A Question to the Creationists

[shernren]

The fact is that shernren believes in a Paul Tillich type of abstraction of God and if you don't believe me ask him yourself.

You made my day mark! I laughed heartily for a few minutes after reading this sentence.

I'll see you on the forums. Have fun notlistening - you're getting better at it everyday.

shernren

 

[rcorlew]

Darwinism is poison to Christian theology. You have cited no examples you have just made your assertions without any a substantive argument to back it up. Ad hominem attacks are fallacious and you are guilty of it in every post, in fact it is at the heart of your argument.





Nonsense:

From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought it into being through the Word.​

That is intelligent design, Darwinism is distinct in that it denies that the universe and life was the result of an idea from the mind of God.

By man death has gained its power over men; by the Word made Man death has been destroyed and life raised up anew. That is what Paul says, that true servant of Christ: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. Just as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,"​

Paul here has in mind the Fall as described in Genesis, there is no rational reason to conclude a figure of speech since that interpretation did not exist in Christian or Jewish thinking prior to Darwinism.



Clearly this is an appeal the the geneologies as historical and beyond question. I have showed you this repeatedly and you simply ignore it.



You reject it's historical content and reduce it to figurative language that neither the author or the New Testament writers do. You have abandoned the Scriptures in favor of a worldly philosophy that does nothing but attack the veracity of Scripture.



I have no question only the real proof as evidenced throughout the thread that you abandoned the Scriptures and Christian theism in favor or Darwinian evolution. You have no criteria for sound hermeneutics that would lead one to conclude figurative language in Genesis, Romans or I Corinthians. You do not so much as address these points but instead cling to you ad hominem attacks with both hands.



I have talked about how to properly interpret the Scriptures and you simply ignore the reasoning. I do sympathize with unbelievers who struggle to find the evidential merit both of God's natural revelation and supernatural activities in redemptive history. What I don't have any sympathy for is the false doctrine of an a priori assumption with regards to human lineage. It's heretical and deeply divisive. What you are supporting and zealously arguing for is a philosophy put in flimsy theological terminology.



I think you should, I think all the TEs should and leave the debate to the common forum. Then perhaps we can have a more in depth discussion of the scientific and theological issues without running every curious creationist out of here which is what this kind of thing does. Talk about poisoning the well, you guys carpet bomb every thread that gets started in here and then pretend that I'm trying to poison the well for creationists. I would really like for them to have to opportunity to explore the scientific and theological issues without you barging in here with these endless ad hominem attacks.



You don't believe in creation or intelligent design, I know you don't because you never stop arguing against it. You have been challenged to come up with a defense for attacking a foundational belief in God as Creator and Designer and you ignored it. If Genesis 1-3 and the requisite geneology of Genesis 5 are fictional or figurative by what criteria do we affirm Genesis 12-49?



Yea right, you ask questions in circles as a matter of course. If this were something substantive then it would be different. You go after me personally in every post, in every paragraph. That's a fallacious line of reasoning that stands alone as your argument.



What I said is that you have abandoned theology, the Scriptures and sound doctrine in favor of Darwinism. Get it right next time.



The book of Genesis is historical in it's character, content and the clear language of the text. No one was questioning this until Darwinism. The only real doctrinal issue is the Fall and that is inextricably linked to the need for justification. There is nothing remotely theological about your arguments, they are fallacious, divisive and contentious.

What is even worse you are twisting the clear meaning of the New Testament by forcing your presuppositions on Peter, Luke, Paul and Jesus. You deny this on a superficial level but at the heart of the argument you never stop doing it. The creation account is literal and written to be taken in that way, as was the Fall, the Deluge and the destruction of Bable. The rest of the Scriptures affirm this in no uncertain terms and the vain rationalizations of modernist revisionists will not change the clear, consistent and originally intended meaning.

Your false assumptions betray you at every turn and yet you never abandon them. You must be taking them on faith because you have produced nothing in the way or proof or evidence. The fact that you resort to these ad hominem attacks is all the proof I need that you have simply run out of real world arguments.

Have a nice day
Mark

You know Mark, you are one tenacious dude!

It is not Darwinian Evolution per se that poisons Christianity, it is the presupposition of first cause which is the only part of the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary models that contradict outright anything Christian.

I really have not seen any true violation of Christian Fundamentals by any of the TE's on this forum, I am not saying that there are not any, but I have not seen them if there are. I may have a few differences with some of the TE's, but they themselves do not deny God as first cause and design with a purpose (again, not that I have seen). Mostly, they understand the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation into the view of the process of Creation we can come up with, I have no problem with that.

The thing that strikes me as odd about what I struggled with even from a young age, and what you (Mark) struggle with, is that everybody knows that God is a God of process, if you are hungry you pray for food, if you are broke you probably pray for a job, have a medical problem you probably pray for the doctors who treat you; those all represent processes that God has instituted to care for Creation. God would not be all knowing if He did not take into consideration the future needs of His Creation by addressing them in His design, as a result we get doctors for healing, economics to ensure the basics of life are met (food, clothes, water) and even so well that His Creation (us humans) will even share with complete strangers through sacrifice (tithes and offerings) and charities. Even in Salvation there is a process, first there had to be sin, then a Savior born of a virgin, live a sinless life, fulfill many many prophecies, be betrayed by those whom He came amidst (Jews), be crucified as a final perfect atonement for sins, and then be raised unto life again; it is a process that was completed once and for all!

With all of the aforementioned processes taken into consideration, why then must Creation be the only example of a "non-process" used by God?

 

[mark kennedy]

You know Mark, you are one tenacious dude!

I have to be.

It is not Darwinian Evolution per se that poisons Christianity, it is the presupposition of first cause which is the only part of the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary models that contradict outright anything Christian.

Close, at one time there was science (literally knowledge) and theology was considered the queen of the sciences. Then there were natural philosophers during the Scientific Revolution who never mistook the laws of nature and they're naturalistic reasoning for science itself. Eventually there was growing acceptance that science could accept only naturalistic explanations, then, the assumption became that there is nothing beyond the physical universe. No miracles, no God in the personal or literal sense, no angels, no heaven, no hell....zip....zero. Names like Spinoza, Hegel, Tillich, Dewey come to mind of the top but there countless others.

That's Darwinism, the a priori assumption of purely naturalistic causes. Sir Issac Newton in his Principia explained the process that became modern science is in terms of cause and effect.

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.(Sir Isaac Newton, Principia)​

Darwinism is not a cause and effect philosophy, there are no experiments, there are not directly observed processes, there are no demonstrations. It's the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by natural law rather then miracles. It always has been and always will be.

I really have not seen any true violation of Christian Fundamentals by any of the TE's on this forum, I am not saying that there are not any, but I have not seen them if there are. I may have a few differences with some of the TE's, but they themselves do not deny God as first cause and design with a purpose (again, not that I have seen). Mostly, they understand the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation into the view of the process of Creation we can come up with, I have no problem with that.

If that were the case I would have no problem with them but how do you know they believe in Christian fundamentals, they never want to talk about the Gospel. All I see TEs doing on here is attacking creationists. Most of the TEs don't make that many scientific arguments from the evidence and virtually never offer a theological argument. If you confront them with these verses:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)​

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)
​

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Cor 15:22)​

There is nothing in the Old or New Testaments indicating that Adam was anything other then literal and the first parent of the human race. That's what both the Old and New Testament teach, not that we evolved but that we were created. They simply don't have an answer for this, I have debated them for years and all they do is chant that the language is figurative. If that were true then Christ and the resurrection could be consider figurative or for that matter, anything in the Bible could be taken figuratively.

They do undermine the fundamentals of Christianity, in fact, they pretty much just ignore them.

The thing that strikes me as odd about what I struggled with even from a young age, and what you (Mark) struggle with, is that everybody knows that God is a God of process, if you are hungry you pray for food, if you are broke you probably pray for a job, have a medical problem you probably pray for the doctors who treat you; those all represent processes that God has instituted to care for Creation. God would not be all knowing if He did not take into consideration the future needs of His Creation by addressing them in His design, as a result we get doctors for healing, economics to ensure the basics of life are met (food, clothes, water) and even so well that His Creation (us humans) will even share with complete strangers through sacrifice (tithes and offerings) and charities. Even in Salvation there is a process, first there had to be sin, then a Savior born of a virgin, live a sinless life, fulfill many many prophecies, be betrayed by those whom He came amidst (Jews), be crucified as a final perfect atonement for sins, and then be raised unto life again; it is a process that was completed once and for all!

Actually the only real problem I had with the Bible was God becoming man, after that the rest was easy.

With all of the aforementioned processes taken into consideration, why then must Creation be the only example of a "non-process" used by God?

Because that is what the Scripture teach and the Bible has our true history. What is more they way they handle and misrepresent the evidence is truly staggering. I have focused on the fossils and genetics, back in 2005 is was definitively proven that we are 95% the same as Chimpanzee in our DNA. They still tell people in Time, Scientific American and Nature Web focus that we are 98% the same when they know better. The ERVs represent one of the most dramatic departures of the Chimpanzee Genome from our own but they pretend that they are all the same. The truth is that the largest and most abundant class of ERVs are not even in the human genome. Taung is an endocast of a brain found in a mine in souther Africa, for 50 years scientists realized it was just a chimpanzee. After the fall of Piltdown man all of the sudden its one of our ancestors. More recently Dean Faulk make the observation that the Taung looked more like a chimpanzee brain then human. They simply argued that it wasn't true and one of her critics even changed some of pictures to make it look more human.

This is nearly constant, you can't trust them to tell you the truth about the evidence. I have seen this at every turn. At least 5 people argued with me that transcript errors were not mutations. Finally I quoted from a scientific paper the in a list of mutations included transcript errors, they never admitted their error, they never do.

Think what you like, Darwinism is an atheistic philosophy even if it's argued for by a Christian. The evolutionists are not being straightforward and certainly not being objective. My favorite question for them is if the things we have in common with Chimpanzees is proof of common ancestry then could the differences be considered proof against. They always answer no, it's an assumption of a cause not a conclusion from observing an effect or phenomenon.

The Scriptures are not so, they are confirmed magnificently and there is not a close second from antiquity. The secular and academic professional know this but the advent of the professional scientist only came about 150 years ago, or so. If the Bible is given its just credit as historically viable the universities could go back to emphasizing the Bible in undergraduate studies and there is big money in education.

Thats what this all comes down to, money, power and politics. It has almost nothing to do with science and less then nothing to do with theology. It's an attempt to take over every learning institution in the free world, even Christian seminaries, with atheistic materialism. In spite of a full court press the majority of the population of the United States continues to affirm that the universe was either created or otherwise intelligently designed. That's why they attack creationists like a mob of zombies, they are desperate to purge the last ounce of theistic reasoning from the last believer.

They are failing miserably and their arguments fall like a house of cards under close scrutiny. I used to struggle with the claims of Scripture but I examined the evidence from creation to the resurrection and found that Bible to be a far more reliable source then the Darwinian myths.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[rcorlew]

I have to be.



Close, at one time there was science (literally knowledge) and theology was considered the queen of the sciences. Then there were natural philosophers during the Scientific Revolution who never mistook the laws of nature and they're naturalistic reasoning for science itself. Eventually there was growing acceptance that science could accept only naturalistic explanations, then, the assumption became that there is nothing beyond the physical universe. No miracles, no God in the personal or literal sense, no angels, no heaven, no hell....zip....zero. Names like Spinoza, Hegel, Tillich, Dewey come to mind of the top but there countless others.

That's Darwinism, the a priori assumption of purely naturalistic causes. Sir Issac Newton in his Principia explained the process that became modern science is in terms of cause and effect.

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.(Sir Isaac Newton, Principia)​

Darwinism is not a cause and effect philosophy, there are no experiments, there are not directly observed processes, there are no demonstrations. It's the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by natural law rather then miracles. It always has been and always will be.



If that were the case I would have no problem with them but how do you know they believe in Christian fundamentals, they never want to talk about the Gospel. All I see TEs doing on here is attacking creationists. Most of the TEs don't make that many scientific arguments from the evidence and virtually never offer a theological argument. If you confront them with these verses:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)​

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)
​

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Cor 15:22)​

There is nothing in the Old or New Testaments indicating that Adam was anything other then literal and the first parent of the human race. That's what both the Old and New Testament teach, not that we evolved but that we were created. They simply don't have an answer for this, I have debated them for years and all they do is chant that the language is figurative. If that were true then Christ and the resurrection could be consider figurative or for that matter, anything in the Bible could be taken figuratively.

They do undermine the fundamentals of Christianity, in fact, they pretty much just ignore them.



Actually the only real problem I had with the Bible was God becoming man, after that the rest was easy.



Because that is what the Scripture teach and the Bible has our true history. What is more they way they handle and misrepresent the evidence is truly staggering. I have focused on the fossils and genetics, back in 2005 is was definitively proven that we are 95% the same as Chimpanzee in our DNA. They still tell people in Time, Scientific American and Nature Web focus that we are 98% the same when they know better. The ERVs represent one of the most dramatic departures of the Chimpanzee Genome from our own but they pretend that they are all the same. The truth is that the largest and most abundant class of ERVs are not even in the human genome. Taung is an endocast of a brain found in a mine in souther Africa, for 50 years scientists realized it was just a chimpanzee. After the fall of Piltdown man all of the sudden its one of our ancestors. More recently Dean Faulk make the observation that the Taung looked more like a chimpanzee brain then human. They simply argued that it wasn't true and one of her critics even changed some of pictures to make it look more human.

This is nearly constant, you can't trust them to tell you the truth about the evidence. I have seen this at every turn. At least 5 people argued with me that transcript errors were not mutations. Finally I quoted from a scientific paper the in a list of mutations included transcript errors, they never admitted their error, they never do.

Think what you like, Darwinism is an atheistic philosophy even if it's argued for by a Christian. The evolutionists are not being straightforward and certainly not being objective. My favorite question for them is if the things we have in common with Chimpanzees is proof of common ancestry then could the differences be considered proof against. They always answer no, it's an assumption of a cause not a conclusion from observing an effect or phenomenon.

The Scriptures are not so, they are confirmed magnificently and there is not a close second from antiquity. The secular and academic professional know this but the advent of the professional scientist only came about 150 years ago, or so. If the Bible is given its just credit as historically viable the universities could go back to emphasizing the Bible in undergraduate studies and there is big money in education.

Thats what this all comes down to, money, power and politics. It has almost nothing to do with science and less then nothing to do with theology. It's an attempt to take over every learning institution in the free world, even Christian seminaries, with atheistic materialism. In spite of a full court press the majority of the population of the United States continues to affirm that the universe was either created or otherwise intelligently designed. That's why they attack creationists like a mob of zombies, they are desperate to purge the last ounce of theistic reasoning from the last believer.

They are failing miserably and their arguments fall like a house of cards under close scrutiny. I used to struggle with the claims of Scripture but I examined the evidence from creation to the resurrection and found that Bible to be a far more reliable source then the Darwinian myths.

Grace and peace,
Mark

OK, let us be fair here, I see that on this forum most of the TEs have the following definition of Evolution, "A process in nature"; whereas you seem to be arguing against the following definition "A process of nature".

Think about the difference for a while before you repost, what if God did create using a process, what implications does that have on your theology?

 

[mark kennedy]

OK, let us be fair here, I see that on this forum most of the TEs have the following definition of Evolution, "A process in nature"; whereas you seem to be arguing against the following definition "A process of nature".

The definition for evolution is, 'the change of alleles in populations over time'. The assumption is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means is another definition evolutionists won't own up to. There is not one but two and we are not just talking about a natural process, we are also talking about God Almighty acting in time and space doing what only God can do. Maybe that is not very scientific as natural science defines science but it's reality, God did indeed create all life by the speaking of words in less then a week. The Scriptures are clear on this point and I'm confronted almost constantly with people who want to argue against the clear testimony of Scripture.

Think about the difference for a while before you repost, what if God did create using a process, what implications does that have on your theology?

I have thought about it, like I said, science has very little to do with this. Nature does have a vast array of diversity and God is glorified in nature, still the most telling evidence of God's divine attributes leaving us without excuse for sin and unbelief.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)​

I know that many of the TEs are Christians, that's what gets me so worked up. They do not argue for the Scriptures they argue against them. They directly contradict the clear, consistent and originally intended meaning. That does not proceed from faith, that comes directly from the naturalistic assumptions that defines Darwinian metaphysics. I think you are interested in finding common ground and I want that to but they will have to meet me half way because Christianity is a religion of miracles. Unless or until they come to terms with that I will continue to point out that the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism is atheistic, even if it's argued by a Christian.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You made my day mark! I laughed heartily for a few minutes after reading this sentence.

I'll see you on the forums. Have fun notlistening - you're getting better at it everyday.

shernren

You know what I hear from you, one scathing, biting and insulting remark after another. When have you ever taken an affirmative position on the Scriptures? You know what the Scriptures teach and you contradict them with a vengeance, you have become increasingly bitter and confrontational. You scoff, mock and laugh at what you consider foolishness but there is a price to be paid for propagating Darwinism with these unrelenting ad hominems.

Yea, I'll see you on the boards, you can count on it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[jckstraw72]

Mark Kennedy -- your posts are great!

 

[rcorlew]

The definition for evolution is, 'the change of alleles in populations over time'. The assumption is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means is another definition evolutionists won't own up to. There is not one but two and we are not just talking about a natural process, we are also talking about God Almighty acting in time and space doing what only God can do. Maybe that is not very scientific as natural science defines science but it's reality, God did indeed create all life by the speaking of words in less then a week. The Scriptures are clear on this point and I'm confronted almost constantly with people who want to argue against the clear testimony of Scripture.



I have thought about it, like I said, science has very little to do with this. Nature does have a vast array of diversity and God is glorified in nature, still the most telling evidence of God's divine attributes leaving us without excuse for sin and unbelief.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)​

I know that many of the TEs are Christians, that's what gets me so worked up. They do not argue for the Scriptures they argue against them. They directly contradict the clear, consistent and originally intended meaning. That does not proceed from faith, that comes directly from the naturalistic assumptions that defines Darwinian metaphysics. I think you are interested in finding common ground and I want that to but they will have to meet me half way because Christianity is a religion of miracles. Unless or until they come to terms with that I will continue to point out that the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism is atheistic, even if it's argued by a Christian.

Grace and peace,
Mark

You do understand that in Genesis 1 it does not say that that God created ex nihlo "from nothing" rather it says repeatedly that God formed from the "dust of the ground", there is quite a bit of scientific truth in Genesis 1 when you study what it says, not just what we are told it says or what we want it to say. The first law of thermodynamics seems to pose a problem, energy cannot be created or destroyed but it can be translated. Now in John 1 we read that through Jesus everything was made, and in Luke we see that a woman with a blood disorder touched Jesus and he "sensed" that some power had gone from him, the source of that power, which is can also be described as energy in the Greek, is Christ's love for us. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics is correct, Christ's love for us has existed for eternity, and it is the source of energy used for creation.

 

[mark kennedy]

You do understand that in Genesis 1 it does not say that that God created ex nihlo "from nothing"

Hang on there buddy, not so fast. Forgive the length of the quote but it's a fulcrum term in the Scriptures, particularly the opening verses:

bara, "to create, make"This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by 'bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" Gen 1:1; cf. Gen 2:3; Isa 40:26; 42:5. All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.

'Bara' ' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as `asah, "to make" Isa 41:20; 43:7; 45:7,12; Amos 4:13, yatsar, "to form" Isa 43:1,7; 45:7; Amos 4:13, and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa 45:18: "For thus saith the Lord that 'created [bara] the heavens; God himself that 'formed [yatsar] the earth and 'made [asah] it; he hath 'established [kun] it, he 'created [bara] it not in vain, he ' formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else."

The technical meaning of 'bara' (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.

Objects of the verb bara include :
- the heavens and earth Gen 1:1; Isa 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17;
- man Gen 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut 4:32; Ps 89:47; Isa 43:7; 45:12;
- Israel Isa 43:1; Mal 2:10;
- a new thing Jer 31:22;
- cloud and smoke Isa 4:5;
- north and south Ps 89:12;
- salvation and righteousness Isa 45:8;
- speech Isa 57:19;
- darkness Isa 45:7;
- wind Amos 4:13;
- a new heart Ps 51:10.​

rather it says repeatedly that God formed from the "dust of the ground", there is quite a bit of scientific truth in Genesis 1 when you study what it says, not just what we are told it says or what we want it to say.

Ok, you have a lot going on here. Adam was created out of the dust of the ground and Eve was created from his rib. The expression is used only once and that was:

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:8)​

I know what it says brother, I've been studying this topic for years.

The first law of thermodynamics seems to pose a problem, energy cannot be created or destroyed but it can be translated. Now in John 1 we read that through Jesus everything was made, and in Luke we see that a woman with a blood disorder touched Jesus and he "sensed" that some power had gone from him, the source of that power, which is can also be described as energy in the Greek, is Christ's love for us. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics is correct, Christ's love for us has existed for eternity, and it is the source of energy used for creation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Hang on there buddy, not so fast. Forgive the length of the quote but it's a fulcrum term in the Scriptures, particularly the opening verses:

bara, "to create, make"This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by 'bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" Gen 1:1; cf. Gen 2:3; Isa 40:26; 42:5. All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.

'Bara' ' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as `asah, "to make" Isa 41:20; 43:7; 45:7,12; Amos 4:13, yatsar, "to form" Isa 43:1,7; 45:7; Amos 4:13, and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa 45:18: "For thus saith the Lord that 'created [bara] the heavens; God himself that 'formed [yatsar] the earth and 'made [asah] it; he hath 'established [kun] it, he 'created [bara] it not in vain, he ' formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else."

The technical meaning of 'bara' (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.

Objects of the verb bara include :
- the heavens and earth Gen 1:1; Isa 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17;
- man Gen 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut 4:32; Ps 89:47; Isa 43:7; 45:12;
- Israel Isa 43:1; Mal 2:10;
- a new thing Jer 31:22;
- cloud and smoke Isa 4:5;
- north and south Ps 89:12;
- salvation and righteousness Isa 45:8;
- speech Isa 57:19;
- darkness Isa 45:7;
- wind Amos 4:13;
- a new heart Ps 51:10.​

Ok, you have a lot going on here. Adam was created out of the dust of the ground and Eve was created from his rib. The expression is used only once and that was:

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:8)​

I know what it says brother, I've been studying this topic for years.





