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

[Vine Abider]

On 5/21/2023 at 4:59 AM, FreeGrace said:

I've checked many translations, and many translate "tohu" as waste (7), chaos (1), barren (1), and wasteland (1).  biblehub.com

Include ASV, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Contemporary English Bible, English Revived Translation, JPS Tank 1917, New American Bible, NET, NRSV, World English, and Young's Literal Translation.

Right.   The context is about "plunder".  Just because God left out any detail about what the earth BECAME, doesn't negate it.  All we know is what happened to earth.

Lack of detail cannot determine how to translate a word.  There is no law or rule about that.  All God informed us of is that the earth BECAME a wasteland.

If I don't appeal to authority, to whom do I appeal?  How is this reasonable?  The point of all this is that even the highly educated scholars don't agree.  For me, there is NO agenda.  I hate the stupid theory of evolution as much as Ken Ham must.  But he simply cannot separate the idea of a very old earth from evolution.  But I can and have.

I've already presented it.  Gen 1:2 is:  BUT the earth BECAME an uninhabited WASTELAND.  

Seems you are agreeing with me by your conclusion about Gen 1:2.

But none of this equals creating form out of formlessness.  And the whole idea of an object having no form is impossible.  Everything has a form, whether irregular or regular.  Water takes the form of whatever is holding it.  

The problem is that there is no such descriptions of clay being formed in Genesis 1.  It is all about what God did ON the planet, and nothing about what God did to form the formless planet.  By creating the planet, God created a huge sphere.  That IS form.

I didn't say Gen 1 says this.  I gave Heb 11:3 as my support;  from the Greek.  The word poorly translated "form" is 'katartizo'.  Actually translated as "restore" in several verses and "mend" in 2 about what Jesus' disciples were doing to their fishing nets.

Heb 11:3 is about the creation when man showed up.

Not at all.  What is the word for "made" in that verse?  It is NOT "barah", which is different in meaning from "asah".  In Gen 1, we find BOTH words in relation to man.

Gen 1-

26 Then God said, “Let us make (asah) mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 

27 So God created (barah) mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

"barah" means to create out of nothing, which is ex nihilio.

"asah" means to make from existing materials.

And Adam was created out of nothing;  his soul.  And Adam was made out of existing materials (dust of the ground).  So both words are in play in Adam's existence.

So Ex 20:11 actually supports a restoration of earth.  Gen 1:1 teaches creation by ex nihilio.

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  God didn't build the earth in 6 days.  He formed it so man could exist on it.  He did this because the earth BECAME a wasteland.

So the translators of the NASB made a huge error then, huh?

New American Standard Bible 
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

What is my bias?  I have simply looked at key words in v.2 and saw how they were translated elsewhere.  It is the YEC that have a bias.  Many get upset about any talk of an old earth.  That brings in emotions, which removes all objectivity.

Psa 33:9 - For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

No, it doesn't.  It speaks of lights in the sky and putting animal and plant life ON the earth.  That doesn't address anything about the form of the earth.

Your post was exceptionally long, so I'll leave the rest out.  Since you resist my belief that v.2 shows that the earth was created way before Adam was, I assume you are a YEC.  If so, please explain WHY God would create an earth with apparent age.  For that becomes the issue if the earth is around 6,000 years old.

Thanks.

Agree!  I'm sure this has been covered before, but the word "was" ("and the earth was . . ." is Strong's h1961.  Strong's says the definition for the h1961 word is, "to fall out, come to pass, become, be."

This same word is used for Lot's wife when she became (h1961) a pillar of salt in Genesis 19:26.  I've looked at over a dozen translations and they all translate h1961 in that instance as "became."

Therefore, why shouldn't "was" in Genesis 1:2 be rendered as "became?" (even though no translations I see do that)

[Tristen]

On 5/21/2023 at 9:59 PM, FreeGrace said:

I've checked many translations, and many translate "tohu" as waste (7), chaos (1), barren (1), and wasteland (1).  biblehub.com

Include ASV, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Contemporary English Bible, English Revived Translation, JPS Tank 1917, New American Bible, NET, NRSV, World English, and Young's Literal Translation.

Right.   The context is about "plunder".  Just because God left out any detail about what the earth BECAME, doesn't negate it.  All we know is what happened to earth.

Lack of detail cannot determine how to translate a word.  There is no law or rule about that.  All God informed us of is that the earth BECAME a wasteland.

If I don't appeal to authority, to whom do I appeal?  How is this reasonable?  The point of all this is that even the highly educated scholars don't agree.  For me, there is NO agenda.  I hate the stupid theory of evolution as much as Ken Ham must.  But he simply cannot separate the idea of a very old earth from evolution.  But I can and have.

I've already presented it.  Gen 1:2 is:  BUT the earth BECAME an uninhabited WASTELAND.  

Seems you are agreeing with me by your conclusion about Gen 1:2.

But none of this equals creating form out of formlessness.  And the whole idea of an object having no form is impossible.  Everything has a form, whether irregular or regular.  Water takes the form of whatever is holding it.  

The problem is that there is no such descriptions of clay being formed in Genesis 1.  It is all about what God did ON the planet, and nothing about what God did to form the formless planet.  By creating the planet, God created a huge sphere.  That IS form.

