Tristen

Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaambulance! I started providing evidence for my position, and you frivolously accused me of making "FASLE statements" and "having no idea about what I was claiming". I have provided arguments and evidence supporting my position. You have ignored much of what I have presented - instead reverting to repetition of the same refuted arguments - acting like everything I've said was just a bad dream. I followed the tone you set for the discussion. Since I have now clarified what I meant several times, and you still decide to falsely accuse me, I now have the right to consider this to be an expression of intentionally dishonest. This speaks far more about your "credibility" and character than anything I've said.

The only thing missing from this post was, "You don't need to see his identification. These aren't the droids you're looking for".

I agree. It is also an attempt to deflect from a discussion that is going poorly. And it is an attempt to generate and put forward an Appeal to Motive (fallacy).

We've all succumbed to confirmation bias at some point. For me, I think the problem here is the instinct to dig-in and double-down on the error; backing oneself into a corner, and forcing themselves to come out swinging. Proof-of-concept has been sufficiently established - i.e. This source is not suitable for the purpose to which it has been utilized.

You are more harsh than me. I'm happy to assume there might be valid reasons - but I would also expect a quality source to provide the justification somewhere.

Yeah that was weird. I don't know how that works. But it certainly undermines the logical integrity of any straight counting of the list. Yes - that is how it is supposed to work. I'm not sure everyone understands that these words have established definitions. Usage is based on the foundation of those definitions - and not the other way around. I've only ever used biblehub occasionally. Maybe there are valid reasons for the apparent inconsistencies. But they should have justified those reasons on the page.

True - but my refusal to go to biblehub was based on it being inappropriate, and fundamentally rude, behavior to send someone on an errand to find support for one's own position - especially after the graceless tone was set; me having been falsely, and frivolously, accused of making "FASLE statements" and "having no idea about what I was claiming". If one wants to play that game, they'd best be prepared to be held to account for everything they then claim.

I have no problem being challenged by people with less knowledge on a subject than me. Expertise does not make me necessarily correct, nor impervious to correction. My problem is with the arrogance and inconsistency in presuming only the opposing position is responsible to provide support for their arguments. No one gets to arbitrarily shield themselves from the mannerly conventions of the debate process.

I wonder if you think my counter arguments disappear if you ignore them for long enough - and just keep repeating the same refuted arguments over and over again. If I'm "not defending a young earth", then the age of the earth is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You have it backwards. "USAGE" is based primarily on agreed definitions, and secondarily on context. In terms of translation, both definition and context are pertinent. It is not cogent to claim that a "USAGE" in one context is necessarily viable for all contexts. The logic simply does not follow. And I've argued that translations which deviate from the common definition of a word must be justified by context. When you completely ignore me explaining that I was criticizing your misusage of "biblehub.com", and not "biblehub.com" itself, then it is your "very heavy bias" that is exposed. Once again, you are guilty of ignoring my position - preferring instead to repeat your demonstrable misrepresentation of my position. Technically, it's a Strawman argument (logic fallacy) - but it's even more dishonest - since I have already provided an explanation for that explicit allegation. As for me, I am perfectly happy that my rational "credibility" in this discussion remains robustly intact. I will refrain from posturing back about your "credibility" - since that kind of puerile nonsense contributes nothing of logical substance to the discussion.

I'm not here "defending a young earth". I'm here "defending" sound hermeneutics. This is "important" because, using unsound hermeneutics, we can make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. Whereas, using sound hermeneutics, we let the Author speak for Himself.

Hey DeighAnn, Can you give me a quick summary of your position. I'm a bit lost as to what you are arguing, and how it relates to anything I've said. My main purpose here is to challenge the "the earth became a wasteland" translation of Genesis 1:2. I do not consider that translation of the Hebrew text to be justified by sound translation methods.

Well, I'm not sure what kind of "Rain Man" filter you have preventing you from understanding the basic debate convention - that you will always be the one responsible for providing the supporting data for your own claims. And furthermore, simply pointing someone in the general direction of your data and telling them to 'find it themselves' will never be considered a valid source reference. But we finally got there. So no point dwelling on that. It's lucky I didn't do it myself - since now I've seen the data, I would have assumed I had the wrong page - As, having looked at only the first five verses on the list, I have now discovered several reasons demonstrating that the data is not suitable for a straight count. Those reasons include: - The list using multiple translations, thereby introducing intrinsic bias into the count. - The list uses sometimes one, sometimes two, and sometimes three translations for one verse - without any justification for the translations used. What do we do when the translations conflict? My suspicion is you just count it for 'became'. - The list uses weird translations, such as "become was". So which is it, "become" or "was"? I suspect you just count it for 'became'. - The list attributes "become" to a translation, when inspection of that translation reveals the use of "was". Yet you, no doubt, just tally one more for 'became'. - The list attributes "become" to verses where "become" makes absolutely no sense in English. I guess, chalk up another one for 'became'. - And ironically, even though your list has a 'became' bias, the actual verse we are discussing is translated "was" on your list. For these reasons, your list is an inappropriate resource for a straight count. That is, your application of this list is a misuse of this resource. The list can not logically, mathematically, be used the way you are trying to use it - i.e. to generate any meaningful information pertaining to how many times 'hayetha' is translated 'became'. On the upside, your list does seem to be an accurate reflection of the 'hayetha' form of 'haya'. Therefore, if you really wanted to know the proportion this word is translated 'became', you could pick a translation and check through the verses on the basis of this list. I've already done one translation (NKJV). I'd even be happy if you could find the translation that uses 'became' the most for 'hayetha'. I predict that you can't find a single translation that uses 'became' more than 25%, or one that uses 'became' more than 'was'. (My real prediction is that you'll respond with more empty posturing. Given your last post, I think this to be a near certainty) I can't find any reason to continue this heavily biased conversation. I've proven my point and all I see is resistance to the FACTS. Lol. Really? You couldn't even make it to my analysis of the "second verse" of your 111-long list? But are happy to posture about me showing "resistance to the FACTS"? I wonder how much of your own nonsense you believe. Lol. And a "Good day" to you sir. I said, "GOOD DAY"!!!

To be fair, they always said their vaccines were efficacious against "severe disease" - that is what their statistics measured. But since next-to-no-one has ever used that as a vaccine efficacy standard, they were also more than happy to let the general population (who reasonably assumes efficacy is against infection) go along with their misunderstanding without correction. The exception was the AZ vaccine - which did measure against infection efficacy. But then they messed up their statistics in other ways.

Good. So all along you could have simply posted https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hayetah_1961.htm as your source. That would have saved a lot of nonsense. But at-least we're here now. I've done a quick scan through the first 20-or-so verses - and they line up with mine. So that's a good start. You can do it for the rest if you like, but I'm happy enough that we are dealing with the same verses - i.e. where 'haya' is used in the 'hayetha' form. So - to the data! * I firstly observe that they are using many English translations throughout the list. Therefore, my first question - How are they justifying the English translation used for each verse? I don't see that information provided. I can make a reasonable guess as to why they used the Hebrew and Interlinear versions, but without knowing why they chose the English versions for each verse, I have to consider the possibility of a bias-driven selection. * This also raises a question about your initial claim (that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' 59% of the time it is used in the Old Testament). Do you just mean it can be translated that way 59% of the time - if you Cherry-Pick through the full range of translations? Because that is a very weak claim - i.e. a extremely weak justification for insisting on that particular translation for a different context. * I would also observe that in your 'became'-heavy list, Genesis 1:2 is translated 'was' in the preferred translations. Can you point me to any Bible translations that use 'became' in Genesis 1:2 - I did a quick parallel search and couldn't find any among the presented translations. If even those with a tendency to translate 'hayetha' as 'became' choose 'was' instead, that is highly suggestive of a reason driving the translation towards 'was'. * Now, if we move on to the second verse on your list we see: Firstly, Apart from the "INT:" transliteration, where is the actual English translation? That is what we are trying to count to support your 59% translation claim. Secondly, does this usage of "become" even make sense in English? And if not, why is it counting towards your 59% claim? Thirdly, what does "he become was " mean? Are you counting this as 'became' instead of 'was'? That would be, self-evidently biased. Why is the "become" here at all? I therefore click the "INT:" link to the verse and find this: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-20.htm There is no "become"!!!??? - there is only 'was'. Why then is there a "become" on your list? How many of these false-positives contribute towards your 59% figure? Likewise with your 4th and 5th verses: Did you count these towards your 'became' tally as well - even though the English translation is lacking, and "become" doesn't make sense in the context? Progressive: In only the first five verses of your list, I have already invalidated all uses of 'became' from your count. This is why it is better to do the work yourself. In summary so far: - There are verses on your list that do not include English translations (which is important, given that your claim is specific to translations) - The other verses on your list use a variety of Bible translations - which introduces bias to your count - There are verses on your list that use "become", even though it would not make sense in English - There are verses in your list that, upon investigation, do not use "become", even though your list shows them as using "become" - Your list contains ambiguities (like "become was"), which invalidates the method of doing straight count for comparison. I don't know the reason this list was generated in such a way, but it is not fit for your purpose. That is, the list is not constructed in such a way as to make a straight count (nor any subsequent percentage calculation) valid. It therefore does not support your "59%" claim. I expect they have reasons for making their list in such a manner, but the design of the list does not make a straight count for comparison viable. That is, this list was not made with the intension of you doing a straight count to determine how many times 'hayetha' is translated 'became'. The nature of the data does not permit that. Yes - had you taken the time to consider my data, you would have noticed that I factored that in explicitly.

And yet you refuse to verify your own claim for yourself. You instead expect the opposing view to verify your claim for themselves. Even if you legitimately thought I was being lazy or difficult - you could have saved several posts by just linking to the results of your biblehub research. And then the conversation could move on. Hm. Well, seems the first problem is that it doesn't take "many hours" to research my claim. Literally a few minutes. So obviously you're doing something wrong. It's simply the difference between doing one's own research from basic principles, and relying on another resource. I don't necessarily consider one to be superior to the other - except in this case, only one data set has been presented to the debate in support of one position. Yes - I refuse to "go to biblehub" for the purpose of finding supporting evidence of your position. Though if you were to provide a link to the "biblehub" results of your research, I'll gladly take a look. You have provided vague instructions on where and how to do the same research you did. But you have not provided any resulting data supporting your position. I'm genuinely curious about why you outright refuse to provide the simplest support for your claim. As expected - more posturing and Innuendo - but no actual "facts". I have no issue with "biblehub". But it is only a tool, not a "source". Therefore, my issue is with you misusing it as a "source". But if you were to link me to the specific page presenting the results of how you used "biblehub", that would be a valid "source" of the information you claimed. Lol. Yet more empty posturing. I have not "besmirched the website" - but your illegitimate usage of "the website" - i.e. claiming the general website to be the "source" of information supporting your claim. I don't know why you have decided to dig-in on this, but if you are hell-bent on not providing the supporting data for your claim, then the debate is concluded. Your position is unsupported. Thanks for the chat.

I love horsedoovers.

Bottom line - your position relies heavily on your claim that the Hebrew 'haya', in the specific form 'hayetha' is translated 'became' 70% of the time it is used in the Old Testament (now, if I understand correctly, this figure has been adjusted down to 59%). I spent many hours researching your claim from basic principles and found your claim to be incorrect - providing a full list of the relevant scriptures; quoting how they are translated. That is, I posted these facts directly to this site for everyone to see - and scrutinize. Meanwhile, you accused me of making false statements and having no idea about what I claimed. And now, though you claim the evidence of your position is easy to find, you utterly refuse to provide it to me for scrutiny. You instead point me to a website and tell me to find your evidence for myself. No matter how many ways you try and posture your way around it, until you directly provide your own evidence for the scrutiny of myself (and perhaps other readers), the status of your claim remains at "incorrect". And the status of your overall position remains unsupported. That's how logic and debates work.

Why ask a question to my question? Because your question insinuated an unwarranted, unspecified obligation on my part - which therefore requires clarification and justification before I can answer. Go to biblehub.com. It's all there. On the main page? You have not given me any "data". Just a vague, "source" which doesn't have the relevant "data" on it. There is no relevant "data" on the "biblehub.com" main page. Surely you could provide a link to what you did in Biblehub. I mean - if it's not too much trouble to give me something supporting your own claims? No. Well, once you provide your data, we can compare our data - and then track down and investigate any discrepancies. I told you where they came from. I told you how I found the right form, and how I confirmed that the right form was being used, and what version of the Bible I used. Once you know the translation, the provided book title, chapter and verse numbers are all the references you should require to confirm the "quotes". You claimed a certain word was translated a certain way, and at a certain rate. I found all uses of that word, and then listed quotes for each usage from one translation of scripture. The listed quotes and their counts are the "facts" (i.e. the facts of how verses using the specific form have been translated in the NKJV of the Bible). These "facts" represent valid "evidence" supporting my argument and refuting yours. Whether I can claim ownership over the "facts" is probably a broader semantic philosophical discussion. But the research is certainly my "own". No it's not. It's just an unsupported claim that you found some "evidence". Did you really use "a reputable website that shows how a certain word in that EXACT SAME FORM is translated in EVERY other verse in the OT"? OK - show me what you found. There is no 'seeming' about it. I've stated it outright. Unless you provide me a direct link to the data, I have to assume that your supposed "evidence" doesn't exist. That's how debates work. It's not my job to seek out and provide supporting evidence for your position. Which, I have now come to understand to be your way of admitting you don't have a rational rebuttal to what I just stated. That is not how sources work. Sources are supposed to directly point to the claimed information being referenced - so that the reader can verify that what is being said is true. The onus is always on the person making the claim to provide the source. The onus is never on the person seeking to verify the claim to have to track down the source based on some vague directions. And you would be incorrect. Your supposed "source" for the claimed information would not be accepted as a "valid" by any reviewer trying to verify your claim. Your "source" is only slightly less vague than claiming google as a "source". I don't "like it" (your pseudo-source) because it doesn't do the job of a "source" - i.e. to verify the claimed information. A source doesn't have to be a "document". But that's beside the point. Do you understand that, for each "document", there is a primary researcher who did the work to generate the data? In this case, that 'primary researcher' is me. Hi . The presented data is in the posts on this thread (including a summary of the methods). That's not my problem Then why are you here? What makes you so important that you get to challenge everybody else to provide evidence for their claims (and ignore it when they do), but when they challenge you back, you get to tell them to, 'go look for my evidence yourself'? This is a lie, and an Appeal to Motive (logic fallacy). Lol. You haven't "provided" anything to me. You just told me you found it, and to 'go find it myself'. Go ahead and prove me wrong if I am. But I don't have your supposed biblehub evidence. You are the only one who has evidence from both of us - to make such a comparison. I posted my evidence on this thread for your scrutiny. Whereas you've just told me to 'go find' your evidence. I DID. Biblehub.com's interlinear, as a matter of fact. So you tested my list with "Biblehub.com's interlinear". Did you find my list to be wrong somewhere? Where? A rather perplexing statement. It is quite evident that you didn't go to my source. What "source"? You mean biblehub.com? Lol. It should be more-than "quite evident" since I have directly, and repeatedly, stated such. Yup. I'll shout it from the rooftops, "I will not go looking for evidence supporting your position. Your job in a debate is to reference the explicit evidence of what you are claiming. Simply telling me to 'go find it' on a website does not (and never will) qualify as referencing your claim". Yes. The "EXACT" form of 'haya' we are discussing is 'hayetha'. Did they? It would be nice to have something other than your word for that. I got that. Lol. But don't you have a list from "biblehub.com"? Surely you can use your "biblehub.com" list to scan through my list to make sure I used the same verses. And if there's a discrepancy, we can check it out together using "Biblehub.com's interlinear". Seems any excuse will work My appeal to the conventions of mannerly debate "seems" like a perfectly valid "excuse" - a.k.a. a sensible reason. Cool - Can you provide a link to the results of this? That is a blatantly false statement. Biblehub is a valid source, whether you realize that or not. My statement was not "false". All you've given me is a general website, and some vague instructions on how to find evidence supporting your position, then told me essentially to 'go-fetch'. Whereas all you've ever had to do is provide a link to the results. I give you enough credit to assume that you are aware of how obtuse you are being. So much effort to deflect, when, if your evidence is so compelling, you could put much of this episode to bed by simply presenting the evidence you've found. And you think I'm worried about "everyone who reads this thread". All you've done in our conversation is relayed to me what you supposedly found, then presumed to give me an errand to find that same evidence for myself - i.e. for your case. Thank you for your opinions. I guess you didn't have a response for that one either. To be fair, fallacies are notoriously difficult to defend. It surprises me so many people still choose to use them.

Yeah - it's unfortunate that conversations can get away from rational argument. People forget that they always have the right to say, 'I'm still not convinced, but I have appreciated the discussion and you've given me some things to think about'. Unfortunately, everyone thinks they need to win something. All these conversations would go much smoother if we'd all stop trying 'own' the discussion through emoting, and posturing, and fallacy. Since these strategies do not facilitate rational debate, you have to call them out, or otherwise let the discourse spin out of control. Well - I've known about it for several decades - And I'm usually one of the last people to cotton-on to such things. So if it was you, it must have been a good while ago. I think the funniest thing is when people think I've made the mistake - Like with Tarjshay and horsedoovers.

Have you not yet clicked on the transliteration word above "was" in biblehub.com? Why would I? How is this related to the fact that using multiple translations would have introduced bias into my methods. This is the first I'm hearing of this correction - but OK. None of it matters unless you are willing to show me. It also makes me suspicious as to whether you initially counted anything. It indicates rather that you just went along with what someone else had stated (i.e. confirmation bias). It also means your initial statement was an exaggeration - which is fine, since we all make mistakes - but why would you then expect me to trust anything you claim when you are so suspiciously reluctant to provide the evidence. I did the work and provided my own evidence. You've refused to even attempt to provide me evidence supporting your position. You claim it exists, you claim it is easy to access, but weirdly, you won't show it to me. It makes me wonder if there is something wrong with your evidence that you don't want me to see. You understand that a "source" is the initial person who did the research, and where they published that research. At the earliest stage of the process, someone simply has to do the work themselves. In this case, that person was me, and it was published first in posts responding to you. And in my previous post, I provided you a summary of my methods. As far as sources are concerned, that's as good as it gets without providing an actual research paper. You telling me to, 'Just go to this website and figure out how to do the work for yourself' is not a valid "source" of your specific claim. Well, all you had to do was ask for my methods. Since I have no provided said methods, this is no longer a valid excuse. Oooow. Tu Quoque fallacy - I haven't seen that one in a while. It is the intellectual equivalent of, 'I know you are, but what am I'. How do my own words refute me? And specifically WHAT words? I've shown you several times where you have used the word "formed" to describe the process of changing something that already has "form". If you want to know the "words", you'll have to go back and look through the posts. You've made me do this several times already - i.e. ignore my statements, insinuate that such statement were not made, then make me to go back and search through the posts to find what you claim I didn't say. I'm not going to play that game any more. No, your job is to prove your own claims. Which you can't. My "job" is to provide evidence supporting my claims - which I have done. Likewise, your "job" is to provide evidence supporting your claims - which you have been oddly reluctant to do. It is not my "job" to go away and find evidence of your claims. That's not how the debate process works. Why would I need to, since anyone and everyone who reads these posts can do it for themselves and SEE for themselves the truth. You would need to provide evidence supporting your position because that is your responsibility in a debate. It's not rocket surgery. Confirmation bias does have a way of dismissing disagreeable evidence. You could test it against your biblehub list. Or you could use an interlinear Bible to verify the right form is being counted. There's two easy WAYS to scrutinize my list. Lol. Yes that, and my direct statements to that effect. But I didn't go "to biblehub" - as you just proved above. No. I already did my "own research" without biblehub. Though I would be happy for you to present the evidence you found at biblehub. Well - I provided the evidence here for you to scrutinize. If you have an issue with my evidence, I'll happily consider it. You haven't presented any of that "data" to me. That's the only valid use in our conversation. The is another Appeal to Motive. The reason I will not 'go to biblehub' is because it is not my job in a debate to track down evidence for the opposing position. Also, it is somewhat fascinating to me that you are so reluctant to provide such evidence. When you finally do (if you ever do), I'm curious to see what about your evidence would make you so reluctant to share it for yourself. I consider this to be a Red Herring fallacy. Most Strawman arguments are indeed fallacious.

If I had used multiple translations, that would have introduced bias into the evidence. I could, for example, have eliminated 'became' altogether by bouncing between translations to suit my position. Your claim was that "70%" of the time 'hayetha' is translated 'became'. You didn't specify that you needed to Cherry-Pick your examples from multiple translations to achieve this number. This is why I respond to long posts in a Word document - then paste over. But I agree, there could be some kind of warning that if you continue, your progress will be lost. Or maybe some mechanism to auto-save any text. There've been times where I've actually submitted, and the submission failed, and I lost all my work. But regardless, that's not on me. The only reason to provide the "link" was to show you that I had presented the evidence previously - which you were insinuating was untrue. With regards to the dopey 'Everything has a form' argument; I have demonstrated several times that this is a puerile, intentionally disingenuous argument. I have further demonstrated, from your own words, that you fully understand this to be a disingenuous argument. This is actually the most intellectually bereft of your arguments. The fact that this has become one of your primary, repeated arguments is telling. That would have been a waste of time. It's not my job to track down evidence of your position. "Too bad" you didn't just follow your own instructions, and then just provide the link to the results. Even then, it appears that you selected your translations based on bias - which invalidates your point. Your initial claim did not mention that your "70%" figure was only valid for two Bible translations. That's a pretty big omission - with regards to intellectual credibility. The very fact that you need two translations to get to that figure is also telling. Ultimately, if you don't show me the evidence, then as far as I am concerned, it doesn't exist, and your "70%" claim supporting your preferred translation gets flushed down the toilet. It appears you have dumped the 'There's no context' argument - which I think is a good decision. Now you are only left with 1) a demonstrably disingenuous argument, and 2) a completely unsupported, and thoroughly debunked argument.

Of course there is "context". Just nothing in that "context" to justify driving the translation away from the basic definitions of the relevant words. If it "happened", it "happened". But the text doesn't say it "happened" (unless you adopt unsound interpretation methods to massage the meaning of the text towards your preferred conclusion). Based on previous MO, you will probably ignore the implications of the evidence I provided, then simply repeat your refuted arguments. That's absurd. Of course there is "context" - just nothing in the context of Genesis 1:2 to warrant adjusting the meaning of relevant words. The argument from "context" therefore stands. This is a lie. I simply refused you let you deflect the conversation to a different topic in this thread. I have demonstrated this to be an insincere, disingenuous argument. I have also demonstrated from your own words that you understand this to be an insincere, disingenuous argument. Your "3 strikes" against my "view" are; 1) an absurdity, 2) a lie, and 3) an example of you being insincere and disingenuous? Yes - you "assumed" that I was responsible to track down evidence supporting your position. So do it, and show me the evidence. Since I did the research myself, I'm technically the "source". If you are asking about my methods, I used lexicons to track down 'hayetha' in the correct form. I used an interlinear Bible to confirm that each verse used the correct form. I then copied each verse into a MS Word document from the NKJV of the Bible found on Bible Gateway - where I did the colour editing to make it easier for me to count. OK - so do your own analysis and show me where we disagree. It's only invisible to those who don't want to see it. The first third of the data can be found here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3659847 After being falsely accused of making "FALSE statements", and having "no idea about what I claimed", I provided the second two-thirds of the data here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3662443 I didn't ask anyone to care. What does that have to do with anything? In your attempt to deflect to a different topic, you said, "Since you so strongly resist my view that there is an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1". You incorrectly implied that my engagement here was me caring about "an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1". That is another false insinuation. I'm only engaging here to challenge the methodology you have used to interpreted Genesis 1:2. To ignore the basic definition of words, and presuming to transplant one translation from one context onto a different context is "unsound hermeneutics". To perform Eisegesis on a text is unequivocally "unsound hermeneutics". To Argue from Ignorance (fallacy) is unequivocally "unsound" logic. Lol. Yes - using "unsound hermeneutics" to read concepts into the Bible that are not actually there indeed "doesn't suit" me. Why not answer here? You already complain that my posts are too long. You already ignore many of the things I've written. Why would I let myself get trapped into an even more convoluted conversation when you refuse to properly engage in the conversation we are having? As far as I'm concerned, this desperation to move the discussion to other topics is merely your transparent attempt to draw the conversation away from the argument where you are struggling to maintain rational standing.

