Comments on: Affirming 6x24-hour days, using

[Marshall (Janzen)]

@AdrianB

If you read it plainly, the earth isn’t actually made. Rather it’s already there. Just under the waters.

I agree with this part. Already in Genesis 1:2 the earth was formless and void, presumably under the waters. The realms are divided, not created from nothing. The land becomes visible when God gathers the waters to one place. The waters move to one side so the land can appear and dry out on the other side.

Again, it’s a picture of things happening, not just God making pronouncements. And we don’t have to find a way to match these events to anything in prehistory. Just let it tell the story in ancient terms.

[AdrianB]

Sure. I agree that there are things physically happening.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Tim

@Dan_Eastwood

Established members can add their own titles by editing their profile, but Mods title for newcomers if they want one.

We can? I just tried playing around with it, and the only “title” (as opposed to “name”) I could give to myself was “Initiative” or “Regular” (whatever those mean in this context).

Huh, so I’m wrong about that. Thinking back that was an intentional decision by SJS to prevent abuse. Anyway, people can PM mods about it.

[John_Harshman]

@AdrianB

One topic is about what something does. What it’s purpose is. Why it is important to you.

Another topic is about what something is, how it was made, what is it made of. How was it manufactured.

And these are two different things. And you have to draw a line in the sand on this and separate these things in your mind when you approach Genesis. You can’t confuse these two things as if they are one.

Agreed. But can’t a single story cover both topics? Note that nobody is actually claiming that the story tells us how it was made or what it’s made of (with exceptions). What it tells is is that it was made, and on a particular day. Sometimes where it was made and where it was placed. But the two topics are separate pieces of the story as written. That the second topic is introduced right after the first doesn’t tell you that the two topics are one.

@AdrianB

Darkness isn’t a material object by anyone’s standard. I agree that God made something here, but the point is that it is non-material.

Why is that the point? It doesn’t matter that it’s non-material, whatever that means.

@AdrianB

The point I’m driving home is that, to “make” does not inherently imply anything material. It doesn’t imply anything manufactured or built or materially constructed etc.

No, not inherently. What it means depends on context. You can make a rude gesture, and you can make a sandwich. I imagine that you can untangle the various meanings of “make” to determine just what happened in either case. Same with the sun.

@AdrianB

The text says God made the sun to do things (to rule, to give light, to mark time). It never says God made the sun out of things.

You’re focusing on the wrong argument. Whether God made the sun out of something or not, or what that something might have been, is irrelevant. The question is whether, on Day 4, God made the sun, and in the “made a sandwich” sense, if the meaning was at all ambiguous. He can both make it and assign it purpose at the same time, so the second doesn’t preclude the first.

@AdrianB

Sure, a word can have multiple meanings (thank you for at least acknowledging that what I’m saying is a possible meaning). That’s why we look at the context to see which meaning (function ontology or material ontology) actually fits.

You seem to be looking at a different and less immediate context. I don’t think that works.

@AdrianB

n Day 4, the actions listed are:

No, those aren’t actions. Those are purposes. The action comes before that: he makes various lights and places them in the firmament. Then he tells the audience (angels?) what they’re for.

@AdrianB

None of these have anything to do with what the sun is made of.

Agreed. Nothing we’re talking about has anything to do with what the sun is made of, and I have no idea why you keep harping on it, unless it’s intended as a strawman.

@AdrianB

Scripture itself regularly uses ‘create’ (bara) in non‑material ways.

Does the creation on Day 4 even use “bara”? I wouldn’t know, but I’ve been told not. Are you by chance a Hebrew scholar?

[John_Harshman]

@Marshall

I should probably say how I deal with the discrepancy between what the account describes and what we know from science.

You could, but I don’t see any need to. If it’s actually a story dictated or inspired by God, it might be that explaining the actual nature of the universe was not one of his purposes for the story. One can distinguish the content of the story from its intended message.

@Marshall

Both this thread and its parent have ballooned due to several contributors posting each idea in duplicate, triplicate, or worse.

