The Pre-existence, No Beginning...

[johnny]

Rommelator

These assertions are at odds with the majority of biblical and Hebrew scholars, who all affirm the creation of the world out of pre-existing chaotic matter (or, in verse 2, water).

I would say your assertions are at odds with the scripture of 2 Maccabees and the beliefs of the early apostolic Christians and with other biblical scholars.

Verse 2

Verse 2 comes after verse 1, the early Christian Hippolytus believed:

Hippolytus "On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure." Six Days Work (Hexameron) (A.D. 217),in ANF,V:163

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

The translation of Genesis is by E.A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible series. Speiser translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows:

"When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas...- God said, "Let there be light." And there was light."

There was matter that pre-existed God's creative activity that followed. The earth existed, but was in a state of chaos (without form) and there were seas of water when God began to create.

Proverbs 8:24 it states that before God created the earth, God set "a compass upon the face of the depth", God prepares the already existent waters by organizing them through the process of measuring them and plumbing their depths, and was before he created the earth (Proverbs 8:26â??27).

Apostle Peter seems aware that the waters pre-existed the creation, as a matter of fact he goes so far as to say in 2 Peter 3:5 that God created "the heaven and earth" by "forming" them out of water.

God forming the earth outh of pre-existing material? That Peter better be careful, one might mistake him for a Mormon.

Edit: Oh, and Job 38:7, is the bene elohim who shouted for joy before the foundations of the world.

[johnny]

Rommelator

2 Peter 3:5â??6

You are completely ignoring the originative act which Genesis 1:1 reveals. 2Peter 3:5-6 does support your point, see below.

• 2Pet.3 ([5] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: [6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:.)
  

[Rommelator]

I would say your assertions are at odds with the scripture of 2 Maccabees and the beliefs of the early apostolic Christians and with other biblical scholars.

2 Maccabees is not scripture in my book. Interesting, but not scripture.

"Early" apostolic Christians? Like from the 2nd-3rd century early, right?

[johnny]

Ray Callis Hatto...

The translation of Genesis is by E.A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible series. Speiser translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows:

The translation is consistent with Ex Nihilo ... this translation of Genesis 1: does not support the idea of "pre-existing material and beings before the creation began".

... Proverbs 8:26â??27 ...2 Peter 3:5 ...

I have no problem with Proverbs 8:26â??27 and 2Peter 3:5 ... they are consistent with Ex Nihilo.

[Rommelator]

I should have known better than to get into a debate with johnny.

Ray, may I suggest that you pull out before you lose your sanity?

[johnny]

Rommelator

"Early" apostolic Christians? Like from the 2nd-3rd century early, right?

Early apostolic Christians like Hermas, in 80AD he wrote,

• Hermas "First Of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing." Shepard,2:1:1(A.D. 80),in ANF,II:20
  

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

As Speiser says: "To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter."

[Rommelator]

Rommelator

Early apostolic Christians like Hermas, in 80AD he wrote,

• Hermas "First Of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing." Shepard,2:1:1(A.D. 80),in ANF,II:20
  

Hermas was written in the 2nd century, my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas

However, textual criticism, the nature of the theology, and the author's apparent familiarity with Revelation and other Johannine texts, set the date of composition securely in the 2nd century.

[johnny]

Ray Callis Hatto...

Edit: Oh, and Job 38:7, is the bene elohim who shouted for joy before the foundations of the world.

The foundations of the world comes after Genesis 1:1 ... Genesis 1:1 reveals that the original creation of the world in its chaotic state was from nothing while the remaining part of the Bible reveals the elaboration and distribution of the matter thus created.

[johnny]

Ray Callis Hatto...

As Speiser says: "To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter."

That is my point ... the creation account in Genesis 1:1 says nothing about pre-existent matter.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Ray Callis Hatto...

The foundations of the world comes after Genesis 1:1 ...

and yet no account of their creation, thus their existance precedes Genesis. The same with the sea.

[johnny]

Ray Callis Hatto...

and yet no account of their creation, thus their existance precedes Genesis.

Their existence comes after Genesis 1:1, the verses below account for their creation. Their existence began when God created them with a command.

Neh.9 (. [6] Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. )

Pss.148 ([1] Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. [2] Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. [3] Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. [4] Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. [5] Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.)

[Mudcat]

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

The verb "bara" does not mean to create the way Ex nihilo proponents would like it to mean; i.e. out of nothing.

Hey Romm,

Emphasis mine. Is that pronounce how I think it is pronounced. If so, its quite funny.

Anyways, what is your take on John 1:3 then.

Also, I might conclude that LDS interpret the Bible in light of the remainder of their Scriptures, which seem to support ex Materia creation.

However, are you aware of any other Christian faiths who support such a view?

[Hoops22]

and yet no account of their creation, thus their existance precedes Genesis. The same with the sea.

Gen 1:1 is all encompassing. The ENTIRE universe. Water included.

You just can't get around it. Gen 1:1 says creation from nothing. It's just the way it is.

[sean0scott]

Gen 1:1 is all encompassing. The ENTIRE universe. Water included.

Not another bara discussion...

[Hoops22]

Not another bara discussion...

No, this new bara discusion is being created out of nothing.

(I'm rather disappointed - I've made some pretty good funnies lately and no one has noticed. It could be that they were not that funny, but that seems unlikely).

but, really. No one has yet given me any evidence as to why Gen 1:1 does NOT mean created from nothing. I think this is critically important as Gen 1 refutes all kinds of error.

