Although we aren’t told why (not just for this, but for many things), there is a pattern of minimizing the use of miraculous means in the Bible. Jesus rejected miracles of convenience as a temptation from Satan. Paul criticizes looking for signs instead of heeding the gospel. Even when miracles do occur, their use seems minimized. A wind is sent to part the Reed Sea (at just the right time); the axe head floated but had to be picked up and fastened on better; the water turned to wine had to be served in the ordinary way; thousands were fed from a pita-fully small amount but the leftovers were carefully saved, etc.
As already noted, evolution is a quite effective way to generate amazing diversity that changes over time to produce even more overall diversity. It’s an impressive display of God’s creativity.
Yes, those are among the first descriptions of rodent peaks known. There is also a related story that may be the first description of an experiment that tried to find the cause of a rodent peak (1 Samuel 6:7-12):
"Now then, get a new cart ready, with two cows that have calved and have never been yoked. Hitch the cows to the cart, but take their calves away and pen them up. 8 Take the ark of the Lord and put it on the cart, and in a chest beside it put the gold objects you are sending back to him as a guilt offering. Send it on its way, 9 but keep watching it. If it goes up to its own territory, toward Beth Shemesh, then the Lord has brought this great disaster on us. But if it does not, then we will know that it was not his hand that struck us but that it happened to us by chance.
10 So they did this. They took two such cows and hitched them to the cart and penned up their calves. 11 They placed the ark of the Lord on the cart and along with it the chest containing the gold rats and the models of the tumors. 12 Then the cows went straight up toward Beth Shemesh, keeping on the road and lowing all the way; they did not turn to the right or to the left. The rulers of the Philistines followed them as far as the border of Beth Shemesh."
Sure. And the first thing you do is throw out such absurd interpretations by these anti-science people which is not even coherent let alone consistent with what we observe of the world around us. You can just laugh and/or toss it all in the garbage if you want, and many do. But such simplistic approaches seems just as much a waste of my time as the anti-science approach. If I am going to bother reading a book at all then I will be looking for the most meaningful understanding of its content.
So the way I read this text is quite different. That God formed us from the dust of the earth means we are made of the substance of this world according to way in which it works (i.e. the laws of nature). And breathing into us the breath of life means God spoke to Adam and Eve giving them the inspiration which brought the human mind to life. But the world was full of people (homo sapiens), so Cain was afraid of wandering where these people would likely kill him. Being human is more than just DNA and a biological species, for the ideas such as those of love and justice are more important that DNA sequences. So the sons of God, Cain and Seth, (with this same divine inspiration their parents had from God) took wives from daughters of these other people in the world and their children became giants among men (leaders of human civilization) spreading these ideas with others. Unfortunately the powers of the mind were also misused and that was another inheritance self-destructive habits we had from them also.
How do you figure Romans 1 supports your argument there…it absolutely does not support your claim at all…the complete opposite i think.
Tell me…what does restoration mean?
Wouldnt you agree that restoration is to return something to its original condition?
If that is true, then how do you reconcile Revelation 21 (which directly quote Isaiah 65) with your apparent understanding of the text in Romans chapter 1?
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are faithful and true.” 6And He told me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give freely from the spring of the water of life. 7The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son.
8But to the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death.”
It is theologically impossible to separate the biblical introduction of sin and death in Genesis chapter 3 with Isaiah 65, Romans 1 and Revelation 21
It is very clear that the end is a mirror of the fall…its a restoration of what was once perfect but became corrupted due to sin, to its former glory. The entire bible story reflects that theme.
Id suggest you do some study into the biblical notion of perishable vs non perishable in terms of Revelation 21. You will find it very difficult to theologically support with bible references and therefore conclude that perishable existed prior to the fall of Adam and Eve.
you can start your search with 1 Corinthians 15.53
53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
The whole reason why most TEists cannot understand the above is because they also believe that there are two separate covenants where the second did away with the first. That is simply wrong theology as the bible clearly says “even abrahams faith was credited to him as righeousness” (Genesis 15:6 & Romans 4). No one in the Old Testament was saved by works or the law, they wre all saved by faith centuries before Christ!
v 20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
It is at the heart of my opposition to scientific evolution inasmuch as the values and concepts of ToE do not reflect how i understand God. but also
If the world is corrupt and that is what we see, how does that reflect God’s power and divine nature?
Instead it claims that human sin can, and does, overpower God., and that God’s power and nature are no longer reflected in what we see.
If God is refected in a corrupt nature, that makes God corrupt. (Logical fallasy?)
in terms of objects yes.
It would only apply to sin and death if they were a mistake, or not part of the Original creation. Do you think sin is an error of judgement on God’s parrt?
Or if it was not, due you think God deleeiberately “allowed” sin so that he could then “cure it”? Like a computer virus created so that the designer could sell the program to undo it
That would make God devious and untrustworthy.
Or, if sin is an enevitable side effect of freedom, did God give provision for it and include choices that would resolve it if needed without imposing it (or the notion of it, as many Christians try to do)
“I am making everything new!”(?)
If my understanding of the original Isaiah quote is correct it was to do with changing from an individual sacrifficial system where each sin is accounted for and paid for, to a system where God no longer requires anything from us because He has paid all debts Himself.
In terms of Revelation.
Revelation is full of imagery and a theological view thqt does not easily express itself in reality and the world in which we now live.
Even if the New World does not contain death, it would be because the New world does not need or require death. That is not the case with the one we now live in.
As I see it the “New Heaven and New Earth” are completely different in all aspects and has nothing to do with any concept of corrupting sin on this world.
That is my answer, right or wrong, it is how I see it.
I must point out the wonders of compound interest.
If one has an interest rate - or a population growth rate - of 6% per month …
That results in one year 1.06^12 a little more than 2 - the doubling in a year.
And then in a decade, 2^10 = 1024. Let’s call that 1000 times in ten years.
And in a century, 1000^10 -= 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
a thousand billion billion billion
If you had made a loan to a king in the olden days, you might have made a good deal – for a while, until the king discovered just how much he owed, in which case you had better forget about collecting it, and somehow get your family into a different country.
First of all.
The Bible when translated directly from Hebrew or Greek; simply doesn’t say that G-d created the universe “ex nihilo”.
The closest fit would be a translation that would say that G-d took something without form or void, and then ordered it as Earth and the Universe. The Earth and the universe were…already there…just not in an “ordered” state.
Secondly, and most importantly, because to a limited extent, G-d is still subject to Physics and Natural Laws. The matter, even if He created it “ex nihilo”, still would have had to come from somewhere. Even if he pulled it from some aspect of the supernatural plane, it still would have to exist “before” it was used.
The “Words” that G-d “spoke”, also would have had to exist and have “meaning” beforehand. Otherwise, there would have been no words for Him to use. And that would violate almost every known standard of what we understand about words and linguistics.
Greetings. The question of why God used evolution is certainly a difficult one, especially since nature seems so cruel and indifferent at times and the plain reading of Scripture for many seems to indicate God created humans (and other things more directly). I believe that is what you want to know but I do believe your question is confusing terms.
Creation ex nihilo includes evolution. It simply means that the material universe, and heavenly beings were created by God from nothing. The underlying laws of physics, time, the matter and energy of our universe are all created by God. Creation ex nihilo is not something that happened in the past because the Christian doctrine of creation also includes creation cum tempore. That means God created with time, not in time.
Many Christians tend to incorrectly think of God as an engineer, mechanic or watchmaker who winds things ups and lets them go. In my view this is deism and not at all what we find revealed in the Christian scriptures. As Christopher Barlow wrote (Faith, Science and Reason: Theology on the Cutting Edge):
“For God, who transcends time, to create at the first moment of the universe is no different than what God is doing at this moment. Right now, as much as at any time in the past, God is saying “Let there be light,” “Let the earth teem with living things,” etc. God’s act of creation is not a historical event that happens within time, but it is instead a metaphysical reality describing the universe’s dependence on God’s eternal act of creating, which transcends time.”
RC Sprout responds to a deltic outlook on God here:
So I think your terminology is confused. God is not a mechanistic, deist creator. Every thing that happens in the universe, including the process of evolution, is an act of creation ex nihilo.
As to the spirit of your question? Which did God choose to create this way? Maybe he wanted a free and open universe. I can only speculate. All I can say is creation is for God’s glory and his ways are higher than our ways. We could never understand how God created things ex nihilo, or why without Revelation. We can understand how creation operates, how the universe evolve and answer the how questions of science but we can’'t get behind creation itself. All our thoughts, rules, laws, etc. are tied to this material universe and how it runs. If creation ex nihilo is correct along with creation cum tempore, the buck stops there.
What about scripture? The Bible is not a science textbook. Cliched? yes, I know. But it’s true.l Genesis 1 is polemic agains rival conceptions of God. It tells us nothing about the scientific “how” of our universe’s development over time. Science does that.
God upholds and sustains the existence of all things at all times. That is, in my view, what a proper doctrine of creation looks like in Christianity. So the principle of double agency applies. My parents created me and reproductive biology is correct, but God also formed me in the womb. That is the true power of creation ex nihilo (from nothing) and cum tempore (with not in time). I leave you with GK Chesterton’s beautiful and poetic prose (Orthodoxy):
“Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.”
It’s not axiomatically true that it is not describing something close to creation ex nihilo. From my understanding, both interpretations are possible. I’ve seen a lot of people favor ex nihilo because it’s what they already believe and other favor the other because they want to be edgy. It is enticing and lucrative to figure out some new or hidden meaning of scripture. At the end of the day I am not a Hebrew scholar so I am not overly invested and even then, in a pre-scientific era, I don’t think Genesis 1 needs to perfectly teach creation ex nihilo to actually teach it. The incorrect cosmology of the day will certainly show up in the account. There is also some other other scripture the Church has used to come to accept the doctrine of creation ex nihilo:
Col 1:16
Gen 1:1
Isaiah 45:18
Ps. 33:6,9
Ps 90:2
John 1:1-3
Rev 4:11, 10:6
Acts 4:24, 17:24
Hebrews 11:3
I feel this view is succumbing to modern materialism. In my understanding, God is the author of physics and the natural laws underlying reality. Based on the resurrection of Jesus and supernatural miracles described in my sacred scripture, I thoroughly disagree with you. The laws of physics, along with the comprehensibility of the universe, only exist as such because of the Word (Logos) of God.
I feel your final objection is an attempt at trying to understand how God could create ex nihilo and it confused what that doctrine says. The doctrine itself says we cannot understand how creation occurred since it was from nothing. You are viewing it as a change of state. It is not a change. Change requires there to be something to transform (how we create). Change is when material matter or things rearrange into different forms. Nothing is not a state of being by definition. God’s act of creation is not change.
“God in one divine action from all of eternity creates and sustains all that exists in its existence and nature, regardless of whether it was the cosmic explosion of the Big Bang and the celestial formation of the billions of galaxies that are flying through space or the evolution of planetary life and the formation of the earth’s majestic mountain ranges. Time and space are not determinative factors when it comes to God’s divine activity in creation.” – Baglow [Ps 90:4]
It’s not a literal account. The how of creation ex nihilo is impossible to discern. All our thoughts, rules and observations are limited to the created universe with its underlying physics. There is no way of going beyond them. A fuzzy analogy would be like trying to use reason to prove the validity of reason. We are stuck with reason. Can’t get around it or outside of it.
No, it doesn’t – it only “claims” that we were given free will. The idea that human sin can overpower God denies the Cross.
No, it means that God is stronger than corruption.
A correct analogy would be if someone hacked a program and introduced a virus – and that the designer had already built in protection.
God allowed the possibility of sin because His love for us was that great: not allowing someone to fail means you think they’re your property, not your friend. Yahweh allowed the possibility of sin knowing the price it would exact from Him.
Adam’s contention is that the original world did not require death.
The Hebrew isn’t clear about whether “ex nihilo” is right or not, or whether there was already existing substance – it can be read either way, if you insist on the writer of Genesis intending to teach science.
That contradicts what “ex nihilo” means. It is also verging on Gnosticism.
Yes. “Heavens and Earth” is not about two locations, it’s a phrase that meant “everything that there is” – and that (contrary to a certain current cosmologist) includes the constants of the universe from which the “underlying laws of physics, time, the matter and energy of our universe” flow.
As one of my professors put it, “Creation is present tense”.
Given how the Hebrew grammar there works, doing something that English can’t do, both interpretations may be intended . . . which really blows Western minds.
True. It could very well be – and I would say it is – that the words came to have meaning as He used them . . . if you want to take things literally.
You will have to explain your thinking. Clearly it does not match mine.
Ths is getting tiresome.
You do not appear to follow my logic and I certainly cannot see yours.
Really?
Any more examples of your superior understanding?
Now i will say no!..God knew about sin, tes, but Adam did not “nvent” it, or infect anything!
That may be a correct variant of orthodoxy but I have never heard it put in such a manner. (Not that that means it is wrong, just that i can safely disagree with it)
And what has that to do with me?
(Or are you trying to claim that i should not have answered him!. Mind your own business!)
And what makes you think I do not know what Adam meant anywsy! (Cheeky monkey)
It would appear that my words elsewhere went over your head (wre ignored) because obviously you know better!
You made a logical assertion. Logically it is incorrect. You are welcome to hold illogical positions, but you pronounce them as though you were the Pope on this board.
God overcame sin on the Cross; thus human sin cannot overpower God; thus the idea that human sin can overpower God denies the Cross.
And it will continue to be so until you start thinking logically and not subjectively.
You have a vile God, because the only alternative here is that God “invented” sin. That is either blasphemous or you have the wrong god.
You think God didn’t know the price? or that sin happened despite Yahweh not allowing it?
You box yourself into a corner: you either have a God Who doesn’t realize what He’s doing, or one that is unable to prevent something He doesn’t want – either way, the deity you hold to is incompetent.
As far as what the Bible has to say about “creation from nothing”, the Book of 2 Maccabees, which is accepted by many Christians as part of the Bible, seems to speak about it. (Agreed that the Tanakh (the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible) does not.)
Wikipedia has a long article “Creatio ex nihilo” (Latin for “creation from nothing”) which is worth looking into, whether or not one agrees with it.
I said if the world has been corrupted by human sin then man has proved superior to God. (Whicj is why using the term “human” sin I would consider to be invalid…Sin has no allegiance.)
So it is not about the power of sin, it is about whether Adam corrupred all of God’s creation. If he did then he is more pwerful than God.
That is logical
That shoud be reported.
You have no right to claim such a thing!
That is not the only alternative. so your following sttatemt is false.
(based on a fallse assumption or theory)
What are yo talking about?
You have gone off at a tanngent.
I didn’t say that either. You appear to have misunderstood me. (what a surprise!)
No, that is the result of your view of the wordl being corrupted. It is not miy view at all. You seem to have forgotten the context of the conversation. The context is your insistance that the world is corrupt. And that corruption was caused by Adam (his sin)
Sin was not created by either God or man. Sin has no substance or form. Sin is the consequence of allowing freedom of thought. God knows this, It apperas that you do not,
Demand that you reason logically? It’s either that or dismiss you as irrelevant.
Fine – you made an illogical assertion.
No, it isn’t – that’s like saying that if a child breaks a dish he is more powerful than his parents.
Power doesn’t mean making everything go your way; real power allows others to go theirs.
What other option is there? Either God is weak, or He is corrupt, or He is incompetent, if your premises are true.
I’m talking about what you said.
You make statements but refuse to face the implications. In this case you either have sin occurring despite God not wanting it, or not knowing the price – those are the only two options your statement allowed.
That’s your issue that you have invented – it was not the context at all, it’s something you bring up to dodge the implications of what you have said.
But you denied that God allowed it, or that man did it! And when I pointed out that God gave free will, you objected to that!
Your positions are illogical and even contradictory and give a picture of God that is just despicable.
The ancient rabbis were right: God is responsible for sin – something He agreed with because He accepted that responsibility on the Cross.
to suggest creation out of nothing is a problematic concept as out of nothing nothing comes. if there ever wat nothing there would have to be a time where there was no God either. Try to be logically coherent.
from a theological perspective you could say God created thing (matter) out of not thing which is more to the point as the double slit experiment tells us that the observation of the wave collapses the wavefunction into thing thus creating thing out of not thing. https://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM might give you some thoughts on that
Our good friend Wikipedia has this to say on the subject:
