In the beginning....

[KBCid]

Hi everyone,
I'm hoping to have a discussion about genesis and the concept of God creating Ex nihilo. I have studied the bible for many years and it eludes me as to how the perception began that time, space and matter were created by God from nothing. So, if anyone can point to the verses that they believe invite this concept I would be interested to see how it is derived.

Thx
KBCid

[Ivellious]

Well, the idea would be that before Genesis began, there was no such thing as matter and space and time. "In the beginning, there was nothing." God, being omnipotent, shaped the universe in the manner described in Genesis. Obviously, by simple logic, the Bible says that God, in His infinite power, and being beyond matter and space and time, created these concepts in order to shape the universe.

What exactly confuses you about that concept?

[Jac3510]

Gen 1:1 states that God created (Heb. bara) the heavens and the earth (hashamayim ve-et haaretz). Now, one (not the only) obvious way to take that is creation ex nihilo--that God created everything out of nothing. After all, if God created the heavens and the earth, then prior to their existence, the heavens and the earth did not exist, and if they didn't exist (and if they constitute everything), then they were made from nothing!

Now, you could argue that the heavens and the earth don't constitute everything that exists; that maybe the verse just teaches that God just fashioned preexisting material into the heavens and the earth. That's a logical possibility, but there are three factors that way against that interpretation:

1. the word bara is applied exclusively to God--only God is said to "create" (using that word). That implies rather strongly that God in creation is doing something that humans can't do--create from nothing.

2. Biblical Hebrew doesn't have a word for "the universe." The phrase "the heavens and the earth" worked to serve the same function. So we could literally translate the verse "In the beginning, God created the universe." But that implies creation ex nihilo, since "the universe" contains all that is.

3. Whether you assume Moses wrote Gen 1 or someone else, the theological context points to creation ex nihilo. The pedagogical purpose of Gen. 1 is clearly to demonstrate God's sovereignty over all of creation, and as such, to contrast Him to the deities of other religions, whether Egyptian (if Moses wrote) or Babylonian (if some other late author wrote). Now, in both Egyptian and Babylonian creation mythology, the gods created the universe out of preexisting material. So Gen. 1, when read against the background of ANE literature, strongly presupposes that the author is making a strong claim about God: "Your gods created from preexisting stuff; but Yahweh, in the beginning, created everything from nothing."

Now, I don't claim these three points are decisive, but they are very strong evidences that the author of Gen 1:1 intended the reader to see creation ex nihilo. What's more, it is apparent that later biblical writers took the verse in the same way. To jump way ahead and use only one example, Col 1:16 says, "or in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." Paul is rather explicit here that everything was created--apparently, even the stuff out of which we are made. But if EVERYTHING was created, then we can't say everything was made out of anything. Paul clearly here has read Gen 1:1 as I have suggested it ought to be, and since Paul was a pharisee (indeed, a pharisee of pharisees), that rather strongly implies that he was passing down what was common of his school of thought. And, in fact, it is. If you look at Rabbinic thought from Paul's day, that was precisely how they saw Gen 1.

More could be said, but to sum up, the point should be simple: the idea came from Gen 1:1. You may think it can and should be interpreted another way, but that doesn't change the fact that most people--and most importantly the biblical authors--took it to refer to creation ex nihilo. That's where the idea came from.

By the way, on an unrelated note . . . just a little piece of advice. I wouldn't open your posts with comments about your credentials or how long you have been studying an issue. If you make an argument and you are correct, good for you--you are probably correct precisely because your years of study, but pointing out those years does not make you right. On the other hand, if you are wrong, then it leaves people to either question whether or not you really have been studying for years as you say (or what you mean by "studying"), which automatically makes people suspicious of you; or it leaves them to question your competency in your studies. Neither those are good outcomes for you. My point here is just that starting with comments as to your years of study (or related claims) gives you nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Again, just a piece of unsolicited advice. You can take it for whatever you think its worth.

[KBCid]

I will begin by answering your last question first;

What exactly confuses you about that concept?

The 'confusion' is how you derive the perception of what existed prior to the construction of the designs that currently make up what we
observe within the universe. So, in light of that how did you derive that "there was no such thing as matter and space and time. In the
beginning, there was nothing."

"God, being omnipotent, shaped the universe in the manner described in Genesis"

Shaping as described in genesis is modifying something already existing and is not creation ex nihilo therefore this is not part of the question being asked

the Bible says that God, in His infinite power, and being beyond matter and space and time, created these concepts in
order to shape the universe.

Exactly what verses say that God is "beyond matter and space and time" and that he created ex nihilo the concepts of how the universe would function. I am seeking the dividing line of the written word vs. interpretational license of their meanings.

Let's consider this verse; "Isaiah 57:15 For this is what the high and lofty One says—he who lives forever...".
It is one thing to assert that a being lives forever or has always existed and quite another to assert that a being existed / exists outside of time. If you assert that God exists beyond time are you asserting that time is not percived by him? Do his thoughts not happen in an orderly fashion one after another? or do you assert that all his thoughts happen at once? If we are made in his image and our thoughts occur in an orderly fashion does this not allow the inference that he is this way also. In the bible it says;

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Which infers that the type of thoughts we have are not the same as his but it does infer that we both have thoughts, thus allowing for the biblical assertion that we were created in his image. Therefore, God was having thoughts long before the institution of a specified method of measuring time which he arranged.

[KBCid]

Gen 1:1 states that God created (Heb. bara) the heavens and the earth (hashamayim ve-et haaretz). Now, one (not the only) obvious way to take that is creation ex nihilo--that God created everything out of nothing.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew...
...She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... demic.html

After all, if God created the heavens and the earth, then prior to their existence, the heavens and the earth did not exist, and if they didn't exist (and if they constitute everything), then they were made from nothing!

Good question did "they constitute everything"?

Now, you could argue that the heavens and the earth don't constitute everything that exists; that maybe the verse just teaches that God just fashioned preexisting material into the heavens and the earth.

Indeed I could

That's a logical possibility, but there are three factors that way against that interpretation:

1. the word bara is applied exclusively to God--only God is said to "create" (using that word). That implies rather strongly that God in creation is doing something that humans can't do--create from nothing.

See my reference above concerning Bara.

Living Creatures. Bara’ is used in Genesis to express the creation of humans as well as other beings. Three times the verb is used in Genesis 1:27; then in the same sense it is repeated in Genesis 5:1, 2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; and in Isaiah 45:12. The Scripture thereby stresses that humans are exclusively the product of God’s creative act. Since the account in Genesis 2:7 specifies that mankind was formed (yatsar) from the dust of the ground, it may be concluded that the verb bara’ in reference to humans at least describes a formation using pre-existing material. It was a shaping and transforming of dust into a body that the word bara’ summarizes.
http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/Bara.htm

As you can see in the above reference Bara doesn't have a strong implication for ex nihilo. It does however have strong inference for arrangement and design and one may further infer that Gods ability to form these designs is far beyond a mans. So in fact 'bara' is a word that is used to describe Gods creative actions and in every case past its first appearance in genesis it describes God as reforming what already exists into a new design or arrangement of matter.

3. Whether you assume Moses wrote Gen 1 or someone else, the theological context points to creation ex nihilo. The pedagogical purpose of Gen. 1 is clearly to demonstrate God's sovereignty over all of creation, and as such, to contrast Him to the deities of other religions, whether Egyptian (if Moses wrote) or Babylonian (if some other late author wrote). Now, in both Egyptian and Babylonian creation mythology, the gods created the universe out of preexisting material. So Gen. 1, when read against the background of ANE literature, strongly presupposes that the author is making a strong claim about God: "Your gods created from preexisting stuff; but Yahweh, in the beginning, created everything from nothing."

Bara’ is also used in Genesis 1:21 for the making of the great sea creatures, every living creature that the waters brought forth, and every winged fowl. Why our word is used in this verse is not immediately clear. It may be that since the great sea creatures were feared and venerated in the pagan religions the writer wished to stress the fact that they were only creatures, the product of God’s sovereign creative decree...
...For example, the prophets in particular used bara’ to describe the future transformations, restorations or renovations. Isaiah records, “I create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa. 65:17). In the same context of anticipated new beginnings he adds, “But be glad and rejoice over that which I create, for I am about to create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people as a joy” (Isa. 65:18). According to the prophet, nature also will be renovated (Isa. 41:18-20). In fact, the entire coming restoration is called a creation of the LORD’s (Isa. 45:8)...
...In all these samples the action of the verb bara’ is that of transforming something into a new condition. With the exception of the Numbers passage, that change is always for something far better than the old. http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/Bara.htm

I have provided some references which infer logically the opposite of what you are positing but I think it only reasonable to go beyond what others may interpret and simply ask you a question here. If God can create something from nothing then why not simply create everything into a functional final form in the beginning? certainly there is no benefit to us to read that he poofed substrates into existence from nothing and then labored to shape them into a final form. If you wish to infer that God did creation ex nihilo to impress upon us his power then why stop with substrates? I would be even more impressed by his power if he made it all into its final form from nothing. So I would say that impressing us with an ability to create something from nothing wasn't the intent. The intent favors the idea that he was impressing us with his ability to arrange functional formations from simple substrates.

...What's more, it is apparent that later biblical writers took the verse in the same way. To jump way ahead and use only one example, Col 1:16 says, "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." Paul is rather explicit here that everything was created--apparently, even the stuff out of which we are made. But if EVERYTHING was created, then we can't say everything was made out of anything. Paul clearly here has read Gen 1:1 as I have suggested it ought to be, and since Paul was a pharisee (indeed, a pharisee of pharisees), that rather strongly implies that he was passing down what was common of his school of thought. And, in fact, it is. If you look at Rabbinic thought from Paul's day, that was precisely how they saw Gen 1.

I see the verse but remember you must sometimes compare several verses to ensure you get the fulness of meaning. Compare it with this from John;

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

Note the 'that was made." part here. It is quite apparent that John understands that there is reason to distinguish between that which was made from that which was not. I think it is also wise to consider his observable creations "us" and realise that all of us gods who are the image of God create in a similar fashion as that which is written in genesis. We shape matter to suit our purpose.

By the way, on an unrelated note . . . just a little piece of advice. I wouldn't open your posts with comments about your credentials or how long you have been studying an issue.

Not sure what you mean by "credentials" and I didn't state that I have specifically studied this issue. I stated that "I have studied the bible", to me that indeed in its entirety is a big issue to study. I have no desire to impress anyone about what I do know, at this point in my life it is more important to discern whether what I think I know is correct. My opening is intended to say "I am past the milk stage" let us proceed to some depth in our exchange. Let me also be clear that this subject is simply one among many that I am interested in discussing, this just seemed like a good begining point since I am also just begining here.

If you make an argument and you are correct, good for you--you are probably correct precisely because your years of study, but pointing out those years does not make you right. On the other hand, if you are wrong, then it leaves people to either question whether or not you really have been studying for years as you say (or what you mean by "studying"), which automatically makes people suspicious of you; or it leaves them to question your competency in your studies. Neither those are good outcomes for you. My point here is just that starting with comments as to your years of study (or related claims) gives you nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Again, just a piece of unsolicited advice. You can take it for whatever you think its worth.

One thing you will find in dicussions with me is that I don't "belive" I'm correct, further I don't know that I'm correct. I have learned enough in my life to know that I don't know anywhere near what I thought I did 20 years ago . My hope here is that you will find me a bit different than an evolutionist or atheist. I have no a priori commitments to adhere to. If you check out my intro page you will see that I am in the position of weak agnostic and I "know" that life was designed.
I do however, wish to convey that I will question every underlying 'belief' regardless of whether it is the evolutionists beliefs or the atheists beliefs or even the theist belief.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

[Philip]

There is a lot of reasonable speculation and Biblical analysis on this site that relates to what or how God created THIS universe and THIS time. But what might have there been before the first Creation events of Genesis? Were there OTHER Creations and OTHER times that served God's purposes for THEIR times and places - perhaps radically different Creations/universes or beings that today no longer exist? Or do other universes exist even now, but whose Godly origins and existences are nonetheless totally unconnected, dimensionally or otherwise, to OUR universe and time? God has always existed. We have no way of knowing what Creative endeavors He may have been engaged in before His work on OUR universe and OUR time. We simply can't know about what was BEFORE all the Bible talks about, except that God would have been its Author as well.

[KBCid]

We have no way of knowing what Creative endeavors He may have been engaged in before His work on OUR universe and OUR time. We simply can't know about what was BEFORE all the Bible talks about, except that God would have been its Author as well.

Indeed you would be quite correct. We wouldn't know anything other than that God would have been its author. The problem however is that men make inferences of truth beyond what they actually know and It should be fairly obvious by reading evolutionists arguements where such a method of inference leads. Look at the various forms of Christianity.... can they all be correct? If they are not correct then will they be saved anyway?
Look at all the old testament references that point to decendants who followed in the traditions of the parents and they were wrong. Note how God praises those who deny tradition and return to the purer methods defined by him. I would say that God has been quite insistent that we should test what we are told is right and not to simply believe anything even if it comes from authorities such as our parents. It would in a way seem that he wants us to know and understand him better than second hand interpretation. consider this if you will;

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15

We are told to study. The end result of this study is that we rightly divide the word of God. Implicit in this is that it is possible to wrongly divide the word. We see that Satan wrongly divides the word in Matthew 4. Peter tells us that some wrest the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Cults twist scripture to make it say things it does not say. We need to be diligent in our studies so that we do not mishandle and misuse the word of God. http://www.voicecrying.com/?p=684

I would say that carefull study and testing of beliefs are things God would approve.

[Jac3510]

1. With respect to Wolde, as I suggested in my post, she's hardly the first person to claim בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ is a temporal rather than absolute clause. It's no secret that eminent exegetes over the centuries, the likes of which includes Rashi (!), Ibn Ezra, Ewald, Dillmann, Humbert, Speiser, Francis Andersen, Holmstedt, and still others (Walton, for instance, comes to mind) requires us to take it as a serious possibility. And it is. Moreover, the NEB actually renders the opening lines of Genesis "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth . . ."

With that said, possibility is not the same as warrant, and authority stacking is not a way to solve a debate. The temporal clause view has always been a minority view, and that, I think, for good reason. It's very easy to argue that the phrase could be a temporal clause. It is exceedingly difficult to argue it ought to be a temporal clause. The LXX, for instance, renders the opening phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, which directly translates according to the traditional rendering. Again, it's possible, but there is very little to warrant that it ought to be the cause that we should render it temporally.

More importantly,

2. It's evident, as I suggested before, that the later biblical writers took Gen 1:1 in an absolute sense. Now, if you aren't a Christian (or a practicing Jew), that may not be decisive for you. But it should still hold great weight, since they were very early interpreters. This becomes doubly important if you hold to the documentary hypothesis, as that puts the traditional understanding of creation ex nihilo even closer to the original composition. I've already provided Paul as one such example, and if we are to believe him, his credentials are certainly well attested! You posited John as a counter example, but that doesn't work for a couple of reasons. First, the passage you cite begins in 1:1 with the words εν αρχη ην ο λογος. The allusion to Gen 1:1 (especially the LXX) is as impossible to miss in English as it is in Greek, and there can be no doubt that John thinks of Jesus here in the sense of being at the absolute beginning. It would be odd, to put it mildly, for John to go on to suggest, contrary to his original wording, that Jesus wasn't in the beginning after all. Moreover, regarding the passage you actually mentioned, there is serious debate over the punctuation. Should we punctuate it as:

παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν. εν αυτω ζωη ην
("Everything came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being that came into being. In Him was life . . ." [my translation])

OR should we punctuate it as . . .

παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν. ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην
("Everything came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being. That which was made in Him was life . . ." [my translation])

The manuscripts don't tell us, since they don't have any punctuation. Obviously, the second rendering doesn't say anything at all about our discussion. With that said, I don't raise the punctuation issue so much to suggest the second might be correct, but more so to illustrate the comparison to Gen 1:1. Is the second rendering possible? Yes. In fact, the SBL has decided that it is the more likely. But they're in the minority. Again, possibility doesn't equal warrant. And if you argued that the second rendering isn't proven, you'd be exactly correct. But just so with Gen 1:1.

So we have to be very careful here about picking and choosing which renderings we think are correct based on what we want the text to say.

Let me offer a personal anecdote in that regard. In my last year of Greek, I was doing an exegesis of the book of Philippians. I came to several passages that I thought ought to be rendered one way and my professor another. Both of us had the same Greek text before us. Both of us had the same syntactical tools. But we came to different conclusions as to which syntactical category we would assign some of these passages? After long discussion, it became apparent to me that our disagreement was not exegetical. It was theological. He accepted one rendering because it comported better with his theology, as I did with mine. I objected to that approach, and he responded, "But how else would you decide what the text says?"

Now, I thought that was rather revealing. It is manifestly obvious to me that we ought NOT pick a rendering based on our theology. We ought to pick it based on the evidence in the text, and build our theology around the rendering--and to the degree that the rendering is warranted, we ought to hold the theology. To the degree that it (the rendering) can be legitimately challenged, we ought to hold our position tentatively.

So much for that little excursion. Back to the point, I don't think, anyway, that the traditional rendering of John 1:3 challenges creation ex nihilo regardless. The question is simply, "What has come into being?" Not everything, obviously. In the text itself, God (the Father) didn't come into beginning. But you go beyond the text when you say that some primordial matter existed and didn't come into existence. You may be right. Such a view would not contradict the text. But it is not required by the text. John 1:3 is equally compatible with creation ex nihilo. So my main point stands: it seems to me that the biblical writers took Gen 1:1 absolutely and drew from it the notion of creation ex nihilo.

[KBCid]

possibility is not the same as warrant, and authority stacking is not a way to solve a debate.

Indeed sir the argument from authority is as faulty a foundation in theistic study as it is in evolutionist studies. The extent of my reference to Wolde simply points out that interpretation is not an empirical science. There is also the problem with argumentum ad populum where traditions direct how we look at things.

It's evident, as I suggested before, that the later biblical writers took Gen 1:1 in an absolute sense. Now, if you aren't a Christian (or a practicing Jew), that may not be decisive for you. But it should still hold great weight, since they were very early interpreters. This becomes doubly important if you hold to the documentary hypothesis, as that puts the traditional understanding of creation ex nihilo even closer to the original composition. I've already provided Paul as one such example, and if we are to believe him, his credentials are certainly well attested!

I would think that the later writers would not need to interpret per se since the author was there to correct any error in understanding. So that for me would not be a questionable point. However, those writers words have been interpreted into another language by those who are not biblical writers. Thus, a "traditional" view was interpreted for us.

the passage you cite begins in 1:1 with the words εν αρχη ην ο λογος. The allusion to Gen 1:1 (especially the LXX) is as impossible to miss in English as it is in Greek, and there can be no doubt that John thinks of Jesus here in the sense of being at the absolute beginning. It would be odd, to put it mildly, for John to go on to suggest, contrary to his original wording, that Jesus wasn't in the beginning after all.

