Creationism (doctrine and teaching)

[Assyrian]

This is killing you isn't it?

No not really. I would like to see you restate your " God formed something unformed" argument using the verb 'made' so I can see a coherent from you I can address.

You are correct. But it was your argument.

No you brought up the straw man of God forming the formless earth.

Calminian: Yes, in context Genesis 1:1 must be ex nihilo. Think about it. The passage specifically states that God created something unformed. He created the unformed earth. "The earth was formless and void." You can't form something unformed. If you form something unformed, you haven't formed anything. You've gone from unformed to unformed which would be absurd. But logically you can create something unformed (that is the unformed material). So I think it's significant that different words are used in the creation toledoth. It makes sense if one act was ex nihilo, and the rest were the formation of the original created unformed matter.
​

I have the plain reading of the passage on my side. You need to show how it's possible that God created something unformed out of pre-existing material. If the material was existing, it was already unformed.

If Genesis starts off with a summary title, or it reads
Gen 1:1 (CEB) When God began to create the heavens and the earth 2 the earth was without shape or form... then the first actual act of creation in the account is Gen 1:3 God said, “Let there be light.” And so light appeared. You seem to be thinking the unformed chaos is created twice. I don't know where you get that from. Either Gen 1:1 is the first act of creation and it tells us God made the unformed earth, or the account starts with the unformed chaos and does not describe how or if it is made. We then need to go to the NT to see that this was made by Christ too Col 1:16 by him him all things were created.

Unless you can do this, ex nihilo wins in Genesis 1:1-2.

Even if you could present a coherent argument about on Gen 1:1&2, you still have to show that the ex nihilo is an intrinsic meaning of bara rather than bara being a verb that simply means God made it, and can be used ex materia or ex nihilo contexts with the ex nihilo being supplied by the context rather than bara.

And you have nothing to prove that ex hihilo was not meant in the creation of Man. To do that you'll have to prove that nephesh is something material in essence. Good luck with that.

No, you are the one try to make a case for man being created ex nihilo. You first need to prove that each nephesh is created ex nihilo, which would be pretty difficult since the bible doesn't tell us how nephesh comes about. Until then it is simply your assumption. Then you need to prove that using bara to describe the creation of man was because it referred to the ex nihilo creation rather than simply referring to the whole of our humanity and saying we are God's creation.

 

[Assyrian]

Are you sure you guys are disagreeing? Looks to me like you are both saying the same thing.

Yeah I noticed that. I think his argument is still in the unformed stage

A problem I have often noticed with Creationists is that the only way they can deal with interpretations they don't like is arguing against them automatically, they cannot mentally step into the interpretations, think them though, and understand them. And without really understanding the interpretation, they cannot put up a proper argument against it. Cal is better than most, but I think he is having that problem here. Creation from primordial chaos is a bit too far 'out there' for him.

 

[Assyrian]

Poll Options
What is your position on the subject of Origins
( ) Young Earth Creationist
( ) Old Earth Creationist
( ) Theistic Creationist (if that distinction matters to you)

I understand why some TEs prefer Evolutionary Creationist. While I am a TE who believes in Creation, I do not believe in Creationism and am not a Creationist. These are quite modern term first used by Darwin and Asa Grey and refers specifically to the rejection of evolution.

( ) Theistic Evolutionist (strictly secondary causes)

I am a theistic Evolutionist, but I am not strictly second causes. I don't limit how God works.

 

[mark kennedy]

I understand why some TEs prefer Evolutionary Creationist. While I am a TE who believes in Creation, I do not believe in Creationism and am not a Creationist. These are quite modern term first used by Darwin and Asa Grey and refers specifically to the rejection of evolution.

I don't know what Asa Grey has to do with it but Darwin rejected 'special creation' and 'miraculous interpolation' in favor of natural law as the explanation for the origin of life. As usual you have the whole thing twisted.

If you believe in creation that makes you a creationist, any Darwinian could tell you that. If God created life, as the Scriptures teach, your a creationist and I think you know that.

I am a theistic Evolutionist, but I am not strictly second causes. I don't limit how God works.

How does redemptive history work for a theistic evolutionist of the Assyrian variety.

 

[Calminian]

No not really. I would like to see you restate your " God formed something unformed" argument using the verb 'made' so I can see a coherent from you I can address. ....

It's been stated over and over. For clarity you can go back and read my posts, but it's not a matter of clarity. Your issue is stubbornness. You're trying desperately to take ex nihilo out of Genesis 1:1 so you can conform it to man's ideas.

Now you're trying out the "title theory," but have offered no reason for it, expect that it may enable you to eliminate ex nihilo. That is your end goal, not obtaining the truth.

Deeper explanations will not help you. You have a trust issue. Just as the snake told Eve to question God, so he's inciting you. Perhaps you're like Eve just being deceived, or perhaps you're more like Adam who sinned knowingly. That I can't judge.

 

[gluadys]

It's been stated over and over. For clarity you can go back and read my posts, but it's not a matter of clarity. Your issue is stubbornness. You're trying desperately to take ex nihilo out of Genesis 1:1 so you can conform it to man's ideas.

Now you're trying out the "title theory," but have offered no reason for it, expect that it may enable you to eliminate ex nihilo. That is your end goal, not obtaining the truth.

Deeper explanations will not help you. You have a trust issue. Just as the snake told Eve to question God, so he's inciting you. Perhaps you're like Eve just being deceived, or perhaps you're more like Adam who sinned knowingly. That I can't judge.

Sorry, but didn't you say "He [God] made the material unformed, then formed it"? (post #137) I can't see any difference between this and what Assyrian is saying.

I also see separate issues being bundled together in a confusing way.

First, the question of whether God initially created ex nihilo or from some pre-existing (eternal) matter.

Second, the question of the meaning of 'bara'.

Assyrian says it means "created by God" whether it was from nothing or from something (as in Adam being created from the dust of the earth). Mark says it means "created from nothing" and never created from something previously created. What say you?


It seems to me that for clarity, these questions need to be answered separately.

 

[Calminian]

Sorry, but didn't you say "He [God] made the material unformed, then formed it"? (post #137) I can't see any difference between this and what Assyrian is saying.

I also see separate issues being bundled together in a confusing way.

First, the question of whether God initially created ex nihilo or from some pre-existing (eternal) matter.

Second, the question of the meaning of 'bara'.

Assyrian says it means "created by God" whether it was from nothing or from something (as in Adam being created from the dust of the earth). Mark says it means "created from nothing" and never created from something previously created. What say you?


It seems to me that for clarity, these questions need to be answered separately.

Both of you have the same issue essentially. You don't believe scripture. It's not that you're not being given answers, it's that you're not finding ways to make the Bible compatible with man's ideas. Your trust is in man.

If Genesis 1:1 is not ex nihilo then you have God forming something unformed. Verse 2 makes absolutely no sense, if verse 1 is not ex nihilo. Asserian at least understands this to some extent, as he's now trying to make verse 1 into a title.

It's so simple a child could understand. The problem is, most children aren't looking for excuses to disbelieve God.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't know what Asa Grey has to do with it but Darwin rejected 'special creation' and 'miraculous interpolation' in favor of natural law as the explanation for the origin of life. As usual you have the whole thing twisted.

I agree Darwin rejected special creation, so did evolutionist and evangelical Christian Asa Grey who Darwin regularly corresponded with. They used the terms Creationism and Creationist in this context, to describe people who did believe in special creation.

If you look in the Oxford English Dictionary (the big one that the earliest recorded usages) Darwin and Asa Grey were the earliest recorded usage* of the terms Creationism and Creationist. Whether Grey and Darwin coined these words or not, it shows the original meaning was the belief in special creation, the direct creation of each kind and the rejection of evolution. The words did not mean a belief Creation and that God is Creator.

*The terms was also used around this time to describe, not the origin of life on earth, but the doctrine of God creating a new soul each time a person is born (as opposed to Traducianism the transmission of a new soul from the parents).

If you believe in creation that makes you a creationist, any Darwinian could tell you that. If God created life, as the Scriptures teach, your a creationist and I think you know that.

I think God probably created life through natural process some form of abiogenesis and that he used the used the natural processes of evolution to produce all the diversity of life. This is belief in creation. It is not creationism.

How does redemptive history work for a theistic evolutionist of the Assyrian variety.

God created us, called us to follow him, we failed and continue to fail, and Christ saved us through his death and resurrection.

 

[Assyrian]

It's been stated over and over. For clarity you can go back and read my posts, but it's not a matter of clarity. Your issue is stubbornness. You're trying desperately to take ex nihilo out of Genesis 1:1 so you can conform it to man's ideas.

