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

[JohnD]

* Dating methods of layered strata are based on fossil remains in the layers.

* The fossils are dated by the strata layers they are found in.

* The decay of c. is certainly retaliated against but has yet to be disproved. So much for dating the universe by the immense size of it.

* Carbon 14 dates are only reliable back to approximately the time of Noah's flood circa 5,000 years. the rest is mathematical conjecture.

* The Sun actually does lose mass in the process of producing energy. Let us see how much. we find that the Sun loses mass 4.289x1012 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353x1020 g every year to energy. Rewind that by 4 billion years and the earth would be enveloped by the sun back then.

* Dust on the moon is much thinner than evolutionists predicted suggesting the moon is no where near as old as they had hoped.

* There is something about the equilibrium of the atmosphere that escapes me now as I am rusty on all this by several decades but the points are all made.

The late A.E. Wilder-Smith (holder of three earned PhD's) former atheist, former old earther old universer said in the most basic point about why old earthers and old universers get it wrong "It's about calibration. Like a seven year old wanting to know how tall he was ten years ago."

Go to the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) and old earthers old universers will find they'd been had by atheists who concocted evolution and old everything to try to prop it up.

 

 

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, JohnD said:

* Dating methods of layered strata are based on fossil remains in the layers.

* The fossils are dated by the strata layers they are found in.

* The decay of c. is certainly retaliated against but has yet to be disproved. So much for dating the universe by the immense size of it.

* Carbon 14 dates are only reliable back to approximately the time of Noah's flood circa 5,000 years. the rest is mathematical conjecture.

Scholars have calculated that Adam was on earth about 6,000 years ago.  That should mean that if the earth is just 6 days older than Adam, carbon 14 would show the evidence for that.

10 hours ago, JohnD said:

Go to the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) and old earthers old universers will find they'd been had by atheists who concocted evolution and old everything to try to prop it up.

The notion of evolution came about with Darwin, who wrote his stupid "Origin of the Species" in 1859.  But a geologist named Charles Lyell came up with a method of measuring the age of the earth using "geologic columns", totally apart from Darwin's theories.  Furthermore, Darwin was born in 1809, so no influence from him on Lyell.

Yes, Lyell's work did influence Darwin, but not the other way around.  

Evolution demands an old earth.  But an old earth has no need or use for evolution.

Genesis 1 is the summary of God's restoration of the earth.

v.2  BUT, the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND.

That's how the Hebrew words are translated elsewhere in the OT.

[Vine Abider]

To put this in some perspective, I've participated in so many of these discussions over the years with dear saints who have differing opinions on something that is not a core essential of our mutual faith in Christ.  Yet it is somewhat fascinating, and so we go on and on and around and around for days/weeks/years . . . it is, as Paul might say, an instance of "endless genealogies." (1 Tim 1:4)

 To me @Tristen and @JohnD it's pretty simple and comes down to the mistranslation of "was" in Genesis 1:2.  The word there is the exact same one* as in Genesis 19:26, where Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."  Therefore, why translate Genesis 1:2 as "was" and not "became"?

But regardless if we like "was" or "became" Christ still lives in us and we love God and one another! (just had to say that foundational thing)

* Strong's h1961 Definition: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

[FreeGrace]

5 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

To put this in some perspective, I've participated in so many of these discussions over the years with dear saints who have differing opinions on something that is not a core essential of our mutual faith in Christ.  Yet it is somewhat fascinating, and so we go on and on and around and around for days/weeks/years . . . it is, as Paul might say, an instance of "endless genealogies." (1 Tim 1:4)

True.  No doctrine is changed by either view.  However, since science has clearly shown the universe to be much older than the YEC view of 6,000 years, Christians come off as being rather dumb, naive, or simply deniers of reality to scientists.

But, when a believer who understands Gen 1:2 properly is able to agree with them but still denies evolution, that is an opportunity to witness to the truth that God created the universe however long ago He did.  The exact time doesn't matter.  What matters is that Christians can agree with a very old earth while at the same time (if they properly understand the Hebrew) explain that Genesis 1 is about restoration, approx 6,000 years ago.

5 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

 To me @Tristen and @JohnD it's pretty simple and comes down to the mistranslation of "was" in Genesis 1:2.  The word there is the exact same one* as in Genesis 19:26, where Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."  Therefore, why translate Genesis 1:2 as "was" and not "became"?

Exactly!!  In fact, from biblehub.com one can see every occurrence of the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb in all the OT.  There are 111 of them.  And 70% of them are translated as either "become" or "became", so that is the MOST COMMON use of the verb in that EXACT SAME FORM as in v.2.

And the translators of the LXX into Koine Greek rendered the conjunction as "but" rather than far more common "and", which shows a contrast between original creation from v.1 and what happened after that.

5 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

But regardless if we like "was" or "became" Christ still lives in us and we love God and one another! (just had to say that foundational thing)

* Strong's h1961 Definition: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

Amen, brother!!

[teddyv]

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

* Dating methods of layered strata are based on fossil remains in the layers.

True for relative dating methods.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

* The fossils are dated by the strata layers they are found in.

Yes, for absolute dates. Although absolute dates are usually determined from intrusive bodies, not sediments, then dates can be assigned through stratigraphic principles.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

* The decay of c. is certainly retaliated against but has yet to be disproved. So much for dating the universe by the immense size of it.

No evidence for this other than creationist speculation.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

* Carbon 14 dates are only reliable back to approximately the time of Noah's flood circa 5,000 years. the rest is mathematical conjecture.

That is speculation based on something, but what?

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

* The Sun actually does lose mass in the process of producing energy. Let us see how much. we find that the Sun loses mass 4.289x1012 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353x1020 g every year to energy. Rewind that by 4 billion years and the earth would be enveloped by the sun back then.

Check the math out.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

* Dust on the moon is much thinner than evolutionists predicted suggesting the moon is no where near as old as they had hoped.

So, they predicted wrong. Nothing wrong with an incorrect hypothesis.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

* There is something about the equilibrium of the atmosphere that escapes me now as I am rusty on all this by several decades but the points are all made.

What points?

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

The late A.E. Wilder-Smith (holder of three earned PhD's) former atheist, former old earther old universer said in the most basic point about why old earthers and old universers get it wrong "It's about calibration. Like a seven year old wanting to know how tall he was ten years ago."

Appeal the authority.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:42 PM, JohnD said:

Go to the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) and old earthers old universers will find they'd been had by atheists who concocted evolution and old everything to try to prop it up.

<snicker>

[Tristen]

On 5/23/2023 at 9:59 PM, FreeGrace said:

Are you claiming that "biblehub.com" is in error?  Anyone can do the research that I did on the verb.  Did you bother?

Opinion.

In black and white.

I guess this is an admission, although a rather weak one.  Since you argue against any time gap in Gen 1:1,2, then it would suggest that you are a YEC.

Therefore, can you explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", since that is what many argue.  They admit the earth appears older than 6,000 years, so WHY WHY did God create a deception?

I suggest that you consult a dictionary.  What you think is an "odhominem" isn't even close to one.  I've NEVER attacked your person, while disagreeing with your view.

Oh, excuse me.  Yes it is.  If you believe the earth is young, like 6 days older than Adam, based on the TT of Gen 1, then you need to address the FACT that the earth certainly APPEARS much older.  

Nope.  It's all related.  IF the earth isn't any older than Adam, then you HAVE TO address its apparent age.

Uh, same words used.  Just because God CHOSE NOT to give any details about WHY the earth became a wasteland is of no importance.  Only to those who don't want an old earth.  

btw, what's the big deal about a very old earth anyway?  What doctrines are challenged?  

And both of these so-called 'rules' are simply opinions.  It's like you are demanding that if the earth became something that wasn't created that way, God HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY.  No, He doesn't.

lol.  70% of ALL translations of that EXACT SAME FORM of the verb are either "became" or "become", so you are the one with NO CASE.

If God created the earth "unmolded", where in the chapter do we see God "molding" the earth.  Sounds like the earth was created a big clay lump (which has form, btw) and God formed that lumpy lump into another shape, form, etc.

So where do we read that?  You are way out over your ski's.

What a hollow claim!  I've stuck strictly TO Scripture.  I've compared how some words in v.2 have been translated elsewhere in the OT.  That ain't outside of Scripture by any means.  Such wildly unfounded claims hurt your credibility.

 Did you listen to your instructors in Hebrew class, or figure everything out by yourself?  And how many years of academic training have you had in Hebrew?  The pastor 'who told me' had 5 years of seminary Hebrew.  But even if you had more and even taught Hebrew for many years, so what?  Sounds to me as if you have some kind of an agenda, with all your resistance to the idea of a very old earth.  

I'm sure you must know that even equally highly trained scholars have many disagreements among themselves, and this is no exception.

Since the earth APPEARS very old, is because it IS old.  Or explain WHY God would deceive everyone with a creation that only appears very old, but in fact is very young.

Can you do that?  Or again, simply play dodgeball and deflect.

Everything I have presented is rational, whether that is apparent to your eyes or not.

Science doesn't obligate me to do anything.  I haven't appealed to science.  I have appealed to what the Bible SAYS, and have given how the words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.  That is called evidence, regardless of how you may describe it.

So, comparing how words are translated elsewhere is not good methodology and is "highly dubious".  There goes more credibility.

Give me a break.  The discussion is DIRECTLY about what v.2 says.  Why are you so eager to NOT address your biases, agendas, and whatever?

And why not just boldly admit that you are a YEC, if you are?  Is that embarrassing?  What?

And if one, then you really do need to explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", because that's the question for YECs.

I've compared how certain words in v.2 were translated elsewhere.  It doesn't get any more SAFE than that.  I'm letting the Bible speak for itself.

Your strong resistance highly suggests bias or an agenda or something.

A very old earth changes NOTHING in the Bible.  So what's the big deal?  Surely there must be one for you.

Sure.  With your opinion.

But God didn't create the original earth like a lump of clay.  btw, the word "lumpy" is a description of a FORM which everyone can understand.  

But since there is such disagreement, please provide an example of any object that is actually "formless", or without form, since a number of translators were apparently satisfied with that translation in v.2.

Thanks for your opinion.  I am looking forward to your example of any object that has no form.  Can't wait, in fact.  

Read my posts then.

ooh, ooh, ooh.  There it is again.  That OPINION being used as a "rule" or "law" about certain words DEMANDING a context.  Sure.  

Nonsense.  

Please provide several uses of "bara" that were translated as "create".  Even in Genesis 1, both words were used of God creating man.  As I explained.  You are free to disagree, but everything I explained is both reasonable and rational.

Just read the context.  God both created what is noted, and He formed them.  

And you have just missed the whole point again.  Every object HAS a form.  Or prove me wrong.

Well, there it is.  "unmolded form".  Said it yourself!  Everything HAS a form.  Yet the TT claims the earth had no form. 

He was restoring the earth to its original created state.  Yes, he was forming out of existing materials (a wasteland) back into a restored state.

Again, WHY the pushback on a very old earth?

I doubt your ability to show any kind of "external idea" here.

The ONLY way to do that is to COMPARE with all the other uses of that exact word in the rest of the OT.  Which I did, and you have the audacity to call an "external idea".

I suggest looking at ALL the other uses of that exact same word and see how they were translated.

You've played a whole lot of dodgeball here.  From all I've heard from Ken Ham, from what he has written and his videos, it is apparent that he is unable or unwilling to dissociate an old earth from evolution.  iow, every time he hears 'old earth', he believes the person is an evolutionist.  Which is totally irrational.

Is that your issue as well?

No, that's only what you are trying to make it.  Seems you just don't want to discuss the REAL issues here.  Like WHY God would create an earth with apparent age, and what is the big deal about a very old earth?  2 issues you see totally unwilling to touch. 

OF course it is.  That is HOW God restored the earth back to original condition, where man could live on it.

 

“Are you claiming that "biblehub.com" is in error?”

They could be. But in reality, you haven’t presented any evidence to me from any source.

 

“Anyone can do the research that I did on the verb.  Did you bother?”

A couple of things -

1 - I posted the translation of every verse using ‘hayetha’ (“all 111” of them) across my previous posts. This unequivocally demonstrated your “70%” figure to be wrong.  Did I “bother”? - Yes, it took me hours to go through. But why did I “bother”? – since you have either intentionally ignored that evidence, or else are so thoroughly blinded by bias that it didn’t even register.

2 - By contrast, you have provided zero evidence supporting your claim. You don’t get to simply cry “biblehub.com” and leave it at that. That’s like telling someone to “google it”. It’s not my responsibility to track down support for your argument. Nevertheless, I clearly did do the work, and found your claim to be a lie.

Therefore, to use your own words, “Please don't make such FALSE statements when you have NO idea about what you claim”. And furthermore, please stop insinuating that I haven’t done my due diligence when I am the only one in the conversation that has presented actual evidence to the thread. Maybe (and I know this is a bit ‘out there’) – maybe stop with the posturing and personal attacks all together – so we can get back to rational argument.

 

“My supposed resistance to your position has been entirely rational. I have scrutinized your arguments and found them wanting.

Opinion.”

More accurately, “opinion” supported by both evidence and rational arguments – which you have thus far failed to rebut in any rational sense.

Ultimately, I don’t care if we agree to disagree, but if you are going to posture rather than argue rationally, I’m going to hold you to account, and you’re going to make yourself look silly.

 

“You are claiming ideas to be present in scripture which are simply not there.

In black and white.”

Yes – you are promoting “ideas” which are not evident in the text. Therefore, you are reading ideas into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself.

 

“I guess this is an admission, although a rather weak one.”

And yet more empty posturing.

Ooooooooo! Is my statement an “admission” of something? Is it “weak admission”? How will I sleep tonight knowing that I’ve been found out? Lol.

I outright stated my position on YEC in a previous response. Just add that to the list of things I’ve said that didn’t register with you.

 

“Since you argue against any time gap in Gen 1:1,2, then it would suggest that you are a YEC.”

And add yet another thing to the list of things I’ve said – that you missed.

To quote myself, “your thinking here represents a False Dichotomy (another logic fallacy). Not all who question (or “resist”) Gap Theory are “YEC”.”. There are many Bible believers who subscribe to an old earth, who are not proponents of “any time gap in Gen 1:1,2”.

My primary objection in this thread is to your unsound approach to Biblical interpretation. Claiming a “gap” between “Gen 1:1,2” is merely a symptom of that unsound approach. My main argument here is not against Gap Theory per se, but against your use of poor (i.e. unsafe) Biblical interpretation methods.

 

“Therefore, can you explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", since that is what many argue.  They admit the earth appears older than 6,000 years, so WHY WHY did God create a deception?”

This is not the topic of our discussion. You are clearly struggling to deal with what I’ve said on this one topic. I’m definitely not going to allow you to muddy the conversation by throwing other topics into the mix.

I’m only here to talk about how you are interpreting Genesis 1:2. Though, as I said previously, if you want to start a thread on this thing you think is a YEC ‘gotcha’, let me know when you do so, and I’ll happily engage on that thread when I can.

 

“If you believe the earth is young, like 6 days older than Adam, based on the TT of Gen 1, then you need to address the FACT that the earth certainly APPEARS much older.”

I will happily address that in an appropriate thread. In this thread, I’m only addressing the hermeneutics of Genesis 1:2. And even then, you seem to be having a hard time registering much of what I’ve written. So ‘no thank you’ – to your offer to expand this conversation into other areas.

 

“It's all related.  IF the earth isn't any older than Adam, then you HAVE TO address its apparent age.”

No question, “It's all related”. Every thread on this site can be “related”. But in this conversation, I’m challenging your interpretation method of Genesis 1:2. After we’ve dealt with that appropriately, maybe we can expand the discussion to other related matters (or, if you want to have that discussion in parallel with this, you could start another thread).

 

“The “context” of Jeremiah 4 is “about "plunder"”. There is nothing in the “context” of Genesis 1:2 suggestive of “plunder”.

Uh, same words used.”

Yes – but the first instance (Genesis 1:2) has no context permitting us to deviate the translation away from the common definition of ‘hayetha’, whereas the other instance (Jeremiah 4:23) does have several elements of context supporting a more nuanced translation of ‘hayetha’ that is specific to that context.

 

“Just because God CHOSE NOT to give any details about WHY the earth became a wasteland is of no importance”

What is very important, is whether or not your premise is justified by sound methodologies.  I don’t agree with your translation – that “the earth became a wasteland” – because that idea is not conceptually present in the original language of the text.

And since the foundational premise of your position is not justified by sound hermeneutical practice, you are right; the ancillary “details” of your position don’t matter.

 

“Only to those who don't want an old earth”

Why would anyone not “want an old earth”? That is an absurd Appeal to Motive (yet another logic fallacy).

 

“btw, what's the big deal about a very old earth anyway?  What doctrines are challenged?”

Good question. You should ask that in a new thread.

 

“And both of these so-called 'rules' are simply opinions”

That seems to be your go-to pseudo-rebuttal. Someone provides a strong argument against your position – ‘Well, that’s just “opinion”’.

In the first instance, logic fallacies are technical breaches of logic. That means, the statement doesn’t make logical sense when subjected to rational scrutiny. If you refuse to conform to the rules of logic, then our conversation might as well be “Hey Diddle Diddle”.

In the second instance, Eisegesis vs Exegesis is a matter of best hermeneutical practice. If we are permitted to read concepts into scripture that are not there, we can make the Bible say anything we want – as opposed to establishing the intent of the Author by drawing the ideas exclusively from the text.

 

“It's like you are demanding that if the earth became something that wasn't created that way, God HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY.  No, He doesn't.”

It’s not “like” that at all. God doesn’t have to “EXPLAIN” anything. But neither are we allowed to bring foreign concepts to the Bible, and then pretend those concepts are in the Bible when they are, self-evidently not in the Bible.

You are trying to press onto me that there are billions of years of history in the first verses of Genesis, when in reality, literally speaking, there is no such thing in the first verses of Genesis. And based on this supposed history, you are trying to force a translation onto the text that simply isn’t present in the text. And to do so, you are forced to resort to unsafe and logically unsound interpretation methods.

 

“lol.  70% of ALL translations of that EXACT SAME FORM of the verb are either "became" or "become", so you are the one with NO CASE.”

This is a lie.

I have unequivocally demonstrated this to be a lie. I have literally gone through “all 111” of the relevant verses and presented all of them in this thread, in direct responses to your claims – demonstrating the utter falseness of this “70%” claim. By contrast, you have presented nothing in defense of your false claim. So, apart from intentional dishonesty, there is no excuse for you to continue on with this falsified claim (though it is possible that your bias is so powerful that you are blinded to any argument that disagrees with you).

But now you have the gall to make this claim again in a mocking statement – which dares to accuse me of having “NO CASE”. After ignoring all of the work I put in – and even after you presumptuously, rudely, unfoundedly and ironically, falsely accused me of making “FALSE statements” and having “NO idea about what [I] claim”.

Therefore, I no longer consider myself to have to be polite about this. Civil, but not polite. Present your evidence, or do not make this demonstrated “FALSE statement” again. As the saying goes, “Put up or shut up”. If you make this “false statement” again without directly addressing my evidence, that would make you a liar.

 

“If God created the earth "unmolded", where in the chapter do we see God "molding" the earth.  Sounds like the earth was created a big clay lump (which has form, btw) and God formed that lumpy lump into another shape, form, etc. So where do we read that?  You are way out over your ski's.”

And yet again you resort to posturing rather than rational engagement. Let’s see how that works out for you.

Reason 1 that your self-congratulating, I’m-so-clever posturing is actually making you look like the not-so-clever one:

You have previously stated, “God didn't build the earth in 6 days.  He formed it so man could exist on it”. And when I said the separation of dry land from water, “sounds enough like “forming” to me”, you replied, “OF course it is.  That is HOW God restored the earth back to original condition, where man could live on it”. In this post you’ve also said, “He was restoring the earth to its original created state.  Yes, he was forming out of existing materials (a wasteland) back into a restored state”. And yet in the above quote you claim, and have claimed previously, that there is no evidence of God forming (or “molding”) the earth. Therefore, you are holding contrary positions – i.e. Contradictions are logic fallacies (i.e. breaches of logic rendering your position to be technically irrational).

Reason 2 that your self-congratulating, I’m-so-clever posturing is actually making you look like the not-so-clever one:

You have completely ignored the fact that I have already addressed this issue in my responses to you. That is, that God is described as doing further work on the earth, including separating the firmament from the waters from the dry land. So again, your above statement is either demonstrating intentional dishonesty, or you are so thoroughly blinded by bias that you are incapable of considering arguments that disagree with you.

I’m not really sure what it means to be “way out over your ski's”, but I get the impression the saying is likely more applicable to you than me.

 

“What a hollow claim!  I've stuck strictly TO Scripture.  I've compared how some words in v.2 have been translated elsewhere in the OT.  That ain't outside of Scripture by any means.  Such wildly unfounded claims hurt your credibility.”

You have, for two different words, taken the word that has been translated specifically, to reflect its specific context, then insisted that the same translation be applied to the same word, rather than the general definition, even though no specific context is present.

Whereas I read the words according to their basic definitions, and do not deviate from the basic definitions unless there is a contextual reason to do so.

I think my “credibility” will be OK – though I do appreciate your concern. 😊

 

“Did you listen to your instructors in Hebrew class, or figure everything out by yourself?  And how many years of academic training have you had in Hebrew?  The pastor 'who told me' had 5 years of seminary Hebrew”

See how you are trying to contrast the expertise of the “pastor” against my expertise – rather than comparing the rational quality of our arguments. That is the epitome of an Appeal to Authority/Expertise. That is a recognized logic fallacy because experts can be wrong, experts can be biased, experts can disagree with each other, experts can have agendas, experts can lie etc.

Experts may have an advantage over non-experts in that they should be more familiar with the relevant information; enough that they presumably have quality arguments to support their case. But in terms of seeking truth, it is the arguments that matter, not the expertise.

 

“But even if you had more and even taught Hebrew for many years, so what?  Sounds to me as if you have some kind of an agenda, with all your resistance to the idea of a very old earth”

Lol. If I disagree with you, my expertise counts for nothing.

Apart from the False Dichotomy discussed earlier, the logical fallacy you are applying here is called Special Pleading. You are using a different standard for those agreeing with you, than for those disagreeing with you.

 

“I'm sure you must know that even equally highly trained scholars have many disagreements among themselves, and this is no exception”

Sure. That is why Appeals to Authority are logically meaningless. Only the arguments contribute any logical weight to the discussion.

 

“Since the earth APPEARS very old, is because it IS old.  Or explain WHY God would deceive everyone with a creation that only appears very old, but in fact is very young. Can you do that?  Or again, simply play dodgeball and deflect”

I’m not sure it’s reasonable to call my approach “dodgeball” when I have directly confronted your attempts to change the subject.

You don’t like the way the conversation is going – so you want to muddy the already-extensive conversation by introducing other topics – ones where you think you might have an upper hand – since you are doing so poorly on this one.

Whereas I am determined to hold you to account for your arguments on this topic, and not let the conversation about hermeneutics become messy and diluted by other topics. Especially since you’ve already managed to ignore so many of my arguments on this topic.

 

“Everything I have presented is rational, whether that is apparent to your eyes or not”

Logic fallacies are objectively, by definition, not rational. My “eyes” are irrelevant to that truth.

 

“Science doesn't obligate me to do anything.  I haven't appealed to science”

In your attempts to entice me to another topic, you have constantly appealed to the earth’s “apparent age”; stating that the earth “APPEARS very old”. You also claimed, “scientific measurements SHOW a very old earth and universe”.

Since you state those as truisms, you are clearly under the sway of the secular historical narrative.

 

“I have appealed to what the Bible SAYS, and have given how the words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.  That is called evidence, regardless of how you may describe it”

It’s only “evidence” of poor Hermeneutics.

 

“So, comparing how words are translated elsewhere is not good methodology and is "highly dubious".  There goes more credibility.”

Lol.

It is indeed “highly dubious” to take a translation from one context, and to then insist that translation is valid for all contexts.

It is “highly dubious” to ignore the influence of context on a specific translation.

It is “highly dubious” to skip over the common meaning of a word with no internal evidence from the immediate context suggesting such a variant.

Looking into other usages of a word may inform us as to the breadth of application of that word, but that doesn’t mean we can interchange translations – just because the same word is used.

When someone who lacks “credibility”, calls my “credibility” into question, I consider my “credibility” to be securely intact. Likewise, I consider my “credibility” to be secure when someone questions my “credibility” in the absence of rational argument.

 

“Give me a break.  The discussion is DIRECTLY about what v.2 says.  Why are you so eager to NOT address your biases, agendas, and whatever?”

I am the one taking scripture at face value, whereas you are the one employing poor hermeneutical methodology – for the purpose of making scripture say something different to the natural reading of the text. You are the one departing from the basic definitions of the words used. You are the one who thinks it is ok to simply transplant from one translation to another without any consideration of context.

Therefore, my reason to engage in this discussion is not to promote YEC, nor to challenge your views about an “old earth”, but only to specifically challenge your unsound approach to interpreting Genesis 1:2.

 

“And why not just boldly admit that you are a YEC, if you are?  Is that embarrassing?  What?”

I am weary of stating things that you outright ignore. if you want to know my position on “YEC”, you’ll have to go back and find out. Given that your purpose is to present a fallacy, and since I don’t consider it relevant to anything I’ve argued, I don’t feel any need to repeat myself.

 

“And if one, then you really do need to explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", because that's the question for YECs.”

Not in this thread I don’t.

 

“I've compared how certain words in v.2 were translated elsewhere.  It doesn't get any more SAFE than that”

I understand that you are convinced of this – but it is simply not true.

The “SAFE” way to interpret scripture is to first look at the common definition of a word. IF (and only ‘IF’) there is any contextual reason to suggest a deviation from the basic definition, THEN (and only ‘THEN’) it is valid to look to other usages to see if there is any leeway to adjust the meaning.

Simply transplanting a translation from one context to another because you prefer one over the other is not a “SAFE” translation method.

 

“Your strong resistance highly suggests bias or an agenda or something”

In this instance, my “strong resistance” only “suggests” my “agenda” to promote “SAFE” interpretation methods; to maintain the integrity of the Author’s intent.

 

“A very old earth changes NOTHING in the Bible.  So what's the big deal?  Surely there must be one for you.”

Nothing in my arguments have addressed the age of the earth whatsoever. You claiming this to be my “agenda” is merely your transparent attempt to dismiss my arguments on the basis of my alleged motives. That is, you are trying to build an Appeal to Motive argument against me so that you don’t have to deal with my rational arguments against your position. That is how desperate you are to not give fair consideration to my arguments.

 

“And I have addressed those arguments in detail.

Sure.  With your opinion.”

With detailed, rational arguments and evidence – to which your only response seems to be, ‘It’s just your “opinion”’ – which fails to deal with my arguments in any meaningful way.

 

“There is no “problem”. The formless “clay” idea is merely an analogy.If a lump of clay on a potter’s wheel was described as being ‘without form’, every sensible, sincere person would understand what was meant. It would only take someone deciding to be insincere and obtuse to point out that the clay actually has some form.

But God didn't create the original earth like a lump of clay.  btw, the word "lumpy" is a description of a FORM which everyone can understand”

Firstly, you don’t seem to understand the concept of an “analogy”.

Second, your comment here demonstrates you are not being a “sensible, sincere person” by continually making this point.

Third, given your previous admittance that the “6 day” period included some “forming” of the earth, you have confirmed the disingenuous nature of your claim here. You’ve decided to double-down on your obtuseness (no-doubt thinking this a clever strategy) but have unintentionally exposed the intentionally dishonest nature of your position.

 

“I didn't say Gen 1 says this.  I gave Heb 11:3 as my support;”

No you didn’t.

Read my posts then”

You mean every post you’ve ever written, Or every post on this thread? Because I’m only talking about the things you said that I responded to. There was no mention of “Heb 11:3” in the conversation pathway leading up to your claim to have given “Heb 11:3 as my support”.

- You said, “There is no object that has no form. .  Every object has a form.” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=221659&content_commentid=3659390)

- I then said, “This is an empty semantic argument. The creation described in Genesis was a “6 day process”.” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=221659&content_commentid=3659847)

- Then you said, “My point is legitimate and valid.  The 6 day process was about restoration” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3659942)

- And I said, “I understand that is the position you are trying to argue. My position is that the text of Genesis does not say this. You are therefore trying desperately to massage the text to make this a possibility … ” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3662443)

- And you said, “I didn't say Gen 1 says this.  I gave Heb 11:3 as my support” (https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3662508)

Which you self-evidently did not do. So yet more doubling-down on lies.

 

“ooh, ooh, ooh.  There it is again.  That OPINION being used as a "rule" or "law" about certain words DEMANDING a context.  Sure.  Nonsense.”

Lol.

True “nonsense” is to take a perfectly sensible argument, then, rather than provide any rational response, frame the sensible argument in mocking terms; hoping no-one will see through your dishonesty. This strategy is called an Appeal to Ridicule. Add it to the list of logic fallacies you’ve decided to use instead of giving fair consideration to my arguments.

 

“Please provide several uses of "bara" that were translated as "create".  Even in Genesis 1, both words were used of God creating man”

Why do I need to provide that evidence when you already have known examples?

 

“As I explained.  You are free to disagree”

Thank you. Nevertheless, you telling me I must have an “agenda” to explain my “strong resistance” to your position indicates otherwise.

 

“but everything I explained is both reasonable and rational”

The distinction you are trying to make between ‘bara’ and ‘asa’ is not justified by the evidence.

 

“Isaiah 41:20

That they may see and know,

And consider and understand together

That the hand of the Lord has done (asa) this,

And the Holy One of Israel has created (bara) it.

Just read the context.  God both created what is noted, and He formed them.”

The “context” shows that they refer to the same thing. It’s a parallelism. God is telling Israel that when they see the land emptied, note that that God did exactly what He said He would do – which means God will also subsequently help Israel, as He promised.

The distinction you claim is not brought out by “the context”.

 

“And you have just missed the whole point again.  Every object HAS a form”

And yet, you said, “God didn't build the earth in 6 days.  He formed it so man could exist on it”

I therefore pointed out the inconsistency and nonsense of your “Every object HAS a form” argument by asking, “how could He form something that already had a form?”. Your obtuse pretense is logically undermined by your use of “formed” in the above statement. I now know that you know that something with an unmolded form can be legitimately described as being “without form” – without any intellectual compromise.

 

“Well, there it is.  "unmolded form".  Said it yourself!  Everything HAS a form.  Yet the TT claims the earth had no form”

Yep – I “said it”. And now you are choosing to double-down on exposed dishonesty. Good luck with that.

 

“You've played a whole lot of dodgeball here”

You are the one who is trying to deflect the conversation onto different topics.

 

“Seems you just don't want to discuss the REAL issues here”

Depends on whether you consider sound hermeneutics to be a “REAL” issue.

 

“WHY God would create an earth with apparent age, and what is the big deal about a very old earth?  2 issues you see totally unwilling to touch.”

This is another lie.

I have told you several times that I am perfectly willing to address these topics in their own thread. I’m just not prepared to allow them to muddy this conversation.

[Tristen]

On 5/26/2023 at 1:33 AM, Vine Abider said:

To put this in some perspective, I've participated in so many of these discussions over the years with dear saints who have differing opinions on something that is not a core essential of our mutual faith in Christ.  Yet it is somewhat fascinating, and so we go on and on and around and around for days/weeks/years . . . it is, as Paul might say, an instance of "endless genealogies." (1 Tim 1:4)

 To me @Tristen and @JohnD it's pretty simple and comes down to the mistranslation of "was" in Genesis 1:2.  The word there is the exact same one* as in Genesis 19:26, where Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."  Therefore, why translate Genesis 1:2 as "was" and not "became"?

But regardless if we like "was" or "became" Christ still lives in us and we love God and one another! (just had to say that foundational thing)

* Strong's h1961 Definition: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

 

“To put this in some perspective, I've participated in so many of these discussions over the years with dear saints who have differing opinions on something that is not a core essential of our mutual faith in Christ.  Yet it is somewhat fascinating, and so we go on and on and around and around for days/weeks/years . . . it is, as Paul might say, an instance of "endless genealogies." (1 Tim 1:4)”

Hey VA,

I understand where you are coming from – that sometimes the tone of discussion can make further engagement a waste of time. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon discussing our disagreements – even if the conversation takes time. Bouncing ideas around is how we all come to greater knowledge of truth.

From my perspective, how we approach scripture is very important – and worthy of having extensive conversations if necessary. For me, this conversation is not primarily about varied interpretations of one verse, but rather how we are approaching the translation process more generally.

 

“To me @Tristen and @JohnD it's pretty simple and comes down to the mistranslation of "was" in Genesis 1:2.  The word there is the exact same one* as in Genesis 19:26, where Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."  Therefore, why translate Genesis 1:2 as "was" and not "became"?”

My issue is that you are using very unsound hermeneutics (interpretation methodology) to come to your conclusion that “was” is a “mistranslation”.

I expect that we both understand that context can influence the meaning of a word. Therefore, it is not legitimate to simply say that, since a word means something in one specific context, that is how we must understand it in all other contexts. The correct (or safe) way to translate is to start with the meaning of the word (i.e. the basic definition), then, if warranted, we can adjust the translation to suit the specific context.

The form of the root Hebrew word ‘haya’ in Genesis 19:26 is not “the exact same” as in Genesis 1:2. But they are different forms of the same root word. ‘Haya’ simply means ‘to be’, or ‘to exist’. In English, this would usually directly translate as ‘is’ (present tense), or ‘was’ (past tense). But ‘haya’ is flexible enough to adjust to context if desired, or if necessary.

- ‘If desired’, for example, Exodus 16:13 tells us that “dew was [‘haya’] all over the camp”. Since we know that the way dew exists is to lay as a sheet across the ground, the NKJV translators said, “the dew lay all around the camp”. But note, there is nothing in the definition of ‘haya’ that speaks to how something exists. Therefore technically, “lay” is additional information – not found in the original text. But since the meaning of the verse is not changed by the more context-specific language, this translation is permitted.

Now by your proposed interpretation method, we could insist that Genesis 1:2 should say “the earth lay without form and void”. I suppose, at-a-stretch, we could say that the earth was just laying or sitting there in space. But there is no internal reason to move the meaning to an ‘at-a-stretch’ translation. ‘Was’ is therefore a perfectly fitting translation of ‘haya’ in the context of Genesis 1:2.

- ‘If necessary’: Occasionally, the context doesn’t permit an elegant translation from Hebrew ‘haya’ to English ‘was’ or ‘is’. For example, if a transition from one state of existence to another state of existence is implied, ‘became’ or ‘had become’ might better describe the ‘haya’ scenario.

For example, “So they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become [‘haya’] like the garden of Eden” (Ezekiel 36:35). Or like your Genesis 19:26 example. But these ‘if necessary’ deviations from the simple meaning of ‘haya’ are very rare by comparison to the use of ‘was’.

Ultimately, there is nothing native to the text of Genesis 1:2 that warrants driving the meaning of ‘haya’ away from the simple use of ‘was’.

 

“But regardless if we like "was" or "became" Christ still lives in us and we love God and one another! (just had to say that foundational thing)”

I get it – but I still think it is important to have the conversation. As far as the arguments have gone so far, my position about safe/sound Bible interpretation methods stands. Regardless of what one believes about the age of the earth, there is no internal reason from the text of Genesis 1:2 to justify moving the meaning away from the simple, common definition of ‘haya’ (i.e. 'was'). Any insistence on such an interpretation must therefore have an external reason to interpret the verse that way.

 

[ChristB4us]

On 5/23/2023 at 7:59 AM, FreeGrace said:

Are you claiming that "biblehub.com" is in error?  Anyone can do the research that I did on the verb.  Did you bother?

Opinion.

In black and white.

I guess this is an admission, although a rather weak one.  Since you argue against any time gap in Gen 1:1,2, then it would suggest that you are a YEC.

Therefore, can you explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", since that is what many argue.  They admit the earth appears older than 6,000 years, so WHY WHY did God create a deception?

I suggest that you consult a dictionary.  What you think is an "odhominem" isn't even close to one.  I've NEVER attacked your person, while disagreeing with your view.

Oh, excuse me.  Yes it is.  If you believe the earth is young, like 6 days older than Adam, based on the TT of Gen 1, then you need to address the FACT that the earth certainly APPEARS much older.  

Nope.  It's all related.  IF the earth isn't any older than Adam, then you HAVE TO address its apparent age.

Uh, same words used.  Just because God CHOSE NOT to give any details about WHY the earth became a wasteland is of no importance.  Only to those who don't want an old earth.  

btw, what's the big deal about a very old earth anyway?  What doctrines are challenged?  

And both of these so-called 'rules' are simply opinions.  It's like you are demanding that if the earth became something that wasn't created that way, God HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY.  No, He doesn't.

lol.  70% of ALL translations of that EXACT SAME FORM of the verb are either "became" or "become", so you are the one with NO CASE.

If God created the earth "unmolded", where in the chapter do we see God "molding" the earth.  Sounds like the earth was created a big clay lump (which has form, btw) and God formed that lumpy lump into another shape, form, etc.

So where do we read that?  You are way out over your ski's.

What a hollow claim!  I've stuck strictly TO Scripture.  I've compared how some words in v.2 have been translated elsewhere in the OT.  That ain't outside of Scripture by any means.  Such wildly unfounded claims hurt your credibility.

 Did you listen to your instructors in Hebrew class, or figure everything out by yourself?  And how many years of academic training have you had in Hebrew?  The pastor 'who told me' had 5 years of seminary Hebrew.  But even if you had more and even taught Hebrew for many years, so what?  Sounds to me as if you have some kind of an agenda, with all your resistance to the idea of a very old earth.  

I'm sure you must know that even equally highly trained scholars have many disagreements among themselves, and this is no exception.

Since the earth APPEARS very old, is because it IS old.  Or explain WHY God would deceive everyone with a creation that only appears very old, but in fact is very young.

Can you do that?  Or again, simply play dodgeball and deflect.

Everything I have presented is rational, whether that is apparent to your eyes or not.

Science doesn't obligate me to do anything.  I haven't appealed to science.  I have appealed to what the Bible SAYS, and have given how the words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.  That is called evidence, regardless of how you may describe it.

So, comparing how words are translated elsewhere is not good methodology and is "highly dubious".  There goes more credibility.

Give me a break.  The discussion is DIRECTLY about what v.2 says.  Why are you so eager to NOT address your biases, agendas, and whatever?

And why not just boldly admit that you are a YEC, if you are?  Is that embarrassing?  What?

And if one, then you really do need to explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", because that's the question for YECs.

I've compared how certain words in v.2 were translated elsewhere.  It doesn't get any more SAFE than that.  I'm letting the Bible speak for itself.

Your strong resistance highly suggests bias or an agenda or something.

A very old earth changes NOTHING in the Bible.  So what's the big deal?  Surely there must be one for you.

Sure.  With your opinion.

But God didn't create the original earth like a lump of clay.  btw, the word "lumpy" is a description of a FORM which everyone can understand.  

But since there is such disagreement, please provide an example of any object that is actually "formless", or without form, since a number of translators were apparently satisfied with that translation in v.2.

Thanks for your opinion.  I am looking forward to your example of any object that has no form.  Can't wait, in fact.  

Read my posts then.

ooh, ooh, ooh.  There it is again.  That OPINION being used as a "rule" or "law" about certain words DEMANDING a context.  Sure.  

Nonsense.  

Please provide several uses of "bara" that were translated as "create".  Even in Genesis 1, both words were used of God creating man.  As I explained.  You are free to disagree, but everything I explained is both reasonable and rational.

Just read the context.  God both created what is noted, and He formed them.  

And you have just missed the whole point again.  Every object HAS a form.  Or prove me wrong.

Well, there it is.  "unmolded form".  Said it yourself!  Everything HAS a form.  Yet the TT claims the earth had no form. 

He was restoring the earth to its original created state.  Yes, he was forming out of existing materials (a wasteland) back into a restored state.

Again, WHY the pushback on a very old earth?

I doubt your ability to show any kind of "external idea" here.

The ONLY way to do that is to COMPARE with all the other uses of that exact word in the rest of the OT.  Which I did, and you have the audacity to call an "external idea".

I suggest looking at ALL the other uses of that exact same word and see how they were translated.

You've played a whole lot of dodgeball here.  From all I've heard from Ken Ham, from what he has written and his videos, it is apparent that he is unable or unwilling to dissociate an old earth from evolution.  iow, every time he hears 'old earth', he believes the person is an evolutionist.  Which is totally irrational.

Is that your issue as well?

No, that's only what you are trying to make it.  Seems you just don't want to discuss the REAL issues here.  Like WHY God would create an earth with apparent age, and what is the big deal about a very old earth?  2 issues you see totally unwilling to touch. 

OF course it is.  That is HOW God restored the earth back to original condition, where man could live on it.

Like I said earlier that people that go to the Greek & Hebrew will argue over each other about their own personal translation, exalting their dedication and intellect over others while debasing others as if not having fully done their homework when wisdom has to come from the Lord.

To err is human so why rely on your intellect rather than wisdom from the Lord?

Do not say that you had relied on the Lord when you debase others.  If you had relied on the Lord to see the truth in His words, you would rely on Him for them to see the truth you had shared, but you dd not.  You went after their "ignorance" & "intellect" thus exalting yourself by your intellect & education.

That is why you cannot see the truth in His words that the earth did not exist the first day but only water was there.  There was no universe either for there to be gravity of any sort as that was created the second day when God separated the water from each other, creating a water planet and the upper atmosphere.

And since evening and morning each day now is 24 hours day, then so it was the first day when the first day was created by that evening & morning that first day by that light that was created.

Better to rely on the Lord Jesus Christ to use the meat of His words as kept in the KJV to discern good and evil and ask Him for wisdom in understanding His words therein than get caught up in relying on your intellect & thus your ego in translating the Greek & Hebrew as if better than over 50 translators of the KJV that was divided into 8 groups as everybody within that group checked each other's work and sent that work to another group to be checked over.

2 Corinthians 13:1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Who checked over your work?  How can you say biblically that your work of translating the Greek & Hebrew was established by 2 or 3 witnesses?  You can't.

Trust the Lord to help you see the meat of His words were kept by those who loved Him & His words in the KJV as only He can help you see that truth.

[ChristB4us]

On 5/25/2023 at 7:59 AM, FreeGrace said:

Scholars have calculated that Adam was on earth about 6,000 years ago.  That should mean that if the earth is just 6 days older than Adam, carbon 14 would show the evidence for that.

But carbon 14 dating doesn't when they have errant carbon dating results like a living mollusks carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead".  How reliable is carbon dating now?

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Are you claiming that "biblehub.com" is in error?”

They could be. But in reality, you haven’t presented any evidence to me from any source.

If comparing the translations of key words in v.2 with how those EXACT SAME WORDS are translated elsewhere in the OT isn't evidence do you, then okey dokey.  But that IS evidence anyway.  And biblehub.com includes lexicons for Greek and Hebrew.  If those aren't "sources" to you, then what, exactly, do you consider "evidence" to be?

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

“Anyone can do the research that I did on the verb.  Did you bother?”

A couple of things -

1 - I posted the translation of every verse using ‘hayetha’ (“all 111” of them) across my previous posts. This unequivocally demonstrated your “70%” figure to be wrong.  Did I “bother”? - Yes, it took me hours to go through. But why did I “bother”? – since you have either intentionally ignored that evidence, or else are so thoroughly blinded by bias that it didn’t even register.

OK, what % number did you come up with?  Since you looked at all 111 verses.  The point is that the MAJORITY of ALL verses used either "became" or "become", and the basic meaning of the verb is that it is a verb of exstence, to be, or become.  

So there's that.  

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

2 - By contrast, you have provided zero evidence supporting your claim. You don’t get to simply cry “biblehub.com” and leave it at that. That’s like telling someone to “google it”. It’s not my responsibility to track down support for your argument. Nevertheless, I clearly did do the work, and found your claim to be a lie.

Since you have no "evidence" for your claim, just to set the record straight, I don't cry.  I guess your definition of support/evidence is quite different from mine.  If you aren't interested in seeing for yourself, that's ok.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Therefore, to use your own words, “Please don't make such FALSE statements when you have NO idea about what you claim”. And furthermore, please stop insinuating that I haven’t done my due diligence when I am the only one in the conversation that has presented actual evidence to the thread. 

I guess I missed your "evidence".  What page and post #?  

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

More accurately, “opinion” supported by both evidence and rational arguments – which you have thus far failed to rebut in any rational sense.

This is one very long post. Since our views of what constitutes evidence and support are so far apart, there is no reason to continue responding to the rest of the post.

However, I do have one question that hopefully you will answer.  Since you so strongly resist my view that there is an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1, can you explain WHY God would create the earth with apparent age then?

6 hours ago, Tristen said: