HI
@URAVIP2ME
1) REGARDING URAVIP2ME’S USE OF ISAIAH 40:26
Clear asked of URAVIP2ME : “You quoted a version of Isaiah 40:26 in support of your theory that God created the material worlds out of his "dynamic energy" and his "power". … Do you want to try again to CLARIFY and EXPLAIN your theory in more detail and explain what you think Isaiah 40:26 meant and how Isaiai 40:26 supports your theory?”
Since your last post does not reference your use of Isaiah 40:26 that I asked about, I will assume you no longer want to use Isaiah 40:26 in support for your theory?
2) THE LOGIC UNDERLYING THE EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT GOD CREATED THE WORLDS OUT OF PRIOR EXISTING MATTER RATHER THAN OUT OF "NOTHING"
URAVIP2ME said “A carpenter uses his already God-given energy to create in the sense of making something. The something is already there in the case of the carpenter, etc. (Post #802)
Precisely correct. A carpenter makes things out of material that is already there and this is logical and in accordance with nature. Readers would not believe me if I claimed a carpenter made my breakfast table out of “nothing” or out of “power” or out of “wisdom” since that is illogical and irrational and nature doesn’t work that way. Similarly, the early Jewish and Christian believed that that God, who had power and wisdom, used materials that were “already there” or present at the time of creation of this world when he formed the earth out of those materials.
Please understand that my point is not that the early Christian religion is correct and that your religion is incorrect on this point. Your religious beliefs are simply different than the early Christians on this specific point. My point is that the early Judeo-Christian belief that God made the material worlds out of matter and not out of “nothing” is more logical and more rational than the later adoption of a theory where he created material things out of absolutely “nothing”.
3) THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ATTEMPT TO USE SCRIPTURES TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY
Why should readers use your interpretation of an English text, made from the non-christian Masoretic of almost a millenia later than the Christian LXX? Why does your interpretation of your text in English have priority over and original language and over the early Christian interpretation of their text?
For examples :
In post #784 We discussed the fact that the ancient Christian LXX of Isaiah 40:26 did not say what your version says and ancient readers did not interpret Isaiah as you interpret it.
In post #795 – We discussed the fact that the ancient Christian LXX of Psalms 104:30 did not say what your version says and ancient readers did not interpret Isaiah as you interpret it.
In post #796 – We discussed the fact that the ancient Christian LXX of Psalms 90:2 did not say what your version says and ancient readers did not interpret Isaiah as you interpret it.
This is the same problem that all of your other scriptures have. They do not say that a material form of “energy” or “power” or “wisdom” becomes a material earth, instead, they tell us merely that God has power and wisdom, and that he uses his power and his wisdom as part of the process of creation.
4) THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE USE OF A PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF A NON CHRISTIAN (i.e. non-LXX) BASED TRANSLATION IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE
Remember, the early Christians were not speaking English, but were using koine. This is a problem for your quotes and your interpretation
For example, you said “
… Jeremiah 10:12 states He (God) has made the Earth by His POWER”.
However, Jeremiah 10:12 says “
[the] Lord, the one making the earth in his strength…”
“Κυριος ο ποιησας την γην εν τη ισχυι αυτου…” which is a term meaning “to be able”, “strength”. The writer did not use the term “δυναμις” (dynamis) which is where we get our term “dynamic” associated with the “dynamic power” you described.
The textual reference to “strength” here does not indicate the world consists of a material version of “strength”, it merely indicates that the Lords “strength”, "power", "ability", etc, was used in the process of making the land. So, while I can agree with your statement that “God's spirit is connected to God's POWER and God's STRENGTH in connection to things being created. (URAVIP2ME post #800), I think the early christian belief that the Lord used his strength, power, and wisdom in the formation and molding of the earth is more rational and logical than wisdom or strength being actual material objects out of which God formed the earth.
Secondly consider the preposition “εν” in the first phrase. “
Κυριος ο ποιησας την γην εν τη ισχυι αυτου…” The preposition
εν is called the “maid of all work” among the Greek prepositions and “by his power” in this case does not mean “consisting of” power
as though power were a material thing. In fact it does not indicate “out” of at all. Instead εν is “in”. IF you want to indicate something is made “out” of, then one uses the preposition “εκ” in koine Greek in the same way that “EX-Nihilos is “OUT” of nothing.
But ΕΝ is the opposite of “out of”. Its object is INSIDE of a specific place or condition. For example,
Εν αρχε εν ο λογος, “
IN the beginning was the word… (Jn 1:1). While it can indicate a time or position (i.e. inside a certain time – “in” the beginning”) it can be inside of a condition “i.e. “In my great power I have done these things…”). Neither useage indicates that earth is made OF God’s strength, but rather God made the earth because he had the ability (ισχυι) to do so. IF the text wanted to indicate the earth was actually made of a material called “strength” or “power” or “wisdom” one expects the Greek to use the words for this such as “δια” or “δι” (through or by, or another word etc.)
If you look as the context of the prior verses it will make clear that the sense and meaning in the statement is that the real God has power to do great things and the idols are powerless, idols do not have power or characteristics which allow them to make do or anything, but rather,
man makes them. Read the prior verses.
Even the next phrase where the text says “
he hath established the world by his wisdom”, the phrase in LXX is “
…ο ανορθωσας την οικουμενην εν τη σοφια αυτου…”.
The greek word rendered “established” is
not a term used to
create (not really even to “establish”), but to “set up”, erect, found, to improve, to recover, or remedy. For example one can use the term to right a boat that is capsized etc.
If I want a surgical eyelid lift, it is an
ανορθωση λαιμου (using the same word). A Face lift is an
ανόρθωση προσώπου, a "push up" bra is a να φοραω σουτειν
ανορθωσης . The point is that this word doesn’t refer to a creative act, but an act of "improvement", a "setting up" or a "remedy of a problem". Thus, Benton, in the LXX renders this phrase more correctly as "
who set up the world by his wisdom...".
These texts did not mean the same to the ancient reader that they seem to mean to you. All of the verses you attempt to use to support your theory have similar defects.
WHY should your interpretation of an English text have priority over the interpretation of early Christians with their texts?
Unless you have better data, I suspect this point that the early Christian belief in creation of the earth from matter, (rather than from nothing) is more logical and rational than the later belief that God created the earth from “nothing” is made and I don’t suppose I have more to add on this historical point.
In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good URAVIP2ME.
Clear
εινεσιδρακω
