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

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, Vine Abider said:

Why does my interlinear have hayah in Genesis 1:2 as Stong's h1916, and the very same word (h1961) in Genesis 19:26 for when Lot's wife "became" (h1961) a pillar of salt?

And my Strong's says the definition of h1961 is: "to fall out, come to pass, become, be."

Shalom, Vine Abider.

I should have finished:

In Genesis 19:26, the word is "וַתְּהִ֖י" "vatthiy." It not only adds the "vav-" prefix (meaning "and"), but it is the Qal Consecutive Imperfect form of the verb, which DOES show action!

[Tristen]

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I clicked on the 2 post-links you provided where you quoted verses with hayah in them, including the translation from only 1 translation.  That's why y0u got so many "was" occurrences.

If I had used multiple translations, that would have introduced bias into the evidence. I could, for example, have eliminated 'became' altogether by bouncing between translations to suit my position.

Your claim was that "70%" of the time 'hayetha' is translated 'became'. You didn't specify that you needed to Cherry-Pick your examples from multiple translations to achieve this number.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Unfortunately this website leaves a lot to be frustrated with.  By clicking on the post-links, the reply that I was working on disappeared, and I was about half way through it.  So I'm not going to try to re-create what I posted

This is why I respond to long posts in a Word document - then paste over. But I agree, there could be some kind of warning that if you continue, your progress will be lost. Or maybe some mechanism to auto-save any text. There've been times where I've actually submitted, and the submission failed, and I lost all my work.

But regardless, that's not on me.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

In the first link, you disagreed with my point about the meaningless word "without form".  Your opinion doesn't change reality here.  EVERY object HAS a form or shape.

The only reason to provide the "link" was to show you that I had presented the evidence previously - which you were insinuating was untrue.

With regards to the dopey 'Everything has a form' argument;

I have demonstrated several times that this is a puerile, intentionally disingenuous argument. I have further demonstrated, from your own words, that you fully understand this to be a disingenuous argument. This is actually the most intellectually bereft of your arguments. The fact that this has become one of your primary, repeated arguments is telling.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Too bad my response was wiped away.  In it, I gave specific instructions of how to use biblehub.com and SEE for yourself ALL 111 occurrences and how each verse was translated in the NAS and INT translations, along with the actual Hebrew, which isn't of any use to me.

That would have been a waste of time. It's not my job to track down evidence of your position.

"Too bad" you didn't just follow your own instructions, and then just provide the link to the results.

Even then, it appears that you selected your translations based on bias - which invalidates your point. Your initial claim did not mention that your "70%" figure was only valid for two Bible translations. That's a pretty big omission - with regards to intellectual credibility. The very fact that you need two translations to get to that figure is also telling.

Ultimately, if you don't show me the evidence, then as far as I am concerned, it doesn't exist, and your "70%" claim supporting your preferred translation gets flushed down the toilet.

It appears you have dumped the 'There's no context' argument - which I think is a good decision. Now you are only left with 1) a demonstrably disingenuous argument, and 2) a completely unsupported, and thoroughly debunked argument.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

If I had used multiple translations, that would have introduced bias into the evidence. I could, for example, have eliminated 'became' altogether by bouncing between translations to suit my position.

Have you not yet clicked on the transliteration word above "was" in biblehub.com?

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Your claim was that "70%" of the time 'hayetha' is translated 'became'. You didn't specify that you needed to Cherry-Pick your examples from multiple translations to achieve this number.

I explained my misstatement.  I counted 69 occurrences according to bible hub.com.  But if v.2 means "became", that would be 70 occurrences.  I was mistaken.  

Even 59% for "became/become" means THE MOST COMMON translation for the FORM found in v.2.  And according to the occurrences of "was" comes to a measly 4.5%, being THE LEAST common, or one of the least common translations of that form of "hayah" in v.2.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

This is why I respond to long posts in a Word document - then paste over. But I agree, there could be some kind of warning that if you continue, your progress will be lost. Or maybe some mechanism to auto-save any text. There've been times where I've actually submitted, and the submission failed, and I lost all my work.

I haven't had that problem in other forums.  

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

But regardless, that's not on me.

No, it is definitely the website.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

The only reason to provide the "link" was to show you that I had presented the evidence previously - which you were insinuating was untrue.

When you presented the list of verses, there was no "source" mentioned.  I gave coumy source:  biblehub.com.  Anyone could replicate what I did on that site.  I had no idea how you found the verses you did.  

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

With regards to the dopey 'Everything has a form' argument;

I have demonstrated several times that this is a puerile, intentionally disingenuous argument.

I disagree with your opinion.  It is so obvious that everyone knows that every object has a form, or the object simply isn't visible.  That's hardly disingenuous.  To claim otherwise is what is disingenuous.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I have further demonstrated, from your own words, that you fully understand this to be a disingenuous argument.

How do my own words refute me?  And specifically WHAT words?

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

This is actually the most intellectually bereft of your arguments. The fact that this has become one of your primary, repeated arguments is telling.

You have no proof for your own opinion.  The evidence is that every object is visible, and therefore has form.  It is your definition that is disingenuous.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

That would have been a waste of time. It's not my job to track down evidence of your position.

No, your job is to prove your own claims.  Which you can't.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

"Too bad" you didn't just follow your own instructions, and then just provide the link to the results.

Why would I need to, since anyone and everyone who reads these posts can do it for themselves and SEE for themselves the truth.

Your list didn't convince me of anything.  Not knowing your source and how it works means there would be NO WAY to verify your list.

But going to biblehub.com would absolutely verify what I said.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Even then, it appears that you selected your translations based on bias - which invalidates your point.

This proves that you didn't bother using biblehub.com.  I used what they provided.  If you had gone to biblehub.com you would have known that.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Your initial claim did not mention that your "70%" figure was only valid for two Bible translations. That's a pretty big omission - with regards to intellectual credibility. The very fact that you need two translations to get to that figure is also telling.

Grrrr.   Please GO to bible hub.com and do your own research.  I'm stunned at what you are claiming here.  I used the data that biblehub.com shows.  I didn't need anything other than what that website gave me.  

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Ultimately, if you don't show me the evidence, then as far as I am concerned, it doesn't exist, and your "70%" claim supporting your preferred translation gets flushed down the toilet.

If you aren't interested to SEE for yourself, or too busy, or whatever, doesn't matter to me.  It is available for anyone who is interested in SEEING for themselves the data.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

It appears you have dumped the 'There's no context' argument - which I think is a good decision. Now you are only left with 1) a demonstrably disingenuous argument, and 2) a completely unsupported, and thoroughly debunked argument.

Thank you for your opinions.  I'll file them appropriately.

Do you believe that any explanation for an old earth is linked to evolution?  I totally reject that idea and am as strongly against the stupidity of evolution as you are.

It seems to me that just because God didn't include any explanation for WHY or HOW the earth became a wasteland, it couldn't have become that.

That is what I call a completely unsupported argument. 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by FreeGrace

[AlsoBroken]

When I ask myself what I believe about this whole subject, the voice of my inner child says, “Jesus save me!” Save me from spending even one hour of my life thinking I can get anywhere near knowing how old the earth is, or whether there is life on Mars, or when and how the Antichrist will take over, and when will our Jesus come back for us! 
For me (and I’m sure millions of others), for various reasons, it’s all I can do to just get through a DAY with my mind and heart at least halfway focused on God my Father,  and my Redeemer Jesus. While I admire more scientific minds and those who specialize in specific studies like this, I can’t help but wonder how you do it. For most of us (I’m guessing) just putting one foot in front of the other in the NOW of each day is enough. 

God help us! 
 

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, AlsoBroken said:

When I ask myself what I believe about this whole subject, the voice of my inner child says, “Jesus save me!” Save me from spending even one hour of my life thinking I can get anywhere near knowing how old the earth is, or whether there is life on Mars, or when and how the Antichrist will take over, and when will our Jesus come back for us! 
For me (and I’m sure millions of others), for various reasons, it’s all I can do to just get through a DAY with my mind and heart at least halfway focused on God my Father,  and my Redeemer Jesus. While I admire more scientific minds and those who specialize in specific studies like this, I can’t help but wonder how you do it. For most of us (I’m guessing) just putting one foot in front of the other in the NOW of each day is enough. 

God help us! 
 

Your focus is quite correct, of course.  However, there is the simple need to be accurate about what God's word says.  Most believe the earth is only 6-10,000 old, and based on how the translation is worded.  And that just makes scientists laugh at evangelicals, since there are various ways that prove the earth is WAY OLDER than that.  

The issue isn't about HOW old the earth is.  That is impossible to determine, and no scientist I've ever read even tried to pin down an age.  It's always given as a range of time, in the billions of years.  But it doesn't matter if only millions.

The point from Gen 1:2 is that something occurred that God simply didn't detail that left the earth in ruins, chaos, and a wasteland, unfit for humanity to exist on.

The verse is properly rendered thus:  BUT (not and) the earth BECAME a wasteland.

So Gen 1 is an account of 6 literal days of restoration of the earth to prepare it for man's existence.

It seems the main difficulty is that YEC are unable or unwilling to realize that age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution.  None whatsoever.  But it seems most YEC think any idea that the earth is very old means they are evolutionists, which is totally false.

[Vine Abider]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

It seems the main difficulty is that YEC are unable or unwilling to realize that age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution.  None whatsoever.  But it seems most YEC think any idea that the earth is very old means they are evolutionists, which is totally false.

Hear! Hear!

[ChristB4us]

On 5/29/2023 at 3:42 AM, Roymond said:

Interestingly that was the conclusion reached by the ancient scholars who on the basis of just the Hebrew concluded that the universe is ancient beyond human comprehension.  They said the entire universe was so dense with fluid/water that light could not shine until God commanded light into existence, so the fluid/water thinned enough for light to flow.

Not sure how they can ascribe the universe as ancient when time was not created yet until the first day and the universe did not exist until the fourth day.

[ChristB4us]

On 5/29/2023 at 3:47 AM, Roymond said:

It's quite reliable -- every weird result critics appeal to has been explained by the very people who ran the tests. 

In fact scientists learned quite a bit from than weird result, primarily that when something comes from a river carbon-dating it isn't dependable, because different materials when associated with or found in flowing water lose or gain carbon in ways that make the results less than dependable (which made a lot of scientists, including some archaeologists, very unhappy because they had used results on things taken from flowing water).

Ever heard of the reservoir effect?  Science knows about it but do not always take that in account with carbon dating results.

And if you believe the Bible, then there was a calamity that caused the global flood for why none of their carbon dating results are going to be accurate.

Science are doing those carbon dating results on the assumption that there has bene no calamity for the last 55,000 years.  Talk about way off.

[ChristB4us]

On 5/29/2023 at 3:49 AM, Roymond said:

Keeping in mind that there is a vast difference between people who actually read the Greek and Hebrew and those who just look up words in a lexicon.

Even the anti-KJVOers that have studied the Greek, I have seen them argue over each other from how the Greek grammar was different back in those days to now and how to apply the Greek words as they did then but not how we do it now.

I'll stick with trusting Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd since He has led me to rely on the meat of His words as kept in the KJV by those who loved Him & His words to discern good & evil in these latter days where faith is hard to find.

[ChristB4us]

On 5/29/2023 at 4:22 AM, Roymond said:

Mortar in England should be expected to test several thousand years older than it actually is because they generally used limestone for making mortar, and the limestone is what's giving the result.

Interestingly, Roman mortar can give all sorts of ages with C-14 dating because different batches used different sources of volcanic ash, wood ash, and -- the "secret" ingredient -- seawater, beside the usual lime from limestone.

Makes you wonder in light of such a calamity of the Biblical global flood, how can any rock not get mixed with such things like that to get any accurate readings at all?