Now you're trying out the "title theory," but have offered no reason for it, expect that it may enable you to eliminate ex nihilo. That is your end goal, not obtaining the truth.

Deeper explanations will not help you. You have a trust issue. Just as the snake told Eve to question God, so he's inciting you. Perhaps you're like Eve just being deceived, or perhaps you're more like Adam who sinned knowingly. That I can't judge.

That is all ad hom. You need to address my post not make up reasons why you think I disagree. You do need to clarify your point as I asked you in my post because your argument is garbled and confused.

 

[gluadys]

Both of you have the same issue essentially. You don't believe scripture. It's not that you're not being given answers, it's that you're not finding ways to make the Bible compatible with man's ideas. Your trust is in man.

If Genesis 1:1 is not ex nihilo then you have God forming something unformed. Verse 2 makes absolutely no sense, if verse 1 is not ex nihilo. Asserian at least understands this to some extent, as he's now trying to make verse 1 into a title.

It's so simple a child could understand. The problem is, most children aren't looking for excuses to disbelieve God.

That must take a prize for a non-answer. You completely side-stepped the main question and again conflated separate issues.

Could you please answer each of these questions separately?

Did God create the universe ex nihilo?

Did God create matter originally in a formed or unformed state?

Did God create Adam ex nihilo or from the dust of the ground?

Does 'bara' always refer to creation by God?

Does 'bara' always refer to God creating ex nihilo or does it also refer to God creating from material previously created?

Frankly, I think I might agree with you on the answers to all these questions. The one where Assyrian and Mark are in disagreement is only on the last question. And, so far, it seems to me that you and Assyrian agree on the first two questions.

 

[frogman2x]

As you say it is the context of Genesis 1:1 that makes the act of creation ex nihilo. But since bara is used two other times in Genesis 1, God creating sea creatures and man, and creating man certainly wasn't ex nihilo but used pre-existing material, then the ex-nihilo comes from the context not the word bara. Mark tried to argue that bara itself mean ex-nihilo creation, but it isn't. It can be used in ex-nihilo contexts but bara itself simply means it is God creating and making things.

If you will notice that Gen 1:26 Gos says let us mak man in our "image" according to our "likeness". However veres 27 only mentions God's image. "Image" refers to God"s invisible attributes that hHe gave o man; love, intellect, compassion etc. That was exnhilo.

Then in 1:2:7 man's likeness, what is visib le, is formed,not created.

Seems to me you are the one who doesn't want to look at what the text actually says, you have your ideas of what it should say, and you insist everything has to fit.

It seems to me he is looking at what the text actually says but you are not.

Insisting on literalism is not trusting God either, because God loves to speak in metaphor and parables just as we saw Jesus do when he was on earth. Maybe it takes more faith, more trust, to approach the bible without handy man made rules of literal interpretation to tell you what everything means.<<

Certainly the Bible is full of figuratve language, but it is not all figurative. Some is obviously fcigurative, but some is not and there needs to be a good reason the says a passage is figurative and not literal. It is dishonet to rject a figuratve meaning when they were intededd, just a sit is dishonest to read them where they shouldn't be. We should not be tgo hasty to seek a figurative interpretation, not should we b e to hasty to reject one.

you reject a liteal interpretation because you believe, but cannot prove that evolution is true. It is a mystery to me why anyone who believes in an omniopetent God would have a problem with Genesis being literal. It seems to me the only reason is that some are willing to put their faith in what man says rather than in what God's says. That is what Eve did.

What about creating the Ammonites (Ezek 21:28&29) and the blacksmith (Isaiah 54:16) which I mentioned in the previous post of mine you addressed?

Are you sure your Ezk reference is correct> My version(NASB) does not have "created" in either one.

If we accepet that "image" only refers to man's invisible attributes, then Isa 54:16 is saying God created the blacksmiths ability out of nothing.

kermit

 

[Assyrian]

If you will notice that Gen 1:26 Gos says let us mak man in our "image" according to our "likeness". However veres 27 only mentions God's image. "Image" refers to God"s invisible attributes that hHe gave o man; love, intellect, compassion etc. That was exnhilo.

Then in 1:2:7 man's likeness, what is visib le, is formed,not created.

I presume by 1:2:7 you mean Genesis 2:7 there not Genesis 1:27? I think you may be reading things into words where the Hebrew repeats itself, saying the same thing twice in slightly different words. Hence 'make' in verse 26 is followed by 'created' in verse 27. If God only formed the physical likeness in Gen 2:27, why was telling the bodiless images to have sex in chapter 1 Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." ?

Unless you can establish your different definitions of image and likeness from scripture, you may be reading into scripture what it does not actually say. Like Cal, you also need to show that the passages throughout scripture where it talk of God creating different people, Jacob, the Ammonites the smith, refer to a single aspect of the person being created, Cal's the nephesh or soul or your image of God, rather than saying as they seem to that God created the full person.

It seems to me he is looking at what the text actually says but you are not.

Another tu quoque fallacy I am afraid. We need to base our theology on what the text says. To understand the the words in the text lexicons which give us the meaning of the words based on the straightforward way they are used by people in different texts and related languages. We mustn't read our theology into the dictionary definition or our theology becomes circular.

Certainly the Bible is full of figuratve language, but it is not all figurative. Some is obviously fcigurative, but some is not and there needs to be a good reason the says a passage is figurative and not literal. It is dishonet to rject a figuratve meaning when they were intededd, just a sit is dishonest to read them where they shouldn't be. We should not be tgo hasty to seek a figurative interpretation, not should we b e to hasty to reject one.

Dishonest is the perhaps wrong term here, a misunderstanding would be better. It is as much a misunderstanding to read a literal text figuratively as it is to read a figurative text literally. What we are not taught in scripture is the bias to literalism, that we have to assume a passage is literal unless there is good reason not to. God loves to speak to us in his word in metaphor and parable and he doesn't always tell us when he is doing it. Frequently he doesn't. The best we can do is learn to recognise his voice through the more obviously metaphorical passage.

you reject a liteal interpretation because you believe, but cannot prove that evolution is true. It is a mystery to me why anyone who believes in an omniopetent God would have a problem with Genesis being literal. It seems to me the only reason is that some are willing to put their faith in what man says rather than in what God's says. That is what Eve did.

All the different lines of scientific evidence say the same thing. Even the bible tells you a matter is established by two or three witnesses. The controversy over science isn't a new one, unfortunately there have Christians throughout church history rejecting the science of their day, saying it wasn't proven, because it didn't fit their own interpretation of scripture. Whether it was teaching a flat earth like Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius or centuries later standing against Galileo and heliocentrism, they have always brought the gospel into disrepute, and as centuries have passed and science progressed further they they have never been vindicated, we only see more and more how utterly mistaken they were.

Are you sure your Ezk reference is correct> My version(NASB) does not have "created" in either one.

Sorry the Ezekiel reference is Ezek 21:28-30. here is the NASB, 28"And you, son of man, prophesy and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD concerning the sons of Ammon and concerning their reproach,' and say : 'A sword, a sword is drawn, polished for the slaughter, to cause it to consume, that it may be like lightning -
29 while they see for you false visions, while they divine lies for you-to place you on the necks of the wicked who are slain, whose day has come, in the time of the punishment of the end.
30 'Return it to its sheath. In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.

If we accepet that "image" only refers to man's invisible attributes, then Isa 54:16 is saying God created the blacksmiths ability out of nothing.

kermit

Wouldn't the smith would have learned smithying from his dad? I realise it is from an earlier post to Cal than the one you responded to, but when Cal tried to claim bara referred to creating the nephesh in a human being Gen 2:7 and man became a living being (or 'soul' as the AV and the NASB footnote says), I pointed out verses where create is used for things that have no nephesh.

Do the heavens and the earth have nephesh? What about myrtle bushes, olive trees and cedars Isaiah 41:19&20 do trees have nephesh too? Or how about the earthquake that God created that swallowed up Korah and friends in Numbers 16:30, or God creating darkness in Isaiah 45:7

​

 

[frogman2x]

I presume by 1:2:7 you mean Genesis 2:7 there not Genesis 1:27?

Right.

I think you may be reading things into words where the Hebrew repeats itself, saying the same thing twice in slightly different words.

It is not. Image and likeness is not the same thing. The words are different and so is their meanings. Image is "selem" and dlikeness is "demut."

God's image cannot consist of man's body parts which were made from dust of the earth---God is spirit. Selem refers to the spiritual, intellectual land moral aspects of God.

