Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation


Recommended Posts

 

Right, the teachings of Joseph Smith is the reason for the denial, not the text alone.

 

 

As far as I know, no Mormon would say it comes from the text alone.

 

 

I have. It's not that the evidence isn't there, nor is it that I haven't posted it numerous times. Rather, it's not relevant to a group of people who don't derive their truth from the text alone.

 

You posted it, I refuted it, you ignored it. If what you posted is the best you got, it's sorely lacking.

Link to comment

 

Sorry, daniel, but stephenpurdy and tagriffy are quite correct and in line with the consensus among Hebrew scholars.  The English text is simply misleading.  Gen 1:1-3 is a series of dependent, circumstantial clauses followed by God's first action.  Similarly, we find a circumstantial clause at the beginning of Babylonian Enuma elish "When on high," a creation text which follows the same sequence of creation from coexistent and coeternal matter.  The late Ephraim Speiser pointed all this out, and went on to say that such an analysis "precludes the view that the creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter."  Then he insisted that, despite the implications, "the text should be allowed to speak for itself."  Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964), 9-13.  In other words, dogma must not control what we read in the text.

 

If the text was the reason the LDS believed in Eternal matter, then the text would be used to support such doctrines. Since it isn't and doesn't, I'm not sure it's worth debating what the Babylonians say about the text either.

 

It isn't so much whether you allow the text to speak for itself as that you ignore logic and even Joseph Smith's pointed theological commentary in his funeral oration for his friend King Follet, etc.  Anyway, you do have most of Christendom on your side, along with all of Islam and Judaism in your belief system -- which is untenable, and which has caused tremendous growth in unbelief in countries with good educational systems.  The "death of God" is rampant in such countries.  Mormonism has the distinct advantage of being both logical and in line with the actual Scriptural text.

Link to comment

 

If Bara, is used everywhere else in the text to describe creation from something, and if Paul says that the creation of all things was created from that which is not seen (rather than "nothing"), then the burden of proof falls to the ex nihilo theologians to provide evidence for creation from nothing.

 

However, I did not start with that argument anyways.  The argument I started with was ...

 

1) IF God created everything "from nothing", THEN God determines the destiny of every creature, those creatures cannot determine themselves.

2) IF God created everything "from nothing", THEN there are significant theological and philosophical problems when it comes to the existence and persistence of evil and suffering.

 

THEN, after those arguments were presented, I went in and said, there is no reason to believe in ex nihilo creation to begin with, because it is not taught in the scriptures.

 

-Stephen

The point is that those who use extra biblical sources (in this case the LDS), argue that the Bible doesn't support said doctrine (free will, ex nilhilo, etc) without admitting that their arguments aren't derived from the biblical text, but rather their extra-biblical sources. This can be seen in their arguments from logic or philosophy, and/or a mischaracterization of those who hold these doctrines to be derived from the bible

 

My question is why not be honest and upfront in the first place and admit that the Bible is not the source of these arguments or doctrines?

 

For example above, your "burden of proof" statement is from a LDS point of view. Why assume that anything pre-existed God or is co-eternal with God? This concept is completely foreign to the Biblical text. There is no burden of proof for those who believe as was traditionally accepted for thousands of years. It's taught all through the Bible that God alone is creator of all things, even matter, energy and time. IF the burden is anywhere, it's on a group who claims that precious things were lost and then restored. 

 

The problem with this is that your assumption here is completely false.  Non-Mormon biblical scholars like the late Ephraim Speiser (a prominent Jew) are the ones who have told us what the biblical text actually reads.  You are free to deny that, if you wish, but we are merely reporting what scholarship actually says, based on positions not derived from any Mormon source.  It is precisely mainstream philosophical and theological thinking within the last two centuries which has denied the plausibility and logic of ex nihilo creation.  Many people who are confronted by the problem simply become atheists, unaware that there is a legitimate Mormon alternative.  Others bury their head in the sand and simply deny that there is a problem.

Link to comment

The point is that those who use extra biblical sources (in this case the LDS), argue that the Bible doesn't support said doctrine (free will, ex nilhilo, etc) without admitting that their arguments aren't derived from the biblical text, but rather their extra-biblical sources. This can be seen in their arguments from logic or philosophy, and/or a mischaracterization of those who hold these doctrines to be derived from the bible. 

 

My question is why not be honest and upfront in the first place and admit that the Bible is not the source of these arguments or doctrines?

 

For example above, your "burden of proof" statement is from a LDS point of view. Why assume that anything pre-existed God or is co-eternal with God? This concept is completely foreign to the Biblical text. There is no burden of proof for those who believe as was traditionally accepted for thousands of years. It's taught all through the Bible that God alone is creator of all things, even matter, energy and time. IF the burden is anywhere, it's on a group who claims that precious things were lost and then restored. 

 

 

There are plenty of scholars who argue that Ex Nihilo is not taught from the Bibilcal text, and they are not LDS.

 

Gerhard May, for example, wrote an extensive study on the subject.  http://www.christianbook.com/creatio-ex-nihilo-gerhard-may/9780567083562/pd/83561

 

David Ray Griffin, a Christian scholar, argues that the Bible does not teach creation from nothing.

 

Bruce K. Waltke wrote an extensive Biblical study of creation theology that argues creation from chaos rather than nothing based on the Hebrew Torah and the New Testament texts. This work was published by the Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in 1974 and again in 1981.  Creation and Chaos: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Biblical Cosmogony

 

Thomas Jay Oord (also not LDS), a Christian philosopher and theologian, provides 9 arguments against Ex Nihilo creation.

 

So, it can and has been successfully argued, purely from the Biblical text itself, that creatio ex nihilo simply is not taught in the Bible.

 

-Stephen

Link to comment

 

And you did so without admitting that you first have a faith commitment to LDS viewpoints on the nature of matter, God and man.

 

Nowadays I consider myself a Mormon-at-large rather than a Latter-day Saint. If I don't think the evidence favors the LDS viewpoint on a particular topic, I'm not afraid to say so. Just ask any of the LDS whom I have clashed with. There are at least three of them who have posted on this thread alone. Besides, one need not have a faith commitment to LDS matters to make the same conclusions I have. There are plenty of Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars who have come to the same conclusion regarding the texts as I have.

 

 

Correct.  I forgot to mention Jewish scholar Jon Levenson , and his book

Creation and the Persistence of Evil

 

Review

"A doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and a perception of creation as essentially a fait accompli `in the beginning' have stripped much of the drama from the views of creation found in the Hebrew Bible. Levenson seeks--with impressive success--to restore that drama. He provides, thereby, a reflective biblical foundation, based in solid philological and comparative study."--Lee Humphreys, Hebrew Studies

"This masterful biblical and rabbinic study of creation and evil may challenge Christian proponents of creation theology and spirituality and adherents of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo."--John C. Endres, S.J., Theological Studies

 

-stephen

Link to comment

I always love the irony of someone who isn't a believer in sola scriptura, telling me that I'm ignoring what the text states. :-)

 

 

But it is clear that those who claim to believe in "sola scriptura" are not truly believers in "sola scriptura".  Preconceived ideas are being forced into the text.

 

I specifically refuted every argument  you attempted to provide, in detail, in the videos that you refused to even discuss in detail.  The same thing occurred with the philosophical discussion of ex nihilo, and the historical origins of this dogma.   All you did was quote from William Lane Craig, who was thoroughly trounced by Blake Ostler on this topic years ago, and was unable to respond. 

 

http://www.fairmormo...ormon-challenge

 

You have refused to discuss the problems with your view in the level of detail that I have provided... and for good reason...  You have to hide from the truth on this one OR admit that you are wrong. 

 

 

The LDS reject this view not based on the text or philosophy, but because of their revelation. So, discussion of the text or philosophy is not going to change anything. 

 

 

Some LDS, like myself, rejected the interpretation of Ex Nihilo based on logical and philosophical grounds long before knowing anything about Mormonism.  (If Mormonism hadn't given me an alternative, I would have remained agnostic/atheist).

 

As has been pointed out, Christians and Jews who have done their homework reject ex nihilo on historical and scholarly grounds, by studying the text in detail.

 

Ex Nihilo has no ground to stand on whether in terms of logic, philosophy, scripture, or history.

 

From Thomas Oord:

 

Biblical problem: Scripture – in Genesis, 2 Peter, and elsewhere – suggests creation from something (water, deep, chaos, etc.), not creation from absolutely nothing.

 

Historical problem: The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus first proposed creatio ex nihilo on the basis of assuming the inherently evil nature of creation, and in the belief that God does not act in history. Early Christian theologians adopted the idea to affirm the kind of absolute divine power that many Christians now reject.

 

Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, based upon unilateral force and control of others.

 

Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent evil.

 

etc.

 

 

Daniel wrote:    What is common sense?   Common sense tells me that God can create a free willed being out of nothing.

 

Right.  And according to your version of common sense , "God can cause an uncaused cause". 

 

That isn't logic or common sense Daniel.  Not even close. 

 

Even the guy you like to quote so much, William Lane Craig, has some issues with this, he wrote: "How could we be really related to God as effect to cause, but God not related to us as cause to effect? "

 

Yes.  How indeed?

 

-Stephen

Edited by stephenpurdy
Link to comment

Whatever. Don't blame me if you can't show creation from nothing in the text.

 

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm pointing out the fact that you are using your faith to make statements of "fact" when they are actually statements of faith. 

 

As far as I know, no Mormon would say it comes from the text alone.

Right, that's how this deception works. JS teaches people that "this is what the text *actually* means..." So, it appears that it's coming from the text, when it isn't. Then to further confirm that said teaching is true he has "new revelation" that "fills in the blanks." 

 

Link to comment

 

If the text was the reason the LDS believed in Eternal matter, then the text would be used to support such doctrines. Since it isn't and doesn't, I'm not sure it's worth debating what the Babylonians say about the text either.

It isn't so much whether you allow the text to speak for itself as that you ignore logic and even Joseph Smith's pointed theological commentary in his funeral oration for his friend King Follet, etc.  Anyway, you do have most of Christendom on your side, along with all of Islam and Judaism in your belief system -- which is untenable, and which has caused tremendous growth in unbelief in countries with good educational systems.  The "death of God" is rampant in such countries.  Mormonism has the distinct advantage of being both logical and in line with the actual Scriptural text.

 

To me it's the height of arrogance to tell the originators of the text, that they got it wrong and you got it right.

Link to comment

The problem with this is that your assumption here is completely false.  Non-Mormon biblical scholars like the late Ephraim Speiser (a prominent Jew) are the ones who have told us what the biblical text actually reads.  You are free to deny that, if you wish, but we are merely reporting what scholarship actually says, based on positions not derived from any Mormon source.  It is precisely mainstream philosophical and theological thinking within the last two centuries which has denied the plausibility and logic of ex nihilo creation.  Many people who are confronted by the problem simply become atheists, unaware that there is a legitimate Mormon alternative.  Others bury their head in the sand and simply deny that there is a problem.

The first thing that hits me is the irony that a mormon is arguing that philosophical and theological thinking is the way to go... 

 

Second, is the argument is based on a limited view of "scholarship" where if one were to accept your view that *all* of scholarship accepts this one point of view (that denies the plausibility and logic of ex nihilo creation). Which is patently absurd, because no one ever would make such an argument. Does all of scholarship ever completely agree on anything? Really?

 

No, what is actually happening is your faith is talking. You have faith in the scholars that support your view. I get that. I do to. They just happen to be different scholars. 

Link to comment

 

The point is that those who use extra biblical sources (in this case the LDS), argue that the Bible doesn't support said doctrine (free will, ex nilhilo, etc) without admitting that their arguments aren't derived from the biblical text, but rather their extra-biblical sources. This can be seen in their arguments from logic or philosophy, and/or a mischaracterization of those who hold these doctrines to be derived from the bible. 

 

My question is why not be honest and upfront in the first place and admit that the Bible is not the source of these arguments or doctrines?

 

For example above, your "burden of proof" statement is from a LDS point of view. Why assume that anything pre-existed God or is co-eternal with God? This concept is completely foreign to the Biblical text. There is no burden of proof for those who believe as was traditionally accepted for thousands of years. It's taught all through the Bible that God alone is creator of all things, even matter, energy and time. IF the burden is anywhere, it's on a group who claims that precious things were lost and then restored. 

 

 

There are plenty of scholars who argue that Ex Nihilo is not taught from the Bibilcal text, and they are not LDS.

 

Gerhard May, for example, wrote an extensive study on the subject.  http://www.christianbook.com/creatio-ex-nihilo-gerhard-may/9780567083562/pd/83561

 

David Ray Griffin, a Christian scholar, argues that the Bible does not teach creation from nothing.

 

Bruce K. Waltke wrote an extensive Biblical study of creation theology that argues creation from chaos rather than nothing based on the Hebrew Torah and the New Testament texts. This work was published by the Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in 1974 and again in 1981.  Creation and Chaos: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Biblical Cosmogony

 

Thomas Jay Oord (also not LDS), a Christian philosopher and theologian, provides 9 arguments against Ex Nihilo creation.

 

So, it can and has been successfully argued, purely from the Biblical text itself, that creatio ex nihilo simply is not taught in the Bible.

 

-Stephen

 

 

And there are plenty more scholars that argue that ex nihilo is simply taught in the bible. So? 

Link to comment

 

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm pointing out the fact that you are using your faith to make statements of "fact" when they are actually statements of faith. 

 

 

Don't you get it? It may well be a matter of faith that matter is co-eternal with God. I don't have any problems with that. However, it is not a matter of faith to me that the Bible teach matter is co-eternal with God. That means if you could actually show the text pictures ex nihilo creation, it wouldn't bother my faith a bit. And that allows me to let the text speak for itself.

 

 

 

Right, that's how this deception works. JS teaches people that "this is what the text *actually* means..." So, it appears that it's coming from the text, when it isn't. Then to further confirm that said teaching is true he has "new revelation" that "fills in the blanks." 

 

 

Well, now, if we are going to talk deception, then it is still on your shoulders to prove it's not coming from the text, isn't it?

Link to comment

 

You posted it, I refuted it, you ignored it. If what you posted is the best you got, it's sorely lacking.

 

You waved your faith around as if it was fact. The text can't refute that.

 

 

I didn't start "waving my faith around" at all until you asked me questions that had nothing to do with the text. And even then, I never used my faith positions as proof of what the text says. You want to get back to the text? I'm game.

Link to comment

I specifically refuted every argument  you attempted to provide, in detail, in the videos that you refused to even discuss in detail.  The same thing occurred with the philosophical discussion of ex nihilo, and the historical origins of this dogma.   All you did was quote from William Lane Craig, who was thoroughly trounced by Blake Ostler on this topic years ago, and was unable to respond. 

 

http://www.fairmormo...ormon-challenge

 

You have refused to discuss the problems with your view in the level of detail that I have provided... and for good reason...  You have to hide from the truth on this one OR admit that you are wrong.

 

You didn't actually refute "my" position, rather, you expounded on your faith, as if that refuted it. It doesn't.

 

I don't have to hide or admit that I'm wrong, because it's based on faith. You believe that God cannot create out of nothing, a free will. I do. Difference of faith. You believe that Craig was trounced by Ostler. I do not. It's a difference of faith. 

 

Some LDS, like myself, rejected the interpretation of Ex Nihilo based on logical and philosophical grounds long before knowing anything about Mormonism.  (If Mormonism hadn't given me an alternative, I would have remained agnostic/atheist).

 

As has been pointed out, Christians and Jews who have done their homework reject ex nihilo on historical and scholarly grounds, by studying the text in detail.

 

Ex Nihilo has no ground to stand on whether in terms of logic, philosophy, scripture, or history.

 

From Thomas Oord:

 

Biblical problem: Scripture – in Genesis, 2 Peter, and elsewhere – suggests creation from something (water, deep, chaos, etc.), not creation from absolutely nothing.

 

Historical problem: The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus first proposed creatio ex nihilo on the basis of assuming the inherently evil nature of creation, and in the belief that God does not act in history. Early Christian theologians adopted the idea to affirm the kind of absolute divine power that many Christians now reject.

 

Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, based upon unilateral force and control of others.

 

Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent evil.

 

etc.

 

 

Daniel wrote:    What is common sense?   Common sense tells me that God can create a free willed being out of nothing.

 

Right.  And according to your version of common sense , "God can cause an uncaused cause". 

 

That isn't logic or common sense Daniel.  Not even close. 

 

Even the guy you like to quote so much, William Lane Craig, has some issues with this, he wrote: "How could we be really related to God as effect to cause, but God not related to us as cause to effect? "

 

Yes.  How indeed?

 

-Stephen

And you believe God can't. Thanks for the admission of your faith (or lack therein). 

Link to comment

Don't you get it? It may well be a matter of faith that matter is co-eternal with God. I don't have any problems with that. However, it is not a matter of faith to me that the Bible teach matter is co-eternal with God. That means if you could actually show the text pictures ex nihilo creation, it wouldn't bother my faith a bit. And that allows me to let the text speak for itself.

 

That's what we should do, is let the text speak for itself. 

 

 

I didn't start "waving my faith around" at all until you asked me questions that had nothing to do with the text. And even then, I never used my faith positions as proof of what the text says. You want to get back to the text? I'm game.

We tried that, and it was clear that your prior faith commitment to things co-eternal with God, such as matter, influenced your thinking. For example, the first statement, "in the beginning God created..." is not taken at face value by you, because of this prior commitment. For you God isn't alone in the beginning, but rather co-existing with matter and intelligences, even though the text doesn't state that at all, anywhere!

 

So, I'm not convinced that further discussions about the text will change anything. 

Link to comment

 

Where are you picking up these HopelessThomist posts? I click the go back link on them and the board can't find them!

Come on, Sherlock. What does that tell you?

The post I quoted was there when I responded to it and yes it was a post that was once on this board.

 

 

I'm Stargazer, not Sherlock.  What does that tell you? 

Link to comment

 

There are plenty of scholars who argue that Ex Nihilo is not taught from the Bibilcal text, and they are not LDS.

 

Gerhard May, for example, wrote an extensive study on the subject.  http://www.christianbook.com/creatio-ex-nihilo-gerhard-may/9780567083562/pd/83561

 

David Ray Griffin, a Christian scholar, argues that the Bible does not teach creation from nothing.

 

Bruce K. Waltke wrote an extensive Biblical study of creation theology that argues creation from chaos rather than nothing based on the Hebrew Torah and the New Testament texts. This work was published by the Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in 1974 and again in 1981.  Creation and Chaos: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Biblical Cosmogony

 

Thomas Jay Oord (also not LDS), a Christian philosopher and theologian, provides 9 arguments against Ex Nihilo creation.

 

So, it can and has been successfully argued, purely from the Biblical text itself, that creatio ex nihilo simply is not taught in the Bible.

 

-Stephen

 

And there are plenty more scholars that argue that ex nihilo is simply taught in the bible. So?

 

CFR Daniel.  List some of these minority scholars.  They do exist, I'm sure, but they are unable to read Hebrew, and are simply reflecting dogma rather than analytic thinking.

The only one I have heard of on this board is William Lane Craig, and he was publicly humiliated for his untenable stand.  The best way to destroy mainstream Christianity is to continue the suicidal belief in ex nihilo creation.

 

As even Confucius said:  "From nothing comes nothing."

Link to comment

 

Don't you get it? It may well be a matter of faith that matter is co-eternal with God. I don't have any problems with that. However, it is not a matter of faith to me that the Bible teach matter is co-eternal with God. That means if you could actually show the text pictures ex nihilo creation, it wouldn't bother my faith a bit. And that allows me to let the text speak for itself.

I didn't start "waving my faith around" at all until you asked me questions that had nothing to do with the text. And even then, I never used my faith positions as proof of what the text says. You want to get back to the text? I'm game.

 

 That's what we should do, is let the text speak for itself. 

 

We tried that, and it was clear that your prior faith commitment to things co-eternal with God, such as matter, influenced your thinking. For example, the first statement, "in the beginning God created..." is not taken at face value by you, because of this prior commitment. For you God isn't alone in the beginning, but rather co-existing with matter and intelligences, even though the text doesn't state that at all, anywhere!

 

So, I'm not convinced that further discussions about the text will change anything. 

False.  The prior faith commitment of those who actually allowed the text to speak for itself was in favor of ex nihilo creation.  They went against that prior faith commitment to allow the text to speak for itself.  Why are you not allowing the text to be its own witness?  Why are you misreading the text?  Is it because you are unable to read Hebrew and really do not  know what the text says?  Or is it wilfull disrespect for the text?

 

In biblical studies we call what you are doing eisegesis, and it constitutes text abuse.  It is unethical and improper in every respect.

Link to comment

 

It isn't so much whether you allow the text to speak for itself as that you ignore logic and even Joseph Smith's pointed theological commentary in his funeral oration for his friend King Follet, etc.  Anyway, you do have most of Christendom on your side, along with all of Islam and Judaism in your belief system -- which is untenable, and which has caused tremendous growth in unbelief in countries with good educational systems.  The "death of God" is rampant in such countries.  Mormonism has the distinct advantage of being both logical and in line with the actual Scriptural text.

To me it's the height of arrogance to tell the originators of the text, that they got it wrong and you got it right.

 

One would have thought that you would understand by now that the originators of the text intended no ex nihilo creation.  Hellenistic philosophers and theologians interposed their own point of view and deliberately disregarded the intention of the originators of the text.  They formulated the false, apostate creeds which you hold so dear, and you are heir to their cupidity.  You should thank those of us who have been trying to set you right.  We are doing you a favor, daniel, but you adamantly refuse to be enlightened -- as is your privilege.  It is so sad that you must falsify the text of the Bible in order to do so.

 

Link to comment

CFR Daniel.  List some of these minority scholars.  They do exist, I'm sure, but they are unable to read Hebrew, and are simply reflecting dogma rather than analytic thinking.

The only one I have heard of on this board is William Lane Craig, and he was publicly humiliated for his untenable stand.  The best way to destroy mainstream Christianity is to continue the suicidal belief in ex nihilo creation.

 

As even Confucius said:  "From nothing comes nothing."

 

List of scholars who believe in ENC (Ex Nilhilo Creation)

Blocher, Henri.

Waltke, Bruce K.

Blocher, Henri.

Copan, Paul

Craig, William Lane

James Patrick Holding

Beckwith, Francis J.

Stephen J. Parrish.

Goldstein, Jonathan

Moreland, J. P

Alister McGrath

Colin Gunton

 

Irenaeus (130-200)

 

Tertullian (160-225)

"Biblical scholars and theologians within the Christian tradition such as Augustine (354-430),[12] John Calvin (1509–1564),[13] John Wesley (1703–1791)[14] and Matthew Henry (1662–1714)[15] cite Genesis 1:1 in support of the idea of Divine creation out of nothing.

Some of the early Christian Church Fathers with a Platonic background, argued that the act of creation itself involved pre-existent matter, but made that matter in turn to have been created out of nothing.[16]"

Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

 

Edited by danielwoods
Link to comment

One would have thought that you would understand by now that the originators of the text intended no ex nihilo creation.  Hellenistic philosophers and theologians interposed their own point of view and deliberately disregarded the intention of the originators of the text.  They formulated the false, apostate creeds which you hold so dear, and you are heir to their cupidity.  You should thank those of us who have been trying to set you right.  We are doing you a favor, daniel, but you adamantly refuse to be enlightened -- as is your privilege.  It is so sad that you must falsify the text of the Bible in order to do so.

 

 

What is happening is you are making huge leaps where none is justified. For example, the text plainly states that God alone created the heaven and earth, nothing is mentioned as pre-existing with God, anywhere. Yet, for some reason (your faith?), you assume that matter is co-eternal with God. A huge unjustified leap, that the text doesn't even hint at. 

Link to comment

 

That's what we should do, is let the text speak for itself. 

 

 

We tried that, and it was clear that your prior faith commitment to things co-eternal with God, such as matter, influenced your thinking. For example, the first statement, "in the beginning God created..." is not taken at face value by you, because of this prior commitment. For you God isn't alone in the beginning, but rather co-existing with matter and intelligences, even though the text doesn't state that at all, anywhere!

 

So, I'm not convinced that further discussions about the text will change anything. 

 

Agreed, we should let the text speak for itself. What is taking "in the beginning God created" at face value? Certainly not creation from nothing. As Robert pointed out, Genesis 1:1-3 is a series of dependent and circumstantial clauses leading to the first act of creation from matter that already existed. It is best translated as by the NRSV, "In the beginning when God created." Robert pointed to the Babylonian Enuma elish starting its creation account in a similar manner. We could also point out the second creation account in Genesis 2:4b-24 starts off with a similar series of dependent and circumstantial clauses leading to the creation of man from matter that already existed.  That's the evidence of the text, the same evidence that has led scholars with no such faith commitment to make same conclusion.

 

Now, if you are going to insist on making this about me instead of the text, then the least you can do is get me right. My faith commitment does not require the text to say creation came from pre-existing matter.  If the text did, in fact, picture creatio ex nihilo, it would be no skin off my back whatsoever. I'd simply say the text is wrong and move on. It's not like I haven't done it before.

