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

[Roymond]

On 5/10/2018 at 10:43 PM, Retrobyter said:

 

But, that's not a full age!

 

Sure it is -- "age" covers the full time of something, so a "Church age" would cover the full time of the church, just as a "Roman age" would cover as long as there was a Roman Republic or Empire, and a "pizza age" would cover the time in which there is pizza (forever, I hope!).  Those would all be proper use of the Greek word.

What you mean is "It's not a whole Bible-designated age", which is only a subset of possible uses of the word.

Heck, I had a church history professor who spoke of "the age of Latin", by which he meant the period of time in which Latin was the dominant language in western Europe -- a perfectly legitimate use.

[teddyv]

Just now, FreeGrace said:

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.

Does this mysterious scholar have a name?

I'm not sure why you are hung up on a bit of difference between the two verses. They are different genres and written hundreds of years apart.

Just now, FreeGrace said:

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.  

Fine. There was no world. There was primordial chaos. This is ancient literature. I don't even see why this is all relevent.

Just now, FreeGrace said:

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

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.  

Possibly, but there is very little to go on that. It is a reasonable hypothesis, but I'm not sure how to necessarily validate it.

Just now, FreeGrace said:

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

No.

I mean contemporary creation myths. As above, they could have a common oral tradition source prior to writing them down in various nations and cultures.

Just now, FreeGrace said:

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.

The Torah is traditionally ascribed to the pen of Moses. So, who was Moses writing to? When was he writing this? Who was his audience? How would have the audience have understood this from a cultural context.

That is why the points I brought up matter.

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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?

You mentioned it explain darkness on the surface of the deep. the verse mentions two surfaces it doesn’t imply they where one in the same.

God was over one and darkness on the other.

[Roymond]

On 9/5/2020 at 7:05 PM, JohnR7 said:

What is a beginning? We are told that we are star stuff. So our beginning was around 12 billion years ago when the dust or elements were formed in a star. In Genesis 1:2 we read: "Now the earth was formless and empty," we also see these same words in Jeremiah 4:23 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light". In Genesis 1:28 we read: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". What does this mean to replenish the earth?  

"Replenish" probably isn't a great translation these days; "fill" works better, although it means to expand to a decent amount in the "container"it's in, which in the context means leaving room for all the wild species, not wiping them out -- and this is something we've become very bad at!

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, teddyv said:

12 hours ago,  FreeGrace said: 

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.

Does this mysterious scholar have a name?

Every person has a name.  But this isn't about names, but rather what the Bible SAYS. Please stay focused on that.  

10 hours ago, teddyv said:

I'm not sure why you are hung up on a bit of difference between the two verses. They are different genres and written hundreds of years apart.

Let me help you here.  

Gen 1:2 - God created the earth and the earth was tohu

Isa 45:18 - God DIDN'T create the earth tohu

Shouldn't be too difficult to see the difference.  Maybe only a "bit" of difference to you, but clearly a HUGE difference and CONTRADICTION to others.

Either God DID or DIDN'T create the earth tohu.  I have pointed out the key words in v.2 were translated in the rest of the OT, which REMOVES any contradiction.

10 hours ago, teddyv said:

Fine. There was no world. There was primordial chaos. This is ancient literature. I don't even see why this is all relevent.

I don't even see why you are so resistant to an old earth.  What doctrine is threatened by an old earth?  None.

10 hours ago, teddyv said:

Possibly, but there is very little to go on that. It is a reasonable hypothesis, but I'm not sure how to necessarily validate it.

What I have posted is clearly legitimate.  I have shown how the key words in v.2 were translated in the rest of the Bible, which REMOVES any contradiction.

But it seems you aren't really interested in the fact that the "standard translation" of v.2 creates a huge contradiction with Isa 45:18.  Oh, well.

10 hours ago, teddyv said:

I mean contemporary creation myths. As above, they could have a common oral tradition source prior to writing them down in various nations and cultures.

What do you mean by 'contemporary'?  The word means occurring WITH something or someone else.  When God created the earth, there was NOTHING ELSE CONTEMPORARY with that.  

10 hours ago, teddyv said:

The Torah is traditionally ascribed to the pen of Moses. So, who was Moses writing to? When was he writing this? Who was his audience? How would have the audience have understood this from a cultural context.

That is why the points I brought up matter.

Why don't you answer your own questions.  The Bible doesn't tell us.  Maybe you have figured it all out.  So please share.

What I do know is that ALL human authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit.  So the message and audience has been determined by God Himself.

And that is good enough for me.

It seems you just don't want the facts and are more content with the "standard translation" even though it creates a huge contradiction with Isa 45:18.

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

You mentioned it explain darkness on the surface of the deep. the verse mentions two surfaces it doesn’t imply they where one in the same.

God was over one and darkness on the other.

I asked this:  "Do you have a better rationale for v.2 and what Moses meant?"

Do you?

[BeyondET]

7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I asked this:  "Do you have a better rationale for v.2 and what Moses meant?"

Do you?

The pastor's rationale wasn't rational.

My view, there is the deep and there is the waters, separate surfaces then the waters separated.

Gen 1

2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep.

And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

Edited February 19, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

14 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

The pastor's rationale wasn't rational.

My view, there is the deep and there is the waters, separate surfaces then the waters separated.

Gen 1

2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep.

And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

Please explain how the pastor's rationale wasn't rational.  Your view doesn't really communicate much.  What you noted is in the verse.  

My point is what the key words in v.2 really mean, by researching every occurrence of them in the entire OT.  

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

How or why isn't that reasonable, given how those key words are translated elsewhere?

[BeyondET]

8 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Please explain how the pastor's rationale wasn't rational.  Your view doesn't really communicate much.  What you noted is in the verse.  

My point is what the key words in v.2 really mean, by researching every occurrence of them in the entire OT.  

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

How or why isn't that reasonable, given how those key words are translated elsewhere?

Because earth was part of the waters which wasn't a wasteland.  The properties of water is hydrogen and oxygen.

Edited February 19, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

11 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Because earth was part of the waters which wasn't a wasteland.  The properties of water is hydrogen and oxygen.

OK, you are just igoring how "tohu" is translated elsewhere.  

Since the LXX (Septuagint) uses "but" a the beginning of the verse, that means there IS a contrast between v.1 and 2, which doesn't occur in any of the English translations.  The LXX is far closer to the Hebrew than any English translation.

And the "was" is lame.  70% of the uses in the OT of that exact form of the verb is translated as "become" or "became".

So the "but" with "became" prove the earth wasn't created "tohu", which is what Isa 45:18 says.