One of the most common misunderstood translations of the Hebrew Bible is the word 'create'. It comes from the Hebrew word translated [bara'] (or 'arb' in the original Hebrew). This word originally meant 'to cut' or 'to separate', hence God in Genesis 1 is pictured as separating light from darkness, or separating waters above (clouds/atmosphere) from waters below (oceans, seas, etc), separating land from water, separating species according to their kinds, separating the greater light of the day (sun) from the lessor light of the night (moon and stars), separating sea life from those things that fly, separating man from beast, and separating the Sabbath (rest day) from the rest of the days of the week. This is the role of the Creator in the minds of the Hebrews.
Here's some scriptures which show the Qal active use of [BARA']:
Psalm 102:18 "Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created [BARA'] may praise the Lord" (NIV).
Psalm 104:30 says, "When you send your Spirit, they [animals] are created [BARA'] and you renew the face of the earth" (NIV).
Psalm 139:13 says, "For you created [BARA'] my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." (NIV).
Isaiah 43:1 declares, "But now, this is what the Lord says- he who created [BARA'] you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel" (NIV)."
Notice that the term 'created' is used not just to 'create' the heavens from a primordial chaos, it is also the same term to mean a few other meanings. For example:
Jos 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down ([BARA']) for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.(KJV)
So, what you see here is a term used that means to separate, and this act of separation is what God naturally did to form the Psalmist in his mother's womb, it was used to separate and form Israel, and it was what Joshua told the children of Joseph to do in order to clear some land. Even in Genesis it is very clear that the waters existed and were formless (i.e., chaos). Basically, it does not mean what creationists would like it to mean, which is that the God of the Hebrews is a hocus pocus kind of God. The semantic meaning of the text forbids this interpretation.
Now, look at this scripture again:
Psalm 104:30 says, "When you send your Spirit, they [animals] are created [BARA'] and you renew the face of the earth" (NIV).
This is talking about the creation of the world. The world begins in chaos, and God is renewing it (or making anew) the world. It is a separation process (or ordering process), and it is a natural process as Ps. 139:13 makes clear by forming the Psalmist in the womb (also see Jer. 1:5).
So, it just doesn't make any sense what creationists are saying with respect to their opposing evolution. It just isn't biblical. The biblical approach is evolutionary processes as the above argument shows.
Frankly, I have absolutely no idea why creationists are arguing against evolution. It satisfies the translation for the Hebrew [BARA'], and it simply makes no sense at all to oppose this belief in evolution. No sense at all. So, why do creationists oppose it? My only answer to that is because they don't want to accept the consequences of the world chosen by Adam. For that, I have absolutely no reason why a Christian would reject the basic and central teaching of Christianity which shows that Adam brought the natural world upon us. It boggles my mind.
How does God create?
Moderator: Moderators
To Harvey1
Post #2Gidday Harvey1
The title of this thread is interesting:- “How does God create?”.
I do not know enough to comment on your particular argument. However it interests me that most, if not all creationists misunderstand that the theory of evolution has two components. These are:-
a) evidence for evolution itself
b) an explanation of the mechanism(s) of evolution.
YECs, OECs and IDers appear to think that, through their interpretative framework, they actually address both components a) and b). In fact they do not. They are very silent on their version of b) – that is “how does God create”. They really can only claim to have input on a) – namely evidence for creation or design.
Most appear to confuse the design of an artifact (life, a star, the universe), with the process of making it.
Regards, Roland
The title of this thread is interesting:- “How does God create?”.
I do not know enough to comment on your particular argument. However it interests me that most, if not all creationists misunderstand that the theory of evolution has two components. These are:-
a) evidence for evolution itself
b) an explanation of the mechanism(s) of evolution.
YECs, OECs and IDers appear to think that, through their interpretative framework, they actually address both components a) and b). In fact they do not. They are very silent on their version of b) – that is “how does God create”. They really can only claim to have input on a) – namely evidence for creation or design.
Most appear to confuse the design of an artifact (life, a star, the universe), with the process of making it.
Regards, Roland
Post #3
Could BARA ever mean born?
In Psalm 104:29 it says 'You take away their spirit, they expire and return to dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created.
In Psalm 102:18 it says 'This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the Lord"
The first example seems like he's talking about birth. I think the second case could be about birth since it's right after the 'next generation' line, but it doesn't seem to fit the context. He seems to be prophesying about a much later time. I don't know this but I assume Christian theologians would cite this as a prophecy regarding Christianity.
I think I'm a little confused by the question. I thought evolution within a species was accepted by Christians. Hasn't mutation and natural selection within a species been proven?
If your point is that it's wrong to believe that everything was created at one time, that new things, like 'people yet to be created' constitute evolution then I would accept your premise, but since its people it would be evolution within a species. So a Christian is a mutant Jew. Atheists are mutant theists.
What would be interesting if we have evidence of any form of life that has sprung up as if from nowhere within the last 6000 years. That would mean God is still creating and thus evolving his thought.
In Psalm 104:29 it says 'You take away their spirit, they expire and return to dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created.
In Psalm 102:18 it says 'This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the Lord"
The first example seems like he's talking about birth. I think the second case could be about birth since it's right after the 'next generation' line, but it doesn't seem to fit the context. He seems to be prophesying about a much later time. I don't know this but I assume Christian theologians would cite this as a prophecy regarding Christianity.
