Evidence for God from Science

Quote of the day from Reasons.org:

According to most of the classical Christian theologians like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, God’s eternal existence is to be understood as timelessness. The doctrine of timelessness entails more than that God’s existence is without beginning or end. It implies that God exists totally outside of time.

–Ronald H. Nash, The Concept of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 73.

dayage wrote:KBCid,

Every 'act' that he was going to take was done during the 6 creation days. So if you wish to infer that expansion is just an ongoing result of the initial action of God that would be fine.

There are these little things called laws, that God put in place to run the universe, etc (Jeremiah 33:25). The "fixed patterns" is the word chuqqah which means a statute or law. Therefore, the ongoing stretching, which the Biblical authors wrote about, is still credited to God. When it is stated that God stretches the heavens, it should be understood that He is the ultimate cause. God stopped creating on day seven. He did not, for instance, stop sustaining the creation (Colossians 1:16-17).

As Christ said, As my Father is still working, so am I ( Paraphrasing).
John 5:17

Dayage and RickD,

As I noted in a previous post I was going to investigete my notes and find the points of difference between each of our understandings and I have been doing this religiously for the past week. I also read Rich Deems article to get a grip on how both of you are viewing the gen 1 point which I originally thought was simply one of many points to discuss and Dayage, I had actually composed 80% of a reply to your last large posting and then it occured to me that ALL of our differences are summed up based on each of our individual beliefs about gen 1. Each of us has built our understandings about God and how he performed everything based soley on that first text in genesis.
So ultimately, we don't need to discuss all the various texts that are brought to bear on gen 1 as these were allocated as evidences to back each of the initial beliefs we had formed about that beginning text. In other words ALL of our rationales hinge on our single interpretation of what happened in the beginning and all of these rationales would fall apart if that initial interpretation were to change.
I will put in this post a part of my response that I think will let you see the path I am going to persue before I proceed any further on the subject at hand.

I have read the page http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html by Rich Deem and it certainly seems to me that he is perfoming due diligence on the subject and I am always appreciative of those who carefully research a subject and apply reason and logic to form a conclusion.
I will attempt to cross examine Richs logic and reason on this subject as this is how truth is proven, by testing. So, as Rich has written in essence the beginning of genesis is asserted by some to be a summary of the entire creation account and by others to not be a summary, and as he points out there have been "volumes written" on this very subject.
One thing that I think is important at this point is that a bit more indepth inspection into 'why' there have been volumes written would reveal a bit more understanding as to why volumes were needed if it is really a just simple thing to understand.

The opening phrase of Genesis 1:1 can be translated in at least three ways:
(1) as a statement that the cosmos had an absolute beginning (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth);
(2) as a statement describing the condition of the world when God began creating (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was untamed and shapeless); and
(3) essentially similar to the second version but taking all of Genesis 1:2 as background information (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth being untamed and shapeless... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

From my preliminary searches on the net this subject is huge and has been huge for quite some time all the way back to the earliest times of Christianity. Now as I pointed out earlier I am looking to compare my understandings which came from minimal outside human influence to what is currently understood by modern day Christians so this discussion has achieved exactly what I have intended that it was to define our differences and then this would allow me to investigate why there is any differences since there is one bible with one author. Christianity should be composed of many people with one body of understanding. Each of us should be able to reflect accurately what God has intended humanity to understand.
I will continue this thread based on the evidences I find and would like to further discuss some of these things individually as I encounter them if everyone here is agreeable to such an exercise. It will probably take me a few day to a week to perform the tracing of the various concepts back to their origination point and determine how the conclusions occured before I bring anything forward for futher analysis.

There has been a debate as to whether this is a title (summary), or the first act. Here I will give evidence that this is the first act.


TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
First, the brief description of the setting for creation in Genesis one, "In the beginning," appears to be absolute with respect to "the heavens and the earth" (the universe). It makes little sense then that the rest of the narrative focuses on the earth. Had the author simply wanted to state that God created the universe, why include "In the beginning?" If this were a title informing us of the timing of the creation, one would expect to see a reference to this time frame for at least the earth's origin, on day one. Instead, we find the earth already in existence.

The time reference (In the beginning), along with the use of created (perfect form) are more consistent with an initial act of creation. In fact, grammatically the normal use of the perfect in the opening of a periscope is to designate an event that took place before the main storyline got under way. After the creation of the universe the author then shifts attention to the earth, which needed more work.

If one wanted to claim that the earth of Genesis 1:1 is the same as the one in Genesis 1:9-10, then where did the darkness (Is. 45:7) and water come from?

Second, if verse one is a summary of what God is about to do, why does verse two start with a waw disjunctive? I have already gone into this at length, so I will not do it here.

Third, Genesis 2:3 "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created TO make."
God created the universe, including earth, and then went about making or transforming the earth and its atmosphere.

Fourth, the sentence structure of the traditional view is simpler and is consistent with what is found in Gen. 1:1-2:3. It is also the oldest known, because it is reflected in the LXX.


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
Early Jewish and Christian sources took Genesis 1:1 as the first act (in time or priority) as well as a reference to creation ex-nihilo.

Jewish Sources
LXX (Septuagint)
The sentence structure of the traditional view is the oldest known, because it is reflected in the LXX.

Book of Jubilees (2nd century B.C.)
"Write the complete history of the creation….2. For on the first day He created the heavens which are above and the earth and the waters and all the spirits which serve before Him…. (He created) the abysses and the darkness, eventide (and night), and the light, dawn and day, which He hath prepared in the knowledge of His heart. 3. And thereupon we saw His works, and praised Him, and lauded before Him on account of all His works; for seven great works did He create on the first day."

2 Maccabees 7:28 (135-63 B.C.)
"I beseech you, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them, and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:"

Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.)
"Moses says also; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth:" taking the beginning to be, not as some men think, that which is according to time; for before the world time had no existence, but was created either simultaneously with it, or after it…. But if the beginning spoken of by Moses is not to be looked upon as spoken of according to time, then it may be natural to suppose that it is the beginning according to number that is indicated; so that, "In the beginning he created," is equivalent to "first of all he created the heaven;" for it is natural in reality that that should have been the first object created, being both the best of all created things, and being also made of the purest substance,"

Josephus (38-100 A.D.)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day."

2 Esdras (90-100 A.D.)
"I said, "O Lord, thou didst speak at the beginning of creation, and didst say on the first day, `Let heaven and earth be made,' and thy word accomplished the work.
39) And then the Spirit was hovering, and darkness and silence embraced everything; the sound of man's voice was not yet there.
40) Then thou didst command that a ray of light be brought forth from thy treasuries, so that thy works might then appear.
41) Again, on the second day, thou didst create the spirit of the firmament, and didst command him to divide and separate the waters, that one part might move upward and the other part remain beneath.
42) On the third day thou didst command the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts thou didst dry up and keep so that some of them might be planted and cultivated and be of service before thee."


Christian Sources
The Shepherd of Hermas (1st or 2nd century A.D.)
"First of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing."

Irenaeus (125-195)
"While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point pre-eminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence."

Tertullian (160-?)
"Firmly believe, therefore, that He produced it wholly out of nothing, and then you have found the knowledge of God, by believing that He possesses such mighty power. But some persons are too weak to believe all this at first, owing to their views about Matter. They will rather have it, after the philosophers, that the universe was in the beginning made by God out of underlying matter."

Hippolytus: (?-236)
"On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by molding it according to His pleasure."

Methodius (?-311)
"But you overlooked this, my excellent friend, that He who created and set in order the universe out of nothing,"

Ambrose (340-397)
"But if God made all these things out of nothing (for He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created ), why should we wonder that which has been should be brought to life again, since we see produced that which had not been?"

Chrysostom (347-407)
"For there is not so great a sign of the love of God for mankind, not heaven, nor sea, nor earth, nor the creation of all things out of nothing, nor all else beside, as the Cross."

Augustine (354-430)
"God, who, out of nothing, hast created this world, which the eyes of all perceive to be most beautiful."

John of Damascus (676-754)
"But God, through the exercise of will alone, has brought all things into existence out of nothing."

I have taken the time to research the beginnings of the concept of ex-nihilo. It begins to show up near the time of Christ which would be logical as written language had evolved to the point where abstract concepts were then becoming able to be represented via textual references. I will provide a further rationale at the end of this post and answer the other points you have brought up in your last post first.

dayage wrote:There has been a debate as to whether this is a title (summary), or the first act. Here I will give evidence that this is the first act.
TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
First, the brief description of the setting for creation in Genesis one, "In the beginning," appears to be absolute with respect to "the heavens and the earth" (the universe).

