Adam ex nihilo?

[shernren]

I'm not here to debate, but to ask something. In what sense do creationists believe in creation ex nihilo? Where in Genesis 1 / 2 do you draw the line and say "After this God had created all the matter He needed and proceeded to create with that pre-existing matter"? I'm asking because I'm wondering about how in Genesis 2 Adam is presented as being created from pre-existing matter (dust).

Does this mean that the creation of Adam in Genesis 1 is also not ex nihilo? And is there any room in YECism for the "two-man" idea - that the "man" of Genesis 1 was not necessarily the "Adam" of Genesis 2?

 

[Remus]

I'm not here to debate, but to ask something. In what sense do creationists believe in creation ex nihilo? Where in Genesis 1 / 2 do you draw the line and say "After this God had created all the matter He needed and proceeded to create with that pre-existing matter"?

I never thought about it, but as a first stab at it, I'd say Gen 1:1 is where He created all the matter.

I'm asking because I'm wondering about how in Genesis 2 Adam is presented as being created from pre-existing matter (dust).

Actually, in Genesis 2, Adam is formed from the dust or pre-existing matter. I believe that there is a difference between the "created" in Gen 1. and "formed" in Gen 2.

Does this mean that the creation of Adam in Genesis 1 is also not ex nihilo? And is there any room in YECism for the "two-man" idea - that the "man" of Genesis 1 was not necessarily the "Adam" of Genesis 2?

I can't see how it would fit. Can you explain in more detail as to what you have in mind?

 

[shernren]

You're right that Genesis 2 has "formed" instead of created. That's also part of what I'm wondering about. Genesis 1 has God creating (which would imply ex nihilo, would it? or not?) and Genesis 2 has God "forming" explicitly from pre-existing matter. Is there a conflict there? I'm sure there's a YEC explanation why it's not.

About "two-man" - AFAIK (correct me, those of you who hold to it) basically it's an extension of the idea that God created pre-Adamic "men" and these were the hominids. In Genesis 1 God creates "man" the Neanderthals, erectus, etc. and in Genesis 2 God takes dust and makes it into Adam separate from the Gen.1 "man" who eventually goes extinct. Or something such.

Alternatively, genez who believed in Gap Theory believed that in Genesis 1 God created man's soul - hence ex nihilo - and in Genesis 2 then created man's body from pre-existing matter.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not here to debate, but to ask something. In what sense do creationists believe in creation ex nihilo? Where in Genesis 1 / 2 do you draw the line and say "After this God had created all the matter He needed and proceeded to create with that pre-existing matter"? I'm asking because I'm wondering about how in Genesis 2 Adam is presented as being created from pre-existing matter (dust).

Does this mean that the creation of Adam in Genesis 1 is also not ex nihilo? And is there any room in YECism for the "two-man" idea - that the "man" of Genesis 1 was not necessarily the "Adam" of Genesis 2?

The man created in Genesis 1 is Adam and in Genesis 2 its a more detailed description. God created Adam from the dust of the earth and the way I allways interpruted this is to mean we were created from the earth, for the earth. We are the stewards of the planet and I also don't believe in dying and going to heaven, we will of course when we are seperated from our mortal frame, but only temporarily. I believe heaven is coming here.

Genesis 2 is a more detailed description of the sixth day of creation, plain and simple. It's a common literary feature of the older writtings of the Old Testament. Let me give you an example, say you wanted to discuss how you fixed you car last Thursday. You might say, 'I had an electrical problem where I had to replace a part'. This is a general statement that might statisfy your teenage daughter. While taking out the trash you happen upon a barnyard mechanic who lives across the alley. When you discuss it with him you will describe the alternator you had to replace, the battery being drained and recharged, the precise location of the mounting bolts...etc.

Genesis 2 is just a more detailed description of the creation of Man. That's really the whole idea of the two seperate accounts.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

So what you're saying is that Genesis 1 has a "wide-angle shot" of God creating man while Genesis 2 has an "up-close-and-personal shot" of God creating man? Hmm, I guess that about answers what I was thinking about. Thanks!

Awfully quiet, this thread was.

 

[keyarch]

I'm not here to debate, but to ask something. In what sense do creationists believe in creation ex nihilo? Where in Genesis 1 / 2 do you draw the line and say "After this God had created all the matter He needed and proceeded to create with that pre-existing matter"? I'm asking because I'm wondering about how in Genesis 2 Adam is presented as being created from pre-existing matter (dust).
Does this mean that the creation of Adam in Genesis 1 is also not ex nihilo? And is there any room in YECism for the "two-man" idea - that the "man" of Genesis 1 was not necessarily the "Adam" of Genesis 2?

