post two of three
People often offer generic passages such as Heb 11:3 to support the idea of creation from nothing. For example, in the common English version the text is as follows: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made out of things that do appear." Heb. xi, 3. However, just as the translation in Genesis does not clearly support ex nihilo, all scriptures rendering the word "CREATE" such as used in Hebrews 11:3 is just as easily interpreted to refer to pre-existing matter.
As scholars consider words of the Greek text, one important word would be the word which is translated "framed" in this text. To show the word "Framed" supports ex nihilo, it must be shown that the term signifies to actually CREATE ex nihilo. But this cannot be done without forcing the text since the word is so often used in the sense of to “repair”, to “restore” from breach or decay, to “mend”, to “put in order”, to “reform”, to “appoint”; “perfect”; “adjust”, or to “train” rather than to “create ”ex nihilo”.
Nowhere can we find the claim advanced that this Greek term, signifies “to create out of nothing”.
Our dictionary gives no such definition. If "framed" was, in this instance, taken out of a normal context and placed into a specific context to support creation out of nothing, the writer could have paused and clarified that in this instance the Greek for "framed" meant something different than the normal ussage of "to adjust, adapt, knit together, restore, or put in joint,".
But this he does not do, but rather he leaves the sense of the sentence to the sense that is common for his readers.
The next words requiring special attention are which are translated "the worlds." Such, however, is not their real meaning at all. The latter is compounded of two words the first signifying "always," and the other "being" The Greek terms used to express forever, forever and forever, everlasting, eternal and eternity, are all derived from this same source, and thus it is more likely that the writer, by metonomy, used "the eternities" for "the worlds."
This fact is very important, since the metonomy requires that which is signified by any certain term must bear some distinct relation or resemblance to that thing it signifies. If "the eternities" mean "the worlds,", then something about the latter must be eternal
Scriptures such as Heb. 11: 3, do not teach the creation of all things, “out of nothing” but rather it implies that God, by the power of faith, applied order and harmony upon pre-existing elements of the world; and that these visible creations were not made by material agencies which are seen (such as tools of men), but rather they are created by the power of an invisible faith which is not seen, or, does not appear.
Furthermore, in Rom. 9:20-23
Paul himself employs the “potter-vessel image” of Isa. 29:16, while 2 Pet. 3:5 reminds us that the earth "was formed out of water" (RSV)–the primeval chaos, or "deep" of Gen. 1:2 Such considerations coordinate New Testament writers with those of the Old when they referred to the creation. What this means for the present discussion is that
no one in authority had yet (as of that time) taught of a creation "out of nothing."
Thomas rogers (In Milton's De Doctrina Christiana), notes that the Great Milton, (who knew Hebrew and things Jewish), reasons that
neither the Hebrew, nor the Greek, nor yet the Latin verb for create can possibly signify "create out of nothing" (Christian Doctrine , 975-76).
I believe that the idea of “creation from nothing” is introduce piecemeal and gradually, mainly in the second century and the campaign for the doctrine to achieve pre-eminence over doctrine from matter achieves more popularity from that time onward. Again, you will notice the “tail-wagging-the Dog” in the changing Christian bias creating the orthodoxy, rather than the christians changing their bias in accordance with original teachings.
It is the Christian version of “the Boundary Shifters” that Moses complained of :
“the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray...for they had spoken rebellion against the commandments of God…" (Damascus document - Geninza A+B 4Q266)
The individuals “shifting” the doctrinal boundaries and laws were NOT, in the main, from outside of israel, but rather they were the religious from within Israel who believed differently from Moses.
This ancient pattern of doctrinal change and ultimate defiance is not new, even in Moses time. It is an ever-repeating pattern
and Moses knows this apostasy will happen even as he delivers the doctrines to Israel.
“ they will abandon me and choose to follow the idols of the gentiles…they will worship the false gods…they will violate every sacred assembly and covenant Sabbath the very ones I am commanding them today to observe.” (1Q22 - by the way, this DSS quote is a plus variant (a previously unknown addition to deut 4:25-28 which had been removed from the Bible)
I think the later shift from creation from matter to creation from “nothing” is simply the same pattern of “shifting boundaries” happening among the Christians, the same as it had already happened among the Jews.
I believe think that Sorabji and Winston were correct; in their opinions that the evolution toward the adoption of Ex Nihilo was used partly as a premise to avoid the taint of ”cosmism” (which the Gods in surrounding religions were subject to) (i.e. the idea that God worked with matter, processed it, adapted it, and used it as a workman, and artisan).
What marks the fourth century, as
Alfoldi puts it, is
"the victory of abstract ways of thinking-the universal triumph of theory, which knows no half measures. The Gnostic idea of the body as a prison is entirely at home with the doctors of the church. They love it because matter is vile."
This widespread belief may have been why Peter, upon meeting Clement for the first time, teaches Clement that Christianity maintains that "there is NO inherent evil in matter". Peter taught Clement this BEFORE teaching him of other important salvific truths.
I believe that the historians are correct regarding the great motive behind ex-nihilo was the neo-platonic philosophy that matter was too vulgar and too common for a “great” and “extraordinary” God to simply USE and MANIPULATE. Ex-nihilo elevated him to a God that NOW, can create something out of nothing, as though such an embellishment somehow made him greater than he was. Just as children brag “My dad can beat up your dad”, the christians wanted a reason to claim “My God is better than your God. Mine doesn’t need matter to create”. (Whereas the other Gods did need matter to create because
their traditions had them creating out of matter.
This eschewing of association of God and matter continues in our days. for example; The Great
Jesuit H.A. Brongers said that God “just thinks” and all is there at once.
He forgets that Genesis relates that “process” of creation took TIME”. If God could simply have “thought”, it need not have been a process. (
Working with matter required time). Brongers claims that the idea of God working matter, using something already there is horrifying
because that deprives God of all his divinity (Though no one ever explains just HOW that sort of logic works...). Brongers' explanation is that “
It involves him with the physical world”. So what? Whether ex-nihilo, or from matter,
God IS involved with the physical world that he made and placed us in.
2) ADOPTION OF EX-NIHILO AS AN IRRATIONAL DOCTRINE FORCES OTHER DOCTRINES TO SHIFT, AS WELL AS CAUSING DOCTRINAL DIFFICULTIES FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EXAMINING AN IRRATIONAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Regarding ex-nihilo, there can be no appeal for it upon purely rational grounds. Ex Nihilo would be debatable IF there existenced
a self-evident maxim that "all things were created out of nothing"; but no such proposition was ever defended as a self-evident truth. It owes its origin purely to religious influences rather than any scientific or geological influence. Any an attempt to support ex nihilo by appeal to the rationality of this principle amounts simply to a question of the rational faculties of mankind in forming rational judgments. Creation from nothing on a purely rational basis denies the correctness of intuitive convictions and demolishes all criteria for judging between the right and the wrong
Once the later Christianities embraced one error (such as ex-nihilo), they are forced to generate and embrace other errors in doctrinal support of ex-nihilo which is challenged due to it’s irrational nature. That religion must then create many other erroneous justifications as to why the Christian God defies natural law and why he defies scientific knowledge in so many ways (e.g. ex-nihilo doctrine defies the scientific doctrine that matter cannot be created or destroyed).
This places the counterfeit Christian doctrine into a position of opposition to a world of scientific knowledge,
when all the while the authentic religious truth about matter had always BEEN IN harmony WITH the laws of matter, and NOT in opposition to those laws.
Since such doctrinal changes ultimately cannot BE explained or even defended, the religionist who believes in them is left reflexively to retreat to the religious mental bunker of statements such as
“Mysterious are the ways of God” when their doctrines such as ex-nihilo are so incongruous with the real world.
Katzpur, do you see the strength of the doctrine of creation from matter and the enviable position it places you in?
VITWNU78HI
post two of three