I didn't say Gen 1 says this.  I gave Heb 11:3 as my support;  from the Greek.  The word poorly translated "form" is 'katartizo'.  Actually translated as "restore" in several verses and "mend" in 2 about what Jesus' disciples were doing to their fishing nets.

Heb 11:3 is about the creation when man showed up.

Not at all.  What is the word for "made" in that verse?  It is NOT "barah", which is different in meaning from "asah".  In Gen 1, we find BOTH words in relation to man.

Gen 1-

26 Then God said, “Let us make (asah) mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 

27 So God created (barah) mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

"barah" means to create out of nothing, which is ex nihilio.

"asah" means to make from existing materials.

And Adam was created out of nothing;  his soul.  And Adam was made out of existing materials (dust of the ground).  So both words are in play in Adam's existence.

So Ex 20:11 actually supports a restoration of earth.  Gen 1:1 teaches creation by ex nihilio.

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  God didn't build the earth in 6 days.  He formed it so man could exist on it.  He did this because the earth BECAME a wasteland.

So the translators of the NASB made a huge error then, huh?

New American Standard Bible 
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

What is my bias?  I have simply looked at key words in v.2 and saw how they were translated elsewhere.  It is the YEC that have a bias.  Many get upset about any talk of an old earth.  That brings in emotions, which removes all objectivity.

Psa 33:9 - For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

No, it doesn't.  It speaks of lights in the sky and putting animal and plant life ON the earth.  That doesn't address anything about the form of the earth.

Your post was exceptionally long, so I'll leave the rest out.  Since you resist my belief that v.2 shows that the earth was created way before Adam was, I assume you are a YEC.  If so, please explain WHY God would create an earth with apparent age.  For that becomes the issue if the earth is around 6,000 years old.

Thanks.

 

“Your post was exceptionally long, so I'll leave the rest out”

Lol – so let me get this straight. You presume to accuse me of making “FALSE statements” and having “NO idea about what [I] claim”, then you get to utterly ignore the part of my response where I extensively and thoroughly debunk your claim with actual evidence; demonstrating that you are the one who is uninformed and errant in your claims?

Very well – I now consider myself to have the right to consider your claim (that ‘hayetha’ is translated ‘became’ 70% of the time) utterly and completely defeated – and settled. Since you ignored my defense, and since you made unfounded accusations against me, you’ve forfeited any moral right to repeat that claim in our discussion. And if you do, I get to accuse you of being blatantly dishonest.

 

“Since you resist my belief that v.2 shows that the earth was created way before Adam was”

My supposed resistance to your position has been entirely rational. I have scrutinized your arguments and found them wanting. You are claiming ideas to be present in scripture which are simply not there. I have both argued and demonstrated that your position is based on unsound hermeneutics, and that even if your preferred translation were correct, the text still doesn’t say what you want it to say. It merely leaves open the possibility of what you wish it said.

 

“I assume you are a YEC”

What if I am? All of my comments have exclusively addressed your arguments about how to interpret scripture.

The logic fallacy you are trying to employ here is Adhominem. Adhominem is when you deviate from relevant rational arguments in order to argue something about the person. Therefore, you are being technically irrational in this appeal.

Furthermore, your thinking here represents a False Dichotomy (another logic fallacy). Not all who question (or “resist”) Gap Theory are “YEC”.

 

“please explain WHY God would create an earth with apparent age.  For that becomes the issue if the earth is around 6,000 years old”

That is not the topic of discussion in this thread. If you want to start a separate thread on this matter, please do so, and let me know. I’ll be happy to participate.

Our discussion in this thread is about how to properly interpret scripture; namely Genesis 1:2.

 

“In my Bible (NKJV), the translation is the same. Jeremiah 4:23 - I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;

I've checked many translations, and many translate "tohu" as waste (7), chaos (1), barren (1), and wasteland (1).  biblehub.com Include ASV, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Contemporary English Bible, English Revived Translation, JPS Tank 1917, New American Bible, NET, NRSV, World English, and Young's Literal Translation.”

And I demonstrated why the context of Jeremiah 4 permits such a nuanced departure from the basic definition of ‘tohu’. I provided 2 arguments from context:

1 – the broader context describes the plundering and emptying of the land, and

2 – the immediate context defines ‘tohu’ as an emptied “wilderness”.

Whereas, Genesis 1:2 provides no context to drive the meaning away from the basic definition of ‘tohu”.

 

“Right.   The context is about "plunder".  Just because God left out any detail about what the earth BECAME, doesn't negate it.  All we know is what happened to earth.”

The “context” of Jeremiah 4 is “about "plunder"”. There is nothing in the “context” of Genesis 1:2 suggestive of “plunder”.

 

“Lack of detail cannot determine how to translate a word.  There is no law or rule about that”

Actually, there are two rules that apply.

1 – an Argument from Ignorance is a logic fallacy.  We cannot logically apply confidence to a claim based on the absence of evidence against it. That is an explicit breach of the rules of logic.

2 – Eisegesis (reading “detail” into text that isn’t actually there) is considered very poor, very unsound translation practice (i.e. poor hermeneutics).

 

“All God informed us of is that the earth BECAME a wasteland”

Your argument for “BECAME” has been defeated and settled. Your argument for “wasteland” has been robustly rebutted.

Genesis 1:2 only informs us that the earth ‘hayetha tohu-va-bohu’ (i.e. ‘was unmolded and empty’).

Everything else, you are adding to scripture because of ideas from outside of scripture.

 

“If I don't appeal to authority, to whom do I appeal?”

You appealed to “The pastor who told” you ‘rachaf’ could refer to melting ice – a “pastor” who is allegedly “fluent in Hebrew”.

That is as straight forward an Appeal to Authority (logic fallacy) as it gets – especially after asking if I was “fluent in Hebrew”. Rather than using valid, rational arguments to make your case, you intended to try and win the argument by contrasting this pastor’s expertise against mine.

 

“The point of all this is that even the highly educated scholars don't agree.  For me, there is NO agenda”

OK, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that was “the point”. It only serves to demonstrate why Appeals to Authority are logically meaningless. Everyone has biases that can influence how they’d be inclined to interpret scripture. Your bias is that you think science obligates you to accept an “old earth and universe”.

It is because of these biases that we need to employ good methodology when it comes to interpreting scripture – i.e. methods that mitigate the influence of our biases. I have found your methods of interpreting scripture to be highly dubious.

 

“I hate the stupid theory of evolution as much as Ken Ham must.  But he simply cannot separate the idea of a very old earth from evolution.  But I can and have.”

Our discussion is not about “YEC” nor “evolution” – but rather, our discussion is about how to properly interpret scripture.

I think, in this case, you have allowed your bias to override safe, sound Bible interpretation methods – to try and make the scripture accommodate your bias about the age of the earth.

 

“If you have an argument, I’ll happily consider it. But simply claiming someone who you consider to be an expert once “told” you so – means absolutely nothing to me.

I've already presented it.  Gen 1:2 is:  BUT the earth BECAME an uninhabited WASTELAND.”

And I have addressed those arguments in detail.

However, the context of my above comment was directed at your Appeal to Authority – i.e. your claim that a Hebrew-fluent pastor told you that ‘rachaf’ means melting ice like a bird hatches eggs (however that logic works).

 

“The following is how I see your argument; Genesis 1:2 says simply that the Holy Spirit gently moved (‘rachaf’) over the waters. In another context, ‘rachaf’ is used to describe how a bird might fuss over its young. Some translators therefore used the English term “brooding” for ‘rachaf’ in this context. Now ‘brooding’ can also describe when a bird uses warmth to hatch its eggs. Therefore, somehow, ‘brooding’ can also refer to using warmth to melt ice. This means that Genesis 1:2 is really saying the Holy Spirit was using warmth to melt ice. Lol – it’s like an old Batman riddle.

Seems you are agreeing with me by your conclusion about Gen 1:2.”

I imagine most readers would recognize my intent to mock the nonsensical structure of your argument.

 

“But none of this equals creating form out of formlessness.  And the whole idea of an object having no form is impossible.  Everything has a form, whether irregular or regular.  Water takes the form of whatever is holding it. … The problem is that there is no such descriptions of clay being formed in Genesis 1”

There is no “problem”. The formless “clay” idea is merely an analogy.

If a lump of clay on a potter’s wheel was described as being ‘without form’, every sensible, sincere person would understand what was meant. It would only take someone deciding to be insincere and obtuse to point out that the clay actually has some form.

Therefore, your objection here is insincere, disingenuous and purely semantic – relying on a narrow connotation of an English word – rather than trying to understand the concept in the original language. The connotation in the Hebrew is of something unmolded, raw, incomplete. For most people, “without form” is a perfectly valid way to represent that idea. But you are looking for every opportunity to make the scripture say what you want – thus your pedantic, semantic objection.

 

“I didn't say Gen 1 says this.  I gave Heb 11:3 as my support;”

No you didn’t.

 

“from the Greek.  The word poorly translated "form" is 'katartizo'.  Actually translated as "restore" in several verses and "mend" in 2 about what Jesus' disciples were doing to their fishing nets”

The Greek word ‘katatidzo’ simply means ‘to complete’ (literally, ‘to move towards completion’). It only necessarily means “mend” or “restore” when the context demands it – i.e. when the text is referring to something that explicitly needs fixing.

Otherwise, form/frame/shape/mold/complete are all valid renderings of ‘katatidzo’. Since there is no explicit context elucidating that the earth at that time was broken, these are all therefore valid for Genesis 1:2.

Yet again – you only think it is “poorly translated” because it doesn’t say what your bias wants it to say – and not because the translation itself is objectively unsound.

 

“"barah" means to create out of nothing, which is ex nihilio.

"asah" means to make from existing materials.

And Adam was created out of nothing;  his soul.  And Adam was made out of existing materials (dust of the ground).  So both words are in play in Adam's existence.”

The distinction you are trying to make has been fabricated to support your position. The only valid distinction between ‘bara’ and ‘asa’ is that ‘asa’ is the common word for ‘make/create’, whereas ‘bara’ is exclusively used of God. That is, there is a divine gravitas and imperative associated with ‘bara’ that is not associated with ‘asa’. There is nothing in the definition of ‘bara’ that speaks specifically to the ex-nihilo nature of the creation. That is only assumed because 1) only God can ‘bara’, and 2) only God can create things ex-nihilo. Nevertheless, ex-nihilo is not part of the definition of ‘bara’.

