No – that’s a point that the head of the physics department where I attended university emphasized in class: we don’t listen to our professors because they are always right, we listen because they are far more likely to be right than we are.
Accepts the existence, or accepts the validity? Your arguments make it sound like the latter; the problem there is that the latter position does away with the concept of truth altogether.
Because learning that is not shared is pointless – in Gospel terms, it’s burying a talent in the ground instead of investing it.
It only says that man was corrupted by sin – the rest of Creation is “burdened”, but the burden is us.
Though it fits James’ thought, actually Isaiah told us that.
That all boils down to shades of grey and how one defines “good”. Luther made a useful distinction between civic good and heavenly good, and noted that people are capable of civic good, which is to say that we are capable of doing good things for others. Yet civic good does not rise to the level of heavenly good!
Yes, humans are corrupt, but that does not mean that there is no ability to do civic good; indeed that should be plain since we still exist and are “in the image of God”, which means that we cannot possibly be totally corrupt.
I never taught in order to indoctrinate, I taught to enable others to think clearly – the point of teaching isn’t to get across what to think but how to think, i.e. how to examine and assess evidence, to reason logically, and so on.
Reality is rather quite impersonal! A narrow chair doesn’t care if your derriere is “fat” in your mind, it only cares if it is wider than the chair; the world doesn’t care if you think you can fly, it only cares about lift and gravity.
If reality were personal then I would still have the vitality I did fifty years ago when I aced all the fitness tests in the first week of physical education and didn’t have to take the courses!
Because as soon as your Scriptural theory touches on other realms of knowledge (i.e. nature or history), your theory is subject to whether or not it matches what we know beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you claim Adam & Eve were the first two humans and the earth is only 6,000 years old, it doesn’t matter whether your claims are based on Scripture, they’re still subject to what we know about history and genetics. I don’t have to answer your belief based on scripture; it’s clearly wrong based on common knowledge. A religious claim about history or nature doesn’t have to be answered on its own terms from the same sourcebook where the claim originated. As soon as religion (any religion) makes a claim about nature or history, those claims can (and should) be examined against what we already know about nature and history. For example, Mormonism is easily rejected because of the false claims it makes about Native American history and Jesus’ visit to the region. Likewise, YEC (and its version of Christianity) is easily rejected because of the false claims it makes about world history and Homo sapiens.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the sufficiency of scripture. No, scripture isn’t “ultimate truth.” That resides in God and God alone. We believe by faith that God inspired flawed men to set down a message to us in writing, but to place scripture alone as the arbiter of all truth is foolish. (Yes, I’m being judgmental.) The doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture teaches that scripture is sufficient for all things related to faith, praxis and salvation. Scripture wasn’t written to tell us the age of the earth, whether the earth is flat or a globe, whether the earth is the center of the universe, or anything else not related to the faith and practice of Judaism/Christianity.
Science and history have a place in theology and biblical interpretation when the theology/interpretation conflicts with commonly known facts. Give me a theology/interpretation that flies in the face of everything I know to be true, and I will reject it as false. The church has always changed its interpretation and theology in the face of changing information about the natural world. Previous generations had limited information about the universe or the deep past. Should we cling to theologies and scriptural interpretations that no longer hold up to facts about the natural world? Should we abandon Christianity as false, or should we seek interpretations that reconcile the natural world and the scripture? Everyone is entitled to their own answer, but I’m attempting the latter.
A fair criticism.
Anyone is free to have their own view, but it’s not a constitutional right to do so without judgment, condemnation or a counter-claim that they’re wrong. Anyone can “have their own view” on white supremacy, but I will always judge it as wrong and condemn it. Opinions about natural history aren’t so fraught with moral judgments, but they’re also pretty clear-cut about far-out claims that obviously aren’t true. Is the earth flat? No. I’m not asserting my superiority when I say so, just stating a fact. The same goes for a young earth and Adam as the “first human” directly created by God. Wrong, and I’m not making a moral judgment or asserting personal superiority when I say that. There’s a mountain of evidence.
If YEC would say they believed scripture solely based on scripture, I would reply, “Good for you. I’m not capable of that. Good luck and Godspeed on your journey.” But they don’t. They manufacture evidence and try to make scientific arguments to back up their interpretations. Now, I’d be remiss not to correct them, unless I don’t give a dang about truth or falsehood. Sorry. That’s not me.
