What I find most interesting is how much Dogma today is based solely from reactionary takes to reinforce an agenda as opposed to genuine discoveries through rational methodologies.
Because the religious are virtually always just in it for the morality 😇, not for anything else. We need to just start treating religions as any other moral ideologies like Veganism or Communism. Because that is what they de facto are.
That's the only way dogma can persist, if it's not based on something like falsification. If it were, it would either have been abandoned due to being falsified or still be in use as a scientific theory. Either way, not dogma
Agreed. I think the better option for them is to get out of the business of certain domains in metaphysics-the nature of nature/reality, origins of reality, etc In the past, religions used to be more concerned with ritual than beliefs, and I think that’s a major flaw in many current religions…that they flipped that on its head, more or less.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavanaidk any religious person that doesn't legitimately think there is a god waiting to punish them for whatever benign thing they want.
@@geneshifter I did I have no heartburn I don't think dan mcclellan is getting heartburn over this either. He's a latter day saint. But I'd agree that conservative christians and christian nationalists might get heartburn over this.
This is one of my favorite subjects with regard to theology and philosophy. In the latter years of my Christian faith, I looked into Genesis 1:1. Even now as an agnostic, I have expressed my disagreement with the concept of creatio ex nihilo. Let me explain. I first came to realize upon research that Gen. 1:1 would literally say, "In beginning", so the English translation supplemented the definite article, thus, "In [the] beginning". In the Septuagint of 1:1, as well as John 1:1, it reads, En archē. The Vulgate reads In principio. These also lack the definite article. One should expect the definite article, ho, in Gen. 1:1 (Septuagint) and John 1:1 if such was the case. You noted that Gen. 1:1 should, or at least that it has been translated, "When God began". For those unaware, this is within the context of Gen. 2:4b, "In the day", or "When [beyom] the Lord God", as well as the opening of Enuma Elish, "When in the height", or, "When on high". Another detail about Gen. 1:1 is that Rashi, the Medieval French rabbi, notes that if this verse was meant to refer to creation, it should have read, "At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה)". He makes mention of how darkness and water already existed as it precedes creation. This view seems to have been held by the author of 2 Peter, who wrote in 3:5, "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God." So there seems to be at least some verses from the Bible that teaches what we would call creatio ex materia. Of course, this conflicts with theological doctrine from most Christians, who hold to ex nihilo. It challenges God's exclusive aseity, and allows for the existence of something else besides God as creator. Ironically, the analogies Christians use, such as God being an architect, or potter, or painter is consistent with ex materia, rather than ex nihilo. At least with the former, God has his slab of marble, or his clay, or his paint and canvas. Ex nihilo expects us to believe that an architect, potter, or painter could create something without the use of anything. Of course, one can offer an alternative, and even combine ex nihilo with creatio ex deo, viz., creatio out of God. If one interprets ex nihilo to mean that God created, but didn't create from anything except out of himself, then that can be a compatible, sensible view. There are some flaws with this approach as well, but it seems to be more coherent. If God is a disembodied mind, then creatio itself is purely mental. This leads to ontological idealism. On the other hand, if creation is physical, then this says God is also physical. How you interpret what it means to be physical will determine on whether or not this conflicts with one's theological view of God's substance. Physicalism is the view that all existence is physical. It's broader than materialism, so it allows for physical existence to include immaterial things like gravity, photons, fields. Thus, God could still be immaterial, and even spaceless if anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence has any say on the matter. (Pun intended.) If that which is physical is simply that which is mathematically measurable, the God being physical doesn't seem like a problem. Either way, one would seem to be led toward a monistic view of reality. If you got this far, thank you for reading. I really appreciate the videos you put out. They're informative. I also appreciate that you present sources people can read for themselves if they're interested.
'En arkhe' without the article is standard Koine Greek. Latin has no articles to begin with. In any case, the Hebrew Bible teaches creation ex nihilo: Genesis 1:3 tells us quite clearly that light was created ex nihilo: "God said, 'Let light be, and light was,'" which entails, quite clearly, that it didn't exist before. Psalm 148:1-5 tells us that even the primordial 'waters' were created by God's command. Psalm 33:8-9 states that the earth too was created by God's speech in the same manner as light. And though Genesis 1 doesn't mention the darkness being created in the chapter, other passages do: Isaiah 45:7.
@@ConsideringPhlebas Different authors have different views. I don't subscribe to biblical inerrancy. Given that God is said to be light, I don't see any discrepancy. Also, it should be noted that light and darkness were separated, so it seems there was something present already.
@@metroidtheorist466 I’m not an expert in Hebrew or anything so I don’t know what concept the ancient hebrews had of darkness but as I understand it darkness not a thing in itself but the absence of light. So when God creates light then separates light from darkness I don’t think it makes sense for it to mean a literal physical separation between two physical things. I think it probably meant that he separated them temporally. Because it follows “he called the light day and the darkness he called night.”
@@metroidtheorist466 And yet Dan said that 'no syllable' of the Bible mentioned creation ex nihilo. I see at least that you don't take such a naive view. And the notion of 'dividing' (בָּדַל) need not entail physically separating two things that were originally stuck together or constituted as one. It can mean to 'distinguish' things, such as, e.g., clean and unclean animals: Leviticus 11:47. The text does not indicate that light and darkness were once one substance and in fact indicates the contrary as it says darkness already existed as a distinct phenomenon in Genesis 1:2 before light was created in Genesis 1:3.
Tbf I don’t remember WLC ever explicitly explain what the kalam implies. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”. He always only talks about CAUSE and that cause is god. Like saying a baker is necessary to make a cake. Never gets into specific whether the baker god created the world using existing ingredients or created the ingredients out of nothing. I bet the wording is ambiguous on purpose.
@@pansepot1490 in many of his videos he argues that infinity of matter is logically incoherent. If Dan is right and Bible teaches some matters always existed this implies matter was in some way eternal. Also WLC's argument about "nothing comes out of nothing" doesn't make sense if matter always existed. And with this way atheist has right to say something always existed as the bible teaches...
@@pansepot1490 WLC is a proponent of ex nihilo. He treats God as the agent cause, who didn't use a material cause. These causes are Aristotelian in context, with the two others being formal and final (telos) cause. Most focus only on the first two. Aristotle also held a different view of material cause. If you dive into these matters, it's best to read Categories and On Interpretation first, otherwise, you might get confused by the Aristotelian framework. So WLC does oppose creatio ex materia. I can't think of any time he's ever explained how God could create without any material. That much seems ambiguous. If he said God created out of his own power, that's also ambiguous. You're right that WLC doesn't say what the cause is as far as the KCA goes, but he does head toward God as the cause. That's where the disagreement can really come in between theists, atheists, and agnostics.
While WLC is inconsistent quite often I don't think this is an inconsistency either. "When God began to create" doesn't necessarily contradict "God is the First Cause".
Apologists always say the universe couldn't have been created out of nothing and I always reply, "what did "god" create it out of?" And I always get the same response... Crickets.. 😳
@@dubblwideThe point is, even if you employ a "prime mover" , I would still ask you about the mechanism and the resource used to create matter / energy.
When we say the universe cannot come into existence out of nothing we mean that if literally nothing exists including God then nothing could come into existence. That is the exact reason why we believe that there must be something which brought the universe into existence if it has a finite past.
@@robertlaprime6203 with all respect, according to whom? Who says something can't come from nothing? The fact is, no one knows how the universe began. No one knows. No one. The assertion that "something can't come from nothing" isn't anything more than arrogance and human perception. No one has proven that something can't come from nothing. Just the same, there is no evidence that a "god" or gods exists. Believers have created a "god" from nothing and therefore have created "something" where nothing exists. That particular "something" has no form and no evidence to support its existence in reality. Why would it be so hard to think that something could come from nothing? Humans do it in every moment.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Genesis describes "God" manipulating what already existed. If this is the case, then from whence came the 'stuff' that "God" used to form whatever it was He formed?
The thing that I find most interesting is the parable where the farmer, which I understand to be God, plants his seed and then his enemy comes and sows seed into his farm. Identification of the good VS bad crop is the main issue why the bad crop can't just be annihilated immediately. Then there is another place where Jesus said that "every tree that was not planted by the Father will be uprooted". Where did those 'trees' come from.?
The full quote was “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” He was talking about the Pharisees in the context of the chapter. So he was saying the Pharisees were going to be rooted out. They were created by God but obviously they became Pharisees by something apart from God. It’s not saying anything about anyone or thing being created by someone other than God.
Not everyone is a learned biblical scholar nor can some people become one. So, for a book that is too complex for the average human being to fully and healthily understand, what would make anyone believe it is the inerrant word of God? If God has a gospel message for us it would be simple, easy to understand, and based upon recognizable human needs. "Love thy neighbor, and here's how to do it," would be a good start. And add to that, "I am God, but don't be afraid."
God states plainly that he is the Creator of all that is in multiple verses throughout the Bible (not just a 'handful'). Men, in their unbelief, complicate it.
@@bigdogmurphy If it's simple and easy to understand, then why do no two Christians agree on the simple meaning of Genesis 1? Even my simple question stumps you, I don't think anything in the bible can be easy for you.
More than you think. A bunch of _Big Bang_ adherents base their understanding on the ~biblical~ _priestly_ concept of _ex nihilo._ It's a point of agreement between astrophysicists and Christians. Oops!
Dan. Can I call you Dan? Dan, lookin good. Nice shades, where’d you get them? Hi Dan huge fan. I love the way that you present the scholarly consensus in a easy to digest format. I think you are doing amazing work here on CZcams. Every bit of information you have provide that I have looked into is substantiated by the data. I myself am not a Christian I am however a scholar of Anthropology with a particular interest in religion and it’s origins in early human societies. Most of your content (I admit-ably haven’t seen it all) is refuting erroneous claims about the Bible and religion. You do such a great job striping away the dogma that it is difficult to see what is left that compels you to follow Christianity and specifically the Mormon faith. I would love to hear your testimony and reasons for your faith and be given a better picture of what exactly that looks like to you in a personal sense.
I think it’s cool to see the relationship between modern science and ancient understanding. Today we try to understand what was before the Big Bang. I’ve heard that there may have been something before the Big Bang, and the creation of time was the product of the Big Bang. In Genesis we find something before the beginning and then things materialize after the “beginning”. It’s hard to articulate my thoughts about it, but I feel like there’s a relationship between science and Genesis. (Not to say that Genesis is history, but rather the concept of God ordering the universe instead of creating it out of nothing)
Prove your claim. I just read the law of conservation of matter. It doesn't mention a closed system. So, where are you getting your information? That is all I am asking.
Just because form actualises matter does not mean that there exists a bundle of formless matter prior to being actualised. For the Aristotelian. causes do not have to be temporally prior to their effects, this is a modern understanding of causality.
