NOTHING existed before God!

[Phoenix]

.

 

[Der Alte]

The problem has nothing to do with the word “all.” I have never questioned the word all. The painter creates “all” of his painting, but he does not do it ex nihilo.

Despite your uncovincing protests, you most certainly do question and argue against the word "all." If something existed before God created "all," then God did not create all. You have your one misinterpretaton of Justin and you twist a dozen or more statements where Justin says all, to fit that one misinterpretation. "All" means all, everything, excluding nothing, it does not mean "all" except some preexistent, eternal matter which is never stated in scripture.

The position I put forth is to create is not to create ex nihilo. It can be to create ex nihilo, but it does not have to be.

See how Irenaeus, and the Pastor of Hermas understand the scriptures, below.

So while you may not care about scholars who explain this to you it is nonetheless true. Do you really think I am questioning what “all” means or are you just trying to confuse us.

Please be very careful about misrepresenting what I say. I qualified my objection. I said I am not interested in the unsupported opinions of scholars. And I very clearly stated that Jaki did not cite any historical, lexical, or Biblical support for his opinions. And OBTW you did not address where I proved from a dictionary that your source was wrong.

Here we should note that Justin says that creation was from some matter not “ex nihilo.”

You are misquoting Justin. He said Moses spoke of some matter and quoted Gen 1:1. I asked you to explain to me from what Justin quoted, where Moses clearly stated preexistent, eternal matter. You made some wild eyed guess, but the bottom line is you cannot answer.

If Justin had said “creation ex nihilo” latter perhaps there would be reason to question things, but when he says “creation of all things” he does not imply “ex nihilo” even if you wish he did.

You said you did not question the word "all" and that is exactly what you are doing here. "All doesn't mean all because Justin did not say Ex Nihilo." I quoted one statement from Justin which said, "God who is eternal is the cause of all other things." But for you that does not mean exactly what it says. For you it means "all other things except preexistent/eternal matter."

Your minor mistake has been admitted and you demonstrate it here. You said that Tertullian was “ca. 225 AD” you point to this food note which has the date “207 AD” suggesting that you have dated Hermogenes to a late origin. I said this was an error. You, I thought have agreed.

This is a joke. You claimed repeatedly that Hermogenes the subject of Tert.v.Herm. was a 1st century contemporary of Paul. When everything about the article clearly identifies him as a contemporary of Tertullian. My date may have been off by 10-15 years. Then you try to claim Tertullian made up the whole thing, it was really the Hermogenes of the first century, see quote below. And you misread the footnote. It does not date Tert,v.Herm. to 207 AD. It says the writing cannot be dated earlier than that.

Originally I was unaware that Tertullian spoke of two Hermogenes. This was my error. I question if Tertullian or someone is not so desirous of making the Hermogenes “heresy” late rather than 1st Century and thus invented this improbable and convoluted two Hermogenes idea, but I acknowledge it does not matter because I have clearly demonstrated that according to Tertullian’s writing Hermogenes of the 1st Century believed in eternal matter.

Next you go on to disparage a non-LDS scholar as a heretic. I am glad you recognized that Father Jaki was Catholic. What makes you think he is a heretic? That he acknowledges that the Bible does not demand creation ex nihilo does not make him a heretic.

I said just because he is a Catholic does not mean he cannot hold heretical ideas.

Your New Testament Bible passages are just as wonderfully in accord with LDS theology as Genesis.

Certainly when you wonderfully change the meaning of the words to conform to your presuppositions of eternal matter.

As Father Jaki, many scholars, and I have suggested “ex nihilo” was added to nail down a less straight forward meaning than the one that was hinted at by the texts.

Your Fr. Laki stated false information about the word create. You have not acknowledged that. You, as do all LDS, bring your BoA presuppostitions to the scripture. Here are two early church fathers who clearly state the meaning of the creation passages as creation from nothing. The language is clear, unambiguous and not capable of having any other meaning. And once again I point out Ireneaeus was taught by Polycarp and disciple of John the apostle.

I say with Irenaeus about the heresy of eternal, preexistent, matter, "Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world-these heretics or the [true] disciples of the Lord."

Irenaeus Against Heresies. [a.d. 120-202.]

Chapter I.-There is But One God: the Impossibility of Its Being Otherwise.

[Note, Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John the Apostle.]

1. IT is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word,

He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

5. For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." Now, among the "all things" our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when he says] "For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created."10 Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world-these heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God and a prophet? He at first narrated the formation of the world in these words: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,"11 and all other things in succession; but neither gods nor angels [had any share in the work].

Chapter X.-Perverse Interpretations of Scripture by the Heretics: God Created All Things Out of Nothing, and Not from Pre-Existent Matter.

And that they may be deemed capable of informing us whence is the substance of matter, while they believe not that God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an existence) out of what did not previously exist, they have collected [a multitude of] vain discourses. They thus truly reveal their infidelity; they do not believe in that which really exists, and they have fallen away into [the belief of] that which has, in fact, no existence.

They do not believe that God (being powerful, and rich in all resources) created matter itself, inasmuch as they know not how much a spiritual and divine essence can accomplish. But they do believe that their Mother, whom they style a female from a female, produced from her passions aforesaid the so vast material substance of creation. They inquire, too, whence the substance of creation was supplied to the Creator; but they do not inquire whence [were supplied] to their Mother (whom they call the Enthymesis and impulse of the Aeon that went astray) so great an amount of tears, or perspiration, or sadness, or that which produced the remainder of matter.

While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P6825_1688368


The Pastor of Hermas [a.d. 160.] Commandment First

On Faith in God.

First Of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing. He alone is able to contain the whole, but Himself cannot be contained. Have faith therefore in Him, and fear Him; and fearing Him, exercise self-control. Keep these commands, and you will cast away from you all wickedness, and put on the strength of righteousness, and live to God, if you keep this commandment.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/TOC.htm
​

​

​

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter:

Despite your uncovincing protests, you most certainly do question and argue against the word "all." If something existed before God created "all," then God did not create all. You have your one misinterpretaton of Justin and you twist a dozen or more statements where Justin says all, to fit that one misinterpretation. "All" means all, everything, excluding nothing, it does not mean "all" except some preexistent, eternal matter which is never stated in scripture.



TOm:

At least we are addressing the same things here.

The painter creates all on his canvas. The writer creates all of his story. To create all is not to create all from nothing. Eternal matter is substance that if used in the creation of all. All that is created is created from this eternal matter. Nothing is not created. Thus all is created. The chaos, the matter unorganized, … this is uncreated, eternal stuff. All is created from it.

Justin is very clear he does not embrace creation ex nihilo. Justin is very clear that those who embraced eternal matter are following God. Your misunderstanding of Justin rests on your inability to see that all is created from eternal matter. Nothing exists that is not created from eternal matter. Chaos and unorganized matter is not something that we have any knowledge of other than through revealed word. All we know is that the Bible points to its existence. Justin Martyr points to its existence. Hermogenes points to its existence. Clement of Rome or whoever added in the extra passages to 1st Clement points to its existence. And the restored Gospel of God, despite the prevailing worldly misconceptions of the time, explained that it existed.

So as many scholars have suggested. As your Jewish encyclopedia suggested. As I have suggested, … the Bible does speak of matter from which God created.



Der Alter:

Please be very careful about misrepresenting what I say. I qualified my objection. I said I am not interested in the unsupported opinions of scholars. And I very clearly stated that Jaki did not cite any historical, lexical, or Biblical support for his opinions. And OBTW you did not address where I proved from a dictionary that your source was wrong.



TOm:

Jaki quoted directly from the Bible. He explained that the Hebrew word Bara, demands creation ex nihilo no more or likely less than the English word “create” or “creation.”

Speiser explains directly from the Bible exactly what Genesis says.

Your Jewish encyclopedia quotes agree with Speiser and Jaki.



Concerning the dictionary. Is this not what you are referring to?

Ginomai – to become, to come into existence, begin to be, receive being.

Or even better

- to be made, finished



In case you have missed it, the eternal formless chaotic matter of which the Bible, ECF, non-LDS scholars, and the CoJCoLDS speaks of as the building blocks of the universe would “become” formed, organized matter through the word of God.

Kitzo - to create

a. of God creating the worlds

b. to form, shape, i.e. to completely change or transform

Again this word is in total support of LDS theology.



If so, then yes I did respond to your dictionary references. If you are referring to something else then I did in fact miss it.



Der Alter:

You are misquoting Justin. He said Moses spoke of some matter and quoted Gen 1:1. I asked you to explain to me from what Justin quoted, where Moses clearly stated preexistent, eternal matter. You made some wild eyed guess, but the bottom line is you cannot answer.



TOm:

No “wild eyed guess” were made.

The pre-existent matter is demanded by the words of Genesis.



Let me quote the first part of the Jewish Encyclopedia reference that YOU brought to this discussion.



The Jewish Encyclopedia:

… The etymological meaning of the verb, however, is "to cut out and put into shape," and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Maomanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, "Moreh Nebukim," ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest [emphasis added] the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes



TOm:

Now let me quote what I said concerning this.



TOm (from post #68 on this thread):

E.A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows: When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas...- God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.E.A. Speiser also said:To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter

TOm:

The Hebrew demands creation from material. Justin knew this. He stood beside those who embraced eternal matter and embraced it himself.



Der Alter:

You said you did not question the word "all" and that is exactly what you are doing here. "All doesn't mean all because Justin did not say Ex Nihilo." I quoted one statement from Justin which said, "God who is eternal is the cause of all other things." But for you that does not mean exactly what it says. For you it means "all other things except preexistent/eternal matter."



TOm:

Der Alter said and put in quotes, “All doesn't mean all because Justin did not say Ex Nihilo”

I do not think I ever said such a thing and I ask that you do not imply that I did. If you can find in my post where I said this I will apologize and admit that I erred when I said something. If you cannot find where I said this, I ask you to apologize for implying that I said something I did not. I understand that you do not recognize how I believe that eternal matter is a building block from which “all” is created, but that does not excuse you trying to interpret my words and using quotes to do so.

You and I have never touched, felt, saw, or experience eternal matter that was not created by the forming of God. Does this help you now? Do you get it?



Der Alter:

This is a joke. You claimed repeatedly that Hermogenes the subject of Tert.v.Herm. was a 1st century contemporary of Paul. When everything about the article clearly identifies him as a contemporary of Tertullian. My date may have been off by 10-15 years. Then you try to claim Tertullian made up the whole thing, it was really the Hermogenes of the first century, see quote below. And you misread the footnote. It does not date Tert,v.Herm. to 207 AD. It says the writing cannot be dated earlier than that.



TOm:

I was the first person to explain the two Hermogenes ideas of Tertullian. I was the first to explain that dating Hermogenes was not so simple. I have admitted that I originally thought it was quite simple and that Hermogenes was one man who walked with Paul the Apostle. I have show that regardless of if Tertullian’s writings are correct and two Hermogenes’ exist, I have demonstrated that the ancient Hermogenes exists and believed in eternal matter.

You use of the footnote to date Hermogenes was flawed. You did not read the footnote close enough to realize that the date “after 207AD” was dating Tert,v.Herm. This is evidence by how you used the footnote, the fact that you pointed to Tertullian as a 225AD man to date him, and by your admission of error in previous posts.

If I suggested that the footnote did not date to AFTER 207AD, then I did indeed make an error.



Der Alter:

Certainly when you wonderfully change the meaning of the words to conform to your presuppositions of eternal matter.



TOm:

You and I provided the Greek translation/definition. I do not change the meaning. They speak of forming and creating not of creation ex nihilo.



Der Alter:

Your Fr. Laki stated false information about the word create. You have not acknowledged that.



TOm:

This is because I am not smart enough to understand your objection.



You provided this:

Jaki implies that the word create or creation is derived from the Latin, "crescere." Once again not supported by the dictionary. It is in fact the past participle of the word "creare," which is similar to "cresere." The crescent moon is irrelevant, they are not the same words.



Main Entry: 1cre·ate
Pronunciation: krE-'At, 'krE-"
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cre·at·ed; cre·at·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow -- more at CRESCENT
Date: 14th century
transitive senses



TOm:

You clearly linked create to crescere and Crescent. Jaki said derived from. The dictionary said “akin to.” I agree that this is not equivalent, but I hardly think it demonstrates that create means create ex nihilo.



Der Alter:

You, as do all LDS, bring your BoA presuppostitions to the scripture.



TOm:

Of course an increasing number of non-LDS scholars are suggesting that pre-existing matter is clear from the Bible. I have sited two and mentioned 4-5 others. You even brought in the info from the Jewish encyclopedia.



Der Alter:

Here are two early church fathers who clearly state the meaning of the creation passages as creation from nothing. The language is clear, unambiguous and not capable of having any other meaning. And once again I point out Ireneaeus was taught by Polycarp and disciple of John the apostle.



TOm:

I do not wish to dismiss either of these writers and suggest that they did not believe in creation ex nihilo. I believe Irenaeus is post-Justin, but he is certainly in the same timeframe. Your date for the Paster of Hermas also puts him quite likely post Justin, but I am actually a fan of an early Hermas, but again we have a two Hermas theory (one of whom is in the Bible) that wanders about in the early church. I guess in my wildest fantasies, the Visions of Hermas were passed down to the grandchildren of the Biblical Hermas (Pope Pius and his brother Hermas). The Visions where then written and the Commandments added by the grandson Hermas. I have read the Visions, and parts of the Commandments, but I guess I have some more reading to do.



BTW, Irenaeus is the first writer to begin to establish the primacy of Rome. Neither you nor I are a big fan of that.



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

I question if Tertullian or someone is not so desirous of making the Hermogenes “heresy” late rather than 1st Century and thus invented this improbable and convoluted two Hermogenes idea, but I acknowledge it does not matter because I have clearly demonstrated that according to Tertullian’s writing Hermogenes of the 1st Century believed in eternal matter.

This is known as impugning your own witness. Either Tert.v.Her. is a reliable historical source or it is not. You can’t have it both ways, i.e., reliable where it supports you and not reliable where it contradicts you. If it is not a reliable source then we will dispense with it entirely. Any part which you disagree with, you must prove it wrong, citing relevant evidence, not just your unsupported assumptions and suppositions.

Here is your quote from Justin again. Justin said Moses spoke of a substance that the world was made from. I have asked you repeatedly where does Moses speak of this substance? If your argument were valid, you would be able to answer the question. You have not answered and, IMO, the reason you cannot answer is because neither Moses nor Justin clearly identifies any preexisting substance.

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59:

Chapter LIX.-Plato's Obligation to Moses.

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers-we mean the account given through the prophets-that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so." So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

Justin states that the poets called this supposed eternal matter, “erebus.” What is “erebus?” Here are two definitions, the M-W English dictionary and Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon of classical Greek.

Main Entry: Er·e·bus Pronunciation: 'er-&-b&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek Erebos
1 : a personification of darkness in Greek mythology
2 : a place of darkness in the underworld on the way to Hades

http://www.m-w.com

Erebos, to: a place of nether darkness, above Hades, Hom., etc.:--metaph., erebos huphalon the darkness of the deep, Soph.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
​

So Justin is saying that God created the heavens and the earth from darkness.

The painter creates all on his canvas. The writer creates all of his story. To create all is not to create all from nothing. Eternal matter is substance that if used in the creation of all. All that is created is created from this eternal matter. Nothing is not created. Thus all is created. The chaos, the matter unorganized, … this is uncreated, eternal stuff. All is created from it.

Do you truly not know what is wrong with this logic? Read Isaiah 55:9, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Here you are attempting to define God’s omnipotence, rather lack of omnipotence, by comparing God to how men are said to “create” something.

Men say, “Holy Cow,” as well. Does that make a cow sacred? The primary definition of create in English is “to bring into existence.” The definition you are referring to, i.e., an artist “creating,” is the fourth meaning.

Justin is very clear he does not embrace creation ex nihilo. Justin is very clear that those who embraced eternal matter are following God.

This is false. Where is, “Justin very clear that those who embraced eternal matter are following God? Go peddle that tripe to other LDS who don’t know any better. Justin is not very clear! You have quoted one ambiguous statement which is contradicted by more than a dozen other statements, which you conveniently reinterpret to fit. The plain and simple fact is you say the word “all,” over and over again, but it does not mean all to you, it means something else.

Your misunderstanding of Justin rests on your inability to see that all is created from eternal matter.

Your misunderstanding of Justin is based on the fact that you bring false presuppositions, from the BoA, to all the ECF, and ignore everything which contradicts that presupposition. Further you simply cannot see anything, from any source, which is contradictory. That is cognitive dissonance. For example this quote from Justin.

Justin-Dialogue

But what do you call God? 'said he.
"[God is] That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things-that, indeed, is God.' So I answered him; and he listened to me with pleasure, and thus again interrogated me:-

[Justin link]

If you even read this quote, one of over a dozen, it clearly states that God is the cause of all other things. This statement clearly asserts that there was not, cannot be, eternal, preexistent matter, because God was the cause of everything, other than Himself. And this statement is supported by several similar statements by Justin.

As I have shown from the M-W dictionary and LSJ lexicon, Justin identifies the so-called preexisting, eternal matter as nothing more than darkness.

Nothing exists that is not created from eternal matter. Chaos and unorganized matter is not something that we have any knowledge of other than through revealed word.

Unscriptural presumption. Where specifically in the scripture, I don’t mean LDS writings, is there a clear, unequivocal statement that creation was from preexisting, eternal matter?

All we know is that the Bible points to its existence. Justin Martyr points to its existence. Hermogenes points to its existence. Clement of Rome or whoever added in the extra passages to 1st Clement points to its existence. And the restored Gospel of God, despite the prevailing worldly misconceptions of the time, explained that it existed.

There is no clear statement in the Bible which points to eternal matter. None! I have already dealt with Justin. A spurious writing purporting to be Clement is proof of nothing. And there is no such thing as a restored gospel. On Hermogenes you only have what Tertuallian says, and you question whether it is authentic.

In the O.T. God said, “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)” God would not, did not, permit His word to be absent from the earth for almost 2000 years to be restored by patently false translations from Egyptian funerary scrolls. In the N.T. Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”(Mat 16:18) The gates of hell did not prevail against His church from 33 AD until 1827 AD, therefore there was no lost gospel for anyone to restore.

So as many scholars have suggested. As your Jewish encyclopedia suggested. As I have suggested, … the Bible does speak of matter from which God created.

Based on your track record I am not much interested in what you suggest. Do you want scholars who clearly state that creation was from nothing?

John Gill-Exposition of the Whole Bible-Gen 1:1
(a) These are said to be "created", that is, to be made out of nothing; for what pre-existent matter to this chaos could there be out of which they could be formed? And the apostle says, "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear", Heb 11:3. And though this word is sometimes used, and even in this chapter, of the production of creatures out of pre-existent matter, as in Gen 1:21 yet, as Nachmanides observes, there is not in the holy language any word but this here used, by which is signified the bringing anything into being out of nothing; and many of the Jewish interpreters, as Aben Ezra, understand by creation here, a production of something into being out of nothing; and Kimchi says (e) that creation is a making some new thing, and a bringing something out of nothing: and it deserves notice, that this word is only used of God; and creation must be the work of God, for none but an almighty power could produce something out of nothing

(e) Ut supra. (Sepher Shorash.) rad.

Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary
Gen 1:1 created—not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing.

the heaven and the earth--the universe. This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God (Act 17:24; Rom 1:36).

Matthew Henry
The manner in which this work was effected: God created it, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter.

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Creation

"In the beginning" God created, i.e., called into being, all things out of nothing. This creative act on the part of God was absolutely free, and for infinitely wise reasons. The cause of all things exists only in the will of God.

International Standard Bible Dictionary Gen 1:1 - The Creation Of Heaven And Earth. (Gen_1:1-2)

In the beginning--a period of remote and unknown antiquity, hid in the depths of eternal ages; and so the phrase is used in Pro_8:22-23.

God--the name of the Supreme Being, signifying in Hebrew, "Strong," "Mighty." It is expressive of omnipotent power; and by its use here in the plural form, is obscurely taught at the opening of the Bible, a doctrine clearly revealed in other parts of it, namely, that though God is one, there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead--Father, Son, and Spirit, who were engaged in the creative work (Pro 8:27; Joh 1:3, Joh 1:10; Eph 3:9; Heb 1:2; Job 26:13).

created—not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing.

John Wesley
Observe 3. The manner how this work was effected; God created, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre - existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters, and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that Earth and those waters were made out of nothing.

Babylonian Talmud Synopsis of Tract Aboth (Fathers of the Synagogue). CHAPTER V.

With seven things God created the world. They are as follows: Wisdom, understanding, knowledge, strength, might, kindness, and mercy.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t05/abo09.htm​

[To be continued]

 

[Der Alte]

Jaki quoted directly from the Bible. He explained that the Hebrew word Bara, demands creation ex nihilo no more or likely less than the English word “create” or “creation.”

Speiser explains directly from the Bible exactly what Genesis says.

Your Jewish encyclopedia quotes agree with Speiser and Jaki.

You virtually ignored my previous post where I showed that Jaki clearly made false statements about the English word “create/creation.” And yes both, Speiser and Jaki, may quote from the Bible, Gen 1:1, but they give us their unsupported opinion why it should be creation from eternal matter.

A truth which you cannot seem to grasp, any scholar can say anything. The only scholar’s opinion worth reading is one supported by historical evidence. Did either Speiser or Jaki document their speculations from any historical or lexical source? No, they did not. You will note that John Gill, above, quotes several Jewish Talmudic scholars in support of his exegesis of Gen 1:1. And reference your constant false assertion that the Hebrew demands creation from eternal matter, the Jewish Talmudic scholars state that there is no other word, than “ברא/bara,” in the Hebrew language, to express the idea that God created from nothing. Your scholars apparently did not think to research the Hebrew.

The pre-existent matter is demanded by the words of Genesis.

Let me quote the first part of the Jewish Encyclopedia reference that YOU brought to this discussion.

The Jewish Encyclopedia:

… The etymological meaning of the verb, however, is "to cut out and put into shape," and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Maomanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, "Moreh Nebukim," ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest [emphasis added] the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes

You will note that you omitted part of one sentence, from your quote, evidently trying to give the impression that this quote unequivocally supports your assertions. The sentence continues, “it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God.” And I had previously highlighted the words in your quote, “presumption that they suggest.” “Presumption” and “suggest,” does not mean “demand.” Both before and after your truncated quote, the JE states “creation from nothing.”

You repeatedly assert that the word “bara” demands preexistent, eternal matter. The publishers of the Jewish Encyclopedia and many Hebrew Talmudic scholars do not support that. Not only that, Jewish scholars inform us there is no other word in the Hebrew language with which to express creation from nothing.

Your quote, shown in red, I have included and highlighted the sentence immediately before your quote and the part of a sentence you omitted. Since both clearly speak of creation from nothing, your omission appears intended to give the erroneous impression that the Jewish Encyclopedia unequivocally supported your argument, when exactly the opposite is the case.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Creation

The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find in בריאה (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo (יש בריא&#1492.[/i] The etymological meaning of the verb [בריאה], however, is "to cut out and put into shape," and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, "Moreh Nebukim," ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis (see Cosmogony), and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes (see Dragon; Darkness), it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." To such a degree has this found acceptance as the doctrine of the Synagogue that God has come to be desinated as "He who spake and the world sprang into existence" (see Baruk She-Amar and 'Er. 13b; Meg. 13b; Sanh. 19a, 105a; id. 31a; ul. 63b, 84b; Sifre to Num. § 84; Gen. R. 34b; Ex. R. xxv.; Shab. 139a; Midrash Mishle, 10c). God is "the author of creation," ("bereshit" having become the technical term for "creation"; Gen. R. xvi.; Ber. 54a, 58a; ag. 12a, 18a; ?ul. 83a; Ecclus. [Sirach] xv. 14).

The belief in God as the author of creation ranks first among the thirteen fundamentals (see Articles of Faith) enumerated by Maimonides. It occurs in the Yigdal, where God is called, "anterior [because Himself uncreated] to all that was created "; in the Adon 'Olam; and it is taught in all modern Jewish catechisms.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=853&letter=C
​

​

TOm (from post #68 on this thread):

E.A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows: When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over over the seas...- God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

E.A. Speiser also said: To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter.

As I said before Speiser only gives us his unsupported opinion. Who is Speiser that anyone should simply accept his unsupported pronouncement that, “the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter.?” And while you claim he quoted the scripture, he in fact misquoted it. The verse does not say “the world being a formless waste,” then God created it. You have not offered any real, historical or lexical evidence that supports this. The scriptures read God created the heaven and the earth, it was (initially) without form and void, then God began to form what He created and bring out specific details.

Der Alter said and put in quotes, “All doesn't mean all because Justin did not say Ex Nihilo”

I do not think I ever said such a thing and I ask that you do not imply that I did. If you can find in my post where I said this I will apologize and admit that I erred when I said something. If you cannot find where I said this, I ask you to apologize for implying that I said something I did not. I understand that you do not recognize how I believe that eternal matter is a building block from which “all” is created, but that does not excuse you trying to interpret my words and using quotes to do so.

You are partially correct I misused the commas. You did not directly say that, you only implied it. Here from your earlier post.

Here we should note that Justin says that creation was from some matter not “ex nihilo.” We should also note that he suggest that Plato borrowed from God. What idea did Plato borrow from Moses/God? Eternal matter. If Justin had said “creation ex nihilo” latter perhaps there would be reason to question things, but when he says “creation of all things” he does not imply “ex nihilo” even if you wish he did.

You and I have never touched, felt, saw, or experience eternal matter that was not created by the forming of God. Does this help you now? Do you get it?

This is gobbledy gook. The English word “create” does not now and never meant formed, and is not derived from any word that meant “formed.” Justin said, “God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.” God alone, if it is not God it is created and corruptible. And, Irenaeus and Hermas, the two ECF I quoted, show that is clearly the meaning held by the early church. And these two ECF very clearly agree with the many quotes from Justin I posted.

I have admitted that I originally thought it was quite simple and that Hermogenes was one man who walked with Paul the Apostle. I have show that regardless of if Tertullian’s writings are correct and two Hermogenes’ exist, I have demonstrated that the ancient Hermogenes exists and believed in eternal matter.

No you have not demonstrated this. You claim that Tert.v.Herm. may be a later invention, improbable, and convoluted. If so then it is unreliable as a source for anything. End of story. See below quoted from an earlier post.

I question if Tertullian or someone is not so desirous of making the Hermogenes “heresy” late rather than 1st Century and thus invented this improbable and convoluted two Hermogenes idea, but I acknowledge it does not matter because I have clearly demonstrated that according to Tertullian’s writing Hermogenes of the 1st Century believed in eternal matter.

[To be continued]

 

[Der Alte]

Your Fr. Laki stated false information about the word create. You have not acknowledged that.

This is because I am not smart enough to understand your objection.

You provided this:

Jaki implies that the word create or creation is derived from the Latin, "crescere." Once again not supported by the dictionary. It is in fact the past participle of the word "creare," which is similar to "cresere." The crescent moon is irrelevant, they are not the same words.

Main Entry: 1cre·ate
Pronunciation: krE-'At, 'krE-"
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cre·at·ed; cre·at·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow -- more at CRESCENT
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth -- Gen 1:1 (Authorized Version)>
2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank <was created a lieutenant> b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs>
3 : CAUSE, OCCASION <famine creates high food prices>
4 a : to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b : design <creates dresses>
intransitive senses :to make or bring into existence something new

You clearly linked create to crescere and Crescent. Jaki said derived from. The dictionary said “akin to.” I agree that this is not equivalent, but I hardly think it demonstrates that create means create ex nihilo.

A blatant distortion of what I posted. I did not clearly link create to crescere and Crescent. Mentioning two things in the same sentence is not linking them. I clearly showed that the link is virtually nonexistent. And here I further show the lack of relationship.

Here is a few words from earlier in out exchanges that illustrate this quite well.

Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.:. . . In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing.. . .

As I have shown from the M-W dictionary definition, above. The English word create/creation does not, and never did mean grow. Create is not derived from any word that means grow. And note from the classical Latin dictionary online. Neither word, “creare,” nor “crescere” means to grow.

”Creare to bring forth, produce, make, create, beget, give origin to

Crescere to come into being, spring up

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
​

I do not wish to dismiss either of these writers and suggest that they did not believe in creation ex nihilo. I believe Irenaeus is post-Justin, but he is certainly in the same timeframe. Your date for the Paster of Hermas also puts him quite likely post Justin, but I am actually a fan of an early Hermas, but again we have a two Hermas theory (one of whom is in the Bible) that wanders about in the early church. I guess in my wildest fantasies, the Visions of Hermas were passed down to the grandchildren of the Biblical Hermas (Pope Pius and his brother Hermas). The Visions where then written and the Commandments added by the grandson Hermas. I have read the Visions, and parts of the Commandments, but I guess I have some more reading to do.

Here are their dates from CCEL, Justin Martyr (110-165 AD) Hermas (160 AD) Irenaeus (120-202 AD)
They are all contemporary.

BTW, Irenaeus is the first writer to begin to establish the primacy of Rome. Neither you nor I are a big fan of that.

Not only is it irrelevant, but you have not produced any evidence. I believe the one passage which appears to support this has proven to have been mistranslated by later Catholic scholars to favor the view that the Roman church held prominence.

 

[Der Alte]

*BUMP*

 

[TOmNossor]

All,

Here is my response to Der Alter on another thread. I suspect much of it is applicable here.





Der Alter:

Oh how soon we forget. Do you deny that the statement about modern Jews "put[ing] forth this theology serving definition" is dishonest? We both know very well I quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia showing that the majority of ancient Jewish Talmudic scholars interpret "bara" as meaning creation from nothing. And I also posted a quote from Talmudic scholars showing that Hebrew has no other word by which to express "creation from nothing." For example, [here], [here], and, [here].



TOm:

Yes I do deny that it is dishonest. And I ask that you again refrain from suggesting that I make dishonest statements. I do not believe that it is appropriate or in accordance with the rules of this forum. I should not have to listen to you say these things just to interact on this forum.

I ask that you edit your post and apologize. If you do not I will find out if I am correct that you saying (even in a question) that my post is dishonest is against the rules.


The Jewish Encyclopedia falls on the same sword I have tried to explain to you time and time again. Here goes again. Toms777 can listen too.



LDS theology believes that God created all. LDS theology believes that nothing that was created was not created by God. LDS theology has not problem with Psalms, Jer, Isaiah (from the Jewish Encyclopedia) because they are in complete and total accord with our theology. General Motors has never seen, touched, or experienced unformed matter. Genesis is clear that creation was the forming of this chaotic matter/pre-matter/unformed matter.

So when the Jewish Encyclopedia points to these passages they are not addressing the issue. When you point to statements about “all” in the ECF you are not addressing the issue.



Justin Martyr clearly embraced eternal matter. All his statements about God creating “ALL” have no impact on his embracing of eternal matter. When it is suggested that General Motors can “bara” matter, it is a complete misunderstanding of LDS, Early Jewish, and Early Christians theology.



Here is the Jewish Encyclopedia passage. Note the part I highlight. They clearly acknowledge that the original Strong’s is as they understand the word “bara.”



Jewish Ency.-CREATION:





The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find in (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo. The etymological meaning of the verb, however, is "to cut out and put into shape," and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Maomanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, "Moreh Nebukim," ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes, it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): [emphasis added] "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." To such a degree has this found acceptance as the doctrine of the Synagogue that God has come to be designated as "He who spake and the world sprang into existence"

The belief in God as the author of creation ranks first among the thirteen fundamentals (see Articles of Faith) enumerated by Maimonides. It occurs in the Yigdal, where God is called , "anterior [because Himself uncreated] to all that was created "; in the Adon 'Olam; and it is taught in all modern Jewish catechisms.

The danger lest speculation on creation might lead to Gnosticism underlies the hesitancy to leave the study of Gen. i. open to all without restriction (Sanh. 37a; Deut. R. ii.; Hag. 19b; Midr. Teh. to Ps. cxxxvi.; Midr. ha-Gadol, ed. Schechter, p. 4). That such speculation is of no consequence to the practical religiosity which Judaism means to foster is well expressed in the caution not to "inquire into what was before the world was" (Mishnah hag. ii.; Yer. hag. ii.).



TOm:

The rejection of creation from eternal matter in the rest of the passage relies on the misunderstanding of what creation from eternal matter is. “ALL” means all, but “ALL” the matter that the ancient and modern Jews and Christians have ever experience is already created. Indeed properly understood we cannot “bara” and we cannot experience chaotic matter. This is the truth of LDS theology that is lost on those who would use “ALL” to explain away.



Der Alter:
I also showed that the majority of early Christians believed in "creation from nothing," see links above. But here you are ignoring all those previous posts and pretending that only Christians and modern Jews interpret it in that manner. What name do you have for that type of behavior?



TOm:

I explained to you that I was either too stupid or you were too poor at explaining. Justin Martyr believed in eternal matter, Hermogenes who walked with Paul and may have had a descendant who was a contemporary of Tertullian believed in eternal matter.



Here is Justin Martyr, Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59:

Chapter LIX.-Plato's Obligation to Moses.

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers-we mean the account given through the prophets-that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so." So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.



Der Alter:

On another forum, one of the moderators, who happens to be a PhD in Greek, had as his signature line, "If it is from Strong's, it is probably wrong.." Strong's is very dated and often is only useful for defining root words. Here is the article on the word "bara" from Brown-Driver-Briggs, the world standard for Biblical Hebrew. It lists "bara, to make fat," as a separate word.



TOm:

I think I will say two rather silly things. First, PhD in Greek has nothing to do with the Hebrew word “Bara.” Second, the Hebrew we speak about is ancient. So an older source (a secondary meaning for “dated”) is not necessarily less relevant.



Slightly less silly, is the fact that the Jewish Encyclopedia suggests that Strongs is correct. And I suggest that the NEW E-Sword is like all words ever written by any human … Biased. Your Brown-Driver-Briggs entry is solidly LDS.



Der Alter:
Also I use the free Bible software available at E-Sword. The Strong's from that site reads exactly like the quote Toms777 posted.



TOm:

I thank you very much. I will need to look into that. Unless I missed it as Toms777 claimed, he didn’t provide me with this much information.





Der Alter:

I. &#1489;&#1512;&#1488; vb. shape, create - Qal shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity [emphasis added], with acc. rei. 1. obj. heaven and earth; mankind; the host of heaven; heavens; ends of the earth; north and south; wind. 2. the individual man; the smith and the waster; Israel as a nation; the seed of Israel. 3. new conditions and circumstances: righteousness and salvation; darkess and evil; fruit of the lips; a new thing &#1492;&#1491;&#1513;&#1492; (a woman encompassing a man); cloud and flame over Zion. 4. of tranformations: a clean heart; new heaven and earth (in place of old); transformation of nature; with double acc. &#1489;&#1493;&#1512;&#1488; transform Jerusalem into rejoicing. Niph. Pass. 1. be created: heaven and earth; creatures; mankind; heavens. 2. with reference to birth: &#1504;&#1489;&#1512;&#1488;&#1514; in the place where thou wast created (i.e. native land). 3. of something new, astonishing: miracles; new things, twshdh . Pi. 1. cut down: a forest. 2. cut out: yd hand, as an index.

Whitaker, R., Brown, F., Driver, S. (. R., & Briggs, C. A. (. A. 1997, c1906. The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament : From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius. Edited by Richard Whitaker (Princeton Theological Seminary). Text provided by Princeton Theological Seminary. (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor WA



TOm:

This entry is in perfect accord with LDS theology. “Shape, Fashion, Create.” Where do you get “ex nihilo” from this???



I ask that before you reply that you edit and apologize as discussed above.



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

LDS theology believes that God created all.

This is a deliberately false and misleading statement as evidenced by the spin you put on it with the next sentence. You say “all” but you do not mean all.

LDS theology believes that nothing that was created was not created by God. LDS theology has not problem with Psalms, Jer, Isaiah (from the Jewish Encyclopedia) because they are in complete and total accord with our theology.

”in complete and total accord with [LDS] theology.” Yeah, right! As you redefine words, like “all,” twisting the meaning to force it to support your Theology.

General Motors has never seen, touched, or experienced unformed matter. .

Irrelevant! I have never mentioned GM. And there is not one clear, unequivocal verse or passage in either the O.T. or the N.T. which describes unformed/eternal/preexistent matter! None!

Genesis is clear that creation was the forming of this chaotic matter/pre-matter/unformed matter.

Deliberate, dishonest, misrepresentation of Genesis. Genesis is not clear on “chaotic matter/pre-matter/unformed matter.” Those words never occur in scripture. And in the Jewish Encyclopedia the majority interpretation is that Gen 1:1 speaks of “creation from nothing.”

So when the Jewish Encyclopedia points to these passages they are not addressing the issue.

Once again you pull this nonsense. If something in a source agrees with you then it is reliable, but anything which contradicts you, you blow off, e.g. “not addressing the issue.”

When you point to statements about “all” in the ECF you are not addressing the issue.

Another deliberate distortion of what I have posted. And you have the effrontery to demand that I change my posts and apologize. Below you will find quotes from several ECF, which I posted before, all of which speak not only of creation of “all” things, but “creation of all thing from nothing”

Address of Tatian to the Greeks.[a.d. 110-172.] Student of Justin Martyr

Chapter V.-The Doctrine of the Christians as to the Creation of the World.

And as the Logos begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first created for Himself the necessary matter, so also I, in imitation of the Logos, being begotten again, and having become possessed of the truth, am trying to reduce to order the confused matter which is kindred with myself. For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God ; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-37.htm#P1114_299739

Theophilus to Autolycus Book II, [a.d. 115-168-181.]

As, therefore, in all these respects God is more powerful than man, so also in this; that out of things that are not He creates and has created things that are, and whatever He pleases, as He pleases. • • •

This, sacred Scripture teaches at the outset, to show that matter, from which God made and fashioned the world, was in some manner created, being produced by God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-42.htm#P1469_430289

A Plea For the Christians
By Athenagoras the Athenian: Philosopher and Christian [a.d. 177.]

But, since our doctrine acknowledges one God, the Maker of this universe, who is Himself uncreated (for that which is does not come to be, but that which is not) but has made all things by the Logos which is from Him, we are treated unreasonably in both respects, in that we are both defamed and persecuted.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-46.htm#P2139_587041

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II [a.d. 153-193-217.]

But nothing exists, the cause of whose existence is not supplied by God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-52.htm#P3288_976824

Clement of Alexandria-The Stromata, or Miscellanies Book V [a.d. 153-193-217.]

But there is nothing antecedent to the Unbegotten.

Again, when he says, "It is a difficult task to find the Maker and Father of this universe," he not only showed that the universe was created, but points out that it was generated by him as a son, and that he is called its father, as deriving its being from him alone, and springing from non-existence.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-65.htm#P7190_2189438

Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus Book II.

Others assert that God is every day making new souls and infusing them into the bodies which have been framed in the womb; while others again believe that the souls were all made long ago, when God made all things of nothing, and that all that he now does is to send out each soul to be born in its body as it seems good to him.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-43.htm#P9212_2476145

Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus Book II.

Others assert that God is every day making new souls and infusing them into the bodies which have been framed in the womb; while others again believe that the souls were all made long ago, when God made all things of nothing, and that all that he now does is to send out each soul to be born in its body as it seems good to him.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-43.htm#P9212_2476145

Clement Of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen

Human art, moreover, produces houses, and ships, and cities, and pictures. But how shall I tell what God makes? Behold the whole universe; it is His work: and the heaven, and the sun, and angels, and men, are the works of His fingers How great is the power of God! His bare volition was the creation of the universe. For God alone made it, because He alone is truly God. By the bare exercise of volition He creates; His mere willing was followed by the springing into being of what He willed.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-50.htm#P2691_785581

Clement Of Alexandria The Stromata, or Miscellanies Book VI.

And that the men of highest repute among the Greeks knew God, not by positive knowledge, but by indirect expression Peter says in the Preaching: "Know then that there is one God, who made the beginning of all things, and holds the power of the end; and is the Invisible, who sees all things; incapable of being contained, who contains all things; needing nothing, whom all things need, and by whom they are; incomprehensible, everlasting, unmade, who made all things by the`Word of His power, 'that is, according to the gnostic scripture, His Son."

Those, then, who assert that philosophy did not come hither from God, all but say that God does not know each particular thing, and that He is not the cause of all good things; if, indeed, each of these belongs to the class of individual things. But nothing that exists could have subsisted at all, had God not willed.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-67.htm#P8215_2366146

Clement Of Alexandria V.-From the Book on Providence. S. Maximus, Vol. II. 114.
Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists. Being is that which wholly subsists.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-78.htm#P10251_2870767

The First Apology of Justin

• God, the Father and Creator of all
• the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all;
• God, the Creator of all things
• the Creator of all
• So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.
• the Father and Creator of the universe

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967

Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew

• God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.
• the Creator, the God and Father of all things
• God who created all things,
• Thus saith the Lord, the God that created the heavens, and made them fast, that established the earth, and that which is in it;

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325

Justin on the Sole Government of God

• the only Creator of all things, the One God:-

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-50.htm#P5638_1297232

Main Entry: Er·e·bus Pronunciation: 'er-&-b&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek Erebos
1 : a personification of darkness in Greek mythology
2 : a place of darkness in the underworld on the way to Hades

http://www.m-w.com

EreboV, to: a place of nether darkness, above Hades, Hom., etc.:--metaph., erebos huphalon the darkness of the deep, Soph.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
​

Note your one (1) out-of-context quote from Justin which states, ”by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance . . . which the poets call Erebus.” I posted these definitions of “erebus,” before, but you ignored them. Justin clearly, irrefutably, identifies the substance that Moses spoke of as nothing more than darkness!

And you will further note that Justin states that only God is eternal and that all other things are created and corruptible.

 

[Der Alte]

TomNossor, you keep repeating that Gen 1:1 clearly speaks of preexistent/eternal/unformed matter and that the Hebrew, of the verse, &#8220;demands&#8221; that interpretation. According to this article from the JE, those are false statements. The majority of ancient Jewish scholars interpreted Gen 1:1 as creation from nothing. &#8220;Presumption&#8221; and &#8220;suggest,&#8221; 1st sentence, 2nd paragraph, does not mean &#8220;demand.&#8221;

Further, I also posted the quote below from John Gill who quotes ancient Talmudic writers. While the etymology of the Hebrew word, &#1489;&#1512;&#1497;&#1488;&#1514; may suggest preexistent/eternal matter, that fact alone does not prove the existence of such matter, because according to the Jewish scholars &#8220;there is not in the holy language any word but this here used, by which is signified the bringing anything into being out of nothing.&#8221;

Creation &#8211; Jewish Encyclopedia

The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find in &#1489;&#1512;&#1497;&#1488;&#1514; (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo (&#1497;&#1502;&#1488;&#1497;&#1503. The etymological meaning of the verb &#1489;&#1512;&#1497;&#1488;&#1514;;, however, is "to cut out and put into shape," and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, "Moreh Nebukim," ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis (see Cosmogony), and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes (see Dragon; Darkness), it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." To such a degree has this found acceptance as the doctrine of the Synagogue that God has come to be designated as "He who spake and the world sprang into existence" (see Baruk She-Amar and 'Er. 13b; Meg. 13b; Sanh. 19a, 105a; Kid. 31a; Hul. 63b, 84b; Sifre to Num. § 84; Gen. R. 34b; Ex. R. xxv.; Shab. 139a; Midrash Mishle, 10c). God is &#8220;&#8217;awshh b&#8217;r&#8217;shth&#8221; "the author of creation," ("bereshit" having become the technical term for "creation"; Gen. R. xvi.; Ber. 54a, 58a; Hag. 12a, 18a; Hul. 83a; Ecclus. [Sirach] xv. 14).

The belief in God as the author of creation ranks first among the thirteen fundamentals (see Articles of Faith) enumerated by Maimonides. It occurs in the Yigdal, where God is called &#8220;ashr nbra&#8217; qdmh lkl dbr,&#8221; "anterior [because Himself uncreated] to all that was created "; in the Adon 'Olam; and it is taught in all modern Jewish catechisms.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=853&letter=C

John Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible- Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now it was the matter or substance of these that was first created; for the word &#1488;&#1514; set before them signifies substance, as both Aben Ezra and (c) Kimchi affirm. Maimonides (d) observes, that this particle, according to their wise men, is the same as "with"; and then the sense is, God created with the heavens whatsoever are in the heavens, and with the earth whatsoever are in the earth; that is, the substance of all things in them; or all things in them were seminally together:

And though this word is sometimes used, and even in this chapter, of the production of creatures out of pre-existent matter, as in Gen_1:21 yet, as Nachmanides observes, there is not in the holy language any word but this here used, by which is signified the bringing anything into being out of nothing; and many of the Jewish interpreters, as Aben Ezra, understand by creation here, a production of something into being out of nothing; and Kimchi says (e) that creation is a making some new thing, and a bringing something out of nothing: and it deserves notice, that this word is only used of God; and creation must be the work of God, for none but an almighty power could produce something out of nothing.

(c) Sepher Shorash. rad. &#1488;&#1514;
(d) Moreh Nevochim, par. 2. c. 30. p. 275, 276.
(e) Ut supra. (Sepher Shorash.) rad. &#1489;&#1512;&#1488;​

I explained to you that I was either too stupid or you were too poor at explaining. Justin Martyr believed in eternal matter, Hermogenes who walked with Paul and may have had a descendant who was a contemporary of Tertullian believed in eternal matter.

I have explained it very carefully several times but you refuse to read and or understand what I have posted. Here, the post above, it is one more time. Justin identifies your so-called preexistent/eternal matter as nothing more than &#8220;darkness.&#8221; And Justin goes on to say, only God is eternal, and all, other things are created.

Previously, On another forum, one of the moderators, who happens to be a PhD in Greek, had as his signature line, "If it is from Strong's, it is probably wrong." Strong's is very dated and often is only useful for defining root words. Here is the article on the word "bara" from Brown-Driver-Briggs, the world standard for Biblical Hebrew. It lists "bara, to make fat," as a separate word.&#8221;

To which you responded with this asinine comment.

I think I will say two rather silly things. First, PhD in Greek has nothing to do with the Hebrew word &#8220;Bara.&#8221; Second, the Hebrew we speak about is ancient. So an older source (a secondary meaning for &#8220;dated&#8221 is not necessarily less relevant.

Showing your lack of knowledge of Theological education. PhD,s and ThD&#8217;s are required to be proficient, at the doctoral level, in both Biblical languages. Even when their major is in only one. And the signature line, &#8220;If it&#8217;s from Strong&#8217;s, it is probably wrong.,&#8221; has nothing to do with either Greek or Hebrew, but the reliability of Strong&#8217;s concordance.

Your comment implies that simply because Strong&#8217;s is older it is more reliable. Once again showing a total lack of understanding. Many older writings have been shown to be unreliable based on more recent scholarship. For example, the many manuscripts, e.g. Qumran and DSS, which have been discovered since the first publication of Strong&#8217;s.

Slightly less silly, is the fact that the Jewish Encyclopedia suggests that Strongs is correct. And I suggest that the NEW E-Sword is like all words ever written by any human &#8230; Biased. Your Brown-Driver-Briggs entry is solidly LDS.

That&#8217;s right, knee jerk response. Anything which supports your presuppositions is right, anything which contradicts you is wrong. And the majority interpretation in the JE is "creation from nothing."