I took seriously James’ admonition that not many should become teachers, because they will face a stricter judgment. I taught a prison Bible study in the 90s, and they asked tougher questions than any you would face in any small group or Sunday school class. I started studying theology because of them. My first book was Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. I outgrew it four or five years later.
This is one of those statements that doesn’t ring true. I’ve known many people who aren’t Christians who are truthful and generally good folks. Total depravity can be supported by scripture, but it doesn’t hold up to everyday experience.
Also, it was the prophet Isaiah who said that, and his meaning was simply that our best actions are tainted by mixed motives, not that we are totally incapable of doing right actions.
With apologies to @RichardG, I’m going to strongly disagree in personal terms, but I have no qualms in doing so because @adamjedgar has routinely questioned whether I am a “real” Christian because I don’t agree with his interpretation of Genesis. (Feel free to look up our interactions.)
First, there is absolutely a curriculum, and it’s set on a state-by-state basis, not at the federal level. Why is a curriculum necessary? Because it lays out what’s expected to be taught every year. Otherwise, teachers are free to make it up on their own, and who knows what kids will learn? Before the days of standardized curricula, my sister had a third-grade teacher who did nothing but play games with the kids. It took her years to recover.
Second, your statement about “indoctrination” makes me think you weren’t a trained teacher, or you were just a lousy teacher.
Did you ever write a lesson plan? Did you learn Bloom’s taxonomy? Teaching isn’t indoctrination; it’s the opposite. The bottom level is memorizing facts and demonstrating that you understand them. The upper levels are applying that knowledge to a practical situation, ending with evaluating a novel situation learning what one has learned. Every lesson plan cycle I ever wrote had to culminate in the student doing their own evaluations and creating original works. I graded according to how well they made the case, not whether they parroted what I’d told them in the beginning.
Bloom’s Taxonomy: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create.
There is no such knowledge, especially if you are talking ancient history.
No they are not.
You have no right to impose anything onto faith.
And you have a right to declare this? from whom?
(Whether I believe it or not)
Is that a Royal We?
How dare you tell me what I believe! Or anyone else for thqt matter. You believe!
Admitting it does not make it correct.
You are dictating what I must beleive. Why? What gives you that right?
IYO!
How many more people are going to tell me whqt I must belie e!
Those are empty words. You thin anyone who does not see it as you do is wrong!
Would you care to reflect on what Jesus said about judging others?
Uou think you are entitled to tell someone they are wrong
What does thqat say about you?
They will not thank you . H
Why should they recognise this authority that you claim?
What about what Jesus said in Matt 23? DO you understand that also?
It is not the practice of teaching (in the right environment) it is to do with the stautus of a teacher , especially outside that environment.
I do not care what qualifications or authprity you have in a school, prison or anyhwere eles. This is none of those places. And this is not a teaching platform.
Jesus said tht those who wnnt to be great must be the least, You should not think of yourself as higher than others but as their servant.
Perhaps you will consider this when you next come to “teach” me or nayone else here.
When I say that people have a right to beleivve what they wish, I mean it. I do not mean “but they are wrong”
It’s beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is a globe, the universe is ancient, the earth is ancient, etc. It’s also beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no recent global flood or Noah’s Ark. There is such knowledge.
Okay. Speaking for myself, which I’m sure most people will agree with, I can’t create a strict separation between what I know to be true about the world and what I believe about faith in Christ. If you and YEC are able to wall the two off and say you believe no matter what, more power to ya.
Common sense and a deduction from Jesus’ own words. Making scripture ultimate truth is making an idol of the Bible.
It’s only a Royal We when spoken to fellow Christians. Do you not believe, like I do, in the inspiration of scripture by faith, or is there some evidence I’m unaware of?
I’m not dictating anything. I’m telling you what the consensus of Christian theologians agree upon. You’re free to agree or disagree, just like you’re free to agree or disagree that the earth is a globe.
Not telling you what to believe. I stating my opinion somehow limiting you? Get over yourself.
If you say the earth is flat or young, you’re wrong. It’s not hard.
Jesus didn’t live in a constitutional democracy. If you tell me up is down and black is white, I have a duty to speak out. The prophet Isaiah said as much.
Good gosh. I tell people they’re wrong all the time. It says I’m a normal human being.
Good gosh. I’m not trying to teach you. I’m stating my opinion. I also mean people can believe what they wish, but when they show up in my backyard spewing crapola, I’m gonna take out the trash.
I did not.claim denominal beliefs must be emphasied…i claimed that is the expectation of the institution (these are two very different things)
That is why i used the term indoctrination.
Whether we like it or not, the goal of education is limited by that principle…even when its not what we want, our human biases arent far below the surface.
The notion of impartial is a game of pretend i think. Take marriage counselling as point and example! I think marriage counselling is very often an attempt by one party to win the argument.
Not saying marriage counselling is total time waste…(ive managed 2 sessions myself once), my wife and i look back on it and she agrees the counsellor was largelly useless. Fortunately what i took.away from the sessions was a single idea that ive never let go of, Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. We speak the same language but use a different dictionary. I struggle to read her dictionary, it seems absurd to me. Ultimately, we stay together because we want to and because we are stubborn enough to break walls down.
I hesitate to post a response, lest you make wild accusations about the depth of my faith in Christ.
You seem to be asking for people’s opinions on the subject, so here is an opinion or two of mine. You also seem to be extremely defensive about being expected to think like others. So, I will say I do not expect you, nor anyone else, to share my opinions, and if you choose to be silent, I won’t assume that you agree with them.
You have a lot to offer in the realm of Christian thought. I would say that if you aren’t interested in scientific discussions, then be clear that you want to discuss philosophical/theological considerations. Of course philosophy has rules too - one of them being that you carefully define terms, and also the domain to which an argument applies.
I think that at various times we are called to be both students and teachers in life (and perhaps sometimes both in the same conversation). I think that, as a teacher, it’s not right to assume the position of “speaking from Mount Sinai”. On the other hand, many teachers have studied their subject for many years, and most of them are worth listening to. As a student, I think it’s unwise to assume the attitude “my opinions are just as valid as yours, and I’ll continue to think what I think”. The Lord knows there is enough of that in this world. On the other hand, a student should learn to build well-thought arguments to challenge what is being taught. Most of the time, the student will fail to overturn well-established knowledge, but they will learn, and when they succeed, knowledge is expanded.
I would say that many of us here think that both the Book of Nature (science) and the Book of God (Scripture) have a lot to say about reality. I don’t think either one is authoritative over the domain of the other. Most confessions of faith say something like that Scripture is the reliable and trustworthy standard for Christian faith and life. I think that the body of established scientific knowledge also describes reality. Many of us are aware that there are tensions between the Book of Nature and the Book of God, and one of the purposes of this forum is to work through them in community. I am willing to live with those tensions. Some think that their particular interpretation of Scripture should override well established scientific knowledge, and even contradict it. I am willing to adjust my interpretation of Scripture when that happens. Of course some people think that scientific knowledge should override the Book of God in matters of faith. I am not one of those either. One example is Social Darwinism, where some people think that ToE says that some groups of people are superior to others because they live in better economic situations, or other factors. I believe that that is a tragic misapplication of ToE to a domain (sociology) to which it doesn’t speak to.
Thank you for you carefully worded response. I will try to do likewise.
You misread me if you think that i would do such a thing.
I am not impatrial to discussing science, but get a little frustrated when soe peole failt o see a philosophical angle within it.
I know my limitations in scientific knowlledge but it is very difficult to explain the frustrations when alking with “kowlegeable” people. Perhaps you have come across the saying
Knowledge tells us that tomatos are a fruit, but wisdom tells us not to ut a tomato in a fruit salad.
It seems that knowledge does not mean wisdom in scinece. They knw the standard formuae or “laws” etc nut cannot rephrase or apply them beyond the way they have been taught or llearned. If I suggest a ramification or phiosophical consequence they claim I am making things up. They seem unable to comorehend such thoughts and claim that they are unscientific. I have even been told that there is no room for philosophy in science.
I was taught that the only real way to prove that you understand is to put it in your own words or apply it outside the lab. We are outside the lab, but…
IOW they cannot apply the principles behind eveolution to anything other than Natural data.
