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

[Roymond]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:34 PM, Tristen said:

Yes - I refuse to "go to biblehub" for the purpose of finding supporting evidence of your position. Though if you were to provide a link to the "biblehub" results of your research, I'll gladly take a look.

Good point.

It should be noted that biblehub is not a "source", it is a reference resource -- big difference.

I'll also note that it's very easy to use biblehub badly.  It has some great aspects, but used on the face of how it presents things it's easy to go wrong.  I use the site, but I always check against BAGD and the TDNT for the Greek, plus a couple of different grammars; sadly I don't have access to my TDOT presently so dealing with the Hebrew takes me longer.  Anyway, the way biblehub is structured it's very easy to fall into using it for confirmation of a position rather than for researching a position.

[Roymond]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:22 PM, Tristen said:

* I firstly observe that they are using many English translations throughout the list. Therefore, my first question - How are they justifying the English translation used for each verse? I don't see that information provided. I can make a reasonable guess as to why they used the Hebrew and Interlinear versions, but without knowing why they chose the English versions for each verse, I have to consider the possibility of a bias-driven selection.

I picked a dozen of the verses at random and read them in the Hebrew.  I noticed two things:  when you flip to interlinear to see what they're putting in that resource, a fair number of entries contradict the list, rendering "was" rather than "became".  Digging further by just reading the Hebrew, it also became apparent that not translating as "was" had no actual justification -- and it was driven home in my Hebrew classes both as an undergrad in the biblical languages program and as a grad student, including not just my professors but visiting scholars, that you only ever deviate from the basic meaning of the Hebrew when there is cause to do so -- and a big reason for that is that Hebrew verb tenses do not at all correlate well with western indo-european tenses so sticking with the basic translation is best.

The fact that there is internal inconsistency in what biblehub's resources are presenting makes it a poor resource; that the selected translations use "became" without any justification (because "was" actually fits the Hebrew better) makes the objectivity suspect -- "bias-driven selection" is a very real possibility.

Biblehub just got downgraded on my resource list.

[Roymond]

On 6/2/2023 at 8:15 AM, DeighAnn said:

WHY would GOD WHO IS LIGHT have spoken DARKNESS FIRST over the earth?  WHY would GOD CREATE THE EARTH IN DARKNESS IN THE FIRST PLACE?  Everyone here who disputes what is written in favor of the wisdom of man will not answer the SIMPLIEST questions as to WHY would GOD SPEAK darkness and allow the earth to be sitting in darkness and then THROUGH OUT THE WHOLE BOOK speak of darkness in the way it does? 

Darkness is a blank palette on which to place the "art" of creation.

But it must be kept in mind that the order of events the Genesis writer is using here is the order of events in the Egyptian creation story.  Why would he use that?  Because the Israelites had lived in Egypt long enough that they would have known the Egyptian versions of all the ancient near eastern mythological stories, and since they have no come out of Egypt the writer takes the Egyptian version and uses it to set the record straight.  Skipping the details, the account follows the Egyptian order of events but changes the details to make the point that everything the Egyptians considered to be gods or even enemies of the gods is just something that YHWH-Elohim made as a tool for His purposes -- and that includes darkness.

Remember that at this point there is no sin, no enemy of the people of God, so darkness does not have its later import.  The refrain "evening... morning" encloses the period of darkness with its beginning as light fades and its ending as light returns and just makes that darkness part of God's scheme, totally dashing to pieces the Egyptian idea that nighttime was a period when the gods had to band together to fight the power(s) of destruction and make sure the sun would rise again!

And why would God start off with an earth that is "tohu wabohu"?  Why shouldn't He?  The gods of the nations feared the tohu and the bohu, the formlessness and the desolation, but to YHWH-Elohim these are just two more items in His "art" drawer; chaos is not His enemy but His tool, His palette on which to "draw" order.

Darkness, chaos, and desolation only become "evil" once the Deceiver slips into the Garden and confuses the mind of Eve, and then Adam chooses to follow her sin; until then they are just created things God made use of.

Yet even then they remain God's servants!  It isn't in the orderly, vibrant part of Creation that the Forerunner comes to to announce the coming Messiah; no, he deliberately cries out in the wilderness, the place of chaos and desolation, "Prepare the way of the LORD!"  And even before that, as Israel wandered in the wilderness, that chaos and desolation served Him as the realm to which the scapegoat was consigned, carrying the weight of the people's sins out where it belonged, in the realm where form and life are at risk.

So at this part of God's narrative, to ascribe chaos and darkness to evil is an error:  with no enemy yet, it suggests that God can make mistakes.  Only once the Deceiver has accomplished the Fall and gotten those two first parents driven out of the Garden do darkness and chaos become tainted with anything ill.

[Roymond]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:22 PM, Tristen said:

Progressive: In only the first five verses of your list, I have already invalidated all uses of 'became' from your count. This is why it is better to do the work yourself. 

In summary so far:

- There are verses on your list that do not include English translations (which is important, given that your claim is specific to translations)

- The other verses on your list use a variety of Bible translations - which introduces bias to your count

- There are verses on your list that use "become", even though it would not make sense in English

- There are verses in your list that, upon investigation, do not use "become", even though your list shows them as using "become"

So you found the same as I did:  it's a lousy source because it has internal contradictions plus it deviates from the basic meaning with no cause to do so -- and often makes nonsense when it does so!

[Roymond]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

For these reasons, your list is an inappropriate resource for a straight count. That is, your application of this list is a misuse of this resource. The list can not logically, mathematically, be used the way you are trying to use it - i.e. to generate any meaningful information pertaining to how many times 'hayetha' is translated 'became'.

Yeah.  Not only does he not know Hebrew and/or Greek (as has been admitted) yet tell those who do that they are wrong, it's now plain he doesn't know how to do basic research.  He's making the error of treating secondary sources as authoritative when the primary sources are available.  Doing that just once on a paper when I was in grad school was sufficient to have the paper tossed in the trash -- and get told to start over from the beginning.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

On the upside, your list does seem to be an accurate reflection of the 'hayetha' form of 'haya'. Therefore, if you really wanted to know the proportion this word is translated 'became', you could pick a translation and check through the verses on the basis of this list. I've already done one translation (NKJV). I'd even be happy if you could find the translation that uses 'became' the most for 'hayetha'. 

I'd work through another couple of dozen but it's a bit late at night for me to keep track of what information I've got open on which browser tab....

I will comment that it is so much easier to have the Masoretic and other texts online instead of the way I did it in grad school, having to have the actual books (or a LOT of photocopies!) spread out across a dining room table!

[Roymond]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not here "defending a young earth". I'm here "defending" sound hermeneutics.

This is "important" because, using unsound hermeneutics, we can make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. Whereas, using sound hermeneutics, we let the Author speak for Himself.

 

It's strange that people keep bringing up YEC and evolution when neither has any bearing on the matter.  It's as thought they can't conceive that someone is interested in the text and not anything outside it.

[DeighAnn]

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

That's a very good question.

Especially when there's an admission that he doesn't know Hebrew or Greek yet he ventures to correct people who read those languages.  It's essentially saying, "I know I'm not qualified to talk about this, but you people who are qualified are all wrong."

OMG, that is exactly what the Pharisees and Sadducees THOUGHT of THEMSELVES, all those EDUCATED ONES looking down upon those who WEREN'T. 

Funny, NOT ONE of the 'educated' did Jesus choose... IF THAT isn't telling of how we are to come to HIS TRUTH...


and WHAT DID ALL THAT EDUCATION GET THEM?  


THEY MISSED THE MESSIAH AND REJECTED HIM.



Maybe THIS TIME, we should LEARN from past mistakes, and we should go by the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, THE WORDS of God and not the LAWS OF LANGUAGE and definitions of those words for our TRUTH.  


PRIDE, so very proud and ugly
 

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not here "defending a young earth". I'm here "defending" sound hermeneutics.

Really?  I have proven that certain words in Gen 1:2 are translated quite differently where else they occur in the OT. 

v.2 begins with "but", a conjunction of contrast, as translated by the scholars who translated the OT into Koine Greek, when Koine was a living language.

"without form" or "formless" is ridiculous, since ALL objects HAVE form or shape.  And there is nothing in Genesis about God giving form to the earth.  He created the earth (v.1) but restored the earth because it became a wasteland.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

This is "important" because, using unsound hermeneutics, we can make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. Whereas, using sound hermeneutics, we let the Author speak for Himself.

The problem is that you've not shown any "unsound hermeneutics", just a very strong opinion that v.2 doesn't say or mean what I believe it to mean, based on HOW certain words are translated elsewhere.

So, if you are not defending a young earth, why does it matter if the earth IS very old and God DID restore it for man's use?

Word meanings are based on USAGE.  I've shown that certain words are translated quite differently elsewhere in the OT.  That is a fact.

When you called biblehub.com a "pseudo source" you revealed your very heavy bias against a legitimate source.  That equates to a total loss of credibility.

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

That's a very good question.

Especially when there's an admission that he doesn't know Hebrew or Greek yet he ventures to correct people who read those languages.  It's essentially saying, "I know I'm not qualified to talk about this, but you people who are qualified are all wrong."

Sad.  A man whose church Bible is literal Hebrew for the OT and literal Koine Greek for the NT because he READS both languages led me to biblehub and how to see how any form of a word is translated in the rest of the OT.  Yet, the other poster called biblehub a "pseudo source".  Everyone knows that even highly educated scholars disagree on a lot.  

I have proven that the MOST COMMON translation of the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb "hayah" in v.2 is "became", not "was".  And the translators of the Septuagint translated the first word in v.2 as "but" or "de" in the Koine Greek rather than the traditional "and" as nearly all English translations have.  

And "tohu" is translated as "waste", "waste place" "wasteland" and "chaos" everywhere else in the OT.

Facts are facts.  Period.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist or Hebrew expert to understand this.  Just a good source that lays out the data.  As I did.

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

Good point.

It should be noted that biblehub is not a "source", it is a reference resource -- big difference.

Then explain how the "big difference".

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

I'll also note that it's very easy to use biblehub badly.  It has some great aspects, but used on the face of how it presents things it's easy to go wrong.

Sour grapes, it seems.  It shows ALL the verses where the SAME FORM of the verb is used throughout the OT.  How can one "use it badly" when all they do is look at ALL the verses and count the number to see which is the MOST COMMON?

What hasn't been done is proving that "became" CANNOT be a correct translation, when it is the most common.  When added to that, the verse begins with BUT and "tohu" means chaos, waste, and wasteland elsewhere, it is EASY to see that something happened to the planet and God restored it.

Heb 11:3 -  By faith we understand that the universe was formed (KARARTIZO) at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Katartizo is about mending, repairing, restoring, as the lexicons will show.  So even the NT supports the FACT that Genesis 1 is about God restoring a wasted planet.  

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

  I use the site, but I always check against BAGD and the TDNT for the Greek, plus a couple of different grammars; sadly I don't have access to my TDOT presently so dealing with the Hebrew takes me longer.  Anyway, the way biblehub is structured it's very easy to fall into using it for confirmation of a position rather than for researching a position.

Ha.  I researched EVERY verse in the OT that had the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb "hayah" in Gen 1:2.  There was no "position".  Only translations of that exact verb form.  And the MOST COMMON was "became".

Is that a "position" just because you disagree with that FACT?

Since you disagree with my understanding of v.2, it seems you are resisting a very young earth.  Fine.  Now, if so, can you explain why God would create the universe with apparent age, since there would be NO REASON for it?  Thanks.
 

Edited June 4, 2023 by FreeGrace