[stemelbow]

No, this new bara discusion is being created out of nothing.

(I'm rather disappointed - I've made some pretty good funnies lately and no one has noticed. It could be that they were not that funny, but that seems unlikely).

but, really. No one has yet given me any evidence as to why Gen 1:1 does NOT mean created from nothing. I think this is critically important as Gen 1 refutes all kinds of error.

That seems the be the problem. You want people to disspell your assumption--and then prove a negative. Why not start with a deeper understanding of Genesis says? It appears your, and the other out of nothing arguers, have nothing but assumption and guess as their argument. But I'm really just reading along.

love,

stem

[Hoops22]

That seems the be the problem. You want people to disspell your assumption--and then prove a negative. Why not start with a deeper understanding of Genesis says? It appears your, and the other out of nothing arguers, have nothing but assumption and guess as their argument. But I'm really just reading along. love,stem

Well, shouldn't we begin with the plain text? From that, I get that in Gen 1:1 God created the universe from nothing. Which would include water in Gen 1:1B.And in 6 days.

I think my understanding is fairly deep. At least deep enough to ask some appropriate questions.

[Mudcat]

No, this new bara discusion is being created out of nothing.

(I'm rather disappointed - I've made some pretty good funnies lately and no one has noticed. It could be that they were not that funny, but that seems unlikely).

but, really. No one has yet given me any evidence as to why Gen 1:1 does NOT mean created from nothing. I think this is critically important as Gen 1 refutes all kinds of error.

I think this is laugh at the Catholics material month.

I think we EV's are back on funny rotation in January of 2017.

[sean0scott]

No, this new bara discusion is being created out of nothing.

I walked right into that...

No one has yet given me any evidence as to why Gen 1:1 does NOT mean created from nothing. I think this is critically important as Gen 1 refutes all kinds of error.

I'm no Hebrewist, but my understanding of the word bara is that derives from cutting, etc. It is a verb used in dealing with stuff that's already there. I don't see why ex nihilo became so popular; I don't see any limitations on God if he organized chaotic matter rather than a cosmic finger snap. Is it the coeternal truths/coeternal matter business that is so hard to take?

[johnny]

sean0scott

I'm no Hebrewist, but my understanding of the word bara is that derives from cutting, etc. It is a verb used in dealing with stuff that's already there. I don't see why ex nihilo became so popular; I don't see any limitations on God if he organized chaotic matter rather than a cosmic finger snap. Is it the coeternal truths/coeternal matter business that is so hard to take?

Ex nihlo is popular because this is what scripture reveals. Scripture does not reveal the teachings of Mormonism, that man pre-existed or that spirits were born of heavenly parents. The "bara" in Genesis 1:1 is not associated with "stuff that's already there". Genesis 1:1 reveals "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 reveals the originative act of things. God created all things (1Cor 8:6). From this originative act of things is an unfinished, formless creation. From this unfinished, formless creation God forms his finished creation.

Other scriptures clarify and expound Genesis 1:1. Nehemiah 9:6 reveals that God "made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein". Psalm 148 reveals that all angels, all his hosts, were created when God commanded. Psalm 33 reveals that "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

[Lachoneus]

You just can't get around it. Gen 1:1 says creation from nothing. It's just the way it is.

Genesis 1:1 does not say creation "from nothing." That is a religious interpretation of what Genesis 1:1 actually says. It is not a dictionary definition of the word bara.

[Richard]

"Can love be created?" From post #7

In my faith life I would say absolutely not for it is God Himself

We are not Love because we are not our Creator. But the majesty of it all, the magic carpet ride you might say is that we get to share in it, the love that the Father has always had with the Son throughout all of eternity, This Love being the Holy Spirit which has been given freely to us. But we want to possess it as if it comes from us, this is the cause of our fallen nature, why the perfect Image of God has been distorted. Only Jesus can get us, the lost Lambs home, and give us this insight though His Holy Spirit in order for us to help Him search out other lost lambs, and point them to Jesus.

Why does Jesus ask us to love God above all things? Even our families, our children, our wives and husbands?

How is it that we can love each other better?

Love is the gift to Gods Creation. It is not ours to possess. It is ours as a free gift to share. This is moving towards Trinity in so many ways.

I was nothing, then God created me and breathed into me His Love, His spirit and this nothing became something very special. God knew me as God has no limits in time and space. Love cannot be contained, it moves on and on and on. But it never changes, it is what it is.

Where nothing becomes something and knows it. About this time I fall to my knees and give thanks and praise. Life changing stuff taught to me by others. I possess none of it! Nor did I come up with any of it.

God Bless

Rich

[Hoops22]

Genesis 1:1 does not say creation "from nothing." That is a religious interpretation of what Genesis 1:1 actually says. It is not a dictionary definition of the word bara.

Johnny has done just fine above, so I'll just add:

Bara means to creat out of nothing - see Rom 4:17, Heb 11:3. Additionally, The next verses use the word asah, which means to fashion out of existing materal. Why the change in verb?

Finally, bara is used ONLY with God in the entire OT. God alone creates.

Finally part B, shamayim is plural for heaven - indicating ALL of the heavens. The singular form of shamayim is never used in scripture.

Now, we have given reasons to read it as it is plainly written. Please give us reasons why we should not.