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

[DeighAnn]

15 hours 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. 

 

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

WHERE is the 'tohu wa bohu' found in that? Because THAT is where the 'youngsters' are saying it takes place.

When I read that, I SEE God, who WORKS in Laws and Order, speaking INTO existence what previously wasn't and I seen no need for GOD to bring about chaos to bring about creation. There is no 'process of going from 'tohu va bohu' TO BECOME even suggested as taking place.  NOT TO MENTION it simply doesn't fit. 


And WHERE do we find  the 'tohu va bohu' anywhere in these verses?  

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

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

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

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

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

WAS all this DONE IN DARKNESS?  WHY would GOD, again, Who is ALL about ORDER and LAWS AND IS HIMSELF 'LIGHT' BEGIN the PROCESS from a STATE OF DESTRUCTION?  It makes NO SENSE.  It doesn't fit INTO what we are told of GOD, 
nor is it WRITTEN anywhere GOD SAYING HE BEGAN it all that way

and GOD makes sure to SAY HE didn't CREATE IT THAT WAY.  Why does man ADD it?    


WHEN was 'THE BEGINNING'?  Is it when the earth was created AS the young earth people teach?  Maybe, we should simply believe what is written, as it is written. 


Wisdom speaking in Pro 8  From everlasting I have been established from the beginning BEFORE THERE WAS EVER an earth

WRITTEN AGAIN,

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Is there even the slightest bit of TOHU in any of that??  NOT that I can SEE.

ONCE we take away the INTRUSION of mans 

In the beginning God created the heaven, and THE SONS OF GOD WATCHED THE EARTH BEING CREATED...so HOW could the earth being created be the beginning of ANYTHING other than 'an age of it's own'?  And an age that ALSO will come to a close.

 THEN the dragon appeared in heaven AND CAST TO EARTH...  again the creation of earth COULDN'T BE 'THE BEGINNING, could it?  So THE SERPENT was IN HEAVEN FIRST, before the garden.

I don't NEED to KNOW HEBREW to be able to FOLLOW THE PRECEPTS and to learn the ways of God precept on precept, precept on precept, verse by verse, verse by verse HERE A LITTLE there a little, do I?  And when DOING IT THAT WAY, HIS WAY, I can not disregard ALL the information I am given ESPECIALLY not to follow the 'wisdom' of men that DO DISREGARD the most simple things that must/need to be taken into account
 

 

1096. ginomai ►
Strong's Concordance
ginomai: to come into being, to happen, to become
Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Definition: to come into being, to happen, to become
Usage: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.
HELPS Word-studies
1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).

M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).

WHO would TRY TO put 'DARKNESS' in GODS PROCESS of creation?  

Are the children of light truly SUPPOSED to believe that GOD BEGAN the earth IN DARKNESS?  



Here is what OLD EARTH people believe BECAUSE they TAKE INTO ACCOUNT all the precepts spoken in the words of GOD aka sons watched it being made, in heaven appeared a SIGN/woman, also in heaven appeared a dragon with kings and kingdoms (iniquity being found in him) and that same serpent was IN THE GARDEN at THIS beginning, (GOD didn't ASK him a single question, but pronounced a sentence...HOW would THAT be just IF THERE WASN'T anything else I wonder)


and THE only PLACE THIS FITS as we know how this age ends and that is with the return of Christ WHO'S BRIGHTNESS destroys Satan...leaving NO ROOM FOR

20Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled: suddenly are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment.

21How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?

22For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

27For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Here is HOW it would need to be written for the YOUNG earth people to be right

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

2And GOD had thrown together a bunch of stuff in whatever sort of haphazard manner, and began to form "the earth",  ALL IN darkness

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. AND THEN He began His creating.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Too bad you didn't ask for the long and complicated version, would have saved a whole bunch of deleting.  So, as you can see, IT HAS LESS to do with 'the HEBREW' text and the word used, and it has MORE to do with ALL THE PRECEPTS and what is possible and what is not and what is NOT POSSIBLE is for the earth being created tohu...but what is written is the earth being rendered BY GOD tohu...

Hope this is close enough to 'simple'

[DeighAnn]

10 hours ago, Roymond said:

I will comment that it is so much easier to have the Masoretic and other texts online instead of the way I did it in grad school, having to have the actual books (or a LOT of photocopies!) spread out across a dining room table!

How perfect the words of God!!!

1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.



Truths NEVER BEFORE revealed having been 'shut up and sealed' until the end...

it's like GOD KNEW computers were coming...makes one wonder...if there is truly nothing new under the sun...

 

guess we won't know until we return to God.


  

[DeighAnn]

11 hours ago, Roymond said:

Darkness is a blank palette on which to place the "art" of creation.

But it must be kept in mind that the order of events the Genesis writer is using here is the order of events in the Egyptian creation story.

BUT, all of THAT falls under the WISDOM OF MAN.  That is 'education' received in and of the  world.  NONE of that is written, and none of that is needed when being guided by the SPIRIT of TRUTH. 

The words of God are the ONLY THINGS pure and to be counted upon (when rightly dividing them of course).  None of the ASSUMPTIONS and conclusions OF MAN are.

If EVERYONE were to take what is written, as it is written and rightly divide it, we would all be on the same page.  THAT IS THE NARROW PATH, the only way the path can be narrow. 

When we have one man who has received 'A' kind of teaching and knowledge', he comes WITH his 'A' conclusion.  Pair him with the man who has received another kind and he come with that conclusion, and with JUST THOSE 2,

we GO FROM the NARROW PATH to the ever exponentially widening one, with every mans KNