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

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Earth packed in ice and that explains the darkness kind of leaves the light in the dark or did light come from ice?

Do you think there was light in the ice?  Why?  It was God who said "Light, BE!"  And the light lit things up.

Do you have a better rationale for v.2 and what Moses meant?

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, coheir said:

one does not need ice to keep one from seeing deep. for to any lake or ocean and you can only see fish 1 to 2 foot deep when a fish is 10 or more feet down you wont see him. Same with a whale if he is 10-20 feet under the surface you wont see him.

look up sharks on Florida yo will see 8-12 feet sharks swimming next to people wading the people dont him even in that shallow water

 

Point?

[coheir]

2 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Point?

Im sorry I meant this post for another person not you.

[teddyv]

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I heard a pastor with 5 years of Hebrew in seminary say that the plural of "waters" indicates that when the Holy Spirit "brooded" over the waters, He was melting ice water, which explains the "darkness over the face of the deep".  iow, it appears God had packed the earth in ice.  Which was all melted, per v.2b.

Well, that's a new interpretation for me. I've been around these discussions for some time and so, one random, unnamed pastor's interpretation is not much to go one. Sounds a bit speculative.

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, you accept "tohu" meaning "wasteland".  Then, you have to agree that the earth became a wasteland, per Isa 45:18, which says God didn't create the earth "tohu".

Thank you.

 

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I mentioned "evolutional" because of your words, "primordial chaos".

Primordial chaos is a common term for the ANE views on what the world was like before creation.  There are also the chaos monsters like Leviathan. The sea was often associated with chaos and absence of God.

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Regarding "other contemporary stories", surely you must realize that Genesis 1 is the account of God restoring the earth.  There were no "contemporary stories".  They ALL came about as Adam and Eve had children, who grew up and carried the information with them.  An obviously made changes.

It could be a restoration, but that's not really obvious in Genesis.

Of course there were contemporary creation stories. Maybe they are vaiations on the early forms. Abram came from Sumer and would have been well aware of that culture. Israel was in Egypt for several hundred years and would have been well aware of the Egyptian cosmology and creation myths. 

When Israel was freed from Egypt, they needed a national identity. That is part of reason the Torah, establishing the distinctive identity of the new nation. I have read of some suggesting that Genesis is part of a suzerain covenant preamble, but I'm not sold on that. There is definitely language of suzerain treaty language in the Torah though. So the Spirit, through Moses, redeemed the common ANE cosmology language into a narrative that reveals who God is and what his relationship to humanity is, and humanity's role and purpose in the created world

 

[FreeGrace]

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Well, that's a new interpretation for me. I've been around these discussions for some time and so, one random, unnamed pastor's interpretation is not much to go one. Sounds a bit speculative.

You obviously missed my post.  He had 5 years of scholastic Hebrew in seminary.  Hardly "random".  And please go back and read what I posted about the Hebrew words and how they are translated elsewhere in the OT.  If you like the traditional translation of Gen 1:2, then you have a huge contradiction with Isa 45:18.

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

 

Primordial chaos is a common term for the ANE views on what the world was like before creation.  There are also the chaos monsters like Leviathan. The sea was often associated with chaos and absence of God.

You refuted yourself by describing a "world was like before creation".  Didn't you proofread before posting.  Simply, "before creation" means there was NO world.  How can there be a world before it was created.  

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

It could be a restoration, but that's not really obvious in Genesis.

By looking at the key Hebrew words in v.2, plus what Heb 11:3 says in the Greek, yes, it is.

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Of course there were contemporary creation stories.

Of course there weren't.  There is only ONE creation story.  What followed was that A & E's kids carried the creation account with them as they moved out.  

Or did you mean that while God was creating mankind, there were parallel creations all going on at the same time (contemporary)?

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

 Maybe they are vaiations on the early forms. Abram came from Sumer and would have been well aware of that culture. Israel was in Egypt for several hundred years and would have been well aware of the Egyptian cosmology and creation myths. 

When Israel was freed from Egypt, they needed a national identity. That is part of reason the Torah, establishing the distinctive identity of the new nation. I have read of some suggesting that Genesis is part of a suzerain covenant preamble, but I'm not sold on that. There is definitely language of suzerain treaty language in the Torah though. So the Spirit, through Moses, redeemed the common ANE cosmology language into a narrative that reveals who God is and what his relationship to humanity is, and humanity's role and purpose in the created world

None of this is relevant to Genesis 1.  Abram didn't write the account.  And Israel's freedom from Egypt had no effect on creation, so you need to better explain yourself if you want anyone to accept what you say.

[Roymond]

On 4/29/2018 at 8:08 AM, Retrobyter said:

In any case, the DATA shows a young earth.

Only if you exclude data you don't like.  The data from the ocean floor shows that the magnetic field has strengthened and weakened and flipped multiple times going back millions of years

[Roymond]

On 4/29/2018 at 8:34 AM, Retrobyter said:

 Who decides what parts are to be taken literally and what parts are supposed to be taken figuratively? This is determined by the AUTHORS (both human and Divine) as determined by the CONTEXT of what we are reading. We simply look at what makes the best sense in the context of the portion we are analyzing.

 

Determining that starts with determining what sort of ancient literature a given piece is, and that's not something that can be established just by reading it because there are types of ancient literature that are alien to us.  "Simply look at what makes the best sense" is  guaranteed route to error unless you know what kind of literature you're reading, since the type of literature -- and the ancient worldview included in it -- is the first piece of context that has to be considered.

[Roymond]

On 5/2/2018 at 8:05 AM, Still Alive said:

If it were not for this passage and perhaps one other in Revelation (See section on Revelation 14:9-11), what is now the traditional view of hell may never have developed. The beast and false prophet are seen thrown into the lake of fire at the onset of the millennium (Rev 19:20) and are still there a thousand years later when the devil joins them and they are tormented forever. After rising from the dead the unsaved are thrown in, joining their fate, and consistency would seem to demand that they, too, are tormented forever. The challenge to conditionalism again seems obvious.

Other equally obvious factors, however, often go unnoticed or unmentioned. First, it should be obvious that the vision given to John consists of highly symbolic, apocalyptic imagery and must be interpreted carefully. As discussed above, the imagery of eternal torment may not communicate literal eternal torment any more than a seven-headed, ten-horned beast (Rev 13:1) ridden by a prostitute with the name of a city on her head (Rev 17:3-6) communicates a future reality like something pictured in a horror movie.

Secondly, it should be obvious that death and Hades are abstractions, not concrete entities, and are thus incapable of experiencing torment at all. And yet in this image they’re thrown into the same lake of fire as the others after being emptied of their dead (Rev 20:13-14). Most traditionalists acknowledge that this means death and Hades will be no more, yet they nevertheless argue that even though the resurrected lost are not explicitly said to be tormented eternally in the lake of fire their fate must be the same as the others thrown into the fire. But consistency demands that everything thrown into the fire experiences the same fate, so that of the devil, beast, false prophet, and risen wicked should be annihilation in reality, even though some of them are depicted in the imagery as eternally tormented.

Thirdly, not only do we have the Old Testament uses of the imagery to rely on (see section on Revelation 14:9-11), but the book of Revelation in many cases interprets the images for us! John’s vision is sometimes interpreted for him (Rev 17:7), and John appears to explain the imagery of the lake of fire itself by calling it "the second death" (Rev 20:14), the same interpretation offered by “he who sits on the throne” (Rev 21:8). So the imagery does not symbolize everlasting suffering but death—a permanent, irreversible death of body and soul (Matthew 10:28). Furthermore, the divine interpreter of imagery, foretelling the same events, explained to Daniel that what the beast experiences in the imagery symbolizes the permanent annihilation of the dominion of the kingdom it represents (Daniel 7:11, 25).

Lastly, the symbolic nature of the vision recorded in the book of Revelation is such that it must not be the foundation upon which we build our doctrine of hell, even though it is arguably used in just that fashion by traditionalists. When we allow the divine interpreters of Daniel’s and John’s visions to explain the imagery to us, we can see that it communicates annihilation. The dominion of the kingdom represented by the beast comes to an end. Death and Hades come to an end. The devil and his angels will come to an end. The unsaved will likewise come to an end, a permanent destruction of body and soul.

Note: The above is a cut and paste from here: http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/

It should be kept in mind whenever interpreting Revelation that the only reason it was accepted into  the canon was that Christians back then reading it saw what it described happening all  around them.  It should also be kept in mind that it was described as "spoken against", a status which meant that it was not to be used to establish doctrine from/on, it was only to be read for edification and to support doctrine that is founded on fully-accepted books.

BTW, good points in that link!

[Roymond]

On 5/5/2018 at 4:09 PM, Still Alive said:

 The only age who's length is specified is the thousand years.

And that's very informative, since the thousand years is symbolic of a time of completion -- an age thus lasts until its purpose is completed.

[Roymond]

On 5/5/2018 at 10:23 PM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Still Alive.

Aha! Now you've done it! You've opened up "Pandora's Box!" And, I'll be HAPPY to assist! Thanks for getting into the Greek! (Most don't want me to go there.)

Here's the declension of aioon (a third declension [typically a neuter substantive], such that "oo" is an omega, while "o" is an omicron, and "ee" is an eta, while "e" is an epsilon):

Singular:

Nominative: aioon = an-age (subject)
Genitive: aioonos = of-an-age
Ablative: aioonos = from-an-age
Locative: aiooni = in- or at-an-age
Instrumental: aiooni = with- or by-an-age
Dative: aiooni = to- or for-an-age
Accusative: aioona = an-age (object)

Plural:

Nominative: aioones = ages (subject)
Genitive: aioonoon = of-ages
Ablative: aioonoon = from-ages
Locative: aioosi = in- or at-ages
Instrumental: aioosi = with- or by-ages
Dative: aioosi = to- or for-ages
Accusative: aioonas = ages (object)

And, here is the declension of the adjective forms:

Singular:
Masculine:

Nominative: aioonios = (modifies the masculine subject)
Genitive/Ablative: aiooniou = of- or from-
Locative/Instrumental/Dative: aioonioo = in- or at- or with- or by- or to- or for-
Accusative: aioonion = (modifies the object)
Vocative: aioonie = (directly addresses the modified subject)

Feminine:

Nominative: aioonia = (modifies the feminine subject)
Genitive/Ablative: aioonias = of- or from-
Locative/Instrumental/Dative: aioonia (with an iota subscript) = in- or at- or with- or by- or to- or for-
Accusative: aioonian = (modifies the feminine object)
Vocative: aioonia = (directly addresses the modified subject)

Neuter:

Nominative: aioonion = (modifies the neuter subject)
Genitive/Ablative: aiooniou = of- or from-
Locative/Instrumental/Dative: aioonioo (with an iota subscript) = in- or at- or with- or by- or to- or for-
Accusative: aioonion = (modifies the neuter object)
Vocative: aioonion = (directly addresses the modified subject)

Plural:
Masculine:

Nominative: aioonioi = (modifies the masculine subject)
Genitive/Ablative: aioonioon = of- or from-
Locative/Instrumental/Dative: aiooniois = in- or at- or with- or by- or to- or for-
Accusative: aioonious = (modifies the object)
Vocative: aioonioi = (directly addresses the modified subject)

Feminine:

Nominative: aiooniai = (modifies the feminine subject)
Genitive/Ablative: aioonioon = of- or from-
Locative/Instrumental/Dative: aiooniais = in- or at- or with- or by- or to- or for-
Accusative: aioonias = (modifies the feminine object)
Vocative: aiooniai = (directly addresses the modified subject)

Neuter:

Nominative: aioonia = (modifies the neuter subject)
Genitive/Ablative: aioonioon = of- or from-
Locative/Instrumental/Dative: aiooniois (with an iota subscript) = in- or at- or with- or by- or to- or for-
Accusative: aioonia = (modifies the neuter object)
Vocative: aioonia = (directly addresses the modified subject)

According to the Englishman's Concordance, the adjective form occurs 71 times in the NT. Of those, only 4 are plural; HOWEVER, the noun forms occur 125 times, and of those almost HALF (61 times) are plural! (All of this information is readily available through BibleHub.com.)

Furthermore, it is just BAD theology to base one's entire take on the matter by the adjective form, aioonios! There are PHRASES that involve BOTH nouns and adjectives that describe an understanding of a verse or passage that one won't get strictly by the adjective form! For instance, Ephesians 3:21 has the phrase, "eis pasas tas geneas tou aioonos toon aioonoon," which translates directly to "into all the generations of the age of the ages." Are you going to try to argue that this phrase is limited to a particular age?!

Look, if you're going to study the Greek, by all means, STUDY THE GREEK! But, DON'T forget to look at the phraseology and the context of what you are studying. They are pieces of information that are JUST AS IMPORTANT to understanding as the word choice is!

"Age of ages" is a Hebrewism.  It's a parallel to a way to say "great things", which is "greatness of greatnesses".  The construction emphasizes, it does not extend.  Add in "generations" and the clause is essentially saying, "As long as there are people being born and dying".