Grace and peace,
Mark

Vine's argument seems to be that because bara is only used for God creating, and only God can create ex nihilo, then bara must mean created ex nihilo. But that simply does not follow, especially when so many of the examples of bara show God making something new from what had already existed. His explanation for this failure of the 'technical sense' is that it was a 'popularisation' but that is simply explaining away the failure of a technical sense that was never established in the first place.

Genesis 1 describes God creating man, yet we are told in Genesis 2 that God formed man out of dust, creation ex-materia, God making man from pre-existing material. This is not a later poetic popularisation of the word, but bara being used in the same creation chapter as God creating the heavens and the earth.

We also read in Genesis 1 of God creating the sea creatures and birds, while Genesis 2 makes no mention of fish and whales, it does say God formed the birds out of the dust of the ground. Again bara is used to describe God's ex materia creation not ex nihilo.

The creating the heavens and the earth, this nearest reference we have to ex nihilo creation, as the initial creation of everything which was ex nihilo. But that does not mean Gen 1:1 is describing the creation as ex nihilo, it may simply be using the term as it is used throughout the rest of the chapter saying it was God who made them.

If you want to know what a word means, we need to look at how it was used:

God's miracles bring the Israelites out of Egypt
Exodus 34:10 And he said, "Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.
an earthquake in solid ground
Num 16:30 But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD."
darkness and calamity which while abstract are usually the destruction of something good that went before.
Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
A clean heart form an unclean one
Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.
every individual human being even though they were born of mother and father
Psalm 89:47 Remember how short my time is! For what vanity you have created all the children of man!
Eccles 12:1 Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, "I have no pleasure in them";
Isaiah 43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."
Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy;
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?
new generations being born
Psalm 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD:
nations being formed, again the work of God through natural processes.
Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.
Isaiah 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King."
Ezek 21:28 Thus says the Lord GOD concerning the Ammonites... 30 Return it to its sheath. In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.
a city made of stone
Isaiah 65:18 But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness.
new plants growing in the spring time or in the desert
new plants growing in the spring time or in the desert
Psalm 104:30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
Isaiah 41:19 I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive. I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together, 20 that they may see and know, may consider and understand together, that the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it.
wind from still air
Amos 4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind,

If we look through the other references to bara in the rest of the OT, the creation of man and the creation of the heavens and the earth are recurring themes, but as we have seen, even if you read Genesis literally, the creation of man was ex materia not ex nihilo. I do not see anything in the references to creating the heavens and the earth that specify the bara mean creation ex nihilo rather than simply meaning it was the almighty hand of God that created them.
Isaiah 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.
Presumably the creationist interpretation of 'the ends of the earth' is the edges of the continents, yet Genesis does not describe the creation of dry land as ex nihilo, it was formed by God separating dry land from the waters.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:
Isaiah 45:12 I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Here while bara is used for creating the heavens, it is also used interchangeably with made asah, and formed, yatsar, and refers to the whole process, culminating the earth fully formed and inhabited as creation.

Personally I think the fact the term ex nihilo is Latin tells us something about its origin. For the Hebrews it was more than enough to proclaim God as creator of all. It took Greek and Roman philosophers and theologians to start asking questions like:
"Yes but what did he make it from?"
Once you ask that sort of question, you can look and see in scripture that if all things were created by him, then that implies that he did not rely on anything that existed before creating that he had not created, that the origin of everything God created, was from nothing. But that does not mean we can take Hebrew description of creation and claim the word used has to mean ex nihilo creation.

 

[rcorlew]

God is a God of re-creation, renewal, the method that is far more difficult than simply destroying the old and creating new. Look at the story of the flood, God could have just destroyed everything, but instead He renews it, just like with our soul, He renews it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Vine's argument seems to be that because bara is only used for God creating, and only God can create ex nihilo, then bara must mean created ex nihilo. But that simply does not follow, especially when so many of the examples of bara show God making something new from what had already existed. His explanation for this failure of the 'technical sense' is that it was a 'popularisation' but that is simply explaining away the failure of a technical sense that was never established in the first place.

First of all it's not an argument, I realize you want to argue with it because you simply don't believe what is says, but it's an exposition. What is more you will find that Vine, White and Unger's rendering of the meaning of the word is contradicted by no credible Christian scholarship. The definition continues:

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth...man...Israel...a new thing (Jer 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa 4:5); north and south (Ps 89:12) salvation and righteousness (Isa 45:7) speech (Isa 57:19) darkness (45:7) wind (Amos 4:13) and a new heart (Ps 51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.​

Your disdain for sound Christian exegetical work astonishes me.

Genesis 1 describes God creating man, yet we are told in Genesis 2 that God formed man out of dust, creation ex-materia, God making man from pre-existing material. This is not a later poetic popularisation of the word, but bara being used in the same creation chapter as God creating the heavens and the earth.
We also read in Genesis 1 of God creating the sea creatures and birds, while Genesis 2 makes no mention of fish and whales, it does say God formed the birds out of the dust of the ground. Again bara is used to describe God's ex materia creation not ex nihilo.

Bara does not always mean to create out of nothing. God created the first male and female humans (Gen. 5:2). But we know from Genesis 2:7 that God formed (יָצַר, yatsar) Adam from the dust of the earth and in Genesis 2:22 we are told that God fashioned (בָּנָה, banah) Eve from the rib of Adam.

The creating the heavens and the earth, this nearest reference we have to ex nihilo creation, as the initial creation of everything which was ex nihilo. But that does not mean Gen 1:1 is describing the creation as ex nihilo, it may simply be using the term as it is used throughout the rest of the chapter saying it was God who made them.

The traditional (i.e., ex nihilo) view and remains the most common in modern English Bible translations. According to this view, the prologue forms the basis for all subsequent creation. Chaos then is not the precursor of creation, as in Babylonian myths, but the result. Therefore the Genesis creation narrative does not merely repeat or demythologize oriental creation myths, but it appears to purposefully set out from the beginning to repudiate them. Genesis creation narrative​

You have abandoned Christian scholarship, sound exegesis and traditional Christian theism to prop up this unsubstantiated statement. Do you wonder why I have such a problem with Theistic Evolution and it's parent philosophy, Darwinism.

If you want to know what a word means, we need to look at how it was used:

One more quote from Vine's and then we can continue with you baseless rationalizations:

Especially striking is the use of bara in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God''s past benefits and blessings to his people. Isaiah especially want to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to delivered His people from captivity. The God of Israel has crated all things:

I have made [asah) the earth, and created (bara) man upon it; I, even my hands have stretched out the heavens and all their host have I commanded. (Isa. 45:12).​

The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa 44:12-20; 46:1-7) and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (43:16-21; 65:16-25)
​

God's miracles bring the Israelites out of Egypt
Exodus 34:10 And he said, "Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.

You do know that the Exodus was based on 10 plagues that could only come from God right?

an earthquake in solid ground
Num 16:30 But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD."

Thats not an earthquake, the was a miraculous act of judgment that only God could do, perfectly in keeping with the poetic use of bara as opposed to the scientifically precise use described by Vine.

I only continue to address your superficial treatment of the texts because you would seem to have went to some trouble to produce it. The fact is that the premise at the heart of your argument has already been soundly refuted and dismissed.

darkness and calamity which while abstract are usually the destruction of something good that went before.
Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

The object here is judgment, wrath and vindication. The use of Bara here is ascribing to God the power to destroy as well as to bless.

A clean heart form an unclean one
Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

Which is clearly a miracle of the highest order, the new heart is the same concept of being born again or as Paul described it, the new man.

every individual human being even though they were born of mother and father
Psalm 89:47 Remember how short my time is! For what vanity you have created all the children of man!

