Creationism (doctrine and teaching)

[mark kennedy]

I don't know what there is to discuss. Creation IS an essential Christian doctrine and no one who subscribes to biblical faith is going to deny that. So after we all affirm our commitment to creation, what is there left to say?

So would you regard creation from strictly secondary causes to be 'Creation' in the sense of the Nicene Creed, Hebrews 1:1, John 1:1-3 and Genesis 1?

 

[gluadys]

So would you regard creation from strictly secondary causes to be 'Creation' in the sense of the Nicene Creed, Hebrews 1:1, John 1:1-3 and Genesis 1?

I see. Your interest is not really about whether creation is an essential Christian doctrine. We already agree on that.

Your interest is really about the nature of creation.

As to your question, the answer depends on how you define your terms. What do you see as the relationship between God's action and secondary causes?

 

[mark kennedy]

I see. Your interest is not really about whether creation is an essential Christian doctrine. We already agree on that.

My interest is almost exclusively on Creation as essential doctrine. It remains obscure what exactly we do agree on except that God's work in Creation is beyond skepticism in a Christian context.

Your interest is really about the nature of creation.

The Nicene Creed, Genesis 1, John 1, Hebrews 1 and Romans 1:18-20 being foundational. The nature of Creation is clearly ex nihilo with regards to the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21), and man (Gen. 1:27)

As to your question, the answer depends on how you define your terms. What do you see as the relationship between God's action and secondary causes?

It's defined:

( בָּרָא bara' Strong's H1254): "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...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. (Vines Dictionary)​

In answer to your question, 'Creation' in this since is without secondary causes, thus the use of 'bara' in the passages describing the creation of the universe, life and man becoming a living being respectively.

Secondary causes, in case you missed it, are contrary to the doctrine of creation. Creation is also transcendent in a profoundly theological sense since the Incarnation, Resurrection and New Birth are also creation in this sense.

Once again, are we talking about Creation in the ex nihilo sense or from secondary causes?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Fascinated With God]

Once again, are we talking about Creation in the ex nihilo sense or from secondary causes?

Why do you keep quoting a terse version of the common Latin phrase, "Nothing comes from nothing"?

 

[gluadys]

In answer to your question, 'Creation' in this since is without secondary causes, thus the use of 'bara' in the passages describing the creation of the universe, life and man becoming a living being respectively.

Once again we find ourselves in agreement. I do not subscribe to secondary causes. Especially if one understands secondary causes to be autonomous, operating apart from God.

That doesn't mean, of course, that I deny the reality of natural processes. But I do deny the separation of natural processes from direct divine activity.

Once again, are we talking about Creation in the ex nihilo sense or from secondary causes?

I think you are presenting too simple a dichotomy. My position would be more along the line of a continuous active creativity originating ex nihilo. In any case, not secondary causes if those are understood to be independent of creating.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why do you keep quoting a terse version of the common Latin phrase, "Nothing comes from nothing"?

Why don't you pay attention to the context it is used in:

( בָּרָא bara' Strong's H1254): "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...​

 

[mark kennedy]

Once again we find ourselves in agreement. I do not subscribe to secondary causes. Especially if one understands secondary causes to be autonomous, operating apart from God.

That doesn't mean, of course, that I deny the reality of natural processes. But I do deny the separation of natural processes from direct divine activity.

That is exactly what the use of the term 'bara' means, it's exclusively a direct divine activity.

I think you are presenting too simple a dichotomy. My position would be more along the line of a continuous active creativity originating ex nihilo. In any case, not secondary causes if those are understood to be independent of creating.

Ambiguous as always, what we have in these three verses (Gen. 1:1,21,27), is creation by divine fiat.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Why don't you pay attention to the context it is used in:

( בָּרָא bara' Strong's H1254): "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...
​

Such hypocrisy, I ask you about your truncated use of the Latin phrase "ex nihilo nihil fit", and you reply by insulting me for supposedly not paying attention and then proceed to address Hebrew rather than Latin.

I love it when the bad guys are so pretentious.

 

[mark kennedy]

Such hypocrisy, I ask you about your truncated use of the Latin phrase "ex nihilo nihil fit", and you reply by insulting me for supposedly not paying attention and then proceed to address Hebrew rather than Latin.

I love it when the bad guys are so pretentious.

Hypocrisy is pretending your something your not and if you are not a creationist your not a Christian. Quoting sound Christian scholarship and relying on the clear testimony of Scripture based on the explicit meaning of 'creation', makes me the bad guy? Classic projection, condemning in others what you most fear about yourself.

Perhaps you'll answer the question you have tried so zealously to suppress.

Would you equivocate 'creation' from strictly secondary causes to be 'Creation' in the Nicene Creed, Hebrews 1:1, John 1:1-3 and Genesis 1?​

There is one in every discussion but not to worry, I sign on wearing my asbestos apologetics jump suit. It's called sound doctrine.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Hypocrisy is pretending your something your not and if you are not a creationist your not a Christian.

You are equivocating belief in Creation with Creationism again Mark.

Quoting sound Christian scholarship and relying on the clear testimony of Scripture based on the explicit meaning of 'creation', makes me the bad guy? Classic projection, condemning in others what you most fear about yourself.

Perhaps you'll answer the question you have tried so zealously to suppress.

Would you equivocate 'creation' from strictly secondary causes to be 'Creation' in the Nicene Creed, Hebrews 1:1, John 1:1-3 and Genesis 1?​

There is one in every discussion but not to worry, I sign on wearing my asbestos apologetics jump suit. It's called sound doctrine.

Have a nice day
Mark

I thought you knew W E Vine didn't claim to be a Hebrew scholar? From our previous discussion on this you do have access to bara in more scholarly Lexicons like BDB and HALOT. Of course they don't say bara is ex nihilo.

You know that creating Adam from dust is not ex nihilo, from nothing, it is ex materia, from dust. Yet the bible uses bara to describe God creating man. You also know that bara is also used for God creating through secondary causes, Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. If you go back nine months before the smith was born you will find the secondary cause God used to created him. God says he created Jacob too 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. This is not just referring to Jacob himself but the whole nations descended from him too, descended by normal biological means, yet created by God. The word bara is even used for creating the Ammonites whose secondary cause was Lot's daughters getting their father drunk to sleep with him Ezek 21:28 "And you, son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD concerning the Ammonites (the children of Ammon) and concerning their reproach; say, A sword, a sword is drawn for the slaughter. It is polished to consume and to flash like lightning--
29 while they see for you false visions, while they divine lies for you--to place you on the necks of the profane wicked, whose day has come, the time of their final punishment. 30 Return it to its sheath. In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.

 

[Calminian]

....You know that creating Adam from dust is not ex nihilo, from nothing, it is ex materia, from dust. Yet the bible uses bara to describe God creating man.

Sounds like a miracle to me. Can you create a man out of dust?

You also know that bara is also used for God creating through secondary causes, Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose.

Secondary causes? God created Adam, and therefore all that comes from him. Nothing secondary about it. God created mankind (adam) and intervenes in this creation directly shaping what man does. Babel is a great example of His direct intervention. Israel is as well.

God says he created Jacob too 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. This is not just referring to Jacob himself but the whole nations descended from him too, descended by normal biological means, yet created by God. ....

The creation of Israel "God's son" is hardly the result of secondary means and random biological processes. Israel was the result of direct intervention from God, starting with His calling of Abraham out of Ur. God intervened in the creation of the nation of Israel so much, that He called it his son. He actually fathered the nation of Israel. There's no escaping the supernatural origins of Israel.

 

[Assyrian]

Sounds like a miracle to me. Can you create a man out of dust?

My issue was with Mark's claim bara is ex nihilo, creation can be ex nihilo, but the bible uses bara to speak of God creating ex materia too.

Secondary causes? God created Adam, and therefore all that comes from him. Nothing secondary about it. God created mankind (adam) and intervenes in this creation directly shaping what man does. Babel is a great example of His direct intervention. Israel is as well.

From that you should have no problem with God creating the universe and then using evolution and natural processes to form and shape it. I have no problem with God intervening directly, but he also uses natural processes like Mr and Mrs Smith getting together to create little baby Smith.

The creation of Israel "God's son" is hardly the result of secondary means and random biological processes. Israel was the result of direct intervention from God, starting with His calling of Abraham out of Ur. God intervened in the creation of the nation of Israel so much, that He called it his son. He actually fathered the nation of Israel. There's no escaping the supernatural origins of Israel.

So God didn't use Isaac and Rebekah doing what comes naturally as well?

 

[Calminian]

My issue was with Mark's claim bara is ex nihilo, creation can be ex nihilo, but the bible uses bara to speak of God creating ex materia too.

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.

What you have to do is stop resisting God's revelation. Just let it speak. You're trying to cram God's revelation into man's ideas and it won't work. You seem to be on an endless quest for loopholes in God's word.

Assyrian, what you really have to do is make a decision. Either trust God or don't. Be honest with yourself. As it is written, you don't believe the Bible.

So God didn't use Isaac and Rebekah doing what comes naturally as well?

God uses all kinds of things. But Israel the nation was different than other nations. It was the nation that God specifically intervened with to bring it about. It was God that superintended the process that birthed Israel out of Egypt. Thus it is called His "son." Adam also is called God's son, as are angels. They came about by direct intervention, rather than procreation, though the references to Israel are metaphorical, obviously. But the concept is consistent. Jesus was God's only begotten (fathered) son. Apart from Adam, the only way we can become sons of God, is by being in Christ.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

While we translate tohu as formless, it is not related to any of the verbs mean form, make or create. There is a verb meaning to form, yatsar, used in Genesis 2, but it is not used in Genesis 1. There the two main verbs are bara, create and asah, make. There is no reason God could not make or create something that is still formless. You may not form something formless, but you can certainly make it.

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.

In fact it is not actually clear that Genesis 1:1 is talking about ex nihilo creation, the bible does teach ex nihilo creation, but you only find clear examples in the NT John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. The problem with Genesis 1:1 is that it can be interpreted as the title describing the whole chapter, or translated Gen 1:1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth... In both cases account of creation describes God making everything from a pre-existing chaos. The bible still teaches ex nihilo creation, it just wasn't an issue the Jewish writers were bothered with.

What you have to do is stop resisting God's revelation. Just let it speak. You're trying to cram God's revelation into man's ideas and it won't work. You seem to be on an endless quest for loopholes in God's word.

Assyrian, what you really have to do is make a decision. Either trust God or don't. Be honest with yourself. As it is written, you don't believe the Bible.

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. 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.

God uses all kinds of things. But Israel the nation was different than other nations. It was the nation that God specifically intervened with to bring it about. It was God that superintended the process that birthed Israel out of Egypt. Thus it is called His "son." Adam also is called God's son, as are angels. They came about by direct intervention, rather than procreation, though the references to Israel are metaphorical, obviously. But the concept is consistent. Jesus was God's only begotten (fathered) son. Apart from Adam, the only way we can become sons of God, is by being in Christ.

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?

 

[Calminian]

While we translate tohu as formless, it is not related to any of the verbs mean form, make or create. There is a verb meaning to form, yatsar, used in Genesis 2, but it is not used in Genesis 1. There the two main verbs are bara, create and asah, make. There is no reason God could not make or create something that is still formless. You may not form something formless, but you can certainly make it.

There are two basic choices. God formed from preexisting material. God created the unformed material (ex nihilo). Any word can be used in an irregular way to mean a whole range of things, but context always determines meaning. In the beginning God created the unformed earth and unexpanded heavens. If God merely formed the unformed earth, that wouldn't make any sense. Why would you make some unformed from preexisting material?

It is from this context bara derives its primary meaning.

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.

But this assumes there are no ex nihilo aspects to living creatures. Yes their material is from preexisting material, but they also have nephesh. This may well be the reason bara is used there. Both men and certain animals have nephesh. Does nephesh come from the material of the earth?

In fact it is not actually clear that Genesis 1:1 is talking about ex nihilo creation, the bible does teach ex nihilo creation, but you only find clear examples in the NT John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. The problem with Genesis 1:1 is that it can be interpreted as the title describing the whole chapter, or translated Gen 1:1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth... In both cases account of creation describes God making everything from a pre-existing chaos. The bible still teaches ex nihilo creation, it just wasn't an issue the Jewish writers were bothered with.

You're still in a desperate search for loopholes. If you look at the construction of the early sentences in Genesis, they are simple and straightforward. God created the heavens an earth, AND they were unformed and unexpanded and unfilled, AND God formed and expanded and filled them. There is no indication of a title sentence, just a summary statement at the end of the section. "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." (Gen. 2:4). Assyrian, exegesis is not your problem. It is unbelief, not just with this but all of God's word. You're trying form it into something it is not.

 

[Assyrian]

There are two basic choices. God formed from preexisting material. God created the unformed material (ex nihilo). Any word can be used in an irregular way to mean a whole range of things, but context always determines meaning. In the beginning God created the unformed earth and unexpanded heavens. If God merely formed the unformed earth, that wouldn't make any sense. Why would you make some unformed from preexisting material?

You seem to be arguing against Genesis 1:1 being ex nihilo there, that it couldn't be God making the formless and void material we see in verse 2. But I don''t see why God couldn't make the unformed material he later made into everything else.

It is from this context bara derives its primary meaning.

No it is from all the contexts bara is used in we derive its meaning. We learn it describes God making things and in fact is used interchangeably with form and make. It is however only used for the activity of God bara is God making things and making them according to his purpose. However most uses do not involve ex nihilo creation. If it is only the occasional contexts that tells us the creation is ex nihilo then it isn't bara that is telling you it is ex nihilo it is the context. Perhaps if bara was used very differently in the ex nihilo contexts you could argue for a different usage of the verb, (we have this in the piel form where the verb means cut and the hiphil which mean get fat) but bara in ex nihilo contexts still means God is making things.

But this assumes there are no ex nihilo aspects to living creatures. Yes their material is from preexisting material, but they also have nephesh. This may well be the reason bara is used there. Both men and certain animals have nephesh. Does nephesh come from the material of the earth?

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

You're still in a desperate search for loopholes. If you look at the construction of the early sentences in Genesis, they are simple and straightforward. God created the heavens an earth, AND they were unformed and unexpanded and unfilled, AND God formed and expanded and filled them. There is no indication of a title sentence, just a summary statement at the end of the section. "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." (Gen. 2:4). Assyrian, exegesis is not your problem. It is unbelief, not just with this but all of God's word. You're trying form it into something it is not.

What loopholes? How have I used the interpretation of Gen 1:1 to wriggle out of anything? The interpretive questions are real enough for translations to include alternative meaning of Gen 1:1 in the footnotes GNT, NET, NLT, NRSV & RSV or even have it as the main translation CEB, Living, NRSV & Youngs. If you want to study scripture seriously you need to understand the serious translation issues. Dismissing them is simply wishful thinking.

 

[Calminian]

You seem to be arguing against Genesis 1:1 being ex nihilo there, that it couldn't be God making the formless and void material we see in verse 2. But I don''t see why God couldn't make the unformed material he later made into everything else.

No, I agued just the opposite. That's okay I'll slow down for you. You're arguing that God formed something formless out of pre-exising material. I'm arguing just the opposite, the He made the material unformed, then formed it.

Again, it's real basic. It's illogical to form something unformed. That's why your thesis breaks apart logically.

You're getting lost is hebrew words, and ignoring context. Instead of looking at the contextual aspects of how the word is used, you're looking to lexicons to find possible loopholes so you can hold onto mans' ideas about origins.

Do the heavens and the earth have nephesh?

You didn't follow that one either. Let me slow down ever more. No, the heavens and earth don't have nephesh. LOL. It's hard to believe some of the inferences people make from simple statements. That's okay, I get things twisted too.

The material of the heavens and earth was ex nihilo. But those initial materials didn't have one ingredient man needed—nephesh. Is the light coming on yet? So perhaps that's why the term bara was used in the creation of Man, even though the material aspect of man was pre-existing. For man is both material and nephesh. Perhaps the writer used the word bara due to that fact. Makes sense. I would have done that same had I wanted to describe this.

So you have 2 problems now. 1) context makes in impossible for the creation of the heaven and earth to be merely formed, since they were created unformed. 2) even your example of bara doesn't exclude an ex nihilo creation of nephesh.

Patiently awaiting the next loophole.............

 

[Assyrian]

No, I agued just the opposite. That's okay I'll slow down for you. You're arguing that God formed something formless out of pre-exising material. I'm arguing just the opposite, the He made the material unformed, then formed it.

Again, it's real basic. It's illogical to form something unformed. That's why your thesis breaks apart logically.

You are still getting stuck with forming something formless. Genesis 1 doesn't use the verb to form. Does your argument work if you use the word 'made'?

You're getting lost is hebrew words, and ignoring context. Instead of looking at the contextual aspects of how the word is used, you're looking to lexicons to find possible loopholes so you can hold onto mans' ideas about origins.

Lexicons use context to work out how a word is used, only they are much better at the Hebrew and related languages than you. Of course you will never learn anything if you dismiss everything you don't like as 'looking for loopholes'.

You didn't follow that one either. Let me slow down ever more. No, the heavens and earth don't have nephesh. LOL. It's hard to believe some of the inferences people make from simple statements. That's okay, I get things twisted too.

You were trying to make up a new meaning of bara based on it being used for God creating people and saying it meant God made their nephesh ex nihilo, because you really want to work ex nihilo in there somehow. I showed you a bunch of other uses that you couldn't claim had nephesh. The common context is God making things, not making them ex nihilo.

The material of the heavens and earth was ex nihilo. But those initial materials didn't have one ingredient man needed—nephesh. Is the light coming on yet? So perhaps that's why the term bara was used in the creation of Man, even though the material aspect of man was pre-existing. For man is both material and nephesh. Perhaps the writer used the word bara due to that fact. Makes sense. I would have done that same had I wanted to describe this.

You would need to show that bara only referred to the creation of man's spirit or that God makes each person's spirit ex nihilo in the first place. And of course explain why bara is also used for earthquakes and myrtle bushes. No you are searching for excuses to support a preconceived idea instead rather than wanting to see what bara actually means.

So you have 2 problems now. 1) context makes in impossible for the creation of the heaven and earth to be merely formed, since they were created unformed.

Formed isn't an issue.

2) even your example of bara doesn't exclude an ex nihilo creation of nephesh.
Patiently awaiting the next loophole.............

I never said bara excluded ex nihilo, it can be used in ex nihilo contexts it just doesn't mean ex nihilo itself. What you need is bara + an ex nihilo context to get an ex nihilo creation. Of course you still have to show (1) that bara creation of man is referring to the creation of the nephesh rather than simply being a description of the creation of the whole person, and (2) that each nephesh is formed ex nihilo.

 

[Calminian]

You are still getting stuck with forming something formless. Genesis 1 doesn't use the verb to form. Does your argument work if you use the word 'made'?

This is killing you isn't it?

Formed isn't an issue.

You are correct. But it was your argument.

I never said bara excluded ex nihilo, it can be used in ex nihilo contexts it just doesn't mean ex nihilo itself. What you need is bara + an ex nihilo context to get an ex nihilo creation. Of course you still have to show (1) that bara creation of man is referring to the creation of the nephesh rather than simply being a description of the creation of the whole person, and (2) that each nephesh is formed ex nihilo.

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.

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

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.

 

[gluadys]

But I don''t see why God couldn't make the unformed material he later made into everything else.

I'm arguing just the opposite, the He made the material unformed, then formed it.

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