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

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

That's not an opinion, it's scholarship.

How many years of university and grad school Hebrew have you had? 

I have a doctorate in the sciences.  And I study the BIBLE, not the old dead guys you mentioned.

Speaking of "grad school Hebrew", there's lots of Orthodox Hebrews out there who reject Jesus as the Messiah.  So, what's your point about grad school?

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

You talk like you've got a degree in this but it's obvious you don't.

I'm only saying what I've learned.  btw, why are you defending a young earth since you are also defending evolution?  Seems rather contradictory.

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

The Hebrew word there is most commonly translated as "and".  It can be a disjunctive; but the form of the following verb, a qal perfect, makes that unlikely because the tense indicates existence that is ongoing.  Besides that, the "and" in this case starts a new sentence, in which case it almost always indicated "Now", "meanwhile", or "at this point".  At the start of a clause, 'waw' just isn't a disjunctive.

Then explain WHY Hebrew scholars who KNEW Hebrew a whole lot better than you ever will, translated it as "de" in the LXX?  

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

And when the verb is in the imperfect, yes, it's generally translated as "became" -- but it isn't an imperfect, it's a perfect, and a perfect does not translate as "became"; it just doesn't.

Do you even know the difference between, say, a qal form and a pual form?

No, I don't.  But I do know that Heb 11:3 shows that what was "formed" is really a restoration, which you will probably try to tear apart.  

Since you are being critical, please explain what "formless" means, in any language?  Every object HAS a form.  So why is "formless" an acceptable translation?

[Roymond]

19 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have a copy of the LXX in Greek.  It sure does.  The Greek has, like in English, a conjunction for "and", which is 'kai' and a conjunction for "but", which is 'de'.  The first is a conjunction of continuation and the second a conjunction of contrast.

That's a child's understanding of Greek.  καί is far more than just "and", and δέ is far more than "but".  Even Strong's gets this much right; they call it "a weak adversative particle", meaning a very slight contrast.

 

19 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How does one determine "tense"?  By the FORM of the word.  I searched EVERY verse that included the EXACT SAME FORM.  So explain how you know that even though that exact form was translated 70% of the time as either "become" or "became" it can't mean it in v.2?

Then explain why 70% of the time that EXACT FORM of the word WAS translated as "became/become".

Even Hebrew lexicons describe "hayah" as a "verb of existence" meaning "to be or become".  Have you even studied anything about the Hebrew language?

You don't read well, do you?

I already told y0u I have six years of Hebrew in university and graduate school.

19 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Yes, it is.  And I am just as stronly opposed to evolution as any YEC.

Evolution is a "religion" only in the minds of people who don't understand it.

19 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, so you don't really know Hebrew, and you don't really know what evolutionists believe either.  Good to know.

I've never met an "evolutionist" -- that's a word that's made up by people who don't understand evolution and usually don't understand scripture either.

19 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I already have a good idea what you believe.

Maybe that's the problem.  I read the Bible.  

Your crystal ball is broken.

You read a translation.  I read the Greek and the Hebrew and the Aramaic.  You're playing at knowing about Greek and Hebrew when you can't read either one.

19 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have a Greek lexicon.  So I know better.  Fishermen don't "complete" their fishing nets.  They MEND them.  Just as the BIBLE says.

You just demonstrated again that you have no grasp of what another language is.  You show no ability to grasp that a word in another language has a core concept and the English words used to translate those are poorly-fitting because so many words in another language just don't have a match in English.

The Bible does not say "They MEND them", it says

καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν

The core meaning of καταρτίζω is "(to) complete".  So for damaged nets, completing them in English becomes "mending".  The same holds for all the other uses.

 

19 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 And since you admit that you are an evolutionist, that says everything.  You have no standing.

More making things up about people.

I already hinted at what that is according to the Bible, but I'll say it straight this time:  it's called "bearing false witness".

And since you've done it three times now, you stand condemned by your own actions.

