Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tolken

Mediate Creation

85 posts in this topic

Cobalt1959 - I am reading Genesis "plainly," and I am not deriving the same meaning from it, and I have never met anyone else who got the meaning that you place on it either.  So saying "I read it and get this meaning" is not proof.  It is only personal opinion, and since you offer no explanation of how you actually arrive at that meaning, you are not engaged in any interpretation or exegesis. 

 

Perhaps one should read “plainly” but with their critical thinking intact.  It is not my personal opinion but a standard of theology, one need only peruse a Systematic Theology book or read the writings of myriad theologians past and present to gain insight on the use of the term.  One will even find Mediate creation on answersingenesis.org, so prior to engaging in a discussion of Genesis 1 it would be wise to have some understanding of accepted terms.

 

Quote - As shiloh says, Genesis 1:24  talks of the animal kinds, (miyn).  God created the animals, and the species of animals, at the same time.  There was no evolutionary process at creation that involved animals evolving into other types of animals.  Your "plain reading" of the text which you claim illustrates a mediate process is dispelled in the next verse:

 

First a general look at Genesis 1 and it’s construction.  “And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5)  One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.

 

You conveniently left out that germane part of the verse... “And God said, let the land produce...”. Understanding as we do that the command is the sole operative then one can’t help but notice that the command/fiat is directed not to animals but to the land.  Gen. 1:24 speaks to the mediate creation of animals as we know that animals like “man” were created from the “dust” of the earth/land.  Earth/Land/Dust being a pre-existing material thus at one level clearly mediate creation. The passage avoids “let there be living creatures...” but again if the command itself is the sole operative then it is quite plain what God is commanding...the land.

 

Quote - Genesis 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

 

Here again is where one needs to read Genesis with some critical thinking though it is quite “plain”. If as scripture states the sole and only operative agent in creation was God’s commands (Psalm 33:6, etc.) then logically what follows the command/fiat is explanatory.  “And God made...” statements are not the operative commands, but an explanation of results.

 

Quote - Verse 26 says that same thing about man.  Verse 21 says the same thing about the sea creatures.  All three verses say that God created the animals and man Himself, directly, not through a "process."  And if there were no theory of evolution to use to interpolate on the text, no one would come up with the meaning you do from verse 24.

 

Verse 26 is so clearly mediate creation as man was made from “dust”, just as were the animals and plants. At one level mediate creation is irrefutable, at another level it an openly debatable point.  The further question regarding man becomes does “Our image” mean spiritual or physical?

So the verses in question do not actually state that God made anything directly but through mediate creation. The question then becomes, how?  Creation was obviously a supernatural event however were the processes that we see today invoked by God at the outset?  Is it not possible that God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?

 

Once again “evolution” rears it’s ugly head based on your definition of the term. You will note, if you so choose, that nowhere in the previous thread did I support a specific “evolution”.  The only thing suggested was the use of the term to mean “God ordained processes”.  Further, with a modicum of consideration one will realize that there exists a vast array of things we wouldn’t know if it wasn’t for science, and any number of things that support the scriptures.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again “evolution” rears it’s ugly head based on your definition of the term. You will note, if you so choose, that nowhere in the previous thread did I support a specific “evolution”.  The only thing suggested was the use of the term to mean “God ordained processes”.  Further, with a modicum of consideration one will realize that there exists a vast array of things we wouldn’t know if it wasn’t for science, and any number of things that support the scriptures.

that is not true.  When LouF95 asked if Evolution could have been the means God used to create you said yes and that it was biblical.  Please note your comments here:

 

 

LouF95 - Is it possible that there is a God and evolution was His method of creation?

 

Yes, of course it is...and quite biblical.

 

You also said this to Cobalt

 

 

Cobalt1959 - Evolution is one of the baits the trapper uses to draw the prey to the trap.

 

Or ...that is how God choose to create the great diversity of life.

 

 

Cobalt isn't using some special definition of the term.  You knew what he was referring to and you suggested that God chose to use it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps one should read “plainly” but with their critical thinking intact. 

 

This has nothing to do with critical thinking.  It's about competent exegesis and you have provided NONE.

 

 

It is not my personal opinion but a standard of theology,

 

It nothing but your personal opinoin, your personal reading of the text and what you want the text to mean.  You are trying read Evolution into the text.

 

 

one need only peruse a Systematic Theology book or read the writings of myriad theologians past and present to gain insight on the use of the term.  One will even find Mediate creation on answersingenesis.org, so prior to engaging in a discussion of Genesis 1 it would be wise to have some understanding of accepted terms.

 

But AIG doesn't present mediate creation the way you have.   Mediate creation is defined on that site as: 

 

 "mediate creation is the production of beings, by the power of God, out of pre-existent matter, which of itself was not disposed to produce them; so God is said to create great whales and other fishes, which, at his command, the waters brought forth abundantly; and he created man, male and female; and yet man, as to his body,"

 

The difference is that immediate creation was that which was created out of nothing.  Mediate creation is simply creating out of existing matter.  Either way God is the agent of creation.  Nothing evolved.  God called it into existence and it arrived perfectly as God intended without the need of millions of years of evolution.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiloh357 - that is not true.  When LouF95 asked if Evolution could have been the means God used to create you said yes and that it was biblical.

 

Perhaps you will take the time to notice my further qualifications ... “Further, there is no suggestion on my part to equate darwinsim/neo-darwinism as to the details of the God ordained processes stated in Genesis, other than to allow the use of the term "evolution", though not in the extreme context which you and others choose to impose.” That you choose to use "evolution" only in the pejorative sense does not in any way preclude that evolution was God's creative intent for the diversity of life.

 

Quote – Shiloh - Cobalt isn't using some special definition of the term.  You knew what he was referring to and you suggested that God chose to use it. “Cobalt1959 - Evolution is one of the baits the trapper uses to draw the prey to the trap.”

 

I disagree baits, trapper (who?,) prey, trap...obviously it is the pejorative use.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shiloh357 - that is not true.  When LouF95 asked if Evolution could have been the means God used to create you said yes and that it was biblical.

 

Perhaps you will take the time to notice my further qualifications ... “Further, there is no suggestion on my part to equate darwinsim/neo-darwinism as to the details of the God ordained processes stated in Genesis, other than to allow the use of the term "evolution", though not in the extreme context which you and others choose to impose.” That you choose to use "evolution" only in the pejorative sense does not in any way preclude that evolution was God's creative intent for the diversity of life.

 

Quote – Shiloh - Cobalt isn't using some special definition of the term.  You knew what he was referring to and you suggested that God chose to use it. “Cobalt1959 - Evolution is one of the baits the trapper uses to draw the prey to the trap.”

 

I disagree baits, trapper (who?,) prey, trap...obviously it is the pejorative use.

 

 

That is completely incoherent.   Your qualification makes no sense.  You had to make that qualification up much later after you couldn't defend your original statement that Evolution, which was used in the conventional sense earlier when you were i agreement with those who suggested that evolution was God's means of creation.

 

When you were challenged on your initial assertions you had to muddy the water about what "evolution" means and portray the conventional use of the term as "extreme" in order to separate it from your heretofore, undefined special use the term.

 

Your position can't be supported by any evidence or you would have produced some evidence. Frankly you have nothing and trying to redefine evolution is proof that your reasoning is dead in the water.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiloh357 - It nothing but your personal opinoin, your personal reading of the text and what you want the text to mean.  You are trying read Evolution into the text.

 

Do you believe that God’s commands are the sole operative of creation?  Does Gen. 1:24 command the “land to produce...”? If God’s commands are sole and all sufficient then what follows must be explanatory otherwise show me how the commands are not sole/all sufficient? 

 

Shiloh357 - The difference is that immediate creation was that which was created out of nothing.  Mediate creation is simply creating out of existing matter.  Either way God is the agent of creation.  Nothing evolved.  God called it into existence and it arrived perfectly as God intended without the need of millions of years of evolution. 

 

Which is why I noted this ...“At one level mediate creation is irrefutable, at another level it an openly debatable point.” Show me in Gen. 1:24 where God called living creatures into existence ...I will show you where God commanded the land to produce living creatures?  And you call that my personal reading?  The text nowhere states "And God said, let there be living creatures..." it seems you are reading into the text.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiloh357 - Your position can't be supported by any evidence or you would have produced some evidence. Frankly you have nothing and trying to redefine evolution is proof that your reasoning is dead in the water.

 

Skirt the issue if you will...you may check other threads in which I qualified in the same exact way. There is no need to redefine evolution as you have chosen your definition and I have chosen mine.  As you are aware many YEC hold to any number of evolutionary details, natural selection, mutations, etc. so it all comes down to defining terms.  That you find the term "evolution" abhorrent in any manner is a problem you have not me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiloh357 - Your position can't be supported by any evidence or you would have produced some evidence. Frankly you have nothing and trying to redefine evolution is proof that your reasoning is dead in the water.

 

Skirt the issue if you will...you may check other threads in which I qualified in the same exact way. There is no need to redefine evolution as you have chosen your definition and I have chosen mine.  As you are aware many YEC hold to any number of evolutionary details, natural selection, mutations, etc. so it all comes down to defining terms.  That you find the term "evolution" abhorrent in any manner is a problem you have not me.

I am not using "my" definition of Evolution.  I am using Evolution in the conventional sense that any scientist would use it.   You are operating, evidently from some home-spun definition you have concocted to make your arguments make sense in your mind.

 

It's why you can't explain the Bible's creation of man in evolutionary terms because the Bible makes evolution impossible due to man being a special creation apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.  That is the wrench in the works for someone who thinks evolution is biblical.

 

You are skewing the YEC position.  Natural selection and mutations in the YEC view occur within in a given species. That is not "evolution" per se.  That is adaptation to environment.   The problem is that when people use "evolution" in the conventional sense they are referring to the macro-evolutionary process of one species evolving into another completely different species.  (such as lizards evolving into birds).

 

So you can try and weasel around it all you want, but you really have to rely on deceptive bait and switch tactics and;/or just ignore your complete lack of evidence and proceed on as if you have proven your point.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiloh357 - It nothing but your personal opinoin, your personal reading of the text and what you want the text to mean.  You are trying read Evolution into the text.

 

Do you believe that God’s commands are the sole operative of creation?  Does Gen. 1:24 command the “land to produce...”? If God’s commands are sole and all sufficient then what follows must be explanatory otherwise show me how the commands are not sole/all sufficient? 

 

Shiloh357 - The difference is that immediate creation was that which was created out of nothing.  Mediate creation is simply creating out of existing matter.  Either way God is the agent of creation.  Nothing evolved.  God called it into existence and it arrived perfectly as God intended without the need of millions of years of evolution. 

 

Which is why I noted this ...“At one level mediate creation is irrefutable, at another level it an openly debatable point.” Show me in Gen. 1:24 where God called living creatures into existence ...I will show you where God commanded the land to produce living creatures?  And you call that my personal reading?  The text nowhere states "And God said, let there be living creatures..." it seems you are reading into the text.

God is still the agent of creation.  Created matter still did His bidding.  The land didn't create the animals God.  You need to read into verse 25 where it says that God made the animals after their own kind. 

 

Mediate creation does mean that God told the earth to create the animals.  It simply means that God created out of physical matter.  You are skewing the facts.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shiloh357 - Your position can't be supported by any evidence or you would have produced some evidence. Frankly you have nothing and trying to redefine evolution is proof that your reasoning is dead in the water.

 

Skirt the issue if you will...you may check other threads in which I qualified in the same exact way. There is no need to redefine evolution as you have chosen your definition and I have chosen mine.  As you are aware many YEC hold to any number of evolutionary details, natural selection, mutations, etc. so it all comes down to defining terms.  That you find the term "evolution" abhorrent in any manner is a problem you have not me.

I am not using "my" definition of Evolution.  I am using Evolution in the conventional sense that any scientist would use it.   You are operating, evidently from some home-spun definition you have concocted to make your arguments make sense in your mind.

 

...

 

You are skewing the YEC position.  Natural selection and mutations in the YEC view occur within in a given species. That is not "evolution" per se.  That is adaptation to environment.   The problem is that when people use "evolution" in the conventional sense they are referring to the macro-evolutionary process of one species evolving into another completely different species.  (such as lizards evolving into birds).

 It's quite ironic to watch you accuse someone of a "home-spun" definition of evolution.  There is no such thnig as Micro and Macro evolution as you have defined here - creationists have spun their own definitions... 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0