But they were created (bara) a human soul by God's work alone, no one inherits their spirit from biological processes.

Eccles 12:1 Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, "I have no pleasure in them";

Again, poetic usage

Isaiah 43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."

That is the washing, renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit, there is a reason that we are saved by grace alone, it's something only God can do.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy;

Is there some point I'm missing to all of this?

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Both Adam and Israel were specially created by the power of God, not human or naturalistic means, perfectly in keeping with the meaning of the word.

I have had quite enough of this, your premise is refuted and without merit for any sound exegesis or exposition of the requisite texts. Your argument from scripture is base on fallacious assumptions and misinformation.

If we look through the other references to bara in the rest of the OT, the creation of man and the creation of the heavens and the earth are recurring themes, but as we have seen, even if you read Genesis literally, the creation of man was ex materia not ex nihilo. I do not see anything in the references to creating the heavens and the earth that specify the bara mean creation ex nihilo rather than simply meaning it was the almighty hand of God that created them.

The language of Genesis is uniquely absolute in it's construction and emphasis. Whatever you think the fact remains that the framework for the text is that the universe, man and Israel is without materialistic cause. That is the whole point of the text. Yes of course God almighty created them but He created them ex nihilo in the intended meaning of the open chapter of Genesis. You are making your assertions based on nothing but the force of you assertions, you have abandoned sound exegesis in favor of a worldly philosophy.

Personally I think the fact the term ex nihilo is Latin tells us something about its origin. For the Hebrews it was more than enough to proclaim God as creator of all. It took Greek and Roman philosophers and theologians to start asking questions like:
"Yes but what did he make it from?"

God is the unmoved mover, the primary first cause for anyone remotely theistic. The reason for ex nihilo is that there is no other logical explanation for the theist, you should know that.

Once you ask that sort of question, you can look and see in scripture that if all things were created by him, then that implies that he did not rely on anything that existed before creating that he had not created, that the origin of everything God created, was from nothing. But that does not mean we can take Hebrew description of creation and claim the word used has to mean ex nihilo creation.

It is used two ways, The poetic, which is by far the most common and ex nihilo (from previously nonexistent material). The nonpoetic uses are primarily in Genesis 1 and while you can continue to argue in circles around this, the fact remains that ex nihilo is the intended meaning of Genesis 1:1.

That's for playing hide the false assumption.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

God is a God of re-creation, renewal, the method that is far more difficult than simply destroying the old and creating new. Look at the story of the flood, God could have just destroyed everything, but instead He renews it, just like with our soul, He renews it.

Actually in the new birth he recreates it, the birth of Isaac he creates life from a dead womb, God will also create a new heavens and a new earth at the end of the age.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband (Rev 21:1,2)​

This is our blessed hope, this is the promise of the Gospel, this is the power behind the original creation, resurrection and life eternal. Can we seriously contend that the original creation is unrelated to the clear testimony of the New Testament witness?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark Kennedy -- your posts are great!

I'm glad you like them, I post primarily in this forum for the sake of Creationists who have neither the time nor the interest in sorting through the fallacious reasoning of evolutionists. What I am most interested in is helping Creationists search these things out without having to claw tooth and nail with this profoundly anti-theistic philosophy.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

First of all it's not an argument, I realize you want to argue with it because you simply don't believe what is says,

Why should I believe what he says when he doesn’t produce any argument or evidence to support his claim?

but it's an exposition. What is more you will find that Vine, White and Unger's rendering of the meaning of the word is contradicted by no credible Christian scholarship.

I don't know if you consider them credible Christian scholarship or not, but none of the Hebrew Lexicons I have looked at, Genesius; Strong's BDB; Halloday; Koehler and W. Baumgartner, say that bara means ex nihilo.

Here is what Genesius says:

​

There is a lot of debate about the etymology of bara, and no shortage of possible Hebrew and Semitic roots that have been proposed over the years, to split and divide, to cut and form, to fatten and fill up. One thing these etymologies have in common is that none of them mean create ex nihilo. All we can go on for the meaning of bara is its use in scripture, but as we have seen, the use in scripture does not support his supposed technical meaning either. All we have is Vine’s opinion unsupported by any linguistic or etymological arguments, and your claim it is sound exegesis.

The definition continues:

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth...man...Israel...a new thing (Jer 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa 4:5); north and south (Ps 89:12) salvation and righteousness (Isa 45:7) speech (Isa 57:19) darkness (45:7) wind (Amos 4:13) and a new heart (Ps 51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.
​

Your disdain for sound Christian exegetical work astonishes me.

You already quoted that, simply referring to my questioning the argument as ‘disdain’ does not make the argument any better.

Let’s have a look at the verses in Genesis that use bara,
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the creation of the universe is an ex nihilo creation, first there wasn’t a universe, then there was. But is the ex nihilo an implication of Genesis 1:1 because bara means ex nihilo, or because the verse describes the origin of everything from the beginning? Well the passage says a careful study of the passages in Genesis should show us how the language is being used, so here are the other verses.

Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves ...and every winged bird according to its kind.
As we have seen birds are formed form the dust of the ground in Genesis 2 so this is not ex nihilo.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Man too was formed from pre-existent material not ex nihilo
Gen 2:3 ....God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
In these two verses all of God work of creation is described as bara, and yet most of the creation account involves God creating, form material he had previously formed .
Gen 5:1 When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
Again the creation of man ex materia.
Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them.
Ex materia.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land.
Again ex materia.

If you want Genesis to be scientifically precise language, which as creationist you do, then you cannot say bara mean ex nihilo creation. Apart from the first verse all the other verse refer to a creation ex materia. A scientifically precise description of the creation should be consistent in its use of the word create, not mix technical and poetic uses. The only way around the problem is to say bara simply means create, and verse 1 means creation ex nihilo because it describe how God created everything in the beginning, not because bara mean ex nihilo.

So basically a careful study of bara in Genesis shows us that bara itself does not mean ex nihilo, but that it can be used in situations where God created ex nihilo, though it is the rest of the verse that tells us creation is ex nihilo, not the word bara.

Again… God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material

There is more scope in talking of bara being a new concept, though while there are the ‘behold I do a new thing…’ verses, there are also ones where each person or each new nation is a creation as well as plants growing in the spring, or where there had been desert. Each person is a unique individual but describing them as a new concept seems pushing the idea. A bigger problem is the concepts are immaterial, while their outworking is made in preexisting matter. It is a pretty odd use of ex nihilo. Besides the concept of man was not ex nihilo, Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...”

Bara does not always mean to create out of nothing. God created the first male and female humans (Gen. 5:2). But we know from Genesis 2:7 that God formed ( [FONT=&quot]יָצַר[/FONT], yatsar) Adam from the dust of the earth and in Genesis 2:22 we are told that God fashioned ([FONT=&quot]בָּנָה[/FONT], banah) Eve from the rib of Adam.

If bara doesn’t always mean create out of nothing, then there is nothing intrinsic to the word bara that says the creation is ex nihilo.

The traditional (i.e., ex nihilo) view and remains the most common in modern English Bible translations. According to this view, the prologue forms the basis for all subsequent creation. Chaos then is not the precursor of creation, as in Babylonian myths, but the result. Therefore the Genesis creation narrative does not merely repeat or demythologize oriental creation myths, but it appears to purposefully set out from the beginning to repudiate them. Genesis creation narrative

You have abandoned Christian scholarship, sound exegesis and traditional Christian theism to prop up this unsubstantiated statement. Do you wonder why I have such a problem with Theistic Evolution and it's parent philosophy, Darwinism.