Very interesting. I didn't know that the ancients thought of matter as "evil". I also liked how you talked about form and function. Creationists add to that: Form, function, and PURPOSE. There is no data or reasoning for adding "purpose". Adding purpose, intent or design as a presupposition is incorrect because purpose is an emergent, not a basic property. This leads people down the rabbit-hole of "top-down" thinking. And it is hard to get away from because human made artifacts are all around us. But if humans did not exist with the capacity to think of purpose, and thus design and make things, then none of these things would exist. So for everyday usage, "Humans ergo chairs" is not an extraordinary claim. It would be an incorrect claim if we found a chair made by an extra-terrestrial, but it would be a mistake in good faith if we did not know of chair-making aliens. So until one KNOWS of a mechanism or driver, or causer, at least as a candidate explanation, you just can't go: "X, ergo 'warp drive". You would need to know if a warp-drive capable species existed to use them as a candidate explanation. In other words, you have a causality violation. It is illogical to assert that something is, because it was made by a "maker". This is particularity true for life forms. People treated life forms like any other objects that had form and function. They assumed "purpose, intent, or design" without ANY warrant. Darwin and Wallace, from 1858, dropped the "purpose" assumption. The main innovation was to only look and form and function, a "bottom-up" approach. And of course, we know what they came up with. Natural selection. The emergence of form and function from variations over generations exposed to a variety of environmental conditions. Those forms that gave function in a number of environments were able to survive and reproduce better than other forms. It was "design" without mind, purpose or intent. Of course, their thesis was about biological evolution, not the origin of life. But in principle, can be applied to the origin of life, the basis of chemistry, and even the basis of physics. So organisms that evolve via natural selection, can have emergent properties. Things like causing structures like human made -cities, or bee hives, or a beaver's dam. The rise of cognition made deliberate design and creation possible. Organisms survive by sensing and "processing" their environment. Plants usually need to do this less, because all they need is sun, soil and water. [Although there are Venus fly traps and the like]. Animals have to graze, forage, hunt, etc, which means senses and and ability to process those inputs to find water, food, shelter, etc, etc.
I realize that Dan only interacts with high school kids and pop-apologetics personalities, but I'm doing a series on this topic that addresses these sorts of arguments, if anyone's interested.
Dr. McClellan engages on public social media with the public at large, yes, including TikTokers, but is also a host on his podcast, Data Over Dogma, which offers his professional scholarly information in dialog with a layperson and often brings on fellow academics and professionals for special topic discussion. Additionally, he still engages in his own academic work and is writing papers (many of which are open access and/or free on his website) and books that offer the ongoing efforts of himself and his peers. But it's cool you're doing a series on, what, the theological position of _creatio ex nihilo_ or related things?
@@fernlovebond I don't find what he does intellectually respectable. It's more just a way for him to score easy points and get more views. If I wanted to, I could go around attacking the beliefs of young Mormon apologists and make them look pretty silly too. But I don't do that because that would be a cheap and lazy tactic. Dan is a trained academic so he should be interacting with other trained academics and the arguments that they are offering, not the arguments of teenagers and other untrained apologists on Tiktoc. It undoubtedly feeds his ego and earns him kuddos from his followers when he forcefully shuts down little high schoolers on social media platforms, but it doesn't actually prove anything because he's not interacting with the best presentation of whatever issue is being discussed. He often claims to represent scholars. But I'm as much of a scholar as he is and I usually disagree with him. He doesn't interact with people like me, though, because that would complicate his arguments and would detract from his claims about representing the "scholarly consensus". Yes, I'm aware of his Data over Dogma show where he features various academics. But these are hand-selected. I've never seen him bring on an academic who disagrees with him about whatever topic is being discussed. My video series deals with the question of whether creation ex nihilo is, in fact, a post-biblical notion. See the playlist "Creation ex nihilo" on my channel.
Thanks but I'm having trouble getting my mind around the concept of being/non-being and creation as the imposition of form. Could you give an example or two from other sources please? Cheers.
I know it's not your specialty, but it would be really nice if you could also connect these things with Islam and the Quran. Does the doctrine exist in the Quran? If not, how/when did Islam adopt it?
We can find these types of debates in schoolyard all the time. My dad was a student of Bruce Lee, ok. Well, my dad was the teacher of Bruce Lee, Sure but my Dad was Bruce Lee so he can beat all of your dads.
Question: a few of your videos you reference books outside of the Bible; like how you did in this one with the book of macabee’s. I plan on reading these books due to the religious significance of them based on the time of the writing of the books. But when talking about the Christian faith, why do you reference them? If this idea was created after the Bible existed, why mention books that are not in the Bible?
@@baneofbanes if my question is already bringing in people from the woodworks that are leaving stupid replies, I think I should just delete my question.
@@baneofbanes he literally listed a book that’s part of the Deuterocanonical Books aka the Apocrypha. They are not considered part of the Old Testament by Jews or Christians, they are considered good for historical studies, but not for matters of faithful practice
@@yourturningpoint777 the man making these videos is gnostic. He’s not a Christian, he’s creating his own religious narrative that he can find compatible with the world. If we are saved by faith through grace, then he has neither faith nor GOD’s grace. Pray for him, but don’t pray with him. GOD Bless! ❤️
Pay more attention to those passages you’re speaking of, the word of GOD’s mouth is the source of the creation itself, and the Hebrew is intentionally not listing a pre-created source for the Heaven and the Earth because GOD spoke them into existence by the word of his mouth. Psalm 33 and Job 38 will also clarify this for you
@@narrowistheway77 It sounds like you’re arguing the Bible _does_ teach creation _ex nihilo,_ in which case I agree! Even if Genesis 1 starts _in medias res,_ the rest of Scripture teaches God created all matter, including primordial matter. He created all things visible and invisible, period, the end-or rather the beginning :D.
@@matOpera I misunderstood your original comment, i think I read it too fast and it’s in a sea of people writing utter rubbish haha. I just re-read it, my fault, we do agree. GOD Bless! ❤️
Weirdly enough, this only makes sense when paired with the scientific knowledge we have today. Why wouldn't the writer of a fiction really mean 'nothing'? Wouldn't have nothing to prove or to be tested with.
No, it's more the idea that you see in many mytholigies of a god giving form to the primordial chaos or some similar thing. The text says nothing about the origins of G-d.
@@thomaswillard6267 The beginning of the act of God creating. Which is not necessarily the beginning of God. Just as if I say "at the beginning of my workday" that doesn't necessarily mean the beginning of my existence. While Dan doesn't get into it here, iirc there were some scholars who believed that the "creation from something" was the correct interpretation of Genesis but that there was an earlier "creation from nothing" that took place before the Bible in which God created the matter that would later be used to create the universe.
It’s pretty mind boggling trying to think how things came to be. I’m totally behind material cannot come from immaterial, but it still has me wondering how matter even came to be or how it’s able to exist. Or even what came before the Big Bang. It’s a real chicken vs egg conundrum!
"what came before the Big Bang" The real mindfuck is that this is probably an irrational concept. "Before" has no meaning when spacetime as we understand it seemingly didn't always work the way we understand it to today.
@@rainbowkrampus Correct. According to most cosmologists, "Before the Big Bang" is like "North of the North Pole". Time is a dimension just like the three spatial dimensions. Time and space emerged from the singularity simultaneously.
@@AppealToTheStonedthat's wild to think about, because if one were traveling due north, when they crossed over the pole, they would now be heading south, but on the other side of the globe. Now, of course, we can't draw a conclusion by analogy, but just thinking in those terms, is it possible that to travel back in time until we get to the beginning of time would start to look like moving forward in time through "the other side" of our universe? And what would that even mean, if so, I wonder 🤔
@@AppealToTheStonedthat's wild to think about, because if one were traveling due north, when they crossed over the pole, they would now be heading south, but on the other side of the globe. Now, of course, we can't draw a conclusion by analogy, but just thinking in those terms, is it possible that to travel back in time until we get to the beginning of time would start to look like moving forward in time through "the other side" of our universe? And what would that even mean, if so, I wonder 🤔
Agreed, Genesis is primarily about God terraforming a pre-existing earth in order to make it suitable for human habitation. John 1:1-3 is the actual beginning. There is a beginning of something. "2 The same was in the beginning with God." A beginning of what though? The beginning of all things that required making in order to exist. "3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Is it still the consensus of science that physical matter has not always existed?
@@narrowistheway77 Dan's argument is that creation out of nothing is not in the Bible. John 1:1-3 clearly state that there are things that God made (created). Therefore the only logical conclusion is that these things did not exist before they were made (created). Therefore the Bible does in fact show that creation out of nothing is in the Bible. And for sure, God created the entire physical universe including the earth. The question is when? It's by no means clear that the terraforming of a void planet in order for it to be fit for human habitation occures in conjunction with the original creation of the physical universe. For example, how come there was "darkness upon the face of the deep"? Where does this darkness come from, what is the cause of the darkness? The sun already exists, why then the darkness? The Bible allows for a universe of any age, not just one of 6,000 years old.
@@narrowistheway77 {Genesis 1:1-3 is idiomatic ....} "Anything idiomatic relates to expressions that cannot be understood according to their literal meaning, like "it's raining cats and dogs" or "bite the bullet." An idiom is a turn of phrase, like saying a restaurant has gone to the dogs, which has nothing to do with dogs but means the restaurant has seen better days." So, if you are going to claim Genesis 1 verses 1,2&3 are idiomatic, you are going to have to explain what each verse really literally means. {it’s well understood that verse 3 is actually the starting action ....} By who? Proof? If the {light of God} is {God himself} it seems God divided himself into physical night & day? Please comment. Have no idea what prompted you to write everything beginning with the words {For instance, have you ever heard of the Egyptian dark ages etc. etc. etc. ....} to the end. I said the earth was made ready for mankind 6,000 years ago, therefore Adam was created 6,000 years ago, do you disagree?
What's your take on the idea that the original Hebrew version of Genesis refers to a pantheon of gods that created the earth, of which Yahweh was only one, who created Eden, Adam and Eve?
I prefer the idea that Evil is a separate force from God. If God is a representation of Good, even figuratively, I can easier grasp the idea that good can triumph over evil, bring order from chaos, rather than that all that is came from "God".
If good here means order, then the god is losing, badly. By all observations the universe tends towards disorder. That is, entropy. The final state of the universe is likely to be one in which all energy states are equal everywhere. Though if we go with what we observe and call the organized stuff "god" then that god is still "evil" in that we're still just talking about all the same stuff but in different energy states. Probably best to just not anthropomorphize natural phenomena. Tends to make for poor analogies.
@@rainbowkrampusYou literally undid yourself before the halfway mark of your comment. Entropy is the exact opposite of chaos and disorder Also, the second half of your comment is philosophical gibberish that would make Socrates take a second sip.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana having read the Bible, I would often agree. There are some different takes, though. Some authors view God one way and later the view of God in the Bible changes. I don't gather my view on God only from the Bible, though. Also, at this point in my life I'm really an Agnostic. I study spirituality becuase I would like to believe in some of higher power, but currently I don't know.
This notion of yours is representative of a failed thought experiment where you didn’t go the whole distance with the rationale. The reality is that GOD is good, GOD is love, and GOD is also full of wrath for sin because of his nature as perfect. GOD had a choice of three things, to create nothing at all, to create a universe of automatons with no free will, or lastly to create a universe where free will existed which itself created an inevitability that would lead to sinful disobedience against its own creator. You can’t have the free will of a creation where that same creation won’t eventually experiment with disobedience because without experiencing disobedience that creation will never understand the consequences of disobedience. Without the consequences of disobedience that creation can never choose to seek forgiveness and turn its heart back to its creator or choose the disobedience altogether. GOD wants a family and he wants his creation’s love for him to be authentic. GOD couldn’t have authentic love by creating nothing, and GOD couldn’t have authentic love if he’d created automatons. That makes the only viable option the option that included a free will for his creation and with that free will came the inevitability of sinful disobedience against him. It makes you realize how much he really did love us when he had a plan all along to send his own Son to die and pay our sins on the cross with the worst death imaginable. He did that for us freely to make us right with his perfection. Without the blood of the innocent sacrifice there can be no forgiveness for sin, and Jesus alone was without sin. We have filthy rags and Christ makes them white as snow with his blood
Creation of something from nothing is, at least, mathematically provable. Subtract one and add one to a zero, you now have something from nothing. A beginning and end of zero with something in between.
That’s the opening of the Book of John, which is the Fourth book of the New Testament, and then it goes on to say “and the Word was GOD”. GOD’s own name יהוה means “He Was, He Is, He Will Be”. GOD is uncreated, all other things are created by him, exactly as John 1:1-5 says
Ebrah k'dabri is Jewish mysticism or "magic". To undo this process the spoken phrase is uttered in reverse along with ecstatic experience. Effectually becoming I kill with a word..... emet.
People act like they've forgotten how to lie until it's time to bust a grape. They really should be more careful about which lines they cut. Especially when the one they're in is forsaken.
This is incorrect. ““I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. 23 Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws…I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.” -2 Maccabees 7:22-23, 28
You do realize that statement is immediately after GOD created the Earth right? He starts making the Earth take the form we know it as in the following passages when he separates the water from the land, creates the plant life, and then makes all the animals and mankind. You’re committing Eisegesis on the text to conform it to your own rationale rather than reading what’s actually written and being Exegetical. This only makes you right in your own mind, but not in reality to what is written
@@narrowistheway77 No it is not! Verse 1 is a dependent clause followed by disjunctive clause. When God began to create... Verse 2 explains what was when verse 1 took place. The first creative act always begins with a spoken word starting in verse 3. God brought form/function and filled the primitive chaotic state of verse 2 with his creative acts - starting in verse 3 - "And God said: Let there be light..." A little Hebrew can help!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 interesting notion, and yet what you failed to understand was that in Genesis 1:1-3 its actually Verse 3 that’s considered the start of the passage with verse 1 and 2 as the follow up, and if you actually knew Hebrew, you’d know that. Even the Talmud says the same thing. Furthermore I’ll take your inaccurate portrayal of Genesis 1 and point out that it does not match the clear teaching of Psalm 33 or Job 38 whatsoever. In other words, you’re wrong
Interesting that their concept of " matter " existing as either " formed " or " chaotic " sounds vaguley like the modern; " matter " and " energy " are the same thing ( E =MC2 ) Not significant, just interesting
It's closer to the concept of entropy. But yeah, those Greeks were pretty clever considering that they were mostly just working backwards from observations one can make with the eye.
@@rainbowkrampus Hmmm, thinking a key point would be whether they had the concept of matter moving back and forth between the two states, alternating states, or if it was just a decaying process and if so then yes, entropy
It's a bit like abstract art. My 4 year old can splash paint on a canvas, but she can't express with that what a famous artist with all his life experience expresses with it.
@@danjohnston9037 Ultimately it's just an analogy. They really had no idea what they were talking about. Educated guesses at best. Not to come across as dismissive though. For the constraints of the time, they were some very good guesses.
Creation from nothing is a Jewish tradition that long predates the completion of scripture. This same belief can be found in a myriad of non-Jewish religious traditions from the Middle East as well….. so in other words, you’re mistaking your opinion on this matter for the facts. Creationism is a belief as old as the historical record itself
Well no, the Jewish Study Bible uses the translation "When God began to create the heavens and earth, the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep, and a wind from God sweeping over the water." God is a potter at his wheel, not I Dream of Jeannie.
@@VulcanLogic and yet if you know how to read Hebrew like I do you’d know that the third verse is the actual beginning of the thought, and it all started with the light of GOD being shown on a brand new creation. Only after which the heaven and earth were formed. The earth was void because it had nothing on it yet, the separation of land and water and creation of plant life and creatures comes in the following days. So you have failed in your attempt to debunk the extremely clear teaching of the Hebrew that from nothing came everything by the power of GOD. Stop using Vulcan logic, it’ll get you nowhere but a gnostic inversion of the truth. I’ll pray for you! GOD Bless! ❤️
@@VulcanLogic 6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. -Psalm 33:6-9 ^Where nothing once was, the Heaven and the Heavenly hosts(angels) were created. The Bible never disagrees with itself when it’s read in its actual context
@@VulcanLogic 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? -Job 38:4-11 ^where nothing except Heaven once was, the Earth was created. GOD made the Heaven, and then GOD made the Earth, just as Genesis 1 says
@@VulcanLogic 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? -Job 38:4-11 ^Heaven was created first along with the Heavenly Hosts, then the Earth was created from nothing, and the angels rejoiced
I'm still not understanding the distinction between creation of nothing and creation out of not being, that just seems like a rhetorical differentiation that doesn't have any material substance so to speak
It's a bit like entropy. "Being" here means organization. "Non-being" means disorganization. They weren't working with a concept of absolute nothing. Cosmologies of the period tended to imagine a primordial state of chaos. The existence of chaos implies the existence of some substance regardless of how vaguely defined it is. Chaotic waters was the common notion from Mesopotamia over to the Levant. Thus the whole flat Earth and crystal dome we find in Genesis, separating the world from the chaotic waters that surrounded it. Genesis outlines Bible god taking that chaos and organizing it into all of the stuff that we know. So, stuff becoming other stuff. There's never any "nothing".
The idea of "matter cannot be created nor destroyed holds up. God didn't create the matter. Instead he organized matter and created the earth and man. Just one example.
Maybe they just didn't quite understand what was "divinely inspired" to them and this is what they came up with?😬 BTW, I don't think anyone believes that the authors of the bible were goat herders or illiterate. Though they didn't have the benefit of an extra 2000 years of scientific development.
@@oscargr_ "I don't think anyone believes that the authors of the Bible were goat herders or illiterate" Where have you been?!?! That's the number one response to anything the Bible says
@@sbaker8971 Yes, they thought the Earth was flat and covered by a solid dome. They weren't scientifically literate. When will people grow up and realise the Bible is not the "word of God"? --------------------------------------------------------- *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
Earth is Yahweh’s Everlasting Lake of Fire, his furnace of roaring flames where, in his furious wrath, he will gather you up, put you in, and smelt you. If your name is not in the book of life, he will refine you, remove your dross, and purify you until the Devil, the False Prophet, and the Beast are cleansed from you.
@@funkatron101 The Father is great than I. Adam, the Christ, wields the fiery sword and judges the world. Yahweh judged the heavens themselves. Adam had a university of trees to learn from. Further, Adam was not deceived before being sent out from the kingdom prepared at the foundation of the world, the heavenly home, or Garden of Eden. Jesus is lifted up like the Serpent (Yahweh) in the desert after he judges the world. On the day of the great slaughter. On the day he binds up the wounds left from his blows. Jesus judged the world and was made to be sin as the Lawless One, the Beast, Leviathan etc. Yahweh judged the heavens themselves and was made to be the snake, the Ancient Serpent of Old, and they are transfigured and revealed to be the Ancient One of Days with Christ washing his feet. To 'strike at' the head or heel means to watch over, guard, or protect. Snake means Shining One, Glistening One - Morning Star, or the light of the world. While there is enmity between the two, the plan is one of salvation. I.e. Jacob strikes at the heel of Esau, who protects, guards, watches over, or otherwise serves Jacob. During this period, Adam is the word of the will of Yahweh, the lamp of the light of Yahweh, and the image of the substance of Yahweh. There are two appearances, the sacrifice and the resurrection. They take place within the same generation, at the end of the ages, the time of the harvest. They are the First Beast and the Second Beast. Christ (Adam) wields the fiery sword on the day of vengeance as judgment. Are they, Christ and Yahweh, unjust to inflict wrath? Of course not. How else could they judge? Warning of the impending Day of the Lord, he was swallowed by the Beast out of the Sea (sacrifice) and spewed out upon the shore as the Beast out of the Earth (resurrection), as the sun beat down upon his head and a burning east wind began the Way of the Lord in the Desert. Yahweh and Christ/ Satan and Adam/ Jacob and Esau/ Behemoth and Leviathan/ David and the Son of David/ Peter and Jesus... are the same two individuals. David, your king, rides the Donkey and the Bride of David rides the foal of the Donkey. In the beginning, darkness covered the kingdom of the Abyss, the people were empty and void of understanding, having become corrupted, and he shielded you as the apple of his eye. All are sinners cast down to earth with the God of this world. The ruler of this world has been condemned. Now is the time of judgment on this world; now will the ruler of this world be driven out to inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Jesus' domain is forever peaceful. Jesus ascends beyond the heavens. A kingdom was prepared at the foundation of the world. One that is forever peaceful. The Ancient One of Days takes a seat upon a throne on the Mount of Assembly. Christ is the Root and Offspring of Yahweh (David). God is Spirit (Joh 4:24 NABO)
@@funkatron101When Noah treads the winepress of wrath, sharpens the flashing sword, exhausts all his arrows, and makes them drunk on blood. I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth (Gen 6:13 NABO) The vision of the evenings and the mornings is true, as spoken (Dan 8:26 NABO) Your covenant with death shall be canceled and your pact with the nether world (Abyss) shall not stand. When the overwhelming scourge passes, you shall be trampled down by it. Whenever it passes, it shall take you; morning after morning it shall pass, By day and by night; terror alone shall convey the message. To carry out his work, his singular work, to perform his deed, his strange deed. (Isa 28:18-21 NABO) In the morning you will say, 'Would that it were evening!' and in the evening you will say, 'Would that it were morning!' for the dread that your heart must feel and the sight that your eyes must see. (Deu 28:67 NABO) There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished! "I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing! (Luk 12:49-50 NABO) (it is better to marry than to be on fire (1Co 7:9 NABO) Be fruitful, and multiply (Gen 1:28 KJV) "For by my wrath a fire is enkindled that shall rage to the depths of the nether world (Abyss), Consuming the earth with its yield, and licking with flames the roots of the mountains. (Deu 32:22 NABO) Down I went to the roots of the mountains; the bars of the nether world (Abyss) were closing behind me forever (Jon 2:7 NABO) Do not say… 'Who will go down into the Abyss (nether world)?' (…to bring Christ up from the dead) (Rom 10:7 NABO) We saw his star (of Bethlehem) at its rising (Mat 2:2 NABO) Up from the Abyss (Rev 17:8 NABO) The star was called "Wormwood” (Rev 8:11 NABO) It was given the key for the passage to the Abyss. (Rev 9:1 NABO) I hold the keys to death and the netherworld (Abyss). (Rev 1:18 NABO) Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. (Rev 6:8 NABO) Warning of the impending Day of the Lord, he was swallowed by the Beast out of the Sea (sacrifice) and spewed out upon the shore as the Beast out of the Earth (resurrection), as the sun beat down upon his head and a burning east wind began the Way of the Lord in the Desert. the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty (Rev 1:8 NABO) The beast that you saw existed once but now exists no longer. It will come up from the Abyss and is headed for destruction. (Rev 17:8 NABO) -------------------------- Just as it is appointed that human beings die - be judged - appear a second time, so also Christ …will return Heb 9:27-28 …as the (Red) Dragon (Demon Sin) stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. (Rev 12:4 NABO) And they counted out my wages, thirty pieces of silver (Zec 11:12 NABO) This time take the gear of a foolish shepherd. (Zec 11:15 NABO) For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1Co 1:25 NABO) for power is made perfect in weakness. (2Co 12:9 NABO) and when he was made perfect, he became the eternal source of salvation for all (Heb 5:9 NABO) But I am a worm, hardly human, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. (Psa 22:7 NABO)
I would like to apologize to every human who has lived and is living, but I don't get it. There is something wrong with all of you. 🤣 Human thinking. Human writing. Human talking. Whatever. This universe. A possibility it was created. A creator. Our understanding of the universe so far. The initial expansion of the universe. Quantum. Neutrinos. Space. Time. Matter. etc. Possibilities? Hypothesis? Supposition? Let's give it a shot.... 1. A creator who is a product of this universe. 2. A creator who created this universe. (A) A creator who created this universe and is a product of another universe(s). (B) A creator who created this universe and all other possible universes. Let's go with 2(B)... Before "the beginning" there was the creator. There was something other than universe(s). For humans to insist the other had to be beholding to anything to do with universal properties is absurd. To insist there was nothing is absurd. The entire line of reasoning behind argument regarding creation of this universe having to adhere to the properties of this universe is absurd. Unless one is going to insist the creator is a product of this universe. These idiotic arguments that have been generated for thousands of years are dependent on a creator who is a product of this universe. Possibilities, hypothesis and supposition do not have to be based on nonsense. In fact, the ones based on nonsense should be the last ones taken up for examination. How did something come from nothing? Nonsense. Intelligent design? Nonsense. Physically? This universe could be a result of an interaction between other universes or somewhere in the neighborhood of at least a million other possibilities. In the case of a million possibilities, not one of them would hinder the creator hypothesis....unless the creator is a product of a certain set of parameters defined by certain physical laws. The human narrative on this subject is nonsense and it's very, very, very easy to correct that problem. A creator could have created this and a trillion other universes, each with its own physical properties than cannot be recognized from the other universes. There could be something other than all this universal realm which makes the entire universal realm less than the size of a neutrino compared to what exists outside of it. Sorry, I'm just a human doing some thinking.
The only people who assert that the universe came from nothing are people who have never spent a single second studying modern cosmology i.e. people who have no idea what they're talking about and who aren't interested in science so much as they're interested in setting up a straw man that they can knock down. This is typically theists.
More fables from Dr. Dan. Genesis 1:3 tells us quite clearly that light was created ex nihilo: "God said, 'Let light be, and light was,'" which entails it didn't exist before. Psalm 148:1-5 tells us that even the primordial 'waters' were created by God's command. Psalm 33:8-9 states that the earth too was created by God's speech in the same manner as light. And though Genesis 1 doesn't mention the darkness being created in the chapter, other passages do: Isaiah 45:7.
@@dburns9080 Or present the data and let the scripture stand or fail on its own merits. If you are taking it as a personal attack, then perhaps you need to step back and re-evaluate your faith.
@@funkatron101 When the “data” is influenced by your biases, and doesn’t actually agree with what the Bible says, it can be rejected as nonsense. To say that God worked with matter that already existed is to say that God doesn’t precede all things, which is foolishness. It has nothing to do with a personal attack, it’s an attack on Christianity as a whole. It’s Gnosticism, and it’s hot garbage.
@@dburns9080 Which God, Yahweh? If so, we know very little about this god, aside from the fact that he was one of 70 Nation Gods. A "Child" of El, which implies a beginning for this God.
Nope, literally the opposite. The Big Bang, the closest thing to an atheist creation, is that all matter was contained within a single finite point of 'everything' that then split and has since been spacing out towards entropy. Everything out of Everything
Beginning to create something is the start of creating something, so God created the heavens and the earth. This video doesn't even make sense. Someone make it make sense.
@@willernst2721 the genesis creation and the torah. Angels existed and were not created in Genesis. The Book of Job says Angels celebrated when God created the earth. Thats where the "we" or "us" in Genesis comes from. The Angels were present
In order for there to be an honest discussion of evolution, we must assume there was a time when absolutely nothing existed. If we start by assuming that, in the beginning, something existed, then we need to explain how that something came to be. Otherwise, we have not explained anything. Who, or what, created that something? That assumes a creator who created some-thing. And whoever or whatever created that something must be, at least, some kind of god. And that god, whatever he may be, must be eternal, or else, we are still faced with the question of where did he come from? Who or what created him? So the fantasy of evolution falls apart before we can ever state the premise. What was it that evolved to form that first particle of something that is the origin of everything that exists-and how did that original something come to be? The humble, Bible-believing child of God believes in an almighty, eternal God who created all things by the Word of his power. I am not sure that anybody who believes in the creative power of nothing is the sharpest knife in the box - regardless of how many initials he has after his name.
Evolution theory deals with the changes in allele frequencies in population groups over long periods of time. It has nothing to do with how anything formed originally - not life, not Earth, not the universe. It doesn't need to explain those things. They are not part of the theory. Now as for "God did it" as an explanation... It isn't. "God did it" does not have any explanatory power. You might as well just say "Magic happened" and call that an explanation. "That assumes a creator who created some-thing. And whoever or whatever created that something must be, at least, some kind of god" Is that what a "God" is? A thing that makes stuff from nothing? The finger that tips the first domino? Let's define the word "God" before we start plugging it in as a scientific explanation. We agree that SOMETHING must have just existed since the beginning of time. I suggest that thing is the universe, which we have evidence for, and can even explain how time began. Your suggestion is an invisible agent which has not been shown to exist, let alone to be able or willing to do what you ascribe to it. The principle of parsimony tells us that the explanation which requires the least presumptions is more likely to be true. Your explanation is ALL presumptions, no evidence.
I understand your statement, but I must respectfully disagree. The concept of creation out of nothing, also known as creatio ex nihilo, is indeed rooted in biblical teachings. In the book of Hebrews, it is written, "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible" (Hebrews 11:3, ESV). This verse suggests that God created the universe from nothing, rather than from pre-existing matter. Additionally, in the book of 2 Maccabees, it is stated, "I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise" (2 Maccabees 7:28, KJV). Although 2 Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha, which is not considered canonical by all Christian traditions, it still reflects the Jewish understanding of creation in the Second Temple period. The Arminian Confession of 1621 also affirms the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, stating, "The creation of the world is the initial and most powerful production of all things made from nothing..." (CHAPTER 5: ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, ANGELS, AND MAN). While it is true that the explicit phrase "creation out of nothing" is not found in the Bible, the concept is implicit in various passages that describe God's creative power and the origin of the universe. In conclusion, I believe that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is rooted in biblical teachings and has been affirmed by various Christian traditions throughout history.
The first notion of Genesis 1 is “In beginning created god the heavens and the Earth” You added a whole bunch of words that are not there, it’s not a conservative translation.
The first word of the bible in Hebrew is 'b'reishit' - it is best translated as "in the beginning of", not 'in the beginning' as it was translated by those who already wanted to impose the dogma of creation ex nihilo. My translation is from the "Eitz Chiyim" Torah, a Jewish publication, and it starts, "When god began to create the heaven and the earth". This is basically the same way that Dan translated it.
What I find most interesting is how much Dogma today is based solely from reactionary takes to reinforce an agenda as opposed to genuine discoveries through rational methodologies.
Because the religious are virtually always just in it for the morality 😇, not for anything else.
We need to just start treating religions as any other moral ideologies like Veganism or Communism. Because that is what they de facto are.
Careful study of the actual messages of the Bible tend to lead people away from religion, necessitating a lot of cherry picking and hand waving.
That's the only way dogma can persist, if it's not based on something like falsification. If it were, it would either have been abandoned due to being falsified or still be in use as a scientific theory. Either way, not dogma
Agreed.
I think the better option for them is to get out of the business of certain domains in metaphysics-the nature of nature/reality, origins of reality, etc
In the past, religions used to be more concerned with ritual than beliefs, and I think that’s a major flaw in many current religions…that they flipped that on its head, more or less.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavanaidk any religious person that doesn't legitimately think there is a god waiting to punish them for whatever benign thing they want.
Thank you. I can see why matter existing eternally, alongside God, would cause heartburn for many Christians.
Why?
@@langreeves6419 watch the video and read the sources.
@@geneshifter I did
I have no heartburn
I don't think dan mcclellan is getting heartburn over this either. He's a latter day saint.
But I'd agree that conservative christians and christian nationalists might get heartburn over this.
@ Lange: "many christians" doesn't mean "all christians".
@@langreeves6419 Because then sweet, precious morality 😇 is put down a peg from ground of all being. 😭😭😭😭😭😭
🙄
This is one of my favorite subjects with regard to theology and philosophy. In the latter years of my Christian faith, I looked into Genesis 1:1. Even now as an agnostic, I have expressed my disagreement with the concept of creatio ex nihilo. Let me explain.
I first came to realize upon research that Gen. 1:1 would literally say, "In beginning", so the English translation supplemented the definite article, thus, "In [the] beginning".
In the Septuagint of 1:1, as well as John 1:1, it reads, En archē. The Vulgate reads In principio. These also lack the definite article. One should expect the definite article, ho, in Gen. 1:1 (Septuagint) and John 1:1 if such was the case.
You noted that Gen. 1:1 should, or at least that it has been translated, "When God began". For those unaware, this is within the context of Gen. 2:4b, "In the day", or "When [beyom] the Lord God", as well as the opening of Enuma Elish, "When in the height", or, "When on high".
Another detail about Gen. 1:1 is that Rashi, the Medieval French rabbi, notes that if this verse was meant to refer to creation, it should have read, "At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה)". He makes mention of how darkness and water already existed as it precedes creation.
This view seems to have been held by the author of 2 Peter, who wrote in 3:5, "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God."
So there seems to be at least some verses from the Bible that teaches what we would call creatio ex materia. Of course, this conflicts with theological doctrine from most Christians, who hold to ex nihilo. It challenges God's exclusive aseity, and allows for the existence of something else besides God as creator.
Ironically, the analogies Christians use, such as God being an architect, or potter, or painter is consistent with ex materia, rather than ex nihilo. At least with the former, God has his slab of marble, or his clay, or his paint and canvas. Ex nihilo expects us to believe that an architect, potter, or painter could create something without the use of anything.
Of course, one can offer an alternative, and even combine ex nihilo with creatio ex deo, viz., creatio out of God. If one interprets ex nihilo to mean that God created, but didn't create from anything except out of himself, then that can be a compatible, sensible view.
There are some flaws with this approach as well, but it seems to be more coherent. If God is a disembodied mind, then creatio itself is purely mental. This leads to ontological idealism.
On the other hand, if creation is physical, then this says God is also physical. How you interpret what it means to be physical will determine on whether or not this conflicts with one's theological view of God's substance.
Physicalism is the view that all existence is physical. It's broader than materialism, so it allows for physical existence to include immaterial things like gravity, photons, fields. Thus, God could still be immaterial, and even spaceless if anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence has any say on the matter. (Pun intended.)
If that which is physical is simply that which is mathematically measurable, the God being physical doesn't seem like a problem. Either way, one would seem to be led toward a monistic view of reality.
If you got this far, thank you for reading. I really appreciate the videos you put out. They're informative. I also appreciate that you present sources people can read for themselves if they're interested.
'En arkhe' without the article is standard Koine Greek. Latin has no articles to begin with. In any case, the Hebrew Bible teaches creation ex nihilo:
Genesis 1:3 tells us quite clearly that light was created ex nihilo: "God said, 'Let light be, and light was,'" which entails, quite clearly, that it didn't exist before. Psalm 148:1-5 tells us that even the primordial 'waters' were created by God's command. Psalm 33:8-9 states that the earth too was created by God's speech in the same manner as light. And though Genesis 1 doesn't mention the darkness being created in the chapter, other passages do: Isaiah 45:7.
@@ConsideringPhlebas Different authors have different views. I don't subscribe to biblical inerrancy. Given that God is said to be light, I don't see any discrepancy. Also, it should be noted that light and darkness were separated, so it seems there was something present already.
@@metroidtheorist466 I’m not an expert in Hebrew or anything so I don’t know what concept the ancient hebrews had of darkness but as I understand it darkness not a thing in itself but the absence of light. So when God creates light then separates light from darkness I don’t think it makes sense for it to mean a literal physical separation between two physical things. I think it probably meant that he separated them temporally. Because it follows “he called the light day and the darkness he called night.”
@@metroidtheorist466
And yet Dan said that 'no syllable' of the Bible mentioned creation ex nihilo. I see at least that you don't take such a naive view.
And the notion of 'dividing' (בָּדַל) need not entail physically separating two things that were originally stuck together or constituted as one. It can mean to 'distinguish' things, such as, e.g., clean and unclean animals: Leviticus 11:47. The text does not indicate that light and darkness were once one substance and in fact indicates the contrary as it says darkness already existed as a distinct phenomenon in Genesis 1:2 before light was created in Genesis 1:3.
@@robertlaprime6203 We know what light is, but that doesn't mean the Israelites knew.
I'm seeing the Engineer from the opening of Prometheus standing on a bare rock next to running water...
super intersting, thanks
Gracias Dan.. muy valioso.
So Kalam Cosmological argument isn't compatible with the Bible 🤔🤔
Funny how William Lane Craig seems to overlook that, eh?
Tbf I don’t remember WLC ever explicitly explain what the kalam implies. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”. He always only talks about CAUSE and that cause is god.
Like saying a baker is necessary to make a cake. Never gets into specific whether the baker god created the world using existing ingredients or created the ingredients out of nothing. I bet the wording is ambiguous on purpose.
@@pansepot1490 in many of his videos he argues that infinity of matter is logically incoherent. If Dan is right and Bible teaches some matters always existed this implies matter was in some way eternal. Also WLC's argument about "nothing comes out of nothing" doesn't make sense if matter always existed. And with this way atheist has right to say something always existed as the bible teaches...
@@pansepot1490 WLC is a proponent of ex nihilo. He treats God as the agent cause, who didn't use a material cause. These causes are Aristotelian in context, with the two others being formal and final (telos) cause. Most focus only on the first two.
Aristotle also held a different view of material cause. If you dive into these matters, it's best to read Categories and On Interpretation first, otherwise, you might get confused by the Aristotelian framework.
So WLC does oppose creatio ex materia. I can't think of any time he's ever explained how God could create without any material. That much seems ambiguous. If he said God created out of his own power, that's also ambiguous.
You're right that WLC doesn't say what the cause is as far as the KCA goes, but he does head toward God as the cause. That's where the disagreement can really come in between theists, atheists, and agnostics.
While WLC is inconsistent quite often I don't think this is an inconsistency either. "When God began to create" doesn't necessarily contradict "God is the First Cause".
Thank you - I love your explanations.
Apologists always say the universe couldn't have been created out of nothing and I always reply, "what did "god" create it out of?" And I always get the same response... Crickets.. 😳
The point is, I think, that material cannot appear spontaneously out of nothing, without a Prime Mover.
@@dubblwideThe point is, even if you employ a "prime mover" , I would still ask you about the mechanism and the resource used to create matter / energy.
@@dubblwide according to whom? Define "prime mover."
When we say the universe cannot come into existence out of nothing we mean that if literally nothing exists including God then nothing could come into existence. That is the exact reason why we believe that there must be something which brought the universe into existence if it has a finite past.
@@robertlaprime6203 with all respect, according to whom? Who says something can't come from nothing? The fact is, no one knows how the universe began. No one knows. No one. The assertion that "something can't come from nothing" isn't anything more than arrogance and human perception. No one has proven that something can't come from nothing. Just the same, there is no evidence that a "god" or gods exists. Believers have created a "god" from nothing and therefore have created "something" where nothing exists. That particular "something" has no form and no evidence to support its existence in reality. Why would it be so hard to think that something could come from nothing? Humans do it in every moment.
Reading Gen 1's first few verses, it reminds me of the description of the creator as a potter shaping the clay.
The Old Testament authors were very familiar with that analogy. Isaiah talks about God being a potter.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Genesis describes "God" manipulating what already existed.
If this is the case, then from whence came the 'stuff' that "God" used to form whatever it was He formed?
in physics, we know that even in a perfect vacuum, as in space, subatomic particals will randomly pop into existence, then vanish again.
The Egyptians had the same concept of chaotic matter.
The thing that I find most interesting is the parable where the farmer, which I understand to be God, plants his seed and then his enemy comes and sows seed into his farm. Identification of the good VS bad crop is the main issue why the bad crop can't just be annihilated immediately.
Then there is another place where Jesus said that "every tree that was not planted by the Father will be uprooted". Where did those 'trees' come from.?
The full quote was “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” He was talking about the Pharisees in the context of the chapter. So he was saying the Pharisees were going to be rooted out. They were created by God but obviously they became Pharisees by something apart from God. It’s not saying anything about anyone or thing being created by someone other than God.
Dan have you seen the ancient traditions podcast? The Snake one was fascinating. Would be interested in your commentary.
Can you please put the book and paper recommendations in the description?
Not everyone is a learned biblical scholar nor can some people become one. So, for a book that is too complex for the average human being to fully and healthily understand, what would make anyone believe it is the inerrant word of God? If God has a gospel message for us it would be simple, easy to understand, and based upon recognizable human needs. "Love thy neighbor, and here's how to do it," would be a good start. And add to that, "I am God, but don't be afraid."
Well, for me, it is simple and easy to understand until people complicate it because they can't accept what it says.
God states plainly that he is the Creator of all that is in multiple verses throughout the Bible (not just a 'handful'). Men, in their unbelief, complicate it.
@@bigdogmurphySo do you always agree with biblical scholars, or do you not care what they say the words mean?
@@oscargr_ Your question aside from being ambivalent makes no sense.
@@bigdogmurphy If it's simple and easy to understand, then why do no two Christians agree on the simple meaning of Genesis 1?
Even my simple question stumps you, I don't think anything in the bible can be easy for you.
Hey where do you get those great T-Shirts …. ??????? I want that Spider-Man one for sure!!!!
This will rattle some cages.
So does literally any comment on the Bible ✝.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana True enough, but this particularly.
Life in a cage sucks in many ways.
More than you think. A bunch of _Big Bang_ adherents base their understanding on the ~biblical~ _priestly_ concept of _ex nihilo._ It's a point of agreement between astrophysicists and Christians.
Oops!
Damnit, tilde is Teams. CZcams uses dashes...
Dan. Can I call you Dan? Dan, lookin good. Nice shades, where’d you get them?
Hi Dan huge fan. I love the way that you present the scholarly consensus in a easy to digest format. I think you are doing amazing work here on CZcams. Every bit of information you have provide that I have looked into is substantiated by the data. I myself am not a Christian I am however a scholar of Anthropology with a particular interest in religion and it’s origins in early human societies.
Most of your content (I admit-ably haven’t seen it all) is refuting erroneous claims about the Bible and religion. You do such a great job striping away the dogma that it is difficult to see what is left that compels you to follow Christianity and specifically the Mormon faith. I would love to hear your testimony and reasons for your faith and be given a better picture of what exactly that looks like to you in a personal sense.
Off topic, but theres a Venom comic out this week that homages your shirt.
Have the same shirt but with the black costume spiderman
I think it’s cool to see the relationship between modern science and ancient understanding. Today we try to understand what was before the Big Bang. I’ve heard that there may have been something before the Big Bang, and the creation of time was the product of the Big Bang. In Genesis we find something before the beginning and then things materialize after the “beginning”.
It’s hard to articulate my thoughts about it, but I feel like there’s a relationship between science and Genesis. (Not to say that Genesis is history, but rather the concept of God ordering the universe instead of creating it out of nothing)
Can’t concentrate cos of the curlicue.
It's also a scientific position, interestingly.
The law of conservation of matter: Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change form or state.
True within a closed system. But we don't know if the universe is a closed system or not.
@@AppealToTheStoned
Proof?
@@dwp6471You seriously asking for proof of something we don't know?
@@dwp6471 Proof of what? Proof that the Law is as I described? Or proof that we don't know if the universe is a closed system or not?
Prove your claim. I just read the law of conservation of matter. It doesn't mention a closed system. So, where are you getting your information? That is all I am asking.
Just because form actualises matter does not mean that there exists a bundle of formless matter prior to being actualised. For the Aristotelian. causes do not have to be temporally prior to their effects, this is a modern understanding of causality.
Very interesting. I didn't know that the ancients thought of matter as "evil". I also liked how you talked about form and function. Creationists add to that: Form, function, and PURPOSE. There is no data or reasoning for adding "purpose".
Adding purpose, intent or design as a presupposition is incorrect because purpose is an emergent, not a basic property. This leads people down the rabbit-hole of "top-down" thinking.
And it is hard to get away from because human made artifacts are all around us. But if humans did not exist with the capacity to think of purpose, and thus design and make things, then none of these things would exist. So for everyday usage, "Humans ergo chairs" is not an extraordinary claim. It would be an incorrect claim if we found a chair made by an extra-terrestrial, but it would be a mistake in good faith if we did not know of chair-making aliens.
So until one KNOWS of a mechanism or driver, or causer, at least as a candidate explanation, you just can't go: "X, ergo 'warp drive". You would need to know if a warp-drive capable species existed to use them as a candidate explanation. In other words, you have a causality violation. It is illogical to assert that something is, because it was made by a "maker". This is particularity true for life forms.
People treated life forms like any other objects that had form and function. They assumed "purpose, intent, or design" without ANY warrant.
Darwin and Wallace, from 1858, dropped the "purpose" assumption. The main innovation was to only look and form and function, a "bottom-up" approach. And of course, we know what they came up with. Natural selection. The emergence of form and function from variations over generations exposed to a variety of environmental conditions. Those forms that gave function in a number of environments were able to survive and reproduce better than other forms. It was "design" without mind, purpose or intent.
Of course, their thesis was about biological evolution, not the origin of life. But in principle, can be applied to the origin of life, the basis of chemistry, and even the basis of physics.
So organisms that evolve via natural selection, can have emergent properties. Things like causing structures like human made -cities, or bee hives, or a beaver's dam. The rise of cognition made deliberate design and creation possible. Organisms survive by sensing and "processing" their environment. Plants usually need to do this less, because all they need is sun, soil and water. [Although there are Venus fly traps and the like]. Animals have to graze, forage, hunt, etc, which means senses and and ability to process those inputs to find water, food, shelter, etc, etc.
🖖🏾
I realize that Dan only interacts with high school kids and pop-apologetics personalities, but I'm doing a series on this topic that addresses these sorts of arguments, if anyone's interested.
Dr. McClellan engages on public social media with the public at large, yes, including TikTokers, but is also a host on his podcast, Data Over Dogma, which offers his professional scholarly information in dialog with a layperson and often brings on fellow academics and professionals for special topic discussion. Additionally, he still engages in his own academic work and is writing papers (many of which are open access and/or free on his website) and books that offer the ongoing efforts of himself and his peers.
But it's cool you're doing a series on, what, the theological position of _creatio ex nihilo_ or related things?
@@fernlovebond I don't find what he does intellectually respectable. It's more just a way for him to score easy points and get more views. If I wanted to, I could go around attacking the beliefs of young Mormon apologists and make them look pretty silly too. But I don't do that because that would be a cheap and lazy tactic. Dan is a trained academic so he should be interacting with other trained academics and the arguments that they are offering, not the arguments of teenagers and other untrained apologists on Tiktoc. It undoubtedly feeds his ego and earns him kuddos from his followers when he forcefully shuts down little high schoolers on social media platforms, but it doesn't actually prove anything because he's not interacting with the best presentation of whatever issue is being discussed.
He often claims to represent scholars. But I'm as much of a scholar as he is and I usually disagree with him. He doesn't interact with people like me, though, because that would complicate his arguments and would detract from his claims about representing the "scholarly consensus".
Yes, I'm aware of his Data over Dogma show where he features various academics. But these are hand-selected. I've never seen him bring on an academic who disagrees with him about whatever topic is being discussed.
My video series deals with the question of whether creation ex nihilo is, in fact, a post-biblical notion. See the playlist "Creation ex nihilo" on my channel.
@@MichaelVFlowers
You sound like a jealous freak.
Chaos matter, like in the Elric stories, cool.
Thanks but I'm having trouble getting my mind around the concept of being/non-being and creation as the imposition of form. Could you give an example or two from other sources please? Cheers.
The fact you read comics is even more scary.
I know it's not your specialty, but it would be really nice if you could also connect these things with Islam and the Quran. Does the doctrine exist in the Quran? If not, how/when did Islam adopt it?
He won't touch it. He likes his head where it is
We can find these types of debates in schoolyard all the time. My dad was a student of Bruce Lee, ok. Well, my dad was the teacher of Bruce Lee, Sure but my Dad was Bruce Lee so he can beat all of your dads.
So when Christian apologists suggest that an infinite regress is preposterous, tell them that the bible disagrees with them.
Question: a few of your videos you reference books outside of the Bible; like how you did in this one with the book of macabee’s. I plan on reading these books due to the religious significance of them based on the time of the writing of the books. But when talking about the Christian faith, why do you reference them? If this idea was created after the Bible existed, why mention books that are not in the Bible?
You do realize that the Old Testament predates Christianity right?
@@baneofbanes if my question is already bringing in people from the woodworks that are leaving stupid replies, I think I should just delete my question.
@@baneofbanes he literally listed a book that’s part of the Deuterocanonical Books aka the Apocrypha. They are not considered part of the Old Testament by Jews or Christians, they are considered good for historical studies, but not for matters of faithful practice
@@yourturningpoint777 the man making these videos is gnostic. He’s not a Christian, he’s creating his own religious narrative that he can find compatible with the world. If we are saved by faith through grace, then he has neither faith nor GOD’s grace. Pray for him, but don’t pray with him.
GOD Bless! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77 in past videos, he has said he is Christian but refuses to elaborate. Potentially he is Mormon.
Colossians 1:16, John 1:3, and 1 Cor 8:6 don’t speak of creation out of any state of “non-being”; they speak of creation of all things, period.
Pay more attention to those passages you’re speaking of, the word of GOD’s mouth is the source of the creation itself, and the Hebrew is intentionally not listing a pre-created source for the Heaven and the Earth because GOD spoke them into existence by the word of his mouth. Psalm 33 and Job 38 will also clarify this for you
@@narrowistheway77 It sounds like you’re arguing the Bible _does_ teach creation _ex nihilo,_ in which case I agree!
Even if Genesis 1 starts _in medias res,_ the rest of Scripture teaches God created all matter, including primordial matter. He created all things visible and invisible, period, the end-or rather the beginning :D.
@@matOpera I misunderstood your original comment, i think I read it too fast and it’s in a sea of people writing utter rubbish haha. I just re-read it, my fault, we do agree. GOD Bless! ❤️
In the beginning there was Chaos and the Four (Gods) saw it was good. For They themselves were It and It was Them.
I have that shirt!
Weirdly enough, this only makes sense when paired with the scientific knowledge we have today. Why wouldn't the writer of a fiction really mean 'nothing'? Wouldn't have nothing to prove or to be tested with.
Wait! So are you implying that in the original text matter existed earlier than God?! That would be an interesting worldview.
No, it's more the idea that you see in many mytholigies of a god giving form to the primordial chaos or some similar thing. The text says nothing about the origins of G-d.
@@huttj509presumably the beginning referenced would be the beginning of God?
@@thomaswillard6267 The beginning of the act of God creating. Which is not necessarily the beginning of God. Just as if I say "at the beginning of my workday" that doesn't necessarily mean the beginning of my existence. While Dan doesn't get into it here, iirc there were some scholars who believed that the "creation from something" was the correct interpretation of Genesis but that there was an earlier "creation from nothing" that took place before the Bible in which God created the matter that would later be used to create the universe.
@@thomaswillard6267 what the person above me said ^^ also it’s technically “in a beginning” so God existed beforehand.
It’s pretty mind boggling trying to think how things came to be. I’m totally behind material cannot come from immaterial, but it still has me wondering how matter even came to be or how it’s able to exist. Or even what came before the Big Bang.
It’s a real chicken vs egg conundrum!
"what came before the Big Bang"
The real mindfuck is that this is probably an irrational concept. "Before" has no meaning when spacetime as we understand it seemingly didn't always work the way we understand it to today.
@@rainbowkrampus Correct.
According to most cosmologists, "Before the Big Bang" is like "North of the North Pole".
Time is a dimension just like the three spatial dimensions. Time and space emerged from the singularity simultaneously.
@@AppealToTheStonedthat's wild to think about, because if one were traveling due north, when they crossed over the pole, they would now be heading south, but on the other side of the globe.
Now, of course, we can't draw a conclusion by analogy, but just thinking in those terms, is it possible that to travel back in time until we get to the beginning of time would start to look like moving forward in time through "the other side" of our universe? And what would that even mean, if so, I wonder 🤔
@@AppealToTheStonedthat's wild to think about, because if one were traveling due north, when they crossed over the pole, they would now be heading south, but on the other side of the globe.
Now, of course, we can't draw a conclusion by analogy, but just thinking in those terms, is it possible that to travel back in time until we get to the beginning of time would start to look like moving forward in time through "the other side" of our universe? And what would that even mean, if so, I wonder 🤔
Agreed, Genesis is primarily about God terraforming a pre-existing earth in order to make it suitable for human habitation.
John 1:1-3 is the actual beginning.
There is a beginning of something.
"2 The same was in the beginning with God."
A beginning of what though?
The beginning of all things that required making in order to exist.
"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Is it still the consensus of science that physical matter has not always existed?
@@narrowistheway77
Dan's argument is that creation out of nothing is not in the Bible.
John 1:1-3 clearly state that there are things that God made (created).
Therefore the only logical conclusion is that these things did not exist before they were made (created).
Therefore the Bible does in fact show that creation out of nothing is in the Bible.
And for sure, God created the entire physical universe including the earth. The question is when?
It's by no means clear that the terraforming of a void planet in order for it to be fit for human habitation occures in conjunction with the original creation of the physical universe.
For example, how come there was "darkness upon the face of the deep"? Where does this darkness come from, what is the cause of the darkness? The sun already exists, why then the darkness?
The Bible allows for a universe of any age, not just one of 6,000 years old.
@@narrowistheway77
{Genesis 1:1-3 is idiomatic ....}
"Anything idiomatic relates to expressions that cannot be understood according to their literal meaning, like "it's raining cats and dogs" or "bite the bullet."
An idiom is a turn of phrase, like saying a restaurant has gone to the dogs, which has nothing to do with dogs but means the restaurant has seen better days."
So, if you are going to claim Genesis 1 verses 1,2&3 are idiomatic, you are going to have to explain what each verse really literally means.
{it’s well understood that verse 3 is actually the starting action ....}
By who? Proof?
If the {light of God} is {God himself} it seems God divided himself into physical night & day? Please comment.
Have no idea what prompted you to write everything beginning with the words {For instance, have you ever heard of the Egyptian dark ages etc. etc. etc. ....} to the end.
I said the earth was made ready for mankind 6,000 years ago, therefore Adam was created 6,000 years ago, do you disagree?
Fun fact: Ex nihilo is the name of the pasture in heaven where God's bulls defecate.
What's your take on the idea that the original Hebrew version of Genesis refers to a pantheon of gods that created the earth, of which Yahweh was only one, who created Eden, Adam and Eve?
He seems to agree with it one day and reject it the next. Depends on who he is responding to
@tbishop4961 Dan's been pretty clear agreeing with the generally accepted view that the ancient Hebrew faith accepted the existence of other gods
@@keith6706 Dan has also repeatedly argued that the אלהים is not plural🤡
The Bible ✝ makes a lot more sense with Yahweh being the Pantheon itself. Rather than a specific member.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana it makes more sense when you read it in hebrew and know the source material
I prefer the idea that Evil is a separate force from God. If God is a representation of Good, even figuratively, I can easier grasp the idea that good can triumph over evil, bring order from chaos, rather than that all that is came from "God".
The Bible ✝ makes no sense with God being the representation of Good.
Even in the author's mind.
If good here means order, then the god is losing, badly.
By all observations the universe tends towards disorder. That is, entropy. The final state of the universe is likely to be one in which all energy states are equal everywhere.
Though if we go with what we observe and call the organized stuff "god" then that god is still "evil" in that we're still just talking about all the same stuff but in different energy states. Probably best to just not anthropomorphize natural phenomena. Tends to make for poor analogies.
@@rainbowkrampusYou literally undid yourself before the halfway mark of your comment.
Entropy is the exact opposite of chaos and disorder
Also, the second half of your comment is philosophical gibberish that would make Socrates take a second sip.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana having read the Bible, I would often agree. There are some different takes, though. Some authors view God one way and later the view of God in the Bible changes. I don't gather my view on God only from the Bible, though. Also, at this point in my life I'm really an Agnostic. I study spirituality becuase I would like to believe in some of higher power, but currently I don't know.
This notion of yours is representative of a failed thought experiment where you didn’t go the whole distance with the rationale. The reality is that GOD is good, GOD is love, and GOD is also full of wrath for sin because of his nature as perfect. GOD had a choice of three things, to create nothing at all, to create a universe of automatons with no free will, or lastly to create a universe where free will existed which itself created an inevitability that would lead to sinful disobedience against its own creator.
You can’t have the free will of a creation where that same creation won’t eventually experiment with disobedience because without experiencing disobedience that creation will never understand the consequences of disobedience. Without the consequences of disobedience that creation can never choose to seek forgiveness and turn its heart back to its creator or choose the disobedience altogether. GOD wants a family and he wants his creation’s love for him to be authentic. GOD couldn’t have authentic love by creating nothing, and GOD couldn’t have authentic love if he’d created automatons. That makes the only viable option the option that included a free will for his creation and with that free will came the inevitability of sinful disobedience against him.
It makes you realize how much he really did love us when he had a plan all along to send his own Son to die and pay our sins on the cross with the worst death imaginable. He did that for us freely to make us right with his perfection. Without the blood of the innocent sacrifice there can be no forgiveness for sin, and Jesus alone was without sin. We have filthy rags and Christ makes them white as snow with his blood
Yes, yes, and how many angels can dance on the head of a needle?
You mean "pin." Try to be more accurate even if you have utter disdain for this channel's content but cannot take your eyes away from it.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Pedantic much?
Did God Create the Universe From Nothing . .by Jonathan Pearce
Creation of something from nothing is, at least, mathematically provable. Subtract one and add one to a zero, you now have something from nothing. A beginning and end of zero with something in between.
Golly gee, wait until you discover negative numbers!
Take that answers in genesis 😂
In the Greek language, the Bible starts with Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος.
That’s the opening of the Book of John, which is the Fourth book of the New Testament, and then it goes on to say “and the Word was GOD”. GOD’s own name יהוה means “He Was, He Is, He Will Be”. GOD is uncreated, all other things are created by him, exactly as John 1:1-5 says
Ebrah k'dabri is Jewish mysticism or "magic". To undo this process the spoken phrase is uttered in reverse along with ecstatic experience. Effectually becoming I kill with a word..... emet.
People act like they've forgotten how to lie until it's time to bust a grape. They really should be more careful about which lines they cut. Especially when the one they're in is forsaken.
This is incorrect.
““I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. 23 Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws…I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.”
-2 Maccabees 7:22-23, 28
“Now the earth was without form and void” sounds like preexisting matter
You do realize that statement is immediately after GOD created the Earth right? He starts making the Earth take the form we know it as in the following passages when he separates the water from the land, creates the plant life, and then makes all the animals and mankind. You’re committing Eisegesis on the text to conform it to your own rationale rather than reading what’s actually written and being Exegetical. This only makes you right in your own mind, but not in reality to what is written
@@narrowistheway77 No it is not! Verse 1 is a dependent clause followed by disjunctive clause. When God began to create... Verse 2 explains what was when verse 1 took place. The first creative act always begins with a spoken word starting in verse 3. God brought form/function and filled the primitive chaotic state of verse 2 with his creative acts - starting in verse 3 - "And God said: Let there be light..." A little Hebrew can help!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 I can read Hebrew. Can you?
@@narrowistheway77 There is no way you read Hebrew with such a bad interpretation. Saying that verse 1 is when God created Earth is laughable.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 interesting notion, and yet what you failed to understand was that in Genesis 1:1-3 its actually Verse 3 that’s considered the start of the passage with verse 1 and 2 as the follow up, and if you actually knew Hebrew, you’d know that. Even the Talmud says the same thing. Furthermore I’ll take your inaccurate portrayal of Genesis 1 and point out that it does not match the clear teaching of Psalm 33 or Job 38 whatsoever. In other words, you’re wrong
Where’s all the sola scriptura KJV-only folks? Aren’t their ears burning?
Interesting that their concept of " matter " existing as either " formed " or " chaotic "
sounds vaguley like the modern; " matter " and " energy " are the same thing ( E =MC2 )
Not significant, just interesting
It's closer to the concept of entropy.
But yeah, those Greeks were pretty clever considering that they were mostly just working backwards from observations one can make with the eye.
@@rainbowkrampus Hmmm, thinking a key point would be whether they had the concept of matter moving back and forth between the two states, alternating states, or if it was just a decaying process and if so then yes, entropy
It's a bit like abstract art.
My 4 year old can splash paint on a canvas, but she can't express with that what a famous artist with all his life experience expresses with it.
@@danjohnston9037 Ultimately it's just an analogy. They really had no idea what they were talking about. Educated guesses at best. Not to come across as dismissive though. For the constraints of the time, they were some very good guesses.
Creation from nothing is a Jewish tradition that long predates the completion of scripture. This same belief can be found in a myriad of non-Jewish religious traditions from the Middle East as well….. so in other words, you’re mistaking your opinion on this matter for the facts. Creationism is a belief as old as the historical record itself
Well no, the Jewish Study Bible uses the translation "When God began to create the heavens and earth, the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep, and a wind from God sweeping over the water." God is a potter at his wheel, not I Dream of Jeannie.
@@VulcanLogic and yet if you know how to read Hebrew like I do you’d know that the third verse is the actual beginning of the thought, and it all started with the light of GOD being shown on a brand new creation. Only after which the heaven and earth were formed. The earth was void because it had nothing on it yet, the separation of land and water and creation of plant life and creatures comes in the following days. So you have failed in your attempt to debunk the extremely clear teaching of the Hebrew that from nothing came everything by the power of GOD.
Stop using Vulcan logic, it’ll get you nowhere but a gnostic inversion of the truth. I’ll pray for you! GOD Bless! ❤️
@@VulcanLogic
6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
-Psalm 33:6-9
^Where nothing once was, the Heaven and the Heavenly hosts(angels) were created. The Bible never disagrees with itself when it’s read in its actual context
@@VulcanLogic
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
-Job 38:4-11
^where nothing except Heaven once was, the Earth was created. GOD made the Heaven, and then GOD made the Earth, just as Genesis 1 says
@@VulcanLogic
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
-Job 38:4-11
^Heaven was created first along with the Heavenly Hosts, then the Earth was created from nothing, and the angels rejoiced
Demons
I'm still not understanding the distinction between creation of nothing and creation out of not being, that just seems like a rhetorical differentiation that doesn't have any material substance so to speak
It's a bit like entropy. "Being" here means organization. "Non-being" means disorganization. They weren't working with a concept of absolute nothing.
Cosmologies of the period tended to imagine a primordial state of chaos. The existence of chaos implies the existence of some substance regardless of how vaguely defined it is. Chaotic waters was the common notion from Mesopotamia over to the Levant. Thus the whole flat Earth and crystal dome we find in Genesis, separating the world from the chaotic waters that surrounded it.
Genesis outlines Bible god taking that chaos and organizing it into all of the stuff that we know. So, stuff becoming other stuff. There's never any "nothing".
The idea of "matter cannot be created nor destroyed holds up. God didn't create the matter. Instead he organized matter and created the earth and man. Just one example.
So the Biblical authors who were illiterate goat herders understood that matter has always existed?!? Lol right
Maybe they just didn't quite understand what was "divinely inspired" to them and this is what they came up with?😬
BTW, I don't think anyone believes that the authors of the bible were goat herders or illiterate.
Though they didn't have the benefit of an extra 2000 years of scientific development.
@@oscargr_ "I don't think anyone believes that the authors of the Bible were goat herders or illiterate"
Where have you been?!?! That's the number one response to anything the Bible says
@@sbaker8971 Yes, they thought the Earth was flat and covered by a solid dome. They weren't scientifically literate. When will people grow up and realise the Bible is not the "word of God"?
---------------------------------------------------------
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE."
"Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.")
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
He be watching mythvision heavy...he made a video corresponding to Derek's documentary
Earth is Yahweh’s Everlasting Lake of Fire, his furnace of roaring flames where, in his furious wrath, he will gather you up, put you in, and smelt you. If your name is not in the book of life, he will refine you, remove your dross, and purify you until the Devil, the False Prophet, and the Beast are cleansed from you.
Why?
@@funkatron101 The Father is great than I. Adam, the Christ, wields the fiery sword and judges the world. Yahweh judged the heavens themselves. Adam had a university of trees to learn from. Further, Adam was not deceived before being sent out from the kingdom prepared at the foundation of the world, the heavenly home, or Garden of Eden.
Jesus is lifted up like the Serpent (Yahweh) in the desert after he judges the world. On the day of the great slaughter. On the day he binds up the wounds left from his blows. Jesus judged the world and was made to be sin as the Lawless One, the Beast, Leviathan etc. Yahweh judged the heavens themselves and was made to be the snake, the Ancient Serpent of Old, and they are transfigured and revealed to be the Ancient One of Days with Christ washing his feet.
To 'strike at' the head or heel means to watch over, guard, or protect. Snake means Shining One, Glistening One - Morning Star, or the light of the world. While there is enmity between the two, the plan is one of salvation. I.e. Jacob strikes at the heel of Esau, who protects, guards, watches over, or otherwise serves Jacob. During this period, Adam is the word of the will of Yahweh, the lamp of the light of Yahweh, and the image of the substance of Yahweh.
There are two appearances, the sacrifice and the resurrection. They take place within the same generation, at the end of the ages, the time of the harvest. They are the First Beast and the Second Beast. Christ (Adam) wields the fiery sword on the day of vengeance as judgment. Are they, Christ and Yahweh, unjust to inflict wrath? Of course not. How else could they judge?
Warning of the impending Day of the Lord, he was swallowed by the Beast out of the Sea (sacrifice) and spewed out upon the shore as the Beast out of the Earth (resurrection), as the sun beat down upon his head and a burning east wind began the Way of the Lord in the Desert.
Yahweh and Christ/ Satan and Adam/ Jacob and Esau/ Behemoth and Leviathan/ David and the Son of David/ Peter and Jesus... are the same two individuals. David, your king, rides the Donkey and the Bride of David rides the foal of the Donkey.
In the beginning, darkness covered the kingdom of the Abyss, the people were empty and void of understanding, having become corrupted, and he shielded you as the apple of his eye. All are sinners cast down to earth with the God of this world. The ruler of this world has been condemned. Now is the time of judgment on this world; now will the ruler of this world be driven out to inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Jesus' domain is forever peaceful. Jesus ascends beyond the heavens. A kingdom was prepared at the foundation of the world. One that is forever peaceful. The Ancient One of Days takes a seat upon a throne on the Mount of Assembly. Christ is the Root and Offspring of Yahweh (David).
God is Spirit (Joh 4:24 NABO)
@@quetzelmichaels1637 oh.
@@quetzelmichaels1637 Wait, when?
@@funkatron101When Noah treads the winepress of wrath, sharpens the flashing sword, exhausts all his arrows, and makes them drunk on blood.
I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth (Gen 6:13 NABO)
The vision of the evenings and the mornings is true, as spoken (Dan 8:26 NABO)
Your covenant with death shall be canceled and your pact with the nether world (Abyss) shall not stand. When the overwhelming scourge passes, you shall be trampled down by it. Whenever it passes, it shall take you; morning after morning it shall pass, By day and by night; terror alone shall convey the message.
To carry out his work, his singular work, to perform his deed, his strange deed. (Isa 28:18-21 NABO)
In the morning you will say, 'Would that it were evening!' and in the evening you will say, 'Would that it were morning!' for the dread that your heart must feel and the sight that your eyes must see. (Deu 28:67 NABO)
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished! "I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing! (Luk 12:49-50 NABO)
(it is better to marry than to be on fire (1Co 7:9 NABO) Be fruitful, and multiply (Gen 1:28 KJV)
"For by my wrath a fire is enkindled that shall rage to the depths of the nether world (Abyss), Consuming the earth with its yield, and licking with flames the roots of the mountains. (Deu 32:22 NABO)
Down I went to the roots of the mountains; the bars of the nether world (Abyss) were closing behind me forever (Jon 2:7 NABO)
Do not say… 'Who will go down into the Abyss (nether world)?' (…to bring Christ up from the dead) (Rom 10:7 NABO)
We saw his star (of Bethlehem) at its rising (Mat 2:2 NABO)
Up from the Abyss (Rev 17:8 NABO)
The star was called "Wormwood” (Rev 8:11 NABO)
It was given the key for the passage to the Abyss. (Rev 9:1 NABO)
I hold the keys to death and the netherworld (Abyss). (Rev 1:18 NABO)
Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. (Rev 6:8 NABO)
Warning of the impending Day of the Lord, he was swallowed by the Beast out of the Sea (sacrifice) and spewed out upon the shore as the Beast out of the Earth (resurrection), as the sun beat down upon his head and a burning east wind began the Way of the Lord in the Desert.
the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty (Rev 1:8 NABO)
The beast that you saw existed once but now exists no longer. It will come up from the Abyss and is headed for destruction. (Rev 17:8 NABO)
--------------------------
Just as it is appointed that human beings die - be judged - appear a second time, so also Christ …will return Heb 9:27-28 …as the (Red) Dragon (Demon Sin) stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. (Rev 12:4 NABO)
And they counted out my wages, thirty pieces of silver (Zec 11:12 NABO)
This time take the gear of a foolish shepherd. (Zec 11:15 NABO)
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1Co 1:25 NABO)
for power is made perfect in weakness. (2Co 12:9 NABO)
and when he was made perfect, he became the eternal source of salvation for all (Heb 5:9 NABO)
But I am a worm, hardly human, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. (Psa 22:7 NABO)
I would like to apologize to every human who has lived and is living, but I don't get it. There is something wrong with all of you. 🤣
Human thinking. Human writing. Human talking. Whatever.
This universe. A possibility it was created. A creator.
Our understanding of the universe so far. The initial expansion of the universe. Quantum. Neutrinos. Space. Time. Matter. etc.
Possibilities? Hypothesis? Supposition? Let's give it a shot....
1. A creator who is a product of this universe.
2. A creator who created this universe.
(A) A creator who created this universe and is a product of another universe(s).
(B) A creator who created this universe and all other possible universes.
Let's go with 2(B)...
Before "the beginning" there was the creator. There was something other than universe(s).
For humans to insist the other had to be beholding to anything to do with universal properties is absurd.
To insist there was nothing is absurd.
The entire line of reasoning behind argument regarding creation of this universe having to adhere to the properties of this universe is absurd.
Unless one is going to insist the creator is a product of this universe. These idiotic arguments that have been generated for thousands of years are dependent on a creator who is a product of this universe.
Possibilities, hypothesis and supposition do not have to be based on nonsense. In fact, the ones based on nonsense should be the last ones taken up for examination. How did something come from nothing? Nonsense. Intelligent design? Nonsense.
Physically? This universe could be a result of an interaction between other universes or somewhere in the neighborhood of at least a million other possibilities. In the case of a million possibilities, not one of them would hinder the creator hypothesis....unless the creator is a product of a certain set of parameters defined by certain physical laws.
The human narrative on this subject is nonsense and it's very, very, very easy to correct that problem.
A creator could have created this and a trillion other universes, each with its own physical properties than cannot be recognized from the other universes. There could be something other than all this universal realm which makes the entire universal realm less than the size of a neutrino compared to what exists outside of it.
Sorry, I'm just a human doing some thinking.
The only people who assert that the universe came from nothing are people who have never spent a single second studying modern cosmology i.e. people who have no idea what they're talking about and who aren't interested in science so much as they're interested in setting up a straw man that they can knock down. This is typically theists.
More fables from Dr. Dan. Genesis 1:3 tells us quite clearly that light was created ex nihilo: "God said, 'Let light be, and light was,'" which entails it didn't exist before. Psalm 148:1-5 tells us that even the primordial 'waters' were created by God's command. Psalm 33:8-9 states that the earth too was created by God's speech in the same manner as light. And though Genesis 1 doesn't mention the darkness being created in the chapter, other passages do: Isaiah 45:7.
Why not just come out and say the Bible is fake and God isn’t real?
That isn't the role of a Bible scholar.
@@funkatron101
Just doing everything to cast doubt on scripture is though, apparently. Anti-Bible scholar should be the title.
@@dburns9080 Or present the data and let the scripture stand or fail on its own merits.
If you are taking it as a personal attack, then perhaps you need to step back and re-evaluate your faith.
@@funkatron101
When the “data” is influenced by your biases, and doesn’t actually agree with what the Bible says, it can be rejected as nonsense.
To say that God worked with matter that already existed is to say that God doesn’t precede all things, which is foolishness. It has nothing to do with a personal attack, it’s an attack on Christianity as a whole. It’s Gnosticism, and it’s hot garbage.
@@dburns9080 Which God, Yahweh? If so, we know very little about this god, aside from the fact that he was one of 70 Nation Gods. A "Child" of El, which implies a beginning for this God.
Isn't creation out of nothing atheism?
Nope, literally the opposite. The Big Bang, the closest thing to an atheist creation, is that all matter was contained within a single finite point of 'everything' that then split and has since been spacing out towards entropy.
Everything out of Everything
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
Creation out of nothing is some weird idea theists keep claiming atheists believe, for some reason.
It's 2024, why do theists still make this false claim?
@@funkatron101 Some version of the kalam has been around for more than two thousand years. Theists are nothing if not consistent (-ly wrong).
Beginning to create something is the start of creating something, so God created the heavens and the earth. This video doesn't even make sense. Someone make it make sense.
Angels were not created. They already existed. Just like the serpent already existed.
@@JopJio according to what biblical source?
@@willernst2721 the genesis creation and the torah. Angels existed and were not created in Genesis. The Book of Job says Angels celebrated when God created the earth. Thats where the "we" or "us" in Genesis comes from. The Angels were present
So Dan is wrong in saying that God didn't create the earth then?
Does it say that God didn't create the Angels anywhere?
@@willernst2721 the angels and the serpent were already existing. Genesis doesn't mention their creation and Job confirms they existed already
In order for there to be an honest discussion of evolution, we must assume there was a time when absolutely nothing existed. If we start by assuming that, in the beginning, something existed, then we need to explain how that something came to be. Otherwise, we have not explained anything.
Who, or what, created that something?
That assumes a creator who created some-thing. And whoever or whatever created that something must be, at least, some kind of god.
And that god, whatever he may be, must be eternal, or else, we are still faced with the question of where did he come from? Who or what created him?
So the fantasy of evolution falls apart before we can ever state the premise. What was it that evolved to form that first particle of something that is the origin of everything that exists-and how did that original something come to be?
The humble, Bible-believing child of God believes in an almighty, eternal God who created all things by the Word of his power.
I am not sure that anybody who believes in the creative power of nothing is the sharpest knife in the box - regardless of how many initials he has after his name.
Evolution theory deals with the changes in allele frequencies in population groups over long periods of time.
It has nothing to do with how anything formed originally - not life, not Earth, not the universe.
It doesn't need to explain those things. They are not part of the theory.
Now as for "God did it" as an explanation... It isn't. "God did it" does not have any explanatory power. You might as well just say "Magic happened" and call that an explanation.
"That assumes a creator who created some-thing. And whoever or whatever created that something must be, at least, some kind of god"
Is that what a "God" is? A thing that makes stuff from nothing? The finger that tips the first domino? Let's define the word "God" before we start plugging it in as a scientific explanation.
We agree that SOMETHING must have just existed since the beginning of time. I suggest that thing is the universe, which we have evidence for, and can even explain how time began. Your suggestion is an invisible agent which has not been shown to exist, let alone to be able or willing to do what you ascribe to it.
The principle of parsimony tells us that the explanation which requires the least presumptions is more likely to be true. Your explanation is ALL presumptions, no evidence.
I understand your statement, but I must respectfully disagree. The concept of creation out of nothing, also known as creatio ex nihilo, is indeed rooted in biblical teachings.
In the book of Hebrews, it is written, "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible" (Hebrews 11:3, ESV). This verse suggests that God created the universe from nothing, rather than from pre-existing matter.
Additionally, in the book of 2 Maccabees, it is stated, "I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise" (2 Maccabees 7:28, KJV). Although 2 Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha, which is not considered canonical by all Christian traditions, it still reflects the Jewish understanding of creation in the Second Temple period.
The Arminian Confession of 1621 also affirms the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, stating, "The creation of the world is the initial and most powerful production of all things made from nothing..." (CHAPTER 5: ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, ANGELS, AND MAN).
While it is true that the explicit phrase "creation out of nothing" is not found in the Bible, the concept is implicit in various passages that describe God's creative power and the origin of the universe.
In conclusion, I believe that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is rooted in biblical teachings and has been affirmed by various Christian traditions throughout history.
The first notion of Genesis 1 is
“In beginning created god the heavens and the Earth”
You added a whole bunch of words that are not there, it’s not a conservative translation.
The first word of the bible in Hebrew is 'b'reishit' - it is best translated as "in the beginning of", not 'in the beginning' as it was translated by those who already wanted to impose the dogma of creation ex nihilo. My translation is from the "Eitz Chiyim" Torah, a Jewish publication, and it starts, "When god began to create the heaven and the earth". This is basically the same way that Dan translated it.
Dan McClellan is a Biblical scholar and is translating the original Hebrew. What are you bringing to the table?
@@WDRhineand where do you find "when"?
@@tbishop4961 In the Hebrew.
@@autonomouscollective2599 evidently a word for word understanding of hebrew that I'm guessing you don't possess
More verbose contrarian garbage