Creator deity (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Creator deity" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
3rd place
3rd place
1st place
1st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
5th place
5th place
26th place
20th place
40th place
58th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
471st place
409th place
5,220th place
4,234th place
low place
low place
2,932nd place
1,911th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
216th place
186th place
low place
low place
2nd place
2nd place
11th place
8th place
low place
low place

about.com

ancienthistory.about.com

accessgenealogy.com

bahai.org

reference.bahai.org

books.google.com

britannica.com

  • Ninian Smart (2007). "Polytheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 5 July 2007.

chinesefolklore.org.cn

cornerstonepublications.org

dhspriory.org

  • "On the simplicity of God, in " Summa Theologiae", Part I, Question 3". Priory of Dominican Order (in Latin and English). Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Benziger Bros. edition. 1947. Archived from the original on 2 October 2011. Retrieved 6 October 2018. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus est primum movens immobile. Unde manifestum est quod Deus non est corpus. Secundo, quia necesse est id quod est primum ens, esse in actu, et nullo modo in potentia. Licet enim in uno et eodem quod exit de potentia in actum, prius sit potentia quam actus tempore, simpliciter tamen actus prior est potentia, quia quod est in potentia, non reducitur in actum nisi per ens actu. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus est primum ens. Impossibile est igitur quod in Deo sit aliquid in potential... . Now it has been already proved (Question [2], Article [3]), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body. Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality.

doi.org

jstor.org

katabiblon.com

en.katabiblon.com

kingjamesbibleonline.org

krishna.com

mandaeanunion.com

newadvent.org

  • Siegfried, Francis (1908). "Creation". The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 30 September 2008. Probably the idea of creation never entered the human mind apart from Revelation. Though some of the pagan philosophers attained to a relatively high conception of God as the supreme ruler of the world, they seem never to have drawn the next logical inference of His being the absolute cause of all finite existence. [...] The descendants of Sem and Abraham, of Isaac and Jacob, preserved the idea of creation clear and pure; and from the opening verse of Genesis to the closing book of the Old Testament the doctrine of creation runs unmistakably outlined and absolutely undefiled by any extraneous element. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In this, the first, sentence of the Bible we see the fountain-head of the stream which is carried over to the new order by the declaration of the mother of the Machabees: "Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing" (2 Maccabees 7:28). One has only to compare the Mosaic account of the creative work with that recently discovered on the clay tablets unearthed from the ruins of Babylon to discern the immense difference between the unadulterated revealed tradition and the puerile story of the cosmogony corrupted by polytheistic myths. Between the Hebrew and the Chaldean account there is just sufficient similarity to warrant the supposition that both are versions of some antecedent record or tradition; but no one can avoid the conviction that the Biblical account represents the pure, even if incomplete, truth, while the Babylonian story is both legendary and fragmentary (Smith, "Chaldean Account of Genesis", New York, 1875).

routledge.com

rep.routledge.com

  • Soni, Jayandra (1998). E. Craig (ed.). "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Archived from the original on 5 July 2008. Retrieved 27 June 2008.

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

uni-mysore.ac.in

eprints.uni-mysore.ac.in

  • HN Raghavendrachar (1944), Monism in the Vedas Archived 6 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The half-yearly journal of the Mysore University: Section A - Arts, Volume 4, Issue 2, pages 137–152;
    K Werner (1982), Men, gods and powers in the Vedic outlook, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, Volume 114, Issue 01, pages 14–24;
    H Coward (1995), Book Review:" The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas", Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Volume 8, Issue 1, pages 45–47, Quote: "There is little doubt that the theo-monistic category is an appropriate one for viewing a wide variety of experiences in the Hindu tradition".

web.archive.org

webtv.net

community-2.webtv.net

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org