And that seems to be the justification for the attitudes prevelant here. It is the old conflict between the school of life and the learning of accademia. You leanr the mechanics of driving from an nstructor but you only learn to drive over time and experience. It is this practicality that seems to be “missing” in the teaching here, The emphasis is on the human leaning and education rather than the understanding that life brings. This is especially true when regarding Scripture. Sometimes we can delve too deep and see things that were never meqnt to be seen. A bit like the so called Bible Code. Or perhaps the D’avibci Code. Good reading and fun but actually ficticious. The skkill is mixing in enough “Truth” to make it plasible and hats off to Dan Brown, he did just that
As for the dynamics between teacher and student. They cahnge depending on the situation and the type of teaching involved. I will freely admit thqt I do not know much of the advances in evolutionary data since my college days, but I have yet to be shown a change in the basics of evolutionary theory, or the answers to questions that were posed long before me. The claim
“You do not understand evolution”" is actually
"You are not up to datte with all the latest data. The “mountains” of data I keep hearing about. But thre is still not change in the basic theory¬! It is still progression through “random” deviatins and the “scope” of those deviations (How much change per deviation.) And the ultumimate naivity that
“Anything can happen over time”
That, if anything is a philosophical statemtn that I feel entitled to challenge but cannot get a straight response to my challenges. (All I get is an assertion of it)
If you cannot conceive an “impossible change or an irreducible structure then you cannot !see” or identify them.
IOW if yiu do no t think they can exist you will never “find” or identify one.
They want proof. Or examples. Or a change that cannot occur. They will not address it in any other way. They cannot think in any other way. (and claim any other way is not scientific)
not forgetting incredulity clams
Banging my head against a brick wall would be lless painful than listening to the jibes and insuts because they cannot think “my way”. (And my way must be wrong)
Do you understand my frustrations or am I stil bangin my head against a wall.
It is not about the data. It is about the principle. (Understanding what the theory means)
When Richard has flat out said he doesn’t have to be rational or logical, then why should anyone pay attention to anything Richard says?
That is why people labor so long to try to explain things to you – your position boils down to, “I don’t have to make sense, but you have to respect my views anyway!” It is as sensible as the legislature in a U.S. state that passed a law declaring pi equal to three – they were welcome to believe that, but in reality pi is not equal to three (though it’s darned close to 355/113) so no one with any sense paid attention to them.
True. Also, a claim about a sourcebook can be dismissed when it goes against the context and grammar of that course.
That’s a point carefully made in any decent seminary early on in a simple way: God used Hebrew and then Greek in scripture, but it is obvious that there are many concepts that Hebrew and Greek cannot address, let alone express, which tells us that Hebrew and Greek – and by extension any human language – cannot fully express ultimate truth, it can at best struggle to describe a shadow of that truth.
Or any other science. One may as well expect a collection of writings about sunsets to address chemistry or cosmology: expecting something that a writing or set of writings isn’t interested in addressing is foolish.
Excellent point! They also make up things about scripture that scripture just doesn’t support, the main one being that scripture intends to teach us science (which is a symptom of a deeper problem) – something I’m still waiting for a YECer to show me from the scriptures.
I once did a meditation on that scripture and linked it with Paul’s statement, "But you were washed . . . . ", noting that while one response to filthy rags (the Hebrew term references dirty diapers or menstrual cloths) is to toss them in the fire, another is to wash and reuse them. The filth isn’t part of the rages, it can be removed, the rags cleansed and even repurposed.
When the definition of “faith” seems to be “whatever I want to make up”, then yes, a Christian has not only the right but the duty to "impose [things] onto faith. John does not write that Jesus is “whatever you want”, but that He is the Λόγος, the “word”, “reason”, “principle”, “logic”, the coherent organizing theme underlying everything and binding it all together. Faith then must be Λόγος-al, in English “logical” or rational, not irrational.
So yes, claims about scripture must conform to the Λόγος, the rational structure of the universe.
How about because the Creed that sets forth the faith of the church does not say “I”, it says “we”? “Πιστεύομεν” (piss-teh-OO-oh-men), “We believe”, the great Council declared, and the whole church ever since! “I believe” when it is not part of the great “We believe” is not part of Christianity.
That you claim to be a Christian.
In itself, nothing – it’s how one tells another that counts. When it is just one opinion against another, then it shows arrogance. When it is backed by evidence and rational thought, it shows respect and humility.
You are unable to see beyond your own blinkered view.
You do not even try to undrsand.
Saint Roymond has decreed. Saint Roymond sits in the place of God.
I am not even goint to try and confront the rest of you assetrtions about me and my faith.
Col 2:18
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.
Humility is not claimed it is demonstrated but you only demonstrate a lack of it.
Again, I don’t expect you to think like this, but you seem to be asking for people’s thoughts, so this a brief summary of where I am.
I would say that the modern ToE is “well established science”. It was first published in 1859 by Wallace and Darwin, and since then it has been refined by literally many thousands of scientists, including Christian ones, and also many other people of good faith. My area of study was not Biology, but I’ve read enough work of reputable science communicators to make what I think is an informed decision.
You talk about not having “proof”. If you need something like a video of one branch of the evolutionary tree developing in real-time, you will never get that. (Alas, you wouldn’t have time to watch a 3 billion year long video). If that is your demand for evidence, that is a very safe position - you can be quite comfortable there. I guess the philosophical question there is what kind of evidence is good enough to accept a scientific theory? It is usually an iterative process of hypothesis-test-refine etc.
How exactly was God involved in the creation of life? I can’t answer that, nor do I expect to know completely. I believe that He created all that is visible, and all that is invisible, in ways higher than I can comprehend. Did God guide some or all of the “random” mutations? I don’t know the answer to that. But, we can build a scientific theory under the assumption that the mutations that happen are not correlated to fitness, and the theory explains many things. That is called a successful scientific theory. I do not use the theory for things beyond its limits, such as answering questions like “Who is God?” and “Does He want a relationship with me?” Those are questions of faith. So, there are questions of what are the boundaries between science and faith? And, what are areas of overlap?
That’s because evolution is only about natural data. It isn’t about politics, it isn’t about baking, it isn’t about religion, it isn’t about economics, it isn’t about sports, it’s about natural data.
Apply evolution to anything else and the result tends to be moral disaster.
It’s not “anything can happen”, it’s really “anything will happen”, and it’s the expression of a mathematical fact.
You’ve gotten a plethora of straight responses – you just refuse to acknowledge that they are straight. You want others to change the rules of the game to let you play your way, but the thing is that they don’t have the authority to change the rules. Your approach is equivalent to demanding that a baker take engine mechanics into consideration when making a cake.
No – by asserting that you cannot be restricted to being logical and rational, you are asserting the right to not make sense at all. It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with making sense. Logic is universal, and is required for serious communication.
Logic and reason are not a “blinkered view”, they are the only view by which communication is possible. If I define Norway as a ship that ran aground on Sweden, my conversation will not make sense. You are claiming the right to do the same thing, you just want to couch it in fancy words.
Except that’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion.
That is all I ever ask for, until the caveat that I must be there also.
I have never denide that
The point is how much science can be sure of and dictate.
You are not telling me anything i do not know or think that anyone else does not know, however, just because it is impossible does not mean we have to ignore the conseqiences of it.
I am not looking for an unassailable position, however scientists here, seem to think that they already have that (Becuase they knw i cannot have what I want)
It is not about what science needs or wants. It is about what scientists dictate that I amust accept. I have always conceded that science does the best ti can with the data it has available.
But sceiene claims to.
But scientists must comprehend. that is their reson d’etrre.
But sceince claims or assume that is what happens.
And the scientists refuse to admit that it is an assumption, and continue as if it is fact.
Again, so what?
according to those here, none. Faith cannot overide science, because science is desribing God’s working. Excdpt that science cannot see God working, and draaws its conclusion without any refence to Him. (And scientists here object to that fact being called)
There is a logical feedback loop whereby the ivisibity of God excludes the mentioning of Him. So that when someone like e does, they are not being scientific and “makng tings up” and “not understanding”.
Let me say that you understand me but do not understand how I can hold this position.
That statement is “laced” but whether you intend or even realise it I cannot be certain. The underlying thought being that I have placed myself in an unassilable position so I can take pot shots knowing that there is no answer.
The point being, I do not need or see then need for that answer, (but science does)
But people here claim there is no philosophy in science o the scientific methood
Why do people here think I do not undrstand how science works?
Because I refuse to just “go along with it?”
It seems that people do not understand the difference between understanding and acceptance (or compliance) I know how science works. I know the limitqaions of both sceince and scientific data, but I do not have to limit myslef to either of them!
So let me aks you this
Do you understand the consequences of a purely random baisis of change?
Inasmuch as at this point there is no (understood) controlling factor. (That is the acceted meaning of random)
So any “control” is secondadary, that is, it is applied aftr the cnagne has occured. Survival or Naturak selection “selects” it does not control ;
So if the changes are not as random as scienne sees (because science cannot see a pattern or control to it) then the secondary controls are actially irrelevant. If the changes are guided it is that guidance that is in control not the “selectioning” process. (Because the chage has already been selected not randomly generated)
So Theistic evolution does not include Natural selection or “survival of the fittest” and is therefore not just a case of rebranding the scientiific theory. it is a different theory altogether.
Now until very recently I have never tried to suggest where God might invisibly be other than the presence of unseen parameters that might funnel the type of deviations available so that there is a bias as to what ight occur. But a month or so ago I had an (outrageous)) idea.
What if God did not create (release) all possible genes and combinations at once? What if He slowly adds to the gene pool allowing for more complex creatures to “evolve”. We could not possibly see this. But, it would change the whole dunamics of creation and development. And, it could encompass the view that God made us specifically in boith shape and form. (And might even explain the Cambrian explosion) Instead of us being a “cosmic fluke” we become created beings.(But still allow for the diversity of Nature and Him not mouding every individual oiece)
It is a theory that science could not even concieve let alone adhere to.
And it makes my cristicisms of ToE valid. Because that is the biggest criticism against people like me: I dare to challenge the conclusions of science! (and therefore cannot understand science!)
Can you see that my only course of argument is to claim that the scientifc view does not work. (And that annoys scientists because they take it as an insult)
The idea of ongoing creation is not new but the idea of God directly adding new genes to the gene pools deserves some thinking.
The first question popping in my mind is how would this addition happen?
In theory, God could form new genes out of nothing and then ‘inject’ these to some reproducing individuals (gene pool is not an actual pool, it is the sum of the genes in the individuals that form the reproducing population). The ‘injection’ is a metaphor as God would not have a need to physically inject anything as He could create the genes within individuals.
A second option would be that there is no need for creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) as God could just manipulate the genes that already exist within individuals. For a researcher that cannot see God, it would look like emergence of mutations that would be beneficial in certain type of environments. After that, the filtering effects of natural selection (a neutral process) would increase the proportion of the novel mutations in the population through generations.
The difference between the latter alternative and the scientific version of ToE would be just in the way how the beneficial mutations appear. The process of evolution would be otherwise similar, unless God tweaks also the environmental conditions in a way that increases the fitness (relative success) of the new mutations He created.
There is also a third possibility. God could create a system that ‘automatically’ produces such mutations that lead towards the aim He has. That would include both the mechanism that produces mutations and environments that favour such phenotypes that He wants to bring forth.
The third option would give a different explanation about the start but after everything starts running the daily ‘business-as-usual’ process, there would not be any discernible difference between the third alternative and the ‘standard’ scientific ToE.
I do not wish to ty and argue it through, for a definitive theory. I appreciate your thoughts and leave them there, as thoughts.
Just to add to the mix.
Is DNA strand constant in lenght over a creation> (i am pretty sure they aren;t)
Just that fact alone brings in an opportunity for “creation” ad nilo or not.
I am not 100% certain why Ad nilo matters.
I am not trying to formulate a definitive Theistic Evolutionary theory. I am just trying to show that TOE does not (cannot) incorporate God to become Theistic. (AKA rebranding)
You understand by now that my intent is not to dicate but discuss without conclusin, judgement or defining “truth”
Assuming there is a starting point for the universe (a moment when the light/energy/matter appeared), the light/energy/matter needed to come from somewhere. Either it came from a different universe or existence (pushing the starting point of existence earlier), or it appeared from nowhere (ex nihilo). If we believe that God created this universe, the ‘ex nihilo’ assumes that God could make everything appear just by His word, from nothing. He said and it was.
After this universe started, there is no reason to assume that God needed to create from nothing. Using the stuff He had already created, He could create the rest of the universe, including life and humans. We do not know if He created that way but ‘ex nihilo’ is not needed after the initial start.
i see no reason either way. There is nothing to limit God to one shout, nor is there a need for more than one shout.
There does seem to be a need for some sort of automation which amounts to self creation? In my view that is also denied by Genesis 1. The whole point being that God created rather than things self create independnet of him. I realise this automatically throws up watchmaker and other derogatory views about a hypercontrolling God, but what is Genesis 1 if it is not a declaration that God did it?
It is no longer about ANE, it is about what truth Scripture is trying to portray.
