Creation started with nothing?

[gluadys]

Gen. 1:1 and the entirety of Gen. 2:4 show that we really don't know what God's first creative act was, in fact, the first part of Gen. 2:4 suggests as I have stated and asserted, that the beginning referred to in 1:1 was indeed the beginning of the physical world we know and love and not the beginning of all that God created.

Nonsense. The text nowhere limits the creation of the heavens and earth to the physical universe. "Heaven" or "the heavens" are often used in scripture in the sense of a spiritual realm inhabited by "the host of heaven" such as the angels who appeared to the shepherds to announce the birth of Christ.

Therefore the phrase "God created the heavens and the earth" in Gen. 1:1 includes the spiritual heaven (and heaven of heavens) as well as the sky and space of the physical universe.

If you disagree, show me from any biblical text that the spiritual realm is excluded from the sense.

They problem is that they don't say what you want them to say.

Show me that they don't. Stop just asserting that they don't and back up your statements with scriptural references.

I asked everyone around here what I meant when I said "creation of said" they all knew without hesitation that I meant the creation of heavens and earth. They knew because it is not an uncommon written or verbal usage.

Actually it is uncommon. Usually in such a construction "said" is used as an adjective and is followed by a noun that makes it clear what the reference is. e.g. "the said vehicle" or "the said gentleman" in reference to a vehicle or a person already mentioned that does not need to be described or named a second time. It is also not common verbal usage, being found usually in legal documents.

Try some of these sites, you might gain some valuable information.

http://www.gotquestions.org/when-angels-created.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/468
http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/OPA/Articles/1997/12/OPA19971204.htm

Thank you. I particularly liked this passage from apologeticspress which says just what I was saying.

Jackson has suggested that “...a plausible opinion would be that they were brought into existence at the commencement of the creation week” (1993, p. 208). Why might this be so? Lockyer explained as follows:


The heavens include all that are in them created by God, and among these must be the angels (Genesis 2:1). Among the hosts of heaven the angels are the principal part. They are expressly called “the heavenly host” and “the armies of heaven” (Luke 2:13) [p. 14, emp. in orig.].

Nehemiah 9:6 also is used to speak to the very point Dr. Lockyer was making.


Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made...the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
In commenting on this passage, Hebrew language expert Weston W. Fields wrote:


While the passages in Genesis...mention only the making of the firmament, sun, moon, stars, and animals, it must be carefully marked by the reader that in Nehemiah 9:6 the objects of God’s making include the heavens, the heaven of heavens, and the earth, and everything contained in and on it, and the seas and everything they contain, as well as the hosts of heaven (probably angels) [1976, p. 61, emp. and parenthetical comment in orig.].

If you combine the passages and concepts discussed by Lockyer, Jackson, and Fields, it seems to allow for a “plausible opinion” that the angels “were brought into existence at the commencement of the creation week.”​

All emphasis in the original.

The other two sites both made the basic error of assuming there was time before time began, a nonsensical concept. If the angels were created in time, they were created after time was brought into being. If when time began, the angels already existed, they are eternal beings, not created beings. The latter contradicts the doctrine that God alone is eternal and all things other than God were created by God.

 

[razzelflabben]

Nonsense. The text nowhere limits the creation of the heavens and earth to the physical universe. "Heaven" or "the heavens" are often used in scripture in the sense of a spiritual realm inhabited by "the host of heaven" such as the angels who appeared to the shepherds to announce the birth of Christ.

right, and so now I have been corrected deal with the point of the post. We don't know what all is included in heavens and that doesn't change anything about what I was pointing out to you all.

Therefore the phrase "God created the heavens and the earth" in Gen. 1:1 includes the spiritual heaven (and heaven of heavens) as well as the sky and space of the physical universe.

Not necessarily as you said on another thread we were discussing, it was common practise for the people of the day to use the word heavens to include the sky and anything beyond. IOWs without a specific explaination as to what all is included in heavens, we don't know what all it included and is open for another debate. But you are right is it possible that it included the spiritual realm, however, if it did so, than that would indeed make the spiritual realm testable because it would be a thing to grasp and not a "vapor". And while we are talking about it, let's also mention that the bottom line of this whole discussion is that we don't know enough about the creation of the heavens and earth to include that creation in the account of creation. Those things and questions remain known to God alone.

If you disagree, show me from any biblical text that the spiritual realm is excluded from the sense.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.

Show me that they don't. Stop just asserting that they don't and back up your statements with scriptural references.

that they don't what?[/quote]

Actually it is uncommon. Usually in such a construction "said" is used as an adjective and is followed by a noun that makes it clear what the reference is. e.g. "the said vehicle" or "the said gentleman" in reference to a vehicle or a person already mentioned that does not need to be described or named a second time. It is also not common verbal usage, being found usually in legal documents.[/quote] Well, then there are a heck of a lot of people using it inproperly and not able to communicate because it is a common usage whether proper or not. No wonder you don't understand plainly stated things like use any scripture you want to support your claims, because you are too worried about the proper uses to listen to what is being stated.

Thank you. I particularly liked this passage from apologeticspress which says just what I was saying.

Jackson has suggested that “...a plausible opinion would be that they were brought into existence at the commencement of the creation week” (1993, p. 208). Why might this be so? Lockyer explained as follows:​

The heavens include all that are in them created by God, and among these must be the angels (Genesis 2:1). Among the hosts of heaven the angels are the principal part. They are expressly called “the heavenly host” and “the armies of heaven” (Luke 2:13) [p. 14, emp. in orig.].​

Nehemiah 9:6 also is used to speak to the very point Dr. Lockyer was making.​

Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made...the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.​

In commenting on this passage, Hebrew language expert Weston W. Fields wrote:​

While the passages in Genesis...mention only the making of the firmament, sun, moon, stars, and animals, it must be carefully marked by the reader that in Nehemiah 9:6 the objects of God’s making include the heavens, the heaven of heavens, and the earth, and everything contained in and on it, and the seas and everything they contain, as well as the hosts of heaven (probably angels) [1976, p. 61, emp. and parenthetical comment in orig.].​

If you combine the passages and concepts discussed by Lockyer, Jackson, and Fields, it seems to allow for a “plausible opinion” that the angels “were brought into existence at the commencement of the creation week.”​

All emphasis in the original.

and your point would be........ . Just because it is a plausible explaination doesn't make it the only plausible explaination. In fact, if you read the whole thing, you would see the the concenses, and is indeed included here, is that we simply don't know. Which is the point I have been making all along. I highlighted a couple of key words that show this to be possible but not an absolute. In fact, it is an opinion and one of more than one plausible according to the text itself. Thus evidence that we don't know. Which is exactly what I have said from the beginning. So why procliam me wrong when everything you present supports my claims.

The other two sites both made the basic error of assuming there was time before time began, a nonsensical concept. If the angels were created in time, they were created after time was brought into being. If when time began, the angels already existed, they are eternal beings, not created beings. The latter contradicts the doctrine that God alone is eternal and all things other than God were created by God.

Say what? Eternity doesn't mean without time, but rather without measure. To asume that an eternal God would wait till a few million years ago to do anything is absurd. We don't know what all God did before He created the heavens and earth, He is eternal, we have an infinately small amount of that time recorded for us. That leaves a whole host of time that is unaccounted for, so much time that man cannot fathom it's existance. Is it even possible that in an eternity, all that would exist is a few million years of events to be recorded. The thought of such is so absurd as to make me laugh. Eternity is not an absence of time but rather an absence of measure.

 

[gluadys]

We don't know what all is included in heavens and that doesn't change anything about what I was pointing out to you all.

God created all things. He created the heavens and everything contained in them. So we do know what all is included in "heavens". What is included is all the heavens and all that is in them. That includes all the spiritual and physical aspects of "heavens".

Is there anything else you would like explained about the word "all"?

And while we are talking about it, let's also mention that the bottom line of this whole discussion is that we don't know enough about the creation of the heavens and earth to include that creation in the account of creation.

We can't include the creation of the heavens and earth in the account of creation? What kind of nonsense is that. It is in the accounts of creation, like it or not.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.

You alleged (in post 60) that Gen. 1:1 spoke only of the creation of the physical heavens. I am challenging you to show from the text where it limits the reference to the physical heavens only and excludes the spiritual heavens.

that they don't what?

Show me that the texts do not say what I have claimed they say.

Well, then there are a heck of a lot of people using it inproperly

Well, I would never doubt that!

Say what? Eternity doesn't mean without time, but rather without measure.

So you still don't understand the word "all" as in "God created all things"?

God is eternal. Anything eternal is not created. Only God is eternal. Only God is not created.

Time is not eternal. Time has a beginning and an end. So time is a created thing. Time, in fact, is an aspect of the space-time continuum. Time can only exist where space, matter and (physical) energy exist. In short, time is an aspect of physical existence.

Eternity is beyond the parameters of physical existence, and hence beyond the extent of time. Eternity is indeed without measure, and time is a measure. So eternity is without time.

To asume that an eternal God would wait till a few million years ago to do anything is absurd. We don't know what all God did before He created the heavens and earth, He is eternal, we have an infinately small amount of that time recorded for us. That leaves a whole host of time that is unaccounted for, so much time that man cannot fathom it's existance.

No, it doesn't leave any time unaccounted for, since time does not exist before or after or outside of the physical universe. Time only exists in the physical universe. I agree that we humans cannot fathom the timelessness of eternity. We don't even have an adequate vocabulary to speak of it properly.

Eternity is not an absence of time but rather an absence of measure.

Since it is an absence of measure, it is necessarily an absence of time, for time is measure.

 

[razzelflabben]

God created all things. He created the heavens and everything contained in them. So we do know what all is included in "heavens". What is included is all the heavens and all that is in them. That includes all the spiritual and physical aspects of "heavens".

And what we don't know is the all that might be beyond those heavens. It is the what we don't know, what God has chosen to leave a mystery that is giving you problems.

Is there anything else you would like explained about the word "all"?

I understand the word all, you seem not to understand it at all.

We can't include the creation of the heavens and earth in the account of creation? What kind of nonsense is that. It is in the accounts of creation, like it or not.

If the creation of the heavens and earth were part of the creation account in gen. then we would have more details about that formentioned (let me explain here that the formentioned refers to the creation of the heavens and earth since you don't understand such literary usage) creation and we would indeed be able to know if this was a creation from nothing or from something. Since the text gives us no details about it's creation (details which are present in the rest of the recorded creative acts) then we must conclude that the literary structure tells us that the details of it's creation are not necessary to understanding the rest of the story, all you need know is that it was created. So let's once again compare it to the theory of evolution. The simplistic versions says there was a single celled population in existance. It beginnings with the single celled population, not the existance on said (for those not familiar with the literary usage, said here refers to the single celled population currently being discussed) the theory of evolution does not deal with how the single celled population came to be only that it existed. Likewise, (in the same manner, I figure if you cant figure out the above, you can't figure out the use of likewise here) the creation accout as recorded in Gen. starts with the creation or existance of the heavens and earth, and not with how or why or from what they were created. So if we then apply evenly, unbiased, fairly our understanding of both, we begin not with the church theology of something from nothing, but rather from the biblical theology that God created it. Period.

You alleged (in post 60) that Gen. 1:1 spoke only of the creation of the physical heavens. I am challenging you to show from the text where it limits the reference to the physical heavens only and excludes the spiritual heavens.

Show me that the texts do not say what I have claimed they say.

Done many times but you still haven't shown how the text says what you want it to say and the sad truth is that you aren't likely ever to because you don't know yourself what you are asserting half the time. Constantly you are caught in a contridiction and instead of addressing it, you make assertions like this one pretending that you have no contridictions.

Let's look at gen. 2:4 for example
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-


Note that it does not say this is the account of all that God created but rather the account of the heavens and earth's creation. But let's be fair, another translation if you please.....

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

Same

Genesis 2:4 (New International Reader's Version)

New International Reader's Version (NIRV) Copyright © 1996, 1998 by International Bible Society



Adam and Eve

4 Here is the story of the heavens and the earth when they were created. The Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Genesis 2:4 (New American Standard Bible)

New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation


4(A)This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in (B)the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

We could keep going but every single translation says the same thing, this is the account of the creation of the heavens and earth, not the account of all the creative or even the first creative acts of God. What God did before this is forunately or unfortunately a mystery. As such. (for those not familiar with literary style, as such refers to the previously stated mystery) we simply can't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing or not. Which is exactly what I asserted from the OP to this very post. No contridiction in what I have said, or in what the bible says. It is your burden to evidence the passage to your assertions without changing the subject, claiming I didn't show how it doesn't fit your assertions, etc. That is how debate works, you are suppose to show evidence that supports your claim not mine.

Well, I would never doubt that!

So you still don't understand the word "all" as in "God created all things"?

God is eternal. Anything eternal is not created. Only God is eternal. Only God is not created.

Time is not eternal. Time has a beginning and an end. So time is a created thing. Time, in fact, is an aspect of the space-time continuum. Time can only exist where space, matter and (physical) energy exist. In short, time is an aspect of physical existence.

Eternity is beyond the parameters of physical existence, and hence beyond the extent of time. Eternity is indeed without measure, and time is a measure. So eternity is without time.

Now my quote was
"Say what? Eternity doesn't mean without time, but rather without measure. " and from that you got that I don't understand all ... ... .... ....
No one, including me is questioning the word all or that God created all things, heck, we are even discussing whether or not God created something from nothing. All these are strawman arguements you are presenting to evade the real issue.
1. is there evidence to support the notion that the heavens and earth were created from nothing
2. is the actual creation of heaven and earth part of the creation account or rather background information to the story about to unfold.

My assertion is that 1. there is not evidence to suggest that this creation (heaven and earth, I know you don't understand plain english) is created from nothing nor is there evidence to suggest it was created from somthing. This simply remains a mystery.
2. If the creation of heavens and earth were intended to be part of the account and not merely background information, we would be given more details just as we have been given for the rest of creation.

You are encouraged to refute these assertions, but not to change the topic or assert that I haven't made my case. The first (oh yea, you don't understand, first referring to changing the topic) is not appropriate behavior for the forum or debate. The later (referring to my not having made my case.) is quite simply a lie.

No, it doesn't leave any time unaccounted for, since time does not exist before or after or outside of the physical universe. Time only exists in the physical universe. I agree that we humans cannot fathom the timelessness of eternity. We don't even have adequate vocabulary to speak of it properly.

See here is one of the contridictions you are famous for. time does not exist but this timelessness is unfathomable. If timelessness is unfathomable, then what pray tell would cause you to boast that you know everything that occured during that existance of timelessness?

Since it is an absence of measure, it is necessarily an absence of time, for time is measure.

No, even if I don't measure time, it exists. Eternity is the absence of measure not time. We know time passes by measuring it, but it still passes, we are not suspended in some timeless warp just because we don't measure time and if it did work that way I know a host of parents that would stop measuring time so that it would stand still.

 

[gluadys]

And what we don't know is the all that might be beyond those heavens.

Ok. Enumerate the possibilities. We have 1) all that is on earth, 2) the earth, 3) all that is in the heavens (both physical and spiritual), 4) the heavens themselves (both physical and spiritual), 5) eternity and 6) God.

5) and 6) are beyond the heavens and the earth too. I grant they are mysteries. And they are also uncreated.

1) to 4) includes the entire list of created things with no exceptions. Which of them is "beyond the heavens"?

If the creation of the heavens and earth were part of the creation account in gen. then we would have more details about that ... creation.

Lack of details to satisfy your curiosity doesn't mean this creation is not in the creation accounts. It is right there in the text:

First account (opening statement) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (closing statement) "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created."

Second account (opening statement) "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...."

Proverbs 8 (Wisdom is speaking)
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above... when he marked out the foundations of the earth" etc.

So you cannot say it is not part of the account.

Since the text gives us no details about it's creation then we must conclude that the literary structure tells us that the details of it's creation are not necessary to understanding the rest of the story, all you need know is that it was created.

Exactly. The point is that God created all things beginning with the heavens and the earth. The details of how he did it are not included and don't need to be. But that he created them is included in the account.

So let's once again compare it to the theory of evolution.

Why? They are not at all comparable. No one has claimed that species were created out of nothing, and that is true whether one is accepting or rejecting of evolution. Lots of things on/b] earth and in heaven could be secondary creations i.e. created from something. But that is not true when it comes to the creation of heaven and earth. This is the primordial creation and therefore a creation from nothing.

Period.

I would hope so. There is no place in scripture that limits the meaning of created heavens to physical heavens. God created all the heavens in the spiritual as well as the physical sense of the term.

Done many times

No, you haven't, not even once. You have merely asserted that they do not say what I claim. As, for example, in this exchange from post 60

Did you notice there are two texts referenced? How do they not, between them, cover both parts of your original question.

Did God create from nothing?

Yes (John 1:3)

Was God's first creative act the making of heaven and earth?

Yes (Gen. 1:1)

They problem is that they don't say what you want them to say.

Time to go beyond assertion and show there is substance to what you have been claiming. Verify that these texts don't say what I claim they say.

1. is there evidence to support the notion that the heavens and earth were created from nothing

Yes. Gen 1:1 and John 1:3 Gen 1:1 says this is God's first creative act, and John 1:3 shows that there could be nothing pre-exisiting from which the primordial creation could be made. The creation of heaven and earth (as distinct from things in heaven and earth) must precede all other creations and hence must be a creation from nothing. Other creations (of things in heaven or earth) may be secondary i.e. made of the substance of heaven and earth and not directly from nothing.

2. is the actual creation of heaven and earth part of the creation account or rather background information to the story about to unfold.

It is part of the account as nothing separates it from the rest of the account.

My assertion is that 1. there is not evidence to suggest that this creation (heaven and earth, I know you don't understand plain english) is created from nothing nor is there evidence to suggest it was created from somthing. This simply remains a mystery.
2. If the creation of heavens and earth were intended to be part of the account and not merely background information, we would be given more details just as we have been given for the rest of creation.

You are encouraged to refute these assertions,

1. has already been refuted above. 2. is a claim without substance. You are assuming a need for additional details, but this need does not exist since the evidence that refutes 1. is sufficient to establish the case.

No, even if I don't measure time, it exists.

It exists in the created world, but not in eternity. I think you are confusing the units and instruments of measurements with the measures themselves. For example, inches, feet and miles are units of length. And we use rulers or odometers to count how many units of length we have. And it is true, that even if I had no ruler or other instrument, or if I had one, but didn't use it, length would still exist.

But it is length itself that is the measure. Length is a measurement of a dimension of space. So we can only measure length (whatever the units or instruments) where we have space to measure.

There is no length to measure where space does not exist. And that is the situation when heaven and earth have not been created. Space is part of creation, so length is part of creation. No creation=no space=no length.

Same with time, since it is a measure of movement through space. Even if you had a working stop-watch, you can't measure time outside creation, because no creation=no space=no motion through space=no time. There is no time to be measured whether you want to measure it or not, whether you have the means to measure it or not.

We are not suspended in some timeless warp

No we are not, because we are created beings made to live in space and time. But when time comes to an end we must become timeless beings to survive in the timelessness of eternity.

 

[Mark2010]

Gluadys,

This is a bit hard to follow, so excuse me if this was mentioned in an earlier post. But if one believes the physical universe was created from nothing, how does one believe it to have been created?

Was there a point where time and space did not exist, either? And how would they have come about?

 

[mark kennedy]

And what I said to you is that bara is the same word used for the creation of man and we know that man was created from somthing already in existance, dirt. So you have a contridiction you need to justify before we can move on.

Bara is only used in the absolute sense in Genesis 1:1 and there is no question about that. The soul of man was not made from dirt, that could be where the confusion is coming from.

My concordance says that the same word is used throughout Gen. 1 including but not limited to man. So your definition leaves a contridiction in scripture. Are you willing to live with that?

Show me what your concordance says, quote cite and link if possible.

I personally don't think the bible contridicts itself because every study I have done on apparent contridictions has said otherwise. Note your own post offers the understanding that something new came to being not that that something was created from nothing already existing. Yet you continue to assert such without supporting evidence. Support your claim.

Don't challenge me to do an indepth expositional or exegetical study that you are going to ignore. I don't respond well to people who gloss over the particulars. Now if you have something substantive on Bara then present it, if not then don't act like I don't because you have allready seen it.

Agreed, only God creates something from nothing, but I disagree with you that the first verse is where we see this. In fact, the bara word you use to support your arguement is used elsewhere in Gen. 1 and includes but is not limited to the creation of the heavens and earth. In fact, it extends to man whom we know was created from dirt. Thus either something from nothing refers to the creation of somthing new, or it refers to the book of Gen. as being a contridiction and a lie. I personally don't hold to tradition so tightly as to call the bible a lie. How about you?

The word is used effectivly and there is no contradiction, period. You want there to be something for God to create the world and the universe from because you can't concieve of anything else. You are struggling with a misconception, that is all there is to it.

The bottom line, is that the bible doesn't specify if the heavens and earth were created from nothing. The understanding thereof is a traditional one, and not a biblical one. It could certainly be true, but the problem is, only tradition tells us to believe said.

First of all, yes it does tell us that the heavens and the earth were created from nothing. It does specify and it does not take a lot of work to see this in the original. Tradition has affirmed this not because it is oppossed to Scripture but because there is nothing else that can be concluded when looking at what is there.

I appreciate your persistance but you are lacking in the one essential area you should be excelling. If you are going to tell me this means something different in the original then you should be showing me from the original. Evolutionists do this all the time with science and I would expect much better from you.

Just look at the verse in the original and we can clarify this once and for all.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Bara is only used in the absolute sense in Genesis 1:1 and there is no question about that. The soul of man was not made from dirt, that could be where the confusion is coming from.

What do you mean by 'absolute sense' of bara and where do you get this idea from?

 

[shernren]

Show me what your concordance says, quote cite and link if possible.

I believe he is referring to this:

So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:21 ESV)

(emphasis added), where the original is bara, not referring to ex nihilo creation (presumably) or to creation of humans. You will note if you can cross-reference across multiple English translations that the difference between bara and asah is preserved in most translations: the former is translated "created", the latter "made".

And both are used of mankind!

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
(Genesis 1:26-27 ESV)

 

[razzelflabben]

Ok. Enumerate the possibilities. We have 1) all that is on earth, 2) the earth, 3) all that is in the heavens (both physical and spiritual), 4) the heavens themselves (both physical and spiritual), 5) eternity and 6) God.

5) and 6) are beyond the heavens and the earth too. I grant they are mysteries. And they are also uncreated.

You like changing the topic so much, let me have a go at it and see why it is so pleasurable. eternity had to be created if as you proclaim God is the only thing not created. See here again you have a contridiction in what you claim to believe and what you proclaim it evidence for it (it refering to what you proclaim to believe). If God is the only thing not created, then dear one, eternity must also have been created by God. When did He create eternity?

Now back to the beginning of this post. First off we don't know for sure that the heavens here include both spiritual and physical heavens. In fact, when we were suppose to be studying Gen. together you asserted that it could mean the physical heavens which would be consistant with the Heb. lang. or it could mean both physical and spiritual. And truely according to the Heb. text, this still is a mystery what all is including in the meaning of heavens.

Secondly, we do not know if there is other than spiritual and physical worlds, because quite simply God doesn't tell us all the history of eternity. We have many many mysteries, enough to last an eternity. I think you need to do two things in order to comprehend what I am saying. 1. stop relying on the teachings you have been taught for years and blinding believe, for absolutes and instead actually look at the text.
2. Take God out of the convienient little box you have placed Him in and see how big He really is.

1) to 4) includes the entire list of created things with no exceptions. Which of them is "beyond the heavens"?

see above

Lack of details to satisfy your curiosity doesn't mean this creation is not in the creation accounts. It is right there in the text:

consistant with background not consistant with part of the account.

First account (opening statement) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (closing statement) "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created."

What do we know about the creation of the heavens and earth? That God created them. What do we know about the formation of the heavens and earth? God collected the waters (see more detail given that simply this is an act of God? What do we know about the formation of the plants and animals? God spoke and it was so, again, we have two absolutes, God did it and that it was spoken. How about man? God created him from the dust and breathed into him the breath of life. Here we have three details. All of creation includes some kind of detail except for the creation of the heavens and earth. For them (pronoun refering to the heavens and earth) we do not know if He collected them, spoke them into existance, created them from something else, created them from nothing at all, or something all together different. Because of this "contridiction" in details, the only viable conclusion is that their creation (their being a pronoun referring to heavens and earth) are background to the story about to unfold rather which is common literary practise though I wouldn't expect you to know that you only teach written lang. not understand it. The only consistant understanding is that the creation of the heavens and earth are background information and not an actual part of the account or story. Now I have said this about a million times (okay I exaggerate, about a dozen times) now and in as many (as many referring to dozen times) times now and you still assert that I have never shown you how we can know that it is background and not part of the actual story. I really think you would be wise to take some classes on reading, from the standpoint of a reading teacher, your comprehension skills seem to be very poor. Just a bit of helpful advice.

Second account (opening statement) "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...."

Proverbs 8 (Wisdom is speaking)
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above... when he marked out the foundations of the earth" etc.

So you cannot say it is not part of the account.

It says nothing about how it was done, when all the other creative events in Gen. give us some detail.

Listen to me for one moment. I understand what you are saying, you are stuck on two ideas, the traditions you have been taught, and the word beginning. I could also add to that the apparent issue with your lack of knowing everything, but that is speculation and not known fact as the other two are. Anyway, I understand fully well that you will always hold to your traditions and rationalizations of those traditions no matter what you have been taught and I have no interest in changing your mind. You have to come to terms with your own choices. But what I dream of is being able to sit here one time and explain to you something that is outside your arogant belief and have you actually show some signs of understanding the words being typed to you. A moment of comprehension that would look something like "oh, I see what you are saying or where you are coming from, I just don't agree" instead you continue to assert that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong because it is your traditional understanding. Your only explainations center around your traditions and your insistance that I never showed you how I come to the conclusions that I hold. Apparently, I dream in vain. Moving on.

Exactly. The point is that God created all things beginning with the heavens and the earth. The details of how he did it are not included and don't need to be. But that he created them is included in the account.

The beginning here refers to the beginning of the heavens and earth and not the beginning of eternity or all things created.

The details must be there for it to suggest that it is part of the creation account rather than background to the story.

Why? They are not at all comparable. No one has claimed that species were created out of nothing,

now we shift from God creating something from nothing (heavens and earth) to God creating something from nothing (species) where does it say that they were created from nothing. It says that God spoke them into existance. Nothing about what that existance first entailed. This is especially curious from a theistic evolutionist like you.

and that is true whether one is accepting or rejecting of evolution. Lots of things on/b] earth and in heaven could be secondary creations i.e. created from something. But that is not true when it comes to the creation of heaven and earth. This is the primordial creation and therefore a creation from nothing.

Let's cut to the chase, this opinion relies on your traditional understanding and not on the text at all for understanding. Since I have asserted many times including but not limited to the OP that we talk about the text and not tradition, you need to change your premise for communication to exist.

I would hope so. There is no place in scripture that limits the meaning of created heavens to physical heavens. God created all the heavens in the spiritual as well as the physical sense of the term.

If you are suggesting that God created all the spiritual and physical realms, I would agree, if you are asserting that this is all He created, I would say take God out of the box, He had and has an etenity which by the way He also created though you disagree with this, it is the only consistant understanding of your tradition.

No, you haven't, not even once. You have merely asserted that they do not say what I claim. As, for example, in this exchange from post 60


Time to go beyond assertion and show there is substance to what you have been claiming. Verify that these texts don't say what I claim they say.

Oh boy isn't this fun. Summary time
1.Without details of some kind, the creations of the heavens and earth can only be background to the story and not part of the actual story.
2. The words in Gen. 2:4 which are highlighted 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-



limits the text to the creation the things within the heavens and earth and not all the creative acts of God. The specific words here show us a limitation on our understanding that you lack the willingness to accept.
3. If God is the only thing that was not created, then eternity too must have been created as was time. Therefore you must deal with the issue of when was eternity created and when was time created? Now time could be argued to have been created when the "signs" for measuring time were created.

I think that about covers all my claims. Now, how about your claims, care to defend them?

Yes. Gen 1:1 and John 1:3 Gen 1:1 says this is God's first creative act, and John 1:3 shows that there could be nothing pre-exisiting from which the primordial creation could be made.

New International Version (NIV)John 1:3


3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

okay, you are going to have to show me where the heck this talks about the heavens and earth being that primordial creation. I have read it repeatedly and can't even find a suggestion of such (such referring to Oh heck this is getting really old, if you don't understand it, ask one of your students what such refers to) See the problem is that you use all these passages to evidence that God at one time or another created something from nothing. The only problem is, that no one has suggested or questioned or discussed that theology except for you. The question is whether or not the heavens and earth were the premordial creation and as you have been shown, we simply don't know, it is a mystery. You choose to support your claim with the use of the word beginning yet Gen. 2:4 specifies that this beginning is the beginning of the heavens and earth, and not the beginning of all things created. So the long and short of it is that the passages you present do nothing to support your claim that the heavens and earth are the premordial creation but rather support the idea that we simply don't know if it was or not, the claim I have been making.
If you are comprehending any of this, the discussion is not about did God create something from nothing, but rather is the heavens and earth in Gen. 1:1 a creative act of something from nothing........

The creation of heaven and earth (as distinct from things in heaven and earth) must precede all other creations and hence must be a creation from nothing. Other creations (of things in heaven or earth) may be secondary i.e. made of the substance of heaven and earth and not directly from nothing.

That is if the heavens and earth are premordial creations of which we don't have evidence to say and therefore must conclude that we simply don't know.

It is part of the account as nothing separates it from the rest of the account.

the seperation is that there is no detail given whereas the rest of the creation of things therein have detail.

1. has already been refuted above. 2. is a claim without substance. You are assuming a need for additional details, but this need does not exist since the evidence that refutes 1. is sufficient to establish the case.

It exists in the created world, but not in eternity. I think you are confusing the units and instruments of measurements with the measures themselves. For example, inches, feet and miles are units of length. And we use rulers or odometers to count how many units of length we have. And it is true, that even if I had no ruler or other instrument, or if I had one, but didn't use it, length would still exist.

But it is length itself that is the measure. Length is a measurement of a dimension of space. So we can only measure length (whatever the units or instruments) where we have space to measure.

There is no length to measure where space does not exist. And that is the situation when heaven and earth have not been created. Space is part of creation, so length is part of creation. No creation=no space=no length.

Same with time, since it is a measure of movement through space. Even if you had a working stop-watch, you can't measure time outside creation, because no creation=no space=no motion through space=no time. There is no time to be measured whether you want to measure it or not, whether you have the means to measure it or not.

You have absolutely no concept of the Heb. understanding of time do you? Study it and get back to me, a clear understanding will change this arguement completely. And keep in mind it is the Hebrew understanding that the text is based on.

No we are not, because we are created beings made to live in space and time. But when time comes to an end we must become timeless beings to survive in the timelessness of eternity.

Again, study the Heb. idea of time before you pretend to understand what time here refers to.

 

[razzelflabben]

Bara is only used in the absolute sense in Genesis 1:1 and there is no question about that.

What evidence shows us that it is an absolute in Gen. 1:1 but changes meaning in the rest of the chapter. Show the evidence, change my arguement.

The soul of man was not made from dirt, that could be where the confusion is coming from.

I don't recall anywhere in the entire bible that talks about when the soul was created or from what. Please show this evidence at the same time as above evidence and I will concede to your intellect on the matter.

Show me what your concordance says, quote cite and link if possible.

It says that bara is used throughout the chapter, I don't know how to quote it for you, it shows the same number referance throughout.

Don't challenge me to do an indepth expositional or exegetical study that you are going to ignore. I don't respond well to people who gloss over the particulars. Now if you have something substantive on Bara then present it, if not then don't act like I don't because you have allready seen it.

First off, I never ignore an actual study done on the word of God. Secondly, all I said to you is that the word you assert to mean something from nothing is used throughout the chapter which would include but not be limited to man. Therefore, for it to mean literally something from nothing, then we must conclude that man was not created from dust, but rather from nothing and the bible has a contridiction. If on the other hand, we interpret it to be as many scholars suggest, something that wasn't there before, then we can equally apply the meaning to the entire chapter without contridiction. You will have to choose which you hold to, but without evidence that the meaning of the word changed, I think I will at least for the moment stick with no contridiction simply because it is inconsistant literary style to change meanings of words part way through a book without evidence of doing so. I invite you to show how the definition changes, but I think that will indeed be a hard see for you to make.

The word is used effectivly and there is no contradiction, period. You want there to be something for God to create the world and the universe from because you can't concieve of anything else. You are struggling with a misconception, that is all there is to it.

I think you misunderstand me, I don't care one little bit whether God created the heavens and earth from nothing or from somthing. Two reasons why I don't care. 1. I seek only to know truth and if it affected me, God would have included it. 2. I don't believe that the creation of the heavens and earth are part of the creation story, but rather background information.

You see, the truth of scripture is that we don't know if it was created from nothing. Therefore, it must not matter which is why I object to being told that I believe it was created from nothing just because I argue what the bible says. The story of creation first is not about the creation as such and secondly is a minut part of all that God is, does, and will be. It is so small a part of eternity that we begin to grasp how little of God man can really hold.

First of all, yes it does tell us that the heavens and the earth were created from nothing. It does specify and it does not take a lot of work to see this in the original. Tradition has affirmed this not because it is oppossed to Scripture but because there is nothing else that can be concluded when looking at what is there.

then show this evidence. Glaudys has been trying to show it, but ends up just showing that we don't know which is my claim. She really doesn't understand the debate game.

I appreciate your persistance but you are lacking in the one essential area you should be excelling. If you are going to tell me this means something different in the original then you should be showing me from the original. Evolutionists do this all the time with science and I would expect much better from you.

You lack an understanding of what I am saying if you make this claim 1. I am not saying it means different, I am saying that Heb ancient meanings are not always easily translated. This is common knowledge. 2. I am asking you to apply your meaning consistantly with the text. When we do that we find a contridiction which means that either the text is a. contridictory or b. we don't understand the meaning as was intended at the time of the writing.

Just look at the verse in the original and we can clarify this once and for all.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Okay, let's look at it, but you must look at the whole chapter to see if there is consistancy. It is the consistancy that is the key and you should know this.

 

[razzelflabben]

I believe he is referring to this:

So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:21 ESV)

(emphasis added), where the original is bara, not referring to ex nihilo creation (presumably) or to creation of humans. You will note if you can cross-reference across multiple English translations that the difference between bara and asah is preserved in most translations: the former is translated "created", the latter "made".

And both are used of mankind!

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
(Genesis 1:26-27 ESV)

You all wanted further evidence to what I am saying, I just found this site, it has a lot of grammatical analysis which will be of great interest to glaudys, and sums up what I have been saying very well
http://homepage.mac.com/lawsonstone1/Sites/blog/Creation01.html

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys,

This is a bit hard to follow, so excuse me if this was mentioned in an earlier post. But if one believes the physical universe was created from nothing, how does one believe it to have been created?

Hi, Mark

Good question. Scripture tells us the physical universe was created by the Word of God, who is identified in the prologue to John's gospel. That is not a scientific explanation of cause, of course. But it is all we have. All it really tells us is that it was God's purpose to create and that all things were created solely by God's power, without going into any details of the causal mechanics of exactly how it was done.

This is why I keep insisting that the doctrine of creation is a doctrine. It is not a theory, because a theory would go into the mechanics of how it came to be. But it is a doctrine which we profess by faith in the power and loving purpose of God.

Was there a point where time and space did not exist, either? And how would they have come about?

Yes, according to Big Bang theory, time and space were brought into existence along with matter and energy by the Big Bang itself.

How the Big Bang came about is the question physicists are trying to get a handle on. I have no idea. This level of physics is way beyond me. I haven't grasped the simplest basics of quantum mechanics yet.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, according to Big Bang theory, time and space were brought into existence along with matter and energy by the Big Bang itself.

How the Big Bang came about is the question physicists are trying to get a handle on. I have no idea. This level of physics is way beyond me. I haven't grasped the simplest basics of quantum mechanics yet.

So when then did God create time and space? before or after the creation of the heavens and earth?

 

[gluadys]

eternity had to be created if as you proclaim God is the only thing not created.

Sometimes the limitations of language make it hard to speak of an aspect of God's nature except as a thing apart from God when in fact it is not. Is God's power a thing that can be separated from God such that we can say God created God's power? Of course not, for if God's power had to be brought into existence, God had no power to bring it into existence. Similarly with God's Word. Can the God exist apart from his Word? Does God have to create the Word before the Word can create all things? Ditto with eternity. If eternity, which is the dwelling place of God, had to be created, then God himself had to be created, for he could not be eternal until eternity was created.

So these concepts which we are forced by the conventions of language to separate and speak of as different things are truly all one. As the creed of Athanasius says, there is only one eternal and it is God.

First off we don't know for sure that the heavens here include both spiritual and physical heavens.

Yes we do. God created all things visible and invisible ( material and spiritual). God created the heavens (and some would say the earth also) as a spiritual and as a physical reality.

Secondly, we do not know if there is other than spiritual and physical worlds, because quite simply God doesn't tell us all the history of eternity.

That would be sheer speculation based on absence of evidence. It is like saying we don't know that there is an invisible pink unicorn sitting in a cherry tree. True, we don't know that, but neither do we base anything on the possibility.

stop relying on the teachings you have been taught for years and blinding believe, for absolutes and instead actually look at the text.

Don't assume I believe blindly. If I defend traditional theology it is because my study of it has confirmed its worth. I do not accept traditional theology when I find fault in it, as others on this board can tell you.

What do we know about the creation of the heavens and earth? That God created them. What do we know about the formation of the heavens and earth?

That's right. Note that scripture separates the creation of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1-2) from the formation of the heavens and earth into a cosmos (Gen. 1: 3-10). The formation of heaven and earth into a cosmic order takes place after bringing them into existence and involves a re-arrangement of the matter/energy brought into existence in the beginning into specific forms and structures such as Day/Night, the firmament, dry land.

Scripture gives us picturesque details of this formation, but not of the initial creation.

All of creation includes some kind of detail except for the creation of the heavens and earth.

Which, of course, does not mean that God did not create them, or that the writers of the creation accounts failed to include this fact in their accounts.

The details must be there for it to suggest that it is part of the creation account rather than background to the story.

1.Without details of some kind, the creations of the heavens and earth can only be background to the story and not part of the actual story.

A theory of narration I have never heard before. What is the basis for this conclusion? Show that this is a valid statement.

In fact, the function of background is usually to add detail that would detract from the flow of the narrative. It is not to be more vague than the account, but to be more detailed and specific.

2. The words in Gen. 2:4 which are highlighted 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-



limits the text to the creation the things within the heavens and earth and not all the creative acts of God.

No, it doesn't. It speaks of the creation of the heavens and the earth when they were created. There is no limitation to the contents of heaven and earth.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
[/B]
okay, you are going to have to show me where the heck this talks about the heavens and earth being that primordial creation.

The heavens and the earth are part of the "all things" which God created. Everything other than the heavens and earth are parts of the structure of heaven and earth or part of the contents and inhabitants of heaven and earth. So the heavens and the earth have to be the primordial creation as no other created thing can exist without their prior existence.

You choose to support your claim with the use of the word beginning yet Gen. 2:4 specifies that this beginning is the beginning of the heavens and earth, and not the beginning of all things created.

It specifies no such thing, unless you can demonstrate that something could be created prior to the heavens and the earth. Something that is not part of the heavens and the earth, or part of their contents or inhabitants.

 

[gluadys]

So when then did God create time and space? before or after the creation of the heavens and earth?

Neither before nor after. The creation of time and space along with matter and energy is the primordial creation of the heavens and earth in their as yet unformed state.

This is consistent both with the description of creation in Gen. 1:1-2 and with the scientific description of the Big Bang.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sometimes the limitations of language make it hard to speak of an aspect of God's nature except as a thing apart from God when in fact it is not. Is God's power a thing that can be separated from God such that we can say God created God's power? Of course not, for if God's power had to be brought into existence, God had no power to bring it into existence. Similarly with God's Word. Can the God exist apart from his Word? Does God have to create the Word before the Word can create all things? Ditto with eternity. If eternity, which is the dwelling place of God, had to be created, then God himself had to be created, for he could not be eternal until eternity was created.

So these concepts which we are forced by the conventions of language to separate and speak of as different things are truly all one. As the creed of Athanasius says, there is only one eternal and it is God..

This arguement is not consistant with your previous evaluation of time.

Yes we do. God created all things visible and invisible ( material and spiritual). God created the heavens (and some would say the earth also) as a spiritual and as a physical reality.

so not visible and invisible are material and spiritual alone. Wow, I would use a quote from the princess bribe here but I am sure that would get me in trouble. How do you figure that visible and invisible are equal to material and spiritual. This out to be good.....

BTW, I am not interested in what "some would say" I am interested in what the bible says.

That would be sheer speculation based on absence of evidence. It is like saying we don't know that there is an invisible pink unicorn sitting in a cherry tree. True, we don't know that, but neither do we base anything on the possibility.

and I hold that from a Heb. understanding (what the original text was written in, it is inprobable to asume that God did nothing for an eternity until just a few million years ago, but that of course is going off the hebrew understanding of eternity and your premise is much different, so I guess you can have your assumptions while I will continue to seek the biblical answers. To bad we can't start a discussion as the OP asks we do with the same premise, that would truely prove to be an interesting discussion. Ah well, moving onward.

Don't assume I believe blindly. If I defend traditional theology it is because my study of it has confirmed its worth. I do not accept traditional theology when I find fault in it, as others on this board can tell you.

It would be simple to evidence your claim here by showing how the traditional ideas you hold are the same as the biblical ones I purpose, and yet you fail to do so. Thus the only logical conclusion one can draw is that you are not as open to dismissing tradition as you think you are.

That's right. Note that scripture separates the creation of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1-2) from the formation of the heavens and earth into a cosmos (Gen. 1: 3-10). The formation of heaven and earth into a cosmic order takes place after bringing them into existence and involves a re-arrangement of the matter/energy brought into existence in the beginning into specific forms and structures such as Day/Night, the firmament, dry land.

Scripture gives us picturesque details of this formation, but not of the initial creation.

and again you support my claims. Interesting really. The story doesn't begin with the creation of heavens and earth but with what happens after their creation.

Which, of course, does not mean that God did not create them, or that the writers of the creation accounts failed to include this fact in their accounts.

Never suggested otherwise. Again, you try to take it back to the whole idea of a creation from nothing. Problem is that isn't the discussion. The discussion is about whether or not we have evidence that says that the heavens and earth were indeed a premordial creation. The bible lacks this information, leaving us alone with our traditional beliefs.

A theory of narration I have never heard before. What is the basis for this conclusion? Show that this is a valid statement.

I previously posted a url for a site which shows it in terms you can understand because it is all about the grammer of the heb. text. Check it out, if nothing else it is interesting.

In fact, the function of background is usually to add detail that would detract from the flow of the narrative. It is not to be more vague than the account, but to be more detailed and specific.

exactly, as in God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void.....now I set the stage for what is about to come ......

No, it doesn't. It speaks of the creation of the heavens and the earth when they were created. There is no limitation to the contents of heaven and earth.

Have it your way, you won't listen to anything but your own arguement anyway. But, the text identifies it as the beginning of this part, not the beginning of all. Denying it all day won't change it.

The heavens and the earth are part of the "all things" which God created.

Yep, never suggested otherwise, in fact, I corrected somone who said that gen 1:1 didn't say God created the heavens and earth.

Everything other than the heavens and earth are parts of the structure of heaven and earth or part of the contents and inhabitants of heaven and earth.

yep again, never suggested otherwise.

So the heavens and the earth have to be the primordial creation as no other created thing can exist without their prior existence.

they are the beginning of the creative act, not necessarily the primordial creation of all that God has done. Big difference.

It specifies no such thing, unless you can demonstrate that something could be created prior to the heavens and the earth. Something that is not part of the heavens and the earth, or part of their contents or inhabitants.

That is easy. Look at who God is. That alone is a demonstration that something else could have been created prior to the heavens and earth. But let's go deeper. We don't know about the angels, they could have been. Just because you like one theory over another doesn't remove the posibilities of the theory. The nephilum, space, time, eternity, all could be previous creative acts. Thus in what we don't know, we can demonstrate that something else is possible. But I know, none of this is me showing you that other things are possible, I am just typing out grammatically challenging text that you can ignore and then site me as not saying. All the demonstration needed is that God was there we weren't and some things He hides from man.

 

[gluadys]

You all wanted further evidence to what I am saying, I just found this site, it has a lot of grammatical analysis which will be of great interest to glaudys, and sums up what I have been saying very well
http://homepage.mac.com/lawsonstone1/Sites/blog/Creation01.html

This is a very informative article. Thanks for the link.

I don't understand why you say it sums up what you have been saying, as I have got very different messages from your posts. But then I never do understand you very well.

Some gems from the article:

The text here does not convey the concept of creatio ex nihilo or "creation out of nothing" that we love to find there and use as a jumping off point for our preaching. It is a relative beginning that is spoken of here, the beginning of the economy in which we live, sin, and find redemption.

Does that mean a denial of the concept of creatio ex nihilo? Not at all.​

This is what hithesh and I both said: to attach creatio ex nihilo to the meaning of Gen. 1:1 requires referencing other texts as well. That meaning cannot come from Gen. 1:1 alone, but from the understanding that God alone is uncreated and from the primacy of the creation of heaven and earth before all other things.

In the early 20th century, most conservative exegetes from G. Campbell Morgan to the Scofield Reference Bible subscribed to what was called the "gap theory" of Genesis 1:1-2. They held that Genesis 1:1 described the ultimate creation at the very beginning of time, and that Genesis 1:2 described the results of some catastrophe that marred the creation, with Genesis 1:3ff describing God's renewal and refurbishing of the world.​

Mr. Stone apparently doesn't agree with gap theology (nor do I) but correctly points out that even in this perspective, Gen. 1:1 alludes to the primordial creation out of nothing.

The expression "heavens and earth" denote much more than "sky and ground." Scholars call the phrase a merismus, a pair of words that express "everything in between." English expressions like "from soup to nuts" or "lock, stock and barrel" which express "everything" serve a similar role. So the term "heaven and earth" is the Hebrew way to say "the entire cosmos." Thus the phrase appears in Gen 1:1, and then again in 2:3-4a when the writer summarizes the entire account. So Genesis emphatically attributes the existence of the whole cosmos to the one creator God it proclaims.​

So much for speculation that there was ever a creation that is not included in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Something that could have been created before them. "Heavens and earth" means everything, all things, the whole cosmos. There is nothing in creation that is not included in the heavens and the earth.

Third, none the occurrences of bara' appear with a grammatical feature known as the "accusative of material." That is, while materials for the creation may appear in the larger literary context, never does bara' appear grammatically bound to a construction that would be like we see in Gen 2:7, "Yahweh God molded the man [out of] the dust of the ground." The phrase "out of dust" which appears in Hebrew with no preposition would be called an accusative of material. So while bara' does not mean, "create out of nothing," it still seems to resist grammatical connection with statements about materials. What does this suggest? It suggests that bara' is not about the how of creation, but about the what. The word stresses the naked fact of a fresh, new, distinctively divine creative act. Rather than plunge into mechanics and processes, bara' simply stands back and says "Whatever the materials, whatever the processes, what counts is the single fact that GOD CREATED."​

Emphasis added.

I didn't know this about 'bara' before. But that explains the lack of details in Gen. 1:1. They would be inconsistent with the use of 'bara'. The focus here is not on the how of creation but on the fact of creation. That it was the primordial creation and a creation out of nothing is clear, not from Gen. 1:1, but from other texts.

 

[razzelflabben]

Neither before nor after. The creation of time and space along with matter and energy is the primordial creation of the heavens and earth in their as yet unformed state.

This is consistent both with the description of creation in Gen. 1:1-2 and with the scientific description of the Big Bang.

this is simply not true of time and space as you define them. Take the easiest one to evidence you wrong, time is not measurable until God creates light and dark. Therefore time couldn't by your definition be created with heavens and earth. Now if you want to change your definition of time, we could make it fit. But as you have yourself defined it, no, once again you contridict yourself. If you don't just hand wave this contridiction away, we'll deal with space later, though I figure I won't need to both. You wave your hand pretty good.

 

[gluadys]

Interesting really. The story doesn't begin with the creation of heavens and earth but with what happens after their creation.

How you can read plain English (or Hebrew) and claim the story does not begin with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" I don't know. Of course it begins with the creation of the heavens and the earth. That is what the first sentence of the story is about and is the only thing the first sentence of the story is about.

The discussion is about whether or not we have evidence that says that the heavens and earth were indeed a premordial creation. The bible lacks this information, leaving us alone with our traditional beliefs.

The bible does not lack this information. You have been shown that this information exists in scripture. Go re-read this thread.

A theory of narration I have never heard before. What is the basis for this conclusion? Show that this is a valid statement.

I previously posted a url for a site which shows it in terms you can understand because it is all about the grammer of the heb. text.

It is a good article, and I commended it. But a text discussing Hebrew grammar is not a text on a theory of narration which claims that lack of detail about how creation took place means the first sentence of the story is not part of the narrative.

You will have to come up with actual support for this strange theory of narrative, not toss out a red herring that is discussing something entirely different.

That is easy. Look at who God is. That alone is a demonstration that something else could have been created prior to the heavens and earth.

So now you are suggesting that God was created?

the angels, The nephilum, space, time,

All included in "the heavens and the earth" None were, or could have been, created prior to them.