abelcainsbrother wrote:DB I have no problem discussing this with you further but you must realize that we are not enemies because we disagree over a creation interpretation.We are brothers in Christ discussing these things and I think it is important to remember this.
And it is precisely because I consider you to be a brother in Christ, that I am spending time trying to show you what Scripture actually says. And I am especially concerned about a brother in Christ distorting what Scripture says in an effort to defend an unScriptural tradition.
The hebrew lexicon I looked at when I was researching this said that the hebrew word "male" can mean either fill or refill and not just fill.
I am going to challenge you on that.
Please give me the name of or link to that lexicon. I am unaware of any lexicon anywhere that translates male as "refill". I would like to check out the credentials of one that does.
I'll admit though that I prefer the Alexandrian text over the Byzantine Catholic text.For instance the KJV was translated from Alexandrian text,while these newer translations used the Catholic text(byzantine text) instead.
Going off on a tangent here, but you have it backwards.
1. The King James NT is based on the the Textus Receptus that Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) put together which is based on the Byzantine text family.
2. The 'modern' translations generally use the older Alexandrian Text for their translations of the NT.
However, the difference between the Alexandrian and Byzantine Greek NT Texts have very little bearing on the accuracy of the translations of the Hebrew OT Scriptures that we are discussing here.
But if there was a gap like I believe then they were not in this world but before man,neither did they co-exist because God created man and woman in Genesis 1 and "bara" is used which means they were new creations that had never been created before.
So... if we can demonstrate from science that neanderthals and modern humans coexisted, would that convince you that the Gap theory contradicts Science?
In Genesis 1:26 God also uses 'asah' to describe the creation of mankind. In fact God uses the word 'asah' in Genesis 1:26 before Moses uses the word 'bara' in Genesis 1:27.
In your opinion what is the implication of God using both 'bara' and 'asah' to describe the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27?
As far as your point about bara,asah and male I'd actually like you to elaborate on it more when you can.Because it would be interesting to me to compare interpretations.
Let's start with where we are actually pretty close.
bara means to make or create with the implication of creating something new. So when bara is used I think it is reasonable to understand that the use of bara means that something new is happening.
The two that you are way off on are asah and male
asah is a very generic word that means to do something or make something. asah does not have the implication of newness that bara does. But it is totally false to assert that asah means to recreate or restore something. You won't find that in any lexicon.
We discussed male over and over again. male means to complete or fill. Putting aside the meaning of the English word 'replenish' for the moment. It is totally false to assert that the meaning of male means to 'refill'.
About "bara" in Genesis 1:21 I told you bara is only used 3 times in Genesis 1 and that is one of them times but "asah" is also used with certian life like in Genesis 1:25 so that new life and not new life was produced by God.
Here's the problem with your interpretation...
The creation of the first animal life by God uses the word bara (which we both agree implies something new). On day 5 God creates marine life and birds.
On day 6 God makes (asah) animals that live on the land.
According to the Gap theory understanding of bara and asah, all marine life and birds were created (bara) as something new on day 5 and therefore according to Genesis 1, marine life and birds could not have existed in a hypothetical pre-Genesis 1:2 world.
Since the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5, then that means that anything that coexisted with marine life and birds would also have existed after day 5 and not in a pre-Genesis 1:2 world.
All by itself, the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 totally destroys the Gap Theory.