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

[Roymond]

On 2/18/2023 at 3:36 PM, 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.  

 

That's rather rude, since his meaning was plain:  he was describing the content of the other ANE versions of creation.  In those stories, the "תְה֑וֹם", "the deep", was a vast uncreated 'sea' of 'stuff' as eternal as the gods, from which the Earth had to be formed, and even once the Earth was formed that was "before creation" because the gods had not yet shaped it -- and the shaping was the creation that counted.

On 2/18/2023 at 3:36 PM, FreeGrace said:

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.  

 

There are two creation stories.  Conflating them is common, but is hardly universal because they are plainly contradictory if read as one account.

[Roymond]

On 2/19/2023 at 4:39 AM, FreeGrace said:

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

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

This is incorrect:  Genesis 1:2 says the Earth was "tohu wa-bohu" which has a different meaning that tohu by itself.  You're creating a conflict where none exists.

On 2/19/2023 at 4:39 AM, FreeGrace said:

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.

You pointed out very bad translations made by people trying to read something into the text that isn't there in order to "prove" a notion they hold that 'rescues' the ancientness of the universe and the Earth.  That's called "eisegesis", reading a meaning into the text, and the meaning around the whole "gap theory" is not in the text, it's imported.

I actually liked the gap theory, but then I studied Hebrew and ANE languages.

On 2/19/2023 at 4:39 AM, FreeGrace said:

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.  

Um, seriously?  "Contemporary" as he used it has a very plain meaning:  "at the same time" that the Hebrews wrote down their Creation account.

On 2/19/2023 at 4:39 AM, FreeGrace said:

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.

The contradiction is fake; it ignores how the Hebrew language works (or most languages, for that matter).

[Roymond]

On 2/19/2023 at 12:29 PM, FreeGrace said:

 The LXX is far closer to the Hebrew than any English translation.
 

That's a dubious proposition at best; both are mixed batches if for no other reason than that for both ancient Greek and English there are Hebrew words that can't really be translated, and for other Hebrew words there are no matches that aren't misleading.  I say this as someone who reads all three.

The best that can be said is that the ancient Jews regarded the Septuagint as a pretty good job of translating the Hebrew (yes, some of them considered it inspired, in which case it would be superior to any English version).

[Roymond]

On 2/19/2023 at 3:50 PM, FreeGrace said:

Seems you are still missing the point.  v.2 should have been translated "BUT the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND".

 

I have read ancient rabbinical commentaries on Genesis, and there is no mention anywhere of this translation.  I've read ancient commentaries in Greek and there is no mention of this translation...

With one exception that shows where this interpretation first came from:  the source is Zoroastrianism and ancient Babylon.  The gap was supposedly due to one of two things:  either God made many creations until He got one  He liked, or God made one but the Dark One snuck in and destroyed it and the new one is an imperfect copy.

That this interpretation can't be found in commentaries going back over two millennia except from views that make God either less than competent or less than omnipotent pretty much sums up its status:  false.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

1.  Translation that have "and" at the beginning of v.2 are translating correctly:  the Hebrew "וְ" here is a 'waw-conjunctive/consecutive' and the only "disjunctive" sense is that while the two events are sequential, they are not immediately so; thus if 1:1 is not read as a title, then there is some gap in time between the two verses.  And while Greek "δέ" is often transalted as "but", it is not a contradictory particle but a contrastive or even comparative.  What you're presenting here is the "gap" theory, but there is no excuse in the Hebrew for the sort of gap that theory proposes, i.e. that there was a prior creation which was destroyed.

What I am presenting is truth, not a theory.  The LXX translates as "but" to show a contrast from v.1.  Which is affirmed in Isa 45:18, which says that "God did NOT create the earth tohu".  When "and" is used in v.2, the Bible says "God created the earth AND the earth was tohu".  A complete contradiction.  No theory.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

2.  In asking " So asking "what an earth that is "formless" would look like?" you're taking the English translation and stretching it to absurdity.  Hebrew "תֹ֙הוּ֙" cannot be taken alone; the phrase "תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ" is an idiom indicating an uninhabitable, useless, worthless landscape with no beneficial elements to it at all; translations which use "desolate" and "emptiness" (or even "desolate emptiness") are catching the meaning of the phrase.  You arrive at this at the end of the paragraph

Thank you for making MY point.  God DIDN'T create the earth "uninhabitable, useless worthless landscape".  That is WHY the LXX used "but", to show a contrast.  And don't forget the verb form "hayah" in v.2 is translated 70% of the time elsewhere in the OT as "became" or "become".  Proving (no theory) that the earth WASN'T created "tohu" but BECAME tohu.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

3.  No, there isn't a contradiction for the very same reason I pointed out above:  "תֹ֙הוּ֙" in Genesis 1:1 cannot be taken alone; it is part of the phrase "תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ" which has to be taken as the idiom it is -- and in fact the inclusion of the description "darkness" serves to emphasize that the idiom must be taken together because it amplifies the characteristic of "desolation".  In Isaiah 45 "תֹ֙הוּ֙" does stand alone, so its meaning is different and we can pick up on it by contrast with the following statement that the Earth was made to be inhabited; i.e. the prophet is using "תֹ֙הוּ֙" for an uninhabitable wasteland.  Thus one place says the Earth was not created "תֹ֙הוּ֙", but the other place says it was ""תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ".  Lastly, Isaiah says God "formed it" after he says God "created it", and thus he's talking about after God gave form to the Earth.

Right.  "after God gave form (?) to the earth".  BUT BECAME is how v.2 starts.  But you don't want to know that, apparently.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

4. The Hebrew verb "הָיְתָ֥ה" (ha-ya-tah) is a qal perfect form and its root meaning has to do with existence.  Being in the qal perfect, it can't mean anything here except "existed", thus "the Earth existed [as a] desolate wasteland".  It just is not in the right tense to mean "became".

I've already shown HOW that exact form in v.2 has been translated elsewhere in the OT about 70% of the time;  became.  Deal with it.  BUT the earth BECAME tohu.  That means later on.  Not the next second.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

5.  Due to the above, your summary conclusion is incorrect.  It's difficult if not impossible any more to find a scholar who will defend the "gap" theory precisely because of my points 1, 3, and 4 above.

6.  Evolution is not a "heresy" because it has nothing to do with religion.  In fact I know some former atheists and agnostics who concluded there must be a Designer because of their studies of evolution, two of whom became Christians and the third was still evaluating the evidence when I last spent time with them.  All three summed up their conclusion as "something as intricate and elegant as evolution could not happen by chance".

Sorry, but this is delusional to me.  Of course evolution is a religion.  And a very false one.  It leaves God completely out of creation.  In fact, it denies creation.  Please get your facts straight.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

7.  The Greek word καταρτίζω (ka-tar-TIDZ-oh) has the basic sense of completion.  Here's your verse list with that meaning put in:

Matt 4:21 and Mark 1:19 used for “completing their nets”
Matt 21:16 used for “completing praise out of the mouths of babes”
Luke 6:40 used for “every disciple is not above his master, but one that is completed shall be like his master”
Rom 9:22 used for “vessels of wrath completed to destruction”
1 Cor 1:10  used for “completely joined”
2 Cor 13:11 used for “be completed”
Gal 6:1 used for “complete such a one with gentleness”
1 Thess 3:10 used for “might complete that which is lacking in your faith”
Heb 10:5 used for “a body you have completed [for]Me”
Heb 11:3  used for “worlds were completed”
Heb 13:21  used for “make you complete”
1 Pet 5:10  used for “make you complete”

Wrong.  Matt 4:21 is translated as "mending their nets", which is what fishermen do.  Have you ever heard of any fishermen "completing their nets"??  That doesn't even make sense.  And I have a Greek lexicon, several in fact, too, so you aren't going to pull the wool over my eyes.  I know full well what katartizo means.  It has to do with, mending, fixing, adjusting, etc.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

I've made this point before to various people and it needs to be made in this connection:  when looking at a Greek or Hebrew word and finding a list of how it has been translated into English, that list is not something to pick and choose from, because that Greek or Hebrew word doesn't mean one thing from a list, it means all those things on the list, all the time.  Anyone who hasn't studied Greek enough to just pick up and read John or Mark or Acts need to keep that in mind always, along with the fact that the basic meaning -- which all those different translation choices sum up -- can shift with tense or mood.  Lexicons rarely emphasize this and many fail to give the core meaning, which is why one of my Greek professors said that "lexicons are dangerous; if we didn't need them to open the door to learning we should never touch one".

Why are you afraid of a very old earth?

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

"Tohu" doesn't occur alone in Genesis 1, it is part of a phrase, "tohu wa-bohu", which is an idiom that holds a different meaning than "tohu" by itself --which is to say, context counts.

You are free to your own opinions.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

The Hebrew work is a connector, not a disjunctive.

Wrong.  It is a disjunctive.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

I don't know where you got that, but it is incorrect.  Even the Greek "de" is not a disjunctive but a contrastive, which is why it can be rendered "and", "now", and even "meanwhile".

Except the Hebrew can't possibly mean "became" because it's the wrong tense for that; as a qal perfect it means "existed".

Except in about 70% of how it is translated in the OT, it IS translated as either "became" or "become".  

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

That's rather rude, since his meaning was plain:  he was describing the content of the other ANE versions of creation.

No, I'm NOT rude.  You simply miss my point.  What does any "version" of creation have to do with the FACTS of creation?  Nothing.  And EVERY "version" from the ANE came from the stories handed down from A & E and their children.  So it doesn't matter at all what any "version" from the ANE says.  Totally irrelevant.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

In those stories, the "תְה֑וֹם", "the deep", was a vast uncreated 'sea' of 'stuff' as eternal as the gods, from which the Earth had to be formed, and even once the Earth was formed that was "before creation" because the gods had not yet shaped it -- and the shaping was the creation that counted.

There are two creation stories.  Conflating them is common, but is hardly universal because they are plainly contradictory if read as one account.

Again, it doesn't mattr how many or few "versions" of stories of creation there are.  There is only ONE creation account.  That is found in God's Word.  

It seems you are rather distracted by shiny objects.  Focus on the Word alone.

[FreeGrace]

Really?  "bohu" means uninhabited.  It doesn't change "tohu" in any way.  Or prove your claim from a scholarly source.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

You pointed out very bad translations made by people trying to read something into the text that isn't there in order to "prove" a notion they hold that 'rescues' the ancientness of the universe and the Earth.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  I've not mentioned anything about 'rescuing' here.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

That's called "eisegesis", reading a meaning into the text, and the meaning around the whole "gap theory" is not in the text, it's imported.

Yeah, I know what eisegesis is.  And I have only pointed out FACTS.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

I actually liked the gap theory, but then I studied Hebrew and ANE languages.

So what?  The only "theory" part would be what people think occurred during the time gap.  But the time gap is obvious.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

Um, seriously?  "Contemporary" as he used it has a very plain meaning:  "at the same time" that the Hebrews wrote down their Creation account.

Here is an example of YOUR eisegesis, where you say "the Hebrews wrote down THEIR Creation account".  Where do you get your material from?  It was Moses who wrote the Pentateuch.  All by himself, with the guidance from the Holy Spirit, of course.  So you aren't even on the right page.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

The contradiction is fake; it ignores how the Hebrew language works (or most languages, for that matter).

Prove it.  And explain your fear of a very old earth.  Like, what does it matter anyway?

All I'm interested in are the facts.  

Carbon dating is said to be accurate out to 10,00 to 15,000 years.  So if the earth was created about 6,000 years ago, there would be NO measurements beyond that.

What say you?

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

FreeGrace said: 

 The LXX is far closer to the Hebrew than any English translation.

That's a dubious proposition at best; both are mixed batches if for no other reason than that for both ancient Greek and English there are Hebrew words that can't really be translated, and for other Hebrew words there are no matches that aren't misleading.  I say this as someone who reads all three.

So you are going to use this 'argument' for discounting what you don't like or maybe fear?  All you've said here is vague and imprecise.  I'm talking specific Hebrew words, not "some Hebrew words this and some that", as you insinuate.

8 hours ago, Roymond said:

The best that can be said is that the ancient Jews regarded the Septuagint as a pretty good job of translating the Hebrew (yes, some of them considered it inspired, in which case it would be superior to any English version).

My claim about the LXX is hardly "dubious", but thank you for your opinion.  The translators knew the Hebrew well as well as the Koine Greek, which wasn't dead when they translated, like it is today.