Egypt 6 day creation myth Vs Hebrew 6 day myth:

Originally posted by DeepThought
The Egyptian God Ptah existed before all other things and thought the world into existence. This is creation ex nihilo. It is not only the Hebrew creation myth that involves this. The Egyptians didn't mind their various mythologies contradicting each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah

I saw your article. I will return to it to read more. But I did not see yet a direct translation of any Egyptian hieroglyphics to clearly substantiate the author's claim. I see analysis, interpretation which I want justified by Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Do you have a link to the hieroglyphics which state the following ?

[b]The Egyptian God Ptah existed before all other things and thought the world into existence. This is creation ex nihilo.

I don't want the musings of some skeptic with a vested interest.

I did see this but will have to check it.

This document has been known as the Memphite Theology, and shows the god Ptah, the god responsible for the creation of the universe by thought and by the Word.

Ptah is the patron of craftsmanship, metalworking, carpenters, shipbuilders, and sculpture. From the Middle Kingdom onwards, he was one of five major Egyptian gods with Ra, Isis, Osiris and Amun.

We'll see.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The Egyptian God Ptah existed before all other things and thought the world into existence. This is creation ex nihilo. It is not only the Hebrew creation myth that involves this. The Egyptians didn't mind their various mythologies contradicting each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah

This article says Ptah created order out of chaos. It also states that the order was something other than the substance.

"Ptah of Memphis created order from nothing, but the order was separate from substance, which existed as chaos."

To be fair the author does also say -

"Creation myths seem to fall into two general classes. A few suggest that creator really made something out of nothing, but most suggest that a creator brought order to chaos, light to darkness, meaning to nonsense, a Word or logos to the metaphoric speechless."


I have not seen yet his listings by classes. The author is Richard L. Jones and the article is called Ex Nihilo. It appears to be a text of College English.

As far as I can see, the author is using Ex Nihilo relating it to the god Ptah of the Memphis cult, yet his version of nothing, to Ptah, is substance existing as chaos.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/375741?sid=21106204911143&uid=4&uid=2

So far I would say to DeepThought - "Close, but no cigar." Not yet.

Originally posted by sonship
This article says Ptah created order out of chaos. It also states that the order was something other than the substance.

[b] "Ptah of Memphis created order from nothing, but the order was separate from substance, which existed as chaos."

To be fair the author does also say -

"Creation myths seem to fall into two general classes. A few sug ...[text shortened]... 6204911143&uid=4&uid=2

So far I would say to DeepThought - "Close, but no cigar." Not yet.

First point, the thing you are quoting was written by an English Professor, as far as I can tell the book is about the process of writing, I wouldn't take it as an accurate account of Egyptology. Which doesn't mean he's wrong, but I'm wary of it as a source.

After a bit of digging I can't find a reference to a reliable source on Ptah, so I'll have to change tack a little. You have to be a little careful about distinguishing creation myths from primordial chaos and ones where creation occurs from nothing. To us they are different concepts, but it's not at all clear to me that to ancient peoples they were separate concepts. Chaos means there is no form so there are "no things" so there is nothing. We'd say that chaos is something and that existence is independent of having form, they might not accept that.

Also I'm not sure the Genesis creation narrative has God creating ex nihilo. Let's take a look at the first 8 verses of Genesis:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:1-10, Authorised King James Version

The first verse says what is about to be described, it does not describe the first act. God fashions the earth and heaven out of primordial waters, it reads as creation from chaos "and the earth was without form". It does not explicitly claim creation from nothing. Heaven is not created until verse 8, and Earth until verse 9. So, I think there is a strong case that the account in Genesis is an account of creation from chaos not of creation ex nihilo.

Originally posted by DeepThought

After a bit of digging I can't find a reference to a reliable source on Ptah, so I'll have to change tack a little.

It has sparked my interest and I found some things to look into further as well.

You have to be a little careful about distinguishing creation myths from primordial chaos and ones where creation occurs from nothing.

The God of the Bible creates the universe out of nothing. There is not problem with this. In fact Romans 4:17 Paul, the x Pharisee and Torah expert, wrote that He is the God "who ... calls the things not being as being."

Based on this verse we may say God is the ground of all being. And He is the God who calls into being that which have not being.

John 1:3 says "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being which has come into being."

That is not one thing = NO thing = nothing.

All things came into being because of His will according to Revelation 4:11 - "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created."

"All things" were created because of God's will.

The very ancient Greek's had a concept of chaos as being a yawning void. Latter the meaning changed to mean a confused bulk - ill-ordered, ill-formed. So "chaos" as an ancient word did have a change in connotation.

However, the Bible does not have God creating either "in the beginning" , but a compound Hebrew term is used which means all the universe. In English "the heavens and the earth".

To us they are different concepts, but it's not at all clear to me that to ancient peoples they were separate concepts. Chaos means there is no form so there are "no things" so there is nothing.

That is much like I wrote above. Chaos eventually went from meaning a yawning void to a formless "mess" of confusion.

We'd say that chaos is something and that existence is independent of having form, they might not accept that.

The point that I emphasize is that God calls everything into being. And in the beginning BARA - created "the heavens and the earth". He created out of nothing the universe.

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him NOT ONE THING came into BEING which has come into being." (John 1:3)

Also I'm not sure the Genesis creation narrative has God creating ex nihilo. Let's take a look at the first 8 verses of Genesis:

You have to search your own heart and ask WHY that should be. It is clear to us who are willing to give God the glory. I wonder if the reluctance to THANK God or to give the glory to God hinders you from WANTING to ascribe ex nihilo creation to God.

Revelation 4:11 has the created most ancient beings saying - "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created."

Perhaps your hesitation of ascribing all creation to God is associated with a disdain to count God as "worthy" to receive that "glory ... honor ..." and the recognition of that "power" to God. It could be that you are "not sure" about the ex nihilo Creator because you don't want to count Him as worthy of your recognition of His authority and power.

Paul says of the downward degradation of humans from Adam that some people - "though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or thank Him, but rather became vain in their reasonings, and their heart, lacking understanding, was darkened." (Rom. 1:21)

Perhaps you have to consider that you are influenced to be confused on purpose because you do not want to be thankful to God.

You go on to quote the KJV on Genesis 1:1-10 . But make an error in summarizing the passages.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep ... ...

The first verse says what is about to be described, it does not describe the first act.

No you are wrong here. The first verse describes the first ACT and the word "And" starting the second verse describes something continuing from the first act.

Even many good Christians think that Genesis 1:1 is the subject of the first two chapters of Genesis. And some teachers teach the two opening of Genesis are a record of God's creation such that chapter 1, verse 1 is the subject.

But if verse 1 is the subject, how can verse 2 start with "and"? "And" means that something is going on already, and then something else happens to follow it. "And" is a conjunction which combines two things: the first thing goes and the second thing comes.

So the grammar shows that verse 1 is not the subject, but part of the description. It describes the first event in a series. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and..." This means that after God created, something happened.

God fashions the earth and heaven out of primordial waters, it reads as creation from chaos "and the earth was without form". It does not explicitly claim creation from nothing. Heaven is not created until verse 8, and Earth until verse 9. So, I think there is a strong case that the account in Genesis is an account of creation from chaos not of creation ex nihilo.

No, Smith J. Pye write in "A philosophical survey of the initial sections of the Bible"

... "That the first sentence is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom, to this effect: that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and dependent, sentient, and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity, either in self continuity or succession, but had a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will of one Being, the self-existent, independent, and infinite in all perfection; and that the date of that beginning is not made known."

Witness Lee on Genesis 1:2 writes in The Life Study of Genesis

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth became waste and empty." The Concordant Version of Genesis translates the verse this way: "Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant." The Concordant Version does not say "and"; it says "yet." "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant." A chaos is a mess. The earth became a chaos—waste and vacant. If you build some apartments and no one dwells in them, they are vacant. We may render this phrase as either "a chaos and vacant" or "waste and empty." Something happened between verse 1 and verse 2 which caused the earth to become waste and empty."

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?p

Originally posted by sonship

After a bit of digging I can't find a reference to a reliable source on Ptah, so I'll have to change tack a little.

It has sparked my interest and I found some things to look into further as well.

You have to be a little careful about distinguishing creation myths from primordial chaos and ones where creation occurs from no ...[text shortened]... used the earth to become waste and empty."

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?p

You have to search your own heart and ask WHY that should be. It is clear to us who are willing to give God the glory. I wonder if the reluctance to THANK God or to give the glory to God hinders you from WANTING to ascribe ex nihilo creation to God.
...
Perhaps your hesitation of ascribing all creation to God is associated with a disdain to count God as "worthy" to receive that "glory ... honor ..." and the recognition of that "power" to God. It could be that you are "not sure" about the ex nihilo Creator because you don't want to count Him as worthy of your recognition of His authority and power.

Try to stay off argumentum ad natis nequam. Put simply, I don't believe in God so you are asking me to be grateful to an entity I don't believe exists. I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe the converse either, I don't think there is sufficient justification for forming a belief on the matter. It is not a matter of ingratitude.

What you seemed to be saying is that some biblical scholars think that Genesis 1 clearly has God creating the world ex nihilo and others think it has God creating the world out of chaos. So there is not a clear consensus on the matter.

Really we'd have to go to the original Hebrew to be clear about this, as the conjunctive you are relying on at the start of the next two verses does not automatically imply that the rest of the sentence follows chronologically. It may have been there for reasons of metre.

The very ancient Greek's had a concept of chaos as being a yawning void. Latter the meaning changed to mean a confused bulk - ill-ordered, ill-formed. So "chaos" as an ancient word did have a change in connotation.

Why does this not then apply to Ptah?

Originally posted by DeepThought

You have to search your own heart and ask WHY that should be. It is clear to us who are willing to give God the glory. I wonder if the reluctance to THANK God or to give the glory to God hinders you from WANTING to ascribe ex nihilo creation to God.
...
Perhaps your hesitation of ascribing all creation to God is associated with a disdain to coun ...[text shortened]... s an ancient word did have a change in connotation.

Why does this not then apply to Ptah?

Try to stay off argumentum ad natis nequam. Put simply, I don't believe in God so you are asking me to be grateful to an entity I don't believe exists. I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe the converse either, I don't think there is sufficient justification for forming a belief on the matter. It is not a matter of ingratitude.

I tell you the straight up and frank truth of the matter. What kind of argument you would like to classify it as, does not concern me over much.

Possibly you have a vested interest in believing you have never been told of God creating all things as in really all things. Maybe it is an argument ad pain in the neck. That is between you and the Creator.

What you seemed to be saying is that some biblical scholars think that Genesis 1 clearly has God creating the world ex nihilo and others think it has God creating the world out of chaos.

Not all bible students would see it as I stated it that easily.
Some, for the sake of robbing evolution of millions of years, seem to want to morph Genesis 1:1,2 into an imitation of some of the ancient cosmogonies.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are only one section of the Bible among many which address the matter of creating, forming, or making of the world by God. So I included some other verses.

The whole revelation of the Bible together is the approach I encourage you to take.

So there is not a clear consensus on the matter.

But you can decide where you want to stand.
Lack of absolute consensus doesn't stop you from taking a position of belief.

Really we'd have to go to the original Hebrew to be clear about this, as the conjunctive you are relying on at the start of the next two verses does not automatically imply that the rest of the sentence follows chronologically. It may have been there for reasons of metre.

Above you wrote:

Put simply, I don't believe in God so you are asking me to be grateful to an entity I don't believe exists. I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe the converse either, I don't think there is sufficient justification for forming a belief on the matter. It is not a matter of ingratitude.

You posture yourself as a seeker for the real meaning. Yet if God IS, maybe God will not waste light of truth on one He knows is padlocked closed in mind and heart to know God.

I mean there is a word which transcends the word of Hebrew and Greek. It is the word of God. And He may just not waste light on one who is not open at all to come forward TO Him.


The Bible is about changing the reader.
Anyone coming to the Bible with no willingness to be changed by God will get nothing.

He is only telling us anything to dispense something of Himself to us.
If you're not open to receive something of God Himself, it doesn't matter how well versed you are in ancient Hebrew. You are not going to touch truth because you're not opened to come to the Speaker.

Originally posted by sonship

Try to stay off argumentum ad natis nequam. Put simply, I don't believe in God so you are asking me to be grateful to an entity I don't believe exists. I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe the converse either, I don't think there is sufficient justification for forming a belief on the matter. It is not a matter of ingratitude.

I tell you ...[text shortened]... ient Hebrew. You are not going to touch truth because you're not opened to come to the Speaker.

You still can't get past the problem of the book actually being written by humans, not a book FOUND by humans. Clever humans wrote all those pithy sayings and there is nothing you can point to that says otherwise.

Every word was written by humans. Show me the god words. There are none.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You still can't get past the problem of the book actually being written by humans, not a book FOUND by humans. Clever humans wrote all those pithy sayings and there is nothing you can point to that says otherwise.

Every word was written by humans. Show me the god words. There are none.

The original ten commandments were said to have been written by the finger of God. There are also many statements that are said to have been said by God. All you have to do is begin reading and you will come across them. There is no claim by anyone that God actually picked up a pen and wrote anything we are reading today.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The original ten commandments were said to have been written by the finger of God. There are also many statements that are said to have been said by God. All you have to do is begin reading and you will come across them. There is no claim by anyone that God actually picked up a pen and wrote anything we are reading today.

And there you have it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And there you have it.

What about Dainiel 5 that describe the finger writing on the wall and the Son of God writing on the ground with His finger in John 8? 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
What about Dainiel 5 that describe the finger writing on the wall and the Son of God writing on the ground with His finger in John 8? 😏

Where is this alleged writing now?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where is this alleged writing now?

You sure ask stupid questions to pretend to be so smart. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm

Looks like a carefully crafted plagiarized story to me. The similarities are so close you have to see the parallels in the two myths.

Both from same source maybe probably Sumerian

Originally posted by RJHinds
You sure ask stupid questions to pretend to be so smart. 😏

If it was written by a god, it should be visible for 10,000 years.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If it was written by a god, it should be visible for 10,000 years.

...the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!