Creation started with nothing?

razzelflabben · May 15, 2007

gluadys said:
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.

Well that is painfully real. I have never known anyone in my entire life that understands less of what it am saying than you do. Even directly stated things like "we don't know if heavens and earth were created from nothing or not" are ideas that are foreign to you if I say them and applauded by you when stated by others. And it is all because I don't know how to communicate?

Where I come from, directly stated things are usually to be taken as such, instead of reading into them what is not there, but that is in my world. Apparently you come from some other world altogether. Where things like "it means we don't know if it was created from nothing or not" means something like "God didn't create anything from nothing and the heavens and earth were created by something other than God" so until you understand that when I directly say something it is what I mean or until I figure out your code for reading into post what is not there, we never will be able to communicate. That is just the way it is.

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.

Yep the beginning of this part of God's creative nature, as I pointed out to you in Gen. 2:4, the very verse you tried to use to defend your position that the heavens and earth were created from nothing.

The exact same thing I have been saying all along. This is not the beginning of all things created, but only the beginning of the story of the things we know.

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

again, exactly what I have been saying all along. We don't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing or not. It is not part of the story being told.

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.

But that is only a definative statment if, creation is God's first creative act and as I have been telling you and as this site suggests, this is not saying the heavens and earth are the beginning of God's creative nature, but rather the beginnings of the accounts of the world we live in.

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.

Not only have I not contested this, but I tried without success to explain this to you the last time we tried to discuss the Gen. account of the heavens and earth. But when I said it I was wrong, when you say it, it is spot on. Don't you find that a bit suspicious from a communication standpoint?

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.

Now you begin to read into it what is not there. There is absolutely nothing in the bible to suggest that there is not more to God than the cosmos. In fact, we have every reason to believe from our discriptions of God that more absolutely does exist. Things that we cannot understand.

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."

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? But I was wrong, and this is spot on. This is why I hate talking to you on the forum, because you try to be too intelectual to deal with basic life. Which is an arrogance that has slipped into our universities and colleges and is extremely troublesome.

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.

finally.

That it was the primordial creation and a creation out of nothing is clear, not from Gen. 1:1, but from other texts.

Then show the texts, this site says, though it is possible that the heavens and earth were created from nothing, it is not definate. So for you to assert this claim means that you must demonstrate in some way that they are. We are still waiting for you to do so.

razzelflabben · May 15, 2007

gluadys said:
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.

apparently you didn't understand the site I pointed you too any better than you understand me.

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

So the site you find interesting and me are both wrong, the bible specifies that the heavens and earth are the first creative acts of God.

This kind of nonsence is why you can't understand me. Nothing in the bible says that the creation of the heavens and earth were God's first creative act. To assume it to say such is to read into it what is not there. All it says about the creation of the heavens and earth are that they were created by God. That is all we know about that part of this creation. Since that is indeed all we know about this part of that creation, then it stands as the only logical conclusion that we lack information you are proclaiming to be there.

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.

It is indeed the first sentence of the narrative and gives us background information necessary for a correct understanding, just as the existance of a single celled population is background information to the rest of the story, how it came to be is not part of the actual story. 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.

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.

read the article it puts it in terms you should be able to understand.

So now you are suggesting that God was created?

Click to expand...

wow, now I know that you have to understand me better then you let on that you do! It's called being difficult, something that I have been accused of.

God has no time, He lives inside and outside our parameters; He is both physical and spiritual; God is beyond our imaginations and holds secrets to great for us to know. That very nature of God speaks to the what is beyond our cosmos. It has nothing to do with God being created and everything to do with a creative God to big for the cosmos to contain. But putting God in a box is a common church theology so I am not surprised by your lack of understanding here.

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

Click to expand...

keep telling yourself that, but repeating it doesn't make it so.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gluadys · May 15, 2007

razzelflabben said:
Even directly stated things like "we don't know if heavens and earth were created from nothing or not" are ideas that are foreign to you if I say them and applauded by you when stated by others.

I have not applauded it when any one else stated it, because I have never heard anyone else make that statement.

Are you claiming that Lawson Stone made that statement? If so, you didn't read this paragraph.

Does that mean a denial of the concept of creatio ex nihilo? Not at all. Here is the point where I don't go down the path that others do who see this grammatical point. I am convinced that Hebrews 11:3 articulates the concept of God's ultimate creation of all that exists out of nothing.

underline & bolding added.

The exact same thing I have been saying all along. This is not the beginning of all things created, but only the beginning of the story of the things we know.

I see you misread Lawson Stone as you do me. The article does not claim that this is not the beginning of all things created. It is making a grammatical point, not a theological proposition. As noted above, he specifically agrees with creation ex nihilo.

again, exactly what I have been saying all along. We don't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing or not. It is not part of the story being told.

It's what you have been saying, but that is not at all what Mr. Stone is saying.

as I have been telling you and as this site suggests, this is not saying the heavens and earth are the beginning of God's creative nature, but rather the beginnings of the accounts of the world we live in.

No, he is not denying that the heavens and earth are the beginning of God's creation (not part of God's creative nature at all---creation is not part of God). He is only making the point that the heavens and earth could be much older than the young-earth scenario permits. The heavens and the earth could have been around for many billions of years before the creation of humanity. But however old they are, they are still the beginning of God's creation.

Not only have I not contested this, but I tried without success to explain this to you the last time we tried to discuss the Gen. account of the heavens and earth.

Now you begin to read into it what is not there.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You claim I am reading into the article what is not really there, but you make this claim about exactly the same statement that you just claimed you had no contest with and in fact supposedly tried to explain to me.

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

Of course there is more to God. But there is not more to creation. "cosmos" means "all of creation" How can there be more to creation than all of creation?

WE DON'T KNOW IF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH WERE CREATED FROM SOMETHING OR NOTHING.

Yes, we do. The article is not saying we don't know this. It is saying that we can't establish this from the use of the word 'bara'. And I agree. We can't. But we can and do know it from a thorough study of all the bible says on creation.

Then show the texts,

I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth; Isaiah 44: 24

... the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. Acts 14:15

and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; Ephesians 3:9

for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers?all things have been created through him and for him. Colossians 1:16

You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created. Rev 4:11

All of these texts establish that God made/created all things. Note that the verse from Colossians specifically mentions spiritual things like thrones, dominions and powers. Likewise, Hebrews 11:3 says God created the things that are from the things that do not appear. (And this does not mean microscopic things. Microscopic things do appear when you have the technology to see them. )

So we have the bible saying that creation is comprehensive--it includes all things. We also have, as Mr. Stone's article notes, the phrase "heavens and earth" used as a merismus. IOW "heavens and earth" is another way of saying "all things". It means the whole cosmos, the entirety of creation. And finally, we have Genesis 1:1 telling us that this creation occurred "in the beginning". Indeed when else could it occur? Since "heavens and earth" includes all that was created, nothing could be created before it. You can't exempt anything from "all", for then you would have to say "all except X..." And the scriptures do not allow for such an exception.

this site says, though it is possible that the heavens and earth were created from nothing, it is not definate.

Well, I take consolation in seeing you read other texts as badly as you do mine. You often claim I have said the exact opposite of what I have, and here you make similar claims that Lawson Stone is saying things he has not.

razzelflabben · May 15, 2007

gluadys said:
I have not applauded it when any one else stated it, because I have never heard anyone else make that statement.

Are you claiming that Lawson Stone made that statement? If so, you didn't read this paragraph.

Does that mean a denial of the concept of creatio ex nihilo? Not at all. Here is the point where I don't go down the path that others do who see this grammatical point. I am convinced that Hebrews 11:3 articulates the concept of God's ultimate creation of all that exists out of nothing.
underline & bolding added.

I see you misread Lawson Stone as you do me. The article does not claim that this is not the beginning of all things created. It is making a grammatical point, not a theological proposition. As noted above, he specifically agrees with creation ex nihilo.

It's what you have been saying, but that is not at all what Mr. Stone is saying.

No, he is not denying that the heavens and earth are the beginning of God's creation (not part of God's creative nature at all---creation is not part of God). He is only making the point that the heavens and earth could be much older than the young-earth scenario permits. The heavens and the earth could have been around for many billions of years before the creation of humanity. But however old they are, they are still the beginning of God's creation.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You claim I am reading into the article what is not really there, but you make this claim about exactly the same statement that you just claimed you had no contest with and in fact supposedly tried to explain to me.

Of course there is more to God. But there is not more to creation. "cosmos" means "all of creation" How can there be more to creation than all of creation?

Yes, we do. The article is not saying we don't know this. It is saying that we can't establish this from the use of the word 'bara'. And I agree. We can't. But we can and do know it from a thorough study of all the bible says on creation.

I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth; Isaiah 44: 24

... the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. Acts 14:15

and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; Ephesians 3:9

for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers?all things have been created through him and for him. Colossians 1:16

You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created. Rev 4:11

All of these texts establish that God made/created all things. Note that the verse from Colossians specifically mentions spiritual things like thrones, dominions and powers. Likewise, Hebrews 11:3 says God created the things that are from the things that do not appear. (And this does not mean microscopic things. Microscopic things do appear when you have the technology to see them. )

So we have the bible saying that creation is comprehensive--it includes all things. We also have, as Mr. Stone's article notes, the phrase "heavens and earth" used as a merismus. IOW "heavens and earth" is another way of saying "all things". It means the whole cosmos, the entirety of creation. And finally, we have Genesis 1:1 telling us that this creation occurred "in the beginning". Indeed when else could it occur? Since "heavens and earth" includes all that was created, nothing could be created before it. You can't exempt anything from "all", for then you would have to say "all except X..." And the scriptures do not allow for such an exception.

Well, I take consolation in seeing you read other texts as badly as you do mine. You often claim I have said the exact opposite of what I have, and here you make similar claims that Lawson Stone is saying things he has not.

Once again I find myself talking to someone with no interest in discussing anything but thier own supposed intellectual superiority and I tire of it. So all I will say to you is this. If you are going to make the claim that the heavens and earth were created from nothing and that the creation of said (yep that refers to heavens and earth) are part of the creation story, and not just background for understanding what is to come, then evidence it, not just evidence that God created everything. You see, your supposed superior intellect keeps showing us that God created everything. The problem is this has never been contested nor is it part of the discussion. So your evidence has nothing at all to do with the claims you are making or to the discussion at all. And this is supposedly superior intellect. Either evidence your claims or leave the discussion to someone willing to do so. Like I have done repeatedly only to be told that I haven't. We all know that God created everything, including but not limited to the heavens and earth. What you need to do is show where it says that the heavens and earth were created from nothing.

gluadys · May 15, 2007

razzelflabben said:
If you are going to make the claim that the heavens and earth were created from nothing and that the creation of said (yep that refers to heavens and earth) are part of the creation story, and not just background for understanding what is to come, then evidence it, not just evidence that God created everything.

The evidence that God created everything is crucial. If there is anything God did not create, he could have used it to create something else. So then he did not create the universe from nothing.

But since he did create everything, he created it from nothing.

As for the "just background" argument, you have not shown the basis for making this claim. Until you can show why the first sentence of the story should be excluded from the story, you are just spouting hot air. And lack of detail is not a sufficient argument unless you can demonstrate why this is a legitimate criterion.

So it is not me who has to prove anything here. It is you.

Mark2010 · May 15, 2007

gluadys said:
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.

So we really have no idea whether there was any pre-existing matter or how it might have come into being or into its present form?

Do you believe that Jesus was involved in creation? If so, in what capacity?

gluadys said:
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.

I never considered the Big Bang to be inconsistent with creationism. It offers one possible explanation as to how things MIGHT have happened. Not the only possible explanation.

gluadys · May 16, 2007

Mark2010 said:
So we really have no idea whether there was any pre-existing matter or how it might have come into being or into its present form?

From a scientific perspective, no. In fact, until Big Bang theory was accepted, most scientists and natural philosophers right back into the Middle Ages, held that for all we can know, the universe is eternal. Pagan theologies usually have the gods being generated by the primeval universe. For them the universe was eternal and the gods were not. Hebrew theology turns this on its head by making God eternal and giving the universe a beginning.

However, on that basis I would dissent from saying we have no idea whether there was any pre-existing matter. While it is not something for which we can offer scientific evidence, it is integral to the Christian faith. Creatio ex nihilo defines the nature of creation, the nature of God and the nature of their relation to each other. Without it, a very large swath of Christian theology would have to be re-thought from scratch.

Do you believe that Jesus was involved in creation? If so, in what capacity?

As Logos, Jesus is the agent of creation, the person of the Trinity through whom the interior purpose of God was externalized and expressed as act. (Just as words externalize our thoughts, but with the added dimension that God's speaking actually causes things to be.)

I never considered the Big Bang to be inconsistent with creationism. It offers one possible explanation as to how things MIGHT have happened. Not the only possible explanation.

Yes, that is why, although it is sometimes tempting to do so, I do not fully identify the Big Bang with creation. It is one possibility, but there may be surprises yet in store as the cosmologists continue their research.

Mark2010 · May 16, 2007

gluadys said:
While it is not something for which we can offer scientific evidence, it is integral to the Christian faith. Creatio ex nihilo defines the nature of creation, the nature of God and the nature of their relation to each other. Without it, a very large swath of Christian theology would have to be re-thought from scratch.

How so? What difference would it make in our relationship with God? (I'm interested in knowing what can be known, but I don't feel like my salvation hinges on it.)

gluadys said:
As Logos, Jesus is the agent of creation, the person of the Trinity through whom the interior purpose of God was externalized and expressed as act. (Just as words externalize our thoughts, but with the added dimension that God's speaking actually causes things to be.)

Is it your belief that God somehow spoke matter into existence without any pre-existing material?

gluadys · May 16, 2007

Mark2010 said:
How so? What difference would it make in our relationship with God? (I'm interested in knowing what can be known, but I don't feel like my salvation hinges on it.)

It would mean that God is not sovereign. It would mean something exists which is not of God, which can claim equality with God and is not subject to God's will. It would mean that something other than God can legitimately claim our worship. In effect, we would have no basis for choosing God, rather than something (someone?) else as deserving our ultimate loyalty and obedience.

So, yes, I would say our salvation hinges on it.

Is it your belief that God somehow spoke matter into existence without any pre-existing material?

Absolutely. And I would say that this is not only my belief but the historic, orthodox faith of the church. To move away from this is to move away from what the church has always understood "creation" to mean.

Mark2010 · May 16, 2007

gluadys said:
It would mean that God is not sovereign. It would mean something exists which is not of God, which can claim equality with God and is not subject to God's will. It would mean that something other than God can legitimately claim our worship. In effect, we would have no basis for choosing God, rather than something (someone?) else as deserving our ultimate loyalty and obedience.

So, yes, I would say our salvation hinges on it.

Interesting. I never considered it an issue of worship. I never really considered another being equal with God. What I had suspected is that there was some pre-existing matter in some form or another.

gluadys said:
Absolutely. And I would say that this is not only my belief but the historic, orthodox faith of the church. To move away from this is to move away from what the church has always understood "creation" to mean.

So do you have a particular belief in regards to the time involved? Six actual 24-hour days or a substantially longer period of time?

razzelflabben · May 16, 2007

gluadys said:
The evidence that God created everything is crucial. If there is anything God did not create, he could have used it to create something else. So then he did not create the universe from nothing.

the last couple of days I have been pretty much confined to bed after hurting my knee. That has given me a good amount of time to read certain post multiple times even when it didn't seem necessary. But your response to the stone site just really doesn't make any sense even after reading the site and your response a few times. It bugged me so much that I stopped my husband and asked him to read both. When he read stone, he said several times, yes, excellent, sounds just like what you have been saying.... when he read your response, he would laugh and shake his head and make coments like "she is totally missing the point" , "did she read the article"......

So I came here today to see the same lack of reading comprehension that I am so familiar with. No one is suggesting that God didn't create it or that He alone is capable of creating it. The point is that there is nothing to tell us that the heavens and earth were created from nothing. Even Heb. which stone bases his personal belief on (note it is his personal belief and not a biblical exegesis) does not say it did not exist but rather that it was not seen. A logical arguement could follow that if it is something not seen. Then indeed it is something thus not something from nothing but rather something from something.

The point of this whole discussion is that if we are talking about the biblical account of creation we cannot read into it church traditions or personal bias. If we are talking about the biblical account of creation, we have to limit ourselves to what the bible actually says.

Here is a more modern look at the Gen. account of creation. Once upon a time God created the heavens and earth. Now these heavens and earth were formless and dark and so now you the story begins.....

The point is, we have what God needs us to have to understand His point. and what we have is that God created and that the creation of the heavens and the earth were the first creative act of the current world we know. Sure, it can be both the spiritual and phyical because yes we know both.

But since he did create everything, he created it from nothing.

That is church theology and does not say what He created from nothing. Besides your assertion is that other things existed, such as eternity.

As for the "just background" argument, you have not shown the basis for making this claim. Until you can show why the first sentence of the story should be excluded from the story, you are just spouting hot air. And lack of detail is not a sufficient argument unless you can demonstrate why this is a legitimate criterion.

try reading the stone article again, he gives more details as to why and you should be able to comprehend him better in that he uses a lot of grammer in his discussion. And yes, he also suggests that this is background, to the story, setting the stage with broad strokes. Not dealing with the hows and whys and such but rather simply setting up the character at the heart of the story. The subject of the entire story. It is like a thesis statement in character, vs. 1 sets the stage.

So it is not me who has to prove anything here. It is you.

What ever, there are none so blind as those who close their eyes then proclaim them to be open.

razzelflabben · May 16, 2007

gluadys said:
It would mean that God is not sovereign. It would mean something exists which is not of God, which can claim equality with God and is not subject to God's will. It would mean that something other than God can legitimately claim our worship. In effect, we would have no basis for choosing God, rather than something (someone?) else as deserving our ultimate loyalty and obedience.

So, yes, I would say our salvation hinges on it.

Now I have been enjoying seeing the two of you hash this out but I have to step in here for a moment. Gluady's, you are totally and completely missing the point. Just because God may or not have made the heavens and earth from nothing does not remove His sovereignty. In fact, it does the opposite. Now if the arguement was that God didn't create something from nothing, your point would be valid, but as stone so aptly stated, God had a life apart from us. WE are part of God's story not the other way around. So just because we don't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing is not to assume that God created nothing from nothing. In other words just because....let me see, an analogy......just because I have a 7 year old doesn't mean that I don't also have an 18 year old. Therefore just because God might have created the heavens and earth from something does not mean that He didn't create the matter from nothing. God did not create man from nothing and yet He created the dirt He used to create man.

Your claim is an over exaggeration of the OP suggestion, and drives an invalid conclusion to the assertions being made. On the otherhand, your assertion here helps us to understand why you are so adament about seeing things your way, because you fail to see that the implication of the OP makes God more sovereign rather than less. Thanks for finally getting to the heart of the problem.

Absolutely. And I would say that this is not only my belief but the historic, orthodox faith of the church. To move away from this is to move away from what the church has always understood "creation" to mean.

But the OP asks us to discuss the biblical creation not the church creation. It is this conflicting premise that prevents you from understanding what is being said both by me and by stone.

gluadys · May 16, 2007

razzelflabben said:
So just because we don't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing is not to assume that God created nothing from nothing. In other words just because....let me see, an analogy......just because I have a 7 year old doesn't mean that I don't also have an 18 year old.

This viewpoint would only apply if "heaven and earth" was not (as Stone states) a merismus which is equivalent to saying "everything" or "all things".

You can only say that God created the heavens and earth from something else, if he also created something else.

But "heavens and earth" = "everything God created".

How can God create something else in addition to everything God created? What creation can you add to "everything God created"?

Since "heavens and earth" = "the totality of everything God created" if they were created themselves from something else, that something else had to be something that was not created by God. But there is nothing external to God that was not created by God.

Now if you think anything in this is not biblical, show me why it is not. Don't just make claims.

gluadys · May 16, 2007

razzelflabben said:
try reading the stone article again, he gives more details as to why and you should be able to comprehend him better in that he uses a lot of grammer in his discussion.

Stone raises many interesting and legitimate points which you choose to distort.

But he doesn't even discuss narrative form. So you are still on your own there.

The subject of the entire story. It is like a thesis statement in character, vs. 1 sets the stage. What ever, there are none so blind as those who close their eyes then proclaim them to be open.

In a narrative the thesis statement is part of the narrative. When my kids were submitting papers to their professors, the professors did not refrain from grading them until the second or third paragraph. The opening paragraph containing the thesis statement was as much subject to review as all the rest of the paper.

Nor would I, as a teacher grading stories, ever have omitted the opening of the narrative from the composition. The story is all the story from the very first word.

The thesis statement, the setting, the introduction of characters, the "once upon a time" are all part of the story. Sure its the beginning of the story. It sets up what you need to know for the rest of the narrative. But the beginning of the story is still part of the story.

razzelflabben · May 16, 2007

gluadys said:
This viewpoint would only apply if "heaven and earth" was not (as Stone states) a merismus which is equivalent to saying "everything" or "all things".

My husband suggested that rather than try to communicate with you I just quote other phrases you seem not to read and see if that makes any sense to you. so here we go from the same site you are stating from Stones.
'
The relative beginning set forth in Genesis 1 also raises the disturbing possibility that God could have had a history with the created order older than the one we know of from the Bible. What a shock: God had a life before us! We are part of His story, and not vice-versa!

God's creative action in this chapter has a past, a prologue not provided for us, but whose possibility humbles us and reminds us that God's life is about much more than us![/quote]
You can only say that God created the heavens and earth from something else, if he also created something else.

But "heavens and earth" = "everything God created".[/quote]
The amazing thing is, an ancient reader accustomed to the creation stories of antiquity would probably not have read Gen 1:1 as the ultimate beginning either. Ancient pagan creation accounts presented a sequence beginning with a primal matrix of generative power which birthed deities (theogony), who then came into conflict with each other (theomachy). The great battle that followed deeply altered the cosmic order, leading to the creation of the world and humanity (cosmogony). So the actual creation of the order in which we live was step three in the list. An ancient reader approaching Genesis 1:1-2 would immediately be struck that the story starts in the middle and that the prologue seems to be missing. What would amaze and startle them would be the absence of any other gods and the absence of any conflict or war, and more importantly, the absence of any primal matrix of being out of which deity emerged. The absoluteness of the one God would dominate the whole narrative, and the creation of our world as his choice, not as a bi-product of some cosmic war, would be more amazing. In addition, the presence of terms like "formless and void" (Hebrew tohu wabohu even imply that God's creating is already an act of redemption, an act of re-ordering something that had in fact fallen into disarray

How can God create something else in addition to everything God created? What creation can you add to "everything God created"?

see above quotes, read it and reread it, have someone read it to you and keep doing this until you begin to understand what he is saying. You might even try reading it outloud, that helps some people with reading comprehension problems. I really think the core of your reading for comprehension problems is your mindset. You are too focused on finding mistakes to read what is said.

Since "heavens and earth" = "the totality of everything God created" if they were created themselves from something else, that something else had to be something that was not created by God. But there is nothing external to God that was not created by God.

Now if you think anything in this is not biblical, show me why it is not. Don't just make claims.

I am going to ignore that last sentence because we both know that is a gross overstatement in an attempt to make you sound more right than you are. But what of the other statement, read stone, he sums things up nicely.

I am sure you are smart enough that if you apply yourself you can understand what is being said to you.

razzelflabben · May 16, 2007

gluadys said:
Stone raises many interesting and legitimate points which you choose to distort.

But he doesn't even discuss narrative form. So you are still on your own there.

quote from stone
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. Genesis 1:1-3a certainly does this. Verse 1 provides the temporal clause "When God began to create the heavens and the earth." Verse 2 then gives us the circumstantial clauses, clearly noted by the construction of the clauses in Hebrew: "the earth was formless and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God (or a mighty wind) was fluttering over the surface of the water." Then verse 3 inaugurates the main verbal sequence: then God said" Any good Hebrew syntax textbook can document this narrative pattern............

In a narrative the thesis statement is part of the narrative. When my kids were submitting papers to their professors, the professors did not refrain from grading them until the second or third paragraph. The opening paragraph containing the thesis statement was as much subject to review as all the rest of the paper.

Nor would I, as a teacher grading stories, ever have omitted the opening of the narrative from the composition. The story is all the story from the very first word.

right, just like....in the beginning, a single celled population existed.

The thesis statement, the setting, the introduction of characters, the "once upon a time" are all part of the story. Sure its the beginning of the story. It sets up what you need to know for the rest of the narrative. But the beginning of the story is still part of the story.

And just as we don't have any details about how the heavens and earth were created, we lack equal details about how the single celled pop. came to being. Thus applying consistancy, we see that neither is included because both are a setting not the story.

The relative beginning set forth in Genesis 1 also raises the disturbing possibility that God could have had a history with the created order older than the one we know of from the Bible. What a shock: God had a life before us! We are part of His story, and not vice-versa!

hithesh · May 16, 2007

razzelflabben said:
In other words just because....let me see, an analogy......just because I have a 7 year old doesn't mean that I don't also have an 18 year old.

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

Therefore just because God might have created the heavens and earth from something does not mean that He didn't create the matter from nothing.

Nothing is always the child that produces the grandchild.

gluadys · May 16, 2007

razzelflabben said:
My husband suggested that rather than try to communicate with you I just quote other phrases you seem not to read and see if that makes any sense to you.

Good idea.
'

The relative beginning set forth in Genesis 1 also raises the disturbing possibility that God could have had a history with the created order older than the one we know of from the Bible. What a shock: God had a life before us! We are part of His story, and not vice-versa!

No problem there. But you have been saying there was something before the created order, before the heavens and the earth. Stone is not saying this. He is saying that God's interaction with the created order is older than what we know of from the bible, not that there was a history before the created order existed. The heavens and the earth is the created order that God may have had a long history of interaction with before we get to the main story of the bible which is about God's interaction with humanity.

The amazing thing is, an ancient reader accustomed to the creation stories of antiquity would probably not have read Gen 1:1 as the ultimate beginning either. Ancient pagan creation accounts presented a sequence beginning with a primal matrix of generative power which birthed deities (theogony), who then came into conflict with each other (theomachy). The great battle that followed deeply altered the cosmic order, leading to the creation of the world and humanity (cosmogony). So the actual creation of the order in which we live was step three in the list.

Note that this is a comparison of the biblical story with the pagan accounts of creation. It is only in comparison with them that the biblical story would seem to an ancient reader to begin in the middle.

Of course, the point of the biblical story is that it begins at the true beginning and the pre-creation history in pagan accounts is a false history.

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.

No problem with that either. Stone is saying the story begins with a temporal clause and that this is a common way to begin a narrative in Hebrew. Of course, we also use it in English, though perhaps not as regularly. But the temporal clause that begins the story is the beginning of the story. It is not outside of the story as something separate as you have been claiming.

razzelflabben · May 17, 2007

gluadys said:
Good idea.
'
No problem there. But you have been saying there was something before the created order, before the heavens and the earth. Stone is not saying this. He is saying that God's interaction with the created order is older than what we know of from the bible, not that there was a history before the created order existed. The heavens and the earth is the created order that God may have had a long history of interaction with before we get to the main story of the bible which is about God's interaction with humanity.

see here, this is what you and I "fight" about. I have never said that there was something before our heavens and earth, I suggested that the bible doesn't say if there was or not. Thus the option remains open that there was. That means quite simply that instead of asserting that there was nothing before our heavens and earth in Gen. 1:1 as you claim. I like Stone have been claiming that we don't know if there was or wasn't something before.

Note that this is a comparison of the biblical story with the pagan accounts of creation. It is only in comparison with them that the biblical story would seem to an ancient reader to begin in the middle.

Of course, the point of the biblical story is that it begins at the true beginning and the pre-creation history in pagan accounts is a false history.

You have no idea what is being said do you? By me or Stone. This is why I asked you to read for comprehension and not for grading corrections.

No problem with that either. Stone is saying the story begins with a temporal clause and that this is a common way to begin a narrative in Hebrew. Of course, we also use it in English, though perhaps not as regularly. But the temporal clause that begins the story is the beginning of the story. It is not outside of the story as something separate as you have been claiming.

Oh, so Stone is saying that the first verse is giving us the setting and not the beginning of the story. Good we have that one cleared up. So according to the grammatical structure of Gen.1:1 according to Stone and I would concur, the creation of the heavens and earth sets the stage for the story that is to come and is not part of the actual story itself but rather background, necessary information for what is to come.

Finally, we cleared that up. Which of your missed points shall we tackle next?

gluadys · May 17, 2007

razzelflabben said:
see here, this is what you and I "fight" about. I have never said that there was something before our heavens and earth, I suggested that the bible doesn't say if there was or not. Thus the option remains open that there was.

No, there is no such option.

That means quite simply that instead of asserting that there was nothing before our heavens and earth in Gen. 1:1 as you claim. I like Stone have been claiming that we don't know if there was or wasn't something before.

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?

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?

You have no idea what is being said do you? By me or Stone. This is why I asked you to read for comprehension and not for grading corrections.

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?

Oh, so Stone is saying that the first verse is giving us the setting and not the beginning of the story.

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.

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.

So according to the grammatical structure of Gen.1:1 according to Stone and I would concur, the creation of the heavens and earth sets the stage for the rest of the story that is to come ...

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

and is not part of the actual story itself but rather background, necessary information for what is to come.

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

Creation started with nothing?

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Contributor

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Legend

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Legend

Contributor

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency