The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[Tsuzuki]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4N7eEp7vg

[Ahab]

Bonaventure points out that it would not make sense for Christ to be a separate deity apart from God. Bonaventure points out that if that were the case, Christ's giving of himself would have and hold no meaning because only through absolute love for his own creation could god give himself for our salvation. If Jesus was separate from God then why would he (Christ) make a sacrifice for a creation for which he did not create out of love and continue to love to the point of giving that ultimate sacrifice.

Christ and God (the Father of Christ, and us) are the same deity in the sense that they are the same kind of deity. We are all the same kind of being that our Father is. The kind of being we refer to as God.

The reason Christ did what he did for us was because our Father chose him ans appointed him as the one to do that for us and because Christ loved our Father enough to do what his/our Father told him to do, and also because he loved us enough to want to help us.

Christ is our eldest brother and all of us are children of our Father, the kind of being we refer to as God.

[Ahab]

Except it directly states in Genesis that before the point of creation there was nothing (except for God who always existed and will continue to exist). So that concept contradicts itself.

No, in Genesis it is stating that the/this Earth was void, not that there was nothing but God. And the word created means God organized the heavens and the/this Earth. Look in the book of Revelation where it is stating that at some point there will be another period of creation, yet again.

[danielwoods]

But the create here is not ex nihilo. It is more like the status of a painting before it is actually done. When you start a painting, the painting is just a mess of paint and a blank canvas. The earth at the time when God created it was just a mass of material until given form by God.

 

The context describes a creation out of nothing. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." There is no mention of God creating from pre-existing "stuff" whatever that would be. 

 

Which matches up with other statements found in the Bible about creation.

"I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself" (Isa. 44:24).

 

"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (Col. 1:16)

 

Two things to think about here. One is the fact that these concepts contradict LDS teaching, because according to the LDS, not everything was created by God. Second, is the argument from entomology isn't enough to determine the meaning of a word. No where does the Biblical text imply or teach that something existed prior to or next to God eternally. 

 

William Lane Craig says it better than I:

"However, modern linguists and exegetes have shown that using etymology to establish word meaning is misguided. For example, the English word nice has apparently been derived from the Latin nescius, which means "ignorant."25 So we do not therefore imply that a "nice" person is an ignoramus! In most cases, the synchronic26 usage of a word rarely means what it originally meant (i.e., etymologically). As biblical scholar Moisés Silva emphatically states: "Modern studies compel us to reject this attitude [i.e., appealing to etymology as giving us the 'basic' or 'real' meaning of a word] and distrust a word's history."27 Again, James Barr asserts: "The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history."28

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation

 

[Stone holm]

I just stated it as a matter of doctrine.  Not that I have scientific evidence for it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - -

 

In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:

"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."

Likewise, a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances.

 

The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.

 

God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)

Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)

The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)

 

The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time.

 

Now a thought, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there is an indwelling.

 

Let's look at some scriptures:

 

Romans 8:9-11

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …

 

 

Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

 

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)

 

Bruce R McConkie also explained, “There is a spirit – the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, the light of truth, the light of Christ …. It is in us and in all things; it is around us and around all things; … It is everywhere, in all immensity, without exception; it is an indwelling, immanent, ever-present, never-absent spirit. It has neither shape nor form nor personality. It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage. It has no agency, does not act independently ...” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith p257)

 

 

The Holy Spirit makes use of the Light of Christ to perform his work. McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”

 

So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us? Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:

 

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”

 

Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple? Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way you imply should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.

 

Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit can access this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us. It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us.

 

There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22; Acts 7:55-56; Acts 8:14-19 ; Acts 10:44-48 ; Acts 19: 1-6 (See McConkie Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:78)

 

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

 

In the scriptures, a personage who has a true local presence, like Jesus (and for the LDS, God the Father and the Holy Spirit), can still be considered to be able to dwell “with” you and “in” you.

 

-Stephen

Actually used some of this when I taught Gospel Principles today.

[mfbukowski]

I just stated it as a matter of doctrine.  Not that I have scientific evidence for it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - -

 

In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:

"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."

Likewise, a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances.

 

The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.

 

God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)

Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)

The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)

 

The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time.

 

Now a thought, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there is an indwelling.

 

Let's look at some scriptures:

 

Romans 8:9-11

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …

 

 

Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

 

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)

 

Bruce R McConkie also explained, “There is a spirit – the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, the light of truth, the light of Christ …. It is in us and in all things; it is around us and around all things; … It is everywhere, in all immensity, without exception; it is an indwelling, immanent, ever-present, never-absent spirit. It has neither shape nor form nor personality. It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage. It has no agency, does not act independently ...” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith p257)

 

 

The Holy Spirit makes use of the Light of Christ to perform his work. McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”

 

So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us? Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:

 

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”

 

Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple? Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way you imply should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.

 

Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit can access this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us. It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us.

 

There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22; Acts 7:55-56; Acts 8:14-19 ; Acts 10:44-48 ; Acts 19: 1-6 (See McConkie Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:78)

 

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

 

In the scriptures, a personage who has a true local presence, like Jesus (and for the LDS, God the Father and the Holy Spirit), can still be considered to be able to dwell “with” you and “in” you.

 

-Stephen

The statement was about physics, not "doctrine".  Doctrine is not subject to scientific verification.  We do not believe in God because we have his fingerprints and height and weight, and a few photgraphs to prove he "exists"

 

Doctrine is accepted on faith, physics is not. Big difference.

[mfbukowski]

Actually used some of this when I taught Gospel Principles today.

Good thing it wasn't a physics class.

[Nofear]

Good thing it wasn't a physics class.

Indeed. The physics of spirit matter is one that is perplexing. I do enjoy thinking about the physics of it and I while I could talk about models that we sometimes adopt that don't work... I find little to negative value in doing so with most people on this board (you'd be an exception to the rule). I'll just leave a thought to be ornery:

 

We typically place our spirit body inside of our physical body (I still do). Do the limbs of our spirit body then mimic the action of our physical body? Seems reasonable. But, our spirit body is a full grown adult by the time we come to earth. How does it correlate with the infant body? And if you answered yes to the limb-mimic-action question, do you see the adult spirit body flailing around like infants sometimes do?

[Stone holm]

Good thing it wasn't a physics class.

 

If it was a physics class, I definitely would not be teaching it -- the class I mean, not the quotes.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed. The physics of spirit matter is one that is perplexing. I do enjoy thinking about the physics of it and I while I could talk about models that we sometimes adopt that don't work... I find little to negative value in doing so with most people on this board (you'd be an exception to the rule). I'll just leave a thought to be ornery:

 

We typically place our spirit body inside of our physical body (I still do). Do the limbs of our spirit body then mimic the action of our physical body? Seems reasonable. But, our spirit body is a full grown adult by the time we come to earth. How does it correlate with the infant body? And if you answered yes to the limb-mimic-action question, do you see the adult spirit body flailing around like infants sometimes do?

I always love to watch babies learning how to operate their hands, feet, and all their body parts!

 

It's fun to speculate about what scientific descriptions we might come up with for "spirit matter"- a kind of plasma or force yet undefined?   I have no clue!

 

But we ARE materialists.  We do not believe in an immaterial soul.

 

Materialism should fully permeate our ways of seeing the world.  I think that Marxism in politics was one of the worst things that every happened to the world, but the phrase "dialectical materialism" is really exactly what we believe.   In fact a class I took from a Marxist in dialectical materialism (Angela Davis) later became influential in my search for a materialistic religious view.

 

Guess where I found it?  

 

Go figure.   A class in Marxism helped make me a Mormon!

[tagriffy]

Materialism should fully permeate our ways of seeing the world.  I think that Marxism in politics was one of the worst things that every happened to the world, but the phrase "dialectical materialism" is really exactly what we believe.   In fact a class I took from a Marxist in dialectical materialism (Angela Davis) later became influential in my search for a materialistic religious view.

 

Guess where I found it?  

 

Go figure.   A class in Marxism helped make me a Mormon!

 

An irony that can only be appreciated from the standpoint of the modern LDS Church.

[tagriffy]

 

The context describes a creation out of nothing. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." There is no mention of God creating from pre-existing "stuff" whatever that would be. 

 

 

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep.... Then God said..." (NRSV). The context seems reasonably straightforward to me. When God created the heavens and the earth, he was using existing material to do it. Whether rendered as a temporal clause or as a title, there is no implication that creation is done ex nihilo here.

 

 

Which matches up with other statements found in the Bible about creation.

"I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself" (Isa. 44:24).

 

 

You're right, this matches up with other statements found in the Bible about creation. For example, let's look at the whole verse of Isaiah 44:24

 

 

"Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth" (NRSV)

 

Again, no implication of ex nihilo creation here. Deutero-Isaiah really isn't interested in asserting a doctrine of creation, but rather asserting God's power and authority in redeeming Israel from the Babylonian captivity. He uses imagery (as does Genesis) drawn from the Canaanite and Mesopotamian milieu he lived in. So:

 

"Who has measure the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure, and weight the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? ... It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:12, 22, NRSV)

 

"My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they stand at attention" (Isaiah 48:13, NRSV)

 

"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord! Awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago! Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon?" (Isaiah 51:10, NRSV)

 

 

"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (Col. 1:16)

 

 

Which says absolutely nothing about whether or what material was used in creating heaven and earth. As I said back in post 147, Greek has a perfectly serviceable vocabulary that if the writer of Colossians wanted to express the concept of creatio ex nihilo, he was quite capable of doing so. Indeed, the author of Hebrews tells us "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible (11:2, NRSV, emphasis added). I'll leave it to reconcile that flat biblical statement with your doctrine for yourself.

 

 

Two things to think about here. One is the fact that these concepts contradict LDS teaching, because according to the LDS, not everything was created by God. Second, is the argument from entomology isn't enough to determine the meaning of a word. No where does the Biblical text imply or teach that something existed prior to or next to God eternally. 

 

William Lane Craig says it better than I:

"However, modern linguists and exegetes have shown that using etymology to establish word meaning is misguided. For example, the English word nice has apparently been derived from the Latin nescius, which means "ignorant."25 So we do not therefore imply that a "nice" person is an ignoramus! In most cases, the synchronic26 usage of a word rarely means what it originally meant (i.e., etymologically). As biblical scholar Moisés Silva emphatically states: "Modern studies compel us to reject this attitude [i.e., appealing to etymology as giving us the 'basic' or 'real' meaning of a word] and distrust a word's history."27 Again, James Barr asserts: "The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history."28

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation

 

It's a good thing I don't rely on an argument from etymology isn't it? I don't give a fig about the etymology of the word bara'. Instead, I will talk about how the term is used. In reference to God's creative activity, certainly. But also in reference to things that have no implication the creation was ex nihilo (e.g., Numbers 16:30; Psalms 51:10, 102:18; Isaiah 4:5, 43:1[!], 54:16; Jeremiah 31:22; Ezekiel 21:30). I will talk about how the account in Genesis draws upon Canaanite/Mesopotamian mythology--which wasn't ex nihilo. And I will talk about what Stephen pointed out all the way back in post #10, that the concept of creatio ex nihilo doesn't get started until after most, if not all, the Biblical books had been written and especially after Genesis. Most of all, I will talk about how all these facts add together and point to the conclusion that ex nihilo is not pictured in Genesis. And then start counting the number of times you assert I am saying something I explicitly denied saying.

[danielwoods]

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep.... Then God said..." (NRSV). The context seems reasonably straightforward to me. When God created the heavens and the earth, he was using existing material to do it. Whether rendered as a temporal clause or as a title, there is no implication that creation is done ex nihilo here.

 

 

You're right, this matches up with other statements found in the Bible about creation. For example, let's look at the whole verse of Isaiah 44:24

 

 

Again, no implication of ex nihilo creation here. Deutero-Isaiah really isn't interested in asserting a doctrine of creation, but rather asserting God's power and authority in redeeming Israel from the Babylonian captivity. He uses imagery (as does Genesis) drawn from the Canaanite and Mesopotamian milieu he lived in. So:

 

"Who has measure the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure, and weight the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? ... It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:12, 22, NRSV)

 

"My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they stand at attention" (Isaiah 48:13, NRSV)

 

"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord! Awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago! Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon?" (Isaiah 51:10, NRSV)

 

 

Which says absolutely nothing about whether or what material was used in creating heaven and earth. As I said back in post 147, Greek has a perfectly serviceable vocabulary that if the writer of Colossians wanted to express the concept of creatio ex nihilo, he was quite capable of doing so. Indeed, the author of Hebrews tells us "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible (11:2, NRSV, emphasis added). I'll leave it to reconcile that flat biblical statement with your doctrine for yourself.

 

 

It's a good thing I don't rely on an argument from etymology isn't it? I don't give a fig about the etymology of the word bara'. Instead, I will talk about how the term is used. In reference to God's creative activity, certainly. But also in reference to things that have no implication the creation was ex nihilo (e.g., Numbers 16:30; Psalms 51:10, 102:18; Isaiah 4:5, 43:1[!], 54:16; Jeremiah 31:22; Ezekiel 21:30). I will talk about how the account in Genesis draws upon Canaanite/Mesopotamian mythology--which wasn't ex nihilo. And I will talk about what Stephen pointed out all the way back in post #10, that the concept of creatio ex nihilo doesn't get started until after most, if not all, the Biblical books had been written and especially after Genesis. Most of all, I will talk about how all these facts add together and point to the conclusion that ex nihilo is not pictured in Genesis. And then start counting the number of times you assert I am saying something I explicitly denied saying.

 

 

If God used pre-existing material to create, and the LDS are correct that material (of some sort) and "intelligences" (of some sort) are co-eternal with God, then God didn't create all things, because according to the LDS somethings were already created and already existing and co-eternal with God. 

 

One of the things I do when searching for the truth, is I ask how did the original hearers understand what was written? And it's clear that they understood that creation was out of nothing, in that nothing pre-existed God. 

 

I could ask it another way. Where in the text is anything ever described as pre-existing God? 

[tagriffy]

If God used pre-existing material to create, and the LDS are correct that material (of some sort) and "intelligences" (of some sort) are co-eternal with God, then God didn't create all things, because according to the LDS somethings were already created and already existing and co-eternal with God. 

 

One of the things I do when searching for the truth, is I ask how did the original hearers understand what was written? And it's clear that they understood that creation was out of nothing, in that nothing pre-existed God. 

 

I could ask it another way. Where in the text is anything ever described as pre-existing God? 

 

How could they understand a concept that didn't even exist yet? You're on the right track by asking how the original hearers understand what was written. What you're forgetting is that they would have understood the text in terms of their own cultural setting. And that cultural setting simply did not include the concept of creation from nothing.

[danielwoods]

How could they understand a concept that didn't even exist yet? You're on the right track by asking how the original hearers understand what was written. What you're forgetting is that they would have understood the text in terms of their own cultural setting. And that cultural setting simply did not include the concept of creation from nothing.

 

And yet that is the view of the majority of traditional and orthodox Jews and Christians. 

 

As I asked, "I could ask it another way. Where in the text is anything ever described as pre-existing God?"

[tagriffy]

And yet that is the view of the majority of traditional and orthodox Jews and Christians. 

 

As I asked, "I could ask it another way. Where in the text is anything ever described as pre-existing God?"

 

The text doesn't go back that far.

[danielwoods]

The text doesn't go back that far.

 

So in your opinion, your argument is based on silence. As in where the text is silent (i.e. "It doesn't go back that far.") you have filled in the blanks? 

[stephenpurdy]

So in your opinion, your argument is based on silence. As in where the text is silent (i.e. "It doesn't go back that far.") you have filled in the blanks? 

 

We can fill in the blanks like this:

 

1) Every single time that details are given about God creating something, it is always creation from something that already exists.

2) Just because Genesis discusses the beginning of Heaven and Earth, does not mean that other things (not the Heaven and Earth) existed prior to that

 

So, the text of the Bible starts at "the Beginning" of the Heavens and the Earth. If you look up at the sky and you see Heavens and you look here and you see the Earth.  But it does not say that the Heaven and the Earth is all that exists.  Yes, God created all that we see ... Except there are clearly things that existed BEFORE that, especially persons who existed.  When Adam and Eve fell, God placed an angel there, where did God find that angel? Was it created from nothing at that moment? What an assumption!  We know from elsewhere in the text that the "sons of god" were already there when God created the foundations of the Earth. 

