The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[tagriffy]

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? 

 

Well, no. To maintain your distinction between "created" and "formed," you'd have to ignore the fact that Genesis uses the term "created" in 1:27. Thus, you wind up <ahem> creating yet another contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

 

How do we know the material is co-eternal with God? Again, that is what continuing revelation is for.

[tagriffy]

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? 

 

Because you are now asking an entirely different sort of question. First you inquired about what the text does say, and now you are asking how I fill in a blank for what the text doesn't say. Different question, different response.

[tagriffy]

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. 

 

Yes. And no. Mormonism isn't a sola scriptura tradition, so in that sense it doesn't really matter what the textual evidence has to say regarding a given doctrinal statement. So Mormons will freely recontextualize old texts in light of new revelation. "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:51, NRSV). As it so happens, in this case the newer revelation was firmly rooted in and is completely supported by the text. In this case, it is you who are holding on to a doctrine despite the textual evidence.

[danielwoods]

Well, no. To maintain your distinction between "created" and "formed," you'd have to ignore the fact that Genesis uses the term "created" in 1:27. Thus, you wind up <ahem> creating yet another contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

 

How do we know the material is co-eternal with God? Again, that is what continuing revelation is for.

 

Right. So starting with the belief (or faith or assumption) that material is co-eternal with God, one makes the conclusion that Genesis can't be talking about creation out of nothing. 

 

Since I don't make that assumption to start with, I don't actually ignore what the text states. I believe what it says, when it states very plainly that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and when It states that all things were created by him and for him. 

 

 

Because you are now asking an entirely different sort of question. First you inquired about what the text does say, and now you are asking how I fill in a blank for what the text doesn't say. Different question, different response.

 

The thread was started by an LDS believer. Hence the point is valid, why argue about the text? Why not just start with your faith?

 

When one makes arguments about the text to a person who believes in sola scriptura the implication is that the truth is found in the text, hence the arguments have weight. In the end, when it's stated that the text alone doesn't contain the whole truth, then why did you waste all that time talking about the text as if it can't be trusted? 

 

 

 

Yes. And no. Mormonism isn't a sola scriptura tradition, so in that sense it doesn't really matter what the textual evidence has to say regarding a given doctrinal statement. So Mormons will freely recontextualize old texts in light of new revelation. "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:51, NRSV). As it so happens, in this case the newer revelation was firmly rooted in and is completely supported by the text. In this case, it is you who are holding on to a doctrine despite the textual evidence.

 

Your newer "revelation" isn't supported by history or tradition. The Catholics and others (Orthodox Jews) who aren't sola scripture also disagree with the position of the LDS. So, it's not simply a case of newer revelation giving us new light. Actually, it's a completely different faith.

 

A faith that believes that God isn't sovereign and the absolute creator of all things, where many things are co-eternal with God. We are disagreeing over faith, which is why a discussion of the text is not fruitful. 

Edited July 8, 2015 by danielwoods

[tagriffy]

Right. So starting with the belief (or faith or assumption) that material is co-eternal with God, one makes the conclusion that Genesis can't be talking about creation out of nothing. 

 

Since I don't make that assumption to start with, I don't actually ignore what the text states. I believe what it says, when it states very plainly that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and when It states that all things were created by him and for him. 

 

 

Actually, you are starting out with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and are trying to make Genesis fit it. You've already decided what Genesis must be talking about, and that is causing you to ignore what the text states. So, you assert Genesis 1:1 is an absolute statement; I point out it is actually a relative one; you ignore the temporal clause. You try to bring in other biblical passages; I not only point out those passages have no implication of ex nihilo creation, I throw other passages into the mix that outright denies ex nihilo; you ignore that. You try to inject etymology into the discussion; I point out I'm talking about the word as it is used not only in Genesis, but elsewhere in the Bible; you ignore that. You try to assert there is distinction to be made between "created" and "formed"; I point out that the term "created" is used in both Genesis 1:1 and 1:27; and now you've ignored that. So between you and me, who is actually ignoring what the text states?

 

Now then, if you'll be so kind, point out exactly where I said Genesis can't be talking about creation from nothing. I'm not discussing what Genesis can or cannot do; I am discussing what Genesis does or does not do.

 

 

The thread was started by an LDS believer. Hence the point is valid, why argue about the text? Why not just start with your faith?

 

When one makes arguments about the text to a person who believes in sola scriptura the implication is that the truth is found in the text, hence the arguments have weight. In the end, when it's stated that the text alone doesn't contain the whole truth, then why did you waste all that time talking about the text as if it can't be trusted?

 

Stephen's original posts were philosophical arguments. Yes, he found support for them in the Bible, but those arguments would stand or fall on their own without the Bible. But when directly asked why you believed in creation from nothing, you said outright "Because it's taught in the Bible" (post #143 in this thread). Well, that is a testable hypothesis, but it can't be done without arguing about the text.

 

Where did I say the text can't be trusted? It does not follow from saying the text doesn't contain the whole truth that the text can't be trusted. At most it just means that the text can only take us so far.

 

In any case, even in a non-sola scriptura tradition, an argument made from Scripture carries weight. That means if you are going to support an argument with Scripture, one had better make sure the text actually does support the argument.

 

 

Your newer "revelation" isn't supported by history or tradition. The Catholics and others (Orthodox Jews) who aren't sola scripture also disagree with the position of the LDS. So, it's not simply a case of newer revelation giving us new light. Actually, it's a completely different faith.

 

A faith that believes that God isn't sovereign and the absolute creator of all things, where many things are co-eternal with God. We are disagreeing over faith, which is why a discussion of the text is not fruitful.

 

I don't give a flying you-know-what whether new revelation is supported by history or tradition. New revelation changes things--that's kind of the point. There hasn't been a prophet worthy of the title yet who hasn't had to fight history or tradition.

[danielwoods]

Actually, you are starting out with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and are trying to make Genesis fit it. You've already decided what Genesis must be talking about, and that is causing you to ignore what the text states. So, you assert Genesis 1:1 is an absolute statement; I point out it is actually a relative one; you ignore the temporal clause. You try to bring in other biblical passages; I not only point out those passages have no implication of ex nihilo creation, I throw other passages into the mix that outright denies ex nihilo; you ignore that. You try to inject etymology into the discussion; I point out I'm talking about the word as it is used not only in Genesis, but elsewhere in the Bible; you ignore that. You try to assert there is distinction to be made between "created" and "formed"; I point out that the term "created" is used in both Genesis 1:1 and 1:27; and now you've ignored that. So between you and me, who is actually ignoring what the text states?

 

Now then, if you'll be so kind, point out exactly where I said Genesis can't be talking about creation from nothing. I'm not discussing what Genesis can or cannot do; I am discussing what Genesis does or does not do.

 

 

Stephen's original posts were philosophical arguments. Yes, he found support for them in the Bible, but those arguments would stand or fall on their own without the Bible. But when directly asked why you believed in creation from nothing, you said outright "Because it's taught in the Bible" (post #143 in this thread). Well, that is a testable hypothesis, but it can't be done without arguing about the text.

 

Where did I say the text can't be trusted? It does not follow from saying the text doesn't contain the whole truth that the text can't be trusted. At most it just means that the text can only take us so far.

 

In any case, even in a non-sola scriptura tradition, an argument made from Scripture carries weight. That means if you are going to support an argument with Scripture, one had better make sure the text actually does support the argument.

 

 

I don't give a flying you-know-what whether new revelation is supported by history or tradition. New revelation changes things--that's kind of the point. There hasn't been a prophet worthy of the title yet who hasn't had to fight history or tradition.

 

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. :-)

 

I have demonstrated, linked, discussed, defended, and argued that the scripture does indeed support the traditional view of ex nihilo creation. 

 

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. 

[tagriffy]

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. :-)

 

I have demonstrated, linked, discussed, defended, and argued that the scripture does indeed support the traditional view of ex nihilo creation. 

 

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. 

 

And I've eviscerated all those arguments and I did it using the text. So you're right, discussion of the text or philosophy is not going to change anything.

[danielwoods]

And I've eviscerated all those arguments and I did it using the text. So you're right, discussion of the text or philosophy is not going to change anything.

 

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

[tagriffy]

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.

[danielwoods]

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.

And yet you trust the accuracy of "further revelation" as that was your point a while back. And that's what I'm referencing now. You beat your chest and say you've "eviscerated all those arguments" and I'm saying you only do so if your "further revelation" is true. 

 

I don't expect an answer to the question below, but it exposes just one of the assumptions that is relied on by your position. 

 

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

[tagriffy]

And yet you trust the accuracy of "further revelation" as that was your point a while back. And that's what I'm referencing now. You beat your chest and say you've "eviscerated all those arguments" and I'm saying you only do so if your "further revelation" is true. 

 

 

Where did I say I trusted the accuracy of further revelation? What I actually said is that filling in the blanks is one of things continuing revelation is for, and that in response to a specific question not directly related to the text. In dealing with the text, the question of whether further revelation is true is irrelevant. The question is whether the Bible, Genesis in particular, envisions creation from nothing. All your arguments that the text supports creatio ex nihilo have failed, and I demonstrated that from the text. The fact you never even attempted to respond to my arguments is the reason I beat my chest and say I've eviscerated all your arguments. That has nothing to do with whether my further revelation is true.

 

 

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

 

The law of conservation.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

................................. 

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

 

The law of conservation.

 

Is the Law of Conservation of Matter & Energy “conservative”?  

[Robert F. Smith]

 

 

Now let's go with a more accurate translation: "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, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:1-2, NRSV). Notice the temporal clause and the fact the earth already existed but was a formless void.

 

Not a Hebrew Scholar by any means, but judging from the english God is still the creator of the heavens and the earth, even in your "more accurate" translation. Your conclusion that the earth already existed is not supported by even this translation, because it says that God created it. 

 

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.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[stephenpurdy]

 

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? 

 

 

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

[danielwoods]

Where did I say I trusted the accuracy of further revelation? What I actually said is that filling in the blanks is one of things continuing revelation is for, and that in response to a specific question not directly related to the text. In dealing with the text, the question of whether further revelation is true is irrelevant. The question is whether the Bible, Genesis in particular, envisions creation from nothing. All your arguments that the text supports creatio ex nihilo have failed, and I demonstrated that from the text. The fact you never even attempted to respond to my arguments is the reason I beat my chest and say I've eviscerated all your arguments. That has nothing to do with whether my further revelation is true.

 

You don't trust the accuracy of further revelation, but it "fills in the blanks" for you, but don't confuse this with trusting the text. Did I get that right? 

 

Well let me compare that with myself who also doesn't trust the accuracy of further revelation. IT doesn't fill in the blanks for me, and I don't trust it, at all. See a difference? 

 

So, your evisceration of my arguments is based on your trusting the accuracy of further revelation and assumptions like below, whether you acknowledge it or not. 

 

 

The law of conservation.

You will notice that my question was how do you know and what test is performed? The law of conservation of matter and energy doesn't exactly test whether they are eternal. Rather, the honest answer is nothing can test who or what is eternal or not. It is believed on faith alone. 

 

If you honestly think that your faith and belief have nothing to do with your perception that you've eviscerated my position, then it's understandable why you don't start with explaining that your faith is the reason for your conclusions. 

[danielwoods]

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.

[stephenpurdy]

 

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. 

 

 

I knew that there was a problem with the orthodox interpretation of creation long before I knew anything about LDS doctrine or LDS revelation.

 

Common sense told me that.

 

I think that most people intuitively can understand that the world we live in cannot be explained by a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God who created everything out of His own mind.  The only way to overcome that intuitive common sense is to be indoctrinated with ex nihilo creation theology.

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

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. 

[danielwoods]

I knew that there was a problem with the orthodox interpretation of creation long before I knew anything about LDS doctrine or LDS revelation.

 

Common sense told me that.

 

I think that most people intuitively can understand that the world we live in cannot be explained by a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God who created everything out of His own mind.  The only way to overcome that intuitive common sense is to be indoctrinated with ex nihilo creation theology.

 

-Stephen

What is common sense? 

 

Common sense tells me that God can create a free willed being out of nothing. 

[tagriffy]

You don't trust the accuracy of further revelation, but it "fills in the blanks" for you, but don't confuse this with trusting the text. Did I get that right?

 

No, but please feel free to try again.

 

 

Well let me compare that with myself who also doesn't trust the accuracy of further revelation. IT doesn't fill in the blanks for me, and I don't trust it, at all. See a difference? 

 

So, your evisceration of my arguments is based on your trusting the accuracy of further revelation and assumptions like below, whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

You're perfectly free to trust the accuracy of further revelation. If it doesn't fill in the blanks for you, fine and well. What is under discussion, however, is what the text says. That's is as objective as it gets. You have the same text before you I do. What the text says and whether it lines up with other things like further revelation or the law of conservation are two entirely different questions. If the text lines up with those things, fine and well. If not, fine and well. This is a point I keep pounding not only to you, but to the LDS on the board as well. I made no direct appeal to further revelation or other matters until you specifically asked questions that go beyond what the text says. Everything I've argued about the text is directly related to the text itself. That means if you want to show that I am wrong about the text, you're going to have to do it based on the text. My assumptions, if any, may be relevant to showing how and why I went wrong, but those are issues that cannot even begin to be addressed until it has been established that I have, in fact, gone wrong. See the difference?

 

 

You will notice that my question was how do you know and what test is performed? The law of conservation of matter and energy doesn't exactly test whether they are eternal. Rather, the honest answer is nothing can test who or what is eternal or not. It is believed on faith alone. 

 

If you honestly think that your faith and belief have nothing to do with your perception that you've eviscerated my position, then it's understandable why you don't start with explaining that your faith is the reason for your conclusions.

 

mfbukowski is probably going to kill me, but how I know and the test performed is correspondence to reality. The law of conservation basically means that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, basically. It's not a big leap to go from the law of conservation to the Meanwhile, the concept of creatio ex nihilo leads to the sorts of problems that were enumerated by Stephen. Problems that are greatly eased if not entirely solved by positing matter is eternal. The fact the text says nothing about creation ex nihilo is just icing on the cake.

BTW, this block quote problem is getting ridiculous!

Edited July 12, 2015 by tagriffy

[tagriffy]

 

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.

 

 

Now you're just plain wrong. LDS have been using the text to support the doctrine since the Prophet Joseph Smith explicitly denied creation from nothing in the King Follet Discourse.

[tagriffy]

 

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. 

 

 

And yet you still haven't been able to show creation from nothing is taught in the Bible. When you can prove your assertion, then you might have something to say about where Mormonism gets its arguments.

[danielwoods]

Everything I've argued about the text is directly related to the text itself. That means if you want to show that I am wrong about the text, you're going to have to do it based on the text. My assumptions, if any, may be relevant to showing how and why I went wrong, but those are issues that cannot even begin to be addressed until it has been established that I have, in fact, gone wrong. See the difference?

Actually, this isn't correct. You've made appeals to things not in the text, and that isn't right or wrong, it's just your position. What appeals? That matter is eternal is but one example.

 

mfbukowski is probably going to kill me, but how I know and the test performed is correspondence to reality. The law of conservation basically means that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, basically. It's not a big leap to go from the law of conservation to the Meanwhile, the concept of creatio ex nihilo leads to the sorts of problems that were enumerated by Stephen. Problems that are greatly eased if not entirely solved by positing matter is eternal. The fact the text says nothing about creation ex nihilo is just icing on the cake.

So, in order for you to correspond with the reality of eternal matter, you'll have to demonstrate how you are able to directly observe it being eternal. And unless you yourself are eternal and observed it's eternal past, you have failed, and are actually referencing your faith, not reality.

[danielwoods]

 

Now you're just plain wrong. LDS have been using the text to support the doctrine since the Prophet Joseph Smith explicitly denied creation from nothing in the King Follet Discourse.

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

 

 

And yet you still haven't been able to show creation from nothing is taught in the Bible. When you can prove your assertion, then you might have something to say about where Mormonism gets its arguments.

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.

[tagriffy]

 

Actually, this isn't correct. You've made appeals to things not in the text, and that isn't right or wrong, it's just your position. What appeals? That matter is eternal is but one example.

 

So, in order for you to correspond with the reality of eternal matter, you'll have to demonstrate how you are able to directly observe it being eternal. And unless you yourself are eternal and observed it's eternal past, you have failed, and are actually referencing your faith, not reality.

 

 

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