Creation started with nothing?

[razzelflabben]

a more accurate analogy would be just because I have a grandchild, this does not mean I have a child.



Nothing is always the child that produces the grandchild.

yep thanks

 

[razzelflabben]

I am getting very frustrated at my computer today, I get almost all the way through a response and the whole thing shuts down with not sign of virus causing it. I will try not to take that frustration out on you.

No, there is no such option.

Now you are misrepresenting what Stone is saying. Read it again:

God could have had a history with the created order older than the one we know of from the Bible.​

How could God have a history with the created order before he created it?

Your assertion here is not based on the translation of heavens and earth or on stones article but rather on your own need to justify your bias. But let's look at it.

Scholars disagree on whether or not the word is heaven or heavens so let's not even go there at all, lets look at other scriptures for a clue.

First thing we see is that the heavens and earth put forth in Gen. 1:1 are not the only creative acts of God"s heaven and earth. consider the following....
Isaiah 65:17

17 "Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.

Now I got to wonder how we can see this scripture and make a definative statement like this couldn't have happened before. Seems almost like a self righteous arogance to me, but let's not stop there. Apparently the heavens and earth did not include all things created or there wouldn't be a new heaven and earth being created.

this is not the only reference to this new heaven and new earth, new creations after the one mentioned in Gen. 1:1 but one reference really intrigues me. Isa 66
Isaiah 66:22

22 "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure.

Note that the suggestion here is that the new creation endured before God did. How can that be if God is the only eternal? Let's look at other translations and see if we can make sense out of any of it.

KJV
22For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.


clearly specifies they are to be made yet, but still gives us this existance before God. One explaination might be that they existed in God's mind or heart. A literalist my say that there was matter before God, I would tend to the first because of the second part of the verse. so shall your seed and your name remain.

Bottom line is, there is nothing in scripture to specify that the heavens and earth in Gen. 1:1 are God's only creative acts and passages to suggest otherwise. Now I am sure since you don't like what it says here that I didn't show you what I just did, but we will cross that bridge when you say it. Until then look at the bible for answers about God, not the church.

He could certainly have a history with the created order before he made humanity, before he made life on earth, even before he shaped earth into a planet. But before God can have a history with the created order, there must be a created order to have a history with.

And, as Stone notes elsewhere in the article, the Hebrew phrase for "the created order" is "the heavens and the earth".

God brings the heavens and the earth (the created order, the whole cosmos, the universe) into being and then has a long history with it before he brings particular things like the sun, earth, life, and humans into it. The bible tells us little to nothing about that long history, but it does tell us that God's first creative act is to create creation i.e. (using Hebrew terminology) "the heavens and the earth".

How can it possibly be otherwise? How can God have a history, however long, with creation if the created order has not been created yet?

see above.

Stone is saying that to an ancient reader, the biblical story seems to begin in the middle, because it says nothing about the primal matrix, the generation of the gods, the conflict between the gods, and the use of a defeated god(dess)'s body as material for creation.

Of course, the reason the biblical story does not include these things is because they are part of a false story of creation. The biblical story begins at the true beginning.

Can you really assign a different meaning to what Stone is saying here?

Let's look at what stone says his point is.....

The point here being that, for Israel's neighbors, the actual structure of the universe exists outside of and prior to the deities known as creator gods. The gods are many, diverse, limited, sexually generated, and will ultimately dissolve back into the primal matrix that generated them in the first place. But Genesis 1:1 and 2:3-4a know of no realm of power outside God and announce that the whole structure of the universe, the whole order of being, is a God thing, his unique handiwork. While the pagan gods had to submit to the order of being into which they were born, the God of Genesis 1 is the author of the order of being into which we are born. And since Genesis only knows of one, supreme God, this means that no alternative orders of being exist. Only God can establish the framework for life and existence, and if we reject him as our creator, we will only fail as we try to construct other "worlds" in which to live.

Not the setting. The setting describes the place, atmosphere and mood in which the action occurs. Genesis gets right into the action. After all, you can't describe a place that hasn't been created yet.

Seeing Genesis 1:1 as a temporal clause fits well with the common semitic, and distinctively Hebrew, pattern for beginning a narrative. Almost anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, and equally common in other semitic narrative, a story begins with a temporal clause, a series of circumstantial clauses sketching in the setting, and then a well-defined verbal construction that begins the main narrative sequence

Note, however, that when a story does begin with a setting, that is the beginning of the story. You cannot claim it is not part of the story. The setting is just as much part of the story as the characters and the plot.

I didn't say otherwise, I said it was background, just as a single celled population is background and essentual to the tale, the creation of heavens and earth are background and essential to the tale.

I have edited your statement to make it really agree with Stone.

Yes, it is part of the actual story. Especially since it includes the first action in the story.

You have absolutely no idea how to listen do you?

 

[gluadys]

First thing we see is that the heavens and earth put forth in Gen. 1:1 are not the only creative acts of God"s heaven and earth. consider the following....

Well, I see you have reached the point of desperation and are only making ad hoc nonsensical arguments that no longer speak to the point.

I never claimed the creation of the heavens and the earth were God's only creative act. I said they were his first creative act. No future creation of a new heavens and earth gainsays that.

Let's look at what stone says his point is.....

