The Distant Starlight Problem

[Shar]

Yes.  I was taught this in bible college.  I am fully a Creationist and believe God did all those works in 7 literal days.  "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."  When was this beginning?  It is hard for us to fathom eternity...something always existing without having been born. But we know God created all things.  All we know is He created the heavens and the earth 'In the beginning.'  There is a lot of the story we do not know.  Like, Adam and Eve had three sons.  Where did Cain's wife come from?  He was just wandering in the wilderness and found her.  Did God create different tribes?  Did He also create the wives of Cain, Abel and Seth? 

 

So we have a whole eternity past, but only in the last 6,000 years God created earth and all its inhabitants?  Earth could've been used by the angels for different purposes.  We just do not know the the eternity past was like beyond 6,000 years ago.  We don't know when Satan fell, but from the text given, I will assume it was before the seven days of creation. 

 

Also, did time start AFTER the fall?  How many years expired when it was just Adam and God in the garden and He asked for a help-meet?  Was it a few days?  Weeks?  Years?  He wasn't born; he was created.  When was his year one?  From the fall or from creation?

I like your input. When it all boils down to it, none of us can emphatically say.  As G-d said to Job .."where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

The NIV and other translations do translate it as "possibly became".  Definitely room for argument.

 

No, they don't translate it that way.   In the margins of some NIV Bibles they claim that "was" can mean "became," and they are right.  In certain contexts it can mean, "became."  But when given a choice, they translated the actual text correctly as "was."   They knew that "became" simply didn't work in Gen. 1:2.

 

A footnote is to give the reader additional information specifically about the given word and how it is used in the given sentence.  By simple definition, in all cases, a footnote cites a reference for a designated part of the text.  It is not used to simply give possible meanings of the word, if used in some other context.  Other translations, including their footnotes, want the reader to be fully aware that the word "was" can mean "became" in Ge. 1:2.  "the earth became formless and void..".

 

Wow, Shiloh, now I know you will go to no end to fit in your YEC model.  The translators are letting the reader know that the use of "was" cannot be simply translated to mean the current or present state of condition.  Instead, they are saying that it could have become in that condition after Ge.1:1

 

You need to understand what translators mean when they say a word "CAN" be translated a certain way.   In Hebrew, a word can have several usages, but only ONE of them applies to a given context.   In other words the word ha-ya in Gen. 1:2 can only have ONE usage. It cannot mean both "was" and "became" simultaneously.  

 

When they translators of the NIV had to make a choice, they didn't choose "became."   Ha-ya was tranlsated "was" and this is only grammatically correct translation available to them.  At the end of the day, the translators actually agree with me and not with you.   You are trying skew the translation to favor your position.  I am working a knowledge ofthe language that you clearly don't have, as I have noticed how many times you have offered incorrect definitions of Hebrew words on various occasions.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

So the translators can't possible have chosen the wrong word?  You said they had to make a choice, meaning it could've swung one way or another and they choose to say "was" rather than "became".  Still doesn't mean "became" is wrong. 

[Shar]

 

 

 

The NIV and other translations do translate it as "possibly became".  Definitely room for argument.

 

No, they don't translate it that way.   In the margins of some NIV Bibles they claim that "was" can mean "became," and they are right.  In certain contexts it can mean, "became."  But when given a choice, they translated the actual text correctly as "was."   They knew that "became" simply didn't work in Gen. 1:2.

 

A footnote is to give the reader additional information specifically about the given word and how it is used in the given sentence.  By simple definition, in all cases, a footnote cites a reference for a designated part of the text.  It is not used to simply give possible meanings of the word, if used in some other context.  Other translations, including their footnotes, want the reader to be fully aware that the word "was" can mean "became" in Ge. 1:2.  "the earth became formless and void..".

 

Wow, Shiloh, now I know you will go to no end to fit in your YEC model.  The translators are letting the reader know that the use of "was" cannot be simply translated to mean the current or present state of condition.  Instead, they are saying that it could have become in that condition after Ge.1:1

 

You need to understand what translators mean when they say a word "CAN" be translated a certain way.   In Hebrew, a word can have several usages, but only ONE of them applies to a given context.   In other words the word ha-ya in Gen. 1:2 can only have ONE usage. It cannot mean both "was" and "became" simultaneously.  

 

When they translators of the NIV had to make a choice, they didn't choose "became."   Ha-ya was tranlsated "was" and this is only grammatically correct translation available to them.  At the end of the day, the translators actually agree with me and not with you.   You are trying skew the translation to favor your position.  I am working a knowledge ofthe language that you clearly don't have, as I have noticed how many times you have offered incorrect definitions of Hebrew words on various occasions.

 

I believe the same about you, Shiloh.  I believe you try to skew the translation to favor your position.  You are elevating yourself to a level and knowledge of Hebrew that not all scholars or Hebrew sages agree with.  When someone disagrees with you, you either elevate your self knowledge and study to absolute expertise, or, worst, you put down their knowledge, skills, study and input to strip them of their significance in the debate.  Just simply state your argument and go on.  Let others do the necessary study to intelligently come to their own conclusions.

[Shar]

So the translators can't possible have chosen the wrong word?  You said they had to make a choice, meaning it could've swung one way or another and they choose to say "was" rather than "became".  Still doesn't mean "became" is wrong. 

AMEN!!!!  AMEN!!!!.  Let's all say, "AMEN"

[Guest shiloh357]

So the translators can't possible have chosen the wrong word?  You said they had to make a choice, meaning it could've swung one way or another and they choose to say "was" rather than "became".  Still doesn't mean "became" is wrong. 

Their choice was made based on the grammatical structure of the Hebrew.  Their choice was not arbitrary.  They didn't choose based on what they liked or disliked.  The grammatical structure of v. 2 told them which word was correct.  That makes "beame" the wrong word.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

The NIV and other translations do translate it as "possibly became".  Definitely room for argument.

 

No, they don't translate it that way.   In the margins of some NIV Bibles they claim that "was" can mean "became," and they are right.  In certain contexts it can mean, "became."  But when given a choice, they translated the actual text correctly as "was."   They knew that "became" simply didn't work in Gen. 1:2.

 

A footnote is to give the reader additional information specifically about the given word and how it is used in the given sentence.  By simple definition, in all cases, a footnote cites a reference for a designated part of the text.  It is not used to simply give possible meanings of the word, if used in some other context.  Other translations, including their footnotes, want the reader to be fully aware that the word "was" can mean "became" in Ge. 1:2.  "the earth became formless and void..".

 

Wow, Shiloh, now I know you will go to no end to fit in your YEC model.  The translators are letting the reader know that the use of "was" cannot be simply translated to mean the current or present state of condition.  Instead, they are saying that it could have become in that condition after Ge.1:1

 

You need to understand what translators mean when they say a word "CAN" be translated a certain way.   In Hebrew, a word can have several usages, but only ONE of them applies to a given context.   In other words the word ha-ya in Gen. 1:2 can only have ONE usage. It cannot mean both "was" and "became" simultaneously.  

 

When they translators of the NIV had to make a choice, they didn't choose "became."   Ha-ya was tranlsated "was" and this is only grammatically correct translation available to them.  At the end of the day, the translators actually agree with me and not with you.   You are trying skew the translation to favor your position.  I am working a knowledge ofthe language that you clearly don't have, as I have noticed how many times you have offered incorrect definitions of Hebrew words on various occasions.

 

I believe the same about you, Shiloh.  I believe you try to skew the translation to favor your position. 

But I'm not.  I am not skewing anythng I can work through the grammar and show you why "became" is the wrong word and I have done so on many occasions.  I know the language and based on what I have seen in your posts, you clearly don't know the language.   I can back my position up with scholarly sources, all you can do is point to a margin note.

 

You are elevating yourself to a level and knowledge of Hebrew that not all scholars or Hebrew sages agree with. 

 

Wrong.   I am standing in a position that all degreed scholars in Hebrew stand, which is why neither your or spock or anyone else have been able to provide ONE Hebrew scholar with an advanced degree that agrees with you.  The people who believe in the Gap Theory are not Hebrew scholars which is why those who write books favoring the Gap theory never consult Hebrew Scholars becuase they know they cannot get support from them.  So they resort to a lot of misinformation and even making things up to fill in the void of their lack of knowledge and they hope no one who has any skill in Hebrew takes the time to read their work.

 

When someone disagrees with you, you either elevate your self knowledge and study to absolute expertise, or, worst, you put down their knowledge, skills, study and input to strip them of their significance in the debate. 

 

The facts are what the facts are. I can and have defended my position from knowing the language and working through the grammar with you.  

 

What I see is that for you and others, this is not about the truth.  It is about an agenda to support the Gap Theory.  You over sell what flimsy evidence you think supports your position and cannot answer me on the grounds of Hebrew grammar, which only solidfies why the Gap theory is a myth.

 

 

Just simply state your argument and go on.  Let others do the necessary study to intelligently come to their own conclusions.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

"was" form and void.  "became" form and void.  It still means it was there.  The only difference is to become form and void means it was used for a different purpose and for whatever reason, God made it become void and restarted everything.  You do realize God is eternal right?  He didn't have a beginning, nor will He have an end.  Please explain to me what God has done for trillions and trillions and trillions of years in the past.  Could He have created and re-created and re-created and re-created earth and life and angels?  Definitely possible.  He didn't just live in this box waiting until 6,000 years ago and decide to create the universe. 

 

Again, I believe He created all that we know in seven literal days. I'm just a little more open-minded on what God did with the earth as it's possible He had a different use for it before it became the earth we know today.  I choose to believe the correct usage is the earth "became" form and void because of other verses referencing the fall of Satan, which had to of happened before the Creation week. 

[Spock]

"was" form and void.  "became" form and void.  It still means it was there.  The only difference is to become form and void means it was used for a different purpose and for whatever reason, God made it become void and restarted everything.  You do realize God is eternal right?  He didn't have a beginning, nor will He have an end.  Please explain to me what God has done for trillions and trillions and trillions of years in the past.  Could He have created and re-created and re-created and re-created earth and life and angels?  Definitely possible.  He didn't just live in this box waiting until 6,000 years ago and decide to create the universe. 

 

Again, I believe He created all that we know in seven literal days. I'm just a little more open-minded on what God did with the earth as it's possible He had a different use for it before it became the earth we know today.  I choose to believe the correct usage is the earth "became" form and void because of other verses referencing the fall of Satan, which had to of happened before the Creation week.

Well done Anthony and shar. You two sure convinced me that became is perfectly acceptable despite shilohs agenda, errrrr, I mean protests.

[Shar]

 

 

 

 

 

The NIV and other translations do translate it as "possibly became".  Definitely room for argument.

 

No, they don't translate it that way.   In the margins of some NIV Bibles they claim that "was" can mean "became," and they are right.  In certain contexts it can mean, "became."  But when given a choice, they translated the actual text correctly as "was."   They knew that "became" simply didn't work in Gen. 1:2.

 

A footnote is to give the reader additional information specifically about the given word and how it is used in the given sentence.  By simple definition, in all cases, a footnote cites a reference for a designated part of the text.  It is not used to simply give possible meanings of the word, if used in some other context.  Other translations, including their footnotes, want the reader to be fully aware that the word "was" can mean "became" in Ge. 1:2.  "the earth became formless and void..".

 

Wow, Shiloh, now I know you will go to no end to fit in your YEC model.  The translators are letting the reader know that the use of "was" cannot be simply translated to mean the current or present state of condition.  Instead, they are saying that it could have become in that condition after Ge.1:1

 

You need to understand what translators mean when they say a word "CAN" be translated a certain way.   In Hebrew, a word can have several usages, but only ONE of them applies to a given context.   In other words the word ha-ya in Gen. 1:2 can only have ONE usage. It cannot mean both "was" and "became" simultaneously.  

 

When they translators of the NIV had to make a choice, they didn't choose "became."   Ha-ya was tranlsated "was" and this is only grammatically correct translation available to them.  At the end of the day, the translators actually agree with me and not with you.   You are trying skew the translation to favor your position.  I am working a knowledge ofthe language that you clearly don't have, as I have noticed how many times you have offered incorrect definitions of Hebrew words on various occasions.

 

I believe the same about you, Shiloh.  I believe you try to skew the translation to favor your position. 

But I'm not.  I am not skewing anythng I can work through the grammar and show you why "became" is the wrong word and I have done so on many occasions.  I know the language and based on what I have seen in your posts, you clearly don't know the language.   I can back my position up with scholarly sources, all you can do is point to a margin note.

 

You are elevating yourself to a level and knowledge of Hebrew that not all scholars or Hebrew sages agree with. 

 

Wrong.   I am standing in a position that all degreed scholars in Hebrew stand, which is why neither your or spock or anyone else have been able to provide ONE Hebrew scholar with an advanced degree that agrees with you.  The people who believe in the Gap Theory are not Hebrew scholars which is why those who write books favoring the Gap theory never consult Hebrew Scholars becuase they know they cannot get support from them.  So they resort to a lot of misinformation and even making things up to fill in the void of their lack of knowledge and they hope no one who has any skill in Hebrew takes the time to read their work.

 

When someone disagrees with you, you either elevate your self knowledge and study to absolute expertise, or, worst, you put down their knowledge, skills, study and input to strip them of their significance in the debate. 

 

The facts are what the facts are. I can and have defended my position from knowing the language and working through the grammar with you.  

 

What I see is that for you and others, this is not about the truth.  It is about an agenda to support the Gap Theory.  You over sell what flimsy evidence you think supports your position and cannot answer me on the grounds of Hebrew grammar, which only solidfies why the Gap theory is a myth.

 

 

Just simply state your argument and go on.  Let others do the necessary study to intelligently come to their own conclusions.

 

I have produced the reference to many scholars, just on the NIV alone.  Anyone can Google it by asking "list of people who translated the NIV".  Look for the site under www.bible-researcher.com/niv-translators.html.  You will find the list of over 150 scholars and translators.  You will find the statement of creed which ascribe to the inerrant word of G-d too.  This and others sources have been referenced by me and others.  When you could not get around that, you proceeded to devalue the NIV and its accuracy by stating a homosexual was on the committee and therefore rendered it invaluable.  You had to Google that to find that unkind, prejudicial story.