In many contexts, these two words are used interchangeably. And sometimes as poetic reinforcement in parallelisms – i.e. using both of these Hebrew words to refer to the same thing.

For example;

 Isaiah 41:20

That they may see and know,

And consider and understand together,

That the hand of the Lord has done (asa) this,

And the Holy One of Israel has created (bara) it.

 

“God didn't build the earth in 6 days.  He formed it so man could exist on it”

But how could He form something that already had a form? 😉

Congratulations - you’ve just used “formed” in the same, sensible way that everyone else understands it.

By your own words, you demonstrated that you fully understand the concept of something being not yet “formed” (though technically having an unmolded form). You can’t pretend anymore. You’ve just sacrificed the right to use this obtuse argument.

By this statement, you’ve also explicitly agreed that God “formed” the earth during the “6 days” of Genesis 1 – which is consistent with my reading of the text – i.e. that the initial creation needed some subsequent forming.

In two short sentences, you ‘kamikazed’ two of your arguments.

 

“So the translators of the NASB made a huge error then, huh?

New American Standard Bible For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.”

I disagree with the translation, but it is not technically an “error” – since there is context demonstrating:

1) this use of ‘tohu’ is talking about a time after God had “created the heavens” and both “formed the earth and made it”. That is, this usage was not talking specifically about the earliest stage described in Genesis 1:2. And,

2) this use of ‘tohu’ is juxtaposed against an intent that God “formed it to be inhabited”. Therefore, in this context, ‘tohu’ would better be translated as ‘in vain’, or ‘for no reason’, or ‘without purpose’, or ‘to be empty’, or even ‘to be a waste place’ etc.

 

“What is my bias?  I have simply looked at key words in v.2 and saw how they were translated elsewhere”

Yes – you have adopted poor hermeneutical methods so as to mold the scriptures to your external ideas.

The correct hermeneutical method would be to look first at the established definition of a word. Then look at context to see if any deviation is warranted from the basic definition – i.e. in line with other deviations from the basic definition in other contexts.

 

“It is the YEC that have a bias.  Many get upset about any talk of an old earth.  That brings in emotions, which removes all objectivity.”

Everyone has bias. That is why I have meticulously responded to you with unemotive rational arguments.

Again – this discussion is not about the debate between your position and “YEC”. Our conversation is exclusively about proper/safe hermeneutics.

 

““ex nihilo” does not mean, nor suggest in any way, that there were no stages in the creation process.

Psa 33:9 - For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.”

This verse does not logically rebut my comment.

 

“Genesis 1:3-9 explicitly tells us that God did some forming of the earth before filling it with newly created life.

No, it doesn't.  It speaks of lights in the sky and putting animal and plant life ON the earth.  That doesn't address anything about the form of the earth.”

Well, you already said, “God didn't build the earth in 6 days.  He formed it so man could exist on it” (above). So, you are now contradicting yourself.

But also, God separated the firmament from the waters from the dry land. Sounds enough like “forming” to me.

 

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Agree!  I'm sure this has been covered before, but the word "was" ("and the earth was . . ." is Strong's h1961.  Strong's says the definition for the h1961 word is, "to fall out, come to pass, become, be."

This same word is used for Lot's wife when she became (h1961) a pillar of salt in Genesis 19:26.  I've looked at over a dozen translations and they all translate h1961 in that instance as "became."

On biblehub.com I can see every occurrence of the EXACT SAME FORM of 1961 in the OT.  And 70% of them translate that exact same form for "hayah" as either "became" or "become".  Yet, YEC will argue that "became" is only rarely ever translated as "became".  They are blowing smoke, or just parroting what they heard from someone else.  It is THE MOST  COMMON translation in the rest of the OT. 

And add to that, the LXX translators rendered "waw" at the beginning of the sentence as a conjunction of CONTRAST rather tha the traditional translations who used "and".  They chose the Greek "de" which is always "but" in the Greek.

So it is clear that v.2 opens with, "but the earth became...".  

11 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Therefore, why shouldn't "was" in Genesis 1:2 be rendered as "became?" (even though no translations I see do that)

YEC will argue that there is "no reason" for such a translation.  Henry Morris, of "Answers in Genesis" fame, in a paper arguing against a time gap, made the comment that only when there is contextual support would "hayah" be translated as "became".  Where did he get that rule?  Apparently one that he made up.  But he wrote that article back in 1987, before the internet and all the on-line Bible study helps, esp biblehub.com.  I consider him a real scholar and have his book, "The Revelation Record", which is a verse by verse commentary and brilliantly done.  I do disagree with him on the "pre-trib rapture", with reason, but overall the book is excellent.

My guesss is that the first batch of English translators just didn't understand why God would tell us the earth became a wasteland, since there were no details in the context.  So they "softened" it up by what they did, which has misled untold thousands or millions of people since then.  

Apparently they must have thought that if such a thing did happen, God would have told us.  

[FreeGrace]

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Very well – I now consider myself to have the right to consider your claim (that ‘hayetha’ is translated ‘became’ 70% of the time) utterly and completely defeated – and settled. Since you ignored my defense, and since you made unfounded accusations against me, you’ve forfeited any moral right to repeat that claim in our discussion. And if you do, I get to accuse you of being blatantly dishonest.

Are you claiming that "biblehub.com" is in error?  Anyone can do the research that I did on the verb.  Did you bother?

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “Since you resist my belief that v.2 shows that the earth was created way before Adam was”

My supposed resistance to your position has been entirely rational. I have scrutinized your arguments and found them wanting.

Opinion.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

You are claiming ideas to be present in scripture which are simply not there.

In black and white.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“I assume you are a YEC”

What if I am? All of my comments have exclusively addressed your arguments about how to interpret scripture.

I guess this is an admission, although a rather weak one.  Since you argue against any time gap in Gen 1:1,2, then it would suggest that you are a YEC.

Therefore, can you explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", since that is what many argue.  They admit the earth appears older than 6,000 years, so WHY WHY did God create a deception?

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The logic fallacy you are trying to employ here is Adhominem. Adhominem is when you deviate from relevant rational argWhY uments in order to argue something about the person. Therefore, you are being technically irrational in this appeal.

I suggest that you consult a dictionary.  What you think is an "odhominem" isn't even close to one.  I've NEVER attacked your person, while disagreeing with your view.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Furthermore, your thinking here represents a False Dichotomy (another logic fallacy). Not all who question (or “resist”) Gap Theory are “YEC”.

“please explain WHY God would create an earth with apparent age.  For that becomes the issue if the earth is around 6,000 years old”

That is not the topic of discussion in this thread.

Oh, excuse me.  Yes it is.  If you believe the earth is young, like 6 days older than Adam, based on the TT of Gen 1, then you need to address the FACT that the earth certainly APPEARS much older.  

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

If you want to start a separate thread on this matter, please do so, and let me know. I’ll be happy to participate.

Nope.  It's all related.  IF the earth isn't any older than Adam, then you HAVE TO address its apparent age.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“Right.   The context is about "plunder".  Just because God left out any detail about what the earth BECAME, doesn't negate it.  All we know is what happened to earth.”

The “context” of Jeremiah 4 is “about "plunder"”. There is nothing in the “context” of Genesis 1:2 suggestive of “plunder”.

Uh, same words used.  Just because God CHOSE NOT to give any details about WHY the earth became a wasteland is of no importance.  Only to those who don't want an old earth.  

btw, what's the big deal about a very old earth anyway?  What doctrines are challenged?  

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “Lack of detail cannot determine how to translate a word.  There is no law or rule about that”

Actually, there are two rules that apply.

1 – an Argument from Ignorance is a logic fallacy.  We cannot logically apply confidence to a claim based on the absence of evidence against it. That is an explicit breach of the rules of logic.

2 – Eisegesis (reading “detail” into text that isn’t actually there) is considered very poor, very unsound translation practice (i.e. poor hermeneutics).

And both of these so-called 'rules' are simply opinions.  It's like you are demanding that if the earth became something that wasn't created that way, God HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY.  No, He doesn't.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “All God informed us of is that the earth BECAME a wasteland”

Your argument for “BECAME” has been defeated and settled. Your argument for “wasteland” has been robustly rebutted.

lol.  70% of ALL translations of that EXACT SAME FORM of the verb are either "became" or "become", so you are the one with NO CASE.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Genesis 1:2 only informs us that the earth ‘hayetha tohu-va-bohu’ (i.e. ‘was unmolded and empty’).

If God created the earth "unmolded", where in the chapter do we see God "molding" the earth.  Sounds like the earth was created a big clay lump (which has form, btw) and God formed that lumpy lump into another shape, form, etc.

So where do we read that?  You are way out over your ski's.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Everything else, you are adding to scripture because of ideas from outside of scripture.

What a hollow claim!  I've stuck strictly TO Scripture.  I've compared how some words in v.2 have been translated elsewhere in the OT.  That ain't outside of Scripture by any means.  Such wildly unfounded claims hurt your credibility.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “If I don't appeal to authority, to whom do I appeal?”

You appealed to “The pastor who told” you ‘rachaf’ could refer to melting ice – a “pastor” who is allegedly “fluent in Hebrew”.

 Did you listen to your instructors in Hebrew class, or figure everything out by yourself?  And how many years of academic training have you had in Hebrew?  The pastor 'who told me' had 5 years of seminary Hebrew.  But even if you had more and even taught Hebrew for many years, so what?  Sounds to me as if you have some kind of an agenda, with all your resistance to the idea of a very old earth.  

I'm sure you must know that even equally highly trained scholars have many disagreements among themselves, and this is no exception.

Since the earth APPEARS very old, is because it IS old.  Or explain WHY God would deceive everyone with a creation that only appears very old, but in fact is very young.

Can you do that?  Or again, simply play dodgeball and deflect.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

That is as straight forward an Appeal to Authority (logic fallacy) as it gets – especially after asking if I was “fluent in Hebrew”. Rather than using valid, rational arguments to make your case, you intended to try and win the argument by contrasting this pastor’s expertise against mine.

Everything I have presented is rational, whether that is apparent to your eyes or not.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “The point of all this is that even the highly educated scholars don't agree.  For me, there is NO agenda”

OK, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that was “the point”. It only serves to demonstrate why Appeals to Authority are logically meaningless. Everyone has biases that can influence how they’d be inclined to interpret scripture. Your bias is that you think science obligates you to accept an “old earth and universe”.

Science doesn't obligate me to do anything.  I haven't appealed to science.  I have appealed to what the Bible SAYS, and have given how the words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.  That is called evidence, regardless of how you may describe it.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

It is because of these biases that we need to employ good methodology when it comes to interpreting scripture – i.e. methods that mitigate the influence of our biases. I have found your methods of interpreting scripture to be highly dubious.

So, comparing how words are translated elsewhere is not good methodology and is "highly dubious".  There goes more credibility.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “I hate the stupid theory of evolution as much as Ken Ham must.  But he simply cannot separate the idea of a very old earth from evolution.  But I can and have.”

Our discussion is not about “YEC” nor “evolution” – but rather, our discussion is about how to properly interpret scripture.

Give me a break.  The discussion is DIRECTLY about what v.2 says.  Why are you so eager to NOT address your biases, agendas, and whatever?

And why not just boldly admit that you are a YEC, if you are?  Is that embarrassing?  What?

And if one, then you really do need to explain WHY God would create an earth with "apparent age", because that's the question for YECs.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think, in this case, you have allowed your bias to override safe, sound Bible interpretation methods – to try and make the scripture accommodate your bias about the age of the earth.

I've compared how certain words in v.2 were translated elsewhere.  It doesn't get any more SAFE than that.  I'm letting the Bible speak for itself.

Your strong resistance highly suggests bias or an agenda or something.

A very old earth changes NOTHING in the Bible.  So what's the big deal?  Surely there must be one for you.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “If you have an argument, I’ll happily consider it. But simply claiming someone who you consider to be an expert once “told” you so – means absolutely nothing to me.

I've already presented it.  Gen 1:2 is:  BUT the earth BECAME an uninhabited WASTELAND.”

And I have addressed those arguments in detail.

Sure.  With your opinion.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“But none of this equals creating form out of formlessness.  And the whole idea of an object having no form is impossible.  Everything has a form, whether irregular or regular.  Water takes the form of whatever is holding it. … The problem is that there is no such descriptions of clay being formed in Genesis 1”

There is no “problem”. The formless “clay” idea is merely an analogy.

If a lump of clay on a potter’s wheel was described as being ‘without form’, every sensible, sincere person would understand what was meant. It would only take someone deciding to be insincere and obtuse to point out that the clay actually has some form.

But God didn't create the original earth like a lump of clay.  btw, the word "lumpy" is a description of a FORM which everyone can understand.  

But since there is such disagreement, please provide an example of any object that is actually "formless", or without form, since a number of translators were apparently satisfied with that translation in v.2.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Therefore, your objection here is insincere, disingenuous and purely semantic – relying on a narrow connotation of an English word – rather than trying to understand the concept in the original language. The connotation in the Hebrew is of something unmolded, raw, incomplete. For most people, “without form” is a perfectly valid way to represent that idea. But you are looking for every opportunity to make the scripture say what you want – thus your pedantic, semantic objection.

Thanks for your opinion.  I am looking forward to your example of any object that has no form.  Can't wait, in fact.  

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “I didn't say Gen 1 says this.  I gave Heb 11:3 as my support;”

No you didn’t.

Read my posts then.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “from the Greek.  The word poorly translated "form" is 'katartizo'.  Actually translated as "restore" in several verses and "mend" in 2 about what Jesus' disciples were doing to their fishing nets”

The Greek word ‘katatidzo’ simply means ‘to complete’ (literally, ‘to move towards completion’). It only necessarily means “mend” or “restore” when the context demands it – i.e. when the text is referring to something that explicitly needs fixing.

ooh, ooh, ooh.  There it is again.  That OPINION being used as a "rule" or "law" about certain words DEMANDING a context.  Sure.  

Nonsense.  

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“"barah" means to create out of nothing, which is ex nihilio.

"asah" means to make from existing materials.

And Adam was created out of nothing;  his soul.  And Adam was made out of existing materials (dust of the ground).  So both words are in play in Adam's existence.”

The distinction you are trying to make has been fabricated to support your position. The only valid distinction between ‘bara’ and ‘asa’ is that ‘asa’ is the common word for ‘make/create’, whereas ‘bara’ is exclusively used of God.

Please provide several uses of "bara" that were translated as "create".  Even in Genesis 1, both words were used of God creating man.  As I explained.  You are free to disagree, but everything I explained is both reasonable and rational.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

That is, there is a divine gravitas and imperative associated with ‘bara’ that is not associated with ‘asa’. There is nothing in the definition of ‘bara’ that speaks specifically to the ex-nihilo nature of the creation. That is only assumed because 1) only God can ‘bara’, and 2) only God can create things ex-nihilo. Nevertheless, ex-nihilo is not part of the definition of ‘bara’.

In many contexts, these two words are used interchangeably. And sometimes as poetic reinforcement in parallelisms – i.e. using both of these Hebrew words to refer to the same thing.

For example;

 Isaiah 41:20

That they may see and know,

And consider and understand together,

That the hand of the Lord has done (asa) this,

And the Holy One of Israel has created (bara) it.

Just read the context.  God both created what is noted, and He formed them.  

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 

“God didn't build the earth in 6 days.  He formed it so man could exist on it”

But how could He form something that already had a form? 😉

Congratulations - you’ve just used “formed” in the same, sensible way that everyone else understands it.

And you have just missed the whole point again.  Every object HAS a form.  Or prove me wrong.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

By your own words, you demonstrated that you fully understand the concept of something being not yet “formed” (though technically having an unmolded form). You can’t pretend anymore. You’ve just sacrificed the right to use this obtuse argument.

Well, there it is.  "unmolded form".  Said it yourself!  Everything HAS a form.  Yet the TT claims the earth had no form. 

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

By this statement, you’ve also explicitly agreed that God “formed” the earth during the “6 days” of Genesis 1 – which is consistent with my reading of the text – i.e. that the initial creation needed some subsequent forming.

He was restoring the earth to its original created state.  Yes, he was forming out of existing materials (a wasteland) back into a restored state.

Again, WHY the pushback on a very old earth?

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Yes – you have adopted poor hermeneutical methods so as to mold the scriptures to your external ideas.

I doubt your ability to show any kind of "external idea" here.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The correct hermeneutical method would be to look first at the established definition of a word.

The ONLY way to do that is to COMPARE with all the other uses of that exact word in the rest of the OT.  Which I did, and you have the audacity to call an "external idea".

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Then look at context to see if any deviation is warranted from the basic definition – i.e. in line with other deviations from the basic definition in other contexts.

I suggest looking at ALL the other uses of that exact same word and see how they were translated.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“It is the YEC that have a bias.  Many get upset about any talk of an old earth.  That brings in emotions, which removes all objectivity.”

Everyone has bias. That is why I have meticulously responded to you with unemotive rational arguments.

You've played a whole lot of dodgeball here.  From all I've heard from Ken Ham, from what he has written and his videos, it is apparent that he is unable or unwilling to dissociate an old earth from evolution.  iow, every time he hears 'old earth', he believes the person is an evolutionist.  Which is totally irrational.

Is that your issue as well?

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Again – this discussion is not about the debate between your position and “YEC”. Our conversation is exclusively about proper/safe hermeneutics.

No, that's only what you are trying to make it.  Seems you just don't want to discuss the REAL issues here.  Like WHY God would create an earth with apparent age, and what is the big deal about a very old earth?  2 issues you see totally unwilling to touch. 

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

But also, God separated the firmament from the waters from the dry land. Sounds enough like “forming” to me.

OF course it is.  That is HOW God restored the earth back to original condition, where man could live on it.

[Vine Abider]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

My guesss is that the first batch of English translators just didn't understand why God would tell us the earth became a wasteland, since there were no details in the context.  So they "softened" it up by what they did, which has misled untold thousands or millions of people since then.  

Apparently they must have thought that if such a thing did happen, God would have told us.  

Yes, I've certainly wondered about that too.  One little word translated in the wrong way and seemingly a whole theology of young earth evolved around it!

[JohnD]

A passionate topic indeed.

But what matters most is not how old the stage between the two eternal destinies is, rather...

what matters is which eternal destiny are we going to?

I've spent many many hours in discussion and debate over the lack of merits old earth / old universe theories have.

Truth be told, its purpose is to discredit the Bible with the goal of "disproving" the existence of God.

I believe it was Aldous Huxley who admitted God interferes with our sexual freedom.  So naturally God must be eliminated

in the thinking of the atheist. And an old universe / old earth in their minds increases the odds that evolution could be viable. 

It's not.

Everything that is not supernatural (i.e. God) must conform to physical laws... nothing is physically eternal, and nothing can come into existence from nothingness. So without a Creator God, we and the universe could not even exist.

The physical universe is also the result of cause and effect.

Grant the big bang theory and then ask what caused it, and you've never seen so much back peddling and issue dodging in your life.

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

A passionate topic indeed.

Yeah, why is that?

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

But what matters most is not how old the stage between the two eternal destinies is, rather...

what matters is which eternal destiny are we going to?

Absolutely!

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

I've spent many many hours in discussion and debate over the lack of merits old earth / old universe theories have.

Key words in Gen 1:2, which are translated rather differently where they occur elsewhere in the Bible render v.2 as "BUT the earth BECAME a WASTELAND".

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

Truth be told, its purpose is to discredit the Bible with the goal of "disproving" the existence of God.

Ah, here is where all that "passion" comes from.  YECs who apparently cannot separate an old earth from the demonic doctrine of evolution.  I've observed from Ken Ham that ANY mention of an old earth results in a condemnation of evolution from him.  Right.  Evolution is to be condemned, but an old earth doesn't demand or even require evolution.  But that seems to fall on deaf ears, so it seems.

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

I believe it was Aldous Huxley who admitted God interferes with our sexual freedom.  So naturally God must be eliminated

Exactly what an atheist would think.

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

in the thinking of the atheist. And an old universe / old earth in their minds increases the odds that evolution could be viable.

Doesn't matter one whit about "odds".  The relative age of the earth is already FACT, and not going to be changed by anyone's opinion or guess.

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

Everything that is not supernatural (i.e. God) must conform to physical laws... nothing is physically eternal, and nothing can come into existence from nothingness. So without a Creator God, we and the universe could not even exist.

The physical universe is also the result of cause and effect.

Exactly.  God spoke the universe into existence out of nothing.  He spoke, and the universe was caused to exist!

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

Grant the big bang theory and then ask what caused it, and you've never seen so much back peddling and issue dodging in your life.

I suspect that when God spoke, there was a rather very loud sound/noise/music when the whole universe came into existence.  The theory part would only be the insane notion of the atheists that there was a noise when nothing became something, all without Creator God.  They give credit for nothing creating anything without God.  That is insane.  

I believe there was a huge bang.  And it was caused by Creator God when He spoke the universe into existence.

Seems rather anticlimactic if the whole universe simply wimpered into existence, or even with a gentle "swish".

We will know exactly some day!

Sadly, the whole issue of the evangelist Charles Templeton leaving the faith was over a young earth.  He was the one who mentored Billy Graham when he was starting out.

Edited May 24, 2023 by FreeGrace

[Vine Abider]

17 hours ago, JohnD said:

Truth be told, its purpose is to discredit the Bible with the goal of "disproving" the existence of God.

And an old universe / old earth in their minds increases the odds that evolution could be viable. 

@FreeGrace already addressed most points in what you posted.   But there is an old, tired argument (not sure if this is a red herring or a straw man fallacy . . .) which says old earthers are just capitulating to evolution.  Not true in the least!

As a son of God, who believes that "was" in Genesis 1:2 is an incorrect translation, and should be "became" ("and the earth became waste and void"), I in no way see an opportunity for a belief in evolution there!  Whatever was on the earth before Genesis 1:2 was wiped out (it became a waste), and God needed to recreate things as He does after Genesis 1:2.  (from what God starts with after 1:2, it looks like the earth was flooded, perhaps as a judgement to that pre-adamic world)

As I see it in scripture, God creates things fresh on this already old earth, and places man here to have dominion.  Accordingly, this would seem to be something less than perhaps around 10,000 years ago.

Therefore, there is no room for macro-evolution which supposedly created life from swirling proteins or whatever - as believers, we know  the theory of evolution is absolute illogical crazy talk!  Only God creates creatures and gives life! After the original "in the beginning" creation went into chaos (via the enemy), He starts creating life again in verse 3 to recover the earth. (man is the center of His plan to regain dominion on the earth) 

So do old earthers who subscribe to the gap in time between verse one and two of Genesis believe in evolution as a creating force?  My answer is not at all. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Vine Abider
For better clarity

[JohnD]

* Dating methods of layered strata are based on fossil remains in the layers.

* The fossils are dated by the strata layers they are found in.

* The decay of c. is certainly retaliated against but has yet to be disproved. So much for dating the universe by the immense size of it.

* Carbon 14 dates are only reliable back to approximately the time of Noah's flood circa 5,000 years. the rest is mathematical conjecture.

* The Sun actually does lose mass in the process of producing energy. Let us see how much. we find that the Sun loses mass 4.289x1012 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353x1020 g every year to energy. Rewind that by 4 billion years and the earth would be enveloped by the sun back then.

* Dust on the moon is much thinner than evolutionists predicted suggesting the moon is no where near as old as they had hoped.

* There is something about the equilibrium of the atmosphere that escapes me now as I am rusty on all this by several decades but the points are all made.

The late A.E. Wilder-Smith (holder of three earned PhD's) former atheist, former old earther old universer said in the most basic point about why old earthers and old universers get it wrong "It's about calibration. Like a seven year old wanting to know how tall he was ten years ago."

Go to the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) and old earthers old universers will find they'd been had by atheists who concocted evolution and old everything to try to prop it up.

 

 

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, JohnD said:

* Dating methods of layered strata are based on fossil remains in the layers.

* The fossils are dated by the strata layers they are found in.

* The decay of c. is certainly retaliated against but has yet to be disproved. So much for dating the universe by the immense size of it.

* Carbon 14 dates are only reliable back to approximately the time of Noah's flood circa 5,000 years. the rest is mathematical conjecture.

Scholars have calculated that Adam was on earth about 6,000 years ago.  That should mean that if the earth is just 6 days older than Adam, carbon 14 would show the evidence for that.

10 hours ago, JohnD said:

Go to the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) and old earthers old universers will find they'd been had by atheists who concocted evolution and old everything to try to prop it up.

The notion of evolution came about with Darwin, who wrote his stupid "Origin of the Species" in 1859.  But a geologist named Charles Lyell came up with a method of measuring the age of the earth using "geologic columns", totally apart from Darwin's theories.  Furthermore, Darwin was born in 1809, so no influence from him on Lyell.

Yes, Lyell's work did influence Darwin, but not the other way around.  

Evolution demands an old earth.  But an old earth has no need or use for evolution.

Genesis 1 is the summary of God's restoration of the earth.

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

That's how the Hebrew words are translated elsewhere in the OT.