Once we cut through your rant, it sounds like this is your reason for wanting to believe bara means ex nihilo. I would prefer to find the interpretation from the words and grammar rather than starting with my interpretation and making the meaning of the words fit. As the different bible translations and their footnotes show, there are different ways of interpreting Gen 1:1, I find it interesting though I don’t have a particular axe to grind. I think a much clearer illustration of God’s ex nihilo creation is found in John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. That verse says it all without having change the meaning of the Hebrew word for creation. I don’t think changing the meaning of bara helps you in a debate about grammar of Gen1:1 when you have ex materia or ‘poetic’ uses of bara in the very same chapter in the creation of man or birds. It is a much better argument to say Genesis 1:1 describes God creating everything in the beginning, and concluding the creation must have been ex nihilo from that, rather than making up meaning for bara without any sound grammatical or linguistic basis.

One more quote from Vine's and then we can continue with you baseless rationalizations:

Especially striking is the use of bara in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God''s past benefits and blessings to his people. Isaiah especially want to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to delivered His people from captivity. The God of Israel has crated all things:
​

I have made [asah) the earth, and created (bara) man upon it; I, even my hands have stretched out the heavens and all their host have I commanded. (Isa. 45:12).
​

The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa 44:12-20; 46:1-7) and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (43:16-21; 65:16-25)​

All very true, but it has noting to do with bara meaning ex nihilo creation.

Interesting though how Vine looks to the prophetic poetry of Isaiah for his meaning of bara, while explain away all the verse that don't fit as poetic, even when they are from prose narratives.

God's miracles bring the Israelites out of Egypt
Exodus 34:10 And he said, "Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.

You do know that the Exodus was based on 10 plagues that could only come from God right?

The issue is not whether they came from God, but whether God’s mighty works involved the creation of new material where none existed before. Incidentally, the promise in Exodus 34:10 was given after the plagues of Egypt.

Thats not an earthquake, the was a miraculous act of judgment that only God could do, perfectly in keeping with the poetic use of bara as opposed to the scientifically precise use described by Vine.

I only continue to address your superficial treatment of the texts because you would seem to have went to some trouble to produce it. The fact is that the premise at the heart of your argument has already been soundly refuted and dismissed.

Whether you want to call it an earthquake or not, or whether God's judgement used natural process, it is still a hole in the ground where there had been ground before, not ex nihilo. It is a pretty good illustration of the artificial distinction Vine is trying to make, dismissing the many examples of non ex nihilo creation as poetic, even more glaring when it is in the middle of a prose narrative.

The object here is judgment, wrath and vindication. The use of Bara here is ascribing to God the power to destroy as well as to bless.

All very true but it is still not ex nihilo.

Which is clearly a miracle of the highest order, the new heart is the same concept of being born again or as Paul described it, the new man.

Clearly. Just not ex nihilo. Apart from the new birth being an immaterial process, and even our resurrection bodies formed from transformed dead bodies, our new birth is not from ex nihilo either, 1Pet 1:23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.

But they were created (bara) a human soul by God's work alone, no one inherits their spirit from biological processes.

I don’t know how God created souls, but that isn’t what the passage is talking about it is describing God creating all the children of men, not just their souls.

Again, poetic usage

Again an artificial distinction to defend an unfounded meaning of bara.

It is not enough to explain away all the verse as poetic, you need to show that bara in Gen 1:1 is the real technical meaning of the word and that it is different from the suppose poetic use.

Isaiah 43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."

That is the washing, renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit, there is a reason that we are saved by grace alone, it's something only God can do.

Maybe, or it could be talking about us being born and predestined for his glory. Neither are the ex nihilo creation of new material.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy;

Is there some point I'm missing to all of this?

The smith had a mother and father and was born by natural processes. God created him but not ex nihilo. It is interesting that so many of these non ex nihilo uses of bara are from Isaiah.

Both Adam and Israel were specially created by the power of God, not human or naturalistic means, perfectly in keeping with the meaning of the word.

Apart from the ex nihilo bit. Adam was made from natural material, and the miracle in Jacob’s birth was God healing Rebekah’s infertility. Isaac was still Jacobs father and Jacob was formed in the womb from natural material. Not ex nihilo.

to be...

 

[Assyrian]

...continued

I have had quite enough of this, your premise is refuted and without merit for any sound exegesis or exposition of the requisite texts. Your argument from scripture is base on fallacious assumptions and misinformation.

The language of Genesis is uniquely absolute in it's construction and emphasis. Whatever you think the fact remains that the framework for the text is that the universe, man and Israel is without materialistic cause. That is the whole point of the text. Yes of course God almighty created them but He created them ex nihilo in the intended meaning of the open chapter of Genesis. You are making your assertions based on nothing but the force of you assertions, you have abandoned sound exegesis in favor of a worldly philosophy.

That's odd, I though I was basing my arguments on standard Hebrew Lexicons and scripture Still if you can’t support you claims, you can always blame it on my ‘worldly philosophy’.

It is interesting how your claims about bara have shifted from ex nihilo, ‘without material’, to ‘without materialistic cause’. It still does not work because Isaac was Israel’s natural father. There were natural causes as well as natural materials, but behind all that was God their creator who works all things according to the counsel of his will Eph 1:11.

God is the unmoved mover, the primary first cause for anyone remotely theistic. The reason for ex nihilo is that there is no other logical explanation for the theist, you should know that.

Of course, but it still doesn’t mean Genesis was written to expound what are logical explanations but to very Greek philosophical questions.

It is used two ways, The poetic, which is by far the most common and ex nihilo (from previously nonexistent material). The non poetic uses are primarily in Genesis 1 and while you can continue to argue in circles around this, the fact remains that ex nihilo is the intended meaning of Genesis 1:1.

So far you haven’t shown bara means ex nihilo creation, that there are two meanings for bara, or that there is any basis for the distinction apart from wanting bara in Gen 1:1 to be different from practically every other use of the word.

That's for playing hide the false assumption.

Have a nice day
Mark

False assumption?

 

[mark kennedy]

[/FONT]

That's odd, I though I was basing my arguments on standard Hebrew Lexicons and scripture Still if you can’t support you claims, you can always blame it on my ‘worldly philosophy’.

Bara means out of nothing, this is clear from how it is used in the original, arguments to the contrary are nonexistent. Vine's dictionary is one example among many and the doctrinal issue at stake is really our lineage and the consequences of original sin. The original creation of both the universe and the world is a given in Holy Scripture, unless you simply don't believe the clear meaning of the text. Adam for instance was our first parent, there is no real question about this from Christian and Jewish sources. Jewish scholarship still maintains the clear meaning of the Genesis account as did Paul:

The first couple, progenitors of mankind, whose creation is initially described in Genesis 1:26-30, which relates that God created man---both male and female ---in His own image and likeness, endowing mankind with fertility and the power to dominate all other living creatures. Chapters 2-3 of Genesis give a more detailed account of man's creation. Encyclopedia of Judaism:Adam and Eve​

The Roman Catholic Church:

Here evidently the adam or man of the Creation narrative is identified with a particular individual, and consequently the plural forms which might otherwise cause doubt are to be understood with reference to the first pair of human beings. The first man and the father of the human race.

But I have no support for what I'm saying even though the Christian scholarship as well as Jewish understanding of the clear meaning that Adam and Eve were our first parents.

Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms, Rom. 5:18, 19, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall all be made righteous.” Here in one verse we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness, and that there might be no room to understand the righteousness spoken of, merely of Christ’s atonement by his suffering the penalty. In the next verse it is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. (Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards. 1703-1758)​

I don't know how much you know about the Bloodless Revolution but John Wesley was one of the key people involved. Credited with being the founder of the Methodist church and leading preachers that sparked the Great Awakening that swept Western Europe and the Colonies of North America in the late 1700s.

