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

[ChristB4us]

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This doesn't answer the question of WHY God would create the earth and universe with APPARENT AGE.

Seems your defense about "apparent age" is based on the fact that both Adam and the woman were created as mature adults.  

So, why would God create the first 2 humans as infants?  He created them to be functional because Adam had a big job to do:  till the garden and name and categorize all the animals.

So, again, WHY WHY WHY would God create the earth and universe with apparent age, since there is no reason for them to be created with an age they don't have.

Can't use that argument.  Since neither the earth nor universe need to mature for any functional reasons, the argument is moot.

There is no such thing in God's creation as "apparent age" in regard to the earth and universe.  They "appear" very old because they ARE very old.

And, all without the phony theory of evolution.

The problem here is there is no definite evidence nor means to measure anything geologically that is accurate for us to determine the age of rocks, let alone the age of the earth.

Oher than Biblically as it did not exist in day one.  God began the creation of the earth on day 2 by creating gravity in separating the water from the water thus a water planet with an upper atmosphere until the completion of the earth on day 3 when He spoke land to come into existence where there was no land before, not even under the water. 

As for the universe being created, if God so commands the universe to come into existence that fourth day and commanded their lights to shine on the earth that fourth day, then you cannot apply the speed of light to determine the age of the universe, let alone the earth.

Your problem is not seeing God speaking and bringing something into existence where it had not existed before when all that was there was water.  All that was created that first day was the light to determine the night from the day by its evening and morning each day and it remains that way as a 24 hour day, thus the first day of creation was the creation of the first 24 hour day; hence time.

There was no gravity until the second day when He separated the water from the water, creating a water planet with an upper atmosphere.  Ponder that.

 

[Tristen]

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

Sure, "only determined by the context".  Except in this case, God didn't give any context.  So that argument doesn't float

Of course there is "context". Just nothing in that "context" to justify driving the translation away from the basic definitions of the relevant words.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

If something happened that wasted the earth, then it is TRUE even without "context" that the earth BECAME a wasteland

If it "happened", it "happened".

But the text doesn't say it "happened" (unless you adopt unsound interpretation methods to massage the meaning of the text towards your preferred conclusion).

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

Another very long post.  Not sure how much I will respond to

Based on previous MO, you will probably ignore the implications of the evidence I provided, then simply repeat your refuted arguments.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

So, the arguement about "context" fails since there isn't ANY context.

That's absurd. Of course there is "context" - just nothing in the context of Genesis 1:2 to warrant adjusting the meaning of relevant words.

The argument from "context" therefore stands.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

Then, even though I asked for an explanation  of WHY God would create an earth/universe with APPARENT AGE, you failed to respond

This is a lie.

I simply refused you let you deflect the conversation to a different topic in this thread.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

Third, the traditional translation of "tohu" as "formless" or "without form" is folly on its own.  No object is without form or formless.  EVERY object has form.  So whatever Moses meant cannot mean that

I have demonstrated this to be an insincere, disingenuous argument. I have also demonstrated from your own words that you understand this to be an insincere, disingenuous argument.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

So, there it is; 3 strikes against your view.

Your "3 strikes" against my "view" are; 1) an absurdity, 2) a lie, and 3) an example of you being insincere and disingenuous?

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

I guess I assumed way too much here.  When I suggested "going to biblehub", I meant to research Gen 1:2 all the verses it lists with the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb hayah

Yes - you "assumed" that I was responsible to track down evidence supporting your position.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

That should have been obvious.  The subject matter was Gen 1:2.  The evidence is what biblehub revealed about the verb

So do it, and show me the evidence.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

So, I'll ask this:  WHAT was the "source" of all these verses?

Since I did the research myself, I'm technically the "source".

If you are asking about my methods, I used lexicons to track down 'hayetha' in the correct form. I used an interlinear Bible to confirm that each verse used the correct form. I then copied each verse into a MS Word document from the NKJV of the Bible found on Bible Gateway - where I did the colour editing to make it easier for me to count.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

Your numbers aren't even close to what biblehub showed.

OK - so do your own analysis and show me where we disagree.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

Apparently your evidence is transparent.  As in, not visible.

It's only invisible to those who don't want to see it.

The first third of the data can be found here:

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3659847

After being falsely accused of making "FALSE statements", and having "no idea about what I claimed", I provided the second two-thirds of the data here:

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3662443

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

On 5/27/2023 at 11:54 PM, Tristen said:

I don't actually care about your "view that there is an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1".

I didn't ask anyone to care.  What does that have to do with anything?

In your attempt to deflect to a different topic, you said, "Since you so strongly resist my view that there is an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1". You incorrectly implied that my engagement here was me caring about "an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1". That is another false insinuation. I'm only engaging here to challenge the methodology you have used to interpreted Genesis 1:2.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

First, you have NOT shown "unsound hermeneutics" anywhere.

To ignore the basic definition of words, and presuming to transplant one translation from one context onto a different context is "unsound hermeneutics".

To perform Eisegesis on a text is unequivocally "unsound hermeneutics".

To Argue from Ignorance (fallacy) is unequivocally "unsound" logic.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

Second, there are NO presuppositions about anything.  I've given how key words in v.2 are translated elsewhere and that doesn't suit you

Lol. Yes - using "unsound hermeneutics" to read concepts into the Bible that are not actually there indeed "doesn't suit" me.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 2:49 AM, FreeGrace said:

On 5/27/2023 at 11:54 PM, Tristen said:

But sure, I'll answer. Where did you open the appropriate thread?

Why not answer here?

You already complain that my posts are too long.

You already ignore many of the things I've written.

Why would I let myself get trapped into an even more convoluted conversation when you refuse to properly engage in the conversation we are having?

As far as I'm concerned, this desperation to move the discussion to other topics is merely your transparent attempt to draw the conversation away from the argument where you are struggling to maintain rational standing. 

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Of course there is "context". Just nothing in that "context" to justify driving the translation away from the basic definitions of the relevant words.

 

If it "happened", it "happened".

But the text doesn't say it "happened" (unless you adopt unsound interpretation methods to massage the meaning of the text towards your preferred conclusion).

 

Based on previous MO, you will probably ignore the implications of the evidence I provided, then simply repeat your refuted arguments.

 

That's absurd. Of course there is "context" - just nothing in the context of Genesis 1:2 to warrant adjusting the meaning of relevant words.

The argument from "context" therefore stands.

 

This is a lie.

I simply refused you let you deflect the conversation to a different topic in this thread.

 

I have demonstrated this to be an insincere, disingenuous argument. I have also demonstrated from your own words that you understand this to be an insincere, disingenuous argument.

 

Your "3 strikes" against my "view" are; 1) an absurdity, 2) a lie, and 3) an example of you being insincere and disingenuous?

 

Yes - you "assumed" that I was responsible to track down evidence supporting your position.

 

So do it, and show me the evidence.

 

Since I did the research myself, I'm technically the "source".

If you are asking about my methods, I used lexicons to track down 'hayetha' in the correct form. I used an interlinear Bible to confirm that each verse used the correct form. I then copied each verse into a MS Word document from the NKJV of the Bible found on Bible Gateway - where I did the colour editing to make it easier for me to count.

 

OK - so do your own analysis and show me where we disagree.

 

It's only invisible to those who don't want to see it.

The first third of the data can be found here:

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3659847

After being falsely accused of making "FALSE statements", and having "no idea about what I claimed", I provided the second two-thirds of the data here:

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3662443

 

In your attempt to deflect to a different topic, you said, "Since you so strongly resist my view that there is an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1". You incorrectly implied that my engagement here was me caring about "an unknown time gap in in Genesis 1". That is another false insinuation. I'm only engaging here to challenge the methodology you have used to interpreted Genesis 1:2.

 

To ignore the basic definition of words, and presuming to transplant one translation from one context onto a different context is "unsound hermeneutics".

To perform Eisegesis on a text is unequivocally "unsound hermeneutics".

To Argue from Ignorance (fallacy) is unequivocally "unsound" logic.

 

Lol. Yes - using "unsound hermeneutics" to read concepts into the Bible that are not actually there indeed "doesn't suit" me.

You already complain that my posts are too long.

You already ignore many of the things I've written.

Why would I let myself get trapped into an even more convoluted conversation when you refuse to properly engage in the conversation we are having?

As far as I'm concerned, this desperation to move the discussion to other topics is merely your transparent attempt to draw the conversation away from the argument where you are struggling to maintain rational standing. 

Well, I clicked on the 2 post-links you provided where you quoted verses with hayah in them, including the translation from only 1 translation.  That's why y0u got so many "was" occurrences.  

Unfortunately this website leaves a lot to be frustrated with.  By clicking on the post-links, the reply that I was working on disappeared, and I was about half way through it.  So I'm not going to try to re-create what I posted.  

In the first link, you disagreed with my point about the meaningless word "without form".  Your opinion doesn't change reality here.  EVERY object HAS a form or shape.

And what God did to the planet in ch 1 doesn't even mention adjusting the form, or GIVING the earth form.  So the very translation is bogus.  No such thing.

All planets are spheres.  Even the sun and all stars.  So there's that.  They ALL have form.

So "without form" cannot be the translation, since there is no such thing as formless, unless you are discussing immaterial objects, like the soul/spirit.  They are real but immaterial, and therefore, without form.

But the earth is a ball.  That IS form.  If one wants to argue that Gen 1 is about God "forming" a "formless earth" the BETTER word would be "decorate", because that's what the narrative really is about.  What God PUT on the earth.  It has nothing to do with the shape/form of the earth.

But you are free to argue anything you want.  But facts are facts.

A ball is a ball.  A sphere is a sphere.  The earth is a globe.  !!!

Shape and form everywhere you look.  So your argument falls flat.

Too bad my response was wiped away.  In it, I gave specific instructions of how to use biblehub.com and SEE for yourself ALL 111 occurrences and how each verse was translated in the NAS and INT translations, along with the actual Hebrew, which isn't of any use to me.

[Roymond]

On 5/20/2023 at 2:21 PM, DeighAnn said:

So, all those I listed get tossed out?  If they aren't in conflict PUT THEM FORTH in their CORRECT PLACES AND TIMES because IF YOU TRY TO, you will find it CAN'T BE DONE at any other time.  If, would rather BELIEVE NOTHING rather than what ACTUALLY IS WRITTEN, ok but I won't.  

 

Actually it's the HEBREW that TELLS this truth more than ANYWHERE ELSE.    

NOT MY WORDS, GODS.  

 

All I will believe is what is actually written -- in the Hebrew text, as commented on by the Septuagint.

You, along with certain others here, are just making things up that aren't in the scriptures.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Roymond

[Roymond]

On 5/27/2023 at 5:44 AM, ChristB4us said:

That is why you cannot see the truth in His words that the earth did not exist the first day but only water was there. 

Interestingly that was the conclusion reached by the ancient scholars who on the basis of just the Hebrew concluded that the universe is ancient beyond human comprehension.  They said the entire universe was so dense with fluid/water that light could not shine until God commanded light into existence, so the fluid/water thinned enough for light to flow.

[Roymond]

On 5/27/2023 at 5:46 AM, ChristB4us said:

But carbon 14 dating doesn't when they have errant carbon dating results like a living mollusks carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead".  How reliable is carbon dating now?

It's quite reliable -- every weird result critics appeal to has been explained by the very people who ran the tests. 

In fact scientists learned quite a bit from than weird result, primarily that when something comes from a river carbon-dating it isn't dependable, because different materials when associated with or found in flowing water lose or gain carbon in ways that make the results less than dependable (which made a lot of scientists, including some archaeologists, very unhappy because they had used results on things taken from flowing water).

[Roymond]

On 5/27/2023 at 5:44 AM, ChristB4us said:

Like I said earlier that people that go to the Greek & Hebrew will argue over each other about their own personal translation, exalting their dedication and intellect over others while debasing others as if not having fully done their homework when wisdom has to come from the Lord.

Keeping in mind that there is a vast difference between people who actually read the Greek and Hebrew and those who just look up words in a lexicon.

[Roymond]

On 5/27/2023 at 6:28 AM, FreeGrace said:

But my understanding is that carbon 14 dating is of rocks, etc.  Not living things.

That's backwards:  C-14 dating is only useful with things that normally both contain carbon and exchange it with the atmosphere.  Not many rocks fit the bill.

[Roymond]

On 5/27/2023 at 7:01 AM, ChristB4us said:

mortar from an English castle less than 800 years old tested at 7,370 years old?

Mortar in England should be expected to test several thousand years older than it actually is because they generally used limestone for making mortar, and the limestone is what's giving the result.

Interestingly, Roman mortar can give all sorts of ages with C-14 dating because different batches used different sources of volcanic ash, wood ash, and -- the "secret" ingredient -- seawater, beside the usual lime from limestone.

[FreeGrace]

On 5/27/2023 at 8:42 PM, ChristB4us said:

You have been given an answer.  None that you care to see apparently.

I've seen no explanation from you or any other YEC about why the earth has apparent age.

On 5/27/2023 at 8:42 PM, ChristB4us said:

You cannot tell how old the earth is.

I never suggested otherwise.  And that isn't the point.  Please don't try to deflect from the issue.  IF IF IF the earth is young, WHY WHY WHY does it have such an old apparent age?  Seems no YEC can explain that.

On 5/27/2023 at 8:42 PM, ChristB4us said:

  And the lights from distant space as billions if light years away does not count when God said for that light to shine on that earth that fourth day.  Before that fourth day, the universe did not exist.  That is how powerful God is by speaking it into existence and the gaps were filled with her lights to shine on the earth that fourth day.

Just an opinion.  v.1 tells us that the heavens and earth were created out of nothing.  What occurs after v.2 is about a restoration of what the earth BECAME.

On 5/27/2023 at 8:42 PM, ChristB4us said:

And was Adam a man or a baby?

I've already addressed this straw man, and am happy t0 do so again.  God created Adam as a fully functional man.  Infants are not eligible.  Sure, Adam had the appearance of a mature adult, even though that includes a wide age span.  But so what?  God created an adult because of Adam's JOB to do.  Which no infant, baby, or young kid could do.

So, if that's the whole defense, it fails.  Unless someone can explain WHY God would need to create an earth with apparent age.  The earth doesn't DO things, or accomplish things, like Adam NEEDED to do.

So, WHY?

On 5/27/2023 at 8:42 PM, ChristB4us said:

  Seems science answered the question "what came first?  The chicken or the egg?"  They answered the chicken.  Intelligent Designer hence God that spoke things into existence by His word.

Not an explanation of why the earth has apparent OLD age.  

If the earth was as young as the YEC think, it would have been EASILY measured and verified.  But the opposite is true.

Now, for the real question.  Why all the heavy pushback on a very old earth?  Can you explain what in Christianity is threatened or damaged, or whatever?