I'm quite shocked that you think because I've studied Genesis that makes me guilty of fixing my premises to suit my conclusion. I've done nothing of the sort. Any good scholar brings all of Scripture to bear when studying any particular text.

> You offer no actual disputation of the textual analysis I offer

Actually, I quite firmly did. I showed contextually and grammatically a different course, refuting your analysis.


> no citations of the work of any of the authorities you defer to

I actually did, and quite explicitly. I wrote: "In addition, this grammatical analysis and interpretive framework is also endorsed by such recognized Greek experts as A.T. Robertson, Marvin Vincent, F.F. Bruce, Norman Geisler, Craig Keener, and others."

> Here is the form your "linear progression of thought" actually takes

Oh my. That's a tragic distortion of what I said. What I said was:

1. From the context, Hebrews 11.3 is speaking of creation.
2. When it speaks of creation, Hebrews 11.3 uses terminology that shows he means creation was ex nihilo.
3. Therefore I interpret that the author of Hebrews considers God's creative act as having created matter from nothing, not from previous material.

There. That's what I said, and it's linear and logical, not circular.

> I subscribe to the view of Genesis 1 put out by Dr. John Walton, that Genesis 1 is an account of God ordering the cosmos and Earth to function in a certain way, not about their material manufacture. God is the creator, however, as we know from other texts. And while creation was ex nihilo, Gn. 1.2 relates to us a state of disorder that God brought into order (Gn. 1.3-2.3).

I accused you of having fixed your premises to suit your conclusion, and thus of having offered circular justification for your position. Here you admit to this explicitly: it's true, you agree, that even Genesis describes the generative act of God as having been one of ordering, and having agreed that ordering denotes prior disorder and thus prior existence, you nevertheless violate the logic and semantics of scriptural text to simply declare your preferred interpretation on the basis of "other texts" and other claimed authorities. You offer no actual disputation of the textual analysis I offer, no citations of the work of any of the authorities you defer to, nor even any alternative scriptural passages to support your claim of "other texts".

Here is the form your "linear progression of thought" actually takes:

1. God created the universe ex nihilo
2. We know this because Hebrews 11.3 says so
3. We know Hebrews 11.3 says so because God created the universe ex nihilo

QED.

> As an example of eisegesis I think yours is first rate:

I'm not so naive as to fall for this. I know my exegetical work is solid.

> You agree that κατηρτίσθαι refers to completion, but omit the fact that completion denotes prior disorder - ie, that which is incomplete - and not the creation of something new.

This is correct, but not an eisegetical fallacy. I subscribe to the view of Genesis 1 put out by Dr. John Walton, that Genesis 1 is an account of God ordering the cosmos and Earth to function in a certain way, not about their material manufacture. God is the creator, however, as we know from other texts. And while creation was ex nihilo, Gn. 1.2 relates to us a state of disorder that God brought into order (Gn. 1.3-2.3).

> Greek to describe such an act, which is κτίζω

Yes, I'm familiar with κτίζω.

> In other words, conclusion precedes your premises, and justification is circular.

No it's not. This is an incorrect assessment of my argument. My argument is that Heb. 11.3 is clearly contextually speaking of creation, as the author passes from that to Cain and Abel, and on through biblical history. Therefore 11.3 is speaking of "the beginning." An examination of the terminology on top of that confirms that the author is speaking of the beginning confirms this understanding. On top of that, the terminology used shows us that original creation (though not necessarily its mechanism) was "out of nothing" (that which was not visible). My progression of thought is linear, not circular, exegetically sound and not eisegetically specious. In addition, this grammatical analysis and interpretive framework is also endorsed by such recognized Greek experts as A.T. Robertson, Marvin Vincent, F.F. Bruce, Norman Geisler, Craig Keener, and others. I stand on solid exegetical ground here.

As an example of eisegesis I think yours is first rate: the question you claim to answer is whether or not scripture indicates creatio ex nihilo or ex materia, and offer a passage in support of ex nihilo which literally states:

By persuasion [ Πίστει ] we understand that the universe was completed [ κατηρτίσθαι ] by the word of God so that what is perceived [ βλεπόμενον ] came to be [ γεγονέναι ] not from what is shown [ φαινομένων ].

You agree that κατηρτίσθαι refers to completion, but omit the fact that completion denotes prior disorder - ie, that which is incomplete - and not the creation of something new. Note that had that been the intent, there is a perfectly suitable word in Greek to describe such an act, which is κτίζω and which is notably absent from the text. So yes, κατηρτίσθαι does suggest an evolution ( of changing to an ordered state from an unordered state ) in contrast to creation.

The real justification for your interpretation of the passage as supporting ex nihilo creation is simply this:

The context is clearly speaking of creation of the universe by God's spoken word, and the terminology leads us to interpret what he is saying as creation ex nihilo

You justify your opinion of the text, which serves to justify your opinion of creatio ex nihilo, by declaring that the context of the text must mean creatio ex nihilo, and thus that the "terminology" cannot be taken literally, but must figuratively mean creation from nothing.

In other words, conclusion precedes your premises, and justification is circular.

> The Lord God (Yahweh Elohim) is ONE.

I agree. This is unarguable. The Shema' in Deuteronomy 6.4: "Hear, O Israel, The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

> The meaning of Yahweh Elohim means a divine unity of a multitude.

Elohim was the generic term for deity in the ancient Near East. It was generally thought to describe the deity as powerful, strong, and full of glory, and therefore sovereign over his domain. It is not used in the Bible to describe plurality because its accompanying verb is 3rd masculine singular.

The meaning of YHWH is unknown, but it is built out of the verb "to be" and is thought to declare God as the self-existent one.

Therefore the meaning of YHWH Elohim is the self-existent sovereign God.

> Jesus taught I and my Father are one.

Correct and unarguable. John 10.30.

What does any of this have to do with God being part of creation or separate from it?

The Lord God (Yahweh Elohim) is ONE. The meaning of Yahweh Elohim means a divine unity of a multitude. Jesus taught I and my Father are one.

> Your way off on a tangent.

Actually, I'm right on target.

> I know Christians like mingling science and quantum spooky woo woo with their ideas but that has nothing to do with my question.

You specifically asked "Where was GOD before this matter came of nothing?"

My answer: He was always there. He is omnipresent, filling all that is.

> So let me clarify to you, where does the Bible teach that creation isn’t part of GOD?

In Genesis 1.1, we see that the heavens and the Earth are separate entities from God. God's preexistence is assumed (presuppositionally), and the heavens and the Earth are spoken of as distinct entities separate from Elohim. The text is repudiating the divinization of nature and the myths surrounding the Israelite people that spoke of divine origins, divine conflict, and divine ascent. In the Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures, nature was born out of the gods (some kind of procreation), ex deus, after which the god separated that consequence birth matter (nature) from himself. Genesis 1 offers a different theology: God spoke matter into existence; the cosmos didn't come about either by procreation or separation.

> Many would say it teaches a divine oneness with all.

I don't see this anywhere in Scripture. Perhaps you'd care to share with me the Bible texts where "it teaches a divine oneness with all."

Your way off on a tangent. I know Christians like mingling science and quantum spooky woo woo with their ideas but that has nothing to do with my question. So let me clarify to you, where does the Bible teach that creation isn’t part of GOD? Many would say it teaches a divine oneness with all.

> Here the Greek for "formed" is κατηρτίσθαι which means "to prepare" or "to join", but not to create.

You're right that it can mean to prepare or to join, but it can also mean to form, to make, to create, to put together. In Galatians 6.1, Paul uses the term in the sense of restoration. In Matthew 21.16, in the sense of bringing to ordered perfection. In Pss. 74.16; 89.37 it is used (LXX) in the context of creation. Therefore context is key.

Hebrews 11.3 is a reference to creation, as the writer is starting at the beginning of history (Gn. 1). He is speaking of the universe being κατηρτίσθαι by the word of God, a clear reference to the "And God said" of Genesis 1, and a thought he parallels in the next phrase with the verb γεγονέναι, "to make." He follows with Abel (Gn. 4), and so on.

> The phrase "what is seen" is from the Greek φαινομένων from which we get our word phenomena, and which means essentially "to appear"

Our derivative term has nothing to do with what the author of Hebrews meant by his or her use of it. The author is saying that God existed before the visible universe and that the universe was not made out of visible raw materials. In Greek and Roman cosmological thought (Hesiod, Empedocles, Plato, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius), the universe was formed from preexisting matter. The author of Hebrews could be taking his/her thoughts from Prov. 8.22-31.

> while the phrase "what was visible" is βλεπόμενον and refers to what we perceive.

Actually, θεωρέω is more on the lines of "perceive." βλέπω is more attuned to the physical things we see with the eyes. The author is speaking of nature that we see around us.

> Finally, the word "made" is the Greek γίνομαι meaning "to become" and which is similar to the English "gene", suggesting an evolution of something, not creation.

Again, our derivative English terms don't define what the author meant by them. Words and their meanings evolve, and it's retrojective to take our use of the term and plant it back into that author's head. Etymology works forward, not backwards. γίνομαι means "to become; to make." When the author says γεγονέναι ἐκ φαινομένων, he is speaking of the source of what is visible.

In addition, γεγονέναι is the perfect active infinitive of γίνομαι. The perfect tense speaks to completed action in past time, viewing the action as a finished product and then continuing to exist in its finished state. It does not, therefore, suggest an evolution of something in contrast to creation.

The context is clearly speaking of creation of the universe by God's spoken word, and the terminology leads us to interpret what he is saying as creation ex nihilo: That which we see with our eyes did not have its source in anything that was already visible (i.e., extant raw material, as was the theology of the surrounding Greek and Roman culture).

None of that has anything to do with scripture, but is mere conjectural theology, with its attendant jargon such as "absolute personality".

Indeed, your reference of Hebrews 11:3 does not say what you think it does:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Here the Greek for "formed" is κατηρτίσθαι which means "to prepare" or "to join", but not to create. The phrase "what is seen" is from the Greek φαινομένων from which we get our word phenomena, and which means essentially "to appear", while the phrase "what was visible" is βλεπόμενον and refers to what we perceive. Finally, the word "made" is the Greek γίνομαι meaning "to become" and which is similar to the English "gene", suggesting an evolution of something, not creation.