tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15497256.post114986156280589768..comments2009-07-15T08:30:57.626-05:00Dr. Claude Mariottinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08022725291281227401noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15497256.post-1150303742892320142006-06-14T11:49:00.000-05:002006-06-14T11:49:00.000-05:00Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>I agree that what you wrote is a better way of describing what happened at the end of creation in Genesis 1. To say that God did not do a thing for a whole day is just not correct. If you read my post again you will discover that I was just paraphrasing what Phillips had written.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>Claude MariottiniDr. Claude Mariottinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08022725291281227401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15497256.post-1150227289365035442006-06-13T14:34:00.000-05:002006-06-13T14:34:00.000-05:00Doesn't Jesus treat God's seventh day rest as if it's still going on? It doesn't seem right to say that God rested and then began working again when Jesus says God continues to work while resting. It seems more accurate to say that God rested in the sense of having achieved completion of creation and continues to work to sustain creation in the sense of providence as opposed to the sense of creating initially.Jeremy Piercehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07310277677502627546noreply@blogger.com