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

[Tristen]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So, all along you could have done it yourself.  But I lit up the 'midnight oil', put on a pot of coffee, rolled up my sleeves, put on a sweat band, and in LESS THAN 1 minute produced the post with all the data available.

Well, I'm not sure what kind of "Rain Man" filter you have preventing you from understanding the basic debate convention - that you will always be the one responsible for providing the supporting data for your own claims.

And furthermore, simply pointing someone in the general direction of your data and telling them to 'find it themselves' will never be considered a valid source reference.

But we finally got there. So no point dwelling on that. 

It's lucky I didn't do it myself - since now I've seen the data, I would have assumed I had the wrong page - As, having looked at only the first five verses on the list, I have now discovered several reasons demonstrating that the data is not suitable for a straight count.

Those reasons include:

- The list using multiple translations, thereby introducing intrinsic bias into the count.

- The list uses sometimes one, sometimes two, and sometimes three translations for one verse - without any justification for the translations used. What do we do when the translations conflict? My suspicion is you just count it for 'became'.

- The list uses weird translations, such as "become was". So which is it, "become" or "was"? I suspect you just count it for 'became'.

- The list attributes "become" to a translation, when inspection of that translation reveals the use of "was". Yet you, no doubt, just tally one more for 'became'.

- The list attributes "become" to verses where "become" makes absolutely no sense in English. I guess, chalk up another one for 'became'.

- And ironically, even though your list has a 'became' bias, the actual verse we are discussing is translated "was" on your list.

 

For these reasons, your list is an inappropriate resource for a straight count. That is, your application of this list is a misuse of this resource. The list can not logically, mathematically, be used the way you are trying to use it - i.e. to generate any meaningful information pertaining to how many times 'hayetha' is translated 'became'.

On the upside, your list does seem to be an accurate reflection of the 'hayetha' form of 'haya'. Therefore, if you really wanted to know the proportion this word is translated 'became', you could pick a translation and check through the verses on the basis of this list. I've already done one translation (NKJV). I'd even be happy if you could find the translation that uses 'became' the most for 'hayetha'. 

I predict that you can't find a single translation that uses 'became' more than 25%, or one that uses 'became' more than 'was'.

(My real prediction is that you'll respond with more empty posturing. Given your last post, I think this to be a near certainty)  

 

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

* Now, if we move on to the second verse on your list we see:

I can't find any reason to continue this heavily biased conversation.  I've proven my point and all I see is resistance to the FACTS.

Lol. Really? You couldn't even make it to my analysis of the "second verse" of your 111-long list? But are happy to posture about me showing "resistance to the FACTS"? I wonder how much of your own nonsense you believe.

 

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You are obviously free to your own opinions, but I proved my point and it is clear that you don't like the FACTS.  But that's on you.

 Good day.

Lol. And a "Good day" to you sir.

 

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

ps:  I'm not surprised ...

I said, "GOOD DAY"!!! 

 

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

DID NOT create null and void

was - null and void

SOME men ASSUME/use mans wisdom making 'null and void' a PART OF THE PROCESS, even though IT IS NOT WRITTEN, 

completely disregarding THE WORDS OF GOD IN WHICH HE SAYS

'not created null and void', I believe because of the THEORY of EVOLUTION

rendering it the same thing as EVERY OTHER FALSE DOCTRINE by not believing

what is written

to call into question IT'S TRUTH, with THE SAME QUESTION FIRST HEARD IN THE GARDEN

YEA HATH GOD SAID.  


AKA - man PUTTING null and void INTO THE PROCESS of creation

BY HAVING GOD begin the whole thing then stop, and have the earth SITTING IN DARKNESS all null and void for 'the light' to shine upon it already sitting there


WHEN EXACTLY does THIS DARKNESS part of creation 'claimed' COME ABOUT IN THE words of GOD if Jeremiah is being rejected?   And when does the sudden destruction of Jeremiah take place if not then?

1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 

(THOSE WOULD BE THE WISDOM OF MAN questioning the TRUTH of the words of GOD)

3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Are you saying GOD LAID the foundation IN DARKNESS??

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Are you saying THIS was spoken in darkness?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

OR THIS?  PLEASE, as SUCH OPPOSITION IS BEING PUT FORTH, Please, BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT POINT IN THE WORDS OF GOD YOU SEE THIS DARKNESS coming upon the earth especially since REJECTED is the sudden destruction in Jerenmiah 4.  And please, put forth GODS WORDS and not mans showing when THE DARKNESS DURING CREATION CAME ABOUT. 

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


Does it make more SENSE for GOD put ALL THE ANGELS into DARKNESS in order to CREATE THE EARTH

or do you not believe this was an ACTUAL TIME in eternity?

When exactly WAS the earth "SUDDENLY destroyed" and left without light but did not perish?

8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

 

19Where is the way where light dwelleth?


and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

20That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?



 

Do you see ANY OF THAT as the time 'OF DARKNESS' and if so HOW does that work ? WITH

1518. giach ►
Strong's Concordance
giach: to burst forth
Original Word: גּיחַ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: giach
Phonetic Spelling: (ghee'-akh)
Definition: to burst forth

 7358. rechem ►
Strong's Concordance
rechem: womb
Original Word: רֶחֶם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: rechem
Phonetic Spelling: (rekh'-em)
Definition: womb



 3318. yatsa ►
Strong's Concordance
yatsa: to go or come out
Original Word: יָצָא
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: yatsa
Phonetic Spelling: (yaw-tsaw')
Definition: to go or come out


5526 [e]    וַיָּ֣סֶךְ
way-yā-seḵ    Or [who] shut in    Conj-w | V-Hifil-ConsecImperf-3ms
1817 [e]    בִּדְלָתַ֣יִם
biḏ-lā-ṯa-yim    with doors    Prep-b | N-fd
3220 [e]    יָ֑ם
yām;    the sea    N-ms
1518 [e]    בְּ֝גִיח֗וֹ
bə-ḡî-ḥōw,    when it burst forth    Prep-b | V-Qal-Inf | 3ms
7358 [e]    מֵרֶ֥חֶם
mê-re-ḥem    from the womb    Prep-m | N-ms
3318 [e]    יֵצֵֽא׃
yê-ṣê.    [and] issued    V-Qal-Imperf-3ms





does ANY OF THIS seem to be a TIME OF NULL AND VOIDNESS?  


 7760. sum or sim ►
Strong's Concordance
sum or sim: to put, place, set
Original Word: שׂוּם
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: sum or sim
Phonetic Spelling: (soom)
Definition: to put, place, set


7760 [e]    בְּשׂוּמִ֣י
bə-śū-mî    when I made    Prep-b | V-Qal-Inf | 1cs
6051 [e]    עָנָ֣ן
‘ā-nān    the clouds    N-ms
3830 [e]    לְבֻשׁ֑וֹ
lə-ḇu-šōw;    its garment    N-msc | 3ms
6205 [e]    וַ֝עֲרָפֶ֗ל
wa-‘ă-rā-p̄el,    and thick darkness    Conj-w | N-ms
2854 [e]    חֲתֻלָּתֽוֹ׃
ḥă-ṯul-lā-ṯōw.    its swaddling band    N-fsc | 3ms



These, and the many other verses like them ARE WHY I believe GOD DID not CREATE NULL AND VOID as the BEGINNING of IT.  


please GIVE GODS WORDS THAT SHOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING and how it all comes into context, LIKE I have TRIED to show you here as to why IT is does not for me.   




PLEASE, TEACH ME using only GODS WORDS

knowing THOSE WORDS soon will be the ONLY WORDS available for use. 

That means PUTTING into CONTEXT 

The angels/sons of God WATCHING earth created

The SUDDEN destruction of the earth that rendered it with no man and no light but didn't make it completely perish.

(how long would it take for all the waters of the earth to turn to ice without the sun I wonder? Would it be so quick that someone/thing eating wouldn't even have time to swallow I wonder?)

The DRAGON appearing in heaven and casting 1/3 to earth

How the EARTH is sitting in DARKNESS, ALREADY THERE, when GOD said Let there be light

and so on....THANK GOD you have lots and lots of time to devote to the subject.  I look forward to SEEING how all the things that fit so perfectly together for me right now fit so perfectly together in ANY OTHER CONTEXT, aka yours.  




 

Hey DeighAnn,

Can you give me a quick summary of your position. I'm a bit lost as to what you are arguing, and how it relates to anything I've said.

My main purpose here is to challenge the "the earth became a wasteland" translation of Genesis 1:2. I do not consider that translation of the Hebrew text to be justified by sound translation methods. 

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Well, I'm not sure what kind of "Rain Man" filter you have preventing you from understanding the basic debate convention - that you will always be the one responsible for providing the supporting data for your own claims.

And furthermore, simply pointing someone in the general direction of your data and telling them to 'find it themselves' will never be considered a valid source reference.

But we finally got there. So no point dwelling on that. 

It's lucky I didn't do it myself - since now I've seen the data, I would have assumed I had the wrong page - As, having looked at only the first five verses on the list, I have now discovered several reasons demonstrating that the data is not suitable for a straight count.

Those reasons include:

- The list using multiple translations, thereby introducing intrinsic bias into the count.

- The list uses sometimes one, sometimes two, and sometimes three translations for one verse - without any justification for the translations used. What do we do when the translations conflict? My suspicion is you just count it for 'became'.

- The list uses weird translations, such as "become was". So which is it, "become" or "was"? I suspect you just count it for 'became'.

- The list attributes "become" to a translation, when inspection of that translation reveals the use of "was". Yet you, no doubt, just tally one more for 'became'.

- The list attributes "become" to verses where "become" makes absolutely no sense in English. I guess, chalk up another one for 'became'.

- And ironically, even though your list has a 'became' bias, the actual verse we are discussing is translated "was" on your list.

 

For these reasons, your list is an inappropriate resource for a straight count. That is, your application of this list is a misuse of this resource. The list can not logically, mathematically, be used the way you are trying to use it - i.e. to generate any meaningful information pertaining to how many times 'hayetha' is translated 'became'.

On the upside, your list does seem to be an accurate reflection of the 'hayetha' form of 'haya'. Therefore, if you really wanted to know the proportion this word is translated 'became', you could pick a translation and check through the verses on the basis of this list. I've already done one translation (NKJV). I'd even be happy if you could find the translation that uses 'became' the most for 'hayetha'. 

I predict that you can't find a single translation that uses 'became' more than 25%, or one that uses 'became' more than 'was'.

(My real prediction is that you'll respond with more empty posturing. Given your last post, I think this to be a near certainty)  

Lol. Really? You couldn't even make it to my analysis of the "second verse" of your 111-long list? But are happy to posture about me showing "resistance to the FACTS"? I wonder how much of your own nonsense you believe.

Lol. And a "Good day" to you sir.

I said, "GOOD DAY"!!! 

Let's go bottom line here.  Why is defending a young earth so important?  Can you explain how or where it would change ANY doctrine or theology?

This is where the YEC peel off.  They can't defend it without bringing up evolution.  And my view has nothing to do with evolution anyway.

So what's the big deal?

Edited June 4, 2023 by FreeGrace

[FreeGrace]

55 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Hey DeighAnn,

Can you give me a quick summary of your position. I'm a bit lost as to what you are arguing, and how it relates to anything I've said.

My main purpose here is to challenge the "the earth became a wasteland" translation of Genesis 1:2. I do not consider that translation of the Hebrew text to be justified by sound translation methods. 

Another FACT is that the Koine Greek scholars who were also Hebrew scholars translated the "and" in v.2 as "but" in the Greek in the LXX.

So we have a conjunction of contrast that begins v.2.  

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Let's go bottom line here.  Why is defending a young earth so important?

