The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[pogi]

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.

 

 

I think the ex-nihloists will feel that they have to sacrifice too much.  In essence, they would have to admit that they are wrong.  But I like your line of thinking. 

Edited October 6, 2015 by pogi

[stephenpurdy]

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?

 

 

I'll take that bet. 

 

Existence simply exists but can be shaped, formed and organized. 

 

This is much more "probable" than your concept of a "single, simple, unchanging substance of a Being" who magically brings things into existence purely from its own mind "out of nothing."

 

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.

 

Correct.  That which is spirit is "unseen" by our mortal eyes.  Furthermore, when Paul says that things are created out of that which is "unseen" or "invisible", this is what he is referring to.  Something that was before atoms or molecules and everything else that matter is organized into now.

 

"For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." (2 Cor. 4:16-18)

 

 

Here is something that you don't understand.  In the ancient world, having "non being" VS having "being"  does not mean coming into existence "out of nothing".  Even that which was "non being" had existence.

 

 

Note, I've yet to see anyone quote anything from the Bible that contradicts creation out of nothing.

 

 

I already gave it to you.  Paul said created "out of THINGS unseen".   This contradicts the idea of "nothing".  You still have not addressed the points made in my video on the Hebrew Bible.  If you would just watch it, it would save you much time, rather than arguing about things you know nothing about.

 

 

-stephen

Edited October 7, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

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.

 

 

I cover the Hebrew word "Bara" here in extreme detail: 

 

 

-stephen

[Vance]

The question is what does the passage state?

 That is only part of the question.  The other part is what does it imply.

 

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.

Nor does it say out of nothing.  But it does imply that He did it from preexisting material.  Which is more than what you have.

 

It simply states that God created it.

Yes, it does.  And when I or you or anyone else creates something do we have to clarify that it was from preexisting material?  Or is it just understood that we created it from nothing?  What presumption should we make when someone says they created something?

 

 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. 

But it is considerably LESS presumptuous than presuming that He did it from nothing.

 

And so, your double standard is once again exposed.  We are supposed to provide you with verses with explicit statements, yet all you have to do is make presumptions.

 

Which is more probable?

That is rather obvious.  If ANY ONE creates anything they do so out of existing material.  But to maintain for your dogma, we must PRESUME that when it speaks of God creating something, He did so out of nothing.  Even though it doesn't say so.

 

God used an undefined, unmentioned eternal matter . . .

That is the OBVIOUS approach.

 (which conflicts with the idea that God alone is eternal and in need of nothing to create)

Which, of course, is simply your presumed dogma, unsupported by scripture.

 

Your circular logic certainly is dizzying.

[danielwoods]

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.

 

If you honestly think the use of substance is implied. What kind of substance is implied and where is it?

[danielwoods]

I'll take that bet. 

 

Existence simply exists but can be shaped, formed and organized. 

 

This is much more "probable" than your concept of a "single, simple, unchanging substance of a Being" who magically brings things into existence purely from its own mind "out of nothing."

Instead of examining which is more probable based on the Bible, you made a statement of faith. Which confirms the point I've made, that your faith in Ex Materia doesn't come from the Bible. 

 

 

Correct.  That which is spirit is "unseen" by our mortal eyes.  Furthermore, when Paul says that things are created out of that which is "unseen" or "invisible", this is what he is referring to.  Something that was before atoms or molecules and everything else that matter is organized into now.

 

"For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." (2 Cor. 4:16-18)

 

 

When Joseph Smith states that Spirit is a higher form of matter. He is teaching something that isn't taught in the bible. Which is fine, he can make things up if he wants, however, it's just not in the Bible. 

 

The end result though is a contradiction with the Bible, because it plainly states many times that all things were created by God, there is nothing co-eternal with God. And Paul's statement isn't about creation, but spiritual things in our lives, which aren't seen by the human eye. But, if you wish to say that all of Creation came from God's spirit, I just might agree with you. 

 

I already gave it to you.  Paul said created "out of THINGS unseen".   This contradicts the idea of "nothing".  You still have not addressed the points made in my video on the Hebrew Bible.  If you would just watch it, it would save you much time, rather than arguing about things you know nothing about.

