Re: doubting YEC's

Gary Collins (etlgycs@etl.ericsson.se)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 07:55:28 +0100 (BST)

Hi Mike,

Apologies for butting in here, but I'm glad you brought this up. It is
something I was thinking of mentioning, but didn't get round to. (And
I was a bit hesitant as I don't have any first-hand knowledge of Hebrew).

I have heard it said that bara, whilst not necessarily meaning creation
"ex nihilo" does carry the meaning of bringing into existence something
new, which didn't exist before. This is used, as you say, in three
places - the creation of matter, of (animal) life, and of man - suggesting
that at each of those points God brought into existence some new quality.
It may be stretching things a bit far, I don't know; but I like to look
upon this as creation of matter, of consciousness (self-awareness) and
spirituality (capability of relationship with God).

The other verb means a manipulation of something that was already there.
This verb is also used of animal life and man; to me this suggests that
at each of those creative points, God manipulated what was already there
and also "injected" something new.

Thus, to me, the concept of biological evolution and the biblical framework
are completely compatible.

I think this is something to which YECs need to give due consideration.

Thanks for your input here.

/Gary

> Hi Bill,
> You touched on one of the topics that turned me into a *former* YEC.
>
> That topic is the word "create" and how it is defined and used in Genesis
> Ch. 1 by Christians.
>
> The topic was Gen. Ch.1 when:
> >John E. Rylander wrote:
> >> (2) Why would any matter created ex nihilo necessarily have the
> appearance
> >> of age?
>
> Bill Payne wrote:
> >Suppose a shiny new copper penny with the date 1998 suddenly appeared on
> >the desk right before your eyes. If you were watching the spot and
> >actually saw it appear, and then picked it up, would you not wonder
> >where it came from? We assume cause and effect, which, in our
> >naturalistic mindset, requires us to consider that a newly created penny
> >came from pre-existing matter. Therefore, it would have the "appearance
> >of age."
>
> In this analogy, you used the word "created" to explain part of your
> understanding of Genesis Chapter 1. While your usage of "created" is
> perfectly acceptable in the English language, if my references and
> understanding is correct, it falls short when dealing with the Hebrew
> language of Genesis.
>
> The Hebrew word (Bara') translated as "created"ALWAYS emphasizes the
> initiation of the object, while the Hebrew word (Asah) translated as "make
> or made" ALWAYS deals with the refinement of what has ALREADY been created.
> In other words, by using the words Bara; and Asah, Genesis makes the
> distinction of:
> 1. The initiation of objects and
> 2. The refinement of those objects.
>
> Notice in Genesis Ch. 1:1, that the heaven and the earth are "created,"
> followed by the heaven and earth being "made" in verses 7-10, with the sun,
> moon and stars "made" in v. 16. (The earth is not just created, but it was
> made also, over a particular time period in accordance with the meaning of
> Asah .)
> Then in v.21 whales are created, followed by ALL land animals "made" in
> v.25.
> ( Apparently, no land animals were created except birds?? If land animals
> are refinements of what already existed (sea creatures), isn't this starting
> to sound a little like evolution?? )
> Then Man is "made" in v.26 before he is "created" in v.27. (This isn't
> redundancy, it's 2 words with 2 different meanings in a specific chronology.
> Man was refined from what?)
>
> As a fully indoctrinated YEC, I was taught that God created everything.
> But, on close examination of Genesis, I found that God didn't create (ex
> nihilo) everything, but that many creatures (including man) went through a
> refinement process (Asah) and was "made" from something that existed before
> it (or he) existed.
> Can you or another YEC explain the above in a manner that supports YEC views
> satisfactorily - with the *vast majority* of Scriptural evidence in favor of
> the YEC position, or show me where I misunderstood the evidence?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Burling
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>