I've changed my mind. I now believe the "earth" is 6k years old

[DeighAnn]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Jer 4:23

American Standard Version
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
I looked in the earth, and behold, chaos and emptiness, and to the Heavens, and their light is not there

English Revised Version
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Good News Translation
I looked at the earth--it was a barren waste; at the sky--there was no light. 

JPS Tanakh 1917
I beheld the earth, And, lo, it was waste and void; And the heavens, and they had no light.

New American Bible
I looked at the earth—it was waste and void; at the heavens—their light had gone out! 
NET Bible
"I looked at the land and saw that it was an empty wasteland. I looked up at the sky, and its light had vanished. 
New Revised Standard Version
I looked on the earth, and lo, it was waste and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.New Heart English Bible
I saw the earth, and, look, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
World English Bible
I saw the earth and, behold, it was waste and void, and the heavens, and they had no light. 
Young's Literal Translation
I looked to the land, and lo, waste and void, And unto the heavens, and their light is not.

This verse is the only other verse in the Bible that contains "tohu wabohu".  And 16 translations render it "waste", "wasteland", "chaos".  More than half of available English translations on biblehub.com.

Yes, and now if we could just get everyone to READ what that WASTELAND verse followed...






when looking to follow OUR own religion, no matter what questions 'the words of God' ACTUALLY ANSWER, it can't/won't to be seen.  

How when why?   Here they are...


WHY?
19My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.

HOW?
20Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled: suddenly are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment.

21How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?

22For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.


WHEN? 
Satan was PERFECT in all his ways TILL his INIQUITY was found and brought it about BETRAYL on a scale of 1/3 of GODS stars.  


BUT, I can understand how people today can't let their carnal minds to go and rest in the eternal Spiritual world of God.  BUT, IF we just LOOK at what WE MIGHT do,  (if we were creating an ETERNAL world that followed after peace and grace and love),

WOULD WE choose SOULS we were giving ETERNAL LIFE to, JUST ONE RANDOM MOMENT TO get it right or wrong, especially knowing how stubborn and dumb they were  (no matter the body)

or would we make them go through a series of 'lives' to find out who everyone really was?   

ME, I am all about the 'series' of tests to see 'who is WORTHY',  rather than ACCIDENTLY giving eternal life to someone I DON'T want to spend eternity with.  

I think it all started with 'the New Jerusalem' coming down to the earth.  I thought (better put 'Gods words caused me to think') ANOTHER JERUSALEM?  I wonder how many 'Jerusalem's' there have been?  

Well,  SUDDEN DESTRUCTION is seen here.  

BUT what really GOT ME was 

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalms 12:6 KJV

I know, just some random thoughts that leave no questions unanswered, LIKE the end times beginning back with Jesus.  Wasn't that more of a beginning?  Why keep saying the end, the latter days.  And HOW does what is taking place COME QUICKLY when it is taking a couple thousand years?  Well, if it is at the end of a LONG JOURNEY and this is the 2nd to last 'test', it all makes sense.  

again, just some random thoughts that have come from pondering on what is written.  

BUT what if God did give me these thoughts and I DIDN'T share them?  That would be ON ME, and not on anyone else.  THIS WAY, it isn't.  

Edited May 14, 2023 by DeighAnn

[DeighAnn]

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalms 12:6 KJV


Psalms 18:30 - As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.


Psalms 66:10 - For thou, O God, hast proved us: thou hast tried us, as silver is tried.



 

Edited May 14, 2023 by DeighAnn

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Could you refresh my memory, please?  Where do you get "spoke with fire"?

You are free to think whatever you want.  

I got to refresh your memory, is that a new tactic, smart one day then rollover and play dumb the next.

God hovering over a slab of ice is delusional 

Edited May 14, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

24 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

FreeGrace said: 

Could you refresh my memory, please?  Where do you get "spoke with fire"?

You are free to think whatever you want.

I got to refresh your memory, is that a new tactic, smart one day then rollover and play dumb the next.

Seems a "lose...lose" proposition trying to discuss with you.  Never satisfied.  But maybe there is an explanation of why you equate a memory loss with "playing dumb".

My question to you was sincere and legitimate.  But seems there's no actual response to it.  Maybe there isn't one, and there was no comment about "spoke with fire" after all.  

24 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

God hovering over a slab of ice is delusional 

Please actually read my posts before such response.  I never said anything about a "slab of ice".  I did say "the earth was packed in ice".  That would mean, to those who are reasonable, ALL of the earth.  

And I showed from Scripture that "hovered" is equated with "brooded over" and therefore related in meaning and usage.  The Holy Spirit hovered/brooded over the earth packed in ice, and the ice melted, causing the flow of waterS.  I explained all that.  You can call my explanation whatever you want, but you can't get away with callilng it delusional since it all came from Scripture.  

Maybe all the delusion comes from elsewhere.

btw, are you able to defend your position about a young earth, which I addressed on the previous page?

Why is a young earth necessary in your view?   What do you think you are protecting or defending?

Edited May 14, 2023 by FreeGrace

[BeyondET]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The Holy Spirit hovered/brooded over the earth packed in ice, and the ice melted, causing the flow of waterS. I explained all that. You can call my explanation whatever you want, but you can't get away with callilng it delusional since it all came from Scripture.  

btw, are you able to defend your position about a young earth, which I addressed on the previous page?

Why is a young earth necessary in your view?   What do you think you are protecting or defending?

Seems you haven't paid any attention to what I've said.

I'm not a young earth believer.

Your frustration or whatever is has effected your attentiveness.

And scripture says nothing about earth packed in ice.

What is the waters above polar ice caps?.

What is the expanse that separates the ice or was it all water than ice?.

Edited May 14, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

47 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Seems you haven't paid any attention to what I've said.

I'm not a young earth believer.

Your frustration or whatever is has effected your attentiveness.

Wrong again.  I'm not young.  It's called forgetful.  So if the earth wasn't created over a 6 day period (Gen 1), how old do you think the earth is, in relation to when Adam was created.  Seems I recall that I asked that a long time ago and never got an answer.

47 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

And scripture says nothing about earth packed in ice.

Free to believe whatever you want.

47 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

What is the waters above polar ice caps?.

I've never visited there.  Go ahead and tell me, so if I ever do visit, I'll know what to expect.

47 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

What is the expanse that separates the ice or was it all water than ice?.

Again, haven't been there.  You tell me, if you can.

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Wrong again.  I'm not young.  It's called forgetful.  

Seems I recall that I asked that a long time ago and never got an answer.

Definitely not young, you've had some time developmenting it.

Seems like you got selective memory, Nay that isn't logical 🤔 

Edited May 14, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

Definitely not young, you've had some time developmenting it.

Seems like you got selective memory, Nay that isn't logical 🤔 

So you're not going to explain why the earth is much older than Adam, huh.  Wonder what you're hiding.

[Tristen]

On 5/14/2023 at 9:53 AM, FreeGrace said:

The end of v.2 actually says there was "darkness over the face of the deep" and the Holy Spirit "hovered over the waters", which indicates the process of melting water.  So we have the Holy Spirit hovering, which in biblical usage overlaps with brooding, so it shows the Holy Spirit hovering to melt the ice pack.  And v.2 actually says the at the time of the 6 day process WAS uninhabited.  Even in the traditional translation (TT).

There is no object that has no form.  Every object has a form.  And the various translations say "without form" or "formless", so that eliminates the idea that the earth simply needed some "forming" to be dome.  

v.11-2  God created the earth v.2 and the earth WAS tohu

Isa 45:18  He didn't create the earth tohu

Without a doubt, the TT creates a contradiction with Isa 45:18.

New American Standard Bible
For this is what the LORD says, He who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it as a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited): “I am the LORD, and there is no one else.

The exact form of the verb "hayah" in v.2 is translated as "become or became" in 70% of all the other verses with that same form.  111 of them.  That is not presumption.  That shows the most common translation of that form of the verb.

Nope.  That form of the verb IS translated as "become" or "became" in 70% of all of its uses in the OT.  Hardly "much rarer".  In fact, the MOST COMMON translation of the same form found in v.2.

Apparently what throws people off is that God gave NO details about what caused the earth to become tohu, or any details of what happened.  

btw, the LXX begins v.2 with "but", a conjunction of contrast, showing or supporting the fact that the earth became something else from how it was created.

No it can't.  "BUT the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND".  This is how the key words are translated elsewhere in the OT.  Again, "became" is FAR more common a translation than "was" given that exact same form as found in v.2.

Why do we need "supporting context"?  God gave us what He gave us.  He isn't obligated to explain everything.  And simply looking at how the key words in v.2 were translated elsewhere we see that something happened that God didn't explain or detail.

Can you point out any "external biases" in my posts?

All I've done is look at how the key words in v.2 were translated elsewhere in the OT.  That sure isn't anything close to an "external bias".

And the MOST COMMON translation of the same form of the verb "hayah" in v.2 is translated as "become" or "became" in 70% of all occurrences.

Again, no external biases.  

 

Hey FreeGrace. You said, “The end of v.2 actually says there was "darkness over the face of the deep"”

Yes, light was not created until verse 3.

 

“and the Holy Spirit "hovered over the waters", which indicates the process of melting water”

It absolutely does not “indicate the process of melting water”. You have to force ancillary assumptions into the text to come to that conclusion.

 

“So we have the Holy Spirit hovering, which in biblical usage overlaps with brooding, so it shows the Holy Spirit hovering to melt the ice pack”

What???

What does “brooding” have to do with melting ice? I’m not following the logic of your argument. The Holy Spirit moved/hovered/fluttered/ ‘rachaf’ (Hb) “over the waters”. That’s all it says. Anything else is a story that has been added to the text.

 

“And v.2 actually says the at the time of the 6 day process WAS uninhabited.  Even in the traditional translation (TT).”

You are complicating a very straight forward narrative. The “process” of creation took 6 days. God first brought the heavens and the earth into existence (verses 1-2), He then molded (formed) the earth to make it fit for habitation (verses 3-9), after which He proceeded to fill (i.e. inhabit) the earth.

 

“There is no object that has no form.  Every object has a form”

This is an empty semantic argument. The creation described in Genesis was a “6 day process”. God started the “process” by creating the raw materials, then formed those materials into something more suitable to His purposes (as verses 3-9 directly articulate).

 

“And the various translations say "without form" or "formless", so that eliminates the idea that the earth simply needed some "forming" to be dome”

I don’t know what you mean here, but every sensible person interprets “without form” to mean that God had not yet molded the raw materials of creation into their intended configuration (a.k.a. their final “form”).

 

“v.11-2  God created the earth v.2 and the earth WAS tohu

Isa 45:18  He didn't create the earth tohu

Without a doubt, the TT creates a contradiction with Isa 45:18. New American Standard Bible

For this is what the LORD says, He who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it as a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited): “I am the LORD, and there is no one else. ”

Because you are appealing to the Hebrew word “tohu”, this contradiction exists prima-facie, regardless of which “translation” is preferred. This is the word that is used in the original language. Fortunately, the translators understood that context informs meaning – which is why they translated “tohu” into different English words.

In Genesis 1:2, “tohu” is translated as “without form” – because there is no contextual reason to assume it means anything other than raw and unshaped. Whereas the explicit juxtaposition provided in Isaiah 45:18 informs a nuanced meaning for “tohu” – which is usually translated as “in vain”. Notice the big “but” (😊) immediately following the “tohu” statement; “but formed it to be inhabited”.  This tells us that the previous “tohu” statement was about the purpose/intension/reason of creation, and not a process stage.

Further to context – notice that the Isaiah statement is constructed such that the “tohu” description is specifically for a time after the earth was “made”, “formed” and “established” – and therefore explicitly not related to (and therefore not contrary to) Genesis 1:2. Isaiah used “tohu” to refer to the completed product, and not the initial stages of the process.

Your contradiction claim therefore needs to ignore the context; choosing rather to translate the Isaiah “tohu” statement in contextual isolation.

To paraphrase Isaiah, ‘God did not make, then form and establish the earth, all for no reason (tohu), but He did so that the earth could be inhabited’. This does not contradict Genesis where, after God brought the heavens and earth into existence, there was a brief time when the earth was ‘tohu’.

 

“The exact form of the verb "hayah" in v.2 is translated as "become or became" in 70% of all the other verses with that same form.  111 of them.  That is not presumption.  That shows the most common translation of that form of the verb”

The actual form used in Genesis 1:2 is ‘hayetha’ (הָיְתָ֥ה). Yes, there are “111 of them”. I went through the first 38 (about a third - up to and including the Samuels), in order of appearance, and found the following;

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.’

- So then, about 20 for was/were (53%), 9 for has/had (24%), 4 for became (11%).

Therefore, if we, for some reason, insist on only using that specific form of ‘haya’ (i.e.’ hayetha’), then became is still only a little over 10% (not anywhere near “70%”). But if we consider that ‘haya’ is used throughout the Old Testament more than 3,500 times in various forms, became is indeed a very rare translation of ‘haya’ – as I stated.

The indicators are that you let someone else do the work for you, and because the information agreed with you, confirmation bias led you to not do your own due diligence.

 

“Apparently what throws people off is that God gave NO details about what caused the earth to become tohu, or any details of what happened”

What “throws” me off is that I see no reason from the text to assume any kind of transition from one state to the other. In many of the contexts, I can swap out was for became (or “had become”) without it impacting the meaning – because became could simply refer to how something came into existence (and not a transition between states). The only time I see became insisted upon is from those who need Genesis 1:2 to be a transitional statement - so as to squeeze their own “details” into the narrative. Prior to hearing this agenda, I had no need to question the very straight-forward narrative of Genesis 1.

 

“btw, the LXX begins v.2 with "but", a conjunction of contrast, showing or supporting the fact that the earth became something else from how it was created.”

OR, it could just mean, ‘God had created the earth, “but” at that early stage of the process, the earth was still unstructured and empty.’ The following verses then describe how God went on to both mold and fill the earth. It’s a perfectly sensible, logical, narrative construction.

I don’t fully understand how a change from “And” to “But” makes the statement transitional. But I do make note of your agenda to make the statement transitional.

 

“No it can't.  "BUT the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND".  This is how the key words are translated elsewhere in the OT.”

Firstly, I don’t think this rebuts my statement. I said, “even if one does insist on "BECAME" as the correct translation, it could still just mean that this is how the earth came into being after God commanded it”.

Secondly, note your desperation to stick to this very specific translation. Have you considered that these “keywords” are also translated differently “elsewhere in the OT” (as well as in your non-preferred translations that don’t suit your desired narrative). Logically speaking, this is not the slam-dunk you appear to think it is – not even close.

 

“Again, "became" is FAR more common a translation than "was" given that exact same form as found in v.2.”

That is not what I found when I actually looked into the claim.

 

I said, “the negative connotation for 'tohu va bohu' (Hb) is cultural, not textual. With supporting context, it could very well mean "an uninhabited WASTELAND". But in the absence of such a context, it just means unformed and empty.”

And you asked, “Why do we need "supporting context"?  God gave us what He gave us.  He isn't obligated to explain everything”

You are not playing by your own rules. The Hebrew ‘tohu va bohu’ literally mean unstructured and empty. That’s all. And that’s all “God gave us” for this verse.

Now, as I said, ‘tohu va bohu’ could obviously be used to describe “an uninhabited WASTELAND”. And if the context permits, that would be valid. But that is not what “God gave us” here. In Genesis 1:2, all “God gave us” is that the newly created earth was unshaped and uninhabited.

Your insistence that it necessarily means “an uninhabited WASTELAND” (one of several usages) is therefore agenda driven, rather than context derived.

It is also noteworthy that you are describing “LAND” before God separated the dry land from the waters.

 

“And simply looking at how the key words in v.2 were translated elsewhere we see that something happened that God didn't explain or detail.”

You are ignoring the fact that words have definitions. A definition is the primary indicator of meaning for a word – Moreso than any specific usage in a specific context.

That is, we start with the definition, then, if context permits, we can use a more nuanced translation to fit the specific situation. Nothing in the context of Genesis 1:2 directs us away from the definition of ‘tohu va bohu’ (i.e. unformed and empty).

We can not simply say that, since a word (or phrase) is used one way in one context, it must therefore be use that way in all contexts. But that is what you are trying to do for ‘tohu va bohu’ in Genesis 1:2.

 

“Can you point out any "external biases" in my posts? All I've done is look at how the key words in v.2 were translated elsewhere in the OT.  That sure isn't anything close to an "external bias". And the MOST COMMON translation of the same form of the verb "hayah" in v.2 is translated as "become" or "became" in 70% of all occurrences. Again, no external biases”

As part of a very straight-forward, logically structured narrative, Genesis 1:2 simply says that when God initially created the earth, it was unfinished and uninhabited. Then, over the next six days, God first shaped the earth, then filled it. That is what it says (i.e. what “God gave us”).

But for some reason, you are not happy with that. You are insisting on all kinds of text massaging to make it say something else – i.e. to make the verse say that the earth transitioned from one pre-existent state into another state. That speaks to an external motive and bias.

The word “was” is a perfectly legitimate rendering of ‘haya’ – and is overwhelmingly the most common translation of this Hebrew word. But your agenda needs to make Genesis 1:2 transitional. Therefore, you appeal to a rare usage ‘became’. And to make it less rare, you then insist on the specific form – again, speaking to an agenda.

On that topic, you allowed someone to tell you that your preferred translation is “70%”, when inspection only finds it to be around 10%. You also continuously quote the root ‘haya’ rather than the specific form that supports your argument (‘hayetha’). These both speak to confirmation bias – as you simply trusted the information that agreed with you.

Because your bias needs Genesis 1:2 to be transitional, you give greater weight to specific, context-driven usages, over basic definitions. But then in Isaiah 45:18, you choose to ignore an abundance of context that would inform the meaning of a word. That inconsistency further speaks to bias.

Because of this inconsistency, you insist that the created earth became a “WASTELAND” – which doesn’t match the context in which God had not yet separated the dry land from the water.

Basically, there is no reason in the text itself to warrant any suggestion that it means anything other than what it says – as part of a clear, unambiguous narrative. Only your external agenda forces you to find ways to massage the text, to make the text conform to your pre-existing bias about what is true. The arguments you have provided are weak and logically inconsistent. Yet you are apparently convinced by them enough to take them onboard as truisms. Again, that speaks to a bias-driven approach to interpretation.

 

 

[Tristen]

19 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

When was or will be this?

19My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.

20Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled: suddenly are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment.

21How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?

22For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

27For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

 

I'm sorry DeighAnn, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking.