Guest shiloh357 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Many experts in Hebrew have translated the bible to mean that the earth existed in darkness before the first daylight. This is what a straightforward reading of the text says. Experts like who? You are choosing to believe what the Hebrew "allows for" above what is the most obvious interpretation. By doing so you are contradicting your own principle of accepting the bible at face value. Nonsense. I am simply going by the plain sense of the Hebrew text. I am not contradicting anything about face-value. I don't go by face-value in how I interpret Scripture. Grammar is not abritrary. I have to go by the rules grammar. It cannot factored out. I speak and read it and it simply doesn't allow for Gen 1:1 to be referencing the dateless, eternal past. Honestly the bible is not YEC, the earth existed for an unknown period before the first daylight, if we take the bible at its most literal and face value interpretation that you seem to be so committed to. Baloney. That is an assumption you have come up with, and is not even held to by any mainstream OEC theorists that I have read. The rest of the days are literal days, and so about 6000 years ago God created life, but I cannot be an honest bible literalist and believe YEC, I believe the YEC stance contradicts the face value understanding of the bible text. Yet, you cannot prove that earth you claim existed prior to Gen. 1:2 was in existence for billions of years, so in that regard, you can't really say the Bible contradicts YEC. Even if your assumption were true, uou have NO idea how much time prior to the creation week had actually transpired, so you really have nothing but an assumption based on nothing. Let me know when you can present something that has some semblance of "evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted January 13, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Many experts in Hebrew have translated the bible to mean that the earth existed in darkness before the first daylight. This is what a straightforward reading of the text says. Experts like who? Like the ones who translated the bible. The plain reading of the English text in most translations is pretty clear. But I apologise, I wasn't meaning to stir with you, just hoping that you would reconsider your position, but if you don't that's fine, I appreciate your commitment to the bible and the original Hebrew. Yet, you cannot prove that earth you claim existed prior to Gen. 1:2 was in existence for billions of years, so in that regard, you can't really say the Bible contradicts YEC. Even if your assumption were true, uou have NO idea how much time prior to the creation week had actually transpired, so you really have nothing but an assumption based on nothing. I actually agree with you here, the earth could have been created 24 hours earlier which would still be young earth creationism. I generally believe evolutionists are out by an approximate factor of 100 000, so I could be also be termed a YEC because I believe the earth is approximately 45 000 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted January 13, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2014 This really sounds like a duplicate thread. We have already discussed these points in the OEC - New Earth and Old Earth thread. Seems best to keep it on the initial thread and not create a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 13, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2014 Connor, I understand all of that, but none of that answers my question. I am simply wanting to know if you view the days of Genesis 1 as a literal historical event and if you believe the account as written, or if you, like others are trying fit 4.5 billion years into six days.Time out- there are other alternatives too. For instance, what if the 4.5 billion years was how long it was before God did his creation thing starting in Genesis 1.3. Remember, in the beginning (dateless past) God created the heavens and the earth. THEN the earth was formless and void..... Why can't all this be 4.5 billion years?The Bible doesn't say that Genesis 1:1-2 occurred in the dateless past. That is YOUR baseless assumption. Verse 1 is nothing more than synopsis of the creative process. Verse 1 tells us that God created the heavens and earth. Verse 2 'till the end of the chapter is an elucidation or expanded explanation of verse one. That is what the Hebrew allows for, and I have chosen to believe the Bible and what it says. You can't simply brush the Heberw grammar aside. To do so means that you are not dealing honestly with the text.Shiloh, I respect your right to interpret the Bible as you deem necessary or believe according to your Hebrew grammar research, but you are not the only Gentile expert in Hebrew grammar. Argosy, looking for answers, and Connor have been most impressive too.) I've heard your many many arguments on how to interpret Genesis 1:1-2, but I'm not buying it. I think your interpretation is slanted to suit your bias and it doesn't jive with my research. Coincidentally, most of the scientific research and study out there validates my interpretation of Genesis 1:1, that our earth is much older than 10,000 years. So, I walk away feeling good about the fruit of MY research as I'm sure you feel about yours. Oh, by the way, I dont feel guilty having a book written by Stephen Hawking right under my Bible on my bed stand. Cheers, Spock out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Shiloh, I respect your right to interpret the Bible as you deem necessary or believe according to your Hebrew grammar research, but you are not the only Gentile expert in Hebrew grammar. Argosy and Conner have been most impressive too.) Two things, here: 1. I am not a Gentile. 2. Argosy and Conner have not provided ANYTHING that comes close to indicating a knowledge of Hebrew. I've heard your many many arguments on how to interpret Genesis 1:1-2, but I'm not buying it. I think your interpretation is slanted to suit your bias and it doesn't jive with my research. Research??? What research?? You do nothing but parrot "scholars" who themselves are not competent in Hebrew and simply parrot each other. I checked out the scholars whom you claimed believe in the gap theory and pre-adamite earth and they are not scholars. They are radio preachers and prolific authors but they are not "scholars" in the academic use of the term. They simply regurgitate what their peers believe. You haven't got any "research." That is just laughable. What the Hebrew grammar doesn't "jive" with, is your agenda and your claims of a mythical pre-adamite earth and the baseless assumption of an old earth. You haven't got anything to refute any information I have provided. That is the heart of the matter. You are free to reject what I have presented, but you can' refute any of it. You reject it from pride,not from "research." Coincidentally, most of the scientific research and study out there validates my interpretation of Genesis 1:1, that our earth is much older than 10,000 years. So, I walk away feeling good about the fruit of MY research as I'm sure you feel about yours. There is NO science research out there that validates your interpretation of Genesis 1:1, and certainly doesn't validate your claims of a pre-adamite earth. Old earth isn't based on science at all. It was a late 18th century assumption that science has, in vain, tried to prop up with faulty dating methods. Sorry, but parroting people simply because you think they validate your claims isn't "research." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 13, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2014 Shiloh, You said "There is NO science research out there that validates your interpretation of Genesis 1:1" (earth 4.5 billion years old) Spock: scratching my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Shiloh, You said "There is NO science research out there that validates your interpretation of Genesis 1:1" (earth 4.5 billion years old) Spock: scratching my head There isn't. All you have are assumptions and an attempt by scientists to prove, instead of attempting to falisfy, the assumption/hypothesis of an old earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted January 14, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 14, 2014 Connor, I understand all of that, but none of that answers my question. I am simply wanting to know if you view the days of Genesis 1 as a literal historical event and if you believe the account as written, or if you, like others are trying fit 4.5 billion years into six days. Time out- there are other alternatives too. For instance, what if the 4.5 billion years was how long it was before God did his creation thing starting in Genesis 1.3. Remember, in the beginning (dateless past) God created the heavens and the earth. THEN the earth was formless and void..... Why can't all this be 4.5 billion years? between you and me Spock, yet it is based on the earth (and not on some empty void) that scientists believe the earth as old as it is. They are dating the actual age of...well rock. Not emptiness. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted January 14, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 14, 2014 Shiloh, You said "There is NO science research out there that validates your interpretation of Genesis 1:1" (earth 4.5 billion years old) Spock: scratching my head There isn't. All you have are assumptions and an attempt by scientists to prove, instead of attempting to falisfy, the assumption/hypothesis of an old earth. Okay Shiloh...now you are starting to get sloppy. Why was there ever a theory that the earth was much older if Science never discovered data that pointed in that direction.... I am starting to lose interest in this thread. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted January 14, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 14, 2014 This really sounds like a duplicate thread. We have already discussed these points in the OEC - New Earth and Old Earth thread. Seems best to keep it on the initial thread and not create a new one. Eh...too late. Too much momentum already. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts