The Necessity Of God

[Miles]

.


In 1768 Voltaire said: "If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him."

Consider such necessity however you wish; to provide for the existence of human life, or as comfort for our fears, or as an answer to what lies beyond death, or . . . . Is what Voltaire said true or not? That human's at least need the idea of a supreme being in order to makes sense of our existence. and help us get through it.


,

[JehovahsWitness]

Genesis 1:2

ERV
"the earth was completely empty. There was nothing on the earth. Darkness covered the ocean, and God’s Spirit moved over the water."

EHV
"The earth was undeveloped and empty. Darkness covered the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

NLV
"The earth was an empty waste and darkness was over the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was moving over the top of the waters."

While most translations render the Hebrew tohu as formless (without form) a few have rendered it "empty" which is legitimate but arguably less enlightening choice. The EHV has opted for "undeveloped" ie "to lie waste", as in to not work/develop land and this is also a plausible rendition.





JW

[myth-one.com]

Past-wise, is God necessary at the beginning of all things? I don't think so. The elements pre-existed God or at least they share as murky an ultimate origin.

You're stating this as fact. What is your evidence?

That is what the bible says. I'm stating it as biblical fact. (We're talking about the biblical God here, right?)

But granted, a case could be made for creatio ex nihilo. I would argue that the text is ambiguous, and is readable as God creating all things or as certain elements pre-existing or co-existing with God at the moment of creation. Notably tehom, the deep / ocean / abyss. While I tend towards the latter, the fact is we just can't say, which all the more makes it a murky origin to my point.

I think we may have some trouble here. How can a world, which is generally taken to be material, be "formless and void"?

That is what the bible says. i.e., Genesis 1:2 - "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The Bible states the following about the original creation of the heaven and the earth:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

That is the end of the original creation. It states nothing about any pre-existing material, and it provides no description of its original appearance.

[Miles]

Genesis 1:2

ERV
"the earth was completely empty. There was nothing on the earth. Darkness covered the ocean, and God’s Spirit moved over the water."

EHV
"The earth was undeveloped and empty. Darkness covered the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

NLV
"The earth was an empty waste and darkness was over the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was moving over the top of the waters."

While most translations render the Hebrew tohu as formless (without form) a few have rendered it "empty" which is legitimate but arguably less enlightening choice. The EHV has opted for "undeveloped" ie "to lie waste", as in to not work/develop land and this is also a plausible rendition.

But in light of the water that is mentioned in every version using "formless," a far more reasonable one.

[theophile]

Past-wise, is God necessary at the beginning of all things? I don't think so. The elements pre-existed God or at least they share as murky an ultimate origin.

You're stating this as fact. What is your evidence?

That is what the bible says. I'm stating it as biblical fact. (We're talking about the biblical God here, right?)

But granted, a case could be made for creatio ex nihilo. I would argue that the text is ambiguous, and is readable as God creating all things or as certain elements pre-existing or co-existing with God at the moment of creation. Notably tehom, the deep / ocean / abyss. While I tend towards the latter, the fact is we just can't say, which all the more makes it a murky origin to my point.

I think we may have some trouble here. How can a world, which is generally taken to be material, be "formless and void"?

That is what the bible says. i.e., Genesis 1:2 - "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The Bible states the following about the original creation of the heaven and the earth:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

That is the end of the original creation. It states nothing about any pre-existing material, and it provides no description of its original appearance.

That original statement can be read as a summary of Genesis 1 as a whole. The rest of the text goes on to describe how the earth and the heavens came into being throughout the early days of creation. So again, if you read the next verse, you then see tehom, the deep. Who is neither heaven nor earth, with whom God creates. Tehom pre-exists or co-exists with God and is the original element or partner with whom God creates.

[myth-one.com]

The Bible states the following about the original creation of the heaven and the earth:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

That is the end of the original creation. It states nothing about any pre-existing material, and it provides no description of its original appearance.

That original statement can be read as a summary of Genesis 1 as a whole.

Only if it is read incorrectly.

Note that beginning in verse 3, every item God creates is said to be good. Then in His final summation, God states:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

If verse one is a summary of the the entire first chapter of Genesis, then verse 2 would not describe the earth as being created without form, void, and dark.

Formless, void, and dark is not equivalent to very good!

So God originally created the heaven and the earth as good in verse 1, and it had come to be without form, void, and dark over some period of time:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, . . . (Genesis 1:2)

So God returned to the earth:

. . . and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

And began the re-creation of the decimated earth by turning the lights back on:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

============================================================

So something occurred between verses 1 and 2 to cause the earth to become as described in verse 2.

That something was the rebellion against God in Heaven by some of the angels assigned to the earth and lead by Satan.

Their abandonment of their first estate ultimately resulted in the earth becoming formless, void, and dark.

So God defeated the rebellion, returned and re-created the earth, created man, gave man dominion over the earth, and commanded man to replenish the earth.

Man is being groomed to eventually replace these rebellious angels.

[theophile]

The Bible states the following about the original creation of the heaven and the earth:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

That is the end of the original creation. It states nothing about any pre-existing material, and it provides no description of its original appearance.

That original statement can be read as a summary of Genesis 1 as a whole.

Only if it is read incorrectly.

Note that beginning in verse 3, every item God creates is said to be good. Then in His final summation, God states:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

If verse one is a summary of the the entire first chapter of Genesis, then verse 2 would not describe the earth as being created without form, void, and dark.

Formless, void, and dark is not equivalent to very good!

This isn't saying anything against my point. Yes, creation is good. But creation is also a progression. After the summary of Genesis 1 (i.e., verse 1:1) you then see the story unfold in detail. You have the deep / ocean that is formless and empty of life. You have God facing off against / 'hovering above' the deep in verse 1:2. Nothing is good yet unless it is the potential within these elements and their pairing.

But that's the point of Genesis 1: this interaction between God and the deep has the potential for life, and it is the life resulting from God's works that is good. That potential is made possible through the interaction of God and the deep, together establishing the fundamental conditions for life and creating new ones such as light, the heavens, earth, etc.

Again, the creation of the heavens and the earth (verse 1:1) is a summary of this progression that ends in a day of rest at the end of Genesis 1.

In fact, I would argue that Genesis 1 is itself a summary of the bible, and a touchstone for the end of Revelation, when you have a new Eden forming and humankind at last taking on the role ordained in Genesis 1. The bible is simply the unfolding and detailing out across a literary and actual history the story that is Genesis 1. Just as Genesis 1 is this to Genesis 1:1. That's how the bible works: it's patterns within patterns, microcosms, ambiguous writings that lead to ambiguous meanings that compel us to discern the truth.

So something occurred between verses 1 and 2 to cause the earth to become as described in verse 2.

That something was the rebellion against God in Heaven by some of the angels assigned to the earth and lead by Satan.

Their abandonment of their first estate ultimately resulted in the earth becoming formless, void, and dark.

So God defeated the rebellion, returned and re-created the earth, created man, gave man dominion over the earth, and commanded man to replenish the earth.

Man is being groomed to eventually replace these rebellious angels.

That is a lot to read within the lines. I prefer a biblical interpretation that sticks to the text.

But even so, I don't know why you need this narrative of rebellion. What purpose does reading all this in provide?

I would argue that Satan too is a progression we see throughout the bible. Take the serpent in Genesis 3. To your point above, it is a good creature (as we just learned in Genesis 1 that everything is good at this point... Satan is what this creature may evolve into over history: its progeny can twist and contort out of enmity with humankind and become Satan. i.e., Satan is not a pre-story to the bible that doesn't exist but a possibility in creation that the bible depicts in the progression from the serpent, to the satan (book of Job), and ultimately Satan (New Testament).

[myth-one.com]

After the summary of Genesis 1 (i.e., verse 1:1) you then see the story unfold in detail.

Genesis 1:1 is a statement of fact, not a summary.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

It's a done deal that the heaven and the earth existed as good at the end of Genesis 1:1.

You have the deep / ocean that is formless and empty of life.

No, you have the entire earth which is formless, empty, and dark in verse 2:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

Did God create the earth as it is described in verse 2?

You have God facing off against / 'hovering above' the deep in verse 1:2.

God has returned and is hovering above the deep.