I think I'm a little confused by the question. I thought evolution within a species was accepted by Christians. Hasn't mutation and natural selection within a species been proven?
If your point is that it's wrong to believe that everything was created at one time, that new things, like 'people yet to be created' constitute evolution then I would accept your premise, but since its people it would be evolution within a species. So a Christian is a mutant Jew. Atheists are mutant theists.
What would be interesting if we have evidence of any form of life that has sprung up as if from nowhere within the last 6000 years. That would mean God is still creating and thus evolving his thought.
- Pentecostal
- Student
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:33 pm
- Location: Glendale, Queens, New York
Post #4
I would conclude that this question could be discussed / debated for time immemorial, and delve into many different words and their entomology.How Does God Create??????????
Perhaps at times we become so entrenched with having to know the most minute detail of something in order to explain it, and accept it as fact that we can't see the forest for the trees.
IMHO, simply put:
1 - God is God, all powerful
2 - God can do whatever He wants
Now here's the clincher:
God "SAID" - that's all there is to it.
Post #5
harvey1:
So, it just doesn't make any sense what creationists are saying with respect to their opposing evolution. It just isn't biblical. The biblical approach is evolutionary processes as the above argument shows.
To be honest harvey1, I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying.
Should we substitute evolution everytime we see BARA?
Then again you still haven't made sense NOR explained why the creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his rib (side) is evolution.
If God used evolution...why not say so?
It would have been so easy to say from animals I created the higher animals and from the higher animals I created man. But God didnt't. Instead God said he created man from the dust then human female (Eve) from his rib....which certainly isn't evolution.
So, it just doesn't make any sense what creationists are saying with respect to their opposing evolution. It just isn't biblical. The biblical approach is evolutionary processes as the above argument shows.
To be honest harvey1, I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying.
Should we substitute evolution everytime we see BARA?
Then again you still haven't made sense NOR explained why the creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his rib (side) is evolution.
If God used evolution...why not say so?
It would have been so easy to say from animals I created the higher animals and from the higher animals I created man. But God didnt't. Instead God said he created man from the dust then human female (Eve) from his rib....which certainly isn't evolution.
Post #6
harvey1:
rankly, I have absolutely no idea why creationists are arguing against evolution. It satisfies the translation for the Hebrew [BARA'], and it simply makes no sense at all to oppose this belief in evolution. No sense at all. So, why do creationists oppose it? My only answer to that is because they don't want to accept the consequences of the world chosen by Adam. For that, I have absolutely no reason why a Christian would reject the basic and central teaching of Christianity which shows that Adam brought the natural world upon us. It boggles my mind.
What consequences?
What is this natural world you are talking of?
rankly, I have absolutely no idea why creationists are arguing against evolution. It satisfies the translation for the Hebrew [BARA'], and it simply makes no sense at all to oppose this belief in evolution. No sense at all. So, why do creationists oppose it? My only answer to that is because they don't want to accept the consequences of the world chosen by Adam. For that, I have absolutely no reason why a Christian would reject the basic and central teaching of Christianity which shows that Adam brought the natural world upon us. It boggles my mind.
What consequences?
What is this natural world you are talking of?
- harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #7
Because everywhere BARA' is used the Bible where it did not refer to creation it refers to a gradual transformation that either shows God hiding behind the scenes or men doing something naturally and taking time to complete the task. Gen. 2:4 shows that God is creating the world over generations, so it is apparent that BARA' should be interpreted as evolution.YEC wrote:To be honest harvey1, I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying. Should we substitute evolution everytime we see BARA?harvey1 wrote:So, it just doesn't make any sense what creationists are saying with respect to their opposing evolution. It just isn't biblical. The biblical approach is evolutionary processes as the above argument shows.
God breathed life into adamah (clay), and then he took that adamah (clay with life) and made animals. Now, are you suggesting that God made animals from a human being?YEC wrote:Then again you still haven't made sense NOR explained why the creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his rib (side) is evolution.
As for Eve, the Hebrew word for 'rib' or 'side' (Tsela') can also be translated as 'cell' (i.e., basic structure that makes up something). That could be anything such as actual cells, or even atoms for all that matter.
It does say so. It says so in Gen.1:11, Gen. 1:24, and Gen. 2:4.YEC wrote:If God used evolution...why not say so?
YEC wrote:It would have been so easy to say from animals I created the higher animals and from the higher animals I created man. But God didnt't. Instead God said he created man from the dust then human female (Eve) from his rib....which certainly isn't evolution.[/color]
It shows exactly that evolutionary process! Day one is the light from the proto-sun. Day two is the formation of the planet, etc.
- harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #10
You said that I haven't explained that Adam was created from the adamah and how that can be compatible with evolution, but in actuality, you haven't explained how animals can be created from the same adamah that God breathed life. If Genesis is NOT talking about evolution, then you can't explain Gen.2 were God creates the animals from the adamah.YEC wrote:Why would i even suggest that?harvey1 wrote:God breathed life into adamah (clay), and then he took that adamah (clay with life) and made animals. Now, are you suggesting that God made animals from a human being?