Debunking Christianity: Ken Pulliam Answers Two Important Questions in Genesis

John Loftus has posted two links to articles on Ken Pulliam's blog,

Does Genesis Teach the Big Bang?, and Have Jews Always Believed in Creation ex nihilo? His answer in both cases is a big fat NO!

The two articles are related.  If Jews do not understand that the creation is ex nihilo (out of nothing)  then Genesis does not teach the Big Bang.  Pulliam makes several presuppositions that I don't see how he supports..In the first post, he quotes Steven C Meyer, who is one of the founders of the Intelligent Design organization Discovery Institute.

Meyer maintains that creation ex nihilo was not taught until the 2nd century CE. He writes:

The first mention of "out of nothing" is in 2 Maccabees 7:28 which says, "look upon heaven and earth and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also" (Douay Version, or DV). The Greek is "ex ouk onton." This phrase "out of nothing" is best understood as "out of non-being" or "out of invisible matter" because at that time they still believed in the preexistence of matter. Matter was consider eternal (Goldstein, 1983, pp. 307-10). The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 states, "For thy almighty hand which made the world of matter without form" (DV). This verse teaches that God made the world out of formless (eternal) matter (Winston, 1971-2, 185-202; Goldstein, 1984, 127-35). In chapter 7:25 wisdom is seen as a "pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God" (DV). Philo sees Genesis 1:1-3 through platonic eyes. This is the creation of the invisible world of ideas (On the Creation, 26-37, compare Plato’s Timaeus 29E). The book of Hebrews also seems to follow platonic ideas. The visible world comes from invisible matter (Heb. 11:3). Philo sees preexistent matter alongside of God at the beginning. This invisible matter was eternal (On the Creation, 12). God is the active principle, the formless matter is the passive principle (May, 10). Philo even uses the phrase "ek mh ontwn," meaning "out of non-being," and not "out of nothing" (Allegorical Interpretation III. 10). Clearly, there is no ex nihilo creation in Philo. . . . May concludes, "a firm, unambiguously formulated doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not worked out in ancient Jewry" (1994, 23).

Another great Jewish thinker who came after Maimonides was Gersonides (1288-1344 AD) Gersonides asked some probing questions like "When were the waters created?" Because there was no mention in Genesis of the creation of water, he rejected the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (Burrell and McGinn, 6; Staub, 1982). The early church fathers seem to believe the platonic idea of eternal matter from which God fashioned the world. Justin Martyr is an example. In The First Apology of Justin he says, "He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, created all things out of unformed matter" (Chapter 10). Justin and Plato in Timaeus both agree that everything came into being through God (Apology I:20, 4). Justin says that Plato took his ideas about God making the world out of unformed matter from Genesis. Justin states, "Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world (Apology I:59). The world was made out of preexistent matter. The successor of Justin Martyr was Athenagoras who was an Athenian philosopher who became a Christian. His Apology or Embassy was presented to Emperors Aurelius and Commodus about 177 AD. He explicitly believed in the pre-existence of matter (Chadwick 1966, 12, 47). Clement of Alexandria three times "declares that the world is made 'out of nothing', but in each case the phrase he employs is "ek me ontos," not "ex ouk ontos;" that is to say, it is made not from that which is absolutely non-existent, but from relative non-being or unformed matter" (Chadwick 1966, 46). May in his book Creatio ex Nihilo argues very persuasively for the second century AD development of the doctrine of "creation out of nothing" (1994). It was not until the second century AD that the church fathers saw a theological problem with eternal matter. It was their conflict with the Gnostic and middle platonists that developed the idea of God creating "out of nothing."

Here is my problem. He said that no mention is made of creation of nothing before the 2nd Century CE and then quotes many times from the Apocrapha. Many folks would have dated Maccabees and the other Old Testament Apocryphal texts to BCE. In other words Jesus and his followers would have had these texts. Worst he tries to use medieval Jewish sages to back up his interpretations as if Every Jew since Moses would have agreed.

He then spends a little time on the Hebrew word "bara" translated "create" in Genesis 1:1. He spends more time in the second article but he tries to argue that "bara" could mean "separate" or "set in order." It appears to me that Pulliam is arguing that the Bible teaches an eternal universe at worst or says nothing about where the matter the universe came from at best.

The Greek is "ex ouk onton." This phrase "out of nothing" is best understood as "out of non-being" or "out of invisible matter" because at that time they still believed in the preexistence of matter. Matter was consider eternal (Goldstein, 1983, pp. 307-10). 

How do we know that ancient Judaism thought this. I agree that most of their neighbors did believe matter was eternal but they were all polytheists too. No where does the Bible say that matter is eternal, so how do we know that ancient Jews and Christians agreed? I don't think they did.  And how does "out of non-being"  equate to "out of invisible matter"? "Non-being" is nothing not something.

Now, about the second article. Pulliam tries to use the other places in the bible where "bara" is used to show that it does not always refer to something to being created out of nothing...and then based on that argue that it does not mean the universe was created out of nothing in Genesis 1:1. The problem is that he admits that bara can "create out of nothing" but then fails to show that "bara" does not mean "created out of nothing" in Genesis 1:1. So what if it does not mean "out of nothing" in most other cases in the Old Testament?. We can tell because of context that those other instances don't mean  "created out of nothing". Duh! Besides how often does everything come out of nothing?! Once! That is why it is a miracle.

Pullaim Wrote:

In conclusion, did God (if he exists) create the universe out of nothing? Maybe. Does the word bara' demand it? No. Have Jews always believed that their God created the world out of nothing? No.

He failed to show conclusively that "bara" in Genesis 1:1 does not mean "create out of nothing".  I agree "bara" does not always mean "create out of nothing". You have to read the word in context!  Also not all Jews agree that God created the universe out of nothing. So what?  Being a Jew does not automatically make you in infallible interpreter of Scripture. You would have something if you could show that Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, John, and best - Jesus - or any one from the 1500 years it took to compile the Bible did not see Genesis 1:1 as meaning the universe was "created out of nothing".

Debunking Christianity: Ken Pulliam Answers Two Important Questions in Genesis