 

 

[Roymond]

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have a doctorate in the sciences.  And I study the BIBLE, not the old dead guys you mentioned.

No, you study a translation.  If you can't pick up those authors I mentioned and read the Greek, then you aren't capable of serious study of the New Testament -- you're dabbling in Greek... and making typical dabbler mistakes.

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Speaking of "grad school Hebrew", there's lots of Orthodox Hebrews out there who reject Jesus as the Messiah.  So, what's your point about grad school?

My point is you don't know what you're talking about and you claim I don't know Hebrew.

[Roymond]

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I'm only saying what I've learned.  btw, why are you defending a young earth since you are also defending evolution?  Seems rather contradictory.

I don't know if you have lousy reading comprehension or are just deliberately making up falsehoods.  I only "defend a young Earth" if you consider 4.54 billion years to be "young".

I stated that prominent scientists have become Christians due to their study of evolution, which proves that it is not what you claim.

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Then explain WHY Hebrew scholars who KNEW Hebrew a whole lot better than you ever will, translated it as "de" in the LXX?  

Because δέ is at most "a weak adversative particle", which can be translated as "and, but, now, on the one hand (usually with μέν).  The Hebrew is a continuative but there is some contrast between the verses so they chose a weak contrast.

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

No, I don't.  But I do know that Heb 11:3 shows that what was "formed" is really a restoration, which you will probably try to tear apart.  

That's more eisegesis.

The gap theory that you're pushing was a desperate attempt to get an ancient Earth.  It's been debunked by some of the top people in ancient Hebrew and Greek and isn't held to by any these days.  The grammar is just against it.

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Since you are being critical, please explain what "formless" means, in any language?  Every object HAS a form.  So why is "formless" an acceptable translation?

You're trying to force an Aristotelian concept onto material from an ANE worldview.  Just as they would have no problem talking about material existing before creation, they have no trouble with "formless".  A premier example, according to Mainmoindes IIRC, is water:  it only has a form when it is frozen or when it is in a container.  Another is fire, which has no form at all since it can't be cut off from its fuel and put in a container.  To the ancients, wind had no form, nor did a smell.  All of this is because their definition of "form" indicated a recognizable shape that was maintained.  Thus most of the Sahara would be to them "formless" from one perspective because the wind is constantly changing the shapes of dunes, but "formed" from another because the dunes change shape slowly enough that it's possible to walk on them.

Although my ANE studies were hardly exhaustive, I can't think of any culture that had a different idea of form before Aristotle, which is where we get it though he meant it more in a metaphysical sense (and Plato after him definitely meant it in a metaphysical sense).  So in Aristotle's meaning of "form", even wind and flame had a "form", it just wasn't a physical one that stayed constant.

Anyway, "formless" is an acceptable translation because despite a heck of a lot of scholarship the best we can do is inference from the use of תֹּהוּ  elsewhere.  Its companion בֹּהוּ  is even worse, and putting them together makes a single concept the meaning of which isn't clear in large part because it's a Hebrew play on words, using two words that sound alike -- something that usually lets the second word's meaning fade but also modify the first word -- and the meaning of the second one we're only guessing at because of its association with the first word.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

You don't read well, do you?

I already told y0u I have six years of Hebrew in university and graduate school.

Don't you really understand that there are MANY unbelievers who have done that?  So what?  The key is how you view God's immutable Word.

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

Evolution is a "religion" only in the minds of people who don't understand it.

Is this a defense of evolution, or what?

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

I've never met an "evolutionist" -- that's a word that's made up by people who don't understand evolution and usually don't understand scripture either.

I'll wait for your answer to my question about how you view it. 

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

Your crystal ball is broken.

Really?  Shows just how much (little) you even know.  Only demonic people use them.

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

You read a translation.  I read the Greek and the Hebrew and the Aramaic.  You're playing at knowing about Greek and Hebrew when you can't read either one.

Let me make the point again.  All your training is (maybe) skewed by liberal thinking. There are many scholars (PhDs) who claim to be Bible scholars yet deny all the essential truths of the Bible.

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

The Bible does not say "They MEND them", it says

καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν

The core meaning of καταρτίζω is "(to) complete".  So for damaged nets, completing them in English becomes "mending".  The same holds for all the other uses.

And that's somehow "better" than what I pointed out?  You question my reading skills, and yet you come up with this bit of nonsense.  You think "completing" is equal to "mending"???  It is YOU who don't know the meaning of words.

Nets get damaged, snagged, etc when used.  So fishermen have to MEND FIX REPAIR them.  That's the core meaning of the word.

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

More making things up about people.

I already hinted at what that is according to the Bible, but I'll say it straight this time:  it's called "bearing false witness".

And since you've done it three times now, you stand condemned by your own actions.

You have exposed yourself.  'Nuff said.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

No, you study a translation.  If you can't pick up those authors I mentioned and read the Greek, then you aren't capable of serious study of the New Testament -- you're dabbling in Greek... and making typical dabbler mistakes.

What a pitiful attitude.  So you think only the elites can "really" study the Word, huh.  Poppycock.  Since there are so few of you "elites" around, then NO ONE has any chance at understanding God's Word.  How many books have you written, explaining exactly what God's Word tells us?  How many radio/TV shows have you been on explaining all this?  

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

My point is you don't know what you're talking about and you claim I don't know Hebrew.

The real point is that you think all your learning makes you so much smarter than anyone else.  

btw, if you believe that God created the earth 6 days before He created Adam, please explain WHY carbon dating, which is said to be very accurate out to 10-15 thousand years, shows rocks/etc to be very much older than that.  Like in the billions of years.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

I stated that prominent scientists have become Christians due to their study of evolution, which proves that it is not what you claim.

How many can you name?

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

Because δέ is at most "a weak adversative particle", which can be translated as "and, but, now, on the one hand (usually with μέν).  The Hebrew is a continuative but there is some contrast between the verses so they chose a weak contrast.

The scholars who translated the OT into Koine Greek were far more advanced in both languages than you will ever be.  They spoke Koine before it became a dead language.  Yet here you are, trying to sound smarter than them.

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

The gap theory that you're pushing was a desperate attempt to get an ancient Earth.

Well, that's just funny.  You claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old.  And somehow that isn't ancient???   lol

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

  It's been debunked by some of the top people in ancient Hebrew and Greek and isn't held to by any these days.  The grammar is just against it.

The ONLY thing that is a "theory" is what people claim occurred during the time gap.

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

You're trying to force an Aristotelian concept onto material from an ANE worldview. 

I've had enough of this.  I have shown from how key words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.  Anyone can do that, but it seems most won't.

[Dave-regenerated]

10 hours ago, Roymond said:

No, you study a translation.  If you can't pick up those authors I mentioned and read the Greek, then you aren't capable of serious study of the New Testament -- you're dabbling in Greek... and making typical dabbler mistakes.

My point is you don't know what you're talking about and you claim I don't know Hebrew.

Hello there.  You confused me as I read through this thread because it seems you are arguing for a young earth and an old earth at the same time.  I apologise if I misunderstood.  

How old do you believe the earth is and how old do you believe the universe is and how old do you believe humans are?

[Roymond]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What a pitiful attitude.  So you think only the elites can "really" study the Word, huh.  Poppycock.  Since there are so few of you "elites" around, then NO ONE has any chance at understanding God's Word.  How many books have you written, explaining exactly what God's Word tells us?  How many radio/TV shows have you been on explaining all this?  

That's not at all what I've said.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The real point is that you think all your learning makes you so much smarter than anyone else.  

No, it makes me a better scholar than those without such education. 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

btw, if you believe that God created the earth 6 days before He created Adam, please explain WHY carbon dating, which is said to be very accurate out to 10-15 thousand years, shows rocks/etc to be very much older than that.  Like in the billions of years.

Already answered.

Since you're clearly into twisting what I've said and aren't even paying attention to the discussion, I see no point in pursuing this.