Creation started with nothing?

[gluadys]

You are talking about christian theology not creation account.

You can't separate them. Theology is how we think about and understand scripture. You are talking theology too when you say that the creation account does not support creation out of nothing. You are interpreting the account according to your understanding, and I am interpreting it according to my understanding. That is what theology is.

In this case, my understanding is also the understanding of Christian tradition. This is how Christian students of scripture have interpreted the creation accounts in the bible for thousands of years.

Theology is to scripture what science is to nature. A way of studying and learning and coming to conclusions. You cannot separate what we know or think we know about nature from science, because science is how we know anything at all about nature. You cannot separate what we know or think we know about the teaching of scripture from theology, because theology is how we know anything at all about what scripture teaches.

I am not talking about whether or not God ever created something from nothing.

In that case, you appear to have shifted your position from what it was originally.

That is beyond the scope of this discussion and as you already stated, these things have a way of getting off topic, so let's bring it back into topic. What evidence do you have to show that the heaven and earth were what God created from nothing and not say energy or dirt, or whatever.

First because energy and dirt are both included within heaven and earth. Neither of them existed before heaven and earth were created. That would be like saying the chimney of a house existed before the house and the house was made from the chimney. That is nonsense. The chimney is part of the house and was built along with the rest of the house. No part of heaven and earth (such as energy or dirt) existed before heaven and earth were created. They came into existence as part of the process of creation.

Second, because the creation account specifies, not only in Genesis, but elsewhere in scripture, that creating the heavens and the earth was the first of God's creative acts. So nothing was created before them. Nothing but God existed until he created heaven and earth. Therefore, they were created out of nothing.

And is real not measurable to some degree? Just because we may not know how to measure it doesn't mean it cannot be measured.

Just a thought for what it's worth.What makes you think that spirit cannot be measured? Just because we don't know how to measure it doesn't mean it isn't measurable.

Maybe in eternity we will discover a way to measure spirit, but right now, since we do not know how to measure spirit, we cannot measure spirit. So science cannot study spirit. Science cannot even perceive spirit to say here is spirit and there is not spirit. Until there is a way to locate where spirit is and where it is not, there is no way to study it.

So for all practical, usable purposes in the here and now, spirit is immeasurable, and cannot be a subject of scientific investigation.

And btw, I was referring to the times God revealed Himself to man, but that isn't what you want to discuss, so we move on.

I tried to confine myself to speaking of what seemed to be the main point: did God create out of nothing. I would suggest starting a new thread if you want to talk of God's dealings with humanity.

And so why ask me about real, you already show an understanding that both are real.

Right. I was just clarifying whether we shared that understanding, as your reaction to my statement seemed to suggest you believed the spiritual was not real. Now that you have affirmed that the both the spiritual and the physical are real, I know that I misunderstood what you were saying. So we can move on from this now.

Yet He has manifest Himself on this physical existance, and in "measurable" ways.

Yes, in the incarnation.

And what I have been saying all along is that we don't know what the first creative act really was.

Yes, we do, as the creation accounts always name heaven and earth (i.e. what we would call the universe) as what God first created.

Consider this, when did God create the angels?

It does appear that the heavens were created before the earth, for the angels (who are heavenly beings) are mentioned as being present when God laid the foundations of the earth. (Job 38:7)

The nephilum?

I have heard that the nephilim were children born of the mating of angels with human women. I think there are other interpretations as well, but in any case they seem not to have come onto the scene until after human existence. (Gen. 6:1-4)

Cool, thanks for explaining that the concept isn't biblical at all

Actually, I said just the opposite: that "creation out of nothing" is biblical. Would you say that the Trinity is not biblical because the word "trinity" does not appear in scripture? Would you say that original sin is not a biblical concept because the phrase "original sin" is not a term used in the bible?

Just because a certain word or phrase is not in the bible doesn't mean the idea it expresses is not biblical.

The truth is that the bible doesn't really say that the heavens and earth were created out of nothing, but rather that something was.

The bible doesn't say that something was created out of nothing either--not if you are looking for that phrase in the text. To get to some biblical concepts you need to read between the lines, work at understanding the text, not just seeing if the words show up in that exact form in the text.

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.

Now we can distinguish between primary and secondary creation. Primary creation is God creating directly from nothing, supernaturally. Secondary creation is God using what he has already created to make something new. Secondary creation involves giving the primary creation a new order. It does not involve adding new matter or energy to the original creation.

So, in Genesis 1:2 we see that the earth had not yet taken the shape that is familiar to us. And in Gen. 1:14 we see that heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon and stars had not been part of the primary creation of the heavens, but were formed later. The ordering and furnishing of heaven and earth, after the primordial creation out of nothing, are secondary creations, and since these creations use matter and energy already created, they can be studied by science.

what is really happening is that I am talking about the Gen. account of creation (in which context and direct comments should show) and you are talking about a general christian theology of creation (not specified or stated) thus confusion pursists.

As I said, the text cannot be understood apart from theology. If you disagree as to what the text means, it is because you are using a different theology. The question is, which theology is truer to the text--not just in this one verse, but consistently with all the scripture has to say about God and creation.

As does Gen. which is really what confuses me. Neither the creation account nor evolution deals with before the existance of heaven and earth and yet you and other evolutionists insist on making creation do so.

Well, I don't. And I don't know any Christian or any evolutionist who does. There is nothing before the existence of heaven and earth except God. So there is no way creation can refer to anything before the existence of the first creation. It makes no sense to say anyone is trying to insist on this. If there is someone who is trying to do this, just tell them how foolish they are.

Finite man sees heaven and earth as the beginning, but God doesn't necessarily see it as such. We don't know what if anything God created before the heavens and earth.

Well, we know what scripture tells us. Perhaps that is not enough for you. So be it.

The only discussion of evolution I offered was a comparison of where both start.

Well, evolution does not start with the primary creation, or even for a long while after the universe was established and operating under secondary processes like gravity and electro-magnetism. Evolution starts when there are living things capable of evolving. On earth, that was about 3.8 billion years ago, almost a billion years after there was an earth at all.

Apparently one of the mistakes I have been making is that very few if any of you all see a difference between creation as a "theory" and christianity as a belief.

Creation is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense of the word. It is a doctrine, a spiritual teaching. Creationism is a theory, as it makes testable claims about how certain things came into existence. Unfortunately for its proponents, all of its testable claims have failed the tests and shown that theory to be false.

Don't confuse creation with creationism. Creationism is a failed scientific theory which has been replaced with the theory of evolution. Creation is a spiritual teaching, a doctrine of the Christian faith (as well as of some other faiths) and is compatible with both creationism and evolution. So you are right to say that creation and evolution are not exclusive of each other. They are not exclusive of each other, because they are concepts in different categories of thought. Creation is a theological doctrine; evolution is a scientific theory.

Creationism, the attempt to develop a scientific theory on the origin of species from a particular theology about the biblical creation accounts, is a scientific failure. But that doesn't make creation a false doctrine.

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

Yes, we do. At least if we accept the testimony of the biblical creation accounts which always begin with the creation of heaven and earth. Therefore, God did not create anything else before them.

Right, but your claim was that it can't be studied, not that the study would not be conclusive. So now you change your mind. Cool, I'll try to keep up.

You are equivocating between "creation" used as a noun and "creation" used as a verb. Science can certainly study what has been created ("creation" as a noun). Science can also study the processes of secondary creation (when something already created is used in a process to generate something new such as using oxygen and hydrogen to make water or sodium and chloride to make salt). What science cannot study is the original primary act of creation which brought the universe into existence in the first place.

We do not know if the Big Bang was the beginning of the existence of created things, but whether it was or not, science cannot actually say what caused the Big Bang, much less what, if anything, existed before it. (For lack of a better word. There is really no "before" the Big Bang, since time is part of the universe, and was created in the Big Bang with the universe). Science has traced the history of the universe to a miniscule fraction of a second (1 x 10^-37 seconds) after the Big Bang, but cannot go any further to the very moment of the Big Bang. There are some interesting ideas out there involving string theory and 'branes, extra dimensions and a multi-verse. But no clear information, and to date, no way to test the ideas. So that appears to be the limit to which science can understand creation unless and until a new way of observing the Big Bang is found.

So, no, I have not changed my mind.

 

[gluadys]

Well, I don't know what being an "evolutionists" has to do with any of this? I would argue the same position even if I was a YEC?

Exactly. YECs like Vossler, laptoppop and mark kennedy and TEs like you, shernren and myself, come firmly together on such an essential doctrine as this. Creation out of nothing is a staple of Christian belief that has no bearing on where one stands in the creationism<->evolution spectrum.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's your attempt to fit your interpretation into the limited confines of the text and you are still thinking in materialistic terms. The dirt is not the object of bara in that context, God or Elohim is. In fact, it has a definite article indicating exactly that ('e&#770;th &#1488;&#1514 which is unrepresented in the English. It is nevertheless indicative of God as Creator, not naturalistic forces with regards to the origin of man. That is Bara in a nutshell and it does not bow the knee to naturalistic interpretations.

Nowhere did I suggest that it was other than God. In fact, I correct someone, you I believe, that Gen. 1:1 does specify that God created the heavens and earth. What it does not specify is if that creation was from nothing or something already existing. You fail to show it otherwise but accuse me. Instead of accusing me of what you do not know, try evidencing through scripture or otherwise how Heaven and earth were created from nothing.

You are still talking in terms of naturalistic sources that are intrinsically materialistic. This was and is unknown to sound exegetical treatment of the actual text. 'Reshiyth' is something first in terms of place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit). The connection of Bara to re&#770;'shi&#770;yth in Genesis one indicates all of the above and more.

You attempted to use bara to support the idea that God created the heavens and earth from nothing. I simply pointed out to you that the same word was used in vs. 27 referring to man and man according to the bible was indeed created from something. Therefore you have a problem exegeticly speaking. So how then do you solve this problem? By attacking my insistance that you deal with it? Or by addressing the conflict reationaly and biblically?

This may represent an exegetical challenge while deciphering the complexity of the ancient Hebrew text. It does not, however, represent an interpretive challenge because there is some antecedent dirt that the human body was 'made' (ya&#770;tsar &#1497;&#1510;&#1512; lit. 'to squeeze into shape' 2:7) from. This is separated logically and linguistically from Genesis 1:27 where God created 'bara' man in His own image.

But the same word is used therefore, one cannot be consistant in ones interpretation to say in verse one it means something from nothing but in verse 27 it means something from something. This is a contridiction. For there to be consistancy in this thought, there must be a qualifier of some sort that identifies the two different meanings, in the Heb., as you have suggested, a different word would be expected to be used as a qualifier. But interestingly enough that doesn't happen. So then we must question the meaning of the word. Nothing about the consistancy specifies that the heavens and earth were created from nothing. That isn't to say they weren't, it is to say that the bible does not say one way or the other if the heavens and earth were created from nothing or from elements already created by God.

The point being that the human body can be molded from the earth but the human soul is created ex nihilo (out of nothing).

But if the LORD make (bara) a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. (Num. 16:30)​

I see nothing about the creation of the soul in Gen. Where is that? We see the creation of man from the dust, and the creation of life in man through the breath of God. Thus two somethings from something. Follow through your arguements with scripture!

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I don't know what being an "evolutionists" has to do with any of this? I would argue the same position even if I was a YEC?

Nor, do I see any value in arguing the position that god create nothing from something, provides a stronger or poorer case for evolution?

I just made the point, that if God created all things, then it logically follows that he created the dirt, etc..But regardless, I still don't see how this or the opposing opinion, has to do with being an evolutionist?

Perhaps you can clarify this.

The comment was referring to the reason for the OP, that of evolutionists using this arguement in the first place and how evolutionists get touchy about things like "where the theory starts and what it includes" and "atheism and evolution are not the same thing". Creation likewise, doesn't start with the creation of the heavens and earth, but rather after they were created and builds down from there. Likewise, one does not have to be a christian or accept christian theology to believe creation or as some say, Intelligant design. It is an analogy, like apples are to apple pie like evolutionism is to creationism.

 

[razzelflabben]

You can't separate them. Theology is how we think about and understand scripture. You are talking theology too when you say that the creation account does not support creation out of nothing. You are interpreting the account according to your understanding, and I am interpreting it according to my understanding. That is what theology is.

In this case, my understanding is also the understanding of Christian tradition. This is how Christian students of scripture have interpreted the creation accounts in the bible for thousands of years.

Theology is to scripture what science is to nature. A way of studying and learning and coming to conclusions. You cannot separate what we know or think we know about nature from science, because science is how we know anything at all about nature. You cannot separate what we know or think we know about the teaching of scripture from theology, because theology is how we know anything at all about what scripture teaches.

I am trying desperately to control your posts to a shorter reply. If I miss something important, I appologize in advance and request you redirect.

I am not argueing that creation theory is not a theology, I am saying to you that one is not dependant on the other. Just as I can isolate out of science, the study of DNA, I can isolate out of christian theology creation and study just that. One is not so tightly knitted to the other that they cannot be independant in the practical understanding and discussion. IOW's, I don't have to talk about gravity in order to talk about DNA, nor do I have to talk about christian theology in order to talk about creation.

In that case, you appear to have shifted your position from what it was originally.

Not at all, I never suggested that God didn't make something from nothing, only that the creation account did not specify this. Whether or not He did is a matter for christian theology, not creation. Nothing in the creation account specifies something from nothing.

First because energy and dirt are both included within heaven and earth. Neither of them existed before heaven and earth were created. That would be like saying the chimney of a house existed before the house and the house was made from the chimney. That is nonsense. The chimney is part of the house and was built along with the rest of the house. No part of heaven and earth (such as energy or dirt) existed before heaven and earth were created. They came into existence as part of the process of creation.

Okay, fair enough, now show in scripture where God made heaven and earth through said process. With creation of life, the bible specifies how it came to be and we know that there was something for Him to work with. But you all have failed to show even a hint of how God created the heavens and earth. You have gone off onto the arguement that He created them. You have gone off onto the arguement that He had to create somthing from nothing at one point. We have even gotton off on even more nonsence. But what you haven't done is shown where the bible says that heaven and earth were that creation from nothing. Until you do so, you are speaking from a strictly traditional understanding based on what you have been taught and not on what the bible actually says. Now again I say to you that is not to say that heavens and earth were not the something from nothing, but rather to say that to claim it to be so is beyond the scope of biblical interpretation and moves into the realm of belief based on tradition. Two very different things. But had you been committed to a study of Gen. you might have found that out.

Second, because the creation account specifies, not only in Genesis, but elsewhere in scripture, that creating the heavens and the earth was the first of God's creative acts. So nothing was created before them. Nothing but God existed until he created heaven and earth. Therefore, they were created out of nothing.

Show it. Show in scripture where God created nothing before the heavens and earth and while your doing it, show me when in said relation God created the angels and nephilum.

Maybe in eternity we will discover a way to measure spirit, but right now, since we do not know how to measure spirit, we cannot measure spirit. So science cannot study spirit. Science cannot even perceive spirit to say here is spirit and there is not spirit. Until there is a way to locate where spirit is and where it is not, there is no way to study it.

The same is true for thought, ideas, emotions, etc. But we try anyway.

So for all practical, usable purposes in the here and now, spirit is immeasurable, and cannot be a subject of scientific investigation.

Then we best abandon all attempts at other investigations as well.

I tried to confine myself to speaking of what seemed to be the main point: did God create out of nothing. I would suggest starting a new thread if you want to talk of God's dealings with humanity.

No, the main point is that creation doesn't deal with whether or not God created somthing from nothing. I knew somehow you missed the point, I just couldn't figure out how when you used my own post.

Right. I was just clarifying whether we shared that understanding, as your reaction to my statement seemed to suggest you believed the spiritual was not real. Now that you have affirmed that the both the spiritual and the physical are real, I know that I misunderstood what you were saying. So we can move on from this now.

Yes, in the incarnation.

Yes, we do, as the creation accounts always name heaven and earth (i.e. what we would call the universe) as what God first created.

When I create a wood quilt, the first thing I do is collect the wood. So is collecting the wood the first thing I did when I was born? The point is this, there are a lot of firsts in the world. The first cry, the first steps, the first man in space. Gen. 1:1 does not indicate that the creation of the heavens and earth were the very first act of God, but rather that they were the beginnings of the world we know, our empirical world as it were. But if you had stuck around long enough to discuss the book of Gen. you might have known this as well.

It does appear that the heavens were created before the earth, for the angels (who are heavenly beings) are mentioned as being present when God laid the foundations of the earth. (Job 38:7)

So when then did He create them if the heavens and earth were the first creative act? I thought God created all things, including but not limited to angels. So what you are saying is that either there is a discrepency about the first creation, or God didn't create everything. Which are you going to go with?

I have heard that the nephilim were children born of the mating of angels with human women. I think there are other interpretations as well, but in any case they seem not to have come onto the scene until after human existence. (Gen. 6:1-4)

Actually, according to the bible, the nephilim are the fallen ones who were beautiful to look at and came to earth and took human women to mate with. The children of said were giants. The nephilim were not the children but produced the children.

Actually, I said just the opposite: that "creation out of nothing" is biblical. Would you say that the Trinity is not biblical because the word "trinity" does not appear in scripture? Would you say that original sin is not a biblical concept because the phrase "original sin" is not a term used in the bible?

Just because a certain word or phrase is not in the bible doesn't mean the idea it expresses is not biblical.

What I am saying is that the biblical concept of somthing from nothing is not a part of the creation account at all. I said nothing at all about a personal belief in whether or not God ever created something from nothing. That discussion is beyond the realm of this discussion and should exist on another thread. Probably best a thread about christian theology.

The bible doesn't say that something was created out of nothing either--not if you are looking for that phrase in the text. To get to some biblical concepts you need to read between the lines, work at understanding the text, not just seeing if the words show up in that exact form in the text.

snip for space.
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.

Now we can distinguish between primary and secondary creation. Primary creation is God creating directly from nothing, supernaturally. Secondary creation is God using what he has already created to make something new. Secondary creation involves giving the primary creation a new order. It does not involve adding new matter or energy to the original creation.

So, in Genesis 1:2 we see that the earth had not yet taken the shape that is familiar to us. And in Gen. 1:14 we see that heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon and stars had not been part of the primary creation of the heavens, but were formed later. The ordering and furnishing of heaven and earth, after the primordial creation out of nothing, are secondary creations, and since these creations use matter and energy already created, they can be studied by science.

This has already been addressed in this post, if you still have problems let me know.

As I said, the text cannot be understood apart from theology. If you disagree as to what the text means, it is because you are using a different theology. The question is, which theology is truer to the text--not just in this one verse, but consistently with all the scripture has to say about God and creation.

The question is are we using creation theology or christian theology? Both are steeped in tradition and tradition has no place in seeking truth in the text.

Well, I don't. And I don't know any Christian or any evolutionist who does. There is nothing before the existence of heaven and earth except God. So there is no way creation can refer to anything before the existence of the first creation. It makes no sense to say anyone is trying to insist on this. If there is someone who is trying to do this, just tell them how foolish they are.

Yet above you said that angels existed before the creation of heaven. So how does your theology correct this discrepancy?

Well, we know what scripture tells us. Perhaps that is not enough for you. So be it.

Well, evolution does not start with the primary creation, or even for a long while after the universe was established and operating under secondary processes like gravity and electro-magnetism. Evolution starts when there are living things capable of evolving. On earth, that was about 3.8 billion years ago, almost a billion years after there was an earth at all.

Exactly my point and by the same reasoning, creation doesn't start at the creation of the heavens or earth or how they were created would be part of the account. Like saying, the story of my life began at birth but that doesn't mean that my birth is a part of the story. My birth may not add any significance or meaning to the rest of my story.

Creation is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense of the word. It is a doctrine, a spiritual teaching. Creationism is a theory, as it makes testable claims about how certain things came into existence. Unfortunately for its proponents, all of its testable claims have failed the tests and shown that theory to be false.

Don't confuse creation with creationism. Creationism is a failed scientific theory which has been replaced with the theory of evolution. Creation is a spiritual teaching, a doctrine of the Christian faith (as well as of some other faiths) and is compatible with both creationism and evolution. So you are right to say that creation and evolution are not exclusive of each other. They are not exclusive of each other, because they are concepts in different categories of thought. Creation is a theological doctrine; evolution is a scientific theory.

Creationism, the attempt to develop a scientific theory on the origin of species from a particular theology about the biblical creation accounts, is a scientific failure. But that doesn't make creation a false doctrine.

We have discussed this before and you are only right on part of it as has been shown, but none the less way off topic, so we move on.

Yes, we do. At least if we accept the testimony of the biblical creation accounts which always begin with the creation of heaven and earth. Therefore, God did not create anything else before them.

Again I point you to above where you talk about the angels existing before. You have a contridiction you need to work out and share with us how you do so.

snipped for space.

 

[razzelflabben]

Exactly. YECs like Vossler, laptoppop and mark kennedy and TEs like you, shernren and myself, come firmly together on such an essential doctrine as this. Creation out of nothing is a staple of Christian belief that has no bearing on where one stands in the creationism<->evolution spectrum.

Note your words christian belief and not creation belief. That is the difference. One need not be a christian to believe creation. Therefore to assert such is equivelant to saying that all evolutionists are atheists and just to be ahead of the arguement, the reverse is true as well. But I wouldn't expect any of you to understand that concept because you are too sure you are right about anything to listen to what is actually being said.

Case in point, nowhere did I say or suggest that God did not create something from nothing, only that from a biblical perspective, we cannot know if that something from nothing was the heavens and earth.

To this you asserted that I don't understand how that God made something from nothing. And yet, glaudys comes on and say, "oops, the angels were here before the heavens, no matter I am right anyway, the heavens and the earth were God's first creation, not the angels that He created before the heavens, heaven and earth were the first creation". See, the problem is that if you listened to anyone, including yourselves, you would see that traditional meaning is not always the truth or best source for finding truth.

 

[gluadys]

I am not argueing that creation theory is not a theology,

You are talking about christian theology not creation account.

I guess I misunderstood your objection to using theology then. Glad to hear that you recognize that creation is a theological doctrine. It would be less confusing if you called it "doctrine" instead of "theory" as the latter term implies something scientific rather than a teaching of the scriptures. In no way is creation a theory in a scientific sense.

I am saying to you that one is not dependant on the other. Just as I can isolate out of science, the study of DNA, I can isolate out of christian theology creation and study just that.

Yes, just as science has specialized fields such as the study of DNA, of geological formations, of astonomy, chemistry, and so on, theology also has its specialized fields such as the study of creation, redemption, incarnation, the Holy Spirit and so on. The important point is that creation is a theological concept, not a scientific concept.

One is not so tightly knitted to the other that they cannot be independant in the practical understanding and discussion. IOW's, I don't have to talk about gravity in order to talk about DNA, nor do I have to talk about christian theology in order to talk about creation.

Well since we are in the Christians Only section of Christian Forums, it is to be expected that we will discuss the Christian theology of creation. Yes, other faiths do have their own theologies of creation, but there is an inter-faith thread where they can be explored. If you want to discuss non-Christian approaches to creation, you might try here:

http://www.christianforums.com/f76-non-christian-religion.html

Not at all, I never suggested that God didn't make something from nothing, only that the creation account did not specify this.

By "specify" do you mean that the phrase "out of nothing" is not found in the text of Gen. 1:1?

Is it necessary that the concept be found explicitly in this verse? Do you think it is not appropriate to turn to the other creation accounts in scripture for enlightenment as to what Gen. 1:1 is speaking of?

If you strongly object to making reference to creation accounts in Proverbs, Job, the Psalms and elsewhere, to get a comprehensive view of the scriptural understanding of creation, I really don't know what to say. This seems to be a very extreme position that I have seldom found even among strict literalists.

No doubt I am misunderstanding you again. So clarification would be helpful. What would you consider necessary in a creation account in order to be specific about creation out of nothing?

I would also add that part of Christian creation theology rests on our understanding of the uniqueness of God. If, as some faiths do, one supposes that God is not the only eternal being, but that something else(e.g. matter, the universe) is also eternal, then of course, God did not create that out of nothing, since it was never created at all. But as Christians we do believe that God and only God existed eternally. All else was created by God, and hence, necessarily, it was created from nothing. (Secondary creation excepted of course.)

Okay, fair enough, now show in scripture where God made heaven and earth through said process.

Already did. (post 31) Here are the references again.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen. 1:1 "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..." Gen. 2:4b Also see John 1:1-3, Proverbs 8:22-31 and Job 38:4-7

These all show that nothing but God existed prior to him creating the heaven and the earth, so there was nothing to create them from. The only conclusion is that in the beginning God created out of nothing.

But you all have failed to show even a hint of how God created the heavens and earth.

Well, this is a different question. You were disputing that God created out of nothing. Now you are asking how God created out of nothing. Sorry, I don't know how God is able to create out of nothing. Only that he did.

The same applies to secondary creation. The second creation account tells us that God created man from dirt. But it only tells the material God used. It doesn't describe the process. It doesn't say how God used the dirt. So if you ask me, how did God create man from dirt? I have to answer. I don't know, how he did it. Only that he did.

Scripture tends to focus on what God did, not how God did it.

The same is true for thought, ideas, emotions, etc.

Yes, science can study the activity of the brain and bodily reactions to ideas and emotions. It can even study the physical stimuli that trigger such bodily activity. But is this a study of thought, idea or emotion in themselves? Or only of the accompanying physical manifestations?

The point is this, there are a lot of firsts in the world.

Sure, but the creation of the world is not a first in the world. It is the beginning of the world itself.

Gen. 1:1 does not indicate that the creation of the heavens and earth were the very first act of God,

[BIBLE]In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [/BIBLE]

So when then did He create them if the heavens and earth were the first creative act?

Apparently God created the angels as he created the heavens. They are heavenly beings. The Genesis accounts of creation don't mention the creation of angels, so one has to discern that from other scriptural accounts of creation.

Actually, according to the bible, the nephilim are the fallen ones who were beautiful to look at and came to earth and took human women to mate with.

As in fallen angels? That is another interpretation I have heard. That would mean they were created along with the other angels. It is an interesting passage over which there is a lot of controversy, but that is fodder for another thread.

What I am saying is that the biblical concept of somthing from nothing is not a part of the creation account at all.

Well, now that we have looked at it more closely, I expect you have seen the error in this line of thinking. Since you now agree that the concept of creation from nothing is biblical, and since it is never applied to anything other than creation, then the only accounts it can be part of are the creation accounts.

The question is are we using creation theology or christian theology?

We are using Christian creation theology as this is in the Christians Only section. If you want to discuss other creation theologies, best to post elsewhere.

Yet above you said that angels existed before the creation of heaven.

Not at all. I said they were present at the creation of the earth, so they must have existed before the earth. I did not say they existed before the creation of the heavens.

It does appear that the heavens were created before the earth, for the angels (who are heavenly beings) are mentioned as being present when God laid the foundations of the earth. (Job 38:7)

 

[lucaspa]

In previous discussions I have had on the forum, it has been asserted that creation is about something from nothing and science knows that isn't true.

Someone misrepresented science to you. "something from nothing" is a restatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change form."

What is overlooked is that the Laws of Thermodynamics only describe what happens IN the universe. They do not apply to getting a universe to begin with.

So you have encountered a misuse of science. In fact, Big Bang does indeed have the universe appearing out of "nothing". That is, the Big Bang is the beginning of space, time, and matter/energy. "Before" that, there was literally NO THING. No space, no time, no matter, no energy.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth and the earth was without form and void.

Okay, so we have a creation of heaven and earth. First off, it wasn't from nothing, it was from God. Discriptions later in Gen. such as vs. 2 "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." other translations say the Spirit of God "hovered" indicates that God is indeed at least full of energy.

Within Judeo-Christianity there has always been a debate whether creation in Genesis 1 was ex nihilo (from nothing) or whether God manipulated existing matter. Both views cite exegesis of Genesis 1. I consider the debate trivial and unnecessary. Since Genesis 1 was meant to impart a theological message and drew upon the Enuma Elish, that detail wasn't important to the authors and they could easily have been contradictory on it.

Second problem with the something from nothing arguement, is that we are not told how God created the heaven and earth. Just that it was created.

BINGO! What science and creationism both come up with are different "hows" that God created.

The evolutionists like to argue that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the beginnings of the world.

And that is correct. All scientific theories have boundaries. Evolution assumes the existence of both earth and life. There are other theories that deal with how the universe, earth, and life were created.

secondly we have energy (God).

Please don't do that. It is anti-Christian. God is not of this universe; He is outside the universe. You can't make God a creature of this universe. And that is what you are doing by saying God is energy.

Man is recorded as being made from the dust of the earth. Dust therefore already existing. Thus something from something.

Not in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, God speaks people into existence. Just like He speaks light, the sun, plants, etc into existence. One instant people are not there, then God says "Let us make" and the next instant people are there.

So what really has me stumped is where this idea that creation is something from nothing comes from

AH! There you need to look at the history of Christianity. The phase "cretio ex nihilo" is first introduced in a book written during the time of the Maccabees. However, it is implied in many of the statements about creation scattered thru the OT. In limiting your analysis to just Genesis 1, you are ignoring all the other references to creation. Not a good thing if you are trying to understand the theological thinking of the people. For instance "Let all the earth fear the Lord, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth. (Ps. 33:6-9)

"That God alone is sovereign is affirmed emphatically in the Priestly creation story in Genesis 1. According to this chapter, the creation is totally dependent upon the will of the transcendent God. Here there is not the slightest suggestion that the Creator is identified with any power immanent in nature, as was the case in the nature mythologies of antiquity. God is completely independent from the primeval watery chaos, out of which the habitable world is created. The imperative of the Creator's word is the only connection with the works of creation. Perhaps the belief in "creation out of nothing," implying that even the primeval chaos was created by God, is too sophisticated for Israel's faith; for the primary concern of this chapter is to express the total dependence of everything upon God's ordaining will rather than to answer the question of the origin of the stuff of chaos. it is noteworthy, however, that the verb bara' ("create"), which appears in the preface to the creation epic (vs. 1) and again emphatically in the case of the creation of animal life (vs. 21) and human life (vs. 27), is used in the Old Testament exclusively of effortless divine creation which brings into being something absolutely new. This language comes as close to creation ex nihilo as one can without actually using the expression which is first found in the late Jewish book, II Maccabees (7:28).7" Bernhard W. Anderson, The Earth Is The Lord's,: An Essay on the biblical Doctrine of Creation, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 176-196.

 

[razzelflabben]

I guess I misunderstood your objection to using theology then. Glad to hear that you recognize that creation is a theological doctrine. It would be less confusing if you called it "doctrine" instead of "theory" as the latter term implies something scientific rather than a teaching of the scriptures. In no way is creation a theory in a scientific sense.

Yes, just as science has specialized fields such as the study of DNA, of geological formations, of astonomy, chemistry, and so on, theology also has its specialized fields such as the study of creation, redemption, incarnation, the Holy Spirit and so on. The important point is that creation is a theological concept, not a scientific concept.

Well since we are in the Christians Only section of Christian Forums, it is to be expected that we will discuss the Christian theology of creation. Yes, other faiths do have their own theologies of creation, but there is an inter-faith thread where they can be explored. If you want to discuss non-Christian approaches to creation, you might try here:

http://www.christianforums.com/f76-non-christian-religion.html

right, and we never will because we are so convinced that the christian doctrines tell us all we need know that we cannot ever get past the christian doctrines to see what really is there. We had this run in when we tried to study the Gen. account the first time remember? You were too stuck on the christian traditional doctrine to actually look at the account. It is only when we look at the account and test what is testable, that we can begin to form a theory of creation.

By "specify" do you mean that the phrase "out of nothing" is not found in the text of Gen. 1:1?

Is it necessary that the concept be found explicitly in this verse? Do you think it is not appropriate to turn to the other creation accounts in scripture for enlightenment as to what Gen. 1:1 is speaking of?

If you strongly object to making reference to creation accounts in Proverbs, Job, the Psalms and elsewhere, to get a comprehensive view of the scriptural understanding of creation, I really don't know what to say. This seems to be a very extreme position that I have seldom found even among strict literalists.

I know you to be smart enough to understand what I am saying, you just choose not to. I am not saying that the text must say this creation was from nothing, but it must at least illude to it in order for us to declare it so. That is the problem.

No doubt I am misunderstanding you again. So clarification would be helpful. What would you consider necessary in a creation account in order to be specific about creation out of nothing? [/quot]see above and stop trying to pretend you don't understand my words.

I would also add that part of Christian creation theology rests on our understanding of the uniqueness of God. If, as some faiths do, one supposes that God is not the only eternal being, but that something else(e.g. matter, the universe) is also eternal, then of course, God did not create that out of nothing, since it was never created at all. But as Christians we do believe that God and only God existed eternally. All else was created by God, and hence, necessarily, it was created from nothing. (Secondary creation excepted of course.)

Already did. (post 31) Here are the references again.

These all show that nothing but God existed prior to him creating the heaven and the earth, so there was nothing to create them from. The only conclusion is that in the beginning God created out of nothing.

And yet you yourself showed us that before the heavens and earth existed the angels existed. So what then would compell us to believe that the elements for the heaven and earth were not already created? except of course church tradition, the same kind of tradition that Jesus attacked the pharisees for. Interesting isn't it?

Well, this is a different question. You were disputing that God created out of nothing. Now you are asking how God created out of nothing. Sorry, I don't know how God is able to create out of nothing. Only that he did.

Come on and play fair. I have never debated that God created something from nothing, or how He did it. What I have disputed is whether or not we can know that the heavens and earth were something from nothing.

The same applies to secondary creation. The second creation account tells us that God created man from dirt. But it only tells the material God used. It doesn't describe the process. It doesn't say how God used the dirt. So if you ask me, how did God create man from dirt? I have to answer. I don't know, how he did it. Only that he did.

Scripture tends to focus on what God did, not how God did it.

Well, we know a bit more than that, but, that is a different discussion. You are good at trying to change the subject.

Yes, science can study the activity of the brain and bodily reactions to ideas and emotions. It can even study the physical stimuli that trigger such bodily activity. But is this a study of thought, idea or emotion in themselves? Or only of the accompanying physical manifestations?

more topic changing? I know, my fault, everything always is.

Sure, but the creation of the world is not a first in the world. It is the beginning of the world itself.

Thus how do we know that the elements for the heaven and earth were not already created, thus the heavens and earth were something from something.

[bible]In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [/bible]

Apparently God created the angels as he created the heavens. They are heavenly beings. The Genesis accounts of creation don't mention the creation of angels, so one has to discern that from other scriptural accounts of creation.

according to your comments, the angels were created before the heavens, not at the same time. Big difference. You need to seperate your traditional understandings from the biblical ones.

As in fallen angels? That is another interpretation I have heard. That would mean they were created along with the other angels. It is an interesting passage over which there is a lot of controversy, but that is fodder for another thread.

actually, the literal interpretation is not fallen angels, but rather fallen ones which leaves once again reading into the text the traditions of the church rather than actual interpretation.

Well, now that we have looked at it more closely, I expect you have seen the error in this line of thinking. Since you now agree that the concept of creation from nothing is biblical, and since it is never applied to anything other than creation, then the only accounts it can be part of are the creation accounts.

Sure, that is how you argue, you are shown flaws in your line of thinking. Atribute those shown flaws to the other side and declare victory. The problem with your assertions is 1. (I know you like lists) Nothing was argued about something from nothing being biblical, only that it isn't part of Gen. 2. Your assertion that the angels were created before the heavens, supports my idea that it is possible that the heavens and earth were created from something. Thus my assertion stands firm, there is nothing to support the idea, other than church tradition, that the heavens and earth were created from nothing and thus, dear one, you are wrong.

We are using Christian creation theology as this is in the Christians Only section. If you want to discuss other creation theologies, best to post elsewhere.

Well, I have stated many times, including in this discussion, that I am talking about creation theory as put forth in Gen. Not about christian theology or christian creation theology.

Not at all. I said they were present at the creation of the earth, so they must have existed before the earth. I did not say they existed before the creation of the heavens.

Okay, let's go with that. So when were they created and from what. Oh, by the way show us the scripture again so we can review it and see if you are changing your mind or the story.

 

[razzelflabben]

Someone misrepresented science to you. "something from nothing" is a restatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change form."

What is overlooked is that the Laws of Thermodynamics only describe what happens IN the universe. They do not apply to getting a universe to begin with.

So you have encountered a misuse of science. In fact, Big Bang does indeed have the universe appearing out of "nothing". That is, the Big Bang is the beginning of space, time, and matter/energy. "Before" that, there was literally NO THING. No space, no time, no matter, no energy.

Can't be, I am the one who is always wrong, no evolutionist can ever be wrong, and you all don't even know what I believe yet, but I have been labeled and therefore am the one wrong, just ask glaudys, she will tell you. I am always wrong even when I say the same thing she does.

Within Judeo-Christianity there has always been a debate whether creation in Genesis 1 was ex nihilo (from nothing) or whether God manipulated existing matter. Both views cite exegesis of Genesis 1. I consider the debate trivial and unnecessary. Since Genesis 1 was meant to impart a theological message and drew upon the Enuma Elish, that detail wasn't important to the authors and they could easily have been contradictory on it.

But that is the point. It doesn't specify so therefore for an evolutionist to use it as an arguement against the biblical creation is a misuse of all kinds of things from scientific and biblical understanding to how to argue with respect for others ideas and opinions. It's about listening rather than asserting that it is already known. But then again, ask glaudys she will tell you that I am wrong once again.

BINGO! What science and creationism both come up with are different "hows" that God created.



And that is correct. All scientific theories have boundaries. Evolution assumes the existence of both earth and life. There are other theories that deal with how the universe, earth, and life were created.



Please don't do that. It is anti-Christian. God is not of this universe; He is outside the universe. You can't make God a creature of this universe. And that is what you are doing by saying God is energy.

actually, what I am saying is that God is something. Call Him whatever you like, it still boils down to something from something (God). Any way you slice it, it still comes out the same, something isn't said to come from nothing in Gen.

Not in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, God speaks people into existence. Just like He speaks light, the sun, plants, etc into existence. One instant people are not there, then God says "Let us make" and the next instant people are there.



AH! There you need to look at the history of Christianity. The phase "cretio ex nihilo" is first introduced in a book written during the time of the Maccabees. However, it is implied in many of the statements about creation scattered thru the OT. In limiting your analysis to just Genesis 1, you are ignoring all the other references to creation. Not a good thing if you are trying to understand the theological thinking of the people. For instance "Let all the earth fear the Lord, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth. (Ps. 33:6-9)

Right, but nothing in that says that it came from nothing, only that God's word was all that was needed to bring it into existance.

"That God alone is sovereign is affirmed emphatically in the Priestly creation story in Genesis 1. According to this chapter, the creation is totally dependent upon the will of the transcendent God. Here there is not the slightest suggestion that the Creator is identified with any power immanent in nature, as was the case in the nature mythologies of antiquity. God is completely independent from the primeval watery chaos, out of which the habitable world is created. The imperative of the Creator's word is the only connection with the works of creation. Perhaps the belief in "creation out of nothing," implying that even the primeval chaos was created by God, is too sophisticated for Israel's faith; for the primary concern of this chapter is to express the total dependence of everything upon God's ordaining will rather than to answer the question of the origin of the stuff of chaos. it is noteworthy, however, that the verb bara' ("create"), which appears in the preface to the creation epic (vs. 1) and again emphatically in the case of the creation of animal life (vs. 21) and human life (vs. 27), is used in the Old Testament exclusively of effortless divine creation which brings into being something absolutely new. This language comes as close to creation ex nihilo as one can without actually using the expression which is first found in the late Jewish book, II Maccabees (7:28).7" Bernhard W. Anderson, The Earth Is The Lord's,: An Essay on the biblical Doctrine of Creation, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 176-196.

And how many times have I stated that my part of the discussion is based on the creation account in Gen. and not on christian theology or creation theology, but rather on the biblical account as put forth in Gen.

 

[gluadys]

right, and we never will

Excuse me? We never will what? Hard to follow your thought when you don't complete it.

It is only when we look at the account and test what is testable, that we can begin to form a theory of creation.

Do you mean the doctrine of creation or the theory of creationism? The doctrine of creation is that God created the universe and everything in it, and in Christian theology, it is understood that God created the universe out of nothing. The theory of creationism is a proposition about how and when God created various things in the universe. All Christians agree with the doctrine of creation, but not all agree with the theory of creationism.

I am not saying that the text must say this creation was from nothing, but it must at least illude to it in order for us to declare it so. That is the problem.

OK. the exact words "out of nothing" do not need to be in the text. But when you say "the text... must at least illude [sic] to it" do you mean specifically the text in Genesis 1 or are we permitted to look for these allusions in other passages of scripture relating to creation as well?

And yet you yourself showed us that before the heavens and earth existed the angels existed.

No, you are misquoting me. I said only that the angels were present when the earth was founded. The scriptures do not say the angels existed before the heavens. I see you finally noted you were misquoting me at the end of the post.

So what then would compell us to believe that the elements for the heaven and earth were not already created?

Ah, but the creation of the elements is the creation of heaven and earth. You see, the ancient Hebrews did not have a word that corresponds to "universe". The only way they could describe the universe was by using the phrase "heavens and earth" as that includes everything in the universe.

But the creation account itself shows us that at the initial moment of creation, the heavens and earth were not formed as they are in our experience. Initially, the universe was an unformed chaos which the biblical text describes as "waters". The earth as a planet did not yet exist, for it was formless and void and not separated from the rest of the stuff of the universe. Gen. 1:2

Thus how do we know that the elements for the heaven and earth were not already created, thus the heavens and earth were something from something.

The creation of the elements is the creation of the heavens and earth i.e. the universe. But it was not the creation of the heavens and the earth in their finished form. As noted above, in the initial moment of creation, the matter of the (physical) heavens and earth existed in a chaotic state without form, without separation one from the other. (What this says about heaven as a spiritual reality I have no idea.)

The later separation of the elements and the formation of the heavenly bodies such as the stars, sun and moon, and the formation of earth as a planet all came after the initial creation of the universe. That is these were all secondary creations whose origin we can trace by discovering through science the natural properties and forces God placed in the universe and how they worked together to give us the organized universe we know today.

If it is this secondary formation of the earth and the other structures of the physical universe that you are saying were not created from nothing, then you are right. (Please take note that I said you were right.)

The universe itself --what the bible calls the heavens and the earth--was created out of nothing, and that included the basic elements of the universe: time, space, matter/energy along with forces such as gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces.

All the particular things in the universe came about through the interaction of these elements and forces. No new matter or energy was created. Rather God used what he had already created to shape the universe into an organized structure of stars, galaxies and planets (including the star we call the sun, and the planet earth).

Okay, let's go with that. So when were they created and from what. Oh, by the way show us the scripture again so we can review it and see if you are changing your mind or the story.

Angels are not part of the physical universe. They are heavenly beings in the sense of heaven as a spiritual reality. This, of course, is not the heavens understood as the space in which we find stars and galaxies.

Scripture does not give us a time when angels were created. But it does affirm that angels are created beings. They did not exist from all eternity like God. And it does affirm that they did exist when God "laid the foundation" of the earth. (Job 38:4) So we know they could not have been created later than this. So the question then becomes when did God "lay the foundation" of the earth?

And the answer to that question will vary depending on what meaning we give to the image of laying the foundation of the earth.

So, I will hazard a guess, but it is only a guess.

Since "foundation" is part of an organized structure, I specualate that laying the foundation of the earth does not refer to the primordial creation of earth in its formless state, but to the beginning point of its formation as a planet. In the Genesis account this would be the point at which God separates the earth from the waters of the abyss on the third day of creation. In scientific terms, it would be the formation of the planet about 4.5 billion years ago.

This is not necessarily when the angels were created, but they could not have been created any later than this. In terms of the universe, this allows for the creation of angels any time in the 9.2 billion years between the Big Bang and the formation of the planet earth.

What are angels made of? They are spiritual beings, made of spirit. They are not made of the matter/energy of the physical universe. Beyond that, we have no further information.

Any other questions?

 

[mark kennedy]

Nowhere did I suggest that it was other than God. In fact, I correct someone, you I believe, that Gen. 1:1 does specify that God created the heavens and earth. What it does not specify is if that creation was from nothing or something already existing.

It never entered my mind that you thought God didn't do it, that was never the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to show you was that the word used for creation , 'bara', is used in the absolute sense in Genesis 1:1. It is used only of God and there alone means from nothing. If there was something pre-existing that God made it from the Scriptures are silent. Bara used in conjunction with re&#770;'shi&#770;yth and the Hebrew equivalent of the definite article make the first statement of Genesis emphatic.

You fail to show it otherwise but accuse me.

What do you want, dictionary definitions, lexicons entires, concordance based expositions? I have at least a dozen commentaries and I don't know how may resources that say bara is attributed to God alone and only in Genesis one used as something from nothing.

Think what you like but the idea that the universe was created from some preexisting material is pure conjecture.

Instead of accusing me of what you do not know, try evidencing through scripture or otherwise how Heaven and earth were created from nothing.

Sure, no problem:

In the beginning (re&#770;'shi&#770;yth, the “head-part, beginning” of a thing, in point of time Gen_10:10, or value Pro_1:7. Its opposite is &#1488;&#1495;&#1512;&#1497;&#1514; 'acha&#774;ri&#770;&#770;yth Isa_46:10. &#1489;&#1512;&#1488;&#1513;&#1473;&#1497;&#1514; re&#770;'shi&#770;&#770;yth, “in the beginning,” is always used in reference to time. Here only is it taken absolutely. Albert Barnes)

God created (ba&#772;ra&#772;', “create, give being to something new.” It always has God for its subject. Its object may be anything: matter Gen_1:1; animal life Gen_1:21; spiritual life Gen_1:27. Hence, creation is not confined to a single point of time. Whenever anything absolutely new - that is, not involved in anything previously extant - is called into existence, there is creation Num_16:30. Any thing or event may also be said to be created by Him, who created the whole system of nature to which it belongs Mal_2:10. Albert Barnes)

If that doesn't do it for you try any expositional or exegetical treatment of the text.

You attempted to use bara to support the idea that God created the heavens and earth from nothing. I simply pointed out to you that the same word was used in vs. 27 referring to man and man according to the bible was indeed created from something. Therefore you have a problem exegeticly speaking. So how then do you solve this problem? By attacking my insistance that you deal with it? Or by addressing the conflict reationaly and biblically? But the same word is used therefore, one cannot be consistant in ones interpretation to say in verse one it means something from nothing but in verse 27 it means something from something. This is a contridiction. For there to be consistancy in this thought, there must be a qualifier of some sort that identifies the two different meanings, in the Heb., as you have suggested, a different word would be expected to be used as a qualifier. But interestingly enough that doesn't happen. So then we must question the meaning of the word. Nothing about the consistancy specifies that the heavens and earth were created from nothing. That isn't to say they weren't, it is to say that the bible does not say one way or the other if the heavens and earth were created from nothing or from elements already created by God. I see nothing about the creation of the soul in Gen. Where is that? We see the creation of man from the dust, and the creation of life in man through the breath of God. Thus two somethings from something. Follow through your arguements with scripture!

It means something totally new and only in Genesis one does it mean from nothing. If you want to get into the original I'm happy toe jump right in with you. However, I do not intend to carefully prepare posts only to have them sink into the stacks.

Only God creates something from nothing and only in the first verse of the Bible.

 

[razzelflabben]

Excuse me? We never will what? Hard to follow your thought when you don't complete it.

Do you mean the doctrine of creation or the theory of creationism? The doctrine of creation is that God created the universe and everything in it, and in Christian theology, it is understood that God created the universe out of nothing. The theory of creationism is a proposition about how and when God created various things in the universe. All Christians agree with the doctrine of creation, but not all agree with the theory of creationism.

I am not saying that the text must say this creation was from nothing, but it must at least illude to it in order for us to declare it so. That is the problem.

OK. the exact words "out of nothing" do not need to be in the text. But when you say "the text... must at least illude [sic] to it" do you mean specifically the text in Genesis 1 or are we permitted to look for these allusions in other passages of scripture relating to creation as well?

It must be in the bible or other supporting evidence. You have been told this several times, it would seem you can't follow the things directly stated much less those illuded to.

No, you are misquoting me. I said only that the angels were present when the earth was founded. The scriptures do not say the angels existed before the heavens. I see you finally noted you were misquoting me at the end of the post.

Put forth the scripture and all will be settled. It's your claim, set it straight for all to see. Post your supporting evidence. What passage tells us when the angels were created?

Ah, but the creation of the elements is the creation of heaven and earth. You see, the ancient Hebrews did not have a word that corresponds to "universe". The only way they could describe the universe was by using the phrase "heavens and earth" as that includes everything in the universe.

That would be one theory, and then you have the theory that they already existed, from another creative act. Point is, we don't know.

But the creation account itself shows us that at the initial moment of creation, the heavens and earth were not formed as they are in our experience. Initially, the universe was an unformed chaos which the biblical text describes as "waters". The earth as a planet did not yet exist, for it was formless and void and not separated from the rest of the stuff of the universe. Gen. 1:2

It discribes the heavens and earth, but does not specify what form of creation took place. That is the point.

The creation of the elements is the creation of the heavens and earth i.e. the universe. But it was not the creation of the heavens and the earth in their finished form. As noted above, in the initial moment of creation, the matter of the (physical) heavens and earth existed in a chaotic state without form, without separation one from the other. (What this says about heaven as a spiritual reality I have no idea.)

The later separation of the elements and the formation of the heavenly bodies such as the stars, sun and moon, and the formation of earth as a planet all came after the initial creation of the universe. That is these were all secondary creations whose origin we can trace by discovering through science the natural properties and forces God placed in the universe and how they worked together to give us the organized universe we know today.

If it is this secondary formation of the earth and the other structures of the physical universe that you are saying were not created from nothing, then you are right. (Please take note that I said you were right.)

The universe itself --what the bible calls the heavens and the earth--was created out of nothing, and that included the basic elements of the universe: time, space, matter/energy along with forces such as gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces.

All the particular things in the universe came about through the interaction of these elements and forces. No new matter or energy was created. Rather God used what he had already created to shape the universe into an organized structure of stars, galaxies and planets (including the star we call the sun, and the planet earth).

Bravo, you have one theory down pat, but you fail to look objectively at it and in fact, if you had been listening from the start you would have noted two things that would alter your arguement a bit.
1. 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.
2. That the creation of said is not part of the creation account as put forth in Gen. or more details would be given. Therefore when talking about creation in Gen. we cannot include the background information as part of the discussion. Just as evolution has background information that a single celled pop. existed but not discussion about how it came to be. A biblical look at creation in Gen. tells us that the heavens and earth were created but does not tell us how it came to be. We are told who did it, God, just as most understand the existance of that pop. to be through natural happening in the ideas of evolution. In other words, we don't start creation at the creation of the heavens and earth or we would have more information, but rather we start it at thier creation. and move forward.

Angels are not part of the physical universe. They are heavenly beings in the sense of heaven as a spiritual reality. This, of course, is not the heavens understood as the space in which we find stars and galaxies.

and yet they are recorded as having been to earth. And the nephelim having bred with humans. So they are not only spiritual beings.

Scripture does not give us a time when angels were created. But it does affirm that angels are created beings. They did not exist from all eternity like God. And it does affirm that they did exist when God "laid the foundation" of the earth. (Job 38:4) So we know they could not have been created later than this. So the question then becomes when did God "lay the foundation" of the earth?

You tell me. This passage is talking to Job and says nothing about the angels. However, further down we see 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Thus we know that the "sons of God" existed before the morning stars.

And the answer to that question will vary depending on what meaning we give to the image of laying the foundation of the earth.

So, I will hazard a guess, but it is only a guess.

Since "foundation" is part of an organized structure, I specualate that laying the foundation of the earth does not refer to the primordial creation of earth in its formless state, but to the beginning point of its formation as a planet. In the Genesis account this would be the point at which God separates the earth from the waters of the abyss on the third day of creation. In scientific terms, it would be the formation of the planet about 4.5 billion years ago.

This is not necessarily when the angels were created, but they could not have been created any later than this. In terms of the universe, this allows for the creation of angels any time in the 9.2 billion years between the Big Bang and the formation of the planet earth.

What are angels made of? They are spiritual beings, made of spirit. They are not made of the matter/energy of the physical universe. Beyond that, we have no further information.

Any other questions?

Actually, men have entertained angels unaware in addition. In addition, Gen 32 tells of a story of an angel that was very much phyical in nature. So now you have evidence to the contrary, support your arguement with contridictory evidence.

 

[razzelflabben]

It never entered my mind that you thought God didn't do it, that was never the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to show you was that the word used for creation , 'bara', is used in the absolute sense in Genesis 1:1. It is used only of God and there alone means from nothing. If there was something pre-existing that God made it from the Scriptures are silent. Bara used in conjunction with re&#770;'shi&#770;yth and the Hebrew equivalent of the definite article make the first statement of Genesis emphatic.

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

What do you want, dictionary definitions, lexicons entires, concordance based expositions? I have at least a dozen commentaries and I don't know how may resources that say bara is attributed to God alone and only in Genesis one used as something from nothing.

Think what you like but the idea that the universe was created from some preexisting material is pure conjecture.

My concordance says that the same word is used throughout Gen. 1 including but not limited to man. So your definition leaves a contridiction in scripture. Are you willing to live with that? I personally don't think the bible contridicts itself because every study I have done on apparent contridictions has said otherwise.

Sure, no problem:

In the beginning (re&#770;'shi&#770;yth, the “head-part, beginning” of a thing, in point of time Gen_10:10, or value Pro_1:7. Its opposite is &#1488;&#1495;&#1512;&#1497;&#1514; 'acha&#774;ri&#770;&#770;yth Isa_46:10. &#1489;&#1512;&#1488;&#1513;&#1473;&#1497;&#1514; re&#770;'shi&#770;&#770;yth, “in the beginning,” is always used in reference to time. Here only is it taken absolutely. Albert Barnes)

God created (ba&#772;ra&#772;', “create, give being to something new.” It always has God for its subject. Its object may be anything: matter Gen_1:1; animal life Gen_1:21; spiritual life Gen_1:27. Hence, creation is not confined to a single point of time. Whenever anything absolutely new - that is, not involved in anything previously extant - is called into existence, there is creation Num_16:30. Any thing or event may also be said to be created by Him, who created the whole system of nature to which it belongs Mal_2:10. Albert Barnes)

Note your own post offers the understanding that something new came to being not that that something was created from nothing already existing. Yet you continue to assert such without supporting evidence. Support your claim.

If that doesn't do it for you try any expositional or exegetical treatment of the text.

It means something totally new and only in Genesis one does it mean from nothing. If you want to get into the original I'm happy toe jump right in with you. However, I do not intend to carefully prepare posts only to have them sink into the stacks.

Only God creates something from nothing and only in the first verse of the Bible.

Agreed, only God creates something from nothing, but I disagree with you that the first verse is where we see this. In fact, the bara word you use to support your arguement is used elsewhere in Gen. 1 and includes but is not limited to the creation of the heavens and earth. In fact, it extends to man whom we know was created from dirt. Thus either something from nothing refers to the creation of somthing new, or it refers to the book of Gen. as being a contridiction and a lie. I personally don't hold to tradition so tightly as to call the bible a lie. How about you? The bottom line, is that the bible doesn't specify if the heavens and earth were created from nothing. The understanding thereof is a traditional one, and not a biblical one. It could certainly be true, but the problem is, only tradition tells us to believe said.

 

[gluadys]

It must be in the bible or other supporting evidence.

OK. Then we have several scriptures that affirm that God created all things, that apart from himself, nothing exists except what God created. (See John 1: 3 to begin with. I believe hithesh has also listed other references.) Therefore, the first thing that God created must have been created from nothing.

What passage tells us when the angels were created?

None that I know of. We can say they must have been created before the events when they were present, but that leaves a pretty broad scope.

It discribes the heavens and earth, but does not specify what form of creation took place. That is the point.

That's right. (See, that's the second time I have said you are right.) Other than stating that God created (and knowing from other scripture that God in the beginning God created from nothing) scripture does not specify how God created. We actually have different "hows" in different scripture passages. In Genesis 1, God speaks (and John takes this up again when he says it was the Word that created all things). In Genesis 2, humans and animals are made from dirt and God gives them the breath of life.

1. 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.

Which text? If you limit yourself to Gen. 1:1, it is perhaps not clear. But you said we could use any text in the bible, and John 1:3 makes it clear.

2. That the creation of said

The creation of said? This is the second time you have used this phrase and I asked about it before. I have no idea what it means.

A biblical look at creation in Gen. tells us that the heavens and earth were created but does not tell us how it came to be.

Right. We know from other texts that the first creation had to be from nothing and from Gen. 1:1 that the universe (heavens and earth) was the first creation. But other than that we do not know how it came to be.

yet they are recorded as having been to earth.

Actually, men have entertained angels unaware in addition. In addition, Gen 32 tells of a story of an angel that was very much phyical in nature.

Yes, angels are God's messengers. (That is the meaning of the word "angel") And when they have messages for human beings they sometimes appear in a dream, and sometimes appear to be physical beings. Perhaps in some sense, they are temporarily physical beings. Perhaps, in order to make their presence known to humans they actually gather matter around themselves. I don't know and I don't really care how they manifest themselves in the physical world.

But they are not incarnate spirits, not spirits made flesh as Jesus was. Such physical bodies as they appear to have from time to time are not their natural bodies, for by nature they are spirits, not flesh and blood. Jesus says that in heaven we shall be as angels. Paul tells us that we shall then have spiritual bodies, not bodies of flesh.

However, further down we see 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Yes, I meant vs. 7, not vs. 4. Actually the thought includes everything from vs 4 to vs 7 inclusive.

Thus we know that the "sons of God" existed before the morning stars.

No, the text doesn't say that. Beginning at vs. 4, God speaks of "when I laid the foundation of the earth" and then goes on to speak of the details (determined its measurements...stretched the line upon it...sank it bases... laid its cornerstone) and ends up saying that as all this was happening "the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy."

It does not say that either the morning stars or the heavenly beings existed before the other. Only that both were present when God began giving form to the earth. So both existed before the foundation of the earth, but we cannot say which, if either, existed before the other.

It is possible they are not separate groups. I took "morning stars" and "heavenly beings" to be synonyms, both referring to "angels". It is a common feature of Hebrew poetry to say the same thing twice in different words. If the morning stars are the heavenly beings, neither could exist before the other, as they are the same thing.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK. Then we have several scriptures that affirm that God created all things, that apart from himself, nothing exists except what God created. (See John 1: 3 to begin with. I believe hithesh has also listed other references.) Therefore, the first thing that God created must have been created from nothing.

The first time I began addressing this post, I quoted the verse. But you can do that since it is your supposed supporting evidence, which btw, says absolutely nothing about heavens and earth being God's first creative act. You really should try to support your claims rather than to try so hard to change the topic.

None that I know of. We can say they must have been created before the events when they were present, but that leaves a pretty broad scope.

a lot happened on day one if God created all the celestial beings on that same day and then there was a war and so forth and so on, that is a truely short timeperiod from the standpoint of christian theology for all that to take place in one day. That would mean that either a day is not a day, not consistant with most christian theology, or it was a massive "fun" filled day, a day that only God could get that much into. Which btw would not be consistant with His personality as protrayed throughout the bible.

That's right. (See, that's the second time I have said you are right.) Other than stating that God created (and knowing from other scripture that God in the beginning God created from nothing) scripture does not specify how God created. We actually have different "hows" in different scripture passages. In Genesis 1, God speaks (and John takes this up again when he says it was the Word that created all things). In Genesis 2, humans and animals are made from dirt and God gives them the breath of life.

Thanks for making my point, that was kind of you. So if you agree, why then do you argue? We simply don't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing.

Which text? If you limit yourself to Gen. 1:1, it is perhaps not clear. But you said we could use any text in the bible, and John 1:3 makes it clear.

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


Where pray tell does this say or even suggest that the heavens and earth were God's first creative act? You should use scriptures that support your claim rather than ones that don't.

The creation of said? This is the second time you have used this phrase and I asked about it before. I have no idea what it means.

Put it in context. what creative act have we been talking about? That's right heavens and earth. Now put it in the context of the paragraph it was imbedded in. That is called reading for meaning.

Right. We know from other texts that the first creation had to be from nothing and from Gen. 1:1 that the universe (heavens and earth) was the first creation. But other than that we do not know how it came to be.

We have already talked about there being many different beginnings. All this says is that at the beginning of our physical world was the creation of the heavens and earth. In fact, from a christian theology standpoint, god has no beginning, therefore, there would always be a beginning before the one spoken. Always something before. Therefore, from a christian theology standpoint, Gen. 1:1 can only refer to the beginning of the physical world we know and not the beginning of everything.

Yes, angels are God's messengers. (That is the meaning of the word "angel") And when they have messages for human beings they sometimes appear in a dream, and sometimes appear to be physical beings. Perhaps in some sense, they are temporarily physical beings. Perhaps, in order to make their presence known to humans they actually gather matter around themselves. I don't know and I don't really care how they manifest themselves in the physical world.

But they are not incarnate spirits, not spirits made flesh as Jesus was. Such physical bodies as they appear to have from time to time are not their natural bodies, for by nature they are spirits, not flesh and blood. Jesus says that in heaven we shall be as angels. Paul tells us that we shall then have spiritual bodies, not bodies of flesh.

Your claim was that the spiritual cannot be measured because it is spiritual. I demonstrated to you that the spiritual is sometimes physical and thus can indeed be measured. The spiritual world is empirical at least at times.

Yes, I meant vs. 7, not vs. 4. Actually the thought includes everything from vs 4 to vs 7 inclusive.

No, the text doesn't say that. Beginning at vs. 4, God speaks of "when I laid the foundation of the earth" and then goes on to speak of the details (determined its measurements...stretched the line upon it...sank it bases... laid its cornerstone) and ends up saying that as all this was happening "the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy."

and absolutely nothing about it being His very first creative act, which is the claim you are trying to support.

It does not say that either the morning stars or the heavenly beings existed before the other. Only that both were present when God began giving form to the earth. So both existed before the foundation of the earth, but we cannot say which, if either, existed before the other.

Finally, you admit, sideways though it may be, that we don't know what God's first creative act really was.

It is possible they are not separate groups. I took "morning stars" and "heavenly beings" to be synonyms, both referring to "angels". It is a common feature of Hebrew poetry to say the same thing twice in different words. If the morning stars are the heavenly beings, neither could exist before the other, as they are the same thing.

And..... go ahead and say it.....we don't know what God's first creative act was. You can say it, it doesn't hurt that bad.

 

[gluadys]

But you can do that since it is your supposed supporting evidence, which btw, says absolutely nothing about heavens and earth being God's first creative act.

What John 1:3 and similar passages about God creating all things shows is that the first creative act had to be creation from nothing. Gen 1:1 and similar passages (as well as plain old logic) show us that the first creative act was the creation of the universe in both its spiritual and material aspects (heaven and earth).

Thanks for making my point, that was kind of you. So if you agree, why then do you argue?

I beleive the topic was whether heaven and earth were the first creation and whether they were created from nothing. Neither question touches on the creation of man. We can discuss that in a different thread if you like.

Where pray tell does this say or even suggest that the heavens and earth were God's first creative act?

John 1:3 doesn't say. But Gen. 1:1 does.

Gen. 1:1 doesn't say specifically that they were created from nothing, but John 1:3 implies clearly that they were.

So the complete statement: God's first creative act out of nothing was the creation of the heavens and earth depends on both scriptures together. Neither deals with the complete statement on its own.

Put it in context. what creative act have we been talking about? That's right heavens and earth.

So what does that have to do with "creation of said"? What the dickens is the said you are talking about. Makes no sense to me.

In fact, from a christian theology standpoint, god has no beginning, therefore, there would always be a beginning before the one spoken. Always something before.

Always something before, yes, but not a beginning since, as you say, God has no beginning.

Therefore, from a christian theology standpoint, Gen. 1:1 can only refer to the beginning of the physical world we know and not the beginning of everything.

All things (as it says in the creed, "all things, seen and unseen") includes all things spiritual as well as all things physical. It means all things except, of course, God himself. The scriptures make no clear distinction between heavens as the spirit world and heavens as a physical reality. So both ideas of heavens are included in the creation of heavens and earth.

Your claim was that the spiritual cannot be measured because it is spiritual. I demonstrated to you that the spiritual is sometimes physical and thus can indeed be measured.

But it is only the physical or apparently physical aspect that can be measured. Does the angel no longer exist when the physical aspect is gone? How do you measure an angel who has not taken on a physical aspect?

Finally, you admit, sideways though it may be, that we don't know what God's first creative act really was.
And..... go ahead and say it.....we don't know what God's first creative act was.

Not at all. We don't know if "morning stars" and "heavenly beings" are the same thing or different things. If they are different things we don't know which was created first. But they are both inhabitants of the heavens, and so the heavens were created before both of them.

We know of nothing being created before the universe itself (or as Gen.1:1 phrases it "the heavens and the earth".)

 

[razzelflabben]

What John 1:3 and similar passages about God creating all things shows is that the first creative act had to be creation from nothing. Gen 1:1 and similar passages (as well as plain old logic) show us that the first creative act was the creation of the universe in both its spiritual and material aspects (heaven and earth).

where does it say that?

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

It clearly says that God made all things, but nothing is mentioned about what order they were created, when they were created or how they were created. If you want to use this as your proof, show how it applies to your arguement. Just claiming it does, when it says nothing like it, isn't enough.[/quote]

I beleive the topic was whether heaven and earth were the first creation and whether they were created from nothing. Neither question touches on the creation of man. We can discuss that in a different thread if you like.
[/quote] The discussion about the creation of man came into the discussion because the same word bara used in Gen. 1:1 for the heavens and earth is the same word used for the creation of man. Therefore to assert that the use of the word bara is evidence for heavens and earth being created from nothing is to say that man was not created from dirt, but rather from nothing. There is a contridiction if we view bara as evidence. Therefore the discussion in context is not about the creation of man, but rather the use of the word bara as evidence that the creation of the heavens and earth were from nothing. And the explaination of how that cannot follow if we believe the bible to be accurate and inerrant.

John 1:3 doesn't say. But Gen. 1:1 does.

No it does't and asserting it all day won't change it into saying so.

Gen. 1:1 doesn't say specifically that they were created from nothing, but John 1:3 implies clearly that they were.

John doesn't specify any creation nor does it say they were created from nothing but rather clearly states that God created them. Something that has never been contested or questioned.

So the complete statement: God's first creative act out of nothing was the creation of the heavens and earth depends on both scriptures together. Neither deals with the complete statement on its own.

Neither says what you want it to. Sorry dear one, they don't. Together they say that the heavens and earth were created by God. Something that no one suggested otherwise. The rest of your assertion is christian theology of which you hold without reason other than stuborn pride.

So what does that have to do with "creation of said"? What the dickens is the said you are talking about. Makes no sense to me.

The said, stated, previously mentioned, contextual creation talked about. For a professor of literature you don't seem to have a very good grasp of reading for comprehension.

Always something before, yes, but not a beginning since, as you say, God has no beginning.

Therefore to read it as the first creative act, would indicate that God has a beginning and we both agree that is a flawed assumption.

All things (as it says in the creed, "all things, seen and unseen") includes all things spiritual as well as all things physical. It means all things except, of course, God himself. The scriptures make no clear distinction between heavens as the spirit world and heavens as a physical reality. So both ideas of heavens are included in the creation of heavens and earth.

Bravo, you do understand me dispite all your attempts to say you don't.

But it is only the physical or apparently physical aspect that can be measured. Does the angel no longer exist when the physical aspect is gone? How do you measure an angel who has not taken on a physical aspect?

When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make noise? Same difference. Deal with it.

Not at all. We don't know if "morning stars" and "heavenly beings" are the same thing or different things. If they are different things we don't know which was created first. But they are both inhabitants of the heavens, and so the heavens were created before both of them.

Huh? Now you are talking in nonsense circles. I was in the mood for a merry go round ride, thanks.

We know of nothing being created before the universe itself (or as Gen.1:1 phrases it "the heavens and the earth".)

Right, and we don't know if it was either. Which is the very point being made to you. From a purely biblical standpoint, we don't know if the heavens and earth were the first creative acts of God or not. therefore to state they are is not based on facts (biblical or otherwise) but rather on emotional traditional beliefism. The stuff so many people hate so.

 

[gluadys]

where does it say that?

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

It clearly says that God made all things, but nothing is mentioned about what order they were created, when they were created or how they were created.

Right. This verse establishes that God created all things. By implication it establishes that God created from nothing.

For the order, to know what was created first, you need to go to Genesis 1:1 or Gen. 2:4b. Both of these say the heavens and earth were created before anything else.

The discussion about the creation of man came into the discussion because the same word bara used in Gen. 1:1 for the heavens and earth is the same word used for the creation of man. Therefore to assert that the use of the word bara is evidence for heavens and earth being created from nothing is to say that man was not created from dirt, but rather from nothing. There is a contridiction if we view bara as evidence.

Ah, I see. I never made the claim that 'bara' always means creation from nothing. I believe it was mark kennedy. So I will let him explain how he resolves the contradiction.

No it does't and asserting it all day won't change it into saying so.

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

Did God create from nothing? Yes (John 1:3)
Was God's first creative act the making of heaven and earth? Yes (Gen. 1:1)

So what is still unclear?

Neither says what you want it to.

Neither on its own, but the idea is to put them together and see how they clarify each other.

The rest of your assertion is christian theology

As a Christian, I make no apology for asserting Christian theology. You want to bring non-Christian theology into the picture, take the thread to General Apologetics or some other appropriate forum.

The said, stated, previously mentioned, contextual creation talked about.

Drop it. It's not important enough to try and unravel.

When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make noise?

We can find out by putting a tape recorder or a microphone or some sort of audiometer there and then leaving. If the falling tree makes a noise while no one is there, we will have a record of it.

Now how do you propose we do the same with an angel not appearing physically?

Same difference. Deal with it. Huh? Now you are talking in nonsense circles. I was in the mood for a merry go round ride, thanks.

Not really. Where do you find heavenly beings (aka "morning stars" "sons of God" "angels")? In the heavens, right? So the heavens have to be created before the heavenly beings, right? How does that not make sense?

From a purely biblical standpoint, we don't know if the heavens and earth were the first creative acts of God or not.

Sure we do. Gen. 1:1

 

[razzelflabben]

Right. This verse establishes that God created all things. By implication it establishes that God created from nothing.

never contested. What do you hope to gain by continueing on this course?

For the order, to know what was created first, you need to go to Genesis 1:1 or Gen. 2:4b. Both of these say the heavens and earth were created before anything else.

I love that youa re presenting scriptures but you might want to quote them or all to review.

Gen. 1:1 and the entirety of Gen. 2:4 (I have quoted them 4 times now and lost them all four times for one computer problem or another, so I will let you do it this time) show that we really don't know what God's first creative act was, in fact, the first part of Gen. 2:4 suggests as I have stated and asserted, that the beginning referred to in 1:1 was indeed the beginning of the physical world we know and love and not the beginning of all that God created. Thanks for evidencing my point, but you seem to be mixed up, your objective is to defend your assertions and not mine.

Ah, I see. I never made the claim that 'bara' always means creation from nothing. I believe it was mark kennedy. So I will let him explain how he resolves the contradiction.

I have been anxiously awaiting the response but to not avail.

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

Did God create from nothing? Yes (John 1:3)
Was God's first creative act the making of heaven and earth? Yes (Gen. 1:1)

So what is still unclear?

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

Neither on its own, but the idea is to put them together and see how they clarify each other.

Put together we see that God did at one time create something from nothing (never questioned) and that no where is there evidence that the heavens and earth were either the first creative act of God or evidenced as being created from nothing. Those are your assertions but there is nothing to support the claims, the supporting evidence is just the opposite.

As a Christian, I make no apology for asserting Christian theology. You want to bring non-Christian theology into the picture, take the thread to General Apologetics or some other appropriate forum.

as a believer I make no appology for using the bible as my theological basis.

Drop it. It's not important enough to try and unravel.

I asked everyone around here what I meant when I said "creation of said" they all knew without hesitation that I meant the creation of heavens and earth. They knew because it is not an uncommon written or verbal usage. If I say to you "people used to think that the earth was flat, but today, they don't believe that said is flat at all...." it is commonly understood that the context tells us that "said" refers to earth. If you don't know this as a professor of "lang." remind me to advice my kids not to take any of your courses when they go to university. Where did you get your degree anyway, this isn't the first time you haven't understood basic lang. usage. It might be wise to advice them against that university you went to as well. I would like them to at least know the working basics of lang.

We can find out by putting a tape recorder or a microphone or some sort of audiometer there and then leaving. If the falling tree makes a noise while no one is there, we will have a record of it.

Now how do you propose we do the same with an angel not appearing physically?

And the point is that we don't know if angels change their forms and/or matter just because they leave our physical world.[/quote]

Not really. Where do you find heavenly beings (aka "morning stars" "sons of God" "angels")? In the heavens, right? So the heavens have to be created before the heavenly beings, right? How does that not make sense?



Sure we do. Gen. 1:1[/quote]Try some of these sites, you might gain some valuable information.

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