Creatio ex Nihilo, Monotheism, and Divinization

[WalkerW]

You mom? Lol. Brilliant.

.

[Vance]

As you should. How dare you read anything beyond the God-given language of English. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for me.

You owe me a Kleenex, I had to use one to wipe the spittle from my monitor.

[LeSellers]

I couldn't admit that creatio ex nihilo is clearly excluded by the biblical data, even in the abbreviated canon of the LDS and Protestants, but I certainly agree that Gen. 1:1 seems inconclusive and allows for the possibility of pre-existent matter.

While Gen 1:1 is inconclusive, Gen 1:2 demands creatio ex matera.

Lehi

[3DOP]

While Gen 1:1 is inconclusive, Gen 1:2 demands creatio ex matera.

Lehi

"In the beginning", the context of Genesis, seems to be in reference to the creation of the heavens and the earth. We are all agreed that God used matter that was then in existence in Genesis 1. I think we are all agreed that "in the beginning" has a reference point to humanity that can't be interpreted as "the beginning of everything". There were "pre-beginning" events that might be very properly called pre-historic. Where we differ is about whether God created the matter that preceded the heavens and earth in a "pre-beginning event". To clarify, creatio ex nihilo as I understand it, is an event that takes place before Gen 1:1, and does not seem to be addressed in the book of Genesis at all.

3DOP

[LeSellers]

"In the beginning", the context of Genesis, seems to be in reference to the creation of the heavens and the earth. We are all agreed that God used matter that was then in existence in Genesis 1. I think we are all agreed that "in the beginning" has a reference point to humanity that can't be interpreted as "the beginning of everything". There were "pre-beginning" events that might be very properly called pre-historic. Where we differ is about whether God created the matter that preceded the heavens and earth in a "pre-beginning event". To clarify, creatio ex nihilo as I understand it, is an event that takes place before Gen 1:1, and does not seem to be addressed in the book of Genesis at all.

According to Cohen's The Authors of Genesis According to the Colophon System, Gen 1:1 is not truly part of the text of Genesis, it is a colophon that identifies the beginning of a part of the work that ends in Gen 2:4:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

...

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Notice the parallel constructions (chiasmus-lite). Cohen claims these phrases are the "bookends" that define one section of the work (keep in mind that the chapters in the Bible were not part of Moses' writings, but came about in the middle ages). Neither was to be taken as text, but rather as introductory or a synopsis of what follows.

Thus, Gen 1:2 is the first verse of Genesis.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

With that as the start of the narrative, we see that God started with matter and organized it.

Further, even in Gen 1:1, the verb "bara" is not "create" in any sense that could be understood as creatio ex nihil. It comes from a root that means formed or fashioned, exactly as Joseph and we Saints ever since have maintained.

???? ba?ra?'

1) to create, shape, form

1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) [this is supposition on their parts, but they are right about the rest]

1a1) of heaven and earth

1a2) of individual man

1a3) of new conditions and circumstances

1a4) of transformations

1b) (Niphal) to be created

1b1) of heaven and earth

1b2) of birth

1b3) of something new

1b4) of miracles

1c) (Piel)

1c1) to cut down

1c2) to cut out

2) to be fat

2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Part of Speech: verb

And, finally, the concept of creatio ex nihil never shows up in the scriptures except by supposition. Creatio ex nihil is a bow to the Greek philosophers, and has no basis in the prophets of God.

Lehi

[Vance]

I find it very interesting that many of the "sola scripturists" doctrines are not based on scripture at all, but rather on Catholic tradition.

And here is an example of what I was talking about.

And, finally, the concept of creation ex nihil never shows up in the scriptures except by supposition. Creation ex nihil is a bow to the Greek philosophers, and has no basis in the prophets of God.

[3DOP]

According to Cohen's The Authors of Genesis According to the Colophon System, Gen 1:1 is not truly part of the text of Genesis, it is a colophon that identifies the beginning of a part of the work that ends in Gen 2:4:

Notice the parallel constructions (chiasmus-lite). Cohen claims these phrases are the "bookends" that define one section of the work (keep in mind that the chapters in the Bible were not part of Moses' writings, but came about in the middle ages). Neither was to be taken as text, but rather as introductory or a synopsis of what follows.

Thus, Gen 1:2 is the first verse of Genesis.

With that as the start of the narrative, we see that God started with matter and organized it.

Further, even in Gen 1:1, the verb "bara" is not "create" in any sense that could be understood as creatio ex nihil. It comes from a root that means formed or fashioned, exactly as Joseph and we Saints ever since have maintained.

And, finally, the concept of creatio ex nihil never shows up in the scriptures except by supposition. Creatio ex nihil is a bow to the Greek philosophers, and has no basis in the prophets of God.

Lehi

I have no interest in whether Gen 1:1 is part of your Bible. I have never heard of Cohen, and can't imagine that his work could convince me that Gen 1:1 is not part of my Bible. But I assure you, as I said before, that I agree with you that none of Genesis 1 addresses the contrioversy over creatio ex nihilo/ex materia. I don't know how you could think that it addresses an event or non-event in your favor that is a subject of pre-Genesis and pre-revelation history, and I don't suppose Greek philosophy presents a unified view of the matter either. Be assured that you are welcome to your own philosophers and your own suppositions without censure from me on the basis of that abbreviated canon of pre-Latter-day Scripture which we might share (along with Cohen). Which of these Scriptures do you have in mind which take us to the period prior to Cohen's Bible?

[LeSellers]

I have no interest in whether Gen 1:1 is part of your Bible.

Who said it is not part of our Bible? It is. What I said, citing Cohen, is that it is not part of the scriptural text in the sense that it is an introduction to the creation account (Gen 1:2~2:3) that ties to the fourth verse of chapter two; that these two verses "bookend" the account, and, according to his hypothesis, these identify and "isolate" that section.

I have never heard of Cohen, and can't imagine that his work could convince me that Gen 1:1 is not part of my Bible.

As he does not make that claim, it shouldn't. But he, as a Jew and scholar (however he is a poor writer, yuk!!) of ancient documents, has a few insights I must respect, not because I agree (he did persuade me), but because I don't have that expertize.

But I assure you, as I said before, that I agree with you that none of Genesis 1 addresses the contrioversy over creatio ex nihilo/ex materia. I don't know how you could think that it addresses an event or non-event in your favor that is a subject of pre-Genesis and pre-revelation history, and I don't suppose Greek philosophy presents a unified view of the matter either. Be assured that you are welcome to your own philosophers and your own suppositions without censure from me on the basis of that abbreviated canon of pre-Latter-day Scripture which we might share (along with Cohen).

The Greeks are not "my philosophers" (which, please recall, were the natural scientists of their day; philosophy was not idle musings on morality or abstruse theories of any kind). Their pronouncements on the evilness of matter deeply affected early, post-apostolic Christian thought, and not for the better.

They were trying to understand the world around them, they had no connection to the religious theories of their day.

Which of these Scriptures do you have in mind which take us to the period prior to Cohen's Bible?

Of which scriptures are you speaking?

Thank God, literally, for additional scripture in the modern period.

Lehi

[3DOP]

Thanks for the reply, Lehi.

Lehi

Who said it is not part of our Bible? It is. What I said, citing Cohen, is that it is not part of the scriptural text in the sense that it is an introduction to the creation account (Gen 1:2~2:3) that ties to the fourth verse of chapter two; that these two verses "bookend" the account, and, according to his hypothesis, these identify and "isolate" that section.

3DOP

My fault. Sorry.

LehiAs he does not make that claim, it shouldn't. But he, as a Jew and scholar (however he is a poor writer, yuk!!) of ancient documents, has a few insights I must respect, not because I agree (he did persuade me), but because I don't have that expertize.

3DOP

If God created ex nihilo it was prior to Gen 1:1 according to my understanding. So I don't think that Cohen's analysis applies to me or to most Catholic ex nihilists. Perhaps it does to those who insist that Genesis 1 proves creatio ex nihilo. I agree that it does not. I disagree with anyone who think Genesis 1 resolves the question.

Lehi

The Greeks are not "my philosophers" (which, please recall, were the natural scientists of their day; philosophy was not idle musings on morality or abstruse theories of any kind). Their pronouncements on the evilness of matter deeply affected early, post-apostolic Christian thought, and not for the better.

3DOP

The philosophers some LDS "bow to", to use your words, seem to be Germanic. It is an oversimplification to condemn all Greek philosophy. They were all over the board. The Catholics have never ever embraced the idea that matter is evil. St. Augustine came out of the Manichean sect which taught this. Some would condemn the Catholics for fighting a Crusade in France with the Albigensians who were a sort of Manichean.

Lehi

They were trying to understand the world around them, they had no connection to the religious theories of their day.

3DOP

Sure.

Lehi

Of which scriptures are you speaking?

3DOP

Those Scriptures, presumably from the 66 Books of Scripture we have in common, that prove that matter is eternally existent independent of God.

Lehi

Thank God, literally, for additional scripture in the modern period.

3DOP

Yup. That's what I was looking for. Only by means of Latter-day revelation do you arrive at proof that matter is eternally existent independent of God? Of course, there other means of arriving at theological certainty on these questions, but it depends on what you call, our "suppositions". The necessary function which continuing revelation has provided you is not lost on me. I appreciate anyone perceiving the need. While we disagree presuppositionally on the most persuasive way to be reasonably certain about our ever increasing and progressing religious beliefs, it seems that we agree regarding the 66 Books shared by Catholics, Protestants, and LDS, that they are not enough to resolve the question? (I intended for that to be a question)

Regards,

3DOP