Link to comment

Agreed, we should let the text speak for itself. What is taking "in the beginning God created" at face value? Certainly not creation from nothing. As Robert pointed out, Genesis 1:1-3 is a series of dependent and circumstantial clauses leading to the first act of creation from matter that already existed. It is best translated as by the NRSV, "In the beginning when God created." Robert pointed to the Babylonian Enuma elish starting its creation account in a similar manner. We could also point out the second creation account in Genesis 2:4b-24 starts off with a similar series of dependent and circumstantial clauses leading to the creation of man from matter that already existed.  That's the evidence of the text, the same evidence that has led scholars with no such faith commitment to make same conclusion.

 

Now, if you are going to insist on making this about me instead of the text, then the least you can do is get me right. My faith commitment does not require the text to say creation came from pre-existing matter.  If the text did, in fact, picture creatio ex nihilo, it would be no skin off my back whatsoever. I'd simply say the text is wrong and move on. It's not like I haven't done it before.

 

If that's the case, then where does the presupposition come in that matter or anything co-existed eternally with God? 

 

You quote the NRSV, "In the beginning when God created." as being the best translation. Yet, even this phrase is missing your presupposed co-eternal matter. Where do you read that matter existed already? 

 

Even the Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledges that the text doesn't indicate any presupposed co-eternal matter.

"The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find in (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo (). The etymological meaning of the verb , however, is "to cut out and put into shape," and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Naḥmanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, "Moreh Nebukim," ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis (see Cosmogony), and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes (see Dragon; Darkness), it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." To such a degree has this found acceptance as the doctrine of the Synagogue that God has come to be desinated as "He who spake and the world sprang into existence""

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4730-creation

Link to comment

 

If that's the case, then where does the presupposition come in that matter or anything co-existed eternally with God? 

 

You quote the NRSV, "In the beginning when God created." as being the best translation. Yet, even this phrase is missing your presupposed co-eternal matter. Where do you read that matter existed already? 

 

 

As I indicated, that is one of the things further revelation is for. You're talking under the mistaken notion that I'm saying Genesis says matter is co-eternal. I am not. What I am saying is that Genesis depicts matter as already being there when began to create. In this case, further revelation fills in the blank, as it were.

 

 

Even the Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledges that the text doesn't indicate any presupposed co-eternal matter.

"The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find in (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo (). The etymological meaning of the verb , however, is "to cut out and put into shape," and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Naḥmanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, "Moreh Nebukim," ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis (see Cosmogony), and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes (see Dragon; Darkness), it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." To such a degree has this found acceptance as the doctrine of the Synagogue that God has come to be desinated as "He who spake and the world sprang into existence""

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4730-creation

 

 

The Jewish Encyclopedia is a bit out of date, but let's take a look at what the article does say. It acknowledges that Genesis does not settle the matter. It acknowledges there is a strong presumption in Genesis that creation was made out of matter that already existed. Then, after an exaggerated statement about the Prophets and the Psalms (the cited passages are hardly unambiguous statements of creation from nothing), goes into a history that demonstrates just how unsettled the issue is within Judaism. And notably, the longer the discussion goes on, the further away from the actual text it gets. The Jewish proponents of creation ex nihilo moved away from the text and used philosophy to make their points. Basically, they are filling the blank in their own way. I've no quarrel with that. Judaism is no more a sola scruptura tradition than Mormonism is. What I'm insisting on is distinguishing what the text says from how we deal with the information presented.

Link to comment

To me it's the height of arrogance to tell the originators of the text, that they got it wrong and you got it right.

 

 

The "originators" of the text did not get it wrong. 

 

The Jews who came later did. 

 

Jesus demonstrated over and over again that the apostate Jews of his time did not understand the scriptures.

 

 

 

Daniel wrote:  .... where does the presupposition come in that matter or anything co-existed eternally with God?

 

Quite frankly, the Biblical text does not address the issue at all.  Paul says that God created from something that is "unseen".  Peter referred to God creating from some kind of primordial "waters".   But no detail is given in the Bible. 

 

However, we can clearly demonstrate that creation "from nothing" is not taught by the text, nor should anybody assume that it is implied by the text.

 

-Stephen

Edited by stephenpurdy
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...