"Likeness" refers to the visible, image to the invisible.

Hence 'make' in verse 26 is followed by 'created' in verse 27. If God only formed the physical likeness in Gen 2:27, why was telling the bodiless images to have sex in chapter 1 Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." ?

God told them what to do; He did not mean this very moment.

Unless you can establish your different definitions of image and likeness from scripture, you may be reading into scripture what it does not actually say.

Right. I got my meanings from the "Theological Wordbook of the O.T"., compied by about 60 experts in Hebrew. Where did you get your meanings?


>>Like Cal, you also need to show that the passages throughout scripture where it talk of God creating different people, Jacob, the Ammonites the smith, refer to a single aspect of the person being created, Cal's the nephesh or soul or your image of God, rather than saying as they seem to that God created the full person.<<

After Adam and Eve, God did not create people. They came the natural way

Another tu quoque fallacy I am afraid. We need to base our theology on what the text says.

We als need to understand that different words have differeent meanings.

To understand the the words in the text lexicons which give us the meaning of the words based on the straightforward way they are used by people in different texts and related languages. We mustn't read our theology into the dictionary definition or our theology becomes circular.

OK. I told you where I go my meanings, tell me where you got yours.

Dishonest is the perhaps wrong term here, a misunderstanding would be better. It is as much a misunderstanding to read a literal text figuratively as it is to read a figurative text literally.

If is done without a good reason, it is dishonsest. As you know there are some who insist on a literal reading of all in the Bible.

What we are not taught in scripture is the bias to literalism, that we have to assume a passage is literal unless there is good reason not to.

Agreed.

God loves to speak to us in his word in metaphor and parable and he doesn't always tell us when he is doing it. Frequently he doesn't. The best we can do is learn to recognise his voice through the more obviously metaphorical passage.

Agreed. You are one a roll. I love the figurative language in the Bible. IMO, it teaches us spiritual truths. In fact parables are so we know the mysteries of the kingdom God hidden from the foundation of the world(Mt 13:35)..

All the different lines of scientific evidence say the same thing. Even the bible tells you a matter is established by two or three witnesses. The controversy over science isn't a new one, unfortunately there have Christians throughout church history rejecting the science of their day, saying it wasn't proven, because it didn't fit their own interpretation of scripture. Whether it was teaching a flat earth like Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius or centuries later standing against Galileo and heliocentrism, they have always brought the gospel into disrepute, and as centuries have passed and science progressed further they they have never been vindicated, we only see more and more how utterly mistaken they were.

Some of them were mistaken because of their ignorance of science and the Bible does not say wht they said. They had some bad theology, which in a way is understandable. However I never try to mix Bible with science. Evolution must stand on know science or it falls flat and IMO, it falls flat in many areas.

Sorry the Ezekiel reference is Ezek 21:28-30. here is the NASB, 28"And you, son of man, prophesy and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD concerning the sons of Ammon and concerning their reproach,' and say : 'A sword, a sword is drawn, polished for the slaughter, to cause it to consume, that it may be like lightning -
29 while they see for you false visions, while they divine lies for you-to place you on the necks of the wicked who are slain, whose day has come, in the time of the punishment of the end.
30 'Return it to its sheath. In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.

At least you use a transltion that I consider one of the best.

YOu make a good point. MY word book says in some of the Hebrew tenses it may mean to form, when used in the Qal.

Wouldn't the smith would have learned smithying from his dad? I realise it is from an earlier post to Cal than the one you responded to, but when Cal tried to claim bara referred to creating the nephesh in a human being Gen 2:7 and man became a living being (or 'soul' as the AV and the NASB footnote says), I pointed out verses where create is used for things that have no nephesh.

"Nepesh" has many meanings: life, soul, creature, person appetite and mind.
IMO, the sould was part of the image in Gen 1:27. When God fashioned Adam fro the ground he alread had his sould abut it did not function until God breathed into him the breath of life.

Do the heavens and the earth have nephesh? What about myrtle bushes, olive trees and cedars Isaiah 41:19&20 do trees have nephesh too? Or how about the earthquake that God created that swallowed up Korah and friends in Numbers 16:30, or God creating darkness in Isaiah 45:7

[/quote]

Only man has a soul. Wht verse make you think the earth, trees, etc, have a soul?

kermit

 

[Fascinated With God]

"Nepesh" has many meanings: life, soul, creature, person appetite and mind.
IMO, the sould was part of the image in Gen 1:27. When God fashioned Adam fro the ground he alread had his sould abut it did not function until God breathed into him the breath of life.

That sounds like Annihilationism, the belief that the soul does not exist independent of the body. That is such an unorthodox belief that it is forbidden to debate it here on an orthodox board. You can only debate it in the unorthodox theology board.

Most of you folks are really on the fringes of Christianity.

 

[Fascinated With God]

BTW, I think this poll was a trick question. I had no idea what Mark Kennedy was referring to when he put "(strictly secondary causes)". Mark's definition of strictly secondary causes falls in line with the classic definition "deism". Also known as the "clock maker God" who sets things in motion and then is strictly hands off, leaving the universe to operate under strictly 2ndary causes.

Deism and TE are completely different things. If you worded your poll less deceptively, without any mislabeling, you would get very different results. I certainly never would have voted for your TE option if I had known how you are mislabeling it.

 

[frogman2x]

That sounds like Annihilationism, the belief that the soul does not exist independent of the body. That is such an unorthodox belief that it is forbidden to debate it here on an orthodox board. You can only debate it in the unorthodox theology board.

First of all you have misinterpreted what I said. It was not about annihilaionism. Second, the soul can exist without the body as Rev 6:9 clearly indicates.

Most of you folks are really on the fringes of Christianity.

In what way?

It is nice to have someone in the fourm who has perfect theology who can set us all straight.

kermit

 

[Papias]

FSG wrote:

BTW, I think this poll was a trick question. I had no idea what Mark Kennedy was referring to when he put "(strictly secondary causes)". Mark's definition of strictly secondary causes falls in line with the classic definition "deism". Also known as the "clock maker God" who sets things in motion and then is strictly hands off, leaving the universe to operate under strictly 2ndary causes.

Well, sure it was.

mark was using his common tactic of denying that TE's see God acting in the universe. I pointed that out in posts #4 and #9, and mark still would not fix that aspect of his poll. After all, the poll does not appear to be made to learn anything, but instead appears to be a denial propaganda tool.


Thanks for putting up a realistic poll.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Right.

It is not. Image and likeness is not the same thing. The words are different and so is their meanings. Image is "selem" and dlikeness is "demut."

God's image cannot consist of man's body parts which were made from dust of the earth---God is spirit. Selem refers to the spiritual, intellectual land moral aspects of God.

"Likeness" refers to the visible, image to the invisible.

1Sam 6:4 And they said, "What is the guilt offering that we shall return to him?" They answered, "Five golden tumors and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines, for the same plague was on all of you and on your lords. 5 So you must make images of your tumours and images of your mice that ravage the land, and give glory to the God of Israel. Perhaps he will lighten his hand from off you and your gods and your land. Invisible gold mice? And if God is invisible, how can his likeness be visible? You need to establish that these are the meanings of image and likeness rather than just claiming it.

God told them what to do; He did not mean this very moment.

Doesn't make sense having it there in Genesis if they were disembodied spirits, much better to wait until he created their bodies. Telling them what they could eat didn't make much sense either. At least in Genesis 2 God waits until he has created Adam to tell him what he could eat. But there is no suggestion in Genesis 1 that God only made a partial creation. This is the story of God making man and women. As it says in Genesis 2:1 God finished the work he was doing.

Right. I got my meanings from the "Theological Wordbook of the O.T"., compied by about 60 experts in Hebrew. Where did you get your meanings?

TWOT may have been compiled by 60 different contributors, but only one or two would have written about the meaning of image and likeness. You would have to quote what they actually say to show they support your position. Does TWOT actually say one of the words refers to creating man's physical body while the other refers spiritual aspects?

After Adam and Eve, God did not create people. They came the natural way

And yet the bible keeps speaking of God creating people and nations. Ezekiel does one of those nice Hebrew parallels Ezek 21:30 In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you. This is talking about land where they had their origin as a nation and calls it the place where they were created. God created the Ammonites when they became a nation, not back in Eden.

We als need to understand that different words have differeent meanings.

Indeed, bara can also mean grow fat or cut down. What you need to show is that one meaning of bara is to create ex nihilo and that there is a separate meaning that is still create but isn't ex nihilo. It is much simpler to say that bara refers to God making things and it can be used in contexts that are ex nihilo as well as ex materia or natural processes. If we understand it is ex nihilo from the context, what is bara bringing that we don't know from the contexts? How is bara itself different from it use ex materia contexts?

OK. I told you where I go my meanings, tell me where you got yours.

Are you talking about the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament again? Here is what TWOT says:

Since the word never occurs with the object of the material, and since the primary emphasis of the word is on the newness of the created object, the word lends itself well to the concept of creation ex nihilo although that concept is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the word.
​

If is done without a good reason, it is dishonsest. As you know there are some who insist on a literal reading of all in the Bible.

We need to give one another the benefit of the doubt, especially realising how readily we dece

Agreed.

Agreed. You are one a roll. I love the figurative language in the Bible. IMO, it teaches us spiritual truths. In fact parables are so we know the mysteries of the kingdom God hidden from the foundation of the world(Mt 13:35)..

Good. I think some people can even be afraid of interpreting passages non literally.

Some of them were mistaken because of their ignorance of science and the Bible does not say wht they said. They had some bad theology, which in a way is understandable. However I never try to mix Bible with science.

The geocentrists weren't trying to mix the bible and science, they simply took the bible literally when it described Joshua commanding the sun to stop. The problem came when science showed it wasn't the sun that moves across the sky it is the earth rotating. They weren't trying to turn the bible into a science text book, but scientific developments still showed the traditional literal interpretation was wrong and they had to find better ways to understand how God was speaking in those passages.

Evolution must stand on know science or it falls flat and IMO, it falls flat in many areas.

The scientific evidence for evolution really is very strong.

At least you use a transltion that I consider one of the best.

It's my wife's favourite, I tend to use the ESV which is more readable, but I quoted the NASB for you there.

YOu make a good point. MY word book says in some of the Hebrew tenses it may mean to form, when used in the Qal.

If you are talking about the TWOT, I think it is looking at a suggested etymology relating the Qal form (created) with the Piel to cut down. All the times bara is translated create it is either Qal or its passive form Niphal (were created). But we really don't know the origin of bara and the Piel may simplybe a separate word.

"Nepesh" has many meanings: life, soul, creature, person appetite and mind.
IMO, the sould was part of the image in Gen 1:27. When God fashioned Adam fro the ground he alread had his sould abut it did not function until God breathed into him the breath of life.

Actually it says that was when the man became a living soul. It is not so much the meaning of nephesh whether you translate it being or soul (though that is a big question in itself), but what the bible tells us about the nephesh, especially since you think it was created in Genesis 1.

Only man has a soul. Wht verse make you think the earth, trees, etc, have a soul?
kermit

Actually Genesis 2:7 uses the same phrase nephesh chai to refer to Adam as it uses to refer to sea creatures in Gen 1:20 & 21 and land animals in Gen 1:24 & Gen 2:19 (NASB living creature or living creatures). The reason I asked about earthquakes, darkness, shrubs and trees is that these don't have a nephesh but are described as being created by God.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, sure it was.

mark was using his common tactic of denying that TE's see God acting in the universe. I pointed that out in posts #4 and #9, and mark still would not un-deceptivize his poll. After all, the poll does not appear to be made to learn anything, but instead appears to be a denial propaganda tool.


Thanks for putting up a realistic poll.

Papias

Notice what he doesn't say, he doesn't deny that God acting directly is rejected before the evidence is considered. Theistic evolution is classic deism since God gets credit for nothing going all the way back to the Big Bang. Secondary causes are simply anything God used like some law of nature and directing a naturally occurring phenomenon.

No, he's not going to address this directly. Instead the ad hominems come out early and often. How many times am I going to have to report this guy for calling me a liar, simply for not agreeing with him?

 

[Assyrian]

Notice what he doesn't say, he doesn't deny that God acting directly is rejected before the evidence is considered. Theistic evolution is classic deism since God gets credit for nothing going all the way back to the Big Bang. Secondary causes are simply anything God used like some law of nature and directing a naturally occurring phenomenon.

No, he's not going to address this directly. Instead the ad hominems come out early and often. How many times am I going to have to report this guy for calling me a liar, simply for not agreeing with him?

Wouldn't it be better to address what Papias actually said rather than trying to read implications into what he didn't say?