 

As was already pointed out to you, in Hebrews we read that it was all created from that which is "unseen".  This is not the same thing as creation from "nothing". 

 

And your claim that God creating "all things" must imply ex nihilo is unBiblical, and would lead to contradictions elsewhere in the text.  I make all of that very clear here:

 

 

I even specifically demonstrate how ex nihilo theologians simply don't pay attention to how the Greek term translated to "all things" is used in the text.

 

I specifically discuss how the writers and audience would use these terms and understand them, and I give examples.

 

In the previous video ("origins" which are labeled 2a and 2b), I explained exactly how and when (and some of the main people involved) the ex nihilo concept developed in the mid to end of second century A.D.

 

You claim that you have understood and addressed my arguments, but you clearly have not.  Not even close.

 

-Stephen

Edited July 8, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Stargazer]

Christ and God (the Father of Christ, and us) are the same deity in the sense that they are the same kind of deity. We are all the same kind of being that our Father is. The kind of being we refer to as God.

The reason Christ did what he did for us was because our Father chose him ans appointed him as the one to do that for us and because Christ loved our Father enough to do what his/our Father told him to do, and also because he loved us enough to want to help us.

Christ is our eldest brother and all of us are children of our Father, the kind of being we refer to as God.

 

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

[tagriffy]

So in your opinion, your argument is based on silence. As in where the text is silent (i.e. "It doesn't go back that far.") you have filled in the blanks? 

 

That is one of the continuing revelation is for.

[danielwoods]

We can fill in the blanks like this:

 

1) Every single time that details are given about God creating something, it is always creation from something that already exists.

2) Just because Genesis discusses the beginning of Heaven and Earth, does not mean that other things (not the Heaven and Earth) existed prior to that

 

 

 

You fill in the blanks with your faith, which is based on the assumption that material and intelligences exist co-eternally with God. 

 

How do you know that these things are co-eternal with God? 

 

The text of Genesis states that God created the heavens and the earth. And then from those things he created, he "formed" everything else. Pointing out that the words used to create everything else is not "out of nothing" doesn't demonstrate that in the beginning God also "formed" the heavens and earth. We agree that Adam and everything else was "formed" out of the dust of the ground. Where we disagree is where all the material stuff came from in the beginning. 

 

How do you know this material stuff is eternal? What test do you base your conclusion on? 

[danielwoods]

That is one of the continuing revelation is for.

 

Then why not start with this argument? Why go through all the arguments of what the text says, and the definition of Bara?

 

I mean if the text doesn't go back far enough, in your opinion, why go through all the other arguments first, why not start with this one? 

[Ahab]

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.

[Ahab]

Then why not start with this argument? Why go through all the arguments of what the text says, and the definition of Bara?

I mean if the text doesn't go back far enough, in your opinion, why go through all the other arguments first, why not start with this one?

It looks to me like he was starting with what you were talking about from Genesis, first trying to clarify what that text actually says in contrast with what you were misrepresenting, and which was all that was needed to refute your argument, and then as a bonus he was adding some extra information which he/we have received from additional revelation from God.

[danielwoods]

It looks to me like he was starting with what you were talking about from Genesis, first trying to clarify what that text actually says in contrast with what you were misrepresenting, and which was all that was needed to refute your argument, and then as a bonus he was adding some extra information which he/we have received from additional revelation from God.

 

The problem is twofold. One "my argument" hasn't been refuted nor is it misrepresenting the text. Second, the arguments that say I'm misrepresenting the text and that the historical and traditional view is in error is not based on a textual study, but from a faith in LDS revelation.

So, what ends up happening is all this discussion and debate occurs that is largely a waste of everyones time, because in the end the LDS aren't being up front with their audience about where their true trust and faith is placed. In other words, no amount of textual evidence will persuade a committed LDS believer that creation was out of nothing, because their faith isn't derived from what's written in the text.