God and Creation

At Creation week what did God do on the eighth day and what has mankind thought he did? Important answer follows.

The bible clearly says God created everything in six days and on the seventh day rested.

So what did he do on the eight day?

The answer is there was no eighth day. He was finished with creation as far as he created.

This means ever since creation has been running on its own. No more creation or control or tweaking even. YES god allowed changed in biology like women gaining birthpains and snakes, all biology, changing body plans and other details in physics. Yet these are not creating events. Just a slight manipulation in unknown ways. Yet he didn’t add anything to creation.

Mankind, all religions including Christianity, have got this wrong. All have presumed God(s) created and continued to create and control the universe and nature. If one listens one hears always how God is doing this or that in nature.

Yet he was clear he doesn’t control nature. The beast or machine controls itself without his assistance.

Yet even since the 1500’s many folks have seen, tried to interpret, the discovery of how nature/universe runs itself as a great rejection of the bible’s claim of Gods control. Even if religious believers themselves. They thought they needed to save God from rejection by stressing his creation but non involvement as if a new insight.Then in later centuries many of those involved/interested in the universe/nature persuade themselves there is no God or evidence of God because of in action. As if to say IF there is a God he should be working.yet the lack of action from God and the complete control of the universe/nature as a machine would be predicted if God truly stopped on the sixth day and there was no eight day. All the spin to show God is not involved in biology or physics etc etc is just what Genesis said. Genesis never said God was involved in creating or controlling the universe. Just minor drive bys of manipulation.

100 thoughts on “God and Creation

  1. fifthmonarchyman,

    In short then, do you believe in a ‘young earth’, iow a few thousand rather than millions of years? Byers is a YEC & I was responding to him. He doesn’t think a ‘Christian’ can properly reject YECism, conflates ‘creationist’ with ‘Christian’ & won’t answer when called out on it.

    I agree it’s a waste of time otherwise, as the point of contention was “evangelical protestantism”, which obviously as a term didn’t start in 1st century Palestine, at least, not as commonly understood today. The ‘johnny come lately’ comment was especially absurd. I’m not at all interested to discuss Baptists or (the) Baptist church(es), John Smyth or successionism with a Baptist here. You’re wasting breath with “we were always protestants,” just playing silly semantic games with proper names historically understood.

    Love to you too.

  2. Gregory: In short then, do you believe in a ‘young earth’, iow a few thousand rather than millions of years?

    I think that the best evidence right now points to either an old earth or mature creation/apparent age view. But I’m not at all dogmatic about it.

    Some of the smartest people I know are YEC.

    Gregory: Love to you too.

    That is best news I’ve heard all day 😉

    quote:

    By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
    (Joh 13:35)

    end quote;

    peace

  3. timothya: It would have been useful if your deity had modelled overtime payments and double time for Sunday shift work.

    Amen brother.

  4. fifthmonarchyman: I think that the best evidence right now points to either an old earth or mature creation/apparent age view. But I’m not at all dogmatic about it.

    I’m dogmatic about it. I don’t know what evidence of a young earth would even look like. 🙂

  5. Robert, do you believe that new stars and planets have come into existence since the original creation, but that they were not specially created but came about by natural means?

    Because if so, it would seem there is no in principle reason our own solar system and planets could not likewise have come into existence by natural processes without requiring special creation.

    Right?

  6. fifthmonarchyman,

    “Some of the smartest people I know are YEC.”

    Statistically speaking, in the USA the lower the level of completed education, the more likely a person is to believe in YECism. There are exceptions, of course. What does that tell you?

  7. Gregory: What does that tell you?

    I don’t know
    That formal education does not equal intelligence. That education can at times be more about indoctrination than enlightenment
    That those who teach at higher levels rather than work in the private sector tend to follow the party line rather than think independently.

    peace

  8. fifthmonarchyman,

    What I’ve found is that when ‘smart’ YECists meet with equally as ‘smart’ normal theists who accept evolutionary biology and a ‘not-young’ Earth without falling into dogmatic evolutionism, the normal theists (if you haven’t lived outside of the USA, then obviously you’re missing out on the majority view of ‘normal theists’) win every time because they’ve got both good science and sound theology on their side, oftentimes along with a more balanced approach to philosophy.

    Iow, YECists can certainly be called ‘smart’ about things other than their views about the age of the Earth. However, when that topic is raised, they look anything other than ‘smart’ and the history of evasion, half-truth and occasionally (queue skeptic claims of understatement) outright lies told by YECists, surely isn’t a credit to their ‘position.’

  9. Gregory: (if you haven’t lived outside of the USA, then obviously you’re missing out on the majority view of ‘normal theists’)

    Have you ever been to the USA? It often seems like your knowledge of it bears very little resemblance to mine. It is a big country so gross generalization is probably not the best approach

    Gregory: the history of evasion, half-truth and occasionally (queue skeptic claims of understatement) outright lies told by YECists, surely isn’t a credit to their ‘position.’

    Have you ever heard of the genetic fallacy?
    I think you are are falling into the trap of complusive label making.

    There is a vast range of understandings that might legitimately called YEC. Including the ideas that equate the “earth” with Eden/Palestine and separate it’s creation from that of the rest of the universe and those who hold to a young universe with the appearance of great age.

    To lump all theses notions into a single category called YECist and associate that category with your own stereotypes of supposed ignorant American fundamentalism is a mistake that a sociologist should never make .

    peace

  10. Yes, I’ve even lived in the USA. Have you ever been outside of the USA for more than a month at a time? Do you know how provincial YECism tends to be?

    Up thread you were claiming ‘evangelical protestantism’ pre-existed the Protestant Reformation. That reveals there is something wrong with your understanding of history &/or basic terminology used for shared historical understanding.

    “There is a vast range of understandings that might legitimately called YEC”

    Well, let’s be a bit more accurate & say there is a fairly limited range. A ‘young’ Earth obviously unites them. The term ‘creationist’ is much broader, though even that can be fairly tightly packed once it is understood as ideological. Since you’re not exactly defending YECism, what’s actually your point? Is it that YECists can be ‘good people’, even devoutly religious? If so, ok, point conceded. What else?

    “supposed ignorant American fundamentalism”

    Oh, right, it doesn’t exist & you also don’t have a chip on your shoulder. LOL!

    Go it alone defending Byers here, FMM. This is getting boring quickly.

  11. Gregory: Yes, I’ve even lived in the USA

    It must have been horrible for you 😉

    Gregory: Up thread you were claiming ‘evangelical protestantism’ pre-existed the Protestant Reformation.

    Ever hear of John Huss or John Wycliffe? Ever read Foxe’s book of Martyrs or Martyrs Mirror?

    peace

  12. Mung: He was in Seattle once. But Seattle was too far left even for Gregory.

    Several times more than once. Though I don’t catch the “too far left” part. It’s been a while (since summer 2008)!

  13. timothya: I like the idea of recycling the Red Sea.

    Oh, by the way, which Red Sea do you think was parted for the Israelites?

    It was a wind. no creation. The more impressive miracle would be the more impressive body water. So the big one.

  14. timothya: Tell me, Robert, why do you think the majority of visible stars in the skies have Arabic names?

    Not in ancient china?
    thats poor sampling to score star name patents. its about the great curves in scientific accomplishment.

  15. Gregory:
    Robert Byers,

    This is the kind of thread that reveals the blasphemers & anti-religious among skeptics. The rest just don’t care or feel a need to say they don’t care, while mocking one of only a few Abrahamic theists who post here.

    I repeat this to Robert Byers in case he might one day come to terms with it: one can devoutly believe in divine Creation yet at the same time without self-labelling as a ‘creationist’ or requiring a ‘young earth’. This seems to be a key insight that Robert won’t face, as it might open a door to a religious worldview he doesn’t know exists from within the safe, sheltered confines of his charismatic denomination.

    Hmm, that’s an ‘interesting’ view of history. So evangelical protestantism is somehow older than the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? Did North Americans come first and settle Europe instead of the other way around too? = P

    I do accept people believing in divie creation while not cr4ationist in any way.
    YEC leaders teach us to believe this and accept this.
    Its just about right/wrong conclusions.

    I see science in modrrn times as a result of intelligence. so a rising intellectual curve that came from motivated bible believing Christians after the reformation.
    moving especially through English, French, German civilization.
    .So one can say science was created by evangelical protestant christianity along with economic/political/ etc etc accomplishment progress.
    We have the patent.
    Its really just a rising intellectual curve from a motivated people.
    the rise of the common man opposed to the upper class man as in former human civilization.

  16. Mung:
    Robert, do you believe that new stars and planets have come into existence since the original creation, but that they were not specially created but came about by natural means?

    Because if so, it would seem there is no in principle reason our own solar system and planets could not likewise have come into existence by natural processes without requiring special creation.

    Right?

