How does God create?

[harvey1]

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.

[harvey1]

irst verse 7 shows the adamah being made into a living thing, and then in verse 19 the animals are created from the adamah of verse 7. The only explanation is evolution since the scriptures say God made the adamah into living thing, and then he made animals from it. That's evolution!

All that verse show is that Adam and the animals were made from the same stuff...not that dirt evolved into an animal then humans were made from that animal.

Yes, but adamah already had the breath of life breathed into it. That's why it doesn't speak of God having to breathe the breath of life AGAIN, because it already happened in verse 7. Again, it clearly shows that the animals came from the adamah with the breath of life (verse 7), therefore adamah is best understood as what Genesis says it is: clay that was used to make a living thing.

If this clearly shows as you claim...why can't I understand what you are saying? Are you saying that the animals evolved from Adam?

Animals were made from adamah of verse 7 as it shows in the scripture. That adamah material already had the breath of life breathed into it by God.

[harvey1]

GEN 1:16 happened after the formation of the earth.
The sun, moon and stars made after the earth.

"Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

The word for 'made' (Heb. `asah) has a very general meaning. It specifically says that the two lights are for signs, so it would make sense that 'asah should be interpreted based on this function. So, I prefer the "to appoint, ordain, institute" meaning of the word. This would make sense since life is created in verse 11-12, so it means that life would start making use of the lights above (e.g., photosynthesis).

GEN 1:20...fish and birds created. According to evo theory birds evolved from lizards..not fish.

I have to keep reminding everyone that Genesis was written in an ancient Semetic language called Hebrew. It was not written in English, so the English words of today might mislead us into interpreting the correct meaning of a scripture. In the case of this verse, the Hebrew word for 'birds' is "`owph" which means flying creatures. In other words, if a flying fish evolved in the Devonian period, then it would accompany this scripture. In addition, there are examples in scripture called prolepsis examples, where the word of the present is used to describe the past. For example:

I Chron. 29:7 says: "They gave toward the work on the temple of God five thousand talents and ten thousand darics of gold, ten thousand talents of silver, eighteen thousand talents of bronze and a hundred thousand talents of iron."

The term 'darics' is a Persian currency which wasn't used until long after this point in time. They didn't have darics of gold. However, this is understandable since the scripture was written or edited at a point in time when people would understand the meaning of the word. So, likewise, Gen. 1:20 would be put in terms of creatures that first resembled the modern equivalent (or what was to become of that first forms of life).

[YEC]

harvey1:
"Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

The word for 'made' (Heb. `asah) has a very general meaning. It specifically says that the two lights are for signs, so it would make sense that 'asah should be interpreted based on this function. So, I prefer the "to appoint, ordain, institute" meaning of the word. This would make sense since life is created in verse 11-12, so it means that life would start making use of the lights above (e.g., photosynthesis).

How does something to be used as "signs"and seasons, days and years ...get to be tied into photosynthesis?

You do a lot of writing in-between the lines when you make the assumption that photosynthesis evolved as a result of God making the sun, moon and stars.

Besides that, the plants were created one day earlier..it appears that they did just fine with out your in-between the lines photosynthesis concept.

[harvey1]

"Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day." The word for 'made' (Heb. `asah) has a very general meaning. It specifically says that the two lights are for signs, so it would make sense that 'asah should be interpreted based on this function. So, I prefer the "to appoint, ordain, institute" meaning of the word. This would make sense since life is created in verse 11-12, so it means that life would start making use of the lights above (e.g., photosynthesis).

How does something to be used as "signs"and seasons, days and years ...get to be tied into photosynthesis? You do a lot of writing in-between the lines when you make the assumption that photosynthesis evolved as a result of God making the sun, moon and stars.

By saying the heavenly bodies have been appointed for a particular task, God is creating a relationship between the heavenly bodies and life. One of the first major relationship between life and the heavenly bodies was photosynthesis. Of course, there are other interpretation possibilities. For example, the sun was only 3/4 of its current brightness for the first 800 million years (see http://www.nature.com/NSU/000302/000302-3.html ), which would mean that the sun was not fully made until after life formed on earth (i.e., Day 3). Also, it is very possible that life formed before the moon. So, even an interpretation of 'made' in terms of completing the creation of is possible for 'Day 4'.

[YEC]

"Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day." The word for 'made' (Heb. `asah) has a very general meaning. It specifically says that the two lights are for signs, so it would make sense that 'asah should be interpreted based on this function. So, I prefer the "to appoint, ordain, institute" meaning of the word. This would make sense since life is created in verse 11-12, so it means that life would start making use of the lights above (e.g., photosynthesis).

How does something to be used as "signs"and seasons, days and years ...get to be tied into photosynthesis? You do a lot of writing in-between the lines when you make the assumption that photosynthesis evolved as a result of God making the sun, moon and stars.

By saying the heavenly bodies have been appointed for a particular task, God is creating a relationship between the heavenly bodies and life. One of the first major relationship between life and the heavenly bodies was photosynthesis. Of course, there are other interpretation possibilities. For example, the sun was only 3/4 of its current brightness for the first 800 million years (see http://www.nature.com/NSU/000302/000302-3.html ), which would mean that the sun was not fully made until after life formed on earth (i.e., Day 3). Also, it is very possible that life formed before the moon. So, even an interpretation of 'made' in terms of completing the creation of is possible for 'Day 4'.

Did life form before the stars were formed?

[harvey1]

"Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day." The word for 'made' (Heb. `asah) has a very general meaning. It specifically says that the two lights are for signs, so it would make sense that 'asah should be interpreted based on this function. So, I prefer the "to appoint, ordain, institute" meaning of the word. This would make sense since life is created in verse 11-12, so it means that life would start making use of the lights above (e.g., photosynthesis).

How does something to be used as "signs"and seasons, days and years ...get to be tied into photosynthesis? You do a lot of writing in-between the lines when you make the assumption that photosynthesis evolved as a result of God making the sun, moon and stars.

By saying the heavenly bodies have been appointed for a particular task, God is creating a relationship between the heavenly bodies and life. One of the first major relationship between life and the heavenly bodies was photosynthesis. Of course, there are other interpretation possibilities. For example, the sun was only 3/4 of its current brightness for the first 800 million years (see http://www.nature.com/NSU/000302/000302-3.html ), which would mean that the sun was not fully made until after life formed on earth (i.e., Day 3). Also, it is very possible that life formed before the moon. So, even an interpretation of 'made' in terms of completing the creation of is possible for 'Day 4'.

Did life form before the stars were formed?

YEC, you need to use that creativity that you displayed in that verse in Luke! Here, I'll help you THIS time:

"And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars." (Gen. 1:16)

The moon was to rule the night and the stars. That is, the light of the moon will have dominion over the night sky. And, just as God spoke, a Mars-like object hit the earth, created the moon, and even today the moon rules the night sky.