I attempt to understand the Scriptures in terms of the meanings the writers (and
the Holy Spirit which inspired them) intended when they were written. There are two different Hebrew words used, and they are by no means synonyms. They understood “making” to mean changing the form and/or molecular combination of existing matter to bring something not previously realized into existence whereas “creating” meant the bringing forth of matter itself into existence. Satan is incapable of creating, but before being restrained (as explained in 1 Peter), had some limited ability to “make”.
The text in Colossians correctly explains that everything we can NOW observe is in fact the creation of Christ. It does not speak to the possibility that Satan was at one time able to “make” before he abused that power and it was taken away. I believe in not only a “Christian” and “Abrahamic” dispensation, but also a strongly implied “pre-human” dispensation. Since humans were not around to be convinced by reason, who was? The angels of course. Satan never had the power to convert energy into matter as Christ obviously did, but at one time he was apparently able to re-order existing matter as he liked, and tried to make viable life forms, but kept on getting it wrong. The only other explanation is that God was forced by some unknowable inability (which it is ridiculous on the face of the matter to assume He would be limited by) to rely on random accidents to correct what He by all appearances was unbelievably unable to figure out how to do properly in the first place.
If Satan was restrained from the very first instant that he rebelled, how did evil enter in to do the wreckage it so obviously has? Why does the Book of Job (Chapter 1) have Satan walking right into a meeting between God and the angels and complaining right to the face of God that he was “being treated unfairly in not being permitted to afflict Job” as he would have preferred to? Was this just another fable to be spitirualized away out of any literal importance?
Isaiah also explains how it is “by the abundance of power and might that He (God) has brought all the stars forth.” This is of course a simplified qualitative statement of what we would recognize as “the equivalence of energy and matter” - otherwise known is the Theory of General Relativity.
Passenger pigeons brings up the subject of birds in general. When Darwin was studying his isolated population of finches, he saw quite a variety of rather different looking specimens and was sure that he was dealing with several different divergent but “closely related” species. When he finally got back to England he asked a noted ornithologist for his opinion and was quite surprised to be informed that what he was really seeing were actually just differing “phenotypical expressions” of one readily identifiable species. He chose to disregard this specialized expert’s opinion and instead dishonestly insist that he had discovered “evolutionary change at work”. What was his motivation? I can’t know for sure, but I know that his wife was a Unitarian Universalist whose very creed explicitly denies the place of Christ as the Creator, and that’s a good enough starting assumption to run with.
Let’s apply some of the typical “Darwinian Proofs” to simple common sense tests.
The occurrence of a seeming population shift in the color of otherwise identical moths during the industrial revolution in England is pointed to as a prime example of “mutational change from one species into a different one”, as is the change in population ratio between short and long-billed finches on the Galapagos Islands.
If we apply that to the human population which features some people with larger lips and darker pigmentation but others who are pale by comparison and as a general rule have smaller mouth parts, which one shows evidence of gradually but inexhorably changing into some “non-human” type?
Dolphins are obviously not defective because they belong to the current bio-system which was cleansed of “defective” types by a series of global extinction events which even atheists now admit occurred.
My “mythology” is hardly “imaginative” compared with what Darwinism proposes. It is rather the distillation of many hundreds of passages in scripture which would require completely non-sensical explanations if left to Darwinian theory to make any sense of.
If however the strategy is to spiritualize away anything which does not satisfy academic hubris, all bets at having scripture represent anything of any real importance are off and we can accept a “theology” which defines the Creator out of any real direct role or importance at all.
If scripture was not intended to teach scientific principles, why would Isaiah have asked the question? “Can you loosen the belt of Orion?” In fact it is just relatively recently that astronomers have been able to confirm “red shift” in one of the stars which comprise the “belt” of the constellation Orion. This movement does not appear to us on earth as any perceptible “lateral” motion, but rather a moving further away from us in a 180 degree direction. If we rule out an incredibly prescient lucky guess, how did this
"unscientific primitive" with no access to even a telescope, (let alone a photometric spectrum analyzer) know this to be a fact?
The Nicene Creed is also referred to as the “Athanasian Creed” and this is perhaps more revelatory of it’s true origins. It was posed in 312 A.D. as an opposing doctrine to that of Arius. The entire business was in fact decided by a humanly convened council, and quite predictably, was decided so as to conform to what Emperor Constantine preferred to teach as the “officially recognized Creed of the Holy Roman Empire”.
The Anabaptists, for just one group of “contrarians”, were having none of this.
If, as is postulated in “The Nicene Creed”, the Holy Spirit is really a "Holy Ghost"
having status as the “Third Person” of a “Co-Equal Trinity of Divinity”, and the Three
Persons mentioned in 1 John 5:7 “agree as One”, how then is it possible that the
ONLY unforegiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The obvious reason
is that both God the Father and God the Son are personal Entities and as such have the ability to forgive wrongs against them, but the Holy Spirit, being an impersonal Entity can
not be appealed to as a Person can. Therefore, in agreement with most all unbiased scholars, the text at 1 John 5:7 (“The text of the Holy Witness Bearers”) is spurious to the true Canon of the scriptures.