Creation from nothing, and then ...

[oxmixmudd]

Contrasts between the Hebrew words BARA (“create”) and ASAH (usually translated “do” or “make”).

[Note: the concordances used in this study are based on the King James Version of the Bible.]

BARA is found 50 times in the Bible. Easy to count.
ASAH – takes up 31 columns of the Hebrew concordance. Counting them all would give me a headache. But each column has about 80 entries, giving an approximate total of 2500 uses of the word.

BARA is translated, almost without exception, by the English word “create”.
ASAH is translated by 75 different English words, the most common being “do” and “make”.

Conversely, the English word “create” never translates any word except BARA, while the English words that translate BARA also translate several other Hebrew words.

So Strong defines ASAH as “to do or to make in the broadest sense and widest application”. The word is enormously flexible. BARA, on the other hand, is not.

The first use of either word is found in Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

“Create” is not found again until verse 21. Then God created living animals to inhabit the seas and the sky. Something significantly new.

In between, several different verbs are used in the narrative.
“Let be light,” and light was.
“Let be an expanse… Let it divide the waters …” And God made the expanse and divided the waters.
“Let the waters under the heavens be collected … and let the dry ground appear.”
“Let the earth yield tender sprouts …” And the earth brought forth …”
“Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to divide between the day and the night; and let them be for signs and seasons and days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth.”
And God made ... luminaries, the sun to rule the day, the moon and stars to rule the night (Ps. 136:7-9). God set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. (Literal translation)

It would be interesting to look carefully ALL those verbs, but the two that describe God’s work with the sun moon and stars are made and set.

Our English words “do” and “make” are almost as flexible as ASAH. We make meals; we make mistakes; we made Godzilla president of our club. So “make” can mean “appointed” - among other things.

ASAH can mean the same thing. That’s the way it is translated in Ps. 104:19. The next post will give a list of verses where “made” is used in that sense.

I find it very interesting you will go around your elbow to get to your thumb on these things, and in the process completely miss the obvious intent of the text. Do you believe God made the raqia, or do you assume it was already made and God just assigned it the purpose of holding up the waters? So far you have completely ignored the parallel construction and the fact you use completely different interpretive paradigms for both, and for no logical reason (in the text that is). If you accept that it was made, then you have absolutely NO justification for this trip down 'what can a word possibly mean'.

The bottom line is this: There is no textual reason to assume the text does not mean that God made the sun, moon, and stars in vs. 16. The ONLY reason you are pursuing this line of thought is that is does not conform to what we know as 21st century readers. This is two things, it is (1) an eisogetical approach - reading into the scripture what is not there, and motivated by things outside scripture, and (2) it is anachronistic, that is, it is reading into the text ideas not present at the time of writing.

It also violates the obvious parallel form of the text where God forms the Earth and heavens in days 1-3, and fills them in days 4-6.

It is not what the text means. The text means that God 'made' (asah) the sun. moon, and stars. It does not use 'create' because they are made (formed) from existing material. The word made here is not contextually driven to a secondary meaning.

This is 'after' forming the ragia and the Earth (unless one takes the framework hypothesis approach where the parallelism is taken fully, with days 1 and 4 co-temporal). It tells us why was going to make them, that he made them, and that they did what he intended - exactly as He did when describing the making of the firmament. Same words. Same form.


Jim

[Collier]

I think it’s time to compare the story of Genesis 1 with what we now know about the universe. And the place to begin is with that powerful statement, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

The Bible deals with this universe, the universe we live in. There may well be other universes. How can we know? But if so, they are outside our range of observation and the Bible doesn’t mention them.

Good idea. There is more than enough in THIS universe to keep us busy.

The fact that our universe is expanding is not seriously questioned by anybody. And that expanding universe points to a BEGINNING.

When I went to school, I was taught that the universe was eternal. It had no beginning and would have no end. That, it was thought, proved the Bible to be wrong.

But the “steady state” universe has bitten the dust. And any alternative theory seems to be driven by desperation rather than by any evidence to support it. So the words, “In the beginning” are absolutely accurate in describing our universe.

One law that has not yet been set aside is the law of conservation. No particle in the universe can be either created or destroyed. Matter and energy are interchangeable; but the total amount of mass/energy remains constant.

So, if the universe had a BEGINNING, what was there BEFORE that time? The only answer that fits what we can understand is – nothing. Those uncreatable particles were all created. In the beginning.

The law of conservation also demands that ALL of the particles be created at the SAME time. We can’t have a few particles, multiplying. So the creation of all the mass/energy of the entire universe at one time fits science. And it fits the Bible. “In the beginning, [somebody or something] created the heavens and the earth.”

Since the rest of the sentence has all been vindicated, it seems reasonable to accept the last word, by faith. The Creator was God.

[Collier]

Next: I think science would agree with verse 2 that the early earth was dark. But God said, “Let light be,” and light was. He called the light day, and the darkness night.

That light/day sequence is further evidence that the universe was, indeed, created in v. 1. And it really doesn’t matter whether your understanding of it is geocentric or heliocentric. Either way, the earth was already part of a functioning solar system, in what we now know is an enormous, complex, interrelated universe.

The early earth was also featureless. Science would agree that the land masses rose out of the water, and some are rising yet. Two of the forces today that cause land to rise are the movements of tectonic plates (e.g. Himalaya Mts.) and volcanic activity (e.g. Hawaii). There is no reason to doubt that these same forces operated from the beginning. The God who created the universe also created the laws that govern it.

It has also been determined that there was little or no free oxygen in the atmosphere, until photosynthesis had produced enough to satisfy all the original demands for it.

And all of a sudden, the reason for the delay in the sun’s appearance becomes clear. If I had written the story, I would have had the sun shining in all its glory on the first day. And today’s scientists would know that the account was written by someone who was ignorant of the facts. The earth needed protection from lethal cosmic rays.

So God protected the infant earth with a “swaddling band” of darkness. He slowly allowed light to enter, and then lifted the protecting cloud to form a sky. When there was enough sunlight to support green plants, He caused the earth to bring them forth. Then, when those plants had produced enough oxygen to provide an ozone layer, He revealed the sun.

That, of course, is MY understanding of the story, and it makes sense. But I think it ALSO made sense to the ancients, based on what THEY knew. [I wonder what other neat things will be revealed as more is discovered about this amazing universe.]

And suddenly, there was life.

[aegis]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;2677820]Not correct, the two major examples that come to mind are Vedic traditions describe the origin from the being of the one 'Source' some call God. In Taoism as the origin is from the Tao and returns to the Tao, there is no preexisting materials.

Thank you Shunya for your comments on the Vedic traditions and Taoism. I am not too familiar with Vedic tradition but I will try to read more on it and learn more. As to Taoism, I think there is a difference from creation ex-nihilo. Philosophical Taoism believes, as you mentioned, that the origin is from the Tao. So to speak " Dao generates One, One generates Two, Two generates Three, Three generates the Myriad Being". The whole universe develops from Tao/ Dao. However, the whole universe and Dao are similar and one develops from the other. Universe is an evolution of Tao. It is a form of panentheism. The universe contains part of the Tao/Dao/God. Whereas in genesis, God is distinctly seperate from the universe God created. The universe is created out of nothing, not a part of God being thrown into the universe and formed the universe. So I think that the cosmogony of Taoism is not 'creation ex-nihilo". But I am happy to reserve judgement and awaits your comment.


"Only true,
from your point of view.

Science does not remotely consider the singualrity the beginning of everything, it only reflects the theoretical beginning of our universe,"

As to the point that there is only truth from one's point of view, I agree of course that everyone is biased in their point of view. We all have blind spots. Taoism especially talked about how our origins and backgrounds affects our viewpoints. So I am with you on that point. Of course that works for everyone that everyone's view point is their own and everyone has blind spots and biases.

In terms of your second point that sciences does not remotely consider the singularity as the beginning of everything, I would like to refer to your post earlier . "Our universe is proposed to begin from a singularity, which contained the compressed stuff that formed our universe, and the fundamental particles when it expanded, and not with a 'big bang." So I think we are on the same page that the universe began from a singularity.

I may have misunderstood you, pardon me if I was, that you meant that the singularity is the beginning of 'this' universe as we know it, but there are many many other universes that arises whatever other means and not from this singularity that we know of.

I agree with you that that is a possibility. One theory is that there are multiple universes and one may have arose from singularity , like ours, but many other universes may not arise from singularity, or that there was another universe before our singularity which arose from its own singularity which also had another universe before that which arose from another singularity and so on and so forth so the "ultimate universe' is eternal with no beginning or ending.

I think those are possible theories and logically possible. My point is that those are all theories and 'so call speculations' as we do not have any evidence of it. As we live only in this universe, there is no way we can have any evidence of a previous universe or another universe. As a scientist, we can only work with what we have. But as a philosopher, we can of course postulate and speculate.

As to your mention of the prevalent 'scientific theory' that there are multiple universes as to the cause for the origin of the universe, I would have to disagree with you on that one. I do not think that there are 'evidences' that there are multiple universes. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would love to see 'evidences' for multiple universes.

Lastly I would like to make a point regarding the use of the word 'god' or "God" in relation to the origin of the universe. I know it is an emotional laden word, full of connotations and often generates a negative feeling or sensation and should not be made in connection to discussion of the origin of the universe. I am okay with using words like : unknown causation, unmoved mover, first cause, ultimate source, essential and vital breath, the thing or reason which started the universe or whichever word that does not have the negative connotation of 'god'.

I am not trying to be argumentative but would like to hear more on what you think

[Collier]

Having looked at Genesis 1 from the point of view of what the ancient Hebrews could observe, and again from our own modern viewpoint, I want to go through it again from the point of view of YEC cosmology. So – here is “Creation according to YEC”.

Introduction (Gen. 1:1, 2):
Verse 1 is a summary of the whole creation story, not just the beginning of it. So “in the beginning” is not technically accurate. It would be better if the verse read, “In six days (not the beginning) God made (not created) the heavens and the earth, the seas and everything in them (not the heavens and the earth).”
Verse 2 describes the cosmos at the beginning of creation. The text says it is a description of “the earth,” but that is not correct. It is a description of the entire cosmos, not just the earth.
The cosmos consisted entirely of the primordial deep – the already existing material from which everything in the universe would be made/created. [Forget about creation ex nihilo.] And the surface of that primordial deep was dark.

Act 1 (Gen. 1:3-5)
God made/created light. It must have been a localized light, because it produced day and night on the surface of the deep – just as the sun does on the earth. [But what could cause “night” at the outer edge of the cosmos?]

It is here, right at the beginning of the narrative, that God defines “day” and “night” for us. Day means LIGHT, separate and distinct from night (v. 5). But according to YEC, God wants us to forget that definition when we read the story. “Day” in the story does not refer to a period of light. It refers to a 24-hour day, a day and a night combined. [Don’t question that, or you are rejecting the whole Bible.]

Act 2 (Gen. 1:6-8)
God made/created a firmament, a hard raqia, to divide the waters from the waters. The waters above the raqia then moved, at speeds vastly exceeding the speed of light, to what is now the edge of the universe. [Was the substitute sun above or below the raqia?]

Act 3 (Gen. 1:9-10)
God made/created the land and the seas.
Well – the text actually says, “Let the land APPEAR,” as if it already existed under the water, but maybe that’s just a mistake in the text.

Act 4 (Gen. 1:11-13)
Later that day, God made/created plants. The plants (including trees) grew and reproduced, each according to its kind, all in a matter of hours.

Act 5 (Gen. 14-19)
God made/created the sun, moon and stars from the waters above the raqia. Then he brought them down and set them IN the raqia. [So what happened to the substitute sun?]
-------

The teaching that plants were growing on the earth before the sun existed makes Genesis 1 seem like a myth.

But a literal, careful reading of the passage is the strongest evidence that the writer of Genesis 1 was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:21). He had no way of knowing that the sun COULD NOT have been unveiled any earlier. It had to wait for the oxygen cycle and the ozone layer to be established. The writer simply wrote as he was directed (see 1 Peter 1:10-12), even though he may have wondered – as I once did – why the sun didn’t appear on day one.

But in order to appreciate this evidence, you have to read Genesis 1 AS IT IS WRITTEN, and stop trying to “fix” it.

[Collier]

"Suddenly, there was life."

This subject doesn't belong in the cosmogony forum, so I plan to switch to natural science. But I am still interested in whatever anybody adds to this one.

Before heading off to natural science, though, I will try to add , as an attachment, a series of articles that were written for our local paper regarding Genesis 1. The title is "What have we done to Genesis one?" The primary target of those articles is high school science students.

[shunyadragon]

[quote=aegis;2678560]

Not correct, the two major examples that come to mind are Vedic traditions describe the origin from the being of the one 'Source' some call God. In Taoism as the origin is from the Tao and returns to the Tao, there is no preexisting materials.

Thank you Shunya for your comments on the Vedic traditions and Taoism. I am not too familiar with Vedic tradition but I will try to read more on it and learn more. As to Taoism, I think there is a difference from creation ex-nihilo. Philosophical Taoism believes, as you mentioned, that the origin is from the Tao. So to speak " Dao generates One, One generates Two, Two generates Three, Three generates the Myriad Being". The whole universe develops from Tao/ Dao. However, the whole universe and Dao are similar and one develops from the other. Universe is an evolution of Tao. It is a form of panentheism. The universe contains part of the Tao/Dao/God. Whereas in genesis, God is distinctly seperate from the universe God created. The universe is created out of nothing, not a part of God being thrown into the universe and formed the universe. So I think that the cosmogony of Taoism is not 'creation ex-nihilo". But I am happy to reserve judgement and awaits your comment.

The basic premise of Taoism, is that if 'you describe the Tao, it is not the Tao.' This trumps all of the above. It is a bit misleading to describe the Tao as pantheistic. In the concept that 'everything comes from the Tao and returns to the Tao,' conotates both an intimacy and possible separateness of the Tao from our physical existence, a relationship that is undefinable in specifics from the human perspective.

I disagree that the God of Genesis is completely separate from Creation, nor can you conclude that God Created out existence out of nothing in Genesis. In my reading of Genesis and the OT, God is personally involved in time and space of Creation.

"Only true,
from your point of view.

Science does not remotely consider the singularity the beginning of everything, it only reflects the theoretical beginning of our universe,"

As to the point that there is only truth from one's point of view, I agree of course that everyone is biased in their point of view. We all have blind spots. Taoism especially talked about how our origins and backgrounds affects our viewpoints. So I am with you on that point. Of course that works for everyone that everyone's view point is their own and everyone has blind spots and biases.

True, that is why I limit the assumptions that I feel I can legitimately make with as little bias as possible.

In terms of your second point that sciences does not remotely consider the singularity as the beginning of everything, I would like to refer to your post earlier . "Our universe is proposed to begin from a singularity, which contained the compressed stuff that formed our universe, and the fundamental particles when it expanded, and not with a 'big bang." So I think we are on the same page that the universe began from a singularity.

Again, this applies only to our universe.

I may have misunderstood you, pardon me if I was, that you meant that the singularity is the beginning of 'this' universe as we know it, but there are many many other universes that arises whatever other means and not from this singularity that we know of.

I agree with you that that is a possibility. One theory is that there are multiple universes and one may have arose from singularity , like ours, but many other universes may not arise from singularity, or that there was another universe before our singularity which arose from its own singularity which also had another universe before that which arose from another singularity and so on and so forth so the "ultimate universe' is eternal with no beginning or ending.

There is no reason at present to believe that the other possible universes would not arise in a similar manner as our universe. There may be other ways and means for a universe to exist, but we have no evidence for it.

I think those are possible theories and logically possible. My point is that those are all theories and 'so call speculations' as we do not have any evidence of it. As we live only in this universe, there is no way we can have any evidence of a previous universe or another universe. As a scientist, we can only work with what we have. But as a philosopher, we can of course postulate and speculate.

To call theories, including those dealing with multiverse, speculations reflects a strong bias and an ignorance of science. There is at present more objective evidence and justification a natural 'Source' for one or an infinite number of universe, than a theistic 'Source' some call God(s).

As to your mention of the prevalent 'scientific theory' that there are multiple universes as to the cause for the origin of the universe, I would have to disagree with you on that one. I do not think that there are 'evidences' that there are multiple universes. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would love to see 'evidences' for multiple universes.

All you need to do is get some background knowledge on Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology, and do internet searches. The evidence for multiverse is far from conclusive, and involves several different theories and hypothesis concerning the existence of possible universes. The present hypothesis for multiverse are based on sound theoretical grounds and predictive models using QM and our present universe. This has been addressed on different threads on this site, but for your information

Lastly I would like to make a point regarding the use of the word 'god' or "God" in relation to the origin of the universe. I know it is an emotional laden word, full of connotations and often generates a negative feeling or sensation and should not be made in connection to discussion of the origin of the universe. I am okay with using words like : unknown causation, unmoved mover, first cause, ultimate source, essential and vital breath, the thing or reason which started the universe or whichever word that does not have the negative connotation of 'god'.

I am not trying to be argumentative but would like to hear more on what you think

I avoid any negative or other position to the existence of a 'Source' some call God(s).

The only unbiased assumption based on the evidence at hand I believe can be made is that there is a 'Source' of everything some call God(s), which could be simply natural, because that is all we have evidence for. If there is what would be call an Intelligent Source' (IS) than it would the 'Source' of the natural, because that is what the evidence leads. Clinging to the claim that there is only one universe with a beginning and an end to make it convenient for supporting an argument for God is not a good way to go. There may be only one, or as many as an infinite number of possible universes in existence regardless of whether there is an IS or not.

[aegis]

hello Frank
1. Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. I would not quote your message as I found that sometimes it is hard to differentiate quotes on quotes. I will just write out some comments point by point and share some of my thoughts. I appreciate your thoughts and your comments and there is much I can learn from.

2. Regarding the Tao as mystery and cannot be described, I do agree that the depth of Tao is that it is more than human understanding can fanthom. Whenever anyone can put their finger on what is tao, then it is not the real tao. I will not argue with that. However, I would like to point out that we do know 'something' about Tao, since LaoTzu, Zhuangzi and others had wrote some much about Tao ( e.g.Dao De Jing , Zhuangzi the book). We cannot exhaust the knowledge of Tao, but we can have some knowledge, otherwise there is no point in any discussion. So my point is that my understanding of Tao cosmogeny is that Tao is the essential that formed and developed into the universe and become all the different elements, polarities, dimensions of universe including materials and lifes. Tao may form other multiple universes too but universe is an extension of Tao. Tao is not conscious and without personality although it is with mystery we talk about Tao. However, the Biblical God is depicted as a creator and totally different and distinct from the world He created. It is emphasized many times in the Bible that God is different from the created world and beings and must not be confused. In fact, there is penalty in crossing the line. The universe is not an extension of God but a creation of God. I guess in the same sense as the painting on a canvas is a creation of the painter but not a part of the painter. We can say the paintings come out of the painter as his/herself but not truly in the sense that it is part of him/her. I guess that is the distinction between creation ex-nihilo in the Biblical creator and creation as coming out of Tao or lifeforce, or the force in star wars or universal essence.

3. Regarding quantum mechanics/theory and multiple universes, I know only very little as I am not from a physics background and I appreciate you letting me know that there are many threads on this subject that I can look up. I guess I will learn more from those threads. I agree with you that there are many theories that were being written on multiple universe and it is a very popular/ hot topic in current physics and origin of universe. I still think that there is no 'evidence' for the multiple universe theory as it remains as a theory of nature. In fact, it is by definition hard to find hard evidences for the existences of other universes as we cannot have any access to other universes. I would love to hear of any evidences for MW(multiple worlds).

It is an interesting subject and fun to talk about
aegis

[Collier]

I like your method, your logic and your attitude, Aegis. I am learning things.

I am so glad that there will always be somethig to learn.

[aegis]

I like your method, your logic and your attitude, Aegis. I am learning things.

I am so glad that there will always be somethig to learn.

Thanks, Collier,. the feeling is mutual

[Mattsterpiece]

Again, this applies only to our universe.

So you're suggesting that other universes didn't begin as singularities? Wait a minute? On what basis are you proposing that there are multiple universes?

There is no reason at present to believe that the other possible universes would not arise in a similar manner as our universe. There may be other ways and means for a universe to exist, but we have no evidence for it.

Exactly, we have no evidence. We have no evidence of other universes even existing.

To call theories, including those dealing with multiverse, speculations reflects a strong bias and an ignorance of science. There is at present more objective evidence and justification a natural 'Source' for one or an infinite number of universe, than a theistic 'Source' some call God(s).

Well, you're wrong, because technically no scientist can regard multiverse as a scientific theory, because there isn't any evidence. You're the one coming off biased and ignorant here. You present absolutely no justification for believing in a multiverse.

I have discussed the multiverse and fine-tuning with you elsewhere, and you have addressed virtually none of my points thus far. For now, I can only assume that it is more plausible that Fine-Tuning is due to a Fine-Tuner.

Then you have other arguments, such as Kalam Cosmological Argument. The only objections you have ever given for this is that an actual infinite can exist, but you never presented a case against the philosophical arguments against an actual infinite. Moreover, you failed to present a model that shows how multiverse addresses the matter of the universe's origin and doesn't imply an immaterial, eternal cause.

The present hypothesis for multiverse are based on sound theoretical grounds and predictive models using QM and our present universe.

It's a good thing that I already addressed why multiverse isn't a good answer for Fine-Tuning elsewhere.

[Mattsterpiece]

By the way, if any of the Christians on this page are interested in how I had responded to the inference of a Multiverse as employed by shunyadragon, here is a link to the page of the thread where I addressed the matter:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=102879&page=3

[shunyadragon]

By the way, if any of the Christians on this page are interested in how I had responded to the inference of a Multiverse as employed by shunyadragon, here is a link to the page of the thread where I addressed the matter:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=102879&page=3

Nothing to be proud of here.

No, you have failed to address anything of substance and still have failed to provide an adequate reference that any absolute limit on the number of universes is universally accepted among cosmologists or in string theory

[Mattsterpiece]

Nothing to be proud of here.

No, you have failed to address anything of substance and still have failed to provide an adequate reference that any absolute limit on the number of universes is universally accepted among cosmologists or in string theory

Are you serious? I told you what String Theory predicts, and I referenced you to someone with a relevant degree who will tell you the same. Whether you like it or not, science isn't a democracy.

Your response addressed one minor thing, and I have already responded to that. So, if you wouldn't mind, you can actually address a good portion of what I provided. Remember, I had quite a few objections to Multiverse that you just completely disregarded.

[shunyadragon]

Are you serious? I told you what String Theory predicts, and I referenced you to someone with a relevant degree who will tell you the same. Whether you like it or not, science isn't a democracy.

Your response addressed one minor thing, and I have already responded to that. So, if you wouldn't mind, you can actually address a good portion of what I provided. Remember, I had quite a few objections to Multiverse that you just completely disregarded.

You neglected to provide the reference in Andrei Linde's work to the limitation of the number of universes based on String Theory, and the context of the figure you gave that would indicate our existence is finite. I am reviewing Linde's work and find in general I agree with him very much. As I stated, Lind proposes that the universe or universes are infinite, irregardless of any proposes limit on the number of universes. This is the issue you have dodged. The contemporary cosmology models for multi-verses demonstrate the the nature of our existence is possibly infinite. It would be interesting if you could present a reference from Linde that would indicate that our physical existence. The following is from Linde's site which supports my contention that the nature of existence is not only possibly infinite, but most likely infinite, which eliminates the KCA from a contender.

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/

Therefore the evolution of the universe has no end and may have no beginning. After inflation the universe becomes divided into different exponentially large domains inside which properties of elementary particles and even dimension of space-time may be different. Thus the universe looks like a multiverse consisting of many universes with different laws of low-energy physics operating in each of them. Thus, the new cosmological theory leads to a considerable modification of the standard point of view on the structure and evolution of the universe and on our own place in the world. A description of the new cosmological theory can be found, in particular, in my article The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe published in Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 5, pages 48-55, November 1994.

© source where applicable