I fully anticipate the next new thread being a re- visitation of whether angels occupy space (like molecules) or not (like magnetism)… so that I can plan my next purchase of pins:
Either with or without extra large pin heads…
I realize that some may think that this is a meaningless discussion, and so your point here (no pin point pun intended).
However, one of the biggest problem most scientists have with the idea of God is that He is viewed by most believers as supernatural and thus capable of breaking the law of the conservation of energy which to them is irrefutable (and forget the closed or open system argument). So this is the point I was trying to make, You don’t have to believe that God breaks this law to believe in Him.
Seems like a big deal to me anyway and a little more relevant than the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. If not, peace.
@heiresnt Neal, I think you are missing the definition of the most important word, “capable”. Capable, when related to creating ex nihilo is defined as “All Powerful/Almighty”.
Larry,
What is God capable of?
Going back to Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
This does not sound like “ex nihilo” to me. So God had something in the beginning from which to create the heavens and the earth. But what was it?
I suggest this is the quantum state of the universe - all quanta in a form of uncertainty and void until God chose the reality He want to create after seeing all past, present and future possibilities which are nearly endless.
God the master of the natural world which includes quantum physics said let there be light and chose the event out of a billion possibilities or more in which the universe expanded at just the right rate to form what we have today.
So this is what I meant that God does not need to create “ex nihilo”.
Whether he is capable of doing so I also dare to suggest perhaps He is not, but indeed God does not need to in order to be Almighty and All Powerful.
Perhaps someone can show me a biblical passage that says God creates from nothing, and if so I will stand corrected. I did a concordance once on this attribute and came up blank but I may have missed it.
Neal
Hi Neal!
I’m Richard. Was just reading your version of concordance of Genesis 1, which is interesting but not anything we haven’t seen before here.
I used to believe in the Day Age Theory and that we can concord G1 but no longer do. That’s because it’s impossible if we look at the descriptions of the text honestly. For one, one can’t use an, “observer” noticing things because that’s not what the text says, it says God did this and that. When there was a vision given God always mentioned it, like in Ezekiel 1. G1 is not open to having an observer observe things, that comes from bible eisegesis, interpreting something to make it say what we’d like it to say, and not proper bible exegesis.
The raqia is the sky, the text says that, not the atmosphere. The water above was like that below, blue in color and solid, not like in the clouds. The ancient Hebrews knew the difference and there are plenty of passages to show that.
The light in Day 1 is daylight, it says so. Then the sun came in on Day 4.
Those are the main ones and all I have time to mention. If you want I can link you to a 39-page paper I just finished on the impossibility of concording G1 (and really the rest of the bible).
Look forward to your response!
In looking, I came across Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
and
John 1:3
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
However, that is vague, and it seems there is no real definitive answer. Here is an article that gives a theologic argument:
Neal, you kind of skipped verse 1. There are only two options.
Either particles/energy have always existed or God has always existed. Which do you think?
@jpm may I ask what is vague about the statement made by those three verses considering the many others that speak to the same idea?
Yea, seems pretty well defined to me too, but some I think argue that it leaves room for pre-existing chaos or something of that order. I guess the Hebrews verse leaves room for dark matter. Anyway, Olsen’s article is pretty interesting in support of Creatio ex nihilo just on a theologic basis, so no argument here.
I could be wrong, but I remember someone a while back on another site saying that the biblical authors may have viewed the Sun and the sky as two separate lights. For example, the sky has light before the Sun rises, and the entire sky is bright and blue from horizon to horizon during the day.
Does anyone know if this is accurate, or have any support among biblical scholars?
Thanks Phil.
I. am. completely. weary. of. the. L. of. the. C. of. Energy.
And I suppose you are too.
I really don’t think such considerations have much to do with why “most” scientists do not see God participating in nature and/or creation.
I believe Consciousness is the ultimate defense of Theism - - but I’ve heard rumors that some folks don’t agree.
Silly people. 
Really good question. What came first, God or quanta. Who made quanta? Answer, quanta is part of what God is. I suggest that quanta is the glorified body of God and all indeed is therefore God. Only possible answer to this question that I can think of. We are made in God’s image and will have a glorified body along with our soul.
1 Like
Richard,
I too believe God meant the sky meaning what seemed to man then as a hard surface of blue over the earth, but today we know that what comprises the sky is our atmosphere and was therefore what God truly created.
Regarding the Day Age Theory, I actually suggest that indeed it was truly a 24 hour day, not a day age, even though to us it appears to be billions of years. That’s just not what happened. It was done at super speed, and time relativity explains how the Holy Spirit could do it that fast. Since there was no observer in our time sitting around for 14 billion years, that time frame did not exist.
Finally since I am suggesting that since in day one galaxies and planets were formed during the separation of light and day, that on what was then the earth there would have been day and night at the end of day one.
Phil,
Thanks for the link to this article suggesting the even though creation ex nihilo is not in the bible that he suggests that it is Christian doctrine.
He cites three reasons: The transcendence of God,the gratuity of grace, and the reality of evil and God’s non-involvement in and non-participation in evil.
Suggesting that the universe is all God’s mind and God stuff (quanta) doesn’t seem to me to be in conflict with these three points. Suggesting all in the universe is God certainly suggest His transcendence. Using God’s choice via principles of quantum physics demonstrates how God’s choice for us what indeed a gratuity of grade. Finally there is the reality of evil issue. God is sovereign, and allows evil to exist only for His purpose (Job example) to lead us to God and in the end he destroys it in the eternal pit of fire. I don’t see how the universe being all God stuff indicates how this would seem to say God is made up of evil? Evil exists in the minds of man and Satan and Satan’s angels, not in the God stuff which is good.
I guess one can always shout “heresy” when someone suggests God cannot create “ex nihilo” for the above reasons I guess i need to be burned me at the stake! But I suggest that Genesis says that in the beginning the earth was without form and void and the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters. So I might suggest saying that God created the heavens and the earth from nothing is heresy because it refutes the Word of God. (just kdding of course)
Neal
2 Likes
Yes the brain / mind problem. I actually am in total agreement with you on the point of consciousness, the moral law, and I might add, one’s personal relationship with God is the only real proof of his existence. All these scientific arguments can not prove God exists, and at best can only affirm that His existence is possible, and that His Word, even Genesis is God possibly breathed and possibly perfect. And at best these discussion may perhaps lead someone to take a leap of Faith and come to Jesus. When that happens then you come to know He exists and His Word is perfect.
1 Like
Hi Neal,
You can believe what you like, but we know that this is not what happened. All attempts to explain how the universe was created in 6 days completely fall apart and there are plenty of articles on this site that explain that in detail. [quote=“heiresnt, post:195, topic:36232”]
I too believe God meant the sky meaning what seemed to man then as a hard surface of blue over the earth, but today we know that what comprises the sky is our atmosphere and was therefore what God truly created
[/quote]
The problem with this is that the text is describing a structure, called in Hebrew the raqia, which is most likely solid per ancient Hebrew but it doesn’t matter, which is holding up water, like the water in the sea below, not an atmosphere. An atmosphere is not what the text is describing and the biblical audience for thousands of years didn’t know about an atmosphere, and for those reasons you have no exegetical right to claim that.
One of the reasons why concordance doesn’t work the concorder must make the claim that God allowed people to believe erroneous things about the physical creation for thousands of years until science came along and showed what the text really means.
Jon Garvey said something similar in the thread here called something like, “Everything You wanted to Know about the Raqia, etc.”. I think he may have had some links to that effect. I don’t buy it since the light in day one is called, “daylight”, then came night, the first day, then the, “governor” of the day is the sun in day 4.
Richard,
I guess we can agree to disagree on the time issue. But let me try one more time to offer you my reasoning here. If the Holy Spirit in performing the creation work of the Father zipped around the universe at 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the the speed of light, what was a 24 hour day to the Holy Spirit would appear to take billions when we view it looking back. The formula for calculating this is Einstein’s and indeed I found Microsoft Excel has a programming limit on the number of 9’s in the calculation so I may be off by a couple.
Regarding “raqia”, I will go along with the Bio Logos description which I quote here from this web site: “Genesis and modern science are neither enemies nor friends, but two different ways of describing the world according to the means available to the people living at these different times. To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary scientific is a big theological problem. It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand. In the ancient world, people held certain views about the world around them. Those views are also reflected in Genesis. If we keep this in mind, much of the conflict can subside.”
Neal
Hi Neal,
Well, that’s not what the scripture says, Neal. That’s your bible eisegesis, reading what you would like into the scripture for you’re not ready to concede that the bible sometimes uses stories that aren’t historical to teach us theological truths. To show that the days in Genesis 1 can’t be anything other than 24 hour times periods, consider the following 2 passages:
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all
that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord
blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 35:17
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days
the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested
and was refreshed.’”
The people at the time of the recording of these passages would have understood 6 days as a normal 6 days.
Maybe you don’t realize it, but you’re the one trying to impose modern science on an ancient text, not myself. For just as, “6 days” meant 6 24-hour periods to ancients (and moderns in normal usage), a structure holding up blue water was just that, not an atmosphere, which wasn’t known for thousands of years after the writing of the text.
I doubt that will convince you of anything but I’m always here to bounce your ideas off of. 