It's only "evidence" that the same Hebrew word can be sometimes be translated different ways - as determined by the context. It is not "evidence" supporting your determination to transplant a specific translation from one context to another. "Evidence" would be presenting how you used those resources, and showing the results on this thread for my scrutiny. Simply saying 'Go use Biblehub' does not qualify as evidence. I'll post it again: Was or Became for ‘hayetha’ (Hb) Genesis 1:2 - The earth was without form, and void Genesis 3:20 - And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living Genesis 18:12 - Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” Genesis 29:17 - Leah’s eyes were delicate, but Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance. Genesis 36:12 - Now Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz Genesis 38:21 - And they said, “There was no harlot in this place.” Genesis 38:22 - Also, the men of the place said there was no harlot in this place.” Genesis 47:26 - And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth, except for the land of the priests only, which did not become Pharaoh’s. Exodus 8:15 - But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart Exodus 9:24 - So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, so very heavy that there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation Exodus 16:13 - and in the morning the dew lay all around the camp. Exodus 16:24 - So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. Exodus 36:7 - for the material they had was sufficient for all the work to be done Leviticus 21:3 - also his virgin sister who is near to him, who has had no husband Numbers 14:24 - But My servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit in him Deuteronomy 2:15 - For indeed the hand of the Lord was against them, to destroy them from the midst of the camp until they were consumed. Deuteronomy 2:36 - as far as Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us Deuteronomy 3:4 - there was not a city which we did not take from them Joshua 11:19 - There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites Joshua 11:20 - For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts Joshua 14:14 - Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb Joshua 17:6 - and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead. Joshua 17:8 - Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim. Judges 2:15 - Wherever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for calamity Judges 21:3 - and said, “O Lord God of Israel, why has this come to pass in Israel Judges 21:5 - For they had made a great oath concerning anyone who had not come up to the Lord at Mizpah Ruth 1:7 - Therefore she went out from the place where she was, 1 Samuel 4:7 - And they said, “Woe to us! For such a thing has never happened before. 1 Samuel 4:17 - has been a great slaughter among the people. 1 Samuel 5:11 - For there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city 1 Samuel 10:12 - Therefore it became a proverb 1 Samuel 14:20 - indeed every man’s sword was against his neighbor 1 Samuel 27:6 - Therefore Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day. 2 Samuel 3:37 - For all the people and all Israel understood that day that it had not been the king’s intent to kill Abner the son of Ner. 2 Samuel 10:9 - When Joab saw that the battle line was against him before and behind 2 Samuel 13:32 - For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day that he forced his sister Tamar. 2 Samuel 14:27 - Tamar. She was a woman of beautiful appearance. 2 Samuel 17:9 - whoever hears it will say, ‘There is a slaughter among the people who follow Absalom.’ 1 Kings 2:15 - the kingdom has been turned over, and has become my brother’s; for it was his from the Lord 1 Kings 4:11 - Ben-Abinadab, in all the regions of Dor; he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon as wife; 1 Kings 11:11 - Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes 1 Kings 12:15 - So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from the Lord 1 Kings 14:30 - And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days. 1 Kings 15:6 - And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life. 1 Kings 15:7 - And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam. 1 Kings 15:16 - Now there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. 1 Kings 15:32 - And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. 1 Kings 18:46 - Then the hand of the Lord came upon Elijah 2 Kings 8:18 - the daughter of Ahab was his wife; and he did evil in the sight of the Lord. 2 Kings 24:3 - Surely at the commandment of the Lord this came upon Judah 2 Kings 24:7 - the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates 2 Kings 24:20 - For because of the anger of the Lord this happened in Jerusalem and Judah 1 Chronicles 7:23 - because tragedy had come upon his house. 1 Chronicles 19:10 - When Joab saw that the battle line was against him before and behind 2 Chronicles 1:11 - Then God said to Solomon: “Because this was in your heart 2 Chronicles 10:15 - So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from God 2 Chronicles 13:2 - And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam. 2 Chronicles 14:14 - they plundered all the cities, for there was exceedingly much spoil in them. 2 Chronicles 15:1 - Now the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded. 2 Chronicles 20:14 - Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah 2 Chronicles 21:6 - he had the daughter of Ahab as a wife; and he did evil in the sight of the Lord 2 Chronicles 22:3 - He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother advised him to do wickedly. [Not translated – his Mother was his advisor, or had become his advisor] 2 Chronicles 22:7 - His going to Joram was God’s occasion for Ahaziah’s downfall 2 Chronicles 22:11 - (for she was the sister of Ahaziah) 2 Chronicles 30:12 - Also the hand of God was on Judah Ezra 8:31 - the hand of our God was upon us Ezra 9:2 - the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass. Ezra 9:8 - And now for a little while grace has been shown from the Lord our God Esther 2:20 - Esther obeyed the command of Mordecai as when she was brought up by him. Esther 8:16 - The Jews had light and gladness, joy and honor. Psalm 42:3 - My tears have been my food day and night Psalm 114:2 - Judah became His sanctuary, Psalm 118:22 - Has become the chief cornerstone. Psalm 118:23 - This was the Lord’s doing; Psalm 119:56 - This has become mine, Proverbs 31:14 - She is like the merchant ships Ecclesiastes 6:3 - his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial Isaiah 1:21 - How the faithful city has become a harlot! Isaiah 11:16 - As it was for Israel In the day that he came up from the land of Egypt. Isaiah 50:11 - This you shall have from My hand: Jeremiah 2:10 - And see if there has been such a thing. Jeremiah 12:8 - My heritage is to Me like a lion in the forest; Jeremiah 25:38 - For their land is desolate Jeremiah 26:24 - Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah Jeremiah 32:31 - ‘For this city has been to Me a provocation of My anger Jeremiah 50:23 - How Babylon has become a desolation among the nations! Jeremiah 51:41 - How Babylon has become desolate among the nations! Jeremiah 52:3 - For because of the anger of the Lord this happened in Jerusalem and Juda Lamentations 1:1 - How like a widow is she, … Has become a slave! Lamentations 1:17 - Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them. Ezekiel 16:56 - For your sister Sodom was not a byword in your mouth in the days of your pride, Ezekiel 19:10 - Your mother was like a vine in your bloodline Ezekiel 26:17 - Who was strong at sea, Ezekiel 31:3 - And its top was among the thick boughs Ezekiel 33:22 - Now the hand of the Lord had been upon me the evening before Ezekiel 36:2 - The ancient heights have become our possession, Ezekiel 36:17 - to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity. Ezekiel 36:34 - The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate Ezekiel 36:35 - So they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden Ezekiel 37:1 - The hand of the Lord came upon me Ezekiel 40:1 - on the very same day the hand of the Lord was upon me Ezekiel 44:25 - for brother or unmarried sister may they defile themselves [i.e. not had a husband] Joel 2:3 - Surely nothing shall escape them. Jonah 3:3 - Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city Zephaniah 2:15 - How has she become a desolation, Malachi 1:9 - That He may be gracious to us. While this is being done by your hands, Malachi 2:5 - My covenant was with him, one of life and peace Malachi 2:6 - The law of truth was in his mouth, Tally: - was/were total 49 of 111 = 44% - became/become total 16 of 111 = 14% - had/has/have total 23 of 111 = 21% - And there were a bunch of miscellaneous other translations. And so now to the obligatory fallacy part of your response. Yep - you sure did "miss" my "evidence". But did you catch it this time around - or do I need to post it a third time? Are "our views of what constitutes evidence" really "so far apart" - or do you just skip over "evidence" when it suits you, or are too lazy to provide "evidence" when it doesn't suit you. I think it is fair, given that you have chosen to skip over my work again. I don't actually care about your "view that there is an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1". I only care about the fact that you give yourself permission to adopt unsound hermeneutics when it suits your presuppositions about the age of the earth. But sure, I'll answer. Where did you open the appropriate thread?

“To put this in some perspective, I've participated in so many of these discussions over the years with dear saints who have differing opinions on something that is not a core essential of our mutual faith in Christ. Yet it is somewhat fascinating, and so we go on and on and around and around for days/weeks/years . . . it is, as Paul might say, an instance of "endless genealogies." (1 Tim 1:4)” Hey VA, I understand where you are coming from – that sometimes the tone of discussion can make further engagement a waste of time. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon discussing our disagreements – even if the conversation takes time. Bouncing ideas around is how we all come to greater knowledge of truth. From my perspective, how we approach scripture is very important – and worthy of having extensive conversations if necessary. For me, this conversation is not primarily about varied interpretations of one verse, but rather how we are approaching the translation process more generally. “To me @Tristen and @JohnD it's pretty simple and comes down to the mistranslation of "was" in Genesis 1:2. The word there is the exact same one* as in Genesis 19:26, where Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt." Therefore, why translate Genesis 1:2 as "was" and not "became"?” My issue is that you are using very unsound hermeneutics (interpretation methodology) to come to your conclusion that “was” is a “mistranslation”. I expect that we both understand that context can influence the meaning of a word. Therefore, it is not legitimate to simply say that, since a word means something in one specific context, that is how we must understand it in all other contexts. The correct (or safe) way to translate is to start with the meaning of the word (i.e. the basic definition), then, if warranted, we can adjust the translation to suit the specific context. The form of the root Hebrew word ‘haya’ in Genesis 19:26 is not “the exact same” as in Genesis 1:2. But they are different forms of the same root word. ‘Haya’ simply means ‘to be’, or ‘to exist’. In English, this would usually directly translate as ‘is’ (present tense), or ‘was’ (past tense). But ‘haya’ is flexible enough to adjust to context if desired, or if necessary. - ‘If desired’, for example, Exodus 16:13 tells us that “dew was [‘haya’] all over the camp”. Since we know that the way dew exists is to lay as a sheet across the ground, the NKJV translators said, “the dew lay all around the camp”. But note, there is nothing in the definition of ‘haya’ that speaks to how something exists. Therefore technically, “lay” is additional information – not found in the original text. But since the meaning of the verse is not changed by the more context-specific language, this translation is permitted. Now by your proposed interpretation method, we could insist that Genesis 1:2 should say “the earth lay without form and void”. I suppose, at-a-stretch, we could say that the earth was just laying or sitting there in space. But there is no internal reason to move the meaning to an ‘at-a-stretch’ translation. ‘Was’ is therefore a perfectly fitting translation of ‘haya’ in the context of Genesis 1:2. - ‘If necessary’: Occasionally, the context doesn’t permit an elegant translation from Hebrew ‘haya’ to English ‘was’ or ‘is’. For example, if a transition from one state of existence to another state of existence is implied, ‘became’ or ‘had become’ might better describe the ‘haya’ scenario. For example, “So they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become [‘haya’] like the garden of Eden” (Ezekiel 36:35). Or like your Genesis 19:26 example. But these ‘if necessary’ deviations from the simple meaning of ‘haya’ are very rare by comparison to the use of ‘was’. Ultimately, there is nothing native to the text of Genesis 1:2 that warrants driving the meaning of ‘haya’ away from the simple use of ‘was’. “But regardless if we like "was" or "became" Christ still lives in us and we love God and one another! (just had to say that foundational thing)” I get it – but I still think it is important to have the conversation. As far as the arguments have gone so far, my position about safe/sound Bible interpretation methods stands. Regardless of what one believes about the age of the earth, there is no internal reason from the text of Genesis 1:2 to justify moving the meaning away from the simple, common definition of ‘haya’ (i.e. 'was'). Any insistence on such an interpretation must therefore have an external reason to interpret the verse that way.

“Are you claiming that "biblehub.com" is in error?” They could be. But in reality, you haven’t presented any evidence to me from any source. “Anyone can do the research that I did on the verb. Did you bother?” A couple of things - 1 - I posted the translation of every verse using ‘hayetha’ (“all 111” of them) across my previous posts. This unequivocally demonstrated your “70%” figure to be wrong. Did I “bother”? - Yes, it took me hours to go through. But why did I “bother”? – since you have either intentionally ignored that evidence, or else are so thoroughly blinded by bias that it didn’t even register. 2 - By contrast, you have provided zero evidence supporting your claim. You don’t get to simply cry “biblehub.com” and leave it at that. That’s like telling someone to “google it”. It’s not my responsibility to track down support for your argument. Nevertheless, I clearly did do the work, and found your claim to be a lie. Therefore, to use your own words, “Please don't make such FALSE statements when you have NO idea about what you claim”. And furthermore, please stop insinuating that I haven’t done my due diligence when I am the only one in the conversation that has presented actual evidence to the thread. Maybe (and I know this is a bit ‘out there’) – maybe stop with the posturing and personal attacks all together – so we can get back to rational argument. “My supposed resistance to your position has been entirely rational. I have scrutinized your arguments and found them wanting. Opinion.” More accurately, “opinion” supported by both evidence and rational arguments – which you have thus far failed to rebut in any rational sense. Ultimately, I don’t care if we agree to disagree, but if you are going to posture rather than argue rationally, I’m going to hold you to account, and you’re going to make yourself look silly. “You are claiming ideas to be present in scripture which are simply not there. In black and white.” Yes – you are promoting “ideas” which are not evident in the text. Therefore, you are reading ideas into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself. “I guess this is an admission, although a rather weak one.” And yet more empty posturing. Ooooooooo! Is my statement an “admission” of something? Is it “weak admission”? How will I sleep tonight knowing that I’ve been found out? Lol. I outright stated my position on YEC in a previous response. Just add that to the list of things I’ve said that didn’t register with you. “Since you argue against any time gap in Gen 1:1,2, then it would suggest that you are a YEC.” And add yet another thing to the list of things I’ve said – that you missed. To quote myself, “your thinking here represents a False Dichotomy (another logic fallacy). Not all who question (or “resist”) Gap Theory are “YEC”.”. There are many Bible believers who subscribe to an old earth, who are not proponents of “any time gap in Gen 1:1,2”. My primary objection in this thread is to your unsound approach to Biblical interpretation. Claiming a “gap” between “Gen 1:1,2” is merely a symptom of that unsound approach. My main argument here is not against Gap Theory per se, but against your use of poor (i.e. unsafe) Biblical interpretation methods. “Therefore, can you explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", since that is what many argue. They admit the earth appears older than 6,000 years, so WHY WHY did God create a deception?” This is not the topic of our discussion. You are clearly struggling to deal with what I’ve said on this one topic. I’m definitely not going to allow you to muddy the conversation by throwing other topics into the mix. I’m only here to talk about how you are interpreting Genesis 1:2. Though, as I said previously, if you want to start a thread on this thing you think is a YEC ‘gotcha’, let me know when you do so, and I’ll happily engage on that thread when I can. “If you believe the earth is young, like 6 days older than Adam, based on the TT of Gen 1, then you need to address the FACT that the earth certainly APPEARS much older.” I will happily address that in an appropriate thread. In this thread, I’m only addressing the hermeneutics of Genesis 1:2. And even then, you seem to be having a hard time registering much of what I’ve written. So ‘no thank you’ – to your offer to expand this conversation into other areas. “It's all related. IF the earth isn't any older than Adam, then you HAVE TO address its apparent age.” No question, “It's all related”. Every thread on this site can be “related”. But in this conversation, I’m challenging your interpretation method of Genesis 1:2. After we’ve dealt with that appropriately, maybe we can expand the discussion to other related matters (or, if you want to have that discussion in parallel with this, you could start another thread). “The “context” of Jeremiah 4 is “about "plunder"”. There is nothing in the “context” of Genesis 1:2 suggestive of “plunder”. Uh, same words used.” Yes – but the first instance (Genesis 1:2) has no context permitting us to deviate the translation away from the common definition of ‘hayetha’, whereas the other instance (Jeremiah 4:23) does have several elements of context supporting a more nuanced translation of ‘hayetha’ that is specific to that context. “Just because God CHOSE NOT to give any details about WHY the earth became a wasteland is of no importance” What is very important, is whether or not your premise is justified by sound methodologies. I don’t agree with your translation – that “the earth became a wasteland” – because that idea is not conceptually present in the original language of the text. And since the foundational premise of your position is not justified by sound hermeneutical practice, you are right; the ancillary “details” of your position don’t matter. “Only to those who don't want an old earth” Why would anyone not “want an old earth”? That is an absurd Appeal to Motive (yet another logic fallacy). “btw, what's the big deal about a very old earth anyway? What doctrines are challenged?” Good question. You should ask that in a new thread. “And both of these so-called 'rules' are simply opinions” That seems to be your go-to pseudo-rebuttal. Someone provides a strong argument against your position – ‘Well, that’s just “opinion”’. In the first instance, logic fallacies are technical breaches of logic. That means, the statement doesn’t make logical sense when subjected to rational scrutiny. If you refuse to conform to the rules of logic, then our conversation might as well be “Hey Diddle Diddle”. In the second instance, Eisegesis vs Exegesis is a matter of best hermeneutical practice. If we are permitted to read concepts into scripture that are not there, we can make the Bible say anything we want – as opposed to establishing the intent of the Author by drawing the ideas exclusively from the text. “It's like you are demanding that if the earth became something that wasn't created that way, God HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY. No, He doesn't.” It’s not “like” that at all. God doesn’t have to “EXPLAIN” anything. But neither are we allowed to bring foreign concepts to the Bible, and then pretend those concepts are in the Bible when they are, self-evidently not in the Bible. You are trying to press onto me that there are billions of years of history in the first verses of Genesis, when in reality, literally speaking, there is no such thing in the first verses of Genesis. And based on this supposed history, you are trying to force a translation onto the text that simply isn’t present in the text. And to do so, you are forced to resort to unsafe and logically unsound interpretation methods. “lol. 70% of ALL translations of that EXACT SAME FORM of the verb are either "became" or "become", so you are the one with NO CASE.” This is a lie. I have unequivocally demonstrated this to be a lie. I have literally gone through “all 111” of the relevant verses and presented all of them in this thread, in direct responses to your claims – demonstrating the utter falseness of this “70%” claim. By contrast, you have presented nothing in defense of your false claim. So, apart from intentional dishonesty, there is no excuse for you to continue on with this falsified claim (though it is possible that your bias is so powerful that you are blinded to any argument that disagrees with you). But now you have the gall to make this claim again in a mocking statement – which dares to accuse me of having “NO CASE”. After ignoring all of the work I put in – and even after you presumptuously, rudely, unfoundedly and ironically, falsely accused me of making “FALSE statements” and having “NO idea about what [I] claim”. Therefore, I no longer consider myself to have to be polite about this. Civil, but not polite. Present your evidence, or do not make this demonstrated “FALSE statement” again. As the saying goes, “Put up or shut up”. If you make this “false statement” again without directly addressing my evidence, that would make you a liar. “If God created the earth "unmolded", where in the chapter do we see God "molding" the earth. Sounds like the earth was created a big clay lump (which has form, btw) and God formed that lumpy lump into another shape, form, etc. So where do we read that? You are way out over your ski's.” And yet again you resort to posturing rather than rational engagement. Let’s see how that works out for you. Reason 1 that your self-congratulating, I’m-so-clever posturing is actually making you look like the not-so-clever one: You have previously stated, “God didn't build the earth in 6 days. He formed it so man could exist on it”. And when I said the separation of dry land from water, “sounds enough like “forming” to me”, you replied, “OF course it is. That is HOW God restored the earth back to original condition, where man could live on it”. In this post you’ve also said, “He was restoring the earth to its original created state. Yes, he was forming out of existing materials (a wasteland) back into a restored state”. And yet in the above quote you claim, and have claimed previously, that there is no evidence of God forming (or “molding”) the earth. Therefore, you are holding contrary positions – i.e. Contradictions are logic fallacies (i.e. breaches of logic rendering your position to be technically irrational). Reason 2 that your self-congratulating, I’m-so-clever posturing is actually making you look like the not-so-clever one: You have completely ignored the fact that I have already addressed this issue in my responses to you. That is, that God is described as doing further work on the earth, including separating the firmament from the waters from the dry land. So again, your above statement is either demonstrating intentional dishonesty, or you are so thoroughly blinded by bias that you are incapable of considering arguments that disagree with you. I’m not really sure what it means to be “way out over your ski's”, but I get the impression the saying is likely more applicable to you than me. “What a hollow claim! I've stuck strictly TO Scripture. I've compared how some words in v.2 have been translated elsewhere in the OT. That ain't outside of Scripture by any means. Such wildly unfounded claims hurt your credibility.” You have, for two different words, taken the word that has been translated specifically, to reflect its specific context, then insisted that the same translation be applied to the same word, rather than the general definition, even though no specific context is present. Whereas I read the words according to their basic definitions, and do not deviate from the basic definitions unless there is a contextual reason to do so. I think my “credibility” will be OK – though I do appreciate your concern. 😊 “Did you listen to your instructors in Hebrew class, or figure everything out by yourself? And how many years of academic training have you had in Hebrew? The pastor 'who told me' had 5 years of seminary Hebrew” See how you are trying to contrast the expertise of the “pastor” against my expertise – rather than comparing the rational quality of our arguments. That is the epitome of an Appeal to Authority/Expertise. That is a recognized logic fallacy because experts can be wrong, experts can be biased, experts can disagree with each other, experts can have agendas, experts can lie etc. Experts may have an advantage over non-experts in that they should be more familiar with the relevant information; enough that they presumably have quality arguments to support their case. But in terms of seeking truth, it is the arguments that matter, not the expertise. “But even if you had more and even taught Hebrew for many years, so what? Sounds to me as if you have some kind of an agenda, with all your resistance to the idea of a very old earth” Lol. If I disagree with you, my expertise counts for nothing. Apart from the False Dichotomy discussed earlier, the logical fallacy you are applying here is called Special Pleading. You are using a different standard for those agreeing with you, than for those disagreeing with you. “I'm sure you must know that even equally highly trained scholars have many disagreements among themselves, and this is no exception” Sure. That is why Appeals to Authority are logically meaningless. Only the arguments contribute any logical weight to the discussion. “Since the earth APPEARS very old, is because it IS old. Or explain WHY God would deceive everyone with a creation that only appears very old, but in fact is very young. Can you do that? Or again, simply play dodgeball and deflect” I’m not sure it’s reasonable to call my approach “dodgeball” when I have directly confronted your attempts to change the subject. You don’t like the way the conversation is going – so you want to muddy the already-extensive conversation by introducing other topics – ones where you think you might have an upper hand – since you are doing so poorly on this one. Whereas I am determined to hold you to account for your arguments on this topic, and not let the conversation about hermeneutics become messy and diluted by other topics. Especially since you’ve already managed to ignore so many of my arguments on this topic. “Everything I have presented is rational, whether that is apparent to your eyes or not” Logic fallacies are objectively, by definition, not rational. My “eyes” are irrelevant to that truth. “Science doesn't obligate me to do anything. I haven't appealed to science” In your attempts to entice me to another topic, you have constantly appealed to the earth’s “apparent age”; stating that the earth “APPEARS very old”. You also claimed, “scientific measurements SHOW a very old earth and universe”. Since you state those as truisms, you are clearly under the sway of the secular historical narrative. “I have appealed to what the Bible SAYS, and have given how the words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT. That is called evidence, regardless of how you may describe it” It’s only “evidence” of poor Hermeneutics. “So, comparing how words are translated elsewhere is not good methodology and is "highly dubious". There goes more credibility.” Lol. It is indeed “highly dubious” to take a translation from one context, and to then insist that translation is valid for all contexts. It is “highly dubious” to ignore the influence of context on a specific translation. It is “highly dubious” to skip over the common meaning of a word with no internal evidence from the immediate context suggesting such a variant. Looking into other usages of a word may inform us as to the breadth of application of that word, but that doesn’t mean we can interchange translations – just because the same word is used. When someone who lacks “credibility”, calls my “credibility” into question, I consider my “credibility” to be securely intact. Likewise, I consider my “credibility” to be secure when someone questions my “credibility” in the absence of rational argument. “Give me a break. The discussion is DIRECTLY about what v.2 says. Why are you so eager to NOT address your biases, agendas, and whatever?” I am the one taking scripture at face value, whereas you are the one employing poor hermeneutical methodology – for the purpose of making scripture say something different to the natural reading of the text. You are the one departing from the basic definitions of the words used. You are the one who thinks it is ok to simply transplant from one translation to another without any consideration of context. Therefore, my reason to engage in this discussion is not to promote YEC, nor to challenge your views about an “old earth”, but only to specifically challenge your unsound approach to interpreting Genesis 1:2. “And why not just boldly admit that you are a YEC, if you are? Is that embarrassing? What?” I am weary of stating things that you outright ignore. if you want to know my position on “YEC”, you’ll have to go back and find out. Given that your purpose is to present a fallacy, and since I don’t consider it relevant to anything I’ve argued, I don’t feel any need to repeat myself. “And if one, then you really do need to explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", because that's the question for YECs.” Not in this thread I don’t. “I've compared how certain words in v.2 were translated elsewhere. It doesn't get any more SAFE than that” I understand that you are convinced of this – but it is simply not true. The “SAFE” way to interpret scripture is to first look at the common definition of a word. IF (and only ‘IF’) there is any contextual reason to suggest a deviation from the basic definition, THEN (and only ‘THEN’) it is valid to look to other usages to see if there is any leeway to adjust the meaning. Simply transplanting a translation from one context to another because you prefer one over the other is not a “SAFE” translation method. “Your strong resistance highly suggests bias or an agenda or something” In this instance, my “strong resistance” only “suggests” my “agenda” to promote “SAFE” interpretation methods; to maintain the integrity of the Author’s intent. “A very old earth changes NOTHING in the Bible. So what's the big deal? Surely there must be one for you.” Nothing in my arguments have addressed the age of the earth whatsoever. You claiming this to be my “agenda” is merely your transparent attempt to dismiss my arguments on the basis of my alleged motives. That is, you are trying to build an Appeal to Motive argument against me so that you don’t have to deal with my rational arguments against your position. That is how desperate you are to not give fair consideration to my arguments. “And I have addressed those arguments in detail. Sure. With your opinion.” With detailed, rational arguments and evidence – to which your only response seems to be, ‘It’s just your “opinion”’ – which fails to deal with my arguments in any meaningful way. “There is no “problem”. The formless “clay” idea is merely an analogy.If a lump of clay on a potter’s wheel was described as being ‘without form’, every sensible, sincere person would understand what was meant. It would only take someone deciding to be insincere and obtuse to point out that the clay actually has some form. But God didn't create the original earth like a lump of clay. btw, the word "lumpy" is a description of a FORM which everyone can understand” Firstly, you don’t seem to understand the concept of an “analogy”. Second, your comment here demonstrates you are not being a “sensible, sincere person” by continually making this point. Third, given your previous admittance that the “6 day” period included some “forming” of the earth, you have confirmed the disingenuous nature of your claim here. You’ve decided to double-down on your obtuseness (no-doubt thinking this a clever strategy) but have unintentionally exposed the intentionally dishonest nature of your position. “I didn't say Gen 1 says this. I gave Heb 11:3 as my support;” No you didn’t. Read my posts then” You mean every post you’ve ever written, Or every post on this thread? Because I’m only talking about the things you said that I responded to. There was no mention of “Heb 11:3” in the conversation pathway leading up to your claim to have given “Heb 11:3 as my support”. - You said, “There is no object that has no form. . Every object has a form.” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=221659&content_commentid=3659390) - I then said, “This is an empty semantic argument. The creation described in Genesis was a “6 day process”.” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=221659&content_commentid=3659847) - Then you said, “My point is legitimate and valid. The 6 day process was about restoration” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3659942) - And I said, “I understand that is the position you are trying to argue. My position is that the text of Genesis does not say this. You are therefore trying desperately to massage the text to make this a possibility … ” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3662443) - And you said, “I didn't say Gen 1 says this. I gave Heb 11:3 as my support” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3662508) Which you self-evidently did not do. So yet more doubling-down on lies. “ooh, ooh, ooh. There it is again. That OPINION being used as a "rule" or "law" about certain words DEMANDING a context. Sure. Nonsense.” Lol. True “nonsense” is to take a perfectly sensible argument, then, rather than provide any rational response, frame the sensible argument in mocking terms; hoping no-one will see through your dishonesty. This strategy is called an Appeal to Ridicule. Add it to the list of logic fallacies you’ve decided to use instead of giving fair consideration to my arguments. “Please provide several uses of "bara" that were translated as "create". Even in Genesis 1, both words were used of God creating man” Why do I need to provide that evidence when you already have known examples? “As I explained. You are free to disagree” Thank you. Nevertheless, you telling me I must have an “agenda” to explain my “strong resistance” to your position indicates otherwise. “but everything I explained is both reasonable and rational” The distinction you are trying to make between ‘bara’ and ‘asa’ is not justified by the evidence. “Isaiah 41:20 That they may see and know, And consider and understand together That the hand of the Lord has done (asa) this, And the Holy One of Israel has created (bara) it. Just read the context. God both created what is noted, and He formed them.” The “context” shows that they refer to the same thing. It’s a parallelism. God is telling Israel that when they see the land emptied, note that that God did exactly what He said He would do – which means God will also subsequently help Israel, as He promised. The distinction you claim is not brought out by “the context”. “And you have just missed the whole point again. Every object HAS a form” And yet, you said, “God didn't build the earth in 6 days. He formed it so man could exist on it” I therefore pointed out the inconsistency and nonsense of your “Every object HAS a form” argument by asking, “how could He form something that already had a form?”. Your obtuse pretense is logically undermined by your use of “formed” in the above statement. I now know that you know that something with an unmolded form can be legitimately described as being “without form” – without any intellectual compromise. “Well, there it is. "unmolded form". Said it yourself! Everything HAS a form. Yet the TT claims the earth had no form” Yep – I “said it”. And now you are choosing to double-down on exposed dishonesty. Good luck with that. “You've played a whole lot of dodgeball here” You are the one who is trying to deflect the conversation onto different topics. “Seems you just don't want to discuss the REAL issues here” Depends on whether you consider sound hermeneutics to be a “REAL” issue. “WHY God would create an earth with apparent age, and what is the big deal about a very old earth? 2 issues you see totally unwilling to touch.” This is another lie. I have told you several times that I am perfectly willing to address these topics in their own thread. I’m just not prepared to allow them to muddy this conversation.