God built the universe from chaos and evil

[cloudyday2]

Apparently the best translations of Genesis 1 show God creating the universe from preexisting evil and chaos instead of from nothing.

This seems to be an important point, because many Christian apologists make arguments assuming that God created the universe from nothing when apparently that is not what the Bible says.

This also solves the problem of evil, because Christians can argue that God did not create the evil and chaos - it was already here. God has simply been tidying-up the chaos to make it good instead of evil, and the process is not complete.

This also dovetails with the Gospel theme of redemption IMO.

The verb brʾ used in the very first sentence of the creation story does not imply, as most traditional commentators believed, creatio ex nihilo, a concept that first appears in II Maccabees 7:28, but denotes, as it does throughout the Bible, a divine activity that is effortlessly effected. The opening sentence in the story – many commentators think (but see Cassuto, Genesis, 1, pp. 19–20) – begins with a temporal clause, "When God began to create the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1), continues with a circumstantial clause telling of the existence of the darkness and void (1:2), and then in two main clauses (1:3) relates the first act by which God, by divine fiat, created cosmic order out of primeval chaos

Creation and Cosmogony in the Bible

 

[HereIStand]

Apparently the best translations of Genesis 1 show God creating the universe from preexisting evil and chaos instead of from nothing.

This seems to be an important point, because many Christian apologists make arguments assuming that God created the universe from nothing when apparently that is not what the Bible says.

This also solves the problem of evil, because Christians can argue that God did not create the evil and chaos - it was already here. God has simply been tidying-up the chaos to make it good instead of evil, and the process is not complete.

This also dovetails with the Gospel theme of redemption IMO.


Creation and Cosmogony in the Bible

Such a view would reduce God to the Demiurge in Plato's Timeaus, a craftsmen god who fashions the world out of pre-existing matter. A better way to look at (as Peter Kreft has argued) is that the forms God used to create the universe exist eternally in the mind of God. They don't have separate eternal self-existence of their own, as Plato argued.

 

[cloudyday2]

Such a view would reduce God to the Demiurge in Plato's Timeaus, a craftsmen god who fashions the world out of pre-existing matter. A better way to look at (as Peter Kreft has argued) is that the forms God used to create the universe exist eternally in the mind of God. They don't have separate eternal self-existence of their own, as Plato argued.

Genesis says that God made the world from preexisting chaos and evil. If we are allowed to make Genesis say whatever we want it to say, then I vote to remove God entirely

 

[HereIStand]

Genesis says that God made the world from preexisting chaos and evil. If we are allowed to make Genesis say whatever we want it to say, then I vote to remove God entirely

Except that Genesis doesn't say that.

 

[Halbhh]

Genesis says that God made the world from preexisting chaos and evil. If we are allowed to make Genesis say whatever we want it to say, then I vote to remove God entirely

ah, chaos. perhaps the nearer than we'd like future will look a lot like that not very distant past --

Better with the One Who has conquered the world, than without Him.

 

[Tolworth John]

It is always good to discover an agnostic who really believes that there is a God.
All cloudyday2 now has to do is accept Jesus as saviour and having moved to believe in God that is a small jump.

 

[cloudyday2]

Except that Genesis doesn't say that.

Just curious if you read the link? Here it is:
Creation and Cosmogony in the Bible

 

[Eloy Craft]

The Maccabees reference carries more weight than the 'br' issue in the text. Just minutia over a literary quibble that didn't effect the meaning understood and taught by the people who are documented in the book. Even the Maccabees reference is nothing compared to a tradition of study that has been active since it was written that say's God created ex-nihilo.

 

[cloudyday2]

The Maccabees reference carries more weight than the 'br' issue in the text. Just minutia over a literary quibble that didn't effect the meaning understood and taught by the people who are documented in the book. Even the Maccabees reference is nothing compared to a tradition of study that has been active since it was written that say's God created ex-nihilo.

On the other hand, most ancient creation myths seem to have a god creating the world from some preexisting matter (usually water). So it seems sensible to assume that was the intention of the original author of Genesis.

 

[Halbhh]

On the other hand, most ancient creation myths seem to have a god creating the world from some preexisting matter (usually water). So it seems sensible to assume that was the intention of the original author of Genesis.

Theories of how the sun works were of course diverse. Yet, it does work a certain way. We know some more than we did, but much is still unknown. What we do know, such as hydrogen being fused to helium, and several other things, are known, yet much is unknown. It's surprising in some ways what can be known, and yet how much is unknown. Consider General Relativity -- it continues to perform perfectly, and despite extensive effort, we haven't been able to find where it breaks down. Yet we can't really figure out plenty, like how to integrate or connect it to quantum mechanics, though speculative theories have abounded. Yet, nevertheless, despite all the unknowns, the equations that are known hold reliably, perfectly.

 

[cloudyday2]

Theories of how the sun works were of course diverse. Yet, it does work a certain way. We know some more than we did, but much is still unknown. What we do know, such as hydrogen being fused to helium, and several other things, are known, yet much is unknown. It's surprising in some ways what can be known, and yet how much is unknown. Consider General Relativity -- it continues to perform perfectly, and despite extensive effort, we haven't been able to find where it breaks down. Yet we can't really figure out plenty, like how to integrate or connect it to quantum mechanics, though speculative theories have abounded. Yet, nevertheless, despite all the unknowns, the equations that are known hold reliably, perfectly.

I think you misunderstand this thread. We are discussing whether Genesis 1 describes ex nihilo creation or creation from preexisting evil and chaos and how that impacts Christian apologetics.

 

[Halbhh]

I think you misunderstand this thread. We are discussing whether Genesis 1 describes ex nihilo creation or creation from preexisting evil and chaos and how that impacts Christian apologetics.

Forgive me. I was musing on the analogy between knowing about what God did during creation to the speculation about how to unify/fit together physics...we know some things with high certainty, but are missing much, and that's exactly how it is with God regarding creation to me. We know true things from scripture, but not in all details (just like in physics). In the case of creation, though, that's a very interesting question.

About the problem of evil though on the other hand, I feel much more clear about the why and how. In order for intelligent beings to have agency -- and thus be able to love -- they necessarily must have freedom to act. Because they can then use that freedom to do good or harm to others, both good and evil are only the necessary consequences on the most fundamental level of being with agency. It's either that evil can be, or else all must be totally constrained somehow which would have made us either like puppets or robots. But wonderfully we do seem to have true agency (God did not want puppets or robotic beings), and thus we can do good and evil. So, it's only a 'problem' in the sense of how to handle it after it inevitably happens, and He has a plan.

 

[cloudyday2]

Forgive me. I was musing on the analogy between knowing about what God did during creation to the speculation about how to unify/fit together physics...we know some things with high certainty, but are missing much, and that's exactly how it is with God regarding creation to me. We know true things from scripture, but not in all details (just like in physics). In the case of creation, though, that's a very interesting question.

About the problem of evil though on the other hand, I feel much more clear about the why and how. In order for intelligent beings to have agency -- and thus be able to love -- they necessarily must have freedom to act. Because they can then use that freedom to do good or harm to others, both good and evil are only the necessary consequences on the most fundamental level of being with agency. It's either that evil can be, or else all must be totally constrained somehow which would have made us either like puppets or robots. But wonderfully we do seem to have true agency (God did not want puppets or robotic beings), and thus we can do good and evil. So, it's only a 'problem' in the sense of how to handle it after it inevitably happens, and He has a plan.

A couple of my own musings:
(1) I like the way this Jewish interpretation of Genesis 1 make chaos/evil into building material, because quantum mechanics seems to say the same thing. There is a mixture of equations for the probability density functions and the random individual measurements (at least that is how I understand it).

(2) Wouldn't it be interesting to imagine that God himself was created from the preexisting chaos and evil - just by dumb luck?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Apparently the best translations of Genesis 1 show God creating the universe from preexisting evil and chaos instead of from nothing.

This seems to be an important point, because many Christian apologists make arguments assuming that God created the universe from nothing when apparently that is not what the Bible says.

This also solves the problem of evil, because Christians can argue that God did not create the evil and chaos - it was already here. God has simply been tidying-up the chaos to make it good instead of evil, and the process is not complete.

This also dovetails with the Gospel theme of redemption IMO.


Creation and Cosmogony in the Bible

I won't pretend I read the link, but I like the idea of this thread. The idea you summarize is consistent with my laymen understanding of old religions. But it's an idea Christians would be foolish to accept. Creatio ex materia is actually fatal to the Christian position.

As I said elsewhere in a similar thread of mine,

The eternal existence of physical material would render God's existence moot. Given eternity in a Godless reality, all possible outcomes must occur. If an outcome does not occur in an eternity, then it's not a possible outcome. Our universe is obviously a possible outcome, so it must occur and God is not necessary. Thus God's existence is moot.

 

[cloudyday2]

I won't pretend I read the link, but I like the idea of this thread. The idea you summarize is consistent with my laymen understanding of old religions. But it's an idea Christians would be foolish to accept. Creatio ex materia is actually fatal to the Christian position.

As I said elsewhere in a similar thread of mine,

The eternal existence of physical material would render God's existence moot. Given eternity in a Godless reality, all possible outcomes must occur. If an outcome does not occur in an eternity, then it's not a possible outcome. Our universe is obviously a possible outcome, so it must occur and God is not necessary. Thus God's existence is moot.

I like to imagine that God might have arisen through luck and then began to create the universe in His own image - kind of like the Borg on Star Trek... Maybe the Borg isn't the best example LOL. God is like a revolutionary new idea that can't be stopped and gradually spreads everywhere - order from chaos. Chaos can become order, but order cannot go back to chaos.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I’m not even sure why this is under Apologetics because this is a hypothetical and not Biblical anyway. Maybe this needs to be moved to Philosophy or Creation sub forums.

There is not even an Apologetic argument here, so you guys go one discussing your chaos theory.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I won't pretend I read the link, but I like the idea of this thread. The idea you summarize is consistent with my laymen understanding of old religions. But it's an idea Christians would be foolish to accept. Creatio ex materia is actually fatal to the Christian position.

As I said elsewhere in a similar thread of mine,

The eternal existence of physical material would render God's existence moot. Given eternity in a Godless reality, all possible outcomes must occur. If an outcome does not occur in an eternity, then it's not a possible outcome. Our universe is obviously a possible outcome, so it must occur and God is not necessary. Thus God's existence is moot.

This is fallacious. A possible outcome may be only by means of God doing so. It does not mean that God is therefore not a necessary precondition for such an outcome.

Ex materia is hardly fatal. The Crux of Christianity is the Atonement of Christ, not a creation ethos from nothing. The trinity is not Atum or Tiamat. Solid state universes have little support nowadays, from anyone, besides.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Hebrew is debatable. I've read on it before, but am hardly an expert. Regardless if Genesis account is ex materia or not, it does not disavow a previous ex nihilo creation if people want to quibble.

On another note, most near-eastern Creation accounts are about order being made from Chaos. Chaos is usually viewed as water, because water was untamed. It is the primordial ocean, the Sea Serpent with its undulating, malleable form. This is also why water and serpents are associated with chaos in most archetype formulations as well. It fits the Genesis account's Semitic origins, but the lack of a heroic narrative, a slaying of the Serpent, is telling (unless you would rope in Leviathan in Job, but that is not a creation account). I don't think the argument as strong as some suppose. Genesis 1 can be read as a satire of the Enuma Elish myth of Babylonia anyway.

 

[Eloy Craft]

On the other hand, most ancient creation myths seem to have a god creating the world from some preexisting matter (usually water). So it seems sensible to assume that was the intention of the original author of Genesis.

I agree that it is sensible to think that. But, that doesn't address the characteristics of Divine Revelation. Sensible objects are received by the intellect and abstracted so the meaning of the object can be known. What is the meaning of a flat piece of wood suspended on other pieces of wood that touch the ground. A table. This kind of abstraction is limited to what can be known by the senses. It's obvious then that the understanding of creation as an abstraction of sensible objects(pre-existing matter) is a product of human reasoning and not divine revelation. Divine Revelation is reality that could not be known by human reason unless revealed. That there is one God is reachable by human reasoning. That truth can be abstracted from sensible objects. How all things began is not a reality that human reason can know. That is evident since science is still trying to grasp that through sensible objects. If it is divinely revealed and believed then reason can develop deeper understanding and become more and more certain that it is true. Reason can grasp faith that is true. If God created out of pre-existent material did he create anything or did He just refashion what is created? Didn't He just do something we already do and understand through our senses, because that's what we do too?

 

[cloudyday2]

I’m not even sure why this is under Apologetics because this is a hypothetical and not Biblical anyway. Maybe this needs to be moved to Philosophy or Creation sub forums.

There is not even an Apologetic argument here, so you guys go one discussing your chaos theory.

How can you say it's not Biblical when the whole idea comes from a careful reading of the Hebrew for Genesis 1 in its historical context? I don't know how to be any more Biblical than that. LOL