Young earth vs Old earth?

[Job 33:6]

And we just went through this discussion shortly ago, feel free to read our posts, but it is regularly and commonly the case that in the Old Testament, God creates things that are materially already there. And I gave a few examples above, for example, David asked God to create a clean heart in him in the Psalms, another example would be in the book of Isaiah where God creates a blacksmith, or God creates Jacob, or God creates Israel.

It is common that God creates things that already exist, and the reason for this is that, the Hebrew term bara someone noted above is commonly used to refer to taking things that are without order or are tohu, and giving them order or giving them meaning or purpose.

And so God can take objects that are chaos or disordered, or meaningless, or purposeless, or formless etc. and God can create them, and by the end of creation they are good.

And that's how God can create things even though they already exist. Which sounds really strange in English, but when you understand the historical ancient near East background, it's actually a really common way of describing creation and we see this same thing play out in many ancient near east texts.

And an easy way to understand this grammatically would be to think of an example like this:

In the beginning when I made a pizza (and the pizza was without form and empty, and darkness was over the face of the pizza), I said, let there be light.

If you just think of verse 2 as being in parentheses, It becomes a lot easier to understand grammatically.

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, (and the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters). God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Verse 2 is like a description of the background conditions. It's explaining the setup and the circumstances.

When I began to run a marathon, and it was raining and there was thunder and lightning, and the ground was soaking wet and it was dark out, and then I said, "let's do this".

The second part is a description of the conditions that God is looking at. The spirit is hovering over it. Looking at it in its formlessness and in its darkness, and then God says, okay, this is a problem, I'm going to make it good, let there be light. And it is light. That is the first thing that is actually created. And then we see the heavens created on day two and the Earth created on day three. And the hosts of creation are made on days 4 or 5 and 6 so that the Earth is no longer empty.

Genesis 2:1 NRSVUE
[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished (On days 1, 2, and 3) and all their multitude (on days 4, 5 and 6).

All the while verse 1:1 is just part of this introduction, it's setting the stage.

Or consider the NASB. And I'm going to take the word "when" as many translations say and I'm going to plug it in so that it is visible.

Genesis 1:1-3 NASB2020
[1] In the beginning [when] God created the heavens and the earth. [2] And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

And you just have to look at multiple translations to see it. And unfortunately, some translations write this out more clearly than others.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes.

I don't think any of that contradicts my assertion.

Yes, but the narrator is being consistent, usually (I'll give a counter example in a moment).
For instance, When Adam called his new helper "Woman", it wasn't talking about a different helper than that which was identified as "Woman" prior. Both are the same person. Same thing about Adam/Mankind. There wasn't a different species in Gen 1:27 as here:
[Gen 5:2 KJV] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

So it was with Heaven(s) and Earth. The narrator, as you say, already knew the subject, and knew the names, but he noted where the names came from (God) after He created each.

So what you've written here confirms what I was saying.

How does it confirm what you are saying?
Did you not say "If God made the Earth, and then He made something else that He called "Earth", that's confusing"?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the what you called mud is the same earth that God created at Genesis 1:1.
When that "mud" rose above the surface of the water, it was the same earth that is taking form - mountains, valleys, etc.
It's like having clay in your hand and shaping it into something. It's still clay.

God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas” Genesis 1:10
The dry land always existed, but because it was covered with water, it was wet. When it pushed up above the water's surface, it dried,
God called it earth.
The same earth that existed at the beginning.

Is that what you said?

Yes, but not necessarily only on earth, right?

Correct.
Wait a minute! Are you saying there were other objects besides earth. What other objects existed?

And if the source was only from a point away from earth (the sun), it would already have light separated from darkness, by the earth, unless the earth wasn't already formed and opaque (not void).

No. The reason God said let there be light, was because the earth was shrouded in darkness.
Genesis 1:2-5
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep

There was no light for God to separate.

Only after light reached the earth, did God call the light "day", and the darkness "night".

Light from the sun penetrated the dissipating ash and debris that is hanging above earth's atmosphere.
The light is called Day, and the darkness is called Night... Obviously we have night and day on earth.

Sure, if that helps:
[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

But we don't read scripture as if a single passage is alone. You talk about this later when you mention "context"

We don't ignore context, is true, but neither do we ignore chronology.
For example, we do not ignore a statement, run further down, form an idea, then arrange the reading to suit our idea.
There is chronological order, in the reading of Genesis Chapter one.
It begins with... In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Your claim however, is this:

Light was made first, before there was "Earth", and before there was "Heaven(s)". And "Heaven(s)" was made before "Earth". Keep in mind that I'm trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas about the universe in there, at least just yet.

You made two claims.

1. Light was made first, before there was "Earth", and before there was "Heaven(s)"
2. I'm trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas

However, both these claims do not prove to be true, because you just quoted Genesis 1:1, which says very clearly " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
If you are "trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas", then you must accept that the heavens and earth existed, first.

The only way you can dismiss that, is by "putting my own ideas", which is to claim that earth in Genesis 1:1 is not earth, but like the other poster here is saying, it's not talking about an already created earth.

So, which is it you want me to go with?

It mentions both the space and the things that space contains.

Are you saying that the contexts of "the heavens" never relate to the things in the heavens?

I don't believe I said "empty space". Neither did David. But David didn't say "stars and planets and galaxies", he said "Heavens" and "Firmament". If I give you a basket of fruit, when you write me a thank you, you might say, "Thanks for the basket", and I will understand you also mean the fruit that was in it. That's context.

Great!
Do you accept that heavens, in some contexts in scripture, do refer to all the things in the heavens combined?

Eh? No. Remember that I didn't say "empty" on purpose.

The thing that holds the earth above the water and sky and space and what they contain.

What thing holds the earth water and sky and space?

Could you answer the other questions, please.
What is space, and how did that blackness impress David? Psalm 8:3
When you read the phrase such as mentioned at Isaiah 57:16 and Jeremiah 32:19, since you do not just see empty space and mud, what do you see?

Yes, We get an example of that with the word "Day". It is used in the first two chapters of Genesis for daylight, for a single rotation of the earth (evening and morning) and for a six day period. Perhaps, in Ch 3, it even means a 1000 year period.

And that could be confusing to the reader. But the first verse doesn't say, "In the beginning God made the Day and the Night." It wasn't the focus of the passage. The Heavens and Earth were. The creation story (first version) is bracketed by these verses:
[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[Gen 2:1 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And backed up by Exodus 20:11.

Please elaborate. I'm missing your point.

It's not? The same word is used, except where a determiner is added (as in "the heavens" vs "heavens"). This is why I was adding the "(s)" at the end of heaven, because it is translated differently, even though the word is always plural in Hebrew.

Did you read Genesis 1:1, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20?
What is the expanse?
What is the expanse of the heavens?

Agreed.

People think a lot of different things about it when they read it.

True. I'm interested in what you Derf, get from it.

Right. Which is exactly what the word conveys in Vs 1

Therefore, it does not refer to space, where the heavenly hosts... that is planets and stars would exist?

Did it? Remember that the firmament where God put the stars started when the waters (on earth, as you would say) were separated. THEN God put stars and Sun and Moon in that firmament called Heaven(s). Later He put birds in it. That's why we don't want to lose the "s". Paul talks about being caught up to the "third heaven", which would no doubt be higher than the sky (heaven 1) and the stars (heaven 2).

Ah. I see. So, you believe there is no space above the firmament. That's all a myth in science.
Can yo please point out where, or which layer the sun, moon, and stars reside in this diagram?

Also, are you saying there is no space (heavens) above, which God created?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which one is biblical? explain why.

Young earth because of the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 & 11. If you add up the number of years from Adam to Abraham you get 1945 years. Abraham lived somewhere between 2100-1900 BC. So Adam was created roughly 6000 years ago.

 

[CoreyD]

And we just went through this discussion shortly ago, feel free to read our posts, but it is regularly and commonly the case that in the Old Testament, God creates things that are materially already there. And I gave a few examples above, for example, David asked God to create a clean heart in him in the Psalms, another example would be in the book of Isaiah where God creates a blacksmith, or God creates Jacob, or God creates Israel.

If David had a clean heart, God would not need to create one, so David did not already have a clean heart.
Something cannot exist, and at the same time not exist. That is illogical.

It is common that God creates things that already exist, and the reason for this is that, the Hebrew term bara someone noted above is commonly used to refer to taking things that are without order or are tohu, and giving them order or giving them meaning or purpose.

Do you understand what "create" means?
Can I suggest you do more research on this, and provide a source reference?

And so God can take objects that are chaos or disordered, or meaningless, or purposeless, or formless etc. and God can create them, and by the end of creation they are good.

Pardon me!!!?
You said...

God can take objects that are chaos or disordered, or meaningless, or purposeless, or formless etc. and God can create them

An object that already exists does not need creating.
It does not appear you understand what it means to create, and are mixing two words that have similar meaning, but yet have distinctions.

Taking something already in existence, and shaping it, is not creating the already existing object. It is making something out of what already exists.
For example, the potter does not create the clay. He shapes the clay into a vessel.
We can say he creates or makes the vessel, but he does not create the clay.

If the clay exists because of being created, we cannot say that shaping the clay is creating it.
The clay can look like this:

What is formed from the clay is a creation from the clay. It's not a creation of the clay.
So, are you saying the earth existed, but now needed shaping?

And that's how God can create things even though they already exist.

That is an illogical statement.
Something that exist is already created. It doesn't not exist.

Which sounds really strange in English, but when you understand the historical ancient near East background, it's actually a really common way of describing creation and we see this same thing play out in many ancient near east texts.

I speak English. You do to.. Or are you an ancient Near East human?
What information can you provide us with that supports your claim that the majority of readers today understand?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Only God can Bara. Your making pizza is not Bara, a creative act but a transforming act.

If God "is taking it and doing something with it" then He is not creating but transforming, as whatever "it" is, "it" now exists.

Bara refers to supernatural creation ex nihilo (Latin for “out of nothing”) but asah means to make out of pre-existing material.

Amen

If the book of Genesis is interpreted literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old.

The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly or scientific data is wrong.

Young earth creationists interpret Genesis 1–2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently?

Young earth creationists contend that the scientific data supporting a billions-of-years-old universe is being interpreted incorrectly. They view old-earth arguments developed by naturalistic scientists as primarily being a defense for Darwinian evolution. They contend that the dating methods are flawed, at best, and are implemented by scientists with bias, presuppositions, and agendas. A great number of old earth creationists reject Darwinian evolution btw.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are meant to be read literally, and young earth creationism is what a literal reading of those chapters presents. The Bible indicates that the earth is relatively young.

Which one do you think is Biblical?

what would be the purpose of giving time frames if those time frames weren’t intended to describe when things took place?

 

[Job 33:6]

If David had a clean heart, God would not need to create one, so David did not already have a clean heart.
Something cannot exist, and at the same time not exist. That is illogical.

But of course David still had a material heart, which is the point. It's not as though God created a material heart that was clean for David's body.

God created something and it had nothing to do with bringing matter into existence. In fact, David already had a physical heart.

 

[Job 33:6]

Taking something already in existence, and shaping it, is not creating the already existing object. It is making something out of what already exists.

Again, David already has a heart, God creates a clean heart in him, but that's not a statement about material creation.

God is perfectly capable of creating things despite them already physically existing.

And in fact, when we read Genesis, this is exactly what we see during the six days, we see water is moving around, waters, being gathered and separated etc.

These are all just instances of creation that have nothing to do with material coming out of nothing into existence.

Here's another example, Ezekiel 21:19
19 “And son of man, appoint for yourself two ways for the sword of the king of Babylon to go; both of them shall go from the same land. Create a sign; put it at the head of the road to the city.

Ezekiel is commanded to create a sign. In Hebrew that term is bara.

It is not as though Ezekiel is making a signpost appear out of nothing.

Again, this term bara, it always involves objects that already exist or objects that even when created have nothing to do with material reality. At least materially. And it never involves material matter coming into existence out of nothing.

So when we read Genesis, we shouldn't envision the Earth appearing out of nothing.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is an illogical statement.
Something that exist is already created. It doesn't not exist.

It isn't illogical at all. God created Adam and Eve, and yet Adam and Eve materially already existed, Adam was made of dust and that dust already existed.

Bara in the old testament never involves material matter coming into existence out of nothing.

So when God creates the heavens and the earth in Genesis, it shouldn't be an assumption that the earth materially came into existence out of nothing. That's simply not what that word, bara, means.

In fact, materially, the heavens and the earth are already there. And that's how it is in the Bible. Whether it's David's clean heart. Ezekiels sign post. People creating cleared land in Joshua, or God creating Jacob or Israel, or God creating a blacksmith in Isaiah.

In all circumstances and verses, when God creates, it always involves circumstances in which the physical matter is already there. And it never involves matter coming into existence out of nothing. Never. There is no instance in the old testament in which matter appears out of nothing. In the new testament it is talked about. But never in the old testament.

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. Isaiah 54:16

This passage, for example, is not saying that a blacksmith materially came into existence out of nothing. The blacksmith is materially already there.

And so it is with Genesis, when God creates the Earth, it's not saying that the Earth came into existence out of nothing, rather the material matter is already there. God is just doing something with that matter.

And with that said, we come to find the Genesis never actually talks about how long the Earth materially existed. Rather it only describes God taking what is already materially there and creating it. Just like with the blacksmith, God take something materially already there and makes the blacksmith. He does not make the blacksmith appear out of thin air. He takes something that already materially exists, and creates it.

 

[CoreyD]

But of course David still had a material heart, which is the point. It's not as though God created a material heart that was clean for David's body.

God created something and it had nothing to do with bringing matter into existence. In fact, David already had a physical heart.

David was not asking God for a physical heart.
Nor was God going to create a physical heart for David.

If your argument is that creating does not have to be material, then I don't get your point on how that matters to a discussion on Genesis 1.
Perhaps you had better make your point clear, because you were talking about earth, and it is a physical object.

Again, David already has a heart, God creates a clean heart in him, but that's not a statement about material creation.

God is perfectly capable of creating things despite them already physically existing.

So God creates two things - a physical and a spiritual.
What is your point?
There are two different thing. Not one and the same.

And in fact, when we read Genesis, this is exactly what we see during the six days, we see water is moving around, waters, being gathered and separated etc.

Moving water is not creating water.
If you want to say God created seas, then sure, but that's not creating the water that makes up the seas.

These are all just instances of creation that have nothing to do with material coming out of nothing into existence.

Yes, creating something out of something that already exists.... like creating matter out of energy is what God does, and we as well. Like creating a statue from clay.
What does that have to do with shaping an already existing earth?

Here's another example, Ezekiel 21:19
19 “And son of man, appoint for yourself two ways for the sword of the king of Babylon to go; both of them shall go from the same land. Create a sign; put it at the head of the road to the city.

Ezekiel is commanded to create a sign. In Hebrew that term is bara.

It is not as though Ezekiel is making a signpost appear out of nothing.

Okay.
What does that have to do with Genesis and the physical earth?

Again, this term bara, it always involves objects that already exist or objects that even when created have nothing to do with material reality. At least materially. And it never involves material matter coming into existence out of nothing.

So when we read Genesis, we shouldn't envision the Earth appearing out of nothing.

I'm totally lost as to what point you are trying to make.
Was the earth in existence when God's spirit was moving on the waters?
Can you answer yes or no, please, so that I have something to go on. Thanks.

It isn't illogical at all. God created Adam and Eve, and yet Adam and Eve materially already existed, Adam was made of dust and that dust already existed.

Ah. Now we're talking.... Absolutely not.
Why would you say that God created Adam and Eve, and yet Adam and Eve materially already existed?
Where exactly in scripture can one find that?

Bara in the old testament never involves material matter coming into existence out of nothing.

Source please.

So when God creates the heavens and the earth in Genesis, it shouldn't be an assumption that the earth materially came into existence out of nothing. That's simply not what that word, bara, means.

Source please.

In fact, materially, the heavens and the earth are already there. And that's how it is in the Bible. Whether it's David's clean heart. Ezekiels sign post. People creating cleared land in Joshua, or God creating Jacob or Israel, or God creating a blacksmith in Isaiah.

In all circumstances and verses, when God creates, it always involves circumstances in which the physical matter is already there. And it never involves matter coming into existence out of nothing. Never. There is no instance in the old testament in which matter appears out of nothing. In the new testament it is talked about. But never in the old testament.

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. Isaiah 54:16

This passage, for example, is not saying that a blacksmith materially came into existence out of nothing. The blacksmith is materially already there.

And so it is with Genesis, when God creates the Earth, it's not saying that the Earth came into existence out of nothing, rather the material matter is already there. God is just doing something with that matter.

And with that said, we come to find the Genesis never actually talks about how long the Earth materially existed. Rather it only describes God taking what is already materially there and creating it. Just like with the blacksmith, God take something materially already there and makes the blacksmith. He does not make the blacksmith appear out of thin air. He takes something that already materially exists, and creates it.

I'll wait for your sources, since claims don't mean much to me.

 

[o_mlly]

It isn't illogical at all. God created Adam and Eve, and yet Adam and Eve materially already existed, Adam was made of dust and that dust already existed.

However, dust had no immortal soul. The creative act is God breathing life into lifeless matter. You'll note that the website's facility of providing biblical references with the corresponding text does not support your claim:

Ezekiel 21:19
19 “And son of man, appoint for yourself two ways for the sword of the king of Babylon to go; both of them shall go from the same land. Create a sign; put it at the head of the road to the city.

The website's text facility:
19 “And son of man, appoint for yourself two ways for the sword of the king of Babylon to go; both of them shall go from the same land. Make a sign; put it at the head of the road to the city.

I am not a YEC and so have no position to defend. However, I think your exegesis may have a bit more of eisgesis in it that one should avoid.

[Psalm 51] A lament, the most famous of the seven Penitential Psalms, prays for the removal of the personal and social disorders that sin has brought. The poem has two parts of approximately equal length: Ps 51:3–10 and Ps 51:11–19, and a conclusion in Ps 51:20–21. The two parts interlock by repetition of “blot out” in the first verse of each section (Ps 51:3, 11), of “wash (away)”.

Psalms, PSALM 51

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

​

I submit that "removal", "blot out" and "wash away" are not creative acts but remedial as in correcting or improving something that has gone wrong (reforming).

 

[CoreyD]

You just have to look at other translations.

The nrsv, for example says, in the beginning when God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was formless and void.

Some translations say now, some say and.

Some translation simply say, when God began to create the heavens and the Earth, now the Earth was formless and void or and.

You have to look at many translations to see this, you can't just lock down on one translation.

And honestly it helps to look into the Hebrew as well. There's a debate in Bible translations and scholarship in which the text can be translated in construct form, or it can have a dependent or independent clause.

It's a grammatical debate.

Like saying, In the beginning when George began to study, his notebook was empty (The notebook was empty for some undetermined amount of time beforehand). Vs. In the beginning, George began to study. Now his book was empty (As though the notebook was empty as a product or result of him beginning to study).

The Bible can be translated correctly both ways. English can be correctly written both ways. And the original Hebrew text doesn't clarify on whether the text is saying one or the other.

And this has led to a lot of confusion and conflict over centuries of church history. That mean you can read Jewish scribes debating this topic a thousand years ago.

And so in order to see this, you have to look at multiple translations so that you can identify the distinction. Because if you only look at a couple select translations, you won't see the dependent clause alternative translation that helps highlight the issue.

And they are both legitimate translations. Or families of translations I'll say, because there are many translations in both groups.

Lets take out "now" and forget about "and".
Intro:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Story/Body:
The earth was... Genesis 1:2

If Genesis 1:1 is not an event, but an intro to what is about to take place. verse 2 says there was an earth before God actually created one, and that makes absolutely no sense, and defies logic.
Something cannot exist and at the same time not exist.

How do you explain that?

 

[CoreyD]

And we just went through this discussion shortly ago, feel free to read our posts, but it is regularly and commonly the case that in the Old Testament, God creates things that are materially already there. And I gave a few examples above, for example, David asked God to create a clean heart in him in the Psalms, another example would be in the book of Isaiah where God creates a blacksmith, or God creates Jacob, or God creates Israel.

It is common that God creates things that already exist, and the reason for this is that, the Hebrew term bara someone noted above is commonly used to refer to taking things that are without order or are tohu, and giving them order or giving them meaning or purpose.

And so God can take objects that are chaos or disordered, or meaningless, or purposeless, or formless etc. and God can create them, and by the end of creation they are good.

And that's how God can create things even though they already exist. Which sounds really strange in English, but when you understand the historical ancient near East background, it's actually a really common way of describing creation and we see this same thing play out in many ancient near east texts.

A figurative heart and a physical heart are two different things, so to say that God creating a figurative heart... that is not already there, since David wanted a heart that was clean, rather than the figurative one he had, from an existing one is not correct.
If your son or daughter asks you for a new bicycle, and you got them a new one, you did not make the old one new.

 

[Job 33:6]

A figurative heart and a physical heart are two different things, so to say that God creating a figurative heart... that is not already there, since David wanted a heart that was clean, rather than the figurative one he had, from an existing one is not correct.
If your son or daughter asks you for a new bicycle, and you got them a new one, you did not make the old one new.

But again, the point here that you're ignoring is that nothing material actually comes into existence. God isn't transplanting hearts. It's not about physical matter coming into existence.

 

[Job 33:6]

However, dust had no immortal soul. The creative act is God breathing life into lifeless matter. You'll note that the website's facility of providing biblical references with the corresponding text does not support your claim:

The website's text facility:
19 “And son of man, appoint for yourself two ways for the sword of the king of Babylon to go; both of them shall go from the same land. Make a sign; put it at the head of the road to the city.

I am not a YEC and so have no position to defend. However, I think your exegesis may have a bit more of eisgesis in it that one should avoid.

[Psalm 51] A lament, the most famous of the seven Penitential Psalms, prays for the removal of the personal and social disorders that sin has brought. The poem has two parts of approximately equal length: Ps 51:3–10 and Ps 51:11–19, and a conclusion in Ps 51:20–21. The two parts interlock by repetition of “blot out” in the first verse of each section (Ps 51:3, 11), of “wash (away)”.

Psalms, PSALM 51

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

​

I submit that "removal", "blot out" and "wash away" are not creative acts but remedial as in correcting or improving something that has gone wrong (reforming).

I understand that the word "make" is used as an English translation. But again, the Hebrew word in Ezekiel 21:19 is "bara" which is the same word in Genesis 1:1. I'm not eisegeting anything, I'm exegeting out of the Hebrew text. And English translations vary, but the Hebrew is what the text actually is written in, and thus it is more authoritative than translations. We aren't debating english translations, (which vary widely) we are debating the hebrew word bara and its usage.

In Ezekiel 21:19, Ezekiel is instructed to bara a sign post. A human being is the subject of the verb and he will create the stop sign. He will bara it. And Ezekiel obviously isnt making a sign appear out of thin air. He is using pre existing material.

And regarding Adam, again, nothing material comes into existence. The dust of the ground is already there before God creates Adam.

And I can repeat this all day until people come to terms with the reality of the old testament. Nothing material is coming into existence. And I can give dozens of examples throughout the old testament if I need to.

Again, the point here is that nothing material is coming into existence.

1 Samuel 2:29 is another example:

1 Samuel 2:29 NASB2020
[29] Why are you showing contempt for My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded for My dwelling, and why are you honoring your sons above Me, by making yourselves fat with the choicest of every offering of My people Israel?’

The Hebrew word in this verse is "bara" to create. The passage is saying, "creating yourselves fat".

Again, it's not about material origins. It's about getting fat. And anyone who does a word study on bara can plainly see this. It's just a fact of the text. God baras objects, people bara objects too. God creates. So do people. And never, in the old testament does it mean ex nihilo creation.

New testament authors describe ex nihilo creation of a later Greco roman context. But you'll never find this concept of ex nihilo creation in the old testament.

Again, the point here is that nothing material is coming into existence. In all of the instances of bara throughout the old testament, this is consistently true. The physical material is already there.

Another example:
Malachi 2:10 NASB2020
[10] Do we not all have one Father? Is it not one God who has created us? Why do we deal treacherously, each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?

But wait a second. God didn't create man ex nihilo. Not in Genesis, not in malachi, not anywhere. Men are born of mothers and Adam formed of dust. The physical material is already there.

Isaiah 54:16
Look! It is I who have created the blacksmith who fans coals in the fire, and produces a weapon for his purpose. It is I who have created the ravager to wreak havoc.

The blacksmith didn't appear out of nothing. He was already there in a material sense. He had a mother.

Isaiah 43:15
I am the LORD, your Holy One, Creator of Israel, and your King.

Isreal didn't appear out of nothing. The people were born of mothers. Its buildings, built out of stone. It's more of an idea than it is a physical thing to be created. Again, no material appears out of nothing.

Isaiah 45:7
I form light and create darkness, I make goodness and create disaster. I am the LORD, who does all these things.

Here God creates darkness. Darkness isn't a thing, it's an absence of a thing. No material objects coming into existence.

Amos 4:13
Look! The one who crafts mountains, who creates the wind, who reveals what he is thinking to mankind, who darkens the morning light, who tramples down the high places of the land— the LORD, the God of the Heavenly Armies is his name.

God creates the wind. This isn't about gas molecules appearing ex nihilo. It's about God crafting and molding and moving things around.

Psalm 89:12
The north and south—you created them; Tabor and Hermon joyously praise your name

God created the north and the south. Not about ex nihilo material creation.

Isaiah 43:1
But now this is what the LORD says, the one who created you, Jacob, the one who formed you, Israel: "Do not be afraid, because I've redeemed you. I've called you by name; you are mine.

God created Jacob.

Again, not about material creation. Jacob didn't appear out of thin air, he had a mother.

So we could go on and on and on and on and on. And this word "bara", when God creates, is not about ex nihilo material creation. Never in the text does it ever suggest an idea of matter appearing out of nothing.

So in Genesis, God creates or "bara" the heavens and the earth.

It is unreasonable to assume that Genesis 1:1 is describing the heavens and the Earth appearing out of nothing, as though Genesis were a natgeo documentary about the big bang. Rather, as the Bible demonstrates that in Genesis 1:1, the earth is already there before God begins to create it. It's just formless and empty.

 

[CoreyD]

But again, the point here that you're ignoring is that nothing material actually comes into existence.

According to Job 33:6 on an internet forum?
Of course I am ignoring that. Why should I not ignore a claim from someone who makes claims constantly without any reliable source backing her up?

Do you swallow everything every person opens their mouth and tell you, when they cannot support what they say?
Is that not gullible?
I'm not doing that.

So, you are saying no house came into existence; No shoes came into existence; No plant came into existence... right?
Please... please name one reputable scientist that agrees with you.
To originate means to begin to exist.
Did the areophane have an origin? Was there a time it did not exist?

God isn't transplanting hearts. It's not about physical matter coming into existence.

J. You make some wild absurd claims, I have to say.
When you support these wild claims, you would have said something worth considering.

You obviously can't support any of your claims, because I gave you the opportunity in one of my previous response to you, and you had nothing to say. So, it looks like we aren't going to be hearing anything factual from you at any time.
However, life is full of surprises. Surprise me.

 

[Job 33:6]

According to Job 33:6 on an internet forum?

You really think in Psalms, God physically made a new material clean heart appear out of thin air and then God transplanted that into David?