It is absolute in its meaning. The problem is defining what that meaning is. In the beginning defines 'something' an absolute something. This is where our individual interpretaions differ. Your interpretation posits that "In the beginning" is a time of Gods first act. Yet no command occured in verse 1.
Moses was shown by God in verse 1 what he had already accomplished (as denoted by its past tense use)... God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning and the absolute meaning for in the beginning is subsequently defined as the 6 days of creation. Every time a biblical writer refers to the heavens and the earth it is always in reference to the completed, finished creation which took God 6 days to complete. Never ever is that phrase used by any biblical writer to infer a partial construction.
It should also be noted that Moses who wrote verse 1 also wrote many of the exact same references in later verses and they always imply the heavens and the earth as a completed creation.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 14:19 ...Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is...
Exo 31:17 for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth...
Deu 10:14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

Later writers also referenced the completed creation in the same way;

2Ki 19:15 thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.
2Ch 2:12 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, that made heaven and earth...
Neh 9:6 thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth...
Jer 10:11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth...
Jer 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power...
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store
Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth...

The heavens and the earth were not the heavens and the earth until their completion. So, verse 1 cannot be a reference to an incomplete creation. The clearest way to state verse 1 for its proper understanding in english would be if it was worded this way;

"In the beginning God created everything"

God showed Moses all that he had accomplished in the 6 day event that he defined as in the beginning and Moses wrote it down by saying in the beginning (6 days) God created (made) heaven and earth (everything) and then Moses recounts the activities of God on each of those 6 days that were collectively defined as the time frame of "in the beginning"

dayage wrote:It makes little sense then that the rest of the narrative focuses on the earth. Had the author simply wanted to state that God created the universe, why include "In the beginning?" If this were a title informing us of the timing of the creation, one would expect to see a reference to this time frame for at least the earth's origin, on day one. Instead, we find the earth already in existence.

The rest of narrative does not focus on the earth. In verse 2 the focus is on not only the earth but also the darkness, the deep and the waters. It recounts the state of things as they were prior to a creative act.
The earth defined in verse 2 that you assume means the sphere which we exist upon is also the same earth that all planetary bodies were made from. Many people make the mistake that earth described in the beginning of genesis is the name of our planet because that is what we have named it. Consider the concept of the earth mover;

The Largest Machine in the World – The V CAT D8R…
This is the largest earth mover in the world which was built by the German company, Krupp.
http://edwindwianto.wordpress.com/2009/ ... 8r-awsome/

Should we assume that this machine moves the earth? or should we assume that earth is a material.
God didn't name our planet the earth... read the biblical text carefully;

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth...

In plain words all dry land is earth no matter which planetary body we may find it on. The mars lander touched down on dry land....earth... martian earth. the moon is made of earth.
I ask that you look again at verse 1:9 and consider what is actually being said;

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

this is ["a reference to this time frame for at least the earth's origin"] Genesis 1:9 is the reference to the time frame when the sphere of our planet was formed... God spoke and he commanded that "the waters" (plural) be "gathered" (gathered from where?) together unto one place... (God separated liquids from solids... what happens when you separate water from dirt?) and let the dry land appear!!! and it was so. Now notice here another neat thing about God.

When God separates things... he names them. God begins this verse by refering to the material that was named in 1:2 that 'something' he called the waters and he commanded... (by his word) "it to gather together" from a separated state of existence, "the face of the waters" was a scattered chaotic arrangement that God begins to give order too. The act he performs in separating liquids into an orderly arrangement of only itself and commanding the solids to gather together into a formation so that they might appear is when our sphere of earth "apppeared" it is also when earth used in forming all the other planets appeared as well.

dayage wrote:The time reference (In the beginning), along with the use of created (perfect form) are more consistent with an initial act of creation. In fact, grammatically the normal use of the perfect in the opening of a periscope is to designate an event that took place before the main storyline got under way. After the creation of the universe the author then shifts attention to the earth, which needed more work.

How you interpret what the "event" consists of is part of what is in question here. The other part here that requires attention is how you rationalise that there was a temporal shift between 1 and 2 since you state "an event that took place before the main storyline" as a temporal shift. As I noted in an earlier post there is a waw disjunctive beginning verse 2... thus no temporal shift, no waw consecutive to allow for temporal movement.
The author God shows Moses (the writer) the finished creation in verse 1. Consider Amo 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets". God was revealing something to Moses in verse 1, he revealed to him the secret of everythings existence which he had already accomplished during the "time frame" of "in the beginning" (relative to moses frame of reference) during which he (God) completely formed the heavens (empty spaces) and the earth (dry land).
Thus, verse 2 which is not a consecutive time frame because it is separated by a waw disjunctive to verse 1 actually takes us back in time just prior to the point in the span of time where "in the beginning" commences and describes what God begins his creative acts with.

dayage wrote:If one wanted to claim that the earth of Genesis 1:1 is the same as the one in Genesis 1:9-10, then where did the darkness (Is. 45:7) and water come from?

Indeed one must ask such a question if one holds a foundational view that nothing but God existed prior to an initial command assumed to have occured in verse 1. This for you is the crux of where your error lies, you assume a command from God occured and yet no where in verse 1 does it say and "God said".
This is an opportune moment to aquaint you with the game of simon says... If you aren't familiar with it then look it up and you will find that the game hinges on the proper understanding of when to perfom an action based on a specific trigger event "God said". Consider carefully what these verses are saying;

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Notice that the Word is considered in these verses as an integral component of the creation of everything. What is the Word of God? Is it something that God thought to himslf? no. The word was the commands that he gave... without the word was not any thing made that was made. therefore, nothing was made until God commanded the action to occur by his Word. Verse 1 didn't say "simon (God) says". Verse 1 showed to moses what had already occured from all that simon (God) had already said. Verse 2 takes moses and the reader to the point in time just prior to simon (God) giving his first command and then in verse 3 simon (God) speaks the first command as he begins to bring order to the existing chaos.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
There is no "and God said" prior to verse 3 any such assertion of a command being given is entirely imagined to have occured since there is no reference to God speaking prior to verse 3.

dayage wrote:Second, if verse one is a summary of what God is about to do, why does verse two start with a waw disjunctive? I have already gone into this at length, so I will not do it here.

You have a very odd understaning of what function a disjunctive invokes. Somehow you imagine that it shows a consecutive temporal (in time) movement from what happened prior to it and what occurs after it which is the manner that only a waw consecutive could perform. I will try to clarify this one last time from a different reference;

From the beginning of the creation
by Russell Grigg
2.‘Waw’ is the name of the Hebrew letter which is used as a conjunction. It can mean ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘now’, ‘then’, and several other things depending upon the context and type of waw involved. It occurs at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 and is translated in the KJV, ‘And [waw] the earth was without form, and void...
... the most straightforward reading of the text sees verse 1 of Genesis 1 as the principal subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three ‘circumstantial clauses’. ‘This is what [Hebrew grammarian] Gesenius terms a ‘waw explicativum’ [also called waw copulative or waw disjunctive] or explanatory waw, and compares it to the English ‘to wit’.
Such a waw disjunctive is easy to tell from the Hebrew, because it is formed by waw followed by a non-verb. It introduces a parenthetic statement, that is, it’s alerting the reader to put the following passage in brackets, as it were—a descriptive phrase about the previous noun. It does not indicate something following in a time sequence—this would have been indicated by a different Hebrew construction called the waw consecutive http://creation.com/from-the-beginning-of-the-creation

Do you see what is plainly stated about a waw disjunctive ""It does not indicate something following in a time sequence"". Thus you cannot assert that an action assumed to have been performed in verse 1 is then followed in time by actions perfomed in verse 2. The verses are not consecutive actions... it requires a waw consecutive to show the moving in time from one event to another.

dayage wrote:Third, Genesis 2:3 "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created TO make." God created the universe, including earth, and then went about making or transforming the earth and its atmosphere.

again you assume a consecutive story and not a disjunctive one. You believe that all the verses after 2:3 are consecutive in time to 2:3. But the reality here is that book 2 of genesis provides a detailed view of acts accomplished prior to 2:3. the end of book 2 occured prior to God resting on the seventh day. As we can see God enjoying his creation in Gen 3:8
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day."
God was resting and he was enjoying a walk through his perfect creation and desired to speak with the people that he had created prior to day seven.

dayage wrote: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
Early Jewish and Christian sources took Genesis 1:1 as the first act (in time or priority) as well as a reference to creation ex-nihilo.

Of course there are many references of peoples who at some point presumed what was being meant by the original biblical text. The problem that both you and the references have is that you must be able to show that the ancient hebrews were able to convey the abstract concept of ex-nihilo via their written words. This is where you will find the greatest problem. The written text of the ancient alphabet only uses those things which they can reference to something they can observe or sense. Consider this;

Our modern languages are the product of a Greco-Roman world where abstract words are prolific. An abstract is a word or thought that cannot be related to one of the five senses; hearing, sight, touch, smell and taste. However, each Hebrew word is related to a concrete idea, a substance of action. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/2_culture.html

What you should understand here is that unless you can provide a reference in ancient hebrew to an abstract concept such as ex-nihilo then you cannot assume that they were implying this abstract concept in their text. The ancient hebrews had no written wording to describe the abstract concept of ex-nihilo therefore, they could not have written anything with such an implication.
People near the time of Christ who had newer languages to work with which included written expressions that were able to define abstract concepts began to apply the concept of ex-nihilo to ancient hebrew meanings even though it was wrong to do so.
Creation ex-nihilo was an abstract concept that could not have been refered to in ancient hebrew since ALL their written text had to refer to something they could sense. Tell me how does one sense absolute nothingness? and further how could one convey that abstract concept via the ancient hebrew text? The fact is that the abstract concept of ex-nihilo could not be sensed much less conveyed textually to others. No one could use ancient hebrew to convey this abstract concept since they have no foundation as a sensory understanding to reference it too.

sorry i got a double post

KBCid'

I have taken the time to research the beginnings of the concept of ex-nihilo. It begins to show up near the time of Christ which would be logical as written language had evolved to the point where abstract concepts were then becoming able to be represented via textual references.

What do you mean by near? The oldest commentaries we have talk about ex-nihilo, so I do not see your point. Maybe you know of earlier commentaries.

The verses about heaven and earth do not contradict what I believe. Many are a reference to the universe, but some (Ex. 20:11 and 31:17) are about the atmosphere, dry land and the oceans, etc.

The heavens and the earth were not the heavens and the earth until their completion. So, verse 1 cannot be a reference to an incomplete creation.

We and every commentary I seen have already agreed that Genesis 1:1 is refering to a merism meaning the universe (The heavens and the earth). The earth was what needed more work. This does not change the fact that the universe was already created.

Do you see what is plainly stated about a waw disjunctive ""It does not indicate something following in a time sequence"". Thus you cannot assert that an action assumed to have been performed in verse 1 is then followed in time by actions perfomed in verse 2. The verses are not consecutive actions... it requires a waw consecutive to show the moving in time from one event to another.

How quickly you forget. I have never said that verse two is a consecutive action. It is a description of the earth which was just created in verse one.

Why do you keep quoting things you do not understand?

it’s alerting the reader to put the following passage in brackets, as it were—a descriptive phrase about the previous noun.

This is exactly what I have been saying. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (now this what that earth looked like).

The rest of narrative does not focus on the earth. In verse 2 the focus is on not only the earth but also the darkness, the deep and the waters. It recounts the state of things as they were prior to a creative act.

This all refers to the earth and it condition after being created. God made that clear to Job. The waw disjunctive also makes this clear.

God begins this verse by refering to the material that was named in 1:2 that 'something' he called the waters and he commanded... (by his word) "it to gather together" from a separated state of existence, "the face of the waters" was a scattered chaotic arrangement that God begins to give order too.

You are either following ANE myths or someone along the lines of Schroeder.

How you interpret what the "event" consists of is part of what is in question here. The other part here that requires attention is how you rationalise that there was a temporal shift between 1 and 2 since you state "an event that took place before the main storyline" as a temporal shift. As I noted in an earlier post there is a waw disjunctive beginning verse 2... thus no temporal shift, no waw consecutive to allow for temporal movement.

You are not understanding me. The shift is between verse 1 and the main sequence of events, which start in verse 3.

Thus, verse 2 which is not a consecutive time frame because it is separated by a waw disjunctive to verse 1 actually takes us back in time just prior to the point in the span of time where "in the beginning" commences and describes what God begins his creative acts with.

Wrong, as every source has pointed out, verse two tells us about the earth which was just created.

Indeed one must ask such a question if one holds a foundational view that nothing but God existed prior to an initial command assumed to have occured in verse 1. This for you is the crux of where your error lies, you assume a command from God occured and yet no where in verse 1 does it say and "God said".

The focus of the six days is on earth. Verses 2 says that earth (not the heavens) needed work. The verses you listed do not contradict my view. In fact, I listed many of them earlier.

KBCid,

What you should understand here is that unless you can provide a reference in ancient hebrew to an abstract concept such as ex-nihilo then you cannot assume that they were implying this abstract concept in their text.

I already did. 2 Maccabees teaches it and the Book of Jubilees teaches that Genesis 1:1 was part of the first things created (part of day one). Both of these were written in Hebrew. And as many scholars have pointed out, if the writer of 2 Maccabees did not get ex-nihilo from Genesis 1:1, then it is hard to know where the idea came from.

I gave you lists of early Jewish and Christian sources. You have given me none. What ancient Hebrew sources are you saying tell us that God created out of pre-existing material?

dayage wrote:What do you mean by near? The oldest commentaries we have talk about ex-nihilo, so I do not see your point. Maybe you know of earlier commentaries.

Within about a hundred years of Christ according to most sources. The point is that there are no commentaries that can directly denote an inference of the ex-nihilo concept past about the time of Christ and several sources assert it arising in the first 2oo yrs after Christ. So, rather than try and pinpoint an actual date of first occurance I am fairly confident to place it within a hundred years of the time of Christ.

dayage wrote:We and every commentary I seen have already agreed that Genesis 1:1 is refering to a merism meaning the universe (The heavens and the earth). The earth was what needed more work. This does not change the fact that the universe was already created.

The we part is kinda where we don't see eye to eye. I do understand it as a merism that indicates the completed creation after 6 days and you only see it as a merism for an initial step in the creation. It is good that we can define how and where the lines of meaning are being divided and this allows me to better understand how you view it and consider how we are divided.

KBCid wrote:How you interpret what the "event" consists of is part of what is in question here. The other part here that requires attention is how you rationalise that there was a temporal shift between 1 and 2 since you state "an event that took place before the main storyline" as a temporal shift. As I noted in an earlier post there is a waw disjunctive beginning verse 2... thus no temporal shift, no waw consecutive to allow for temporal movement.

dayage wrote:You are not understanding me. The shift is between verse 1 and the main sequence of events, which start in verse 3.

Ahh but I do understand exactly what you are saying. You are trying to jump past verse 2 and its waw disjunctive and assert that action does not begin again until verse 3 but I have news for you on this. Verse 2 defines an action occuring which is then followed properly by a series of waw consecutives at each consecutive action and here is the action that you want to bypass in verse 2;

Gen 1:2 ...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

According to your belief of an action occuring in verse 1 you have no choice but to assert that God is subsequently performing an action on a newly created universe in verse 2. You cannot simply skip the verse and pick the storyline back up in verse 3.

KBCid wrote:Wrong, as every source has pointed out, verse two tells us about the earth which was just created.

apparently not every source is right since verse 2 cannot follow verse 1 in time. God can't be performing the act of examining the newly created universe in verse 2 because it requires a waw consecutive to have a subsequent action follow in time from the preceeding one you believe occured in 1.

dayage wrote:How quickly you forget. I have never said that verse two is a consecutive action. It is a description of the earth which was just created in verse one.

You have a concept that only verse 2 is parenthetical to 1. This is an attempt to skip over everything in verse 2 and try and pickup a storyline in verse 3 even though verse 3 is a consecutive action to verse 2 which is defined by the waw consecutive which connects 2 to 3. The biggest problem to your belief about 2 is the action that God performs at the end of 2. This is an action that follows a waw conjuntive. Therefore, it is impossible to assert that God could perform the action of moving his spirit on newly formed waters even parenthetically because it describes an act that had to be performed in 1 prior "in time". Not even God can move on the face of something until it exists.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 "And" God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

A waw consecutive occurs at the beginning of 3 connecting it to 2. thus you cannot separate 2 from 3 and attempt to skip from 1 to 3. Verse 3-31 are consecutive continuations from 2 which is clearly defined by the waw consecutive occuring between 2 and 3.

dayage wrote:This all refers to the earth and it condition after being created. God made that clear to Job. The waw disjunctive also makes this clear.

A waw disjunctive makes several things clear. 1) That action in a preceeding verse cannot be followed in time by actions performed in subsequent verses 2) it is a connect from one verse to another;

From the beginning of the creation
by Russell Grigg
a waw disjunctive... ...does not indicate something following in a time sequence—this would have been indicated by a different Hebrew construction called the waw consecutive http://creation.com/from-the-beginning-of-the-creation

A waw disjunctive does not indicate something following in a time sequence". Even if one considers the verse following the disjunctive to be parenthetical to the verse prior.

dayage wrote:You are either following ANE myths or someone along the lines of Schroeder.

My outlook is not shaped by anything other than what was opened to my understanding by my own study. I'm sure there may be some others over time that may have come to a similar conclusion on their own but they are distinctly separate interpretations since I don't subscribe as yet to a particular uninspired writer. The only things I am directed by my maker to do is;

1) 1Thess 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
2) Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
3) Act 17:11 ...and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

dayage wrote:The focus of the six days is on earth. Verses 2 says that earth (not the heavens) needed work.

Oh really.....

Gen 1:3-5 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I would say that on day 1 "God created light" with no mention of the earth.

Gen 1:6-8 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And on day 2 "God created Heaven"...no mention of the earth here either.

Gen 1:9-10 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This is the first mention of earth since verse 2, it took 7 verses and 2 days after verse 2 to mention the earth.
Verses 6-10 describe the forming of what is called heaven and earth, the same heaven and earth you believe was already created in verse 1 since the same words are used as verse 1. Now you have a bit of a problem, God doesn't designate a name for heaven and earth till verses 6-10 therefore, 6-10 had to occur during the course of the timeframe called "in the beginning". Otherwise, God would be creating the same thing twice. It can only be concluded that all the verses past 2 share in the same parenthetical status that you give 2.

I am obliged here to state "it is written" That heaven and earth were created on 2 different days the heavens on day 2 and the earth on day 3 and they didn't recieve their names until their creation.
This means minimally that "in the beginning" includes the actions that are specifically described as spanning 3 days and logically it
really spans the entire creation timeframe of 6 days since the heavens and the earth described in 1 are better understood to be describing an overview of the completed creation that verses 1:2-2:3 provide a paranthetically detailed account of.

KBCid wrote: What you should understand here is that unless you can provide a reference in ancient hebrew to an abstract concept such as ex-nihilo then you cannot assume that they were implying this abstract concept in their text.

dayage wrote:I already did. 2 Maccabees teaches it and the Book of Jubilees teaches that Genesis 1:1 was part of the first things created (part of day one). Both of these were written in Hebrew. And as many scholars have pointed out, if the writer of 2 Maccabees did not get ex-nihilo from Genesis 1:1, then it is hard to know where the idea came from.

I see you consider the Maccabee writers ancient hebrew to be the same as Moses ancient hebrew. Written language evolves over time.

dayage wrote:I gave you lists of early Jewish and Christian sources. You have given me none. What ancient Hebrew sources are you saying tell us that God created out of pre-existing material?

Sir what you have actually given me was the opinions of writers who can't prove they are inspired by the holy ghost and I truely have no way to cross examine what they assert or how they derived their opinions and for this same reason I will not waste your time with opposing references as they all fall under the same umbrella of untestability. It is quite safe for us both to say that many people over time have concluded both of these opinions and ultimately one is wrong and possibly both may be wrong.
The one thing I think you should consider is that both of us have been commanded by God to do certain things regarding what we are told by sources outside of the bible;

1) 1Thess 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
2) Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
3) Act 17:11 ...and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

So I do not seek interpretational sources outside the word of God to prove the meaning of the word of God as this is directly apposite to the above directions.

An interesting article by Alister McGrath:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html

An excerpt:
Letting Scripture Speak

North African bishop Augustine of Hippo (354–430) had no skin in the game concerning the current origins controversies. He interpreted Scripture a thousand years before the Scientific Revolution, and 1,500 before Darwin's Origin of Species. Augustine didn't "accommodate" or "compromise" his biblical interpretation to fit new scientific theories. The important thing was to let Scripture speak for itself.

Augustine wrestled with Genesis 1–2 throughout his career. There are at least four points in his writings at which he attempts to develop a detailed, systematic account of how these chapters are to be understood. Each is subtly different. Here I shall consider Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis, which was written between 401 and 415. Augustine intended this to be a "literal" commentary (meaning "in the sense intended by the author").

Augustine draws out the following core themes: God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Using more technical language, Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation. The development of God's creation is always subject to God's sovereign providence. The God who planted the seeds at the moment of creation also governs and directs the time and place of their growth.

Augustine argues that the first Genesis Creation account (1:1–2:3) cannot be interpreted in isolation, but must be set alongside the second Genesis Creation account (2:4–25), as well as every other statement about the Creation found in Scripture. For example, Augustine suggests that Psalm 33:6–9 speaks of an instantaneous creation of the world through God's creative Word, while John 5:17 points to a God who is still active within creation.

PaulSacramento wrote: North African bishop Augustine of Hippo (354–430) had no skin in the game concerning the current origins controversies.

Here is an interesting quote from the bible;

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

This message was delivered by our Lord to jews. Jews were the people entrusted with replicating and conveying the proper understanding of the inspired word of God.
So I would ask here if Christ understood that the very people entrusted to handle the word and its understanding were in the dark then by what power does Augustine of Hippo provide proper understanding? Can you confirm that the holy ghost is his director, did he say he consulted God on what was meant in the biblical text? or did he make a judgement according to his own private understanding?

We can each reference a multitude of peoples who over time chose a side based on some unknown rationale which we cannot at this time cross examine and each of them appears convinced of the truth of their interpretation. The fact is that each of us can have an opinion that holds just as much strength as any other human who is uninspired and we can promote it and have it published and yet for all this there is no way to assure that it is correct without the seal of approval that only God and his word can supply.
If you seek for understanding of God's word from a source outside the bible then it would seem that you are taking the path that Eve took... and we know how that turned out right?

So I would ask here if Christ understood that the very people entrusted to handle the word and its understanding were in the dark then by what power does Augustine of Hippo provide proper understanding? Can you confirm that the holy ghost is his director, did he say he consulted God on what was meant in the biblical text? or did he make a judgement according to his own private understanding?

We can each reference a multitude of peoples who over time chose a side based on some unknown rationale which we cannot at this time cross examine and each of them appears convinced of the truth of their interpretation. The fact is that each of us can have an opinion that holds just as much strength as any other human who is uninspired and we can promote it and have it published and yet for all this there is no way to assure that it is correct without the seal of approval that only God and his word can supply.
If you seek for understanding of God's word from a source outside the bible then it would seem that you are taking the path that Eve took... and we know how that turned out right?

Within the context and spirit of your post, ANY view and interpretation by ANYONE is suspect, including your (our) own.

PaulSacramento wrote:Within the context and spirit of your post, ANY view and interpretation by ANYONE is suspect, including your (our) own.

Indeed it is as I have pointed out a number of times I don't yet hold to a specific belief on this yet. The position I have taken is what I term the devils advocate position where I consider several positions to begin with and then eliminate the ones that turn out to be less than viable. The current stance I am using has so far withstood serious invalidation in 3 separate trials but just as the geocentric model resisted elimination for a time so also may this one simply be found inadequate.
I am simply here to test these concepts against current beliefs and to determine the rationale that others use for their own validations. The one thing that I am promoting is to minimally perform the validation according to Gods method as stated in his word as I trust that he has our best interests in mind when it concerns doctrine issues.

So ultimately Paul I am absolutely not intending to change anyones mind about their convictions. God is the only one who should convince you of his truth and you alone are the only one who can determine what is correct for you since ultimately it will be your own actions that will be judged when you stand before the only Good being who made everything. So at no point do I recommend anyone to follow in my rationale as I do not wish to be the cause of another creations downfall. I am merely a being made like you are who seeks the pearls of wisdom that God states does exist.

KBCid wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Within the context and spirit of your post, ANY view and interpretation by ANYONE is suspect, including your (our) own.

Indeed it is as I have pointed out a number of times I don't yet hold to a specific belief on this yet. The position I have taken is what I term the devils advocate position where I consider several positions to begin with and then eliminate the ones that turn out to be less than viable. The current stance I am using has so far withstood serious invalidation in 3 separate trials but just as the geocentric model resisted elimination for a time so also may this one simply be found inadequate.
I am simply here to test these concepts against current beliefs and to determine the rationale that others use for their own validations. The one thing that I am promoting is to minimally perform the validation according to Gods method as stated in his word as I trust that he has our best interests in mind when it concerns doctrine issues.

So ultimately Paul I am absolutely not intending to change anyones mind about their convictions. God is the only one who should convince you of his truth and you alone are the only one who can determine what is correct for you since ultimately it will be your own actions that will be judged when you stand before the only Good being who made everything. So at no point do I recommend anyone to follow in my rationale as I do not wish to be the cause of another creations downfall. I am merely a being made like you are who seeks the pearls of wisdom that God states does exist.

Beautifully put my friend, very well stated.