    Surely all stars/things were created on creation week 6000 years ago.
    Could they continue by natural processes to come into creation??
    Hm. i don’t think complicated things like stars could.
    Mars might be the remnant of a bigger planet and possibly planets destroyed material could bump into each other and find a orbit.
    i think thats what your asking.

  17. Gregory:
    fifthmonarchyman,

    Statistically speaking, in the USA the lower the level of completed education, the more likely a person is to believe in YECism. There are exceptions, of course. What does that tell you?

    That tells you believe in curves. AMEN.
    YEC intellectually, where opposition points are noted, would move through a very middle class evangelical folk. the error is that so many protestant church going people will say they are evangelical but not the real mccoy. Especially in the south amongst blacks and non blacks.
    Amongst religious lower class people they would reject evolutionism but thats not real evangelical people as we score it.
    however we are told nOT TO JUDGE. What can you say? Well i say stuff.
    Keep it under your hat.

  18. Robert ByersI see science in modrrn times as a result of intelligence. so a rising intellectual curve that came from motivated bible believing Christians after the reformation.
    moving especially through English, French, German civilization.
    So one can say science was created by evangelical protestant christianity along with economic/political/ etc etc accomplishment progress.

    Of course, you are correct. That is why European scientists use words like “algebra”, “algorithm”, “chemistry”, “zenith”, “azimuth”, “alcohol” and hundreds of others of similar origin.

    Hint: they are corruptions of Arabic words, because the science behind them was invented by Arabic scientists 700 years before Protestantism was even thought of.

    Here is a site where you can educate yourself if you care to:

    https://blogs.transparent.com/arabic/top-50-english-words-of-arabic-origin/

  19. timothya: Of course, you are correct. That is why European scientists use words like “algebra”, “algorithm”, “chemistry”, “zenith”, “azimuth”, “alcohol” and hundreds of others of similar origin.

    Hint: they are corruptions of Arabic words, because the science behind them was invented by Arabic scientists 700 years before Protestantism was even thought of.

    Here is a site where you can educate yourself if you care to:

    https://blogs.transparent.com/arabic/top-50-english-words-of-arabic-origin/

    I know about that. I have enjoyed many discussions etc on the internet about the contibution of Islamic civilization, some asian, before the european revial and protestant revolution.
    Yet its chump change to the scientific revolution from high end protestantism raising the common mans curve of smarts leading to a rising curve of accomplishment.
    sampling a few names would be poor sampling is one is seeking winners and losers.
    In fact there would be more greek and latin then Arabic.
    It doesn’t matter. Science rose with the rise of Protestant civilization.
    its a intelligence curve based on motivated identities.

  20. Mung:
    I can assure you that God likes walto.

    If you’re basing that on a postcard (with a green-and-beige motif) I understand somebody else was sending those out.

  21. Robert Byers
    high end protestantism

    Heh.

    Like high end “kill the Jews”, Or high end “kill every peasant who opposes the rule of the German princes”.

    Your Martin Luther was a piece of work.

  22. Robert, I don’t think you’ve responded to these questions.

    walto: Why is making new stuff hard for a deity, even requiring rest afterwards, but recycling easy-peasy?

    And anyhow, what is the significance of this theory if God is still mucking around in things, working miracles? Why are you concerned about some conservation of matter principle? What’s the theological significance, if it’s not a watchmaker deist claim?

    I still have no idea what you’re getting at–or why you think this recycling theory makes some difference to something.

  23. walto:
    Robert, I don’t think you’ve responded to these questions.

    I still have no idea what you’re getting at–or why you think this recycling theory makes some difference to something.

    By recycling i mean no creation. creation is glorious invention. In recycling one is not inventing but tweeking its results.
    there is no “POOF” of changing this into that as on creation week.
    All is just a continuum of a existing thing.
    The one who creates foil paper is the creator. The one who twists it into a butterfly and hangs it on the cHristmas tree is not a creator but a tweeking of a created thing.

    this important because historical, and today, opponents or proponents of a living God misunderstand he has not been creating, controling anything in nature since six-day creation week. however much has changed with his prompting.
    too much excitment about showing planets orbit or the wind blows all by themselves WITHOUT GOD.
    yet the bible said this long ago. ther was, is, a great error about gods involvement as this thread shows. i got resistance about Gods lack of involvement from believes/disbelievers. AHA. Hit a intellectual nerve.
    NOT FINDING a GOD’s fingerprints on working creation is irrelevant to Gods fingers behind the creation.

  24. Corneel,

    I’ve read few people on the internet that dismiss other ‘groups’ as readily and thoughtlessly as Robert Byers. He is a civilisational racist like I’ve never met before. And a fellow Canadian, at that! = (

    ““[I]ts from the Anglo American civilization that all worthy progress has come.” – Robert Byers (Uncommon Descent)”

    One might wonder how he treats Canada’s First Nations with such a paternalist attitude, groomed apparently among hyper-evangelical protestant YECists.

    However, he’s about to get his hat handed to him at PS for what cannot be considered much of anything but anti-social idiocy and race-related cruelty. I’m saddened that such foolishness exists in Toronto & hope it’s an isolated thing. That it appears to take the label ‘Christian’ is astonishing, though perhaps other posters here have a different experience of ‘in-group’ loyalty and ‘out-group’ condescension as Byers repeats, not realising that ‘race’ is indeed a term included in the Bible.
    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/w-e-b-dubois-and-scientific-racism/4733/12

    “I do accept people believing in divie creation while not cr4ationist in any way.”

    Good. Yeah, that’s the vast majority of people who believe in Divine Creation around the world who reject ideological creationism, i.e. the (somewhat more) ‘sane’ ones in the conversation. = P

  25. Gregory,

    Yes, I am aware of Robert Byers’ more … troublesome ideas. Apparently, being a Canadian doesn’t offer complete protection against the dark side.

  26. Robert Byers: By recycling i mean no creation. creation is glorious invention. In recycling one is not inventing but tweeking its results.
    there is no “POOF” of changing this into that as on creation week.
    All is just a continuum of a existing thing.
    The one who creates foil paper is the creator. The one who twists it into a butterfly and hangs it on the cHristmas tree is not a creator but a tweeking of a created thing.

    this important because historical, and today, opponents or proponents of a livingGod misunderstand he has not been creating, controling anything in nature since six-day creation week. however much has changed with his prompting.
    too much excitment about showing planets orbit or the wind blows all by themselves WITHOUT GOD.
    yet the bible said this long ago. ther was, is, a great error about gods involvement as this thread shows. i got resistance about Gods lack ofinvolvement from believes/disbelievers. AHA. Hit a intellectual nerve.
    NOT FINDING a GOD’s fingerprints on working creation is irrelevant to Gods fingers behind the creation.

    If there is “tweaking”–especially of a miraculous kind–then there is oversight, intervention, and control. I don’t think anybody much cares except you if it’s rearrangement of preexisting material or creation of new stuff. Either God is currently in the picture or not. If there have been miracles since the creation, if petitionary prayer ever makes sense at all, then God is in the picture, and you will get the same complaints from everybody who you think has complained about God still creating things. I.e, atheists, agnostics, sciency types, etc.

    On the other hand, if you think God has not been in the picture at all since creation, you are simply a deist, and will get complaints from all the Christians. In a word, you shouldn’t expect this particular codicil you’d like to suggest regarding how divine activity worked/works to make much of a difference to anybody else.

  27. God only tweaks things when they need to be corrected, not to actually create anything new. More like a plumber than a watchmaker.

  28. Mung: God only tweaks things when they need to be corrected, not to actually create anything new. More like a plumber than a watchmaker.

    How could anything created by an omniscient,omnipotent Being need correction?

  29. walto,

    Its not deist mankind manipulates creation but we neverv created anything. God likewise does this but not creation. it was over and done on creation week.
    Souls put into bodies at conception or miracles is just tweeking..
    Everybody should care because opponents or proponents have all misunderstood this. finding a self regulating universe exited anti-God/bible people as if proving god/bible wrong.
    it didn’t. Likewise creationists should see a fixed system and look for more unnate biological; etc mechanisms to explain things. not imagine possible intervention at a serious creation level.

  30. newton: How could anything created by an omniscient,omnipotent Being need correction?

    The fall. plenty of problems .

  31. newton: How could anything created by an omniscient,omnipotent Being need correction?

    It’s the Fall! The Original Sin! It is all down to that damned serpent and the apple. And Eve, of course.

    Theology is fun, if you aren’t too concerned about, you know, evidence.

  32. Robert Byers: The fall. plenty of problems .

    Long before the Fall of Adam the deity had issues with His immaterial creations as well.

    Maybe it is not flaw but a feature

  33. Robert Byers: God likewise does this but not creation. it was over and done on creation week.

    Again, nobody cares whether it’s creation or what you call tweaking but you. The interesting controversies are (and have always been) elsewhere.

    opponents or proponents have all misunderstood this. finding a self regulating universe exited anti-God/bible people as if proving god/bible wrong.
    it didn’t. Likewise creationists should see a fixed system and look for more unnate biological; etc mechanisms to explain things. not imagine possible intervention at a serious creation level.

    No. You utterly misconstrue the controversies. Nobody, except cosmologists and other physicist types, care whether the technical creating is over. What people care about is whether the intervention is over.

    Why should anybody care if Vishnu or Brahma makes a better analog for Jesus?

  34. timothya: Theology is fun, if you aren’t too concerned about, you know, evidence.

    It’s not just a failure of evidence. There’s not even a minimum level of coherence. It’s just silly talk.

  35. newton:

    How could anything created by an omniscient,omnipotent Being need correction?

    Byers:

    The fall. plenty of problems .

    Robert,

    You’re not grasping the issue, which is that God is responsible for the Fall.

    Who designed and created the talking snake who would tempt Adam and Eve? God.

    Who designed and created Adam and Eve in such a way that they would be vulnerable to the snake’s enticements? God.

    Who, despite knowing ahead of time that all of this would happen, proceeded to create Adam, Eve, and the snake according to the original bad plan? God.

    Who could have prevented all of this by coming up with a better plan? God.

    Who’s responsible for the Fall? God himself.

  36. Robert Byers: By recycling i mean no creation. creation is glorious invention. In recycling one is not inventing but tweeking its results.
    there is no “POOF” of changing this into that as on creation week.
    All is just a continuum of a existing thing.
    The one who creates foil paper is the creator. The one who twists it into a butterfly and hangs it on the cHristmas tree is not a creator but a tweeking of a created thing.

    walto: If there is “tweaking”–especially of a miraculous kind–then there is oversight, intervention, and control.

    Robert Byers: God likewise does this but not creation. it was over and done on creation week.
    Souls put into bodies at conception or miracles is just tweeking..

    As I said, you are completely obsessed with this “creation” business for no reason. If there are miracles, if there is tweaking. There is–to everybody except you–INTERVENTION. That’s what agnostics, atheists, and Christians care about–not whether there’s been any more CREATION. No one but cosmologists and physicists (who are interested in the science since the big bang) and you (who, are strangely interested in what the Bible says about creation since the sixth day) could care less about that.

    It’s a weird thing to care about, this “He’s like Vishnu, not Brahma!” thing. But that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that you’re not saying anything here that most atheists, agnostics, or Christians care one way or the other about. They haven’t been arguing bout whether there is continuing CREATION. They’ve been arguing about whether there’s been what you call “tweeking” since the creation of the universe.

  37. Allan Miller: And the Tree. As dumb as Sauron sticking all his power in a friggin’ ring.

    God was smarter. Adam and Eve couldn’t just slip the tree on their finger and walk out of the garden with it.

  38. keiths,

    No. Satan hyjacked the snake creature by the way.
    Satan rebelling was not Gods fault. As to seeing it coming. Well its not that way. Its complicated for humans.

  39. walto,

    They did and still do. Sure they did/do.
    It was a imoportant
    concept and why six day creation/finished should of been realized and stressed.
    It would then be understood everything since is just the machine working on its own, own mechanisms, and conclusions about biology etc would of been more advanced then today.
    If mankind saw a closed system there would be less persuasion about evolving bodyplans by random chances. instead controlled direction would be expected and discovered.
    i also think more healing would be done if science saw a finished product and then mechanical change and breakdown.

  40. Allan:

    And the Tree. As dumb as Sauron sticking all his power in a friggin’ ring.

    Mung:

    God was smarter. Adam and Eve couldn’t just slip the tree on their finger and walk out of the garden with it.

    They didn’t need to uproot the tree and abscond with it. A bite of the fruit was all it took.

    A brighter God could have foreseen the problem.

  41. Byers:

    No. Satan hyjacked the snake creature by the way.

    No. The Genesis story doesn’t even mention Satan. And in trying to explain the snake’s behavior, the author appeals to the characteristics of the snake, not of Satan:

    Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

    Genesis 3:1, NIV

    And when God is meting out punishments, it’s the snake and his descendants — not Satan — who suffer:

    14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

    “Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!
    You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life.
    15 And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring[a] and hers;
    he will crush[b] your head,
    and you will strike his heel.”

    Genesis 3:14-15, NIV

    The punishment was aimed at the snake and his descendants, not at Satan.

    Byers:

    Satan rebelling was not Gods fault. As to seeing it coming. Well its not that way.

    So according to Robert Byers, almighty God couldn’t even see it coming? Does your pastor know that you doubt God’s omniscience?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.