For all have sinned - In Adam, and in their own persons; by a sinful nature, sinful tempers, and sinful actions. And are fallen short of the glory of God - The supreme end of man; short of his image on earth, and the enjoyment of him in heaven. (John Wesley's Notes)​

Here's someone else who represents the traditional and Biblical view of the Christian church from the same time frame:

Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms, Rom. 5:18, 19, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall all be made righteous.” Here in one verse we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness, and that there might be no room to understand the righteousness spoken of, merely of Christ’s atonement by his suffering the penalty. In the next verse it is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. (Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards. 1703-1758)​

Notice he inextricably links original sin to justification by faith. If you know anything about Protestant Theology you have to realize that at the heart of Protestant theology is justification by faith alone. Here's another one you will probably ignore:

Sin originated with Satan Isaiah 14:12-14, entered the world through Adam Romans 5:12, was, and is, universal, Christ alone excepted ; Romans 3:23; 1 Peter 2:22, incurs the penalties of spiritual and physical death ; Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Romans 6:23 and has no remedy but in the sacrificial death of Christ ; Hebrews 9:26; Acts 4:12 availed of by faith Acts 13:38,39. Sin may be summarized as threefold: An act, the violation of, or want of obedience to the revealed will of God; a state, absence of righteousness; a nature, enmity toward God. (Scofield Commentary)​

And of course the context of Romans itself:

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.​

Ok so we have the Vine's Dictionary and various other sources indicating exactly what I have been telling you and you coming back with the fallacious chant that sound exegesis of the text supports your assertions. It's not true but lets move on.

It is interesting how your claims about bara have shifted from ex nihilo, ‘without material’, to ‘without materialistic cause’. It still does not work because Isaac was Israel’s natural father. There were natural causes as well as natural materials, but behind all that was God their creator who works all things according to the counsel of his will Eph 1:11.

While I don't disagree with that it doesn't change the meaning of bara as it is used in Genesis, or 'Adam' as Paul uses it in Romans 5. Isaac was the child of promise and when Abraham heard the promise, on his face before God, he laughed. When his wife Sarah heard the promise she laughed and the word Isaac means, 'she laughed'. God promised that when he returned in a year (actually the angel of the Lord) she would be pregnant and she was.

The Bible is a book of miracles, Israel is a lineage that proceeded from a miracle. Bara is used only of God because it's an act that can only be attributed to God. This can go way deep into metaphysics even, St. Thomas Aquinas discussed this at length and you'll find that his theological and philosophical treatment of creation mirrors that of Protestant traditions.

Therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God. The production of the first man's body​

The theme runs concurrent throughout Christian theism except in modernist traditions that date back to the 19th century and the advent of Darwinism. It is no coincidence that the two emerged at the same time.

Of course, but it still doesn’t mean Genesis was written to expound what are logical explanations but to very Greek philosophical questions.

So far you haven’t shown bara means ex nihilo creation, that there are two meanings for bara, or that there is any basis for the distinction apart from wanting bara in Gen 1:1 to be different from practically every other use of the word.

Yes I have, you just refuse to admit the clear meaning of terms like 'bara' and 'Adam' because you want them to mean something other then the writers of the Scriptures intended for them to mean.

False assumption?

The naturalistic assumptions of philosophical naturalism and the Darwinian assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

The Roman Catholic Church:

Here evidently the adam or man of the Creation narrative is identified with a particular individual, and consequently the plural forms which might otherwise cause doubt are to be understood with reference to the first pair of human beings. The first man and the father of the human race.

I'm sure mark really loves what the rest of the article has to say as well!

It is hardly necessary to remark in passing that the loftiness of the doctrinal and ethical truths here set forth place the biblical narrative immeasurably above the extravagant Creation stories current among the pagan nations of antiquity, though some of these, particularly the Babylonian, bear a more or less striking resemblance to it in form.

In the light of this doctrinal and moral excellence, the question of the strict historical character of the narrative, as regards the framework and details, becomes of relatively slight importance, especially when we recall that in history as conceived by the other biblical authors, as well as by Semitic writers generally, the presentation and arrangement of facts — and indeed their entire role — is habitually made subordinate to the exigencies of a didactic preoccupation.​

Hurrah for sensible Catholics! If you can agree with them about justification, you can agree with them about just about anything else!

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sure mark really loves what the rest of the article has to say as well!

It is hardly necessary to remark in passing that the loftiness of the doctrinal and ethical truths here set forth place the biblical narrative immeasurably above the extravagant Creation stories current among the pagan nations of antiquity, though some of these, particularly the Babylonian, bear a more or less striking resemblance to it in form.

In the light of this doctrinal and moral excellence, the question of the strict historical character of the narrative, as regards the framework and details, becomes of relatively slight importance, especially when we recall that in history as conceived by the other biblical authors, as well as by Semitic writers generally, the presentation and arrangement of facts — and indeed their entire role — is habitually made subordinate to the exigencies of a didactic preoccupation.​

Hurrah for sensible Catholics! If you can agree with them about justification, you can agree with them about just about anything else!

As usual you missed the whole point and ran off on a tangent:

More important is the theological doctrine formulated by St. Paul in Romans 5:12-21, and in 1 Corinthians 15:22-45. In the latter passage Jesus Christ is called by analogy and contrast the new or "last Adam." This is understood in the sense that as the original Adam was the head of all mankind, the father of all according to the flesh, so also Jesus Christ was constituted chief and head of the spiritual family of the elect, and potentially of all mankind, since all are invited to partake of His salvation. Thus the first Adam is a type of the second, but while the former transmits to his progeny a legacy of death, the latter, on the contrary, becomes the vivifying principle of restored righteousness. Christ is the "last Adam" inasmuch as "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12); no other chief or father of the race is to be expected.​

Wise up shernren, the doctrinal issue is crucial and the Scriptures are clear, Adam and Eve were our first parents. This, you will find, is essential to sound Biblical exegesis and expositional approaches to Christian doctrine.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Bara means out of nothing, this is clear from how it is used in the original,

Unfortunately you have not been able to show from its use in scriptures that bara means out of nothing. In fact it is quite clear from scripture that bara is most often used where the creation was from pre existing materials, even when God used natural processes to bring his creation into being, like when he flowers to bloom in the spring time or created you and me. bara can be used for creation that is out of nothing, as it it in a couple of verses describing God crating the heavens and the earth. So if bara can be used for creation from nothing, though more often for creation from exiting material, if it can be used to describe creation through natural processes as well as supernatural wonders, then I would say the one common feature that all the uses of bara have in common is the proclamation that it is God who made each created thing, according to his plan an purpose, that each creation is the handiwork of God. bara declares each creation made by God, without looking at what it is made from or what processes God used. bara is about God creating and what God created, not how he created it.

arguments to the contrary are nonexistent.

Instead of denying that there are arguments to the contrary, why not show me some actual arguments for your claim?

Vine's dictionary is one example among many

Not interested in how many examples you can find, I am interested in whether they have any decent arguments to support the claim.

and the doctrinal issue at stake is really our lineage and the consequences of original sin.

Um no. No doctrinal issues are at stake, the bible clearly teaches ex nihilo creation by proclaiming God as the creator of everything. Original sin is about the effects of Adam's actions after he was created and your interpretation of the Greek in Roman's 5. The creationist understanding of our lineage depend on Adam being literally formed from dust rather than God using natural processes. Neither are ex nihilo creation. Special creation from dust is still creation from pre existing material.

However if you want to change the subject to topics that are specific to this subforum, I won't follow.

The original creation of both the universe and the world is a given in Holy Scripture, unless you simply don't believe the clear meaning of the text.

I thought it was the clear meaning of bara we were discussing. Tell me, do you think Gen 1:1 means the original creation of the universe because bara means ex nihilo, or do you think bara means ex nihilo because Gen 1:1 describes the original creation of the universe? Because it sounds to me like a there is a circular argument here. Ex nihilo creation is there in Gen 1:1 because the verse declares God as the creator of everything that exists from the very beginning, not because you read ex nihilo creation into the meaning of bara when that is clearly not how the bible uses the word in any other context.

Adam for instance was our first parent, there is no real question about this from Christian and Jewish sources. Jewish scholarship still maintains the clear meaning of the Genesis account as did Paul:

The first couple, progenitors of mankind, whose creation is initially described in Genesis 1:26-30, which relates that God created man---both male and female ---in His own image and likeness, endowing mankind with fertility and the power to dominate all other living creatures. Chapters 2-3 of Genesis give a more detailed account of man's creation. Encyclopedia of Judaism:Adam and Eve​

The Roman Catholic Church:

Here evidently the adam or man of the Creation narrative is identified with a particular individual, and consequently the plural forms which might otherwise cause doubt are to be understood with reference to the first pair of human beings. The first man and the father of the human race.

But I have no support for what I'm saying even though the Christian scholarship as well as Jewish understanding of the clear meaning that Adam and Eve were our first parents.

Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms, Rom. 5:18, 19, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall all be made righteous.” Here in one verse we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness, and that there might be no room to understand the righteousness spoken of, merely of Christ’s atonement by his suffering the penalty. In the next verse it is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. (Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards. 1703-1758)​

I don't know how much you know about the Bloodless Revolution but John Wesley was one of the key people involved. Credited with being the founder of the Methodist church and leading preachers that sparked the Great Awakening that swept Western Europe and the Colonies of North America in the late 1700s.

For all have sinned - In Adam, and in their own persons; by a sinful nature, sinful tempers, and sinful actions. And are fallen short of the glory of God - The supreme end of man; short of his image on earth, and the enjoyment of him in heaven. (John Wesley's Notes)​

Here's someone else who represents the traditional and Biblical view of the Christian church from the same time frame:

[quoted twice, doesn't fit word limit]
(Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards. 1703-1758)​

Notice he inextricably links original sin to justification by faith. If you know anything about Protestant Theology you have to realize that at the heart of Protestant theology is justification by faith alone. Here's another one you will probably ignore:

Sin originated with Satan Isaiah 14:12-14, entered the world through Adam Romans 5:12, was, and is, universal, Christ alone excepted ; Romans 3:23; 1 Peter 2:22, incurs the penalties of spiritual and physical death ; Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Romans 6:23 and has no remedy but in the sacrificial death of Christ ; Hebrews 9:26; Acts 4:12 availed of by faith Acts 13:38,39. Sin may be summarized as threefold: An act, the violation of, or want of obedience to the revealed will of God; a state, absence of righteousness; a nature, enmity toward God. (Scofield Commentary)​

And of course the context of Romans itself:

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.​

Ok so we have the Vine's Dictionary and various other sources indicating exactly what I have been telling you and you coming back with the fallacious chant that sound exegesis of the text supports your assertions. It's not true but lets move on.

Again nothing to do with ex nihilo creation. You would need to show that Wesley or Scofield or the Catholic Church thought creating Adam from dust was the same as creating him from nothing. Personally I think Wesley would have pretty surprised at the idea creating Adam from dust was ex nihilo, but he was pretty gracious and I am sure he would have just explained basic Latin to you, he would have been puzzled though, when he realised you know ex nihilo means 'from nothing'.

Otherwise you are avoiding the question of the meaning of bara and going into areas I won't follow in this subforum.

While I don't disagree with that it doesn't change the meaning of bara as it is used in Genesis,

But we get the meaning of Genesis from the whole verse not just one word. Like I said, it is a circular argument to get a meaning of bara from Gen 1:1 if you read that meaning into bara to understand Gen 1:1. But take bara the way it is used in the rest of scripture and you still get God's creation of the universe from the beginning. And all the ex nihilo that tells us about.

The best explanation of bara in Gen 1:1 I have come across is that because bara is only ever used to refer to God and what he creates, rather than what material the creation might be made from, the word fits beautifully into Gen 1:1, because it does not presuppose any building material. For example you could not use 'formed' the same way, formed presupposes a material that is moulded and shaped. bara make no reference to what is used to make the creation, whether it was ex materia or ex nihilo, simply that it was God who created and what it was he created.

or 'Adam' as Paul uses it in Romans 5.

What has Paul's Greek in Romans 5 got to do with the Hebrew bara? Does Paul say Adam was created from nothing?

Isaac was the child of promise and when Abraham heard the promise, on his face before God, he laughed. When his wife Sarah heard the promise she laughed and the word Isaac means, 'she laughed'. God promised that when he returned in a year (actually the angel of the Lord) she would be pregnant and she was.

Sarah laughed because she understood the implication of God's promise, that this old woman was going to have some fun with her husband again. Gen 18:12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?" It was indeed a miracle that she conceived, but she still conceived in the natural and enjoyable way. No ex nihilo, simply the healing and restoration of their worn out plumbing, so they could fulfil God's plan and purpose.

The Bible is a book of miracles, Israel is a lineage that proceeded from a miracle. Bara is used only of God because it's an act that can only be attributed to God.

Don't forget the bible describes you and me as God's creation too, and every green shoot in the spring. Of course everything can be traced back to a supernatural miracle if you go far back enough, but I am not sure that is the way bara is being used, creation refers to what God creates and his creating it, not its past.

This can go way deep into metaphysics even, St. Thomas Aquinas discussed this at length and you'll find that his theological and philosophical treatment of creation mirrors that of Protestant traditions.

Therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God. The production of the first man's body​

The theme runs concurrent throughout Christian theism except in modernist traditions that date back to the 19th century and the advent of Darwinism. It is no coincidence that the two emerged at the same time.

Note how Aquinas says 'another body of the same species'? Aquinas is talking about Adam being formed from dust rather than having parents. You should really have quoted a few of the previous sentences as well as we see how Aquinas links this to ex nihilo creation.

Now God, though He is absolutely immaterial, can alone by His own power produce matter by creation: wherefore He alone can produce a form in matter, without the aid of any preceding material form. For this reason the angels cannot transform a body except by making use of something in the nature of a seed, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 19). Therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God.
​

God alone can create matter from nothing, without relying on preexisting material, so he can also produce a new form in material without relying on the previous form of the material. Aquinas is not calling the creation of Adam ex nililo creation, but says that the God who can created ex nihilo is alone able to give Adam a new form though made from dust. Of course Aquinas is talking about his interpretation of God forming Adam from the dust here, not the meaning of the word create.

So far you haven’t shown bara means ex nihilo creation, that there are two meanings for bara, or that there is any basis for the distinction apart from wanting bara in Gen 1:1 to be different from practically every other use of the word.

Yes I have, you just refuse to admit the clear meaning of terms like 'bara' and 'Adam' because you want them to mean something other then the writers of the Scriptures intended for them to mean.

Ok now I think we are coming to the end of any useful discussion. I would have enjoyed discussing actual evidence for your meaning of bara, but if you won't present any and instead claim you have done so, there is nothing else really to talk about.

The naturalistic assumptions of philosophical naturalism and the Darwinian assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Grace and peace,
Mark

No, don't see how those are assumption behind anything I said. Still it has been good to search through scriptures looking at God and all he creates