In view of John 5:17;

Joh_5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

And the fact that Hubble shows us that new stars, etc. are forming in the Cosmos, it would appear that Creation is an ongoing process.

How does this compare with;

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.


The traditional Christian view on this is that God completed the work of creation in six days (whether you take that literally or metaphorically). However he is still in the business of sustaining his creation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in 301:

With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:

In other words, without God's continual work, nothing could continue to exist. It's a separate kind of work from the work of Creation.

As Ryan Frame says, the discovery of new stars does not mean that they were created recently. Also the birth of new stars (or animals, or people for that matter) doesn't imply new creation. God had set in motion at the time of creation the mechanisms by which they are created (coalescing matter clouds, sexual reproduction). That was the work of creation. The bringing-to-birth is the work of sustainment.

Additional references to show that this view is not limited to Catholics:

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you not being a Catholic, but a protestant I am not familiar with any catechisms, or Mennonite tenants. I do have some concerns about being able to see through time as some claim Hubble does, however that is a moot point. – BYE Oct 11 '13 at 17:40
  • Feel free to ask questions about the - though it is probably better done at a science site than here. – DJClayworth Oct 15 '13 at 13:41

We also can only see that part of the Universe where light has been given enough time to travel, if we could travel to another part of the Universe faster than the speed of light then we would see more and more of Creation.

| improve this answer | |
  • Your tenant would tend to dispute Einstein's theory that time is the result of all motion, and in order to transverse time we would need to reverse all motion including all movement within the Cosmos, since that only reverses one motion. – BYE Oct 12 '13 at 14:15
  • can you explain further. My tenant? – Nikos Oct 12 '13 at 18:45
  • @ Nikos Your tenant or (loosely defined as assertion) that we would only have to overcome the speed of light, is in opposition to Einstein's theory that time is the result of all motion. In His theory we would have to reverse not only the speed of light but the rotation of earth, moon, Stars, and all other movements in the Cosmos including any rotations of not only Galaxies, but any other motions anywhere in the Cosmos. I am not saying you are wrong, only that it is contrary to Einstein's theory. – BYE Oct 12 '13 at 19:34
  • perhaps if you could reverse all motion, that would not guarantee time reversal because if processes like free will, which are not restricted by current movements of all atoms – Nikos Oct 13 '13 at 21:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.