Re: De Novo Adam

Denis Lamoureux (dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 20:25:48 -0700 (MST)

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.951204232053.82726E@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca>

Greetings Jim,
Chilly night up here. Exposed flesh will freeze in 30 seconds!!!

On 4 Dec 1995, Jim Bell wrote:

> Denis writes:
>
> << Old Testament BIBLICAL theologians (whether conservative or liberal) ALL
> acknowledge that Gen 1 is not supportive of creatio ex nihilo.>>
>
JIM:
> That is absolutely incorrect, as I will show below with Gleason Archer.
It is
> also incorrect historically. Prior to the 20th Century, every church historian
> and theologian I'm aware of, and the OT text itsel, point to only one
> conclusion: Creation ex nihilo.

Jim, do you know the difference between a BIBLICAL theologian and a
SYSTEMATIC theologian? Please, read my post again. Of course, church
historians will record creatio ex nihilo as the "theology" of the day,
but that is the SYSTEMATIC theological statement--ie, the overall
position of the Church. However, that is not what Gen 1 says.

Do me a favor and do an exegesis of Gen 1:1-3.
(1) Who created the dark watery earth?
(2) and when was it created?
And remember, you have to account for the disjunctive waw in v.2.
(3) Further, why do modern translations have "When God began to
create..." either in the main text or the footnote?

If you can answer these questions, you will see my point.

JIM:
> Here is Aquinas on creation, answering the question "Whether to Create is to
> Make Something from Nothing":

Aquinas was a SYSTEMATIC theologian. Please reread my post again, and
what I had to say about the NT and Christian theologians with regard to
creatio ex nihilo.

DENIS
> << It is not OT theologians (like myself) do not believe in creatio
> ex nihilo--because WE DO. But it is to say, that the idea had yet to
> develop by the time Gen 1 was composed. >>

JIM
> On the contrary, the idea was fully developed. The ancient Heberews understood
> the difference between crafting with pre-existent materials, which they did
> all the time, and creating something from nothing. That is exactly what
> Genesis 1 is all about.

Not true. The Hebrews did not even have a word for "matter". You have
to grasp this notion before you can even think about its creation out of
nothing.

JIM
> Here I will quote well respected OT Theologian, Gleason Archer: "The verb bara
> is used for creation ex nihilo in Genesis 1:1 and in most other passages where
> it appears....It is God who is the subject of bara, never man; and when it
> takes an object of the ting created, it never indicates any preexistent
> material out of which it is made." [A Survey of Old Testament, Introduction,
> pg. 194]

Jim you don't solve an issue like this by going to an introductory text--go
rather to the professional tools. Ask anyone who has written a textbook,
at best these are approximations. Rarely does one see an introductory
textbook cited in professional literature. Here's what a few of the best
OT tools (yes, used by evangelicals) state about bara:

1) The classic Hebrew lexicon (BDB) makes no reference to creatio ex
nihilo in its entry under bara.

2) The evangelical Theological Wordbook of the OT (WITH GLEASON ARCHER AS
ONE OF THE THREE EDITORS) states that bara "lends itself well to the
concept of creation ex nihilo, ALTHOUGH THAT CONCEPT IS NOT NECESSARILY
INHERENT WITH THE MEANING OF THAT WORD."

3) The classic Theological Dictionary fo the OT makes no reference to
creatio ex nihilo. Rather it underlines the parallels of bara with asah
(to make) and yatsar (to form) which results in a "leveling" of the
word. That is, the parallels with other non-ex nihilo verbs remove this
nuance from it. Eg. Is 45:12. God made (asah) the earth, and created
(bara) man.

4) The best evangelical commentary on Gen 1-15 (see below): "It is
therefore clear that bara is not a term exclusively reserved for creation
out of nothing . . . though such an interpretation of Gen 1:1 is
POSSIBLE, the phraseology used leaves the author's precise meaning
UNCERTAIN on this point."

5) Finally, in the most respected commentary on the the early chapters of
the Bible, C. Westermann's Gen 1-11 states, "One must be cautious about
attributing too much to the word as if it could of itself say something
about the uniqueness of the creative act of God. It is clear that it was
[the author's] intention to use a special theological word for creation
by God. But it is not correct to regard this word as the only one and
neglect such words as asah or yatsar. Nor IT IS CORRECT TO READ CREATIO
EX NIHILO OUT OF THE WORD . . . THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE IN THE
ENTIRE OT THAT THE VERB ITSELF EVER EXPRESSES THE IDEA OF CREATION OUT OF
NOTHING."

To be sure, Archer is a bright fellow. But I did OT scholarship (Gen 1-11)
up to the first year of a
PhD, and be assured Archer is not a Gen 1-11 specialist. Furthermore, I
cannot remember him being cited any of the professional literature in this
area. The premier Gen 1-11 evangelical commentary today is Gordon J.
Wenham's Genesis 1-15 (1987), and there is NOT ONE CITATION to any of Archer's
work.

If you want a premier evangelical OT scholar who has written professionally
and extensively in this specific
the area see Bruce K. Waltke, Creation and Choas--and from there you can
gather the literature. He is thoroughly evangelical and holds doctoral
degrees from Dallas and Harvard. And, yes, Bruce is one of the three
editors of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament ALONG WITH
GLEASON ARCHER.

> Denis, I've given several theological quotations, old and modern, as proof
> that Genesis 1 speaks of creation ex nihilo.

Jim, you have cited two people, one who is NOT a BIBLICAL scholar
but a SYSTEMATIC theologian, the other who is, yes, respected in
evangelical/fundamentalist circles, but in the OT world,
and in particular Gen 1--11, is not a significant contributor (if at all).
His answer is the standard SYSTEMATIC position, but not the position of those
who are specialists in the area.

As always, enjoy interacting with you.

In Him,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA

Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000

E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca

"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."

------------------------------------------------------------