Nothing is good yet unless it is the potential within these elements and their pairing.

Nothing is good at the start of verse three.

However, everything was created very good in verse 1, because in verse 1 God created the heaven and the earth, and everything God ever created was created as very good.

In verse three the earth had become formless, void, and dark.

If it had not become that way, then the only other option is that God created the earth as without form, void, and empty in verse 1.

But that's the point of Genesis 1: this interaction between God and the deep has the potential for life, and it is the life resulting from God's works that is good.

No, everything God made was very good, not simply the life.

Again, the creation of the heavens and the earth (verse 1:1) is a summary of this progression that ends in a day of rest at the end of Genesis 1.

Do you see any contradictions in the following verses?

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

That is a lot to read within the lines. I prefer a biblical interpretation that sticks to the text.

That is what I've just provided.

But even so, I don't know why you need this narrative of rebellion. What purpose does reading all this in provide?

The rebellion is what made the creation of mankind necessary!!

Mankind was the only difference between the original creation and the re-creation. It's why we exist.

I would argue that Satan too is a progression we see throughout the bible. Take the serpent in Genesis 3. To your point above, it is a good creature (as we just learned in Genesis 1 that everything is good at this point... Satan is what this creature may evolve into over history: its progeny can twist and contort out of enmity with humankind and become Satan. i.e., Satan is not a pre-story to the bible that doesn't exist but a possibility in creation that the bible depicts in the progression from the serpent, to the satan (book of Job), and ultimately Satan (New Testament).

Yes, Lucifer (later the serpent, Satan or devil) was very well thought of by God at some time, as indicated by Lucifer being given power over the entire earth and responsibility over the fate of the earth sometime between verses 1 and 2.

[JehovahsWitness]

After the summary of Genesis 1 (i.e., verse 1:1) you then see the story unfold in detail.

Genesis 1:1 is a statement of fact, not a summary.

So a statement of fact cannot also be a summary?

It's a done deal that the heaven and the earth existed as good at the end of Genesis 1:1.

Biblically everything God does is good; However , it might not necessarily initially be complete.

[myth-one.com]

Biblically everything God does is good; However , it might not necessarily initially be complete.

God declared everything which He created to be "good" immediately after creating it.

Did He ever declared anything He created to be "incomplete?"

[theophile]

It's a done deal that the heaven and the earth existed as good at the end of Genesis 1:1.

No, that is not said in the bible. Again, Genesis 1 is the trajectory through which an empty and lifeless world becomes full of life. So how can it possibly be a "done deal" by Genesis 1:1? Please explain the point of Genesis 1:2 onwards.

Oh, that's right. There is a whole missing story between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 where Satan rebels and destroys the earth and it all needs to be remade.

Right. The missing link that is more fancy than biblical fact...

That is a lot to read within the lines. I prefer a biblical interpretation that sticks to the text.

That is what I've just provided.

I have still seen no biblical references that make a case for an original rebellion and fall from grace.

Your argument is basically:
1) In Genesis 1:1 heaven and earth were already completed and good (which is something you added to the text)
2) In Genesis 1:2 the earth is described as lifeless and without form (this is indeed the case)
3) To explain this (which again, only needs explaining because of your addition to Genesis 1:1), you need a story of rebellion and world destruction (which again, is something you added to the text to make sense of your first, needless addition.)

So okay. I get your argument. All your additions make logical sense when taken together. The problem is that they are not in the text. And we should favor interpretations that stick to the bible without additions. We don't need any of these additions to make sense of what is going on. (But yes, you need to swallow the fact that in the beginning there are raw, pre-existing elements with which God creates. That, or the initial creation in Genesis 1:1 is incomplete.)

But anyways, there is no point proceeding if you insist on reading all this between the lines. We're not gonna get anywhere.

Yes, Lucifer (later the serpent, Satan or devil) was very well thought of by God at some time, as indicated by Lucifer being given power over the entire earth and responsibility over the fate of the earth sometime between verses 1 and 2.

See, you have fabricated a whole new story here. And I get it. You're not the first to read it this way. But it's more Milton and Paradise Lost than it is Genesis 1. Maybe you should take that up as your bible.