Science Proves Creation

ZNP said:

Which in turn proves that we went from nothing to the universe, the definition of creation.

Click to expand...

It doesn't "prove" any such thing; it merely states it.

Speedwell said:

It doesn't say that in the Bible.

Click to expand...

17 (as it is written, A father of many nations have I made thee) before him whom he believed, even God, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the things that are not, as though they were.

ZNP said:

17 (as it is written, A father of many nations have I made thee) before him whom he believed, even God, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the things that are not, as though they were.

Click to expand...

Which does not rule out creation ex materia.

Speedwell said:

Which does not rule out creation ex materia.

Click to expand...

Which then leaves the question -- where did the universe come from? Unanswered. The Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 is based on the word Bara which means to create out of nothing.

ZNP said:

Which then leaves the question -- where did the universe come from? Unanswered. The Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 is based on the word Bara which means to create out of nothing.

Click to expand...

LOL!

ZNP said:

Which then leaves the question -- where did the universe come from? Unanswered. The Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 is based on the word Bara which means to create out of nothing.

Click to expand...

Not according to Strong's concordance via H1254 - bara' - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV)

Tinker Grey said:

Not according to Strong's concordance via H1254 - bara' - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV)

Click to expand...

Create by cutting down, is that referring to whittling? Planing, carving?

ZNP said:

Create by cutting down, is that referring to whittling? Planing, carving?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but I would imagine so.

Tinker Grey said:

I don't know, but I would imagine so.

Click to expand...

would that apply to gene splicing

ZNP said:

would that apply to gene splicing

Click to expand...

If you have a point to make, make it.

Bottom line: Bara doesn't exclude creation ex materia.

My point is that several Bible commentaries say that this term used in Gen 1:1 refers to creating something out of nothing. Strong's on the other hand gives a different meaning and I am trying to understand that. You were the one that brought this up, not me.

ZNP said:

My point is that several Bible commentaries say that this term used in Gen 1:1 refers to creating something out of nothing. Strong's on the other hand gives a different meaning and I am trying to understand that. You were the one that brought this up, not me.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that creation ex materia was once widely accepted. It was suppressed by the early church out of fear of it giving way to Gnostic dualism, but is still believed by some Christians today. Creation ex nihilo is not essential doctrine and is only absolutely insisted on by those trying to beat the dead horse that the cosmological argument has become.

Not interested in either point. I am not wedded to a theory, just want to know what the Bible says. However, if the term creation is referring to ex materia, it still does not explain how the universe came into being.

Speedwell said:

It doesn't "prove" any such thing; it merely states it.

Click to expand...

The proof rests on the axiom that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. So, from the vantage point of one who eschews such an axiom, no, it does not prove any such thing.

Since this is not in the Christians-only section, I probably would not have selected that word choice, personally.

ZNP said:

My point is that several Bible commentaries say that this term used in Gen 1:1 refers to creating something out of nothing. Strong's on the other hand gives a different meaning and I am trying to understand that. You were the one that brought this up, not me.

Click to expand...

With respect, you implicitly brought it up by offering a definition that apparently was inaccurate. @Tinker Grey was simply correcting an error in the subject you had raised.

Ophiolite said:

With respect, you implicitly brought it up by offering a definition that apparently was inaccurate. @Tinker Grey was simply correcting an error in the subject you had raised.

Click to expand...

The fact that there are multiple interpretations does not make one incorrect.

ZNP said:

The fact that there are multiple interpretations does not make one incorrect.

Click to expand...

But it does not answer the question of why one of those interpretations is the one you favor.

ZNP said:

The fact that there are multiple interpretations does not make one incorrect.

Click to expand...

You are being disingenuous. Your implication was that the meaning you gave was the only one. Multiple meanings dilute the point you seemed to be trying to make. If you did not intend that then it was sloppy writing; if you did intend it, it was deceitful.

Speedwell said:

But it does not answer the question of why one of those interpretations is the one you favor.

Click to expand...

The one I used is the one I am familiar with, I was not familiar with Strong's definition of that word.

Ophiolite said:

You are being disingenuous. Your implication was that the meaning you gave was the only one. Multiple meanings dilute the point you seemed to be trying to make. If you did not intend that then it was sloppy writing; if you did intend it, it was deceitful.

Click to expand...

I was not aware that there was another definition. I have always understood creation to be the creation of the universe out of nothing, the verse in Romans where God speaks not being as being. There is nothing disingenuous. You are being insulting without cause.