The Distant Starlight Problem

[Guest shiloh357]

"

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. 

 

 

That is completely wrong.   The issue about the word, "became" stems from the misguided notion that there was a pre-adamite earth (that Bible never mentions) that God judged and destroyed on account of Satan, and thus leaving the earth in a formless and void state.   Thus the earth "became" void because of this alleged judgment that took place.

 

The reason that i have given before which Spock and Shar completely ignore (because they cannot refute it and cannot find a real scholar to refute it), is that Gen. 1:2 begins in Hebrew as, "v'haeretz hayatah tohu 'bohu," meaning, "and the earth was without form and  void.."    The reason grammatically that "hayata" cannot be rendered as "became"  is the first two words, "v'haeretz."    The first word "v" is the letter "vav" and it means, "and" in this verse.  It is followed immediate by a noun, "haeretz."   Anyone in Hebrew, even a first year Hebrew student, knows that this is called a, "vav-disjunctive."  

 

It is a rare occurance in Hebrew when the noun precedes a verb as occurs in Gen. 1:2.   Usually the verb precedies the noun.   But v' is followed by a noun meaning that verse two is not a continuation of the thought expressed in Gen. 1:1.   Gen. 1:1 is not referring to an event the dateless past.  It is simply a prologue or synopsis to the creation event accounted of in the rest of the chapter.  

 

If the v' were followed by a verb, then you could connect verses 1 and 2 in the same line of thought and "hayata" could and should be translated as "became."  But because there is no connective between the verses, there is NO way "became" can be the correct word to occur in that verse.

 

That is why NO translater renders it "became."   If some major translators rendered it became and some didn't and both could provide sound reasons for their translative chocies, then it would be nothing but opinion at stake.  But the fact is that at the end of the day, NO major translation team in the world sides with the notion that "was" is the wrong word used.   No major Hebrew scholar would EVER translate Gen. 1:2 to say "became." Not one and so far, Spock and Shar are batting zero.  They can say what they want, but at the end of the day,  EVERY scholar translates it the right way because no competent Hebrew scholar believes in the Gap Theory.

 

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. 

 

This isn't about what could have happened.  Has nothing to do with it.  The Bible doesn' say what God was doing and we should be silent where the Bible is silent.  The issue here isn't possiblity.  The issue is probability or likelihood.   The fact is that your question reflects nothing substantive, just baseless speculation.  I am dealing in fact, not what you can dream up in your imagination.

 

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. 

 

And I choose to let the author of the Bible speak for Himself instead of choosing to believe whatever pops into my head.  I prefer to let the Bible be the Bible and I am not going to assign meanings to things because it fits whatever my imagination conjures up.  It is the difference bewteen fairytales and truth.  I will go for truth.
 

[Spock]

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.

I wouldnt be surprised to know it was a YEC proponent who posted some slanderous remark about one NIV translator being a homosexual just to discredit the entire work by the group of 150 language experts.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I have produced the reference to many scholars, just on the NIV alone. 

You produced a margin note which I already stated was right, but that at the end of the day when they had to put down the right word, they put down the word "was" and not became. And besides, Scholars don't even use the NIV today.   The NIV is mostly used by lay pepole.

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. 

 

Yet all of those scholars agree with me and their translation proved.  Why didn't they use the word "became" in the actual translation???   Why didn't they have the courage to use the right word if "became" was the right word?  

 

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.gree with you.  

 

There were two practicing homosexuals on the NIV team.  That is not a prejudicial story and I didn't have to google it.  I have known that for years and is one reason I won't use that translation. The other reason I won't use it is because it is not a word for word translation.  It is a dynamic equivalence translation that simply aproximates thought for thought.   So when it comes to word studies, the NIV is pretty much useless.

 

The other tellilng fact is that it is the ONLY translation among the many mainstream translations that you could find to even try and support your position.  The scholarly world doesn't agree with you and that is something you need to come to grips with.

[Shar]

 

 

I have produced the reference to many scholars, just on the NIV alone. 

You produced a margin note which I already stated was right, but that at the end of the day when they had to put down the right word, they put down the word "was" and not became. And besides, Scholars don't even use the NIV today.   The NIV is mostly used by lay pepole.

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. 

 

Yet all of those scholars agree with me and their translation proved.  Why didn't they use the word "became" in the actual translation???   Why didn't they have the courage to use the right word if "became" was the right word?  

 

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.gree with you.  

 

There were two practicing homosexuals on the NIV team.  That is not a prejudicial story and I didn't have to google it.  I have known that for years and is one reason I won't use that translation. The other reason I won't use it is because it is not a word for word translation.  It is a dynamic equivalence translation that simply aproximates thought for thought.   So when it comes to word studies, the NIV is pretty much useless.

 

The other tellilng fact is that it is the ONLY translation among the many mainstream translations that you could find to even try and support your position.  The scholarly world doesn't agree with you and that is something you need to come to grips with.

 

There are other translations that support a gap in time between verses 1 and 2.  But, more importantly, the NIV is one of the few that goes down to the earliest manuscripts.  Your Bible, with its mere 20 scholars, did not go down to the earliest manuscripts.  In addition, you are negating a proven, upheld and accurate version simply because you believe there were 2 homosexuals on the committee.  You have no tangible proof.  Just an article that accuses.  Again, G-d gives gifts under men, not just to people you put your stamp of approval.  Even if the story be so, it does not negate their personal talents, worth, ability and scholarship.

[Guest shiloh357]

There are other translations that support a gap in time between verses 1 and 2. 

 

Present them.  I am looking for mainstream translations.  I am not concerned with paraphrases or obscure translations that are the product of one man.  I am looking for actual translations that rely on scholarly translation teams comprised of Christians with Ph.Ds in textual criticism.

 

But, more importantly, the NIV is one of the few that goes down to the earliest manuscripts.  Your Bible, with its mere 20 scholars, did not go down to the earliest manuscripts

 

But the NIV still translates Gen. 1:2 as "was."    

 

In addition, you are negating a proven, upheld and accurate version simply because you believe there were 2 homosexuals on the committee. You have no tangible proof.  Just an article that accuses.  Again, G-d gives gifts under men, not just to people you put your stamp of approval. 

God is not going to anoint homosexuals to handle his words.  He doesn't bless disobedience and the point is that one cannot be a practicing homosexual and a Christian.  That is just fact.  It is not about who I put my stamp of approval on.  God doesn't bless homosexuals with the privilege of his anointing.

 

Even if the story be so, it does not negate their personal talents, worth, ability and scholarship.

 

It pretty much negates them as believers which disqualifies them Bible translators, unless you don't mind pagans translating God's word.

 

At the end of the day, the NIV still agrees wih me.  The NIV is not a formal translation and even a nonformal translation still stands in agreement with how every other translation renders Gen. 1:2

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

I have produced the reference to many scholars, just on the NIV alone. 

You produced a margin note which I already stated was right, but that at the end of the day when they had to put down the right word, they put down the word "was" and not became. And besides, Scholars don't even use the NIV today.   The NIV is mostly used by lay pepole.

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. 

 

Yet all of those scholars agree with me and their translation proved.  Why didn't they use the word "became" in the actual translation???   Why didn't they have the courage to use the right word if "became" was the right word?  

 

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.gree with you.  

 

There were two practicing homosexuals on the NIV team.  That is not a prejudicial story and I didn't have to google it.  I have known that for years and is one reason I won't use that translation. The other reason I won't use it is because it is not a word for word translation.  It is a dynamic equivalence translation that simply aproximates thought for thought.   So when it comes to word studies, the NIV is pretty much useless.

 

The other tellilng fact is that it is the ONLY translation among the many mainstream translations that you could find to even try and support your position.  The scholarly world doesn't agree with you and that is something you need to come to grips with.

 

 

Is it your view that one needs to be a believer in God to correctly translate ancient languages?  I that that a person's sexual preference does not have an impact on their ability to translate ancient languages.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Is it your view that one needs to be a believer in God to correctly translate ancient languages?  I that that a person's sexual preference does not have an impact on their ability to translate ancient languages.

 

I believe being an authentic follower of Jesus should be a prerequisite to translating the text of Scripture.  NonChristians have no business translating the Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I wouldnt be surprised to know it was a YEC proponent who posted some slanderous remark about one NIV translator being a homosexual just to discredit the entire work by the group of 150 language experts.

 

It's not a slanderous remark. It's only slander when it isn't true.   Both of the homosexuals on the NIV team were openly gay.  They made no secret of it.  And one of them was the chariman on the OT translation team.  

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

Is it your view that one needs to be a believer in God to correctly translate ancient languages?  I that that a person's sexual preference does not have an impact on their ability to translate ancient languages.

 

I believe being an authentic follower of Jesus should be a prerequisite to translating the text of Scripture.  NonChristians have no business translating the Bible.

 

 

An "authentic follower of Jesus" has a built in bias, this could affect their translation.  In their most basic form the scriptures are just ancient writings just like any other.  I would like to think that no matter who did the translation the results would be the same.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

Is it your view that one needs to be a believer in God to correctly translate ancient languages?  I that that a person's sexual preference does not have an impact on their ability to translate ancient languages.

 

I believe being an authentic follower of Jesus should be a prerequisite to translating the text of Scripture.  NonChristians have no business translating the Bible.

 

 

An "authentic follower of Jesus" has a built in bias, this could affect their translation.  In their most basic form the scriptures are just ancient writings just like any other.  I would like to think that no matter who did the translation the results would be the same.

 

Yes an athentic follower of Jesus does have a built in bias.  You don't want an atheist, an agnostic, a wiccan, or transvestites and satanists on the translation team.   You don't want people with antibiblical paradigms, and those who promote sinful lifestyles like homosexuality deciding what the Bible says and doesn't say.

 

The Bible ISN'T just like ancient writings like any other.  It is God's Word and it is a Holy and set apart book and should be treated as such.   It does matter who translates it.