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

[Roymond]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:27 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 5/12/2023 at 10:24 AM, teddyv said:

Can God not redeem these ancient stories and ideas into a narrative that reveals his character to a people that are thoroughly steeped in a culture of gods and myths?

Why would He?  He speaks TRUTH always.  Yet, you think that somehow, God would use ridiculous myths to describe the scene where mankind came from???  Seriously?

It is a fact that the order of events in the first Genesis Creation account follow the order of events in the Egyptian creation story.  The children of Israel would have known the Egyptian version, so you have two choices: either the Genesis writer took the Egyptian myth and re-told it to teach the children of Israel about God, or the Egyptian story was very close to the truth.

I don't for a moment believe that the Egyptians were very close to the truth.

[Roymond]

On 5/13/2023 at 4:08 AM, FreeGrace said:

 Are you fluent in ancient Hebrew?

Whether he is or not is unimportant since there are at least two people here who are at the very least familiar with ancient Hebrew and are clearly able to read it -- yet you ignore them when they tell you that you are wrong.

 

[Roymond]

On 5/14/2023 at 6:38 PM, Tristen said:

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.

"Became" is a rare translation to a large degree because it is only resorted to when the translator feels a need to impose temporal tense on a Hebrew verb when Hebrew verbs do not have tenses in the English sense of the term.  But yes, a survey of translations shows that "became" is chosen by translators in only a small number of occasions, and most of them don't really require it.

[Roymond]

On 5/14/2023 at 7:06 PM, DeighAnn said:

Where did the serpent in the garden come from? 

 

Assuming it was a serpent; Dr. Michael Heiser has some good talks about it, pointing out that the word translated "serpent" is better rendered as "shining one" -- which in ancient literature would be a reference to a supernatural being.

On 5/14/2023 at 7:06 PM, DeighAnn said:

An AGE before this one EXPLAINS SATAN IN THE GARDEN perfectly and without conflict.  

No age before this one doesn't involve any conflict, so no age before this is needed.

On 5/14/2023 at 7:06 PM, DeighAnn said:

Please show the same thing WITHOUT ONE because IF YOU CAN'T, then you have NO BASIS for NEGATING what has been clearly shown to be written.  

"Clearly shown" -- not at all.  Of the people here who actually know ancient Hebrew well enough to read it, none agree that there is a gap, nor do those who read ancient Greek.  The case for an age before this one rests on mangling the Hebrew grammar and misrepresenting Hebrew vocabulary.

On 5/14/2023 at 7:06 PM, DeighAnn said:

Want to argue over the word?  OK but show HOW GODS WORD WORKS WITHOUT SATAN FALLING FROM GRACE sometime before the garden. 

It works just fine -- assuming, that is, that the shining being in the Garden is "Satan" -- if Satan falling from grace happened right there in the Garden!  which is an interpretation that has been made more than once in history; that Lucifer decided to drop in on the Garden and see these creatures in God's image and that was the point at which he rebelled.

 

[Roymond]

On 5/15/2023 at 4:11 AM, FreeGrace said:

It's ok.  I've asked those who disagree with me to explain WHAT doctrines are changed by having a very old earth.  I believe v.2 SAYS so.  And have shown how those exact words in v.2 are translated otherwise in the rest of of the OT.

Yet, none of them have addressed WHY the importance of having a young earth.

"None of them" have addressed your "WHY" because it is false.  Claiming everyone who disagrees with you is a YECist is either delusional or deliberate lying, neither of which is a good thing.

And the people here who actually read Hebrew and Greek have told you repeatedly that your notions are contrary to both Hebrew and Greek grammar.

All you're running on now is fleshly pride.

[Roymond]

On 5/16/2023 at 4:05 AM, FreeGrace said:

Oh, I understand you very well.  You do what trolls do.

I rebuke this in the Name of JESUS!

You accuse people here of all sorts of things just because they seek to teach you, correct you, guide you, admonish you, and you respond in arrogance and with insults!

This is NOT the behavior of one walking in the Spirit.

You need to repent and apologize.

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

That you make these two statements indicates that you should be silent and stop trying to teach people who know something you do not. 

You do not know Greek; you do not know Hebrew -- yet you arrogantly presume to tell people who do that they are wrong.  That is the pride of the flesh.

Thanks for your opinion.  Please show me any actual errors I've made.  I'm sure you are aware that highly educated scholars aren't on the same page all the time.

So there's that.

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

Or as a rabbi I knew put it, "unorganized and useless'; "bewildered and astonished" is a much later meaning, but it serves to point to the fact that trying to make "tohu wa bohu" fit in just a few English words is difficult at best.

Does that definition fit in Isa 45:18?  It's the same word in both verses.

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

"Tohu" by itself can be used to refer to a desert with sand dunes; they are considered to be "without form" because they change all the time, just as the waves of the sea are considered to be without form because they don't stay put (this is an awesome aspect of Jesus walking on the water to people back then:

Great.  So God created the earth as a bowl of jelly then?  Where does the text show God stiffening up all that jelly then?

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

the waves of the sea were like the formless chaos of the waters back at the start of Genesis, yet here comes Jesus imposing order just by walking on them!).

Right; chaos.  The earth BECAME chaos.  It was NOT created chaos.  As Isa 45:18 says.

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

  On 5/12/2023 at 7:37 AM,  FreeGrace said: 

   On 5/11/2023 at 5:24 PM,  BeyondET said: 

The wasteland from a supernova is where planet earth formed.

Interesting.  So this is a denial of Gen 1:1 then.  I will believe the Bible rather than an opinion. 

For this I must rebuke you!  You accuse a brother of denying Genesis 1:1 when all that he has denied is your very, very narrow and uninformed opinion that you keep trying to impose on people who now better.

lol.  Rebuke away, if that floats your boat.  lol.  FACT:  God didn't "form" the earth.  He CREATED (bara) out of nothing (ex nihilio).  When one forms something, they are using existing materials.  That is not what Gen 1:1 SAYS.  

So the rebuke is on you, who claim to know Hebrew.

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

Whether he is or not is unimportant since there are at least two people here who are at the very least familiar with ancient Hebrew and are clearly able to read it -- yet you ignore them when they tell you that you are wrong.

There is a difference between TELLING someone they are wrong and PROVING they are wrong.  Even highly educated scholars aren't always on the same page even though they are trained in the same field.  

I've stuck with how key words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere in the OT and discovered v.2 can easily be translated another way, which, btw, removes the contradiction between v.2 and Isa 45:18.

The highly educated Henry Morris once wrote that "hayah" in v.2 is most commonly translated as "was" while admitting the word CAN be translated as "became" but requires a context (no it doesn't) and is only translated that way RARELY.  I did the study myself and "hayah" was translated as "became/become" in 70% of all occurrences in the OT.  So, in spite of Morris being much higher educated than I, he was flat out wrong.  

If you want to defend a young earth, please explain WHY God would create it with "apparent age" since scientific measurements (not theory) show it to be very very old.