POST TWO OF THREE
Sacred textual literature describing creation often have God issuing commands for something to organize into visible and more organized creation. “Let there be X” and “Let there be Y”. If there is only “nothing”, then what is God talking to that can obey his command? Does one assume he is talking to himself? Such traditions logically assume there is something ("some thing") which obeys his command and there is no logical reason to assume “nothing” (no thing) is able to "follow a command".
For example, when God creates, he does it, in part, by commanding, “Let there be”, and something else obeys this instruction. Jewish Haggadah tell us : “ “When God commanded, “Let the waters be gathered together, unto one place, and let the dry land appear,” In this tradition, certain "things" were recalcitrant in their organization and “In his wrath at the waters, God determined to let the whole of creation resolve itself into Chaos again.” In this text, he is going to allow the material be return to its original state of Chaotic material. It is a state of Chaos, rather than “nothing” to which the material involved in creation would return to.
Even in the Apocalypse of Baruch when God “called that which did not exist”, he is referring to the matter which was not yet organized into a thing. The material for the intended “thing” existed, but the “thing” was not yet created, organized, or “made". The apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 21:4-5;
Thus, when, in the enochian literature God tell us : “And I commanded the lowest things.. “Let one of the unseen things descend visibly...”And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, “Let one of the unseen things come out visibly, solid’ 2nd Enoch 26, he is not talking to himself or “nothing” but he is assembling materials and commanding “things” to organize according to his plan. “And thus I made solid the heavenly Orbs...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth.”.. 2nd Enoch 28:1-2
CONSIDER YOUR OWN QUOTE OF JEWISH PHILO
Even your own quote by philo, does not refer to God creating material worlds out of “nothing” but refers to God’s material preparations.
For example, you quoted Philo as saying “But concerning the quantity of the essence, if indeed it really has any existence, we must also speak. God took care at the creation of the world that there should be an ample and most sufficient supply of matter, so exact that nothing might be wanting and nothing superfluous. Philo (20 BC – 50 AD)”, He is speaking of the quantity of material essence. Why would a God who creates from nothing, be interesting in “taking care” that there was “an ample and most sufficient supply of matter” for his creation? A God who creates out of nothing simply creates more and needs not to even check how much he has..
This theme of architectural organizing and consideration for material is the same theme spoken of in Jewish Dead Sea Scroll texts where it was said of God “You determined [planned] all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of [your holy ones], You holy expanse [and all] its hosts, together with the earth and all that springs from it, in the seas and the deeps [according to] all Your designs for the end of time and the eternal visitation. (1QH (1QHodayor) Col. 5:13-15, 24 Such themes of planning occur repeatedly in these texts. These Jews taught, “Before all things came to be, he has ordered all their designs,...” 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11
My printed Jewish talmud (stones) explains “A well planned building is based on a concept : the architect begins with an idea, and from it his plan emerges.” “God, too, created the world from a plan and for a purpose. His plan was the Torah, which preceded the world." (Shabbos 88b).
DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF SACRED TEXT ARE POSSIBLE – THEOLOGICAL BIAS AFFECTS INTERPRETATION
I have given you multiple examples where bibles themselves are changing to reflect interpretations and new texts reflecting the new data regarding creation. Thus, to some extent, even the translations that change and reflect new data is somewhat arbitrary in both text and interpretation.
Creation from “nothing” may be the way you personally interpret biblical text, but I’ve given you multiple examples of early Judeo-Christians who did NOT interpret their sacred texts nor describe their belief in a creation from “nothing” as you do. AND, these early Judeo-christians were clearly in a better position to tell us what such texts and doctrines actually meant to individuals in the age when sacred texts were being written.
Even your examples simply confirm this point of contextual arbitrariness on this doctrine.
Look at your example :
You, as a non-historian begin by telling us : “What the bible says (which by far is the more effectual matter).”
whereas early historians might tell us that : “What the biblical text means is by far the more effectual matter.”
The effectual matter is what the biblical text means in its earliest and most authentic context. More specifically, it is what its authors intended to say, and what it meant to it’s writers and readers when it was written.
POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS
