Creation???

[methinkshe]

Luftwaffle,

I have found your answers on this thread, and others relating to science v creation, very helpful to my understanding.

Would you mind if I ask some questions? Before I start, I just want to let you know that I believe in a literal six day creation. But I have some imponderables that I'm hoping you might be able to help me with.

1) Genesis 1:1&2 says:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Did the "third heaven" or "the throne room of God" pre-exist the creation of the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1? Is there even such a location and if so does it exist within the universe or is it in a different dimension? In short, where was/is the "dwelling place" of God and his holy angels?

2) Likewise, did "outer darkness," the place reserved for the devil and his demons, pre-exist the creation of the "heaven and the earth?" Is it a physical location or a spiritual dimension? Did God create "outer darkness?"

3) Am I correct in believing that the word translated as "formless and void" is the same word that is translated elsewhere in the Bible as "abyss" and "outer darkness" and that it is synonymous with the word "chaos".

4) If "outer darkness/the abyss/chaos" is part of the physical universe and it pre-existed the creation of "the heaven and the earth" could the earth have been just another lump of rock, so to speak, hurtling around in "outer darkness" until God brought His life and order to it through the creative acts described in Genesis? And that the heaven of Genesis 1:1 refers to earth's atmosphere (not the whole universe) and the sun, moon and stars were, like earth, just more lumps of rock hurtling around in outer darkness until God caused them to be light-bearers to the earth?

I suppose what I'm getting at is: could the creation of "heaven and earth" be a secondary creation? i.e. God created the universe (??outer darkness/chaos/unformed matter) first but it is not recorded in Genesis because it has no bearing on mankind and the revelation of God to mankind.

5) Where in the Bible do we find "creation ex nihilo?" Is it assumed? Would not "creation ek Theos" be more accurate?

I ask these questions in a spirit of not-knowing and searching for answers. But in no way do I seek to undermine a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, only to understand it better.

[LuftWaffle]

I have found your answers on this thread, and others relating to science v creation, very helpful to my understanding.

Would you mind if I ask some questions? Before I start, I just want to let you know that I believe in a literal six day creation. But I have some imponderables that I'm hoping you might be able to help me with.

1) Genesis 1:1&2 says:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Did the "third heaven" or "the throne room of God" pre-exist the creation of the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1? Is there even such a location and if so does it exist within the universe or is it in a different dimension? In short, where was/is the "dwelling place" of God and his holy angels?

2) Likewise, did "outer darkness," the place reserved for the devil and his demons, pre-exist the creation of the "heaven and the earth?" Is it a physical location or a spiritual dimension? Did God create "outer darkness?"

3) Am I correct in believing that the word translated as "formless and void" is the same word that is translated elsewhere in the Bible as "abyss" and "outer darkness" and that it is synonymous with the word "chaos".

4) If "outer darkness/the abyss/chaos" is part of the physical universe and it pre-existed the creation of "the heaven and the earth" could the earth have been just another lump of rock, so to speak, hurtling around in "outer darkness" until God brought His life and order to it through the creative acts described in Genesis? And that the heaven of Genesis 1:1 refers to earth's atmosphere (not the whole universe) and the sun, moon and stars were, like earth, just more lumps of rock hurtling around in outer darkness until God caused them to be light-bearers to the earth?

I suppose what I'm getting at is: could the creation of "heaven and earth" be a secondary creation? i.e. God created the universe (??outer darkness/chaos/unformed matter) first but it is not recorded in Genesis because it has no bearing on mankind and the revelation of God to mankind.

5) Where in the Bible do we find "creation ex nihilo?" Is it assumed? Would not "creation ek Theos" be more accurate?

I ask these questions in a spirit of not-knowing and searching for answers. But in no way do I seek to undermine a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, only to understand it better.

It's encouraging getting such a great compliment, and at the same time it's rather unfortunate to disappoint so shortly afterward: I have no good answers to your questions because I haven't given them much thought I'm afraid and the Bible doesn't explain much in this regard, but I'll be more than happy to walk down this road with you and see what we can learn.

The best thing we can do is try and connect the dots and see if a picture forms.

Looking at the 'dots'.

1. Third heaven.

From my MacArthur study bible, the first heaven is our atmosphere, the second heaven is interstellar space, and third heaven is the abode of God. Whether the abode of God is within our 3 spacial dimensions but just really far away, or whether it's in a seperate dimension (which would make it close to us, yet infinitely unreachable) I simply do not know.

2. Paradise

It seems that the third heaven is interchangeable with the word paradise. This is the same word that Jesus used when addressing one of the men crucified beside Him.

I think paradise references Eden, although it may only be in the sense that it is a pleasant and perfect place, and not necessarily that the third heaven is Eden, (either far away or in another dimension).

But then again, the Bible describes that God placed an angel to guard Eden after casting Adam and Eve out. So I guess it's possible that the abode of God is precisely that very Eden from which Adam and Eve were cast.

If the third heaven is Eden, then we know that the third heaven came into existence during creation. If it's only a likeness of God's abode, then this doesn't help us in terms of where God's abode was before creation.

3. Formless and void

By looking at the way the words are used throughout the bible, both terms seem to denote emptiness, or nothingness. Not chaos as such.

It's possible that Genesis 1:1,2 is describing God initially defining the parameters of our reality. I think of God, setting up a placeholder for our world, a blank canvas.

Then matter followed. I see this as the waters of the deep. Could it be that God used H2O as the basic element (here I mean unit, not chemical element) from which He crafted all other all matter? Could it be some gas such as hydrogen condensed into liquid form? I really don't know.

Then God created light, concluding the first day.

I would sum up the first day then as:

1. Setting up the framework for the universe.

2. Forming the earth from a basic material element.

3. Creating light.

4. Outer darkness

This is an even more difficult question. It seems atleast according to some passages and some demons are bound up in the abyss, which is desribed using the same term as "waters of the deep". Again whether this is the actual waters of the deep, or merely a likeness, in terms of a cold dark blurry spiritual limbo, I don't know.

5. Ex-nihilo vs Ek-Theos

I don't really have a problem with the term Ex-nihilo. I see it as a stipulative definition denoting that God didn't use any existing material to create the universe and I think that's how it's understood by most.

Perhaps the term isn't perfect, just like 'black coffee' actually being dark brown, but I think people understand its meaning.

That's all I got for you I'm afraid.

Let me read between the lines a little and see if I can address some concerns that you may have.

1. Does uncertainty in what is meant by "waters of the deep", "third heaven" etc. show that these should be taken as non literal? I'd say no. If a forensic accountant can't make sense of a financial document, it doesn't make the document figurative. Likewise, just because some aspects of the creation account may perplex us, that in itself doesn't justify reinterpreting it non-literally.

2. If it's possible to derive spiritual meaning from Genesis, does that make it non-literal?

Again, here I'd say no. There is spiritual meaning in the account of Joseph, being sold out by his brothers preparing a place for his family. Joseph is a type of Christ in that sense. Given that, there's no reason to doubt Joseph's historicity or that the events recorded really occurred.

A piece of literature can be both historically true and carry symbolic meaning. These aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm really sorry that I couldn't offer you better answers.

Edited July 29, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[~candice~]

LW, FWIW, you have done a stella job on this thread and others .

[LuftWaffle]

LW, FWIW, you have done a stella job on this thread and others .

Thanks Candice.

Much appreciated.

[methinkshe]

Luftwaffle,

Thank you so much for the time and effort you have expended in your reply to my questions. I really appreciate it.

May I take you up on your offer to "walk down this road with you and see what we can learn."?

First I need to complete the picture vis a vis where I am coming from.

Only please tell me if I have overstepped the mark and drifted too far from the revealed into the speculative. I want to "draw out" from the whole counsel of Scripture, not "insert" from my human understanding and imagination.

Okay, continuing from my first post, here is where I go next.........

Would it in any way contravene Scripture to propose a God-created universe of unformed matter that correlates with “outer darkness” that pre-existed the creation of the earth and heaven – that is, its creation from unformed matter into an ordered, life-bearing planet and atmosphere, and the giving of light to other clumps of unformed matter in the universe, thus creating the sun and stars, the whole culminating in the creation of humankind? “Ex nihilo,” if applied strictly to the creation of the earth, might not allow, but “ek Theos” would (at least, I think so) – hence my question in my previous post.

One could then consider whether this is evidence that even where there is darkness and chaos and disorder, God can, if He so wills, bring His light and order and life. In a way, it could be seen as an object lesson for Satan and his demonic spirits – God rules even in the outer darkness where they were cast. That there is no place where God cannot, if He so wills, bring His Person and His rule to bear – not even “outer darkness” which, one assumes, having been cast there, Satan took as his dominion. (As an aside, I have always pondered on the verse: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. I Corinthians 11:10. What have angels to do with the subject? It is obviously an authority matter. Beyond that, I am puzzled. Anyway, it's probably a red herring as far as this discussion is concerned. But it did come to mind, so......)

The spiritual battle then begins; who rules even outer darkness – God or Satan? The first move is God’s – He creates the heaven and the earth in this outer darkness, or chaotic universe of unformed matter, that Satan has taken as his dominion, by bringing His presence and order and life to it through creating plants and animals and finally man in His image, a being designed to derive his spiritual nature from his Creator. Satan responds by corrupting Adam who then derives his spiritual nature from Satan. God counter-responds by becoming man in Christ Jesus and, with the potential for spiritual regeneration that this allows humanity, takes the victory! Satan doesn’t give up, though, he continues to corrupt humanity until such times as God calls an end to Satan's deception.

Or is this just far too much speculation?

[LuftWaffle]

Would it in any way contravene Scripture to propose a God-created universe of unformed matter that correlates with “outer darkness” that pre-existed the creation of the earth and heaven – that is, its creation from unformed matter into an ordered, life-bearing planet and atmosphere, and the giving of light to other clumps of unformed matter in the universe, thus creating the sun and stars, the whole culminating in the creation of humankind? “Ex nihilo,” if applied strictly to the creation of the earth, might not allow, but “ek Theos” would (at least, I think so) – hence my question in my previous post.

I suppose it is possible, although I'm wary of the idea, for the simple reason that there no indication in scripture that God did use unformed matter that had been available prior to the beginning of Genesis. Ex-nihilo is virtually impossible to prove, since one can't prove a nothing. Proving a nothing proves nothing. Even if scripture said that God created the universe out of nothing, an objector might still question what is meant by nothing. Nothing could refer to chaos, a singularity, some sort of proto-matter or anything really. However I do think that when scripture is silent on something it's silent for a reason. I also think that if one cannot find an answer in scripture and logic has reached its limits, then looking at what geniune Christians throughout the ages believed, isn't a bad approach. So for that reason I think ex-nihilo is probably right even though your theory isn't unscriptural or logically incoherent.

So, in short, while I don't see anything wrong with it, I also don't see a reason to believe it. If that makes sense?

One could then consider whether this is evidence that even where there is darkness and chaos and disorder, God can, if He so wills, bring His light and order and life. In a way, it could be seen as an object lesson for Satan and his demonic spirits – God rules even in the outer darkness where they were cast. That there is no place where God cannot, if He so wills, bring His Person and His rule to bear – not even “outer darkness” which, one assumes, having been cast there, Satan took as his dominion. (As an aside, I have always pondered on the verse: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. I Corinthians 11:10. What have angels to do with the subject? It is obviously an authority matter. Beyond that, I am puzzled. Anyway, it's probably a red herring as far as this discussion is concerned. But it did come to mind, so......)

I, believe that God is omnipresent, and so by definition, is everywhere. I know there are some who believe that hell is hell because God isn't there, but I don't believe such a view is entirely scriptural.

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

(Rev 14:10-11)

This verse seems to suggest that the torments of hell are in presence of God. If hell and outer darkness are different then I think the same would apply to outer darkness.

I believe hell/outer darkness, isn't the geographical absence of God, but the perceived absence of God. In other words, when God withdraws from the lost, He doesn't withdraw physically.

So while I understand what you mean, by God being able to bring chaos into order, I think God is able to do that anyway through Christ.

But one must also consider God's justice. Sometimes God destroys and wreaks chaos, as a judgement. I believe this is the case for lucifer and his fallen.

May I ask, are you a universalist?

[methinkshe]

Would it in any way contravene Scripture to propose a God-created universe of unformed matter that correlates with “outer darkness” that pre-existed the creation of the earth and heaven – that is, its creation from unformed matter into an ordered, life-bearing planet and atmosphere, and the giving of light to other clumps of unformed matter in the universe, thus creating the sun and stars, the whole culminating in the creation of humankind? “Ex nihilo,” if applied strictly to the creation of the earth, might not allow, but “ek Theos” would (at least, I think so) – hence my question in my previous post.

I suppose it is possible, although I'm wary of the idea, for the simple reason that there no indication in scripture that God did use unformed matter that had been available prior to the beginning of Genesis. Ex-nihilo is virtually impossible to prove, since one can't prove a nothing. Proving a nothing proves nothing. Even if scripture said that God created the universe out of nothing, an objector might still question what is meant by nothing. Nothing could refer to chaos, a singularity, some sort of proto-matter or anything really. However I do think that when scripture is silent on something it's silent for a reason. I also think that if one cannot find an answer in scripture and logic has reached its limits, then looking at what geniune Christians throughout the ages believed, isn't a bad approach. So for that reason I think ex-nihilo is probably right even though your theory isn't unscriptural or logically incoherent.

So, in short, while I don't see anything wrong with it, I also don't see a reason to believe it. If that makes sense?

One could then consider whether this is evidence that even where there is darkness and chaos and disorder, God can, if He so wills, bring His light and order and life. In a way, it could be seen as an object lesson for Satan and his demonic spirits – God rules even in the outer darkness where they were cast. That there is no place where God cannot, if He so wills, bring His Person and His rule to bear – not even “outer darkness” which, one assumes, having been cast there, Satan took as his dominion. (As an aside, I have always pondered on the verse: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. I Corinthians 11:10. What have angels to do with the subject? It is obviously an authority matter. Beyond that, I am puzzled. Anyway, it's probably a red herring as far as this discussion is concerned. But it did come to mind, so......)

I, believe that God is omnipresent, and so by definition, is everywhere. I know there are some who believe that hell is hell because God isn't there, but I don't believe such a view is entirely scriptural.

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

(Rev 14:10-11)

This verse seems to suggest that the torments of hell are in presence of God. If hell and outer darkness are different then I think the same would apply to outer darkness.

I believe hell/outer darkness, isn't the geographical absence of God, but the perceived absence of God. In other words, when God withdraws from the lost, He doesn't withdraw physically.

So while I understand what you mean, by God being able to bring chaos into order, I think God is able to do that anyway through Christ.

But one must also consider God's justice. Sometimes God destroys and wreaks chaos, as a judgement. I believe this is the case for lucifer and his fallen.

May I ask, are you a universalist?

Thanks for your response, Luftwaffle. I agree with what you say.

As for, am I a universalist, I'm not sure because I'm very wary of "isms" and "ists" so wouldn't know into which category I might fall.

I believe that Jesus in His death and resurrection paid the full penalty for sin and that the freedom (release from Satan's bondage which includes justicfication and sanctification) and righteousness before God, that He purchased through that sacrifice, is universal. Therefore sin is no longer a barrier between God and man because Jesus has paid the penalty for sin and God's holiness is judicially satisfied.

But that doesn't mean that all men everywhere will avail themselves of that freedom in Christ to live as God intended, through the restoration of His Spirit in man via regeneration, which is accessible only by faith.

As for me, I only know that the resurrected, living Lord Jesus has come to abide in me and that I have His life in me.

[ByFaithAlone]

Sorry I haven't been on for a few days. I have been working on other things. Again, my apologies on the delay and because I have so many posts to respond to I may only get to a few points which I view as critical.

Let's deal with the Adam/species issue because that is the easiest to delve into without debating interpretation of words and getting mad at each other.

Based on the fossil records we have found and the science beyond our world, I can only conclude that there were hundreds of millions of species and at least millions or tens of millions of generic family names (as you seem to think that Adam named them after common family names, based on your evidence lack of evidence).

The fossil record does not tell us how many species of animals were present at creation to assume that all these fossils must be of animals that were in existence at creation is pure conjecture.

Correct. The fossil record shows us that about 99% of the species that have existed on this earth have gone extinct. For example, this includes the dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and sabertooth tigers. We do not know which were there at creation but it seems likely that, if you accept YEC ideas, dinosaurs (of which over 1000 land based dinosaurs have been found according to Wiki). Thousands more are expected to have lived in Dinosauria alone (that's just one superfamily).

It is unlikely that every species of dog we see today existed at that time, same with horses, cattle, cats, and other creatures. You are trying to force something on to the text that is not there. Adam simply named the creatures that were brought to him and the plain sense of the text is that He named them by families or "kind" and not with the much more intricate and precise names that we have today.

That still leaves hundreds of thousands if not millions of families. It does seem unlikely that every species of dog and horse existed but at the same time it seems unlikely that such diversity evolved in 6000 years since the YEC. Evolution generally takes much longer... even if it is microevolution.

Also keep in mind that only three classifications are listed: Beasts of the field, fowls of the air, and cattle. He did not name the fish, or any other marine animals/organisms, He did not name the insects, spiders or

True, are you saying that God did not create them, or that they somehow evolved (or devolved) from more complex creatures like "the beasts of the fields?"

You need to remember that the millions of classifed species include marine life, fish and so on. In fact, they make up the majority, so you need to subtract creaturs like sponges, worms, snails, oysters, clams, insects, and so on from the list of classified species.

Why are we subtracting these? I was under the impression that you believed that God created the life that inhabits or earth. If he didn't, how would explain their existence? Did they evolve or devolve from something else in 6000 years?

When you narrow down the list to these proto-species, the first animals created which only include the above three catagories, the number of animals Adam named wold be very, very small, perhaps only a few thousand in all. If there were 5,000 proto species in would only take a few hours to name them all if he were going at a reasonable pace.

Even if you take 5000 families, it seems highly unlikely that they evolved in such a way as to create millions in just a few thousand years. Do you have any proof that this could have happened or is this merely speculation that flies in the face of science?

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 28 July 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

It is unlikely that every species of dog we see today existed at that time, same with horses, cattle, cats, and other creatures. You are trying to force something on to the text that is not there. Adam simply named the creatures that were brought to him and the plain sense of the text is that He named them by families or "kind" and not with the much more intricate and precise names that we have today.

That still leaves hundreds of thousands if not millions of families. It does seem unlikely that every species of dog and horse existed but at the same time it seems unlikely that such diversity evolved in 6000 years since the YEC. Evolution generally takes much longer... even if it is microevolution.

I used to spend a lot of time on a farm and I have seen how fast animals procreate and how fast an animal population can grow. You can start off with just a few sheep and have hundreds with in a few short years. I don't have to accept evolution. I don't believe that Evolution took place.

shiloh357, on 28 July 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

Also keep in mind that only three classifications are listed: Beasts of the field, fowls of the air, and cattle. He did not name the fish, or any other marine animals/organisms, He did not name the insects, spiders or

True, are you saying that God did not create them, or that they somehow evolved (or devolved) from more complex creatures like "the beasts of the fields?"

No I am saying that Adam only named certain creatures that God brought to him. He did not name every living thing and when you go by what the Lord brought to him to name, only a few thousand familes of creatures would not take but a few hours to name.

shiloh357, on 28 July 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

You need to remember that the millions of classifed species include marine life, fish and so on. In fact, they make up the majority, so you need to subtract creaturs like sponges, worms, snails, oysters, clams, insects, and so on from the list of classified species.

Why are we subtracting these? I was under the impression that you believed that God created the life that inhabits or earth. If he didn't, how would explain their existence? Did they evolve or devolve from something else in 6000 years?

I am subracting them because they are not part of what Adam named. You were trying suggest that Adam named every living thing and that is not what the Bible says. He only named a limited group of creatures and that would be a much, much, much smaller list than the millions of creatures YOU suggested he named. When apply exactly the Bible says, the list is far smaller and does not require a longer time period to accomplish as you claim.

shiloh357, on 28 July 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

When you narrow down the list to these proto-species, the first animals created which only include the above three catagories, the number of animals Adam named wold be very, very small, perhaps only a few thousand in all. If there were 5,000 proto species in would only take a few hours to name them all if he were going at a reasonable pace.

Even if you take 5000 families, it seems highly unlikely that they evolved in such a way as to create millions in just a few thousand years. Do you have any proof that this could have happened or is this merely speculation that flies in the face of science?

Evolution is not science.

Again, I have seen how quickly animals can poplulate a given area and it is rather phenomenal, to be honest. Unregulated, we would be quickly overrun with them. It iis why conservationalists have to routinely thin out certain poplulations of animals in order to prevent over population. over grazing and intrusion into neighborhoods and urban areas. You underestimate how quickly these things happen. For the longest time, wood petrification was thought to be a process that took millions of years, but after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, it was discovered that petrification can occur in as little as three months.

Breeding and the development of new species does not take millions and millions of years.

[nebula]

Question:

Gen. 1

9 And God said , Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear : and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Was this a creation of land, or a separation of water from the land?

The land was under the water, in other words, the water receded from high areas in the ocean floor. Science supports the idea that at one time the earth was covered with water just as Genesis says.

So if the land was under the water, when was the land actually created?