 

-stephen

I have dealt with the arguments made in the video. Post a point by point transcript if you want. 

[danielwoods]

That is only part of the question.  The other part is what does it imply.

 

 

 

Nor does it say out of nothing.  But it does imply that He did it from preexisting material.  Which is more than what you have.

 

 

 

Yes, it does.  And when I or you or anyone else creates something do we have to clarify that it was from preexisting material?  Or is it just understood that we created it from nothing?  What presumption should we make when someone says they created something?

 

 

 

But it is considerably LESS presumptuous than presuming that He did it from nothing.

 

And so, your double standard is once again exposed.  We are supposed to provide you with verses with explicit statements, yet all you have to do is make presumptions.

 

That is rather obvious.  If ANY ONE creates anything they do so out of existing material.

The difference is when anyone else creates something, they are using *known* existing material. The context of Gen. 1 is "in the beginning..." which there is only one beginning. And the subject is God, which there is only one of as well. So, right there were dealing with a completely different set of circumstances than a normal usage of the term create, when applied to a normal person. 

 

Now, the next question is why would people ignore these highly unusual circumstances and interpret "in the beginning God created..." as implying some sort of co-eternal matter? The answer is faith. 

 

But to maintain for your dogma, we must PRESUME that when it speaks of God creating something, He did so out of nothing.  Even though it doesn't say so.

 

 

 

That is the OBVIOUS approach.

 

 

Which, of course, is simply your presumed dogma, unsupported by scripture.

 

Your circular logic certainly is dizzying.

My only dogma is that which the Bible teaches. I stated that the idea of eternal matter "conflicts with the idea that God alone is eternal and in need of nothing to create."

 

You say it's unsupported by scripture. Yet I've posted these before. 

 

Romans 11:35 “Who has ever given to God,

that God should repay them?”

36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.

 

If matter or anything was co-eternal with God, then this statement would be false. God would have an obligation to that thing, whether it's matter or spirit. But, here it states it plainly, "From him are all things."

 

Colosisian 1:16 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. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

If all things have been created through him, then all matter didn't exist until he created it. And in him all things hold together, because that indicates what type of God it's actually talking about. The one and only, that holds all things together. 

 

Jn.1:1 In the beginning was the Word

and the Word was with God

and the Word was God.

2 The Word was with God in the beginning.

3 Everything came into being through the Word,

and without the Word

nothing came into being.

 

Notice there is no mention of anything else in the beginning. Only God is eternal. 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by danielwoods

[Flyonthewall]

Here are words from Justin Martyr, and even though it is not found in the scritptures, it does give a glimpse into what they believed 2000 years ago:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

CHAPTER X -- HOW GOD IS TO BE SERVED.

But we have received by tradition that God does not need the material offerings which men can give, seeing, indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things. And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received--of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. For as in the beginning He created us when we were not, so do we consider that, in like manner, those who choose what is pleasing to Him are, on account of their choice, deemed worthy of incorruption and of fellowship with Him. For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith. And we think it for the advantage of all men that they are not restrained from learning these things, but are even urged thereto. For the restraint which human laws could not effect, the Word, inasmuch as He is divine, would have effected, had not the wicked demons, taking as their ally the lust of wickedness which is in every man, and which draws variously to all manner of vice, scattered many false and profane accusations, none of which attach to us.

This certainly flies in the face of ex-nihilo creation. Edited October 7, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[Bobbieaware]

Here are words from Justin Martyr, and even though it is not found in the scritptures, it does give a glimpse into what they believed 2000 years ago:http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.htmlThis certainly flies in the face of ex-nihilo creation.

The idea of Martyr's "unformed matter" seems much like the so-called "dark matter" of modern astrophysics. At first blush, much of space SEEMS to be absolutely empty and devoid of any matter at all, other than the presence of light waves. Yet if the astro-physicists are are correct, so-called empty space is filled to the brim with a form of matter that is totally invisable and virtually undetectable. Could dark matter be Martyr's "unformed matter," or something that is like unto it? Time will tell...

"Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but would account for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics." (Wikipedia)

[danielwoods]

Here are words from Justin Martyr, and even though it is not found in the scritptures, it does give a glimpse into what they believed 2000 years ago:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

This certainly flies in the face of ex-nihilo creation.

 

What he meant exactly isn't quite clear. I understand the desire to use his statement as a means to defend a position of faith not found in the bible. But, he could easily be referring to the dust of the ground out of which Adam was created. 

 

But, also notice how many things he mentions that are also contradictory to LDS theology.

"For the coming into being at first was not in our own power"

 

"choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with"

 

1) We came into being, we are not eternal. We didn't exist before coming into being by the will of God.

 

2) We were given our rational faculties by God himself. We didn't have them because we didn't exist until God brought us into being. 

[pogi]

If you honestly think the use of substance is implied. What kind of substance is implied and where is it?

 

The kind that has matter.  Where is it?  You are standing on it.  It is speculation to guess what state matter was in before creation - atoms, molecules, sub-atomic particles, etc...who knows?

[danielwoods]

The kind that has matter.  Where is it?  You are standing on it.  It is speculation to guess what state matter was in before creation - atoms, molecules, sub-atomic particles, etc...who knows?

 

You are correct. It's speculation. That's all it is. It's not taught in the bible and the concept itself is contradictory to what is taught in the bible. It makes God not a creator of all things, but rather a craftsman of some things.

[stephenpurdy]

 

 

The question is what does the passage state? God created the Heavens and the Earth.

 

 

It really doesn't say that.  There is no period there.

 

That is what you don't understand.  It does not say "God created the Heavens and the Earth" with a period at the end of the sentence.   That is not the Hebrew language structure.  My video clearly demonstrates what the Hebrew language structure is, and this is obvious because the same language structure is found elsewhere in the Hebrew bible.

 

-stephen

[stephenpurdy]

 

I have dealt with the arguments made in the video.

 

In which post did you deal with the arguments made in the video?

 

It is clear that you didn't even watch the whole thing, because your posts demonstrate that you know nothing about what we are talking about.   You are just wasting time typing, rather than having a meaningful discussion. 

 

Try it, you might learn something.  (It is 7 minutes and 20 seconds long).

 

-stephen

Edited October 7, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[pogi]

You are correct. It's speculation. That's all it is. It's not taught in the bible and the concept itself is contradictory to what is taught in the bible. It makes God not a creator of all things, but rather a craftsman of some things.

 

Will you please admit that the Bible is not explicit one way or the other?   If it was, we wouldn't be having this debate right now!  Whichever position you take, it is based on inference, aka speculation. 

 

It makes God not a creator of all things, but rather a craftsman of some things.

 

 

Sorry dude, ex-nihlosists do not have the exclusive rights to the acknowledgement of God as the creator of all things.  

Edited October 7, 2015 by pogi

[Flyonthewall]

What he meant exactly isn't quite clear. I understand the desire to use his statement as a means to defend a position of faith not found in the bible. But, he could easily be referring to the dust of the ground out of which Adam was created. 

 

But, also notice how many things he mentions that are also contradictory to LDS theology.

"For the coming into being at first was not in our own power"

 

"choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with"

 

1) We came into being, we are not eternal. We didn't exist before coming into being by the will of God.

 

2) We were given our rational faculties by God himself. We didn't have them because we didn't exist until God brought us into being.

Although you claim that these points are contrary to LDS theology, I do not agree, but that is beside the point.

The point is the way creation was understood in the early church - that is was from unformed matter. It mutated into ex-nihilo later.

[danielwoods]

It really doesn't say that.  There is no period there.

 

That is what you don't understand.  It does not say "God created the Heavens and the Earth" with a period at the end of the sentence.   That is not the Hebrew language structure.  My video clearly demonstrates what the Hebrew language structure is, and this is obvious because the same language structure is found elsewhere in the Hebrew bible.

 

-stephen

 

I understand that is your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, and agree with the majority Jewish perspective as 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.'"

[danielwoods]

Will you please admit that the Bible is not explicit one way or the other?   If it was, we wouldn't be having this debate right now!  Whichever position you take, it is based on inference, aka speculation.

 

The reason there is a debate or difference isn't because of the Bible, but rather because of what the LDS already believed to be true before coming to the bible.  

 

I agree with you that the Bible isn't explicit, but it is the only thing that makes sense of all the pieces. I agree with this writer: 

 

Creation out of nothing is not mere speculation; it is based on other beliefs that are explicitly taught in Scripture and that are part and parcel of traditional, orthodox, classical “Great Tradition” Christianity.

Creation out of nothing is necessary, as I said, because without it one will believe in one of the alternative views mentioned above and will eventually find crucial gospel tenets dissolving. It is the only alternative to those views of creation and alone supports and defends the revealed gospel of truth about God, Christ, and salvation.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/01/why-i-believe-in-creatio-ex-nihilo-creation-out-of-nothing-even-though-the-bible-doesnt-directly-teach-it/

 

Sorry dude, ex-nihlosists do not have the exclusive rights to the acknowledgement of God as the creator of all things.

 

 

Ex-materia creation by it's very definition limits God's abilities as creator, making him a craftsman not the creator of "all things" as scripture plainly states. So, it's not me that is limiting God, it's the believers who view God in this limited fashion. 

[danielwoods]

Although you claim that these points are contrary to LDS theology, I do not agree, but that is beside the point.

The point is the way creation was understood in the early church - that is was from unformed matter. It mutated into ex-nihilo later.

 

I understand that is your opinion. I don't agree that he was talking about the creation of the Heavens and Earth, because clearly there is no reference to unformed matter anywhere in the Bible, no matter what he is saying here. Like I said, I think it's more likely that he's talking about the creation of Man. 

 

When the early Church "began to encounter Greek philosophy they engaged and defended creation ex nihilo.  The fourth century theologian Athanasius does this when he writes, “Others take the view expressed by Plato, that giant among the Greeks.  He said that God had made all things out of pre-existing and uncreated matter… How could God be called Maker and Artificer if His ability depended on some other cause, namely on matter itself?  If He only worked on existing matter and did not Himself bring matter into being, He would not be the Creator but only a craftsman.”

Quote taken from: http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/12/09/creation-ex-materia/

[Flyonthewall]

The difference is when anyone else creates something, they are using *known* existing material. The context of Gen. 1 is "in the beginning..." which there is only one beginning. And the subject is God, which there is only one of as well. So, right there were dealing with a completely different set of circumstances than a normal usage of the term create, when applied to a normal person. 

 

Now, the next question is why would people ignore these highly unusual circumstances and interpret "in the beginning God created..." as implying some sort of co-eternal matter? The answer is faith. 

 

My only dogma is that which the Bible teaches. I stated that the idea of eternal matter "conflicts with the idea that God alone is eternal and in need of nothing to create."

 

You say it's unsupported by scripture. Yet I've posted these before. 

 

Romans 11:35 “Who has ever given to God,

that God should repay them?”

36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.

 

If matter or anything was co-eternal with God, then this statement would be false. God would have an obligation to that thing, whether it's matter or spirit. But, here it states it plainly, "From him are all things."

 

Colosisian 1:16 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. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

If all things have been created through him, then all matter didn't exist until he created it. And in him all things hold together, because that indicates what type of God it's actually talking about. The one and only, that holds all things together. 

 

Jn.1:1 In the beginning was the Word

and the Word was with God

and the Word was God.

2 The Word was with God in the beginning.

3 Everything came into being through the Word,

and without the Word

nothing came into being.

 

Notice there is no mention of anything else in the beginning. Only God is eternal.

There is nothing in the Bible that teaches ex-nihilo either - that was overlayed much later.

The KJV of John 1:1-3 is written this way:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

There is a big difference in verse 3 and gives a much different implication.

Makes me wonder why the difference.

The KJV was not written with LDS theology in mind, to shore it up as it was translated a few centuries before Joseph Smith.

What version/translation are you using?

[danielwoods]

There is nothing in the Bible that teaches ex-nihilo either - that was overlayed much later.

The KJV of John 1:1-3 is written this way:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

There is a big difference in verse 3 and gives a much different implication.

Makes me wonder why the difference.

The KJV was not written with LDS theology in mind, to shore it up as it was translated a few centuries before Joseph Smith.

What version/translation are you using?

 

It's the Common English Bible (CEB), which was a favorite of Stephen, which is why I quoted it. 