Sorry if I’m included in that. I have to keep repeating my points because the people I’m talking to persist in ignoring them, and I have to keep repeating my questions for the same reason.

@AdrianB

It is described as a space between the waters above and below.

It is not. It’s described as a ceiling, a solid barrier.

@AdrianB

The only things the text tells us are what the raqia is for:

No, it also tells us what sort of object it is, translated as “firmament”.

@AdrianB

Putting lights in the raqia is not the same as making those lights.

True. Making the lights is the same as making them. Putting them up is something else, but it also happens, and it also isn’t the same as “assigning function”.

@AdrianB

Further, Genesis 1 never describes God forming humans.

No, but it does describe him as making them. Doesn’t say how, but it does say that he did, and on which day.

@AdrianB

And even there, “dust” is debatably not a material description.

Next you’ll be telling us that a rib isn’t either.

@AdrianB

Sure. I agree that there are things physically happening.

Excellent. What things, in particular on Day 4?

[AdrianB]

@John_Harshman

Agreed. But can’t a single story cover both topics?

Sure, it could. But it comes down to what the story says.

@John_Harshman

Does the creation on Day 4 even use “bara”? I wouldn’t know, but I’ve been told not. Are you by chance a Hebrew scholar?

Are you suggesting that God isn’t actually creating anything on day 4? I’m not sure why you’re repeating this.

I’m pointing to terms like bara and asah because those are the words used for “create and make” which define the actions during the 6 days.

@John_Harshman

He can both make it and assign it purpose at the same time, so the second doesn’t preclude the first.

He could, but of course the text doesn’t say that.

Remember your previous comment here:

@John_Harshman

It sounds as if God is telling us what they’re for when he makes them and sets them in place.

That’s right. Because indeed, “making them” is to define their role. That’s part of the lexical range of the Hebrew terms bara and asah (to make).

In Hebrew, “making” something often is the act of defining its role or purpose.

The verbs bara (“create”) and asah (“make/do”) frequently refer to:

appointing

assigning a function

commissioning

establishing a role

setting something in its proper place

They do not require material manufacturing.

So when the text says God “made” the lights and “set” them in the raqia to rule, to separate, and to mark seasons, that is the act of making.

The “making” is the functional assignment, not a description of physical construction.

Establishing the function is not some afterthought or second event to creation. What you’re observing is in and of itself the creation. And yes God moves things around as well, like moving the water off of the dry land. But the point here is that the earth is already there, as are the sun and the moon.

Your own wording, “God is telling us what they’re for when he makes them”, is exactly how Hebrew creation language works.

[AdrianB]

Genesis uses asah in verse 16, if you want a direct answer for this as well.

[John_Harshman]

@AdrianB

But it comes down to what the story says.

Yes. We apparently have a fundamental disagreement on what the story says.

@AdrianB

Are you suggesting that God isn’t actually creating anything on day 4?

No. I’m saying that you rely on translating the Hebrew word “bara”, and I’m questioning whether that word is actually present in the Day 4 text. Still, I would be very interested to know what you think God is creating on Day 4. I think he’s creating the sun, moon, and stars, but you think otherwise. What?

@AdrianB

He could, but of course the text doesn’t say that.

Again, we disagree on whether the text says that.

@AdrianB

Because indeed, “making them” is to define their role.

Just not true. That’s within the range of meanings of “making”, but we have to determine the actual meaning from context. And I claim that when talking about the sun, “defining its role” is not a reasonable interpretation of “making”, even though it could be the meaning when referring to some other things.

@AdrianB

So when the text says God “made” the lights and “set” them in the raqia to rule, to separate, and to mark seasons, that is the act of making.

Not true. If he made them and set them to rule, that’s two actions, making and setting, which if the same thing would be redundant, and the third is a statement of purpose, which is not an action.

Still, are you now claiming that God moved the sun from some original position to within the firmament on Day 4?

@AdrianB

But the point here is that the earth is already there, as are the sun and the moon.

Where were the sun and moon before they were put into the firmament?

@AdrianB

Your own wording, “God is telling us what they’re for when he makes them”, is exactly how Hebrew creation language works.

I’m afraid you have misinterpreted my statement. I’m saying he makes them, and he also tells us what they’re for, two separate actions, all during the same day.

@AdrianB

Genesis uses asah in verse 16, if you want a direct answer for this as well.

So all that about “bara” was not relevant. Mind you, it wouldn’t be relevant even if the story had used it. Again, context.

[AdrianB]

Ok so let’s make this simple. If I make someone governor, or make them to govern a state, am I physically constructing their body?

No.

So if God makes the sun to govern the day, where is it in the text that you see God materially making or manufacturing the sun, as if out of light or some other substance?

If I said that I made the someone out of clay, or bones and flesh, that would be more in line with a material creation. But to say that I made someone to govern, or I made them to rule, that’s a statement about status and their role.

And we see this in Scripture all the time.

Example:

Isaiah 54:16

“See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc”

God’s not making blacksmiths and destroyers out of clay here. It’s functional. Not material.

@John_Harshman

So all that about “bara” was not relevant. Mind you, it wouldn’t be relevant even if the story had used it. Again, context.

I’ve gone over bara and asah multiple times. And indeed asah is used on day 4. And bara describes the 6 days as well in verse 1:1.

[John_Harshman]

@AdrianB

So if God makes the sun to govern the day, where is it in the text that you see God materially making or manufacturing the sun, as if out of light or some other substance?

Nobody says he has to be physically making anything or that we can say what it was made out of. All I say is that he is causing it to exist. Before Day 4, no sun. Some time in Day 4, there’s a sun. Try dealing with that instead of a strawman of your own devising. A nice example, since you seem to rely on them: If I say that I made a sandwich for lunch, does that mean that I already had a sandwich and just decided that its purpose was to be my lunch? I think you know, based on context, that the answer is “no”. All your examples, on the other hand, are chosen from situations in which the word means something else, and you also know that’s the case based on context.

@AdrianB

I’ve gone over bara and asah multiple times. And indeed asah is used on day 4. And bara describes the 6 days as well in verse 1:1.

In other words, you’re agreeing with my statement?

I have to say it’s very annoying, not to say rude, that you never engage with my arguments, just repeat what you said before.

[AdrianB]

@John_Harshman

All I say is that he is causing it to exist. Before Day 4, no sun. Some time in Day 4, there’s a sun.

In terms of physical matter, that’s not necessarily true. Materially, the players are already on the scene. The formless earth is there, it’s just covered with water, for example. Humanity is made in the image of God, but that doesn’t mean that in a material sense that they were not previously there. The deep is there before God begins doing anything.

In material terms, these things are already there.

And, regarding the sandwich analogy, I don’t see how “I made a sandwich for lunch” can be equated to “I made the sun to govern”. To govern is a role or function. “for lunch” is not the sandwich’s purpose, job, or assignment, it’s just the time of day when you’re going to eat it, like a time period.

I’m talking about roles and functions. You’re talking about a time of day in which you will eat.

[John_Harshman]

@AdrianB

In terms of physical matter, that’s not necessarily true.

It’s not clear what that means. What does that mean? And please start answering my questions instead of ignoring them.

@AdrianB

What makes your interpreted context different from the context of examples that I’ve provided?

Your examples are of people or (in a couple of examples) events, not inanimate objects, all people that we know were not actually created at the time the verse is speaking of or events that do not get made in the sense that objects are made. The sun, on the other hand, is an object, and the obvious interpretation is that it’s made in the ordinary sense. Like I said: I made a sandwich. What did I mean by that? Context.

[AdrianB]

Your sandwich example uses the material meaning of ‘make,’ but Genesis uses the functional meaning, the same meaning we use when we say ‘make someone captain.’

The text says the lights were made to rule and to mark seasons. That’s a job, not a construction process. Context decides, and the context in Genesis is functional, not material.

And let’s look at your sandwich analogy here.

In your sandwich example, ‘for lunch’ isn’t a job or a function, it’s just the time of day you plan to eat it.

But in Genesis, the lights are made to rule and to separate, those are actual roles.

So your analogy uses a different meaning of ‘for’ than the one Genesis uses.

And I don’t see why it matters if my analogies use people or not. There is no rule that I’m aware of that God can assign functions to people but can’t do the same for objects.

Psalm 104:19 says God ‘made the moon to mark the seasons.’ The moon is an object, and the verb ‘made’ is clearly functional, not material.

Is that what you’re asking for?

[John_Harshman]

@AdrianB

Genesis uses the functional meaning, the same meaning we use when we say ‘make someone captain.’

How do you know this?

@AdrianB

The text says the lights were made to rule and to mark seasons. That’s a job, not a construction process.

Yes, and I said I made a sandwich for lunch. Same situation, and yet you interpret it differently. Why?

@AdrianB

In your sandwich example, ‘for lunch’ isn’t a job or a function, it’s just the time of day you plan to eat it.

Now you’re being a rules lawyer. I made my sandwich for eating. Now what?

@AdrianB

And I don’t see why it matters if my analogies use people or not. There is no rule that I’m aware of that God can assign functions to people but can’t do the same for objects.

Of course he can. But in the case of the sun the assignment of functions is a separate piece of the text from the making.

@AdrianB

Is that what you’re asking for?

No. I’m asking you to tell me what that means. I need a clear statement of what actually happens on Day 4.

[AdrianB]

@John_Harshman

I’m asking you to tell me what that means. I need a clear statement of what actually happens on Day 4.

What’s wrong with the answer that God assigns the sun, moon, and stars their roles, to rule the day and night, to separate light from darkness, and to mark seasons, days, and years. That’s exactly what the text says happens.

Seems like a straightforward answer to me.

What happens is, God assigns the sun a role to mark the seasons, days, and years. It means Day 4 is about God giving the sun, moon, and stars their jobs, not about Him building them out of materials.

[AdrianB]

@John_Harshman

Of course he can. But in the case of the sun the assignment of functions is a separate piece of the text from the making.

And where do you see this in the text?

[John_Harshman]

@AdrianB

What’s wrong with the answer that God assigns the sun, moon, and stars their roles, to rule the day and night, to separate light from darkness, and to mark seasons, days, and years. That’s exactly what the text says happens.

First, that’s not all that happens. You forget the part where God says “let there be lights in the vault of the sky”. The part you quote is the statement of their purpose (not necessarily assignment, depending on what you mean by that), which is not the same as the “let there be” part. It’s an explanation of the reason for creation, not the creation itself.

The other problem is that I still don’t know what you think actually happens during “assignment of roles”. Is it anything other than God saying what they’re for? That wouldn’t actually be doing anything. “Giving their jobs” is not a change in their actual status, just identifying, to the angels or perhaps to the reader, why he made them.

[AdrianB]

@John_Harshman

First, that’s not all that happens. You forget the part where God says “let there be lights in the vault of the sky”.

This doesn’t actually imply that the lights don’t materially exist before God sets them in the vault.

[reichmaj (Jeffery Reichman)]

Yep pretty much. What get’s me is we you make (asah) in the same way as Hebrew (Moses) used it. I made John the catcher. and Susan the pitcher I made Michael the district manager to implement x,y,and z. I made the birdhouse the nesting place for the birds. In none of these example am I creating or making anything of material note.

[AdrianB]

@John_Harshman

The other problem is that I still don’t know what you think actually happens during “assignment of roles”.

The assignment of roles is God declaring what the lights are for. (And God said).

I don’t see a need to overcomplicate things here. Maybe that seems unsatisfying to you. But that’s all the text says.

God does move the sun and moon into the firmament. So they’re moved into this ordered cosmos. Moved to their place. Declared to their roles.