Gen 1:1. Kermess
mc2499 at mclink.it
Thu Aug 31 04:55:58 EDT 2000
At 00.27 31/08/00 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
>Ian, there is nothing much new here for me to reply to.
This is because you said nothing new. You have just repeated stuff that you
believe. Hence the "kermess": we are dancing around.
>In another posting I
>have outlined three possible interpretations of Gen 1:1-2. One of these must
>be "ex nihilo",
There is *no possibility* for creatio ex nihilo, unless you think that God
created the world in hiccups. The genius who advocates that v1 itself is a
creation act then has the boner to face that God proceeds to create what he
is supposed to have created in v1.
>one cannot be,
if it pleases you.
>and the third (making verse 1 a title) leaves
>the issue open.
Actually, no it doesn't.
>I do believe in "ex nihilo" creation
You have demonstrated this ad nauseum. One is not imposing belief here, I
would hope, but attempting to understand the text.
>(as taught in the New Testament),
which of course is *totally irrelevant* to our analysis of Genesis, if you
want to take a historical approach to the argument. The NT is clearly a
later manifestation which was written with a Christian perspective, which
in itself is no direct reflection of Genesis.
(The NT is responsible for mangling a number of OT/HB passages (though it's
not alone) -- such as the infamous manipulation of Dan7:13, turning the
descriptive "one like a son of man" into the title "the son of man", while
the Jewish tradition shows no support for such a process; or the
reinterpretation of Dan9:24ff, sublimating the original text and context,
and turning the text into a "prophecy" about Jesus, when it was dealing
with the exile, return, Jeshua the high priest, removal of Onias III, and
the persecution of Antiochus IV.)
Teachings from the NT are not directly relevant to the OT/HB just as the
book of Mormon is not directly relevant on either of those books, except in
one's personal beliefs, which you would like to keep out of the discussion...
>but I am trying to keep my personal beliefs out of a discussion
>of the text.
...I don't think that saying so makes it so. The one thing that seems
obvious in this discussion, Peter, is that you haven't kept your personal
beliefs out of it.
Creatio ex nihilo is a dogma in the Christian world.
I just didn't want you to dance alone.
More information about the b-hebrew