 

The teaching of ex-nihilo was specifically articulated as the greek influence attempted to push ex-materia. However, it wasn't drawn up out of nothing (pun intended), but rather derived from scripture. 

 

The idea that the two translations are "much" different rests on the understanding of "create". It seems to me that there is a difference between creating all things, and "crafting" all things out of something else. This verse describes creating, but no mention is ever made of a pre-existing material, anywhere in the Bible. 

[Robert F. Smith]

I understand that is your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, and agree with the majority Jewish perspective as 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.'"

That was the Jewish view a century ago, and clearly in line with Jewish religious dogma (which is also the dogma of Muslims and Christians), so it is no surprise that B. H. Roberts would correctly reflect that view.

 

The understanding of biblical Hebrew has since then advanced a great deal and no Hebrew grammarians any longer support that old view.  As Ephraim Speiser explained in his 1964 translation-commentary on Genesis 1, we must allow the text to speak for itself, despite whatever theological preconceptions we bring to the text.  In other words, his was a plea for simple honesty.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

..................................but rather derived from scripture. 

 

The idea that the two translations are "much" different rests on the understanding of "create". It seems to me that there is a difference between creating all things, and "crafting" all things out of something else. This verse describes creating, but no mention is ever made of a pre-existing material, anywhere in the Bible. 

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that you are so wedded to one dogmatic view that you will deny the obvious in its defense.  Does real evidence mean so little to you?

[Robert F. Smith]

The reason there is a debate or difference isn't because of the Bible, but rather because of what the LDS already believed to be true before coming to the bible.

You have it backward.

It was precisely non-Mormon biblical scholars who have put forward the view that creation is from already existing material.  Mormon scholars have merely pointed this out after the fact. 

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

 

Ex-materia creation by it's very definition limits God's abilities as creator, making him a craftsman not the creator of "all things" as scripture plainly states. So, it's not me that is limiting God, it's the believers who view God in this limited fashion.

Yes, of course.  You are now beginning to get it.

 

LDS theology posits a natural God, who is part of the natural universe (or multiverse); a God who is coeternal with matter and with the intelligences -- which have no beginning and will have no end.

 

God cannot create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it.  Of course He is limited.  By any other measure, He would have to be a monster and completely irrational -- which is why belief in that traditional, paradoxical God is dying.  By your definition, God has to be the author of monstrous evil.  By the Mormon definition, all coeternal entities are responsible for their own evil acts.  Get it?

[Flyonthewall]

It's the Common English Bible (CEB), which was a favorite of Stephen, which is why I quoted it.

Stephen who? Why would Stephen matter?

 

The teaching of ex-nihilo was specifically articulated as the greek influence attempted to push ex-materia. However, it wasn't drawn up out of nothing (pun intended), but rather derived from scripture.

You are indeed getting closer. ex-nihilo was influenced by the Greek philosophies. "Ancient Jewish writings teach that God created the universe by giving form to formless matter. It was not until the second century after Christ that Christian thinkers began, under the influence of Greek philosophy, to teach creation ex nihilo, and the doctrine only gradually gained wide acceptance." The citation for this is as follows:

See Gerhard May, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts: Die Entstehung der Lehre von der Creatio Ex Nihilo, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 48 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978); Jonathan A. Goldstein, “The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo,” Journal of Jewish Studies, Autumn 1984, pp. 127–35; David Winston, “Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein,” Journal of Jewish Studies, Spring 1986, pp. 88–91; Peter Hayman, “Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish Studies, Spring 1991, pp. 2–4; Frances Young, “Creatio Ex Nihilo: A Context for the Emergence of the Christian Doctrine of Creation,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 44 (1991):139–51.

 

The idea that the two translations are "much" different rests on the understanding of "create". It seems to me that there is a difference between creating all things, and "crafting" all things out of something else. This verse describes creating, but no mention is ever made of a pre-existing material, anywhere in the Bible.

It has been brought up that the word "create" used in the scripture has the implication of creating out of something - to form or shape.

In Genesis 1:2 it states: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Verse 1 states what God did. Verse 2 and after goes into how He did it.

God took those raw materials and created something wonderful - this earth.