practice(9), practice*(1), practiced(4), practices(6), practicing(1), prepare(26), prepared(19), preparing(2), present(5), presented(1), produce(4), produced(5), provide(13), provided(2), provides(1), punish(1), put(1), put into effect(1), put forth(1), ready(1), reign*(1), remade*(1), responsible(1), sacrifice(2), set(3), set*(1), show(16), showed(6), showing(2), shown(9), shows(3), spend(1), surely show(1), take action(6), thoroughly deal(1), treat(3), tried(1), trim(1), trimmed(1), truly practice(1), use(1), used(4), wage(2), waged(2), work(12), worked(7), worker(2), working(3), workmen*(5), works(6), woven(1), writing(1), wrought(2), yield(5), yielded(1), yields(1).
#6213b.
עָשָׂה
asah (796b); a prim. root; to press, squeeze:—
NASB - handled(3).

bara (135b); a prim. root; to shape, create:—
NASB - brings about(1), clear(2), create(6), created(32), creates(1), creating(3), Creator(4), cut them down(1), make(2), produced(1).

Even the briefest of examinations of the meanings of the words reveals that "asah" carries a VASTLY wider meaning that "bara"; but what is missing from the application of the word "asah" is... "create" They are then not true synonyms.


JW

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 84 by bluethread]

My point is that, in a world of tyrannical demigods that kill and enslave people on the basis of a world view where every year is the same subject to random conflict between disparate forces restrained only by a single unifying principle that only the demigod can effect, I do not think the lack of a detailed explanation of the "greater light" in the sky is significant. What is important is the presentation of a world view where time is linear, not circular, and the elements interact in a fairly predictable manner, subject to the influence of any and all humans. Though this is for the most part taken for granted these days. It is a revolutionary concept and without it all is divination and mystical powers, and science can not work.

It is not about Gen 1 being detailed. Someone said Gen 1 does not contradict science, I disagree. Whether you think that disagreement is important is another subject. I don't think the bible needs to be in line with science because it features magic as a main component of how it views and describes the world. God magicked creation, if you believe that who cares what science says.

It's like the flood story, if you believe it is a factual account why bother trying to prove it's scientifically possible?