Let us review John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Indeed there is no question that John is referencing to the 'absolute beginning' of this specific creation. The fact that God is eternal and thus his word by default must also be eternal. John 1:1 to me defines the authority and power of Christ in reference to our existence by showing that he is part of God himself. However, the first passage does not make any inference to the extent of what may have already existed. the second passage is where inference of what happened at that time is made. John could easily have simply stated "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made" and been done with it leaving no room for any other concept but, as I showed he added that one final bit "that was made" that he felt need conveyance to later readers.

regarding the passage you actually mentioned, there is serious debate over the punctuation. Should we punctuate it as:
"Everything came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being that came into being." [my translation])
OR should we punctuate it as . . .
Everything came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being. That which was made in Him was life." [my translation])

In your first translation I see the same "that was made" being equal in effect to "that came into being". Your second translation which you note is 'your translation' I cannot find worded exactly that way in any of the versions I have come across. The nearest reference which comes close would be the New American Standard Bible and it says; "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." and that also includes the "that has come into being" so I am a bit fuzzy on how you derived that wording. In any event I will let you clarify this so I don't argue beyond my understanding.

So we have to be very careful here about picking and choosing which renderings we think are correct based on what we want the text to say.

One of the things that I am trying very hard to do is not to make it say anything other than what the writer wanted to convey. Your personal anecdote I would agree is a prime example of how interpretations can diverge. Let me also point out that in your anecdote there is a third possibility, you both may have been wrong. However, I fully agree with holding a position tenatively. This is a wise decision.

I don't think, anyway, that the traditional rendering of John 1:3 challenges creation ex nihilo regardless.

You have your God given right to a free choice in regards to beliefs and I in no way wish to override this. This excercise is truely for me to gain insight into how others come to their conclusions, their 'scientific method' of determination if you will.

The question is simply, "What has come into being?" Not everything, obviously. In the text itself, God (the Father) didn't come into beginning. But you go beyond the text when you say that some primordial matter existed and didn't come into existence. You may be right. Such a view would not contradict the text. But it is not required by the text.

the point you make here is exactly the inverse of the one I was trying to make. My point was that creation ex nihilo was not required by the text, but rather interpretive meaning that goes beyond the text. Now the point I posited via John 1:3 is just one. I did not come to my tenative position based on a single bit of interpretaional data. I have further data on this topic and will bring it to bear in my next post.

As for this particular point I brought concerning the interpretive meaning behind "that was made" would you agree that your position is that you back a "traditional rendering" or in essence you feel that the traditional rendering was correct from its inception.
I appreciate you taking the time to compose what you have. Your time will not be in vain as I will now do further research into the traditional rendering and hopefully expand my understanding further. Your POV will not be dismissed out of hand. I hope that you will continue with me as I bring other points relative to the main subject.

[KBCid]

I just realized Jac3510 that you did not address these other points in your reply to my post;

Living Creatures. Bara’ is used in Genesis to express the creation of humans as well as other beings. Three times the verb is used in Genesis 1:27; then in the same sense it is repeated in Genesis 5:1, 2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; and in Isaiah 45:12. The Scripture thereby stresses that humans are exclusively the product of God’s creative act. Since the account in Genesis 2:7 specifies that mankind was formed (yatsar) from the dust of the ground, it may be concluded that the verb bara’ in reference to humans at least describes a formation using pre-existing material. It was a shaping and transforming of dust into a body that the word bara’ summarizes...
...Bara’ is also used in Genesis 1:21 for the making of the great sea creatures, every living creature that the waters brought forth, and every winged fowl. Why our word is used in this verse is not immediately clear. It may be that since the great sea creatures were feared and venerated in the pagan religions the writer wished to stress the fact that they were only creatures, the product of God’s sovereign creative decree... http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/Bara.htm

I would like to get feedback on these as they are part of the entirety for evidences I have compiled and I feel these are quite compelling in that they show that Bara is used a number of times during formation processes and has no inference possible to ex nihilo formation as part of the process. Part of my method of understanding is to apply parsimony among available evidences so as not to make any implications beyond the simplest needed to explain something.
In the references I have provided above a parsimonious inference based on actual usage of the term Bara would be that of the implementation of design without any further inference of material used to make the design. Note that when the author thought it prudent to define a substrate used during the action of Bara it was added "from the dust of the ground". This would imply that Bara has no inherent meaning applied automatically when it is used to define Gods acts of creativity.
Based on the above evidence from actual usage we can minimally state that Bara doesn't necessitate the inference of an ex nihilo method of substrate formation in order to achieve the result of creative design.
I find the other portion of my previously noted evidence relevant as well;

...For example, the prophets in particular used bara’ to describe the future transformations, restorations or renovations. Isaiah records, “I create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa. 65:17). In the same context of anticipated new beginnings he adds, “But be glad and rejoice over that which I create, for I am about to create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people as a joy” (Isa. 65:18). According to the prophet, nature also will be renovated (Isa. 41:18-20). In fact, the entire coming restoration is called a creation of the LORD’s (Isa. 45:8)...
...In all these samples the action of the verb bara’ is that of transforming something into a new condition. With the exception of the Numbers passage, that change is always for something far better than the old. http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/Bara.htm

If Bara was intended to extend explanatory meaning to include ex niliho then would these examples infer that he will create all these new formations via the same proceedure?

[TGGIL]

Hello,
My view of creation is as such:

In the beginning is an infinite (uncountable) mass of living seeds that come in contact with a receiver (mate) and this mate only needs one of these seeds to create a wonderful, beautiful, universe of living water, structure and mind.

That creation is You and I.
Genesis is You and I. The miracle of Child Birth! Now that's of GOD.
When you can create like that, the rest is easy. The world and universe is one larger Body, so perfect, so designed, so of God.
Samuel Driscoll

ChristianBaby.wordpress.com (Please read more here if you like)

[phareztamar]

Spring greetings my friends.


WE SPEAK

Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

As we travel this winding, narrow way, we grow. We grow in grace and knowledge. We grow more intimate with our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts. And we grow old. It’s a rough road, but wonderful just the same. In fact, life was made, for humanity to find this narrow way. To feel its dirt between your toes…to leap over its potholes…to scale its sheer cliffs. And so engaging is this narrow way, that we can completely drift away from our fellows. Different passions take us down different paths. Now…our affections are set on things above. Now, our treasures are laid up in heaven. And erelong, we may find ourselves alienated, from the very world we live in. Though our bodies and minds are at home…at work…yet are we wanderers in a strange land. Still hubby…still dad…still a shift mechanic…but ever harder to reel in our heart, from far, far away.

On this path, every journey through the word of God, yields the new fruit, of that year’s harvest. Each reading pulls us deeper into those spiritual things…which the Holy Ghost teacheth. It is a mind boggling journey. As gentlemen of industry, we want to do well…for our families, and for the comforts it affords. Yet the more we grow, the dimmer even these comforts become. A monkish existence even starts looking good.

Yet, the Spirit does not allow us, to so rest on our laurels. We are to make noise…make a stir. We are to make all men see…with urgency…and by all means. We have not the luxury, of awestruck silence. Those wonderful things that the Holy Ghost teaches us, are supposed to be which things also we speak. As the apostle so fitly spoke: woe is me, if I preach not the gospel.

For all of eternity past; there was no man…no earth…no universe. So, what’s been going on for gazillions of years…prior to our Genesis? Between eternity past, and eternity future; why did God choose now, to float our 7,000 year capsule of time? Given the utter vastness of the universe; why did God choose here…on the Orion arm of the Milky Way Galaxy…to put the earth, and the story of life? And in that huge, endless universe; how did sin find the earth? Why was it allowed to contaminate the entire life capsule? Why can the spiritual realm see us, but we can’t see them?

Whatever went on for eternity past…we know only that God was there. And knowing this, we know that love was there. Holiness, mercy, and truth were there. All that we know about our God…from his word…was there. For our God never changes.

To live, to work until we retire, and then to die…holds not a hint of eternal purpose. To live such a life, denies that God had a reason, for speaking creation into existence. It ignores the cold hard fact, that from the nursery, we are sentenced to die. It supposes that there is no forever…and that life doesn’t have eternal consequence.

By the time we do retire, our bodies are broken, and the wood is rotted through. The wood we used to build a floor, over that eternal void…in the cavity of our soul…so we could get on with our lives. Now, the floor is falling through. We can no longer silence its call. Because through even our happiest final leisure’s, death looms on the horizon…closer in our winter years, than ever before. And contemplating the end of our life, makes for bone-rattling meditation.

Salvation is a 6,000 year old revelation. It rests at the very core, of God’s eternal plan. Salvation is splashed across the poetry of creation…and is weaved deeply throughout the word of God. Every year, the death of autumn…and the burial of winter…give way to the new life of spring. You see, the fall in Eden was not some unforeseen accident…not a fracture in the plan of God. Emmanuel…Pentecost…The Church…these aren’t God’s damage control measures. This is His plan. This always was His plan. And like a detailed map overlay, your own salvation experience, should harmonize with the entire 6,000 year mystery. Your new birth, must deal with sin versus holiness…and answer why, we are condemned to die. Your born again experience; must qualify for eternal purpose…match the first Pentecost…and agree with thousands of allegories in the scriptures.

This truth…this born again experience…is not a multiple choice quiz. In pursuit of the narrow way, there are right answers, and there are wrong answers. By design, you’re free to believe what you will, all the way to the grave. But your belief doesn’t change the location of the strait gate. It is in a fixed location, forever settled in his Word. No matter when you lived…on this 6,000 year timeline…there has always been but one, true doctrine of salvation…just as there is today. Because God’s plan…his eternal purpose for man…remains unchanged from the beginning.

Our purpose in eternity…our role in God’s plan…our forever occupation…is still unclear. We know that our bodies…infected by sin…return to the dust. We know that our spirit…the breath of life…returns to God who gave it. Our soul is eternal going forward, and is destined for great, regal things…much too fabulous to speak of. But God has ordained, that this soul must first enter through a strait gate, and travel a narrow way. It must be redeemed…crushed, and re-born. It must be tried by the fires of life, to prepare for the glory of eternity.

We know…in that forever place…that the very heart of our holy God, is great love. And so we believe in light, and not darkness. This human soul…housed in this body…is a vessel of untethered free will, ignited by the breath of life. There are billions of us. And of all living things, only we, can consider the way before us. Cows don’t contemplate the vastness of the universe. Bears want only a fish…not a reason why. Leukocytes care not a whit for eternal purpose. They were created for a single purpose. Only man, can think these thoughts.

Turns out, that by the very design of free will, God’s eternal purpose is reserved for a very few. Those who come to realize, that free will is actually a speeding, runaway car…with a small child at the wheel. Too small to see the road…too short to reach the brake…but steering like crazy. It’s reserved for those few who are drawn by God to repentance. Those who realize, it is their very own filth-by-birth, which condemns them to die. All our lives, we’ve succumbed to that filth…that law of sin…flowing in our veins. Perhaps fully tasting the shame and guilt of what we are, is somehow a stamp on our soul, required for eternity. Our reason for forever, requires the results…the impact upon our soul…of falling on the Rock, and being broken. Like chisels to the soul, the events of your life are in the master sculptor’s hand.

[TGGIL]

Poetry brilliance phareztamar.

[Philip]

It’s reserved for those few who are drawn by God to repentance.

And so then WHO does God draw? He draws ALL those SO WILLING to: believe/repent/commit to and follow the Lord, albeit with His initiating and continued guidance into salvation!He rejects ONLY the UNWILLING. And ALL are born able to CHOOSE to be either willing or unwilling - which is our ONLY part - to be WILLING to receive, as mere hell-bound, hopeless beggars, the initiatives and freely given/unearnable gift of salvation. ALL can receive it, but only if they are WILLING to receive and embrace it. But merely being WILLING does NOT save - as it is GOD Who does all necessary to achieve that. ALL can also choose NOT to - to be UNWILLING - which most do. But God has chosen ALL of the willing, and will do all necessary to first draw them and then complete in them HIS salvation. And He has ALWAYS known ALL of whom (the WILLING/those He will save) that would ultimately include.