Taking Questions on Instant Creation

[Alithis]

Go right ahead, my friend!

Ok ..but the 10 year old in me came out haha..


Here's a test I made up in another thread:



Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.



Answer..can't .don't know what it means..



Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".



Answer:Erhh sorry don't presently understand the question.



Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.



Answer..: Iraq vicinity .



The triune Godhead is a violation of what scientific law?



Answer: none.. Sientific law has no reliable constant.
It changes with political climate.



Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.

Answer :space ,sea,light,land ,stars ,whales ,trees.. (yes I added light and probably muddled some )



What day was Adam created on?
Answer: 6th.



Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
Answer: Don't know and it runs on authority not battery.



Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
Answer: mud. Because dirt and water makes mud.



Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
Answeron't know.



Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
Answer. Takes 24 hours for one revolution of the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you not going to answer my question, AV?

Do I look like I am?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok ..but the 10 year old in me came out haha..

Go to the head of the class!

 

[AV1611VET]

Where does it specify that God created the heavens and the earth from nothing?

It doesn't.

Nothing is the default starting position.

Look at it this way: it was either from nothing, or it was from energy; meaning that, in the beginning, if it wasn't the earth first, then God created energy first.

Thus it's safe to assume He created the earth first.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Do I look like I am?

LOL! No, it does not!

I wish I had the hubris necessary to think I had all the answers and they were 100% right. It must be nice.

Is it nice?

 

[Obliquinaut]

It doesn't.

Nothing is the default starting position.

Look at it this way: it was either from nothing, or it was from energy; meaning that, in the beginning, if it wasn't the earth first, then God created energy first.

Thus it's safe to assume He created the earth first.

Safe to assume???? Are you saying you don't KNOW these things for absolute certainty???

Why would you exalt yourself to provide answers in the OP?

I am curious why you won't answer my question directly but you are telling others "it is safe to assume". Huh.

Interesting.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Speaking of "instant" creation, St. Augustine took the position, based on the Latin translation of Sirach (which was widely regarded as Scripture in his time, and still is by the majority of Christians) that yes, in fact, God did create all things in an instant. Namely Sirach 18:1, "qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul", "He that lives in eternity created all things at the same time" (though the Greek, notably, states "ὁ ζῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔκτισεν τὰ πάντα κοινῇ", "[he] that lives forever created all things in common"). Not only Sirach 18:1, but also Genesis 2:4, "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,".

This was one reason why Augustine rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis 1; seeing the six days of creation as allegory; where God in fact created all things at the same time, instantaneously and ex nihilo (problematically, Genesis 1 does not say God created all things instantenously and ex nihilo; but describes God creating things sequentially using pre-existing material, thus a literal reading does not permit for an ex nihilo view of creation).

All things were created in the beginning, from nothing; but not necessarily in their present form(s); for Augustine there may have been a kind of evolution of the things of creation, from seminal form to mature form; this Augustinian "evolution" isn't, of course, scientific, biological evolution as we know it; but instead the idea that things grow, mature, and become from a primal state to a more mature state. For Augustine he looks to Scripture where God made all things by His Logos (John 1:3, Psalm 33:6-9), and God has never ceased to be the Creator and the Creative Cause, Act, and Agent in the universe (John 5:16-17); to which we might also add Colossians 1:16. There is a teleological impulse in creation that finds its fullness in Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of "instant" creation, St. Augustine took the position,

Not sure what that was all about, but okay.

St. AV1611VET disagrees with St. Augustine, but that's my prerogative.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Not sure what that was all about, but okay.

St. AV1611VET disagrees with St. Augustine, but that's my prerogative.

The eternal question arises, if St. Augustine could come to an opinion that differs from St. AV1611VET, could St AV1611VET be in error? Or is it impossible.

This is the problem one faces when arguing over things which cannot be verified by any means. I mean, of course, that science can tell you what the data says about how the earth was formed etc, but when we take science off the table the debates can rage forever!

While I don't believe in Augustine's instant creation concept, I'm far more interested in what Augustine thought than I am almost any theological thinker here on CF! Modern Christians seem to really devalue thought.

And at least Augustine was willing to tell you all his faults. In gory detail. Modern Christians are usually too pious.

 

[Kylie]

It doesn't.

Nothing is the default starting position.

Look at it this way: it was either from nothing, or it was from energy; meaning that, in the beginning, if it wasn't the earth first, then God created energy first.

Thus it's safe to assume He created the earth first.

Well, I see creationists often use the argument that you can look at a painting and tell it had a creator, you can look at a car and tell it had a creator, you can look at a building and tell it had a creator...

But the thing is that none of those are created from nothing. A painter takes things that already exist (paints, canvas) and arranges them in such a way as to create a painting. A car manufacturer take things that already exist (metals, plastics, glass) and arranges them in such a way as to create a car. A builder takes things that already exist (concrete, metal, glass) and arranges them in such a way as to create a building.

So I don't see how you can conclude that creation from nothing is the default position, since we have nothing like that today, and nothing in the Bible to indicate that is the case.

So try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I don't see how you can conclude that creation from nothing is the default position, since we have nothing like that today, and nothing in the Bible to indicate that is the case.

So try again.

Sure.

QV please:

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing", chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but it also occurs in other fields.

In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God). Creatio continua is the ongoing divine creation.

SOURCE

 

[Kylie]

Sure.

QV please:


SOURCE

*sigh*

Then let me ask again:

How do you know God didn't use stuff that was already there to make the Heavens and the Earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know God didn't use stuff that was already there to make the Heavens and the Earth?

First of all, you're making a mistake in your question:

You're saying "Heavens" ... plural ... when it should be singular.

There are three "heavens:" two of them were created ex nihilo, and one (our atmosphere) ex materia.

Second of all, I don't care to answer any "how do you know" questions, as they aren't conducive to learning.

As Paul says he was "persuaded" in believing in eternal security (once saved always saved), I am "persuaded" in creatio ex nihilo.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As Paul says he was "persuaded" in believing in eternal security (once saved always saved), I am "persuaded" in creatio ex nihilo.

IOW, you made it up.

 

[Kylie]

First of all, you're making a mistake in your question:

You're saying "Heavens" ... plural ... when it should be singular.

There are three "heavens:" two of them were created ex nihilo, and one (our atmosphere) ex materia.

Yeah, quibbling over minutiae instead of actually address the point - the hallmark of someone who doesn't have a point.

Second of all, I don't care to answer any "how do you know" questions, as they aren't conducive to learning.

*Looks at thread title*

*Looks at your above comment*

*Concludes you were not being honest when you posted the thread*

As Paul says he was "persuaded" in believing in eternal security (once saved always saved), I am "persuaded" in creatio ex nihilo.

So once again, the Bible can take a hike in favour of your pet theories.

 

[AV1611VET]

*Concludes you were not being honest when you posted the thread*

You conclude what you want, but if you have any questions pertaining to instant creation, I'll be more than happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You conclude what you want, but if you have any questions pertaining to instant creation, I'll be more than happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

I think we've all established what "the best of your ability" constitutes.

Time for you to beg the mods to close this thread like your others...

 

[Alithis]

Honestly @AV1611VET ..I can understand why you would debate against theistic evolution
And science with its total inconsistency and ever changing goal post ruled by its ever changing motives influenced by the ever changing political climate.

But why debate with an atheist..
They are not here to be convinced..they serve only the spirit of THIS world.

 

[AV1611VET]

But why debate with an atheist..
They are not here to be convinced..they serve only the spirit of THIS world.

Thanks, bro.

But they need to see our faith.

Even in the face of ridicule.

 

[lesliedellow]

Honestly @AV1611VET ..I can understand why you would debate against theistic evolution
And science with its total inconsistency and ever changing goal post ruled by its ever changing motives influenced by the ever changing political climate.

Science may revise its theories in the light of new data becoming available, but there is no chance of current theories being so comprehensively and radically wrong that six day creation will ever again seem credible. That is just the way it is.