A question about the Christian theory of creation

[aneeshm]

According to the Christian theory of creation , God created everything . I seek a clarification on this point . There are two theories which I have come up with :

a) There was some matter , or some formless thing , which existed before god did , and that god only gave the formless the form of the current creation

or that

b) There was nothing before God , and God himself in the beginning was without form , only a potentiality . Then God decided to make the potential the real , and then proceeded to transform himself , or his potential , into matter , and thus creation ( i.e. , that because something cannot come from nothing , God could not create matter from nothing , and thus had to create it out of himself )




Which of these is the correct one , according to Christianity ?

 

[I am the Future]

Super Literal Christians would say the second one.
Normal people say it is all crazy and go back to evolution.

 

[aneeshm]

Super Literal Christians would say the second one.
Normal people say it is all crazy and go back to evolution.

Actually , I asked it as a philosophical question . Evolution vs. Creation did not even enter my mind when I posted it . I'd prefer the discussion stay philosohpical .

 

[I am the Future]

Ok,
Then I would still have to tell you that Super liberal christians believe that the second one is the truth.

 

[Bill3000]

Ok,
Then I would still have to tell you that Super liberal christians believe that the second one is the truth.

Uh, huge difference between "liberal" and "literal", my friend.

 

[Meleager]

Normal people say it is all crazy and go back to evolution.

They are different fields. Thesic Evolutionists would have to deal with this just as much as fundamentalists.

a) There was some matter , or some formless thing , which existed before god did , and that god only gave the formless the form of the current creation

or that

b) There was nothing before God , and God himself in the beginning was without form , only a potentiality . Then God decided to make the potential the real , and then proceeded to transform himself , or his potential , into matter , and thus creation ( i.e. , that because something cannot come from nothing , God could not create matter from nothing , and thus had to create it out of himself )

Here is what the bible has to say:

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I am afraid that is all it has to say. The creation account is more about telling us that God created the universe then it is about how he did it. The latter could never be covered in two chapters.

As a side note, your second one is like nothing from the bible. It never says anywhere that God has taken any physical form (unless you want to debate about Jesus but that is different). More so, if God created the universe out of nothing, surely he could bend its laws a little.

You might find some support for the first one, but for the most part, most Christians would disagree with both ideas.

 

[Sidhe]

Evolution vs Creationism is science vs philosophy since they have nothing to either back up their claims or deny science, absolutely nothing scientific at all. Which is why most scientists ignore them, because they don't want to give any sort of credence to the creationist or ID argument by acknowledging it.

You have your answer in Genesis: there was nothing and god created the heaven and Earth by moving his hand over the void, God is the well spring of creation everything we have comes from him. It's no less preposterous than the Big Bang Theory, I.e that the whole universe was created from nothing in a monumentally small instant of space time. Ones scientific dogma the other is religious dogma, neither has any direct proof.

 

[Xenocrates]

Christianity does not attempt to answer this question. Christianity isn't really philosophical; just faith. Meaning that you must just believe it regardless of its shortcomings.

 

[onejayhawk]

Here is what the bible has to say: I am afraid that is all it has to say. The creation account is more about telling us that God created the universe then it is about how he did it. The latter could never be covered in two chapters.

Actually there is a bit more. Verse 2 talks about the Earth being without form and void (shape and empty might be a better translation). There is the implication of shaping rather then making from nothing.

Also it should be noted that the passage can be read two ways. One way is that the first verse marks an intial act, followed by completion through the "days", which follow. There can be seen either continuity, or disjunction. The subjunctive in the text will bear either. A second possible interpretation has the first verse being a summary of the chapter to follow. This is the tradtional way of reading the passage, but the text does not compell it.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

You have your answer in Genesis: there was nothing and god created the heaven and Earth by moving his hand over the void, God is the well spring of creation everything we have comes from him. It's no less preposterous than the Big Bang Theory, I.e that the whole universe was created from nothing in a monumentally small instant of space time. Ones scientific dogma the other is religious dogma, neither has any direct proof.

There is evidence to support the big bang. The expanding unverse and the background radiation are two. Also, the Big Bang explains how the universe came into being, I don't think it discusses where matter/energy came from, or whether or not it came from nothing. String theory, which doesn't have any supportive evidence tries (in part) to explain where the matter for the big bang came from using mathmatics.

 

[Sidhe]

Agreed but then string theory is little more than scientific dogma at the moment since it has no supporting evidence, it is faith based vodoo.Mathematical dogma if you want, that's what I meant. I've said as much before so didn't feel the need to over elaborate, especially as it's off topic.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Agreed but then string theory is little more than scientific dogma at the moment since it has no supporting evidence, it is faith based vodoo.Mathematical dogma if you want, that's what I meant. I've said as much before so didn't feel the need to over elaborate, especially as it's off topic.

String theory isn't really dogma. It is theory that some people give credence to and others don't.

 

[puglover]

Which of these is the correct one , according to Christianity ?

Genesis is very vague about how God created the universe. Apparently he created something out of nothing with his infinite power. Again though, I wouldn't go making theories.

 

[warpus]

From what I understand the official Christian position is as follows:

- God has existed forever and will continue to exist forever
- Nothing but God existed at one point
- At some point God created everything that exists today out of nothing

 

[Perfection]

There is no unified Christian theory of creation. There's a bunch of divergent ideas about the subject.

 

[Warman17]

Which of these is the correct one , according to Christianity ?

God is, was, and always will be. So in otherwords, God will be around for infinity from now, and has existed infinity prior to now.

At least I think thats what their thought is.

 

[Meleager]

Actually there is a bit more. Verse 2 talks about the Earth being without form and void (shape and empty might be a better translation). There is the implication of shaping rather then making from nothing.

Yeah, I know. I was thinking of saying that, but the Earth being without form doesn't help to answer this question since it deals with a much larger scope.

 

[El_Machinae]

Shouldn't we be looking at Jesus's teachings, instead of Genesis, if we're to discuss the Christian view of Creation?

 

[Meleager]

Shouldn't we be looking at Jesus's teachings, instead of Genesis, if we're to discuss the Christian view of Creation?

The Christian and Jewish views are one and the same.

 

[blackheart]

Agreed but then string theory is little more than scientific dogma at the moment since it has no supporting evidence, it is faith based vodoo.Mathematical dogma if you want, that's what I meant. I've said as much before so didn't feel the need to over elaborate, especially as it's off topic.

Half of known science is theory and thus scientific dogma