I'm not here "defending a young earth". I'm here "defending" sound hermeneutics.

This is "important" because, using unsound hermeneutics, we can make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. Whereas, using sound hermeneutics, we let the Author speak for Himself.

 

[Roymond]

On 5/30/2023 at 1:21 PM, ChristB4us said:

Not sure how they can ascribe the universe as ancient when time was not created yet until the first day and the universe did not exist until the fourth day.

I seriously can't stop laughing -- are you seriously claiming that the Earth had vegetation but there was no universe?

Tying the existence of the universe to the fourth day is a novel teaching with no basis in the text:  the very first verse has God creating everything; that's what the Hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" indicates -- all that exists.  And in verse 2 there is the t'hom, the "deep", which can mean the ocean but can also refer to the primeval heavens before God started shaping them.

At any rate, they knew the Hebrew more thoroughly than anyone here, so when they say the Hebrew indicates an ancient Earth and an even more ancient universe I'll believe them over the amateurs here.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Roymond

[Roymond]

On 5/30/2023 at 1:25 PM, ChristB4us said:

Ever heard of the reservoir effect?  Science knows about it but do not always take that in account with carbon dating results.

And if you believe the Bible, then there was a calamity that caused the global flood for why none of their carbon dating results are going to be accurate.

Science are doing those carbon dating results on the assumption that there has bene no calamity for the last 55,000 years.  Talk about way off.

The Hebrew does not tell of a global flood, and there is no scientific evidence for it.

[Roymond]

On 6/1/2023 at 3:34 AM, Tristen said:

What makes you so important that you get to challenge everybody else to provide evidence for their claims (and ignore it when they do), but when they challenge you back, you get to tell them to, 'go look for my evidence yourself'?

That's a very good question.

Especially when there's an admission that he doesn't know Hebrew or Greek yet he ventures to correct people who read those languages.  It's essentially saying, "I know I'm not qualified to talk about this, but you people who are qualified are all wrong."

Edited June 4, 2023 by Roymond

[Roymond]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:34 PM, Tristen said:

Yes - I refuse to "go to biblehub" for the purpose of finding supporting evidence of your position. Though if you were to provide a link to the "biblehub" results of your research, I'll gladly take a look.

Good point.

It should be noted that biblehub is not a "source", it is a reference resource -- big difference.

I'll also note that it's very easy to use biblehub badly.  It has some great aspects, but used on the face of how it presents things it's easy to go wrong.  I use the site, but I always check against BAGD and the TDNT for the Greek, plus a couple of different grammars; sadly I don't have access to my TDOT presently so dealing with the Hebrew takes me longer.  Anyway, the way biblehub is structured it's very easy to fall into using it for confirmation of a position rather than for researching a position.

[Roymond]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:22 PM, Tristen said:

* I firstly observe that they are using many English translations throughout the list. Therefore, my first question - How are they justifying the English translation used for each verse? I don't see that information provided. I can make a reasonable guess as to why they used the Hebrew and Interlinear versions, but without knowing why they chose the English versions for each verse, I have to consider the possibility of a bias-driven selection.

I picked a dozen of the verses at random and read them in the Hebrew.  I noticed two things:  when you flip to interlinear to see what they're putting in that resource, a fair number of entries contradict the list, rendering "was" rather than "became".  Digging further by just reading the Hebrew, it also became apparent that not translating as "was" had no actual justification -- and it was driven home in my Hebrew classes both as an undergrad in the biblical languages program and as a grad student, including not just my professors but visiting scholars, that you only ever deviate from the basic meaning of the Hebrew when there is cause to do so -- and a big reason for that is that Hebrew verb tenses do not at all correlate well with western indo-european tenses so sticking with the basic translation is best.

The fact that there is internal inconsistency in what biblehub's resources are presenting makes it a poor resource; that the selected translations use "became" without any justification (because "was" actually fits the Hebrew better) makes the objectivity suspect -- "bias-driven selection" is a very real possibility.

Biblehub just got downgraded on my resource list.