The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[Robert F. Smith]

 ...........................................................

Which states: "1 When God began to create[a] the heavens and the earth— 2 the earth was without shape or form..." (the text note says, "Or In the beginning, God created.")

And you use the Young's Literal Translation (YLT) which states: "1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2 the earth hath existed waste and void..."

...........................................................................

Notice that nothing came into being without the Word. Who of course is Jesus. This agrees with the other passages I've quoted previously. All things came into being through him. It doesn't say in the beginning was material stuff, and God, but it states that only God alone existed in the beginning.

Once again, you are playing semantic games with the English language, instead of basing your reasoning on the Hebrew text of Gen 1.  Hebrew scholarship simply doesn't accept your equivocations.  You are defending a dogma adopted after the great Apostasy, and it leads nowhere except to death of god theologies -- due the requisite creatio ex nihilo by a sole Uncaused Cause.

[Robert F. Smith]

Your claim isn't supported by the facts. No where is "chaos" indicated as being the state of matter, ever. Not prior to creation, not during creation, and not after creation.

Even your quote above uses the same terminology as the Bible, which instead of chaos it was empty and formless.

And if we are to believe Joesph Smith, then why argue about syntax and words, if it's not really reliable?

The Hebrew words are reliable.  Your apparent problem is that you don't understand "chaos," or its synonyms, such as "formless waste" (tohu wabohu).  God is about to begin organizing the heaven & earth, and the already existing conditions are set out for you to consider, in what is a poetic, ritual text (not a science text, or history text).  You are deliberately ignoring the grammar and syntax, daniel.

[stephenpurdy]

You don't understand the videos because you haven't sat through any of them.

 

Skipping around doesn't count.  You haven't even bothered to try to understand them, as they are very, very simple and straightforward.

 

The fact that you can type a coherent sentence tells me that you could understand the video, if you put forth any effort at all.

 

It is very clear that you haven't even tried to understand.

 

 

 
The point is, if we rely on Joseph Smith what's the point of discussing context, words, tenses, etc.? 
 
I know I rely on the text. Which is why I defend my position using the text, and it's context, and tenses, etc., but it's also not persuasive to those who rely on Joseph Smith, because they don't rely on the text. At the end of many of these discussions I have seen LDS say, "oh well, we have a prophet and modern revelation and you don't, so we know the truth..." or something to that effect. 

So at the very least, my goal is to point out that the doctrines taught by the LDS are not the same as those taught in the Bible.
 

 

My videos and the non-LDS scholars that I am quoting do not rely on Joseph Smith.  It is looking at the Biblical text itself.

 

 

 

 

Re: your video arguments. As near as I can decipher (because your videos are difficult to follow and you don't post a transcript) your argument appears to be that when God began to create, the Earth already existed. You appear to base this off of the Common English Bible (CEB) translation.

Which states: "1 When God began to create[a] the heavens and the earth— 2 the earth was without shape or form..." (the text note says, "Or In the beginning, God created.")

And you use the Young's Literal Translation (YLT) which states: "1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2 the earth hath existed waste and void..."
 

 

 

The video arguments point out that the very same grammatical construction that we see in Gen 1:1 is found elsewhere in the Bible (see the video for the chapters and verses).

 

If you try to apply your interpretation to the other verses ... you see that you are in serious error in your interpretation. 

 

 

 

 



So, this is the claim. That the Earth already existed. What about the Heavens? Remember, the Heavens and the Earth are said to be created at the same time. Further, it should be noted that to an ancient mind, all that existed (besides God), was "the heavens and the Earth". So, to say this phrase "the heavens and the Earth", is to say, "all that exists..." was created by God.

 

Yes, the Heaven and Earth were created by God , but not "out of nothing". 

 

The concept of "out of nothing" was nonexistent to the ancient mind.  The concept of creation "out of nothing" emerged in the second century A.D.

 

 

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

Once again, you are playing semantic games with the English language, instead of basing your reasoning on the Hebrew text of Gen 1.  Hebrew scholarship simply doesn't accept your equivocations.  You are defending a dogma adopted after the great Apostasy, and it leads nowhere except to death of god theologies -- due the requisite creatio ex nihilo by a sole Uncaused Cause.

 

What I am doing is using the whole bible to form my opinion about Gen. 1, it is semantics, but hardly a game. It's semantics because it has to do with language, and the use of language. The whole bible points to a trancendent creator that is responsible for the existence of everything "in Heaven and Earth" a phrase used to indicate everything. Nothing is left out. 

 

Your reference to Hebrew scholarship is simply fallacious. There is no one opinion among all Hebrew scholars. Nor is one person the representative of all Hebrew scholars. You have some that agree with you view, and some (I'd say most) that agree with mine. Either way the reference to "Hebrew scholarship" is irrelevant and pointless, because we could both list all the scholars in each of our camps, and then what? What really does that prove? 

 

Your acceptance of something called the "great Apostasy" is really the key to your holding the position you do. And really, that's the best I can do is point out that your position isn't derived from the Bible, but disagrees with it. 

 

 

The Hebrew words are reliable.  Your apparent problem is that you don't understand "chaos," or its synonyms, such as "formless waste" (tohu wabohu).  God is about to begin organizing the heaven & earth, and the already existing conditions are set out for you to consider, in what is a poetic, ritual text (not a science text, or history text).  You are deliberately ignoring the grammar and syntax, daniel.

 

Actually I haven't ignored the grammar or syntax, rather I have disagreed with your interpretation of it. I have also pointed out that other passages in the bible agree that there is nothing that is co-eternal with God. Here is another:

Acts 17:24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else."

 

In essence, your interpretation forces one to imagine that there are things co-eternal with God, that aren't talked about anywhere in the Bible. Instead what the Bible states numerous times, is that God alone is eternal, and he alone is responsible for everything. All things, even matter. 

[PeterPear]

Water in zero gravity forms into spheres. This is why the planets are spherical.

See Gen 1:2

See this video of an astronaut experimenting with water on the Space Station:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bgC-ocnTTto

Thus the Creation was formed out of water and the elements added to it to created earth (land, mountains, rivers, etc)

Thus a good example of how the Lord could have organized the Earth out of pre-existing matter.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................................ The whole bible points to a trancendent creator that is responsible for the existence of everything "in Heaven and Earth" a phrase used to indicate everything. Nothing is left out.

The Bible time and again indicates an anthropomorphic, imminent Creator, who uses coeternal matter to make every thing.

 

Your reference to Hebrew scholarship is simply fallacious. There is no one opinion among all Hebrew scholars. Nor is one person the representative of all Hebrew scholars. You have some that agree with you view, and some (I'd say most) that agree with mine. Either way the reference to "Hebrew scholarship" is irrelevant and pointless, because we could both list all the scholars in each of our camps, and then what? What really does that prove? 

..................................................................................... 

....................................................................In essence, your interpretation forces one to imagine that there are things co-eternal with God, that aren't talked about anywhere in the Bible. Instead what the Bible states numerous times, is that God alone is eternal, and he alone is responsible for everything. All things, even matter.

I am a Hebrew scholar, and am very much aware of what goes on in that field.  There is no support whatsoever for your claims.

[danielwoods]

The video arguments point out that the very same grammatical construction that we see in Gen 1:1 is found elsewhere in the Bible (see the video for the chapters and verses).

 

If you try to apply your interpretation to the other verses ... you see that you are in serious error in your interpretation.

I understood that, and it only applies if one ignores the context of Gen. 1. Why would one do that though, I ask? No answer... Well, then what did God create out of since no raw material is mentioned?  

 

 

Yes, the Heaven and Earth were created by God , but not "out of nothing". 

 

The concept of "out of nothing" was nonexistent to the ancient mind.  The concept of creation "out of nothing" emerged in the second century A.D.

 

-Stephen

Indeed that is your opinion that they were not created out of nothing. The Bible tells us something different. 

 

[danielwoods]

The Bible time and again indicates an anthropomorphic, imminent Creator, who uses coeternal matter to make every thing.

 

I am a Hebrew scholar, and am very much aware of what goes on in that field.  There is no support whatsoever for your claims.

 

I'd love to read about this co-eternal matter, where is it mentioned in the bible?

 

When people say that "there is no support whatsoever for your claims" even though I've read the opinions of these supposed no-existent scholars on line, I know something else is going on.  

Edited October 4, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Water in zero gravity forms into spheres. This is why the planets are spherical.

See Gen 1:2

See this video of an astronaut experimenting with water on the Space Station:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bgC-ocnTTto

Thus the Creation was formed out of water and the elements added to it to created earth (land, mountains, rivers, etc)

Thus a good example of how the Lord could have organized the Earth out of pre-existing matter.

 

Where did the water come from, and these elements that were added to it? 

[Vance]

Water in zero gravity forms into spheres. This is why the planets are spherical.

 

Not exactly.  Water forms into spheres due to surface tension forces.  Planets form into spheres due to gravitational forces.

 

But that doesn't negate your point.

[Vance]

Where did the water come from, and these elements that were added to it? 

You are not listening.  The "water" was already there, it didn't come from anywhere or anything.

[Vance]

I'd love to read about this co-eternal matter, where is it mentioned in the bible?

 

Right next to the element chart and the laws of astrophysics.

 

 

When people say that "there is no support whatsoever for your claims" even though I've read the opinions of these supposed no-existent scholars on line, I know something else is going on.

 

Well, if YOU have read their opinions, then obviously your case is unassailable.  

 

Could you lower yourself to provide references those opinions to which your refer? 

 

If they are on the internet, then they must be true, right?

Edited October 4, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

I understood that, and it only applies if one ignores the context of Gen. 1.

LOL!!!!

 

So by pointing out the context and how it defeats your argument is ignoring the context?

 

Why would one do that though, I ask?

 

Yea, why would one ignore the grammar of the Hebrew?

 

Well, then what did God create out of since no raw material is mentioned?

 

Why must we assume that it was "nothing" that he started with, when no "nothing" is mentioned?

 

Indeed that is your opinion that they were not created out of nothing. The Bible tells us something different.

Indeed that is your opinion that they were created out of nothing.  The Hebrew Bible tells us something different.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Vance

[stephenpurdy]

 

What I am doing is using the whole bible to form my opinion about Gen. 1, it is semantics, but hardly a game. It's semantics because it has to do with language, and the use of language. The whole bible points to a trancendent creator that is responsible for the existence of everything "in Heaven and Earth" a phrase used to indicate everything. Nothing is left out. 

 

 

 

 

Everything that was created (I.E. Heaven and Earth), was created by God.  However, it is an extrabiblical assumption to claim that it was created "out of nothing".  The apostle Paul indicates that it was created "out of things which are unseen." 

 

That is not the same as saying created out of "nothing".  There is no verse in the Biblical text which says "created out of nothing".

 

 

-Stephen

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd love to read about this co-eternal matter, where is it mentioned in the bible?

 

When people say that "there is no support whatsoever for your claims" even though I've read the opinions of these supposed no-existent scholars on line, I know something else is going on.  

You have already been given the answers to these questions in this thread.  Let me review some items you have ignored:

 

Anakin post 562

Some observations on creation ex nihilo from non LDS  -  

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/05/21/creation-out-of-nothing-is-overrated-for-tony-jones/ 

 

Vance post 585

The Hebrew word that is translated to "created" in English is found here,

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV 

 

Notice that it doesn't express or imply that action is done from nothing.

 

The meaning and usage goes along with this word in the creation story.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H914&t=KJV 

 

my post 592

The grammar of Genesis 1:1-3 establishes the absence of creation from nothing, as is also the case in the Babylonian Creation Story in Enuma elish.  In both cases, the grammar requires creation from preexisting material in a state of chaos.

 

People sometimes find it hard to wrench themselves from the established Jewish- Christian- Muslim dogma of creatio ex nihilo, but the biblical text requires preexisting, coeternal matter.  See the discussion of Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964), 5 (note 2),9-13.

 

my post 597

Since you didn't bother to read the citation to Ephraim Speiser I provided for you, and because you didn't read the King Follett Funeral Sermon of Joseph Smith, you have no idea what you are talking about.  The KJV translation is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew of Gen 1:1-3, thus making your conclusions meaningless.  When you understand the grammar, you can see the stasis which precedes any act of creation.  Virtually all Hebrew scholars today agree on that grammatical sequence of circumstantial clauses, ending in a creative act:

 

When the Gods set about to create heaven and earth -- the world then being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas, and only the Spirit of the Gods sweeping over the water -- the Gods said, "Let there be light."

 

The Babylonian Creation account, Enuma elish, follows the very same grammatical syntax, and even the same order of creative acts which follow.

 

my post 602

The Hebrew words are reliable.  Your apparent problem is that you don't understand "chaos," or its synonyms, such as "formless waste" (tohu wabohu).  God is about to begin organizing the heaven & earth, and the already existing conditions are set out for you to consider, in what is a poetic, ritual text (not a science text, or history text).  You are deliberately ignoring the grammar and syntax, daniel.

[danielwoods]

Everything that was created (I.E. Heaven and Earth), was created by God. However, it is an extrabiblical assumption to claim that it was created "out of nothing". The apostle Paul indicates that it was created "out of things which are unseen."

That is not the same as saying created out of "nothing". There is no verse in the Biblical text which says "created out of nothing".

-Stephen

So which is more probable? Your position, that some sort of undefined co-eternal substance (matter) and intelligences are and have existed co-eternally with God OR God is responsible for the very existence of everything?

You quote a verse above and say that it doesn't say "created out of nothing." This is true. However, it also doesn't say "created out of something." So your position isn't supported by this verse, unless you are claiming that co-eternal matter is invisible. The question then is what does all of the revelation of the Bible teach when taken together? Creation out of something or nothing? I have quoted many verses in this thread which demonstrate that God alone is responsible for all existence. Which would lend support to the created out of nothing camp. Because why would God say something like this, "Everything came into being through the Word, and without the Word nothing came into being." (John 1:3) if he didn't actually bring everything that does exist, "into being"?

Note, I've yet to see anyone quote anything from the Bible that contradicts creation out of nothing. For example, something that says, "God created all things out of co-eternal matter...." or "in the beginning there were co-eternal things, like matter, intelligence's and God."

Edited October 5, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

You have already been given the answers to these questions in this thread. Let me review some items you have ignored:

Anakin post 562

Some observations on creation ex nihilo from non LDS -

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/05/21/creation-out-of-nothing-is-overrated-for-tony-jones/

Vance post 585

The Hebrew word that is translated to "created" in English is found here,

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV

Notice that it doesn't express or imply that action is done from nothing.

The meaning and usage goes along with this word in the creation story.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H914&t=KJV

my post 592

The grammar of Genesis 1:1-3 establishes the absence of creation from nothing, as is also the case in the Babylonian Creation Story in Enuma elish. In both cases, the grammar requires creation from preexisting material in a state of chaos.

People sometimes find it hard to wrench themselves from the established Jewish- Christian- Muslim dogma of creatio ex nihilo, but the biblical text requires preexisting, coeternal matter. See the discussion of Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964), 5 (note 2),9-13.

my post 597

Since you didn't bother to read the citation to Ephraim Speiser I provided for you, and because you didn't read the King Follett Funeral Sermon of Joseph Smith, you have no idea what you are talking about. The KJV translation is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew of Gen 1:1-3, thus making your conclusions meaningless. When you understand the grammar, you can see the stasis which precedes any act of creation. Virtually all Hebrew scholars today agree on that grammatical sequence of circumstantial clauses, ending in a creative act:

When the Gods set about to create heaven and earth -- the world then being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas, and only the Spirit of the Gods sweeping over the water -- the Gods said, "Let there be light."

The Babylonian Creation account, Enuma elish, follows the very same grammatical syntax, and even the same order of creative acts which follow.

my post 602

The Hebrew words are reliable. Your apparent problem is that you don't understand "chaos," or its synonyms, such as "formless waste" (tohu wabohu). God is about to begin organizing the heaven & earth, and the already existing conditions are set out for you to consider, in what is a poetic, ritual text (not a science text, or history text). You are deliberately ignoring the grammar and syntax, daniel.

My question was where is this co-eternal matter mentioned in the Bible. Your repeating of things I've already responded to is one way of saying it's not there. Edited October 5, 2015 by danielwoods

[Robert F. Smith]

My question was where is this co-eternal matter mentioned in the Bible. Your repeating of things I've already responded to is one way of saying it's not there.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."  It is there for you to read.  You are clearly in denial for reasons of dogmatic adherence to your preconceptions.

[danielwoods]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."  It is there for you to read.  You are clearly in denial for reasons of dogmatic adherence to your preconceptions.

 

Actually if it was there you would have quoted it. 

[pogi]

Actually if it was there you would have quoted it. 

 

I'm still waiting for a quote from you which debunks co-eternal matter.  I am waiting for a quote which proves that the earth was not created the same way Adam was - from pre-existing matter.  You simply cannot explain why God would change the method of creation half-way through?  That is not like God to change.   

 

Your argument depends entirely on erroneious inferences from about 3 passages.  We have thoroughly debunked your interpretation.

 

If creation ex-nihlo is so clearly stated in the Bible, why did it take until the second century for the idea to be advanced - by a heretical Gnostic theologian (Basilides) no less?

Edited October 6, 2015 by pogi

[danielwoods]

I'm still waiting for a quote from you which debunks co-eternal matter.  I am waiting for a quote which proves that the earth was not created the same way Adam was - from pre-existing matter.  You simply cannot explain why God would change the method of creation half-way through?  That is not like God to change.   

 

Your argument depends entirely on erroneious inferences from about 3 passages.  We have thoroughly debunked your interpretation.

 

If creation ex-nihlo is so clearly stated in the Bible, why did it take until the second century for the idea to be advanced - by a heretical Gnostic theologian (Basilides) no less?

 

Your question is non-sensical. It's similar to asking where does it say that the moon wasn't made out of swiss cheese? 

 

The question is what does the passage state? God created the Heavens and the Earth. It doesn't say out of dust. It doesn't say out of eternal matter, it doesn't say out of anything. It simply states that God created it. Now, the idea that since the same word is used, as when Adam was created out of dust, therefore God must have created it out of something is presumptuous especially in light of the other passages I have quoted. 

 

Which is more probable? God used an undefined, unmentioned eternal matter (which conflicts with the idea that God alone is eternal and in need of nothing to create) or God didn't use anything but his own power. 

[pogi]

Your question is non-sensical. It's similar to asking where does it say that the moon wasn't made out of swiss cheese? 

 

I think you kind of missed the point.  I was pointing out your hypocrisy.  You demand references that explicitly state that the earth was created out of something, when you yourself cannot provide references that explicitly state that it was created ex-nihlo style. 

 

...therefore God must have created it out of something is presumptuous...

 

What you can't seem to understand is that you are being equally presumptuous with no explicit references to creation ex-nihlo, hence your argument lies on, "which is more probable?"  That's a rather presumptuous question if you ask me!

 

While we are discussing probabilities - is it probable that the revealed word of God (ex-nihlo) was derived from post-biblical theologies proposed by heretical gnostics, a view not held by the apostolic authority in the bible?  I don't mean to be presumptuous, but...

Edited October 6, 2015 by pogi

[danielwoods]

I think you kind of missed the point.  I was pointing out your hypocrisy.  You demand references that explicitly state that the earth was created out of something, when you yourself cannot provide references that explicitly state that it was created ex-nihlo style.

Indeed the lack of any mention of some substance to create out of, in context, implies exactly that.

 

 

What you can't seem to understand is that you are being equally presumptuous with no explicit references to creation ex-nihlo, hence your argument lies on, "which is more probable?"  That's a rather presumptuous question if you ask me!

Hardly presumptuous, rather a humble question. One which you are avoiding.

 

While we are discussing probabilities - is it probable that the revealed word of God (ex-nihlo) was derived from post-biblical theologies proposed by heretical gnostics, a view not held by the apostolic authority in the bible?  I don't mean to be presumptuous, but...

Even B.H. Roberts admits - "what The Jewish Encyclopedia indicates - namely, that "most of the Jewish philosophers find in Gen. 1:1 that 'creation' meant 'creation out of nothing.'"

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

 

Realizing a doctrine is true isn't the same as presumptuously making things up. In the face of heretical philosophies, the early church was forced to define what they believed and understood to be true. Thus it's not surprising that many things were ironed out to a finer detail than when the Apostles were alive. It is Christ who is at the head of his church after all, he has never abandoned his church. 

 

[pogi]

Indeed the lack of any mention of some substance to create out of, in context, implies exactly that.

 

On the contrary, the lack of any mention regarding the creation from the absence of substance, in context, implies that the status quo definition and understanding of creation ("bara") stands.   We have already established the standard definition and understanding of bara - any variation from that standard definition would have to be explicitly defined, otherwise the use of substance is implied.

Edited October 6, 2015 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

I'm still waiting for a quote from you which debunks co-eternal matter. I am waiting for a quote which proves that the earth was not created the same way Adam was - from pre-existing matter. You simply cannot explain why God would change the method of creation half-way through? That is not like God to change.

Your argument depends entirely on erroneious inferences from about 3 passages. We have thoroughly debunked your interpretation.

If creation ex-nihlo is so clearly stated in the Bible, why did it take until the second century for the idea to be advanced - by a heretical Gnostic theologian (Basilides) no less?

Could it be there is a point of potential agreement that lies somewhere between the ex-nihilo position and the LDS eternal element position? I believe there likely is. The Douay-Rheims translation of Hebrews 11:3 presents a key concept that informs this possible compromise:

3 By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible THINGS visible things might be made. (Hebrews 11)

Here's my point: The Douay-Rheims translation of the above verse indicates that God didn't create the gross matter we see all around us out of nothing. Rather, it says he created gross matter out of THINGS, but the things out of which the gross matter was made -- according to this verse -- are invisible THINGS.

In the context of this debate, the expression "INVISIBLE THINGS" is highly significant. It's key to remember that the prophet Joseph Smith said even spirit is a form of matter, but a form of matter that is so fine, pure and undetectable that, at least from the point of view of earthbound man, spirit SEEMS to be immaterial because it is both present but empirically undetectable at the same time. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith promises us that when the day comes when we are made highly refined beings ourselves we will see all spirit is made of matter, but matter that exists in a highly refined state of material existence when compared to the matter that exists in our gross material realm.

It is my own long-considered opinion that gross matter is nothing more than spirit in a highly compacted form. In fact, I believe intelligence is the purest form of matter, and that spirit -- the next purest form of matter -- is compacted or compressed intelligence, and that gross matter is compacted or compressed spirit.

But my personal metaphysical speculations are beside the point. The most salient point I need to make is that the Douay-Rheims translation of Hebrews 11:3 clearly proclaims that the universe was made out of real pre-existing THINGS -- THINGS that for the time being are too pure to be discerned or detected through the five senses or scientific instruments -- but that they are real substantive things nonetheless.

Just as Joseph Smith said, the day will come when these very real THINGS -- things that for now only SEEM to be immaterial -- will be clearly understood to be material. So the area of compromise of which I speak might be found in the Latter-day Saints acknowledging to the ex-nihiloists that when compared to the gross matter with which we are all accustomed, spirit is a "non-gross form of matter" and therefore undetectable, creating an ILLUSION of immateriality. And the ex-nihilo advocates should be intellectually honest enough to admit that just because the THINGS God used to build the universe are unseen and undetectable does not necessarily mean those THINGS used by God are immaterial.

One day we will all come to understand that though God made the universe with THINGS that may seem to our limited senses to be immaterial, the fact is that the pre-existing substances God used to build the material universe are REAL THINGS. And though the things God used to build the universe may to our limited senses seem to be undetectable and immaterial -- like the air we breathe that our eyes can"t see, and the ultraviolet light that exists beyond our range of sight -- the things God used to build the universe are just as real and substantive.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bobbieaware