Comments on: The end of “creation” as we know it? I think not. http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/ an everyday tale of stardust, spit and spirit Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:06:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Claude Mariottini http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/comment-page-1/#comment-1621 Claude Mariottini Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:33:41 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/#comment-1621 Doug, You said: "No doctrine rests only on a single verse, far less a single word." This is the great truth that people tend to forget when talking about the biblical doctrine of creation. Van Wolde's study of the word bara' is not comprehensive, as Chris Heard has shown in his post. Claude Mariottini Doug,

You said: “No doctrine rests only on a single verse, far less a single word.”

This is the great truth that people tend to forget when talking about the biblical doctrine of creation. Van Wolde’s study of the word bara’ is not comprehensive, as Chris Heard has shown in his post.

Claude Mariottini

]]> By: Joel H. http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/comment-page-1/#comment-1615 Joel H. Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:13:29 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/#comment-1615 I agree that the press reports have the flavor of sensationalism. The issue isn't new, and the answer doesn't lie in the semantic details of <i>bara.</I> Still, for those who are interested, I have a post <a href="http://goddidntsaythat.com/2009/10/09/professor-ellen-van-wolde-and-bara-in-genesis/" rel="nofollow">here</a> with a little more information about <i>bara.</i> -Joel I agree that the press reports have the flavor of sensationalism. The issue isn’t new, and the answer doesn’t lie in the semantic details of bara. Still, for those who are interested, I have a post here with a little more information about bara.

-Joel

]]> By: James http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/comment-page-1/#comment-1614 James Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:40:34 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/#comment-1614 If you are planning on being at SBL, you can read more about her arguments in the forthcoming Eisenbrauns book: http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/WOLREFRAM This is just a small part of what she is proposing. James If you are planning on being at SBL, you can read more about her arguments in the forthcoming Eisenbrauns book:
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/WOLREFRAM

This is just a small part of what she is proposing.
James

]]> By: John Hobbins http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/comment-page-1/#comment-1609 John Hobbins Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:23:54 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/the-end-of-creation-as-we-know-it-i-think-not/#comment-1609 I would grant that Genesis 1 describes the fashioning of the earth from pre-existent waste and welter, and the appearance of land in pre-existent water. Darkness is also pre-existent, but light, on the contrary, is the first of many things created ex nihilo and by divine fiat. Later reflection on God as creator led to a generalization of the ex nihilo principle. Rightly so. Gen 1 is concerned with the sequential fashioning of the components of creation and assignment of functions relative to one another. The unit does not imply that darkness, chaotic stuff, and the abyss existed from an absolute beginning with the God who exercises sovereign control over them. The text does not recount an absolute beginning. It recounts how God began and completed the creation of heaven and earth and all that is in them. On the contrary, it is natural to assume that that utterly subordinate realities were themselves created by God. In short, I see the later theological reflection that led to an insistence on creatio ex nihilo as in tune with Gen 1 even if Gen 1 does not go there. I would grant that Genesis 1 describes the fashioning of the earth from pre-existent waste and welter, and the appearance of land in pre-existent water. Darkness is also pre-existent, but light, on the contrary, is the first of many things created ex nihilo and by divine fiat.

Later reflection on God as creator led to a generalization of the ex nihilo principle. Rightly so. Gen 1 is concerned with the sequential fashioning of the components of creation and assignment of functions relative to one another. The unit does not imply that darkness, chaotic stuff, and the abyss existed from an absolute beginning with the God who exercises sovereign control over them. The text does not recount an absolute beginning. It recounts how God began and completed the creation of heaven and earth and all that is in them.

On the contrary, it is natural to assume that that utterly subordinate realities were themselves created by God. In short, I see the later theological reflection that led to an insistence on creatio ex nihilo as in tune with Gen 1 even if Gen 1 does not go there.

]]>