Still looks to me that it is exactly what I stated, a contrast between pagan cosmologies, which include a long pre-history of the gods before the creation of heaven and earth, and the Hebrew cosmology, which does not.

If you think the point is something different please show specifically where this does not apply.


Seeing Genesis 1:1 as a temporal clause fits well with the common semitic, and distinctively Hebrew, pattern for beginning a narrative. Almost anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, and equally common in other semitic narrative, a story begins with a temporal clause, a series of circumstantial clauses sketching in the setting, and then a well-defined verbal construction that begins the main narrative sequence

I saw your bolding. Do you see mine?

Nothing listed is not part of the story as you were claiming.

You were not just claiming that this was essential to the tale. That I agree with.

You were claiming it was not part of the creation account at all. That was where you went wrong.

You have absolutely no idea how to listen do you?

Psychiatrists have a word for this. It's called "projection". Check it out.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I see you have reached the point of desperation and are only making ad hoc nonsensical arguments that no longer speak to the point.

Call it what you want, the bible says that when God creates the new heaven and the new earth this one will no longer be remembered. Thus the point is, why would we assume that the same has not happened before. If the text does not specify as we have already discussed at length whether or not this is the first creative act of God and we know that others will follow removing even the memory of this one, why should we assume that it is impossible (as you assert) that there were not creative acts before this. That would be absurd. The possibility is reinforced by the text that tells us what is to follow and is further reinforced by lack of evidence that suggests it is the first creative act. If you think that is ad hoc, that is your opinion, but the truth is, it is the same type of scientific evidence used to support all kinds of theories including but not limited to evolution and you hold those in high esteem. The same reasoning applied here you dismiss as ad hoc. That is indeed a double standard.

I never claimed the creation of the heavens and the earth were God's only creative act. I said they were his first creative act. No future creation of a new heavens and earth gainsays that.

According to the future prophecy, we wouldn't know if it was, because all rememberance on this creation will be removed. Let me ask you this, do you think that if all memory of this heavens and earth are removed that somewhere in the new heavens and the new earth, someone will once again have this discussion about if thiers is the first creative act of God? That is the point. We don't know and the future as recorded in the bible says that it is possible that thee were others but their memory has been wiped away. Does that mean that they existed? I don't know. Does it mean it is possible? absolutely. That is my entire burden of proof, because my claim is that it is possible, not that it is so.

Still looks to me that it is exactly what I stated, a contrast between pagan cosmologies, which include a long pre-history of the gods before the creation of heaven and earth, and the Hebrew cosmology, which does not.

I quoted his said point and you still missed it. Please oh please read for comprehension.

If you think the point is something different please show specifically where this does not apply.

I quoted his stated point and you say that isn't the point. If the point is not what he claims it to be, who are you to know better than the author what his intended point is?

Seeing Genesis 1:1 as a temporal clause fits well with the common semitic, and distinctively Hebrew, pattern for beginning a narrative. Almost anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, and equally common in other semitic narrative, a story begins with a temporal clause, a series of circumstantial clauses sketching in the setting, and then a well-defined verbal construction that begins the main narrative sequence

I saw your bolding. Do you see mine?

yep a story begins, but how according to stone does that story begin? That is the point, you can't take an incomplete phrase and call it the point of the paragraph. Come on, even you know this.

Nothing listed is not part of the story as you were claiming.

You were not just claiming that this was essential to the tale. That I agree with.

You were claiming it was not part of the creation account at all. That was where you went wrong.

actually I claimed as stone did that this is the background information, the setting up the the story that is to come. I even gave you examples and compared it to evolution. I included stone and quotes that said the same thing. If you read anything else into what I said, that is your problem because I was more than clear. Background is always essential to the story or it would not be included. However, background sets the stage for the story but is not the story itself. And that is exactly what I said many many many many many many times over.

Psychiatrists have a word for this. It's called "projection". Check it out.

Yep, we all do it, how many times alone have you done it here on this thread. You do it when you assert that the heavens and earth were created from nothing, when you assert that beginning refers to the first creative act and so forth and so on. At least I have the decency to admit that it is speculation or projection and why I look at it the way I do. Thus saying, it isn't fact, but opinion and that is an honesty you have yet to show for you own personal beliefs and opinions.

edit: I reread what this was referring to after I accidently clicked the button. Sorry. I wonder why you would assume that I was projecting not listening upon you when I have demonstrated through others and through stone himself that you are not hearing what is being said. If an author says, "the point is...." we can only assume if we are listening that the point the author wants to make is... as follows. That is all about listening. You can't do this.

 

[gluadys]

You know, it is really fascinating to go back over a thread like this to observe your tactics and how you gradually shift the focus of your arguments until you can end up proclaiming that you "never contested" the very thing you did contest in the OP. I have just gleaned seven pages of this classic razzelflabben style.

At this stage we have two points of contention. One is doctrinal. Did God create ex nihilo?

The other is literary: whether the creation of heaven and earth is part of the creation account.

By now you have refined the first to read "Did God create the heavens and earth from nothing?" But that was not the point of the OP. In the OP the question was general. In the OP you said:

Creation started with nothing?
Okay, so we have a creation of heaven and earth. First off, it wasn't from nothing, ... Where does this idea of something from nothing come from? certainly not from the bible!

Not only do I not suggest that somthing comes from nothing, but the bible doesn't suggest it either.

This is the line of thought you presented until post 21 where you change your tune to this:

I am suggesting to you all that the bible does not specify that something came from nothing and therefore nulls any arguement thereof.

So now it is no longer a flat statement that creation comes from something, but that the biblical text is not specific about whether it came from something or nothing. Creation from nothing is a possibility, but not the only possibility.

Then in post 36 we have another shift:

I am not talking about whether or not God ever created something from nothing. ... What evidence do you have to show that the heaven and earth were what God created from nothing?

We don't know what if anything God created before the heavens and earth.

Oh, so now creation from nothing is a given. Something was created from nothing. (Quite a change from the OP or even post 21) But what was it that was created from nothing? Was it the heaven and earth? Or was something else created first?

In post 53 we get another subtle shift

I am not argueing that the heavens and earth were not created from nothing but rather that by reason of the text we do not know if they were or weren't.

So the possibility is opened up that it could be that the heaven and earth were created from nothing.

Post 56 introduces a new angle:

Gen. 1:1 can only refer to the beginning of the physical world we know

which is modified in post 70

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

and abandoned in post 91

Sure, it can be both the spiritual and phyical because yes we know both.

Meanwhile we also get another refinement: (post 77)

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.

So, now it is not only a given that God created out of nothing, but that the primordial creation was the creation out of nothing. All that remains to be established is that the creation of the heavens and the earth is this primordial creation.

But, of course it is. As this exchange from post 77 shows:

(me) 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.

(razzle) yep again, never suggested otherwise.

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

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

No big difference at all. "the beginning of the creative act" is just another way of saying "the primordial creation".

In posts 81 & 102 we get two more red herrings:

There is absolutely nothing in the bible to suggest that there is not more to God than the cosmos.

First thing we see is that the heavens and earth put forth in Gen. 1:1 are not the only creative acts of God"s heaven and earth.

Perfectly true statements, but neither of them relevant to the point.

Finally, though I have avoided it, there is the significance of 'bara' where you misinterpreted the Stone article to add your own special touch. (post 81)

(stone) 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. ...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."

(razzle) Exactly to the letter what I have been saying all along. WE DON'T KNOW IF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH WERE CREATED FROM SOMETHING OR NOTHING. The use of the word bara does nothing to make the claim that the heavens and earth were created from nothing but rather says to us that this is now something that wasn't before. Isn't it funny that this is what I have been saying all along?

Sorry, razzle, but the statement in ALL CAPS is not part of what Stone is saying. He is not saying we don't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing. He is only saying that we can't establish that from the use of 'bara' in Gen. 1:1. He agrees that we can establish that from other biblical references, notably Hebrews 11:3.

btw, I had to laugh when I read the link in post 9 which you describe as asserting something "very different than to create from nothing at all".

Here is what it asserts"

--The Bible teaches in Genesis 1:1 (with Hebrew 11:3) that God created everything out of nothing, "ex- nihilo" (a creation from nothing).
--it refers to creating things "ex nihilo", or out of nothing."
--The verb expresses creation out of nothing
--{Created] Caused existence where previously to this moment there was no being. The rabbins, who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal criticism on their own language are unanimous in asserting that the word "bara" expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing, or egression [sic] from nonentity to entity.....The supposition that God formed all things out of pre-existing, eternal nature, is certainly absurd....."
--The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. ... The purport of the verses is thus: In the beginning G-d created the heavens from nought, and He created the earth from nought....
--The words in Heb. 11:3 "what is seen was made out of things which do not appear", taken with Gn. 1:1, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", indicate that the worlds were not made of pre-existent material, but out of nothing by the divine Word, in the sense that prior to the divine creative fiat there was no other kind of existence. This Creatio ex nihilo has important theological implications, for among other things it precludes the idea that matter is eternal.....
--The bottom line summary of all the above references is that God created from things which did not appear, He created from nothing.

To sum up, I can only re-iterate what I said in post 41

creating the heavens and the earth was the first of God's creative acts.

What does scripture tell us.
1. God is one. There is no other god.
2. God alone is eternal. There is none other like God.
3. God created all things: heaven and earth and all things seen and unseen. Nothing other than God exists which God did not create.
4. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This is where every creation story in the bible starts.
5. Creation is not God. It was made by God.

Conclusion: since nothing but God existed until he created it, and since heaven and earth were the beginning of creation, God created the universe from nothing.

Points 1, 2 and 5 have never been in dispute. Points 3 and 4 have been sufficiently established. The conclusion is unavoidable from these.

I'll deal with the literary question in another post.

 

[Mark2010]

OK, so if something was created from nothing, what was that something?

Was it the building blocks of matter, atoms, molecules, etc.? Or were things created in the form we observe them today?

 

[razzelflabben]

You know, it is really fascinating to go back over a thread like this to observe your tactics and how you gradually shift the focus of your arguments until you can end up proclaiming that you "never contested" the very thing you did contest in the OP. I have just gleaned seven pages of this classic razzelflabben style.

At this stage we have two points of contention. One is doctrinal. Did God create ex nihilo?

The other is literary: whether the creation of heaven and earth is part of the creation account.

did you miss the context again? The context from the OP to now is and has been creation. So thus when saying the bible doesn't specify something from nothing, the context specifies that we are not talking about anything but the creation specified in Gen. You really must learn what context is all about.

By now you have refined the first to read "Did God create the heavens and earth from nothing?" But that was not the point of the OP. In the OP the question was general. In the OP you said:

the OP always put the questions and answers in the context of the Gen. account of creation. The only thing you offered in that account as being created from nothing was the heavens and earth and thus the discussion became more defined from the creation as recorded in Gen. to the creation of the heavens and earth. No contridiction and trying to create one just because you have no valid arguements is indeed a strawman.

This is the line of thought you presented until post 21 where you change your tune to this:

again, put it into the context of the OP and the entire thread. The context is the creation recorded in Gen. Thus in context I do not need to specify that every time a comment is made because it has already been established that any discussion will be directed to that established context. Now I know you can't understand any of this, so maybe you can find somone to explain it to you.

So now it is no longer a flat statement that creation comes from something, but that the biblical text is not specific about whether it came from something or nothing. Creation from nothing is a possibility, but not the only possibility.

Ah so now all of a sudden I am correct in my assertions. And btw, context shows that it has always been my assertion and that assertion has not changed.

Then in post 36 we have another shift:


Oh, so now creation from nothing is a given. Something was created from nothing. (Quite a change from the OP or even post 21) But what was it that was created from nothing? Was it the heaven and earth? Or was something else created first?

In post 53 we get another subtle shift


So the possibility is opened up that it could be that the heaven and earth were created from nothing.

Post 56 introduces a new angle:


which is modified in post 70


and abandoned in post 91


Meanwhile we also get another refinement: (post 77)


So, now it is not only a given that God created out of nothing, but that the primordial creation was the creation out of nothing. All that remains to be established is that the creation of the heavens and the earth is this primordial creation.

But, of course it is. As this exchange from post 77 shows:



No big difference at all. "the beginning of the creative act" is just another way of saying "the primordial creation".

and I thought we were making progress but alas you once again fail to listen or to put things in context. And you wonder why we can't communicate?

In posts 81 & 102 we get two more red herrings:



Perfectly true statements, but neither of them relevant to the point.

Finally, though I have avoided it, there is the significance of 'bara' where you misinterpreted the Stone article to add your own special touch. (post 81)



Sorry, razzle, but the statement in ALL CAPS is not part of what Stone is saying. He is not saying we don't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing. He is only saying that we can't establish that from the use of 'bara' in Gen. 1:1. He agrees that we can establish that from other biblical references, notably Hebrews 11:3.

Actually, he says that his personal belief is that it can be established from Heb. 11:3, not that the text actually establishes that. Thus I showed you why it (the text) does not establish it. So what you see here is gluady's once again trying to save face by taking things out of context and out of intended meaning to blame someone else for your lack of evidence to support your claims.

btw, I had to laugh when I read the link in post 9 which you describe as asserting something "very different than to create from nothing at all".

Here is what it asserts"



To sum up, I can only re-iterate what I said in post 41

When you learn to read for comprehension which btw includes context let me know we can then have another go at it.



Points 1, 2 and 5 have never been in dispute. Points 3 and 4 have been sufficiently established. The conclusion is unavoidable from these.

I'll deal with the literary question in another post.[/quote]

 

[gluadys]

OK, literary question.

You begin in post 9 by asserting:

Point is, the actual creation of the heaven and earth are not a part of the creation story or more details would be given.

This is an erroneous statement on two counts:
1. The amount of detail is not what determines whether a sentence or paragraph is part of the account.
2. As the first action in the account, the creation of heaven and earth are part of the creation account.

On occasion you seem to recognise that what you are really talking about is the introductory section of the story. For example, in post 82 you say"

It is indeed the first sentence of the narrative and gives us background information necessary for a correct understanding, ... This holds true with the creation of heavens and earth as well. That they exist because of God is background to understanding the rest of the story.

Emphasis added.

That is properly stated. The first sentence of the narrative is, obviously, part of the narrative. And when it introduces material necessary to understanding "the rest of the story", it is clear that it is part of the story--the introductory part. Just as the conclusion of the story is part of the story which "the rest of the story" leads up to.

In short, just because material in a narrative is introductory and provides necessary background for a thorough understanding of the story as it continues to unfold, it doesn't mean this introductory material is no part of the story.

You may be confusing "story" or "narrative" or "account" with "plot". Plot is the sequence of action in a story. But there is more to a story than plot. Setting of time, place and mood through descriptive language, descriptions of characters, of their psychology and character development are all as much part of a story as the plot line. So "story" or "narrative" or "account" are more general terms than "plot" which only refers to the sequence of events and is only part of the story.

However, you can't exclude Gen. 1:1 even from the plot line, for it names the first event in the sequence of creative events, namely the creation of heaven and earth.

One thing you have been trying to do is say that Gen. 1:1 does not refer to an event. For example (from posts 44, 64 & 77 )

Creation likewise, doesn't start with the creation of the heavens and earth, but rather after they were created and builds down from there.

the creation accout as recorded in Gen. starts with the creation or existance of the heavens and earth,

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

This is just wrong. The account begins with the statement "God created the heavens and the earth" so it does begin with the creation of the heavens and the earth, not later. It is not a matter of the heavens and earth already being in existence. It is stating that God created them, brought them into existence. This is an act, an event, part of the plot line of the story.

Another point you have been stressing is that the first verse(s) are essential to understanding (the rest of) the story. It provides essential background information. That is not the point of contention. Of course it provides information essential to the rest of the story. But that is not grounds for excluding it from the story or saying that the story doesn't begin with the creation of the heavens and the earth, but only later on.

 

[gluadys]

OK, so if something was created from nothing, what was that something?

Was it the building blocks of matter, atoms, molecules, etc.? Or were things created in the form we observe them today?

Definitely not in the form we know them today. Otherwise the text would not show God taking six days to create the formal structure of the universe and filling that structure with appropriate inhabitants.

And from a scientific perspective (though the time-line and order of events is different) the answer is also no, definitely not in the form we observe them today.

In its initial state, the universe was incredibly small (though it still contained all the energy and matter that it does today) and so incredibly hot that not even atoms were formed yet. Not even atomic nuclei. There wasn't space in so small a universe to accommodate the size of an atom -- which, as you know, is mostly empty space. And the energy level was so high that sub-atomic particles could not bond together yet.

These things only occurred after some expansion and cooling of the universe.

 

[gluadys]

did you miss the context again? The context from the OP to now is and has been creation. So thus when saying the bible doesn't specify something from nothing, the context specifies that we are not talking about anything but the creation specified in Gen.

You contradict yourself, again. I specifically asked whether the context was limited to Genesis 1 or whether all the creation texts could be referenced, and you said (post 53):

It must be in the bible or other supporting evidence.

So you agreed that the context of creation was not limited to Genesis, much less the first chapter of Genesis. In fact, you didn't even limit it to the bible, but allowed for the inclusion of "other supporting evidence".

Actually, he says that his personal belief is that it can be established from Heb. 11:3, not that the text actually establishes that.

Well, he can't believe that creatio ex nihilo is established from Heb. 11:3 and at the same time say WE DON'T KNOW IF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH WERE CREATED FROM SOMETHING OR NOTHING.

As far as he is concerned, we do know.

You can quarrel with his interpretation of Heb. 11:3 if you like, but you have no right to claim that he is quarreling with his own interpretation.

When you claim that Stone is saying WE DON'T KNOW...etc. you are putting your words into his mouth in contradiction to Stone's own testimony that we do know, because we do have references elsewhere in scripture that provide that knowledge.

When you learn to read for comprehension which btw includes context let me know we can then have another go at it.

You point to a text (post 9) that affirms seven times over that God created from nothing and describe it as saying something "very different than to create from nothing at all".

And you think I am the one who has a problem with context?

 

[razzelflabben]

OK, literary question.

You begin in post 9 by asserting:


This is an erroneous statement on two counts:
1. The amount of detail is not what determines whether a sentence or paragraph is part of the account.
2. As the first action in the account, the creation of heaven and earth are part of the creation account.

Now I am trying hard not to talk down to you, you are indeed very intelligent but that is ever increasingly difficult to do with this type of response to very simple concepts.

So here goes my effort....what is the context of the statment?

The context is that the creation of the heavens and earth are background information to the story but not part of the story itself. It gives us details necessary for understanding the point of the story but is not itself the story. Without it, we will not be able to understand the point of the story, but it is not the story. That is the context of the statement you are using to identify me as stupid.

Let's look at it from another story....My children some anyway are currently reading Narnia. The first paragraph of the story says..." This is a story about something that happened long ago when your grandfather was a child. It is a very important story because it shows how all the comings and goings between our own world and the land of Narnia first began."....this first paragraph then shows some of the background necessary for understanding the story that is about to unfold. It is not the story but necessary for understanding the story. It is related to the story but not the story itself. How can I possibly make my comments here any clearer? The background that sets the stage is necessary for the story but not the story itself.

On occasion you seem to recognise that what you are really talking about is the introductory section of the story. For example, in post 82 you say"

Consistantly I have told you that the first verse and btw, stone asserts the same, that the first verse of Gen. is the background, the setting up of the stage for the story that is to come. Such literary information is necessary to the story but is not the story itself. Thus, it is exactly as I have discribed to you many many many many many times over now and a concept I am sure you are intelligant enough to understand. Since you are intelligent enough to understand it, your resistance to the idea is either one of willful ignorance or one purposeful difficuty.

Emphasis added.

That is properly stated. The first sentence of the narrative is, obviously, part of the narrative. And when it introduces material necessary to understanding "the rest of the story", it is clear that it is part of the story--the introductory part. Just as the conclusion of the story is part of the story which "the rest of the story" leads up to.

In short, just because material in a narrative is introductory and provides necessary background for a thorough understanding of the story as it continues to unfold, it doesn't mean this introductory material is no part of the story.

You may be confusing "story" or "narrative" or "account" with "plot". Plot is the sequence of action in a story. But there is more to a story than plot. Setting of time, place and mood through descriptive language, descriptions of characters, of their psychology and character development are all as much part of a story as the plot line. So "story" or "narrative" or "account" are more general terms than "plot" which only refers to the sequence of events and is only part of the story.

However, you can't exclude Gen. 1:1 even from the plot line, for it names the first event in the sequence of creative events, namely the creation of heaven and earth.

One thing you have been trying to do is say that Gen. 1:1 does not refer to an event. For example (from posts 44, 64 & 77 )

Gluady's you must try at least to read for understanding, you know comprehension. You would do yourself a great service and show more intelligence if you did so then your constant ignorance and bull headed approach to discussion and debate. I have above shown you exactly what I said, putting everything into context. In addition, I have shown you where stone says the exact same thing. You then take a bunch of partial quotes, remove context of quote as well as context of discussion and thread and call it listening with understanding. I dare say that my 7 year old understands what I am declaring to you without even staggering over the idea. So why then do you not follow the post?

When I taught in the public schools, one of the subjects I taught was reading to the poorest readers in the school system (intercity) I was told by one of the teachers that only a few of my students would pass the class because they couldn't be taught. I taught them, talking just like I do with you, plainly with examples, and discussion, asking them to read for content as well as with context. An amazing thing happened...every single one passed, and not with my test, but with a pre designed test created by others. So what then does this tell us..... it says that either you need to learn to read, or you need to stop being intentionally difficult just to prove a point. The evidence shows that it is not me who is not communicating effectively. In fact, many years later I ran into one of my students. She told me that she still loved to read because I taught her what reading was all about.

This is just wrong. The account begins with the statement "God created the heavens and the earth" so it does begin with the creation of the heavens and the earth, not later. It is not a matter of the heavens and earth already being in existence. It is stating that God created them, brought them into existence. This is an act, an event, part of the plot line of the story.

It is as stone says, setting the stage for the story that is about to unfold. Which is also what I have said to you.

Another point you have been stressing is that the first verse(s) are essential to understanding (the rest of) the story. It provides essential background information. That is not the point of contention. Of course it provides information essential to the rest of the story. But that is not grounds for excluding it from the story or saying that the story doesn't begin with the creation of the heavens and the earth, but only later on.

It is a comparison of the opposing account, story, theory, evolution does not deal with how the single celled population came to being. Nor does creation deal with how the heavens and earth came to being. The story starts with their existance. In order to go beyond, we must speculate about what is not there, for example, that God created the heavens and earth from nothing is speculation that is not in the story.....

 

[razzelflabben]

You contradict yourself, again. I specifically asked whether the context was limited to Genesis 1 or whether all the creation texts could be referenced, and you said (post 53)

So you agreed that the context of creation was not limited to Genesis, much less the first chapter of Genesis. In fact, you didn't even limit it to the bible, but allowed for the inclusion of "other supporting evidence".

I cannot believe that after everything you have said over time that you honestly believe that the bible would contridict what Gen. says. That is beyond belief. I would never have pegged you as someone who believes that the bible is contridictory as you are now purposing to make a point.

Well, he can't believe that creatio ex nihilo is established from Heb. 11:3 and at the same time say WE DON'T KNOW IF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH WERE CREATED FROM SOMETHING OR NOTHING.

Sure he can, it's called being honest about what is opinion and what is factual. We all do it, just some are honest enough to admit it while others continue to assert that their opinions are facts.

As far as he is concerned, we do know.

You can quarrel with his interpretation of Heb. 11:3 if you like, but you have no right to claim that he is quarreling with his own interpretation.

He didn't even interpret Heb. 11:3 as I already said, instead he sighted it as his justification for his personal belief. Interpretation involves a lot more than just saying, I think this because of this.... He interpreted parts of Gen. 1:1 he sighted Heb. as his basis for his personal belief. Surely you understand the differences?

When you claim that Stone is saying WE DON'T KNOW...etc. you are putting your words into his mouth in contradiction to Stone's own testimony that we do know, because we do have references elsewhere in scripture that provide that knowledge.

read for comprehension..... his and mine.....

You point to a text (post 9) that affirms seven times over that God created from nothing and describe it as saying something "very different than to create from nothing at all".

And you think I am the one who has a problem with context?

You still aren't listening are you? I have not asserted that God never created something from nothing but rather that the creation story does not specify what that creation from nothing was. I can only assume that if you still don't understand it after all this, you are just being intentionally difficult and the best thing to do is ignore you and move on. There is none so blind as those who close their eyes and refuse to open them.

 

[gluadys]

The context is that the creation of the heavens and earth are background information to the story but not part of the story itself.

You are asserting again that because it is background information it is not part of the story. This is incorrect. Background information presented in the narrative is part of the story.

It gives us details necessary for understanding the point of the story but is not itself the story.

It does lead us to understand the point of the story (which is that God created all things, including the heavens and the earth) AND it is part of the story. You are trying to set up a false dichotomy that says it must be one or the other. There is a reason this is called a false dichotomy.

Without it, we will not be able to understand the point of the story, but it is not the story.

It is not the whole story, but it is part of the story.

Consistantly I have told you that the first verse and btw, stone asserts the same, that the first verse of Gen. is the background, the setting up of the stage for the story that is to come. Such literary information is necessary to the story but is not the story itself.

That it is necessary for the rest of the story is not in dispute. That it is not the whole story is not in dispute. But it cannot be excluded from the story either.

In addition, I have shown you where stone says the exact same thing.

Stone is not saying the exact same thing. He is agreeing that the first verse is introductory, but he describes it as the beginning of the narrative. He does not exclude it from the story.

The story starts with their existance.

No, absolutely not. It does not start with the existence of heaven and earth. It starts with their creation. And that is why it is the beginning of the story.

 

[razzelflabben]

You are asserting again that because it is background information it is not part of the story. This is incorrect. Background information presented in the narrative is part of the story.

right and that a single celled population existed is part of the story and so it is valid to ask evolution how it got there in the first place? I have witnessed you attacking people for asking where this single celled population came from and you go on and on and on about how it is beyond the scope of the theory. what I am saying to you is the same is true for creation. How the heavens and earth got here is beyond the scope of the account. Now the account does deal with who put them there, but when we are talking about creation vs. evolution, we don't deal much with who but rather with how, and when. The comparison is made, evidenced many times over, and now, you either accept that the arguement was made and evidence how it is false, or accept that it was made and deal with it. To continue on the path you are is not looking favorably on you and your argueing skills.

It does lead us to understand the point of the story (which is that God created all things, including the heavens and the earth) AND it is part of the story. You are trying to set up a false dichotomy that says it must be one or the other. There is a reason this is called a false dichotomy.

Okay focus a moment and see if you can understand this on some level at all.

Gen. is a book about dieties. Therefore it is focused around God and his nature, and not on how creation occured. However, Gen. is also a book that often is used to show a different understanding of how things came to be than the usual evolutionary tale. As such, the Gen. account of creation does not center around God but rather around how God did it. Therefore, when we talk about creation as recorded in Gen. we are dealing with the how not the who. It doesn't make for a very detailed understanding of how things came to be but does indeed provide us with information to build a hypothisis upon. I know you don't like that, but it is the way it is.

It is not the whole story, but it is part of the story.

Depends on the premise you take when reading the account. what purpose are you reading it for. If you are reading it for understanding who God and gods are, then yes it is part of the story. But if you are reading it for knowledge of how our world came to be, as is stated in the OP or at least suggested, then, it is not part of the story because it doesn't deal with how only who. Now again I know this concept will go right over your head and you won't be able to make any sense out of what I am saying, but that is where you need to find someone to help you understand.

That it is necessary for the rest of the story is not in dispute. That it is not the whole story is not in dispute. But it cannot be excluded from the story either.

Stone is not saying the exact same thing. He is agreeing that the first verse is introductory, but he describes it as the beginning of the narrative. He does not exclude it from the story.

I bet your teachers had fun with you. The first paragraph I quoted for you out of narnia is not excluded from the story either, but it is also not part of the story being told, but rather an introductory.

Let's see, another example. Let's pretend president Bush is coming to speak. You are asked to give an introduction before he speaks. The introduction is important to the entire evening, but it is not part of the story that Bush tells when he speaks.

No, absolutely not. It does not start with the existence of heaven and earth. It starts with their creation. And that is why it is the beginning of the story.

That is to assume we are reading the text for it's intended meaning a discussion of dieties. But if we read it as the OP suggests as an account of the origins of life, then it is not part of the story.

 

[jeff992]

I don't know if anyone has said any of this, but here goes. There are probably alot of grammatical errors so bear with me.

The thing we are talking about is the kaalam cosmological argument. It says that because the universe is not infinite, that some trascendent, infinite thing must have created this finite, but obviously there can't be nothing coming into something.

Most Big Band cosmologists assert just this, that nothing came into something in the form of the Big Bang. But this is just basically evidence that God exists.

It is apparent that our universe as it is, as a closed system, is not infinite. For example, if the universe were infinite, according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, things should break down. So everything would grind down to maximum disorder. So why are we not in this state if the unverse is inifinte. Alot of people try to counter say that matter and engery cannot be created or destroyed. This is easily sidestepped by stating that AFTER it was made it cannot be destroyed and new matter cannot be made. This makes sense. Also, there is no example of an actual infinite in this universe. If i told you that I had an infinite number of coins in my pocket, would you believe me? No. Infinity only occurs in mathematical theories. I could keep multiplying .5 forevor. For more information, read the theory of Hilbert's Hotels.

SO then one might ask, well since theists are saying that everything needs a creator, God must need a creator? Well no theist really thinks this. Only things that CAME into existance need a creator, not things that are infinite.

So i think it is logical to say that since there is no example of an infite in our closed universe and the univese came into existance, there must be some sort of eternal, transcendent creator.

 

[gluadys]

How can I possibly make my comments here any clearer?

Here are some options:

1. Genesis 1:1 establishes the fact of creation while the rest of the account provides further details about creation.

2. The creation account in Gen. 1:1-2:4a begins with the creation of heaven and earth and goes on to describe the creation of various specific components of heaven and earth.

3. Most of the Genesis account of creation deals with the formation of heaven and earth after they were created as stated in the opening verse.

4. The narrative begins with God creating the heaven and earth (vs 1) and proceeds to the main verbal sequence in which he separates, structures and fills them.​

All of these possibilities and more establish a valid difference between Gen. 1:1 and the rest of the story without demanding that Gen. 1:1 not be part of the story.

I think the difference you are pointing to is valid. There is a difference between introductory material and the main sequence of events.

You just need to choose a more appropriate way to express it than saying it is not part of the story.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't know if anyone has said any of this, but here goes. There are probably alot of grammatical errors so bear with me.

The thing we are talking about is the kaalam cosmological argument. It says that because the universe is not infinite, that some trascendent, infinite thing must have created this finite, but obviously there can't be nothing coming into something.

Most Big Band cosmologists assert just this, that nothing came into something in the form of the Big Bang. But this is just basically evidence that God exists.

It is apparent that our universe as it is, as a closed system, is not infinite. For example, if the universe were infinite, according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, things should break down. So everything would grind down to maximum disorder. So why are we not in this state if the unverse is inifinte. Alot of people try to counter say that matter and engery cannot be created or destroyed. This is easily sidestepped by stating that AFTER it was made it cannot be destroyed and new matter cannot be made. This makes sense. Also, there is no example of an actual infinite in this universe. If i told you that I had an infinite number of coins in my pocket, would you believe me? No. Infinity only occurs in mathematical theories. I could keep multiplying .5 forevor. For more information, read the theory of Hilbert's Hotels.

SO then one might ask, well since theists are saying that everything needs a creator, God must need a creator? Well no theist really thinks this. Only things that CAME into existance need a creator, not things that are infinite.

So i think it is logical to say that since there is no example of an infite in our closed universe and the univese came into existance, there must be some sort of eternal, transcendent creator.

Interesting, so what then is your theory about the creation account in Gen. being a definate creation from nothing or a possible creation from nothing?

 

[gluadys]

right and that a single celled population existed is part of the story and so it is valid to ask evolution how it got there in the first place?

You really have a bee in your bonnet about evolution haven't you? I said before I am willing to discuss it in another thread. It just derails the conversation here.

How be I start another thread with the question above and answer it there, where we can focus on evolution.

Meanwhile try to wrap your head around the fact that whether Christians accept or reject evolution, they agree on the divine creation of the universe and all that is in it.

Therefore, when we talk about creation as recorded in Gen. we are dealing with the how not the who.

Actually, Genesis, and all the creation texts in scripture, are focused mostly on the who. God created. God created everything. There is nothing other than God that God did not create. There is no eternal matter or primal matrix. There are no gods begotten of the universe. There are no other gods than God involved in shaping the universe. There is no pre-existing matter from which the universe was made.

It is God, God and only God who created all things.

But if we read it as the OP suggests as an account of the origins of life, then it is not part of the story.

Well, that is limiting the story to only a part of the story. God created living beings, but also a great many other things as well.

If you want to focus on the creation of life on earth, we can do that in the other thread.

 

[razzelflabben]

Here are some options:

1. Genesis 1:1 establishes the fact of creation while the rest of the account provides further details about creation.​

2. The creation account in Gen. 1:1-2:4a begins with the creation of heaven and earth and goes on to describe the creation of various specific components of heaven and earth.​

3. Most of the Genesis account of creation deals with the formation of heaven and earth after they were created as stated in the opening verse.​

4. The narrative begins with God creating the heaven and earth (vs 1) and proceeds to the main verbal sequence in which he separates, structures and fills them.​

All of these possibilities and more establish a valid difference between Gen. 1:1 and the rest of the story without demanding that Gen. 1:1 not be part of the story.

I think the difference you are pointing to is valid. There is a difference between introductory material and the main sequence of events.

You just need to choose a more appropriate way to express it than saying it is not part of the story.

Now I will exaggerate for effect here but I have said it about a million times and about a million different ways, if you can't figure out what I am saying it is because you aren't listening. If you want to insist I word it the way you want it worded, you are arrogant and self righteous. This world is made up of all different kinds of people. Each has an equally important voice.

I grew up with a mother much like you though not as bad. We were expected to speak a certain way, write a certain way, etc. The thing she soon would learn is that one need not be educated, eloquent, "correct" in speach in order to communicate effectively. In fact, my grandparents who one finished 3rd grade and the other 4th could communicate much more effectively than my mother because they concerned themselves with what was being said not how it was being said, thus opening the door for more exchange and less judgement.

That being said, there is little room for misunderstanding of what I have been claiming and any misunderstanding presented is based on your willful disrepect and not on communication at all.

 

[jeff992]

Interesting, so what then is your theory about the creation account in Gen. being a definate creation from nothing or a possible creation from nothing?

Well there seem to be three option in all of this. Gen. 1:1 is obviously the key verse to look at to me.

1. It could be the commencement of the 7 days and the actual beggining of our universe (creation ex nihilo).
Some verses that go with this would probably be john 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22.

2. That matter has always existed and God formed it.

3. That matter and energy had existed previously but God had already made it in some sort of time.

(if you can think of any others let me know)

I personally think that creation ex nihilo makes the most sense based on what we know in cosmology. Even alot of atheists believe that the Big Bang came from nothing. I think the actual passage is in line with ex nihilo because he created not just the earth, but the heavens formless. This would imply to me that he just made matter formless. I am not sure what the original Hebrew or Greek says but this makes the most sense to me.

is there anything you can add for or against?