Hi, Faith.
Faith writes:
When Jesus does the miracle He doesn't bring anything new into existence, He miraculously multiplied things that were already in existence...
...He gives us all kinds of things, and things unique or brand-new to each of us, but doesn't create them brand-new out of nothing as He created all things at the Creation. In the loose sense of the term, of course God created you, created you as a unique human being, but all the parts that go into you from all the parts of the body to your soul out of whatever His recipe is for human souls, were already in existence since the original Creation week.
These, I think, are the salient points of your post. It seems that you view "Creation" as referring to the creation of templates or prototypes, rather than the creation of individual things, is that correct? So, there's is 'creation,' and then there is 'Creation
TM', so to speak.
It's certainly a valid position, but it feels an awful lot like splitting hairs in the name of specific -- and somewhat strained -- interpretation of the phrase "rested from all his work" (Genesis 2:2). Is there some other reason (other than Genesis 2:2) why you think God isn't creating things anymore? I mean, clearly God didn't have any qualms about going back to work after Creation Week, because the Bible has Him doing all kinds of miracles well after Creation Week ended. And, if He can go back to work, what's stopping Him from going back to 'creation'?
Are you willing to consider that maybe God
can and
does still create things? Or are you now thinking about ways to interpret the word 'work'? Is there also going to be a 'work' and 'Work
TM' now?
Faith writes:
First, your physical body follows the pattern God created when He created Adam.
Okay, but did God actually 'Create
TM' Adam, or did He merely 'create' Adam? Genesis 1:26-27 describes God as creating man "in His own image" and "after His own likeness."
That sounds like God was working from a pre-existing template, which would mean Adam is not the actual prototype. So, if we're following your strict definition of "creation," God therefore did not actually create Adam.
Faith writes:
I skimmed your references to "fiery objects" -- not sure about the first one, the second one the destruction of Sodom? The third the fire from heaven that consumed Elijah's sacrifice? I don't see creation here either, again just miracles making use of already-created things, in this case fire.
I cited Exodus 10, when I was supposed to cite Exodus 9, where the 7th plague was described as "fire mixed with hail." But, the newer translations apparently translate it as "lightning," so I was wrong to include that example.
Faith writes:
First, your physical body follows the pattern God created when He created Adam. He created the DNA that all physical bodies possess, and the system that combines the genes from the parents to make the body of the child. So again, there is no creation there, just one of countless expressions or products of the system God created on the sixth day.
Great, so I was not created by God.
Faith writes:
Blue Jay writes:
Clearly, your claim that "Creation ended with Genesis 2" causes some tension with the core components of the Creationist belief system, so perhaps you should reconsider it.
No, it turns out to be a semantic problem in the end rather than a real problem about original Creation.
I think it turned out this way because you were more willing to redefine terms than to consider an alternative to your pre-existing beliefs.
-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.