That is your opinion. Mine is that modern formulations of Aristotle’s prime mover by Thomists are solid. I deem it a metaphysical fact that can be proven through several different lines of argumentation.
Vinnie
That is infinitely dismissive without justification. And metaphysics says otherwise.
Vinnie
The concept of creation ex-nihilo was not explicitly mentioned in Judeo-Christian literature until the Second Book of Maccabees in 124 BCE. This concept is a later invention, developed during the Greek occupation of Judea; another Greek paganism adopted into Jewish thought, picked up a couple centuries later by the Church Fathers.
The original Hebrew Creation Story is not ex-nihilo. At a minimum, water existed when the Hebrew God started to create.
Possibly true but irrelevant to me. Genesis one is a creation myth and its goal is teaching theology via rearranging Mesopotamian furniture. It’s is neither a scientific proof or a formal philosophical statement of how God created. Its background knowledge generally assumes ancient cosmogony.
If true, also irrelevant. Many Christian subscribe to progressive revelation and think the Bible assumes the background knowledge of its day. I am one of them. You call it “later invention,” which is charged polemic. I call it later correction or later clarification or later revelation.
Possibly true. Many experts believe this but there are multiple ways to interpret and translate it, however. Also irrelevant to me.
Vinnie