Is Creation Ex Nihilo Biblical?

[Cerebrum123]

AIG/CMI article does get a few things wrong thanks for pointing that out. I'm not going to go into this further with you because that was only a small part of the issues with Sailhamer's thesis according to the article you linked to anyway, and I'm not willing to deal with your condescending crap anymore. I'm out of here. I'll look into the issue more on my own elsewhere.

I was too harsh here, but it's too late to edit. I'm sorry. However, I'm not going to be continuing on this subject with you, or likely anyone else. All I get is either blatant misrepresentation(not you), or lots of condescension. I'm treated as someone not worth dealing with, and below those I've interacted with. You do this very clearly with your last sentence in your most recent post. It gets me too upset dealing with this kind of thing. It's not good for me, and that means I need to just stay out of certain areas. Again, sorry.

[Adrift]

I was too harsh here, but it's too late to edit. I'm sorry. However, I'm not going to be continuing on this subject with you, or likely anyone else. All I get is either blatant misrepresentation(not you), or lots of condescension. I'm treated as someone not worth dealing with, and below those I've interacted with. You do this very clearly with your last sentence in your most recent post. It gets me too upset dealing with this kind of thing. It's not good for me, and that means I need to just stay out of certain areas. Again, sorry.

I'm sorry too that I offended you. I'm very open to any and all views concerning the creation narrative. I believe its one of those topics that Christians are free to disagree on and remain well within orthodox thinking. I might go so far as to say that I find it good to have varying views on this subject since it encompasses so many unknowns.

I'm willing to go with whatever sounds most reasonable. I'm very open to accepting that I may be wrong about my views, in fact, though I currently hold closest to the Historical Creationist perspective, I hold to a modified version of the view (for instance, Sailhammer doesn't believe that there's any room for evolution in Historical Creationism, but I don't see any reason to come to that conclusion).

I infer (perhaps wrongly) from reading your posts that you're not quite as open on the subject, and that you believe having alternative theories is not at all good.

As an OECists (and probably unlike many OECists) I'm not violently opposed to YECism. I think there are many decent arguments for YECism, though I currently don't find them strong enough to sway me from my current perspective. Perhaps in the future though, who knows.

Also, and I believe I've said this before, what you, or others may misconstrue as condescension in the tone of my posts is very often not intentional. I tend to be very blunt, which I'm sure comes off as condescension, but is in fact just how I talk, and is not how I'm personally internalizing the dialogue. This has gotten me in trouble a few times in real life as well, especially with girlfriends. I'm still learning to find ways of expressing my thoughts with tact. Unfortunately it doesn't always come easy.

[Jesse]

Also, and I believe I've said this before, what you, or others may misconstrue as condescension in the tone of my posts is very often not intentional. I tend to be very blunt, which I'm sure comes off as condescension, but is in fact just how I talk, and is not how I'm personally internalizing the dialogue. This has gotten me in trouble a few times in real life as well, especially with girlfriends. I'm still learning to find ways of expressing my thoughts with tact. Unfortunately it doesn't always come easy.

I've gotten into trouble quite a few times because I seem to have the same tone, online and off. It's sometimes hard to hear what others hear. There are times however that I am trying to be condescending. But most times it's just how my tone comes off. I try to work on it, but you know, it slips out sometimes.

[logician bones]

I suppose I might as well wade into another ex nihilo topic lol.

First, to the point that Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation. My understanding is that it summarizes the whole account instead. I think it does imply by extension that God created the water, but it's fair to say that it doesn't explicitly state it. But there are passages that say God created everything.


To the topic question directly -- I think the Bible teaches that God didn't create from what I called (in the other topic) an "eternal external". And that everything that exists comes from God. But I don't think that those who use "ex nihilo" to describe this mean "nothing" in a literal sense (or not those who are logical among them :P). I think they're using a narrower scope of the definition of "thing". Which makes sense because I think this goes along with the start of linear time, space, and matter, and existence prior to this is extremely different than what we normally think of as things. But isn't nonexistence (since those who hold this view clearly believe God is there). Basically, the realm itself that "things" are in was itself created.

The analogies I used in the other topic were of a virtual world in a computer with new virtual atoms/objects being instantiated inside them (not rearranged from previously existing atoms/objects), and a braille machine, which makes new dots. Ex nihilo may be a useful term to describe this and differentiate from normal reshaping of existing "things in the normal sense". (But it might be too confusing to be useful; unsure.)

To get this from the Bible, though, I think you need to deduce things from a wide variety of passages, not just one place. Which I'd like to someday do in a whole-Bible survey on the subject, but no time at the moment. :(