Is God still creating today?

[Mallon]

No. That is evolution, not creation.

Define creation. Why is the birthing of a new species via natural processes not creation, but the birthing of an individual via natural processes is creation?

 

[icamewithasword]

My prior post was misunderstood by some, so I'll try to speak in simpler terms.

By going off in tangents, I meant that people were calling everything from the heretic evolution theory to the birth of new men to the re-born Christian as meaning God is still creating.....

So I asked, in which way were you referring? By 'creating' are you meaning actual new creations (celestial bodies, living creatures...) or were you speaking in other terms?

 

[Mick116]

I suppose the fact that the universe continues to expand can be example of continuing creation.

 

[Assyrian]

OK, I am not going to argue if God continues to create other things.
But, I think you agree that God continues to create brand new human beings, i.e. new people, infants. Right? So, everyone of us is created. Right?

Right. And some are even created twice.

2Cor 5:17(NASB) Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
(ESV) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
Ever notice how 'a creature' can also be translated 'a creation'? That is what creature means. It is used for the old creation too.

Mark 16:15 (NASB) And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
(NET) He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Of course these are New Testament and Greek, but Hebrew uses the same word bara for the old creation as well as the new.
Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

 

[Assyrian]

My prior post was misunderstood by some, so I'll try to speak in simpler terms.

By going off in tangents, I meant that people were calling everything from the heretic evolution theory to the birth of new men to the re-born Christian as meaning God is still creating.....

So I asked, in which way were you referring? By 'creating' are you meaning actual new creations (celestial bodies, living creatures...) or were you speaking in other terms?

OK lets have a look at your post.

This seems to go off in tangents....

Maybe best to define 'created'? As in, not to be confused with Jesus' miracles or the birth of my son 7 years ago.......

You need to be careful with definitions of create, I keep coming across Creationists defining the meaning of the Hebrew word bara, create. The problem is, their definition bears no resemblance to the way the bible uses the word bara. While creationist websites try to define create to exclude evolution, the bible is happy to use the word for everything God creates from the origin of the universe to the birth of your son, even a new blade of grass and the wind that blows across it.

 

[juvenissun]

Define creation. Why is the birthing of a new species via natural processes not creation, but the birthing of an individual via natural processes is creation?

Good question. Assyrian held on the Hebrew word bara. But I like to go in a different way.

Creation means, there was not, but there is. That is the definition. In particular, when we look at it from the view of science.

Evolution is based on mutation. Mutation is a feature of reorganizing material. So, nothing is new as a result of evolution. Chimps are made of star dust, so are we. This is evolution.

But, you are an unique person, an unique identity on the time line. There was no Mallon, there is one and only one now, and there will be one and only one Mallon forever. This is, then, creation.

 

[juvenissun]

OK lets have a look at your post.

You need to be careful with definitions of create, I keep coming across Creationists defining the meaning of the Hebrew word bara, create. The problem is, their definition bears no resemblance to the way the bible uses the word bara. While creationist websites try to define create to exclude evolution, the bible is happy to use the word for everything God creates from the origin of the universe to the birth of your son, even a new blade of grass and the wind that blows across it.

So, we had a hurricane last month. And we have one again today. According to the meaning of bara, a new hurricane was created. I don't know if the word bara is used this way (I doubt it). But this is not the meaning of create in creationism.

The word bara is used in the Six-Day Creation (Gen 2:3), may be the whole creation will be repeated again? and again?

 

[juvenissun]

I suppose the fact that the universe continues to expand can be example of continuing creation.

Interesting. If that is true, then that particular ONE action of creation lasts so long indeed, and has not finished yet.

This is a hard one. Don't know what to say.

 

[Mallon]

Good question. Assyrian held on the Hebrew word bara. But I like to go in a different way.

Creation means, there was not, but there is. That is the definition. In particular, when we look at it from the view of science.

Evolution is based on mutation. Mutation is a feature of reorganizing material. So, nothing is new as a result of evolution. Chimps are made of star dust, so are we. This is evolution.

But, you are an unique person, an unique identity on the time line. There was no Mallon, there is one and only one now, and there will be one and only one Mallon forever. This is, then, creation.

The same argument applies to speciation, juvie. Whereas there was once no species x, now there is. In your attempt to redefine creation so as to exclude evolution, your argument just becomes incoherent.
(Also, the conception of an individual involves the combining and reorganization of the same genetic material upon which natural selection acts to produce speciation. So your argument fails at this level, too.)

 

[70x7]

I am saying, everyone, Christian or not, is a new creation.

Yeah, but I was drawing reference to a specific verse
2Cor 5:17
"So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away"

 

[Assyrian]

So, we had a hurricane last month. And we have one again today. According to the meaning of bara, a new hurricane was created. I don't know if the word bara is used this way (I doubt it).

They don't call them an act of God for nothing.
Amos 4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought, who makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth-- the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!
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.
I know it is hard to fit into our comfortable theology.

But this is not the meaning of create in creationism.

Because creationism doesn't use the word the way God does.

The word bara is used in the Six-Day Creation (Gen 2:3), may be the whole creation will be repeated again? and again?

Why should it? I am sure if God wanted to he could but what makes you think he would?

 

[juvenissun]

They don't call them an act of God for nothing.
Amos 4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought, who makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth-- the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!
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.
I know it is hard to fit into our comfortable theology.


Because creationism doesn't use the word the way God does.


Why should it? I am sure if God wanted to he could but what makes you think he would?

I don't get your argument. Darkness, wind, etc. etc. were created by God. That is true. But the creation takes place in the Days of creation and it is done. God does not create Darkness again and again. Like you said, it should not. Amos said that God creates. But Amos did not mean God creates at Amos' time.

So, what is your point? After the Day Six, what else does God create (except my argument on each individual human)?

 

[Mallon]

But the creation takes place in the Days of creation and it is done. God does not create Darkness again and again. Like you said, it should not.

That isn't what the verb tense seems to imply...

 

[juvenissun]

The same argument applies to speciation, juvie. Whereas there was once no species x, now there is. In your attempt to redefine creation so as to exclude evolution, your argument just becomes incoherent.
(Also, the conception of an individual involves the combining and reorganization of the same genetic material upon which natural selection acts to produce speciation. So your argument fails at this level, too.)

The scope of my argument is beyond speciation. New species is new from biological point of view, but not from physics/chemistry point of view. In the content of this thread, I am, in fact, talking about physics and chemistry. In this view, we, chimps and trilobites are made of the same material. No new material is created.

But, I don't think that Mallon ever exist before the the embryo of you was made, even the material of the embryo was certainly recycled.

 

[juvenissun]

That isn't what the verb tense seems to imply...

There is no tense to God.

 

[Assyrian]

But there is in the universe he created. I presume God is able to figure out the right tense to use.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't get your argument. Darkness, wind, etc. etc. were created by God. That is true. But the creation takes place in the Days of creation and it is done. God does not create Darkness again and again. Like you said, it should not. Amos said that God creates. But Amos did not mean God creates at Amos' time.

Unfortunately he did. Amos could easily have used a grammar and context that placed these actions back in the past, but he uses the participle to describe what The LORD the God of hosts, is like now, the God Amos is calling calling Israel to prepare to meet. The Lord is a God who continues to form mountains, create winds make the morning darkness every day.

You seem to have a need to restrict creation to creating the prototypes back in the six days of Gen 1, but that simply isn't the way the bible uses the word. This is a classic example of creationist reading their doctrine into the text rather than seeing what the bible says for itself. I still don't understand the basis you have for excluding all the references to the continuing creation of individuals and nations. In Psalm 104 each new generation of people, animals and plants are considered a creation of God. Psalm 104:29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
Now Psalm 104 is a creation account, but not the sort of one that appeals to Creationists. You can see the reference to Genesis in the creatures returning to dust, and the whole order of the Psalm follows Genesis 1. But the psalm reads the creation account in Genesis as going on today, there are ships in the sea as well as Leviathan. And God's creation of new life follows a previous generation dying and return to the dust.

If you exclude new species as creation, why are kinds included in creation in Genesis 1? What is the difference between creating new nations (Isaiah 43:1 Ezek 21:28) and creating new species?

So, what is your point? After the Day Six, what else does God create (except my argument on each individual human)?

You still haven't explained your argument for excluding people. So we have:
People, nations, metal workers, every new generation of plant and animals, darkness, wind, calamity. Of course you could put all this in the six days of creation if you want to say we are still in day six.

 

[Mallon]

The scope of my argument is beyond speciation. New species is new from biological point of view, but not from physics/chemistry point of view. In the content of this thread, I am, in fact, talking about physics and chemistry. In this view, we, chimps and trilobites are made of the same material. No new material is created.

But, I don't think that Mallon ever exist before the the embryo of you was made, even the material of the embryo was certainly recycled.

Your position just doesn't make sense, juvie.

There is no tense to God.

That didn't make sense either.

 

[juvenissun]

Unfortunately he did. Amos could easily have used a grammar and context that placed these actions back in the past, but he uses the participle to describe what The LORD the God of hosts, is like now, the God Amos is calling calling Israel to prepare to meet. The Lord is a God who continues to form mountains, create winds make the morning darkness every day.

You seem to have a need to restrict creation to creating the prototypes back in the six days of Gen 1, but that simply isn't the way the bible uses the word. This is a classic example of creationist reading their doctrine into the text rather than seeing what the bible says for itself. I still don't understand the basis you have for excluding all the references to the continuing creation of individuals and nations. In Psalm 104 each new generation of people, animals and plants are considered a creation of God. Psalm 104:29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
Now Psalm 104 is a creation account, but not the sort of one that appeals to Creationists. You can see the reference to Genesis in the creatures returning to dust, and the whole order of the Psalm follows Genesis 1. But the psalm reads the creation account in Genesis as going on today, there are ships in the sea as well as Leviathan. And God's creation of new life follows a previous generation dying and return to the dust.

If you exclude new species as creation, why are kinds included in creation in Genesis 1? What is the difference between creating new nations (Isaiah 43:1 Ezek 21:28) and creating new species?

You still haven't explained your argument for excluding people. So we have:
People, nations, metal workers, every new generation of plant and animals, darkness, wind, calamity. Of course you could put all this in the six days of creation if you want to say we are still in day six.

I want to focus on people.

Human will not die, but animal will. Bodies of both of human and animal go to dust. But the spirit of human exists indefinitely. The important concept is that the spirit of human will not be recycled, like what buddhism said. So, there is a net increase on the number of human spirit with time. That is an act of creation. And, in Christian theology, this is also a critical condition in the salvation plan (Rev 6:11).

In contrast, my dog died. That is the end of it. Its body is gone, and its soul disappeared. A baby dog is made with recycled material, and there is nothing new about the baby dog. This concept can also be applied to mountain, hurricane, and other objects made of material (and energy?).

That is the difference between human and animal.

 

[Assyrian]

I want to focus on people.

Human will not die, but animal will. Bodies of both of human and animal go to dust. But the spirit of human exists indefinitely. The important concept is that the spirit of human will not be recycled, like what buddhism said. So, there is a net increase on the number of human spirit with time. That is an act of creation. And, in Christian theology, this is also a critical condition in the salvation plan (Rev 6:11).

It is certainly a part of the salvation plan that we are all individuals who will stand before God's throne, but defining creation as some sort of net increase is not part of the plan. Hasn't their been a net increase in the number of dogs, and presumably dog spirits since they were first domesticated? However the bible doesn't actually talk of spirits being created, the word it uses is formed. Zech 12:1 Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him...

In contrast, my dog died. That is the end of it. Its body is gone, and its soul disappeared. A baby dog is made with recycled material, and there is nothing new about the baby dog. This concept can also be applied to mountain, hurricane, and other objects made of material (and energy?).

That is the difference between human and animal.

Yet the bible considers your baby dog, every new generation of animal and plant, a creation. Winds are recycled material, yet God creates the wind.

You keep trying to fit scripture into creationist doctrine about what create is supposed to mean, instead of learning what Creation means through what the bible says and what the bible considers creation.