[_ Old Earth _] Creation

[Claudya]

The principles of creation is beyond the reach of science but not beyond the reach of observation.

Observation is part of science. Identifying and finding the best principles and methods of systematic observation and description of empirical phenomena is part of science. It's called methodology.

 

[Rick W]

Observation is part of science. Identifying and finding the best principles and methods of systematic observation and description of empirical phenomena is part of science. It's called methodology.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Key word:
"finding"

So what can we observe from creation in scripture?

The big one of course is the universe.
I think the next popular one is the creation of man.
And of course the example often overlooked ... Jesus feeding the multitudes or Elisha and the pot of oil.

In these cases something that wasn't "became",. existed where there was not.

So the question of "does creation occur" can be answered.

 

[Rick W]

Didn't get any rebuttal from the last statement so I'm assuming all here believe creation is indeed a fact.

 

[jasoncran]

Didn't get any rebuttal from the last statement so I'm assuming all here believe creation is indeed a fact.

well lets take genesis from the accursed greek and look at the blessed Hebrew name for that book(LOL) bersherith. this has the meaning of god created and came down to be with man. but literaly means in the beginning. leave it to the jews to make it that simple and profound, genesis means simply origin in greek, which is true but i like that first part of my sentence.

 

[Rick W]

How does the Greek and the Hebrew treat Christ's feeding the multitudes?
My point here is creation doesn't need to include the entire universe to talk about it. Jesus's power of creation is seen relatively recently compared that of Genesis.
Here in the Gospels is creation without much of the controversies of Genesis.

 

[Barbarian]

How can we possibly even attempt to answer that question? It is known only unto God, and that is the best anyone can say.

This is true. The moment of creation is, and likely will always be, incomprehensible to us. What happened after that moment, is accessible science.

Creation did not end with the creation of nature, it continues, but by use of nature itself. If this were not so, the world would not be predictable and livable for us. The wise are able to know this world, but the initial creation and God are no more accessible to the wise than they are to a little child. And that is how it should be.

We cannot put ourselves directly in the presence of God if we do not practice internal and external silence.

In silence we will find new energy and true unity. Silence gives us a new outlook on everything.

The essential thing is not what we say but what God says to us and through us. In that silence, He will listen to us; there He will speak to our soul, and there we will hear His voice.

Listen in silence because if your heart is full of other things you cannot hear the voice of God. But when you have listened to the voice of God in the stillness of your heart, then your heart is filled with God.
Mother Theresa

 

[Rick W]

Yes, Barbarian. But here again the focus is on Genesis.
What are your thoughts of Christ feeding the multitudes, a much later example of creation?

 

[jasoncran]

How does the Greek and the Hebrew treat Christ's feeding the multitudes?
My point here is creation doesn't need to include the entire universe to talk about it. Jesus's power of creation is seen relatively recently compared that of Genesis.
Here in the Gospels is creation without the controversies of Genesis.

your missing the point. the book of genesis isn't about the how god did but that he did do that. and also the stories in are real in writing, i don't take them as parables. never did but to take it as argument for creation vs evo is taking the book from its place.

who was made in the beginning? and who begin from that? answer the Hebrew nation. they had a mission, they failed, so god went to the gentiles. either way the origins is to them.

 

[Rick W]

i don't take them as parables. never did but to take it as argument for creation vs evo is taking the book from its place.

Well said.
We see other examples of creation more into "modern times". (I use that very loosely in relation to time span)
Those examples we can look into without getting into the entire creation of everything. We can see a specific creative act, not the all-encompassing, all-inclusive or entirety of everything. It makes discussion a lot easier. Elisha and the pot of oil, Jesus feeding the 5,000.

That is what I meant by no rebuttal. So then I'm assuming all here believe those acts were acts of creation.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, Barbarian. But here again the focus is on Genesis.
What are your thoughts of Christ feeding the multitudes, a much later example of creation?

Could God have arranged things so that people had brought enough food for themselves? Sure. Could He have just had them all say "I don't really feel hungry right now." Of course. But that wasn't the point. God doesn't do miracles because He has to do them. He does it to teach us something. If He hadn't done it miraculously, there would have been no lesson for us.

It tells us something about God, but not about His creation.

 

[jasoncran]

mans the depths of genesis alone is amazing. always something to learn.

mitzkeits , that is the first word of the chapter 41, it means at the end. its related to channukah.

 

[Rick W]

Could God have arranged things so that people had brought enough food for themselves? Sure. Could He have just had them all say "I don't really feel hungry right now." Of course. But that wasn't the point. God doesn't do miracles because He has to do them. He does it to teach us something. If He hadn't done it miraculously, there would have been no lesson for us.

It tells us something about God, but not about His creation.

I'm not real sure what you're saying so I'll ask point blank.
Was Jesus's miraculous act an act of creation?

 

[kevinmaynard]

I'm not real sure what you're saying so I'll ask point blank.
Was Jesus's miraculous act an act of creation?

Could have been an act of transportation. Transporting the fish from the sea. So we have no way of knowing the nature of the miracle.

 

[Rick W]

Could have been an act of transportation. Transporting the fish from the sea. So we have no way of knowing the nature of the miracle.

And the bread likewise? That's a lot of bread to come up with to feed that many people. So using transportation Christ got bread from somewhere else. Shops perhaps? Private residences perhaps? Either way that's stealing. And there's nothing about Christ going back to all those shops paying them back for the bread He took. And he did it twice.

So he created the bread too.

 

[kevinmaynard]

And the bread likewise. That's a lot of bread to come up with to feed that many people. So using transportation Christ got bread from somewhere else. Shops perhaps? Private residences perhaps? Either way that's stealing. And there's nothing about Christ going back to all those shops paying them back for the bread He took. And he did it twice.

So he created the bread too.

It isn't a sin if Jesus did it. Just like when God kills it isn't a sin. More to the point we don't know the nature of the miracle.

 

[Rick W]

Yes, we do know the nature of the miracle. There wasn't but now there is.
It's easy to say "Yes, there was creation at the point at which we can no longer go back into time". That easy to defend and declare.
When it comes to creation to feed the multitudes the denial is a bit more pronounced. Other methods must have occurred other than creation.
"No, I don't deny creation but I keep an open mind to other possibilities".
Heard that one too. Anything but creation. For to believe creation actually occurred in the Gospels apart from Genesis is to allow strong argument that doesn't fit the totality of evolution.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Yes, we do know the nature of the miracle. There wasn't but now there is.
It's easy to say "Yes, there was creation at the point at which we can no longer go back into time". That easy to defend and declare.
When it comes to creation to feed the multitudes the denial is a bit more pronounced. Other methods must have occurred other than creation.
"No, I don't deny creation but I keep an open mind to other possibilities".
Heard that one too. Anything but creation. For to believe creation actually occurred in the Gospels apart from Genesis is to allow strong argument that doesn't fit the totality of evolution.

Whether it was creation is quite irrelevant to evolution as they don't contradict at all. The nature of the miracle is unknown as it wasn't specified.

 

[Rick W]

So the jar of oil, same thing? Transportation? Then Elisha didn't sin either because of who he is? He had to get it from somewhere else if it wasn't created. Right?

Oh, and by the way,
Jesus didn't do whatever He wanted to do because He is the Son of God. Stealing is stealing. Had Jesus been guilty of sin Satan would have had hold on Him and so would the Law Christ was also under at that time.

 

[jasoncran]

personally I believe that the fish came out nothing. barah!

 

[kevinmaynard]

So the jar of oil, same thing? Transportation? Then Elisha didn't sin either because of who he is? He had to get it from somewhere else if it wasn't created. Right?

Oh, and by the way,
Jesus didn't do whatever He wanted to do because He is the Son of God. Stealing is stealing. Had Jesus been guilty of sin Satan would have had hold on Him and so would the Law Christ was also under at that time.

I think you are making it far more complicated than it needs to be. Creation and evolution can both be true.