Man is more than the sum of the materials that he is made of. We were "created" in the image of God, which entails other things besides the organic compounds or "dust". So I think the different accounts related to "formed" and "created" can be reconciled without needing to get too detailed (Which is unlike me )
I don't see ANY room for the "two-man" idea as you have described.

 

[Remus]

You're right that Genesis 2 has "formed" instead of created. That's also part of what I'm wondering about. Genesis 1 has God creating (which would imply ex nihilo, would it? or not?) and Genesis 2 has God "forming" explicitly from pre-existing matter. Is there a conflict there? I'm sure there's a YEC explanation why it's not.

I don't believe that we can say that Gen 1 implies that Adam was created "ex nihilo". It's unclear. As Mark pointed out, Gen 2 is a more detailed account of what was said in Gen 1. Gen 1 says that man was created in God's image, male and female. In Gen 2 says that man was formed from the dust of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and he became a living soul. I see no conflict here unless one wants to believe that Adam was created in God's physical image. In Gen 3, it says "For you are dust, And to dust you shall return". It is clear that there is a distinction between the physical aspects of Adam and the spiritual. If you see a conflict, then you’ll have to point it out and we can address it.

About "two-man" - AFAIK (correct me, those of you who hold to it) basically it's an extension of the idea that God created pre-Adamic "men" and these were the hominids. In Genesis 1 God creates "man" the Neanderthals, erectus, etc. and in Genesis 2 God takes dust and makes it into Adam separate from the Gen.1 "man" who eventually goes extinct. Or something such.

I don't see how this could fit. This would mean that these others would be created in God's image as well.

Alternatively, genez who believed in Gap Theory believed that in Genesis 1 God created man's soul - hence ex nihilo - and in Genesis 2 then created man's body from pre-existing matter.

Since the soul is spiritual, I don't see how we can describe it as being created "ex nihilo".

Awfully quiet, this thread was.

Sorry for the delay. The down time got in the way and I got busy doing other things.

 

[shernren]

It's okay. So basically what I'm getting is that God created man from pre-existing matter, except that He never bothered to explicitly say so in Genesis 1 the way He said in Genesis 2? I guess that would resolve what I was wondering about. Thanks!

 

[Remus]

So basically what I'm getting is that God created man from pre-existing matter, except that He never bothered to explicitly say so in Genesis 1 the way He said in Genesis 2?

"Formed" man actually.

I guess that would resolve what I was wondering about.

Are you sure?

 

[shernren]

So "created" emphasises man's spiritual aspect - the dimension in which he is the image of God; whereas "formed" emphasises man's physical aspect through which he interacts with the rest of God's creation?

 

[Remus]

I would say that "created" encompasses the whole man, where as "formed" was the physical aspect.

 

[keyarch]

So "created" emphasises man's spiritual aspect - the dimension in which he is the image of God; whereas "formed" emphasises man's physical aspect through which he interacts with the rest of God's creation?

That was the point that I was trying to make earlier. So if you look at Adam who was "created" first, and the material for Eve was taken from Adam (not created out of nothing), and yet it says He created "them" male and female in Gen. 1:27. So this must be right.
If you look at the original language, there are different words and nuances that are being used that make it hard to determine from a translation exactly what is being said, but I'm sure there is no conflict.

 

[Biliskner]

dunno, but it seems that 'created' and 'formed' are much the same thing.

concerning the 'wide-angled shot' - I've always seen Gen1 as "God's perspective" - "big picture" or "bird's eye view" of the whole universe when God created it. Imagine movie camera, from nothingness (blackness) to creation of heavens and the earth and zooming down into the earth as the central point of the movie (stage-centre); then God fills this 'stage' (Earth) with 'stuff' (sorry did the movie analogy confuse it?).

Gen 2 speaks of the Creation as from Man's Perspective, everything revolves around the Man, the Garden (rivers, streams, plant life, animals, etc.) I think it also shows the intimacy of the Creation with Man and with God, which in the context of the Fall and the ground being cursed and 'the whole of creation dying' when Adam sins, reflects the connection of Man and Creation (as Remus quoted: "from dust you are and to dust you will return").


'created' feels more "impersonal" like Gen1, and 'formed' feels more "personal" like Gen2....

also, with Gen1+2 complementing each other, if one had just read Gen1 by itself without reading Gen2, they *might* interpret "Have dominion over the Earth...." as something of domination/exploitation of the Earth; but upon reading of Gen2, one will see that that is not the case, since everything is created 'pleasing to the eye and good for food' - Ge. 2:15 also appears to expound/shed some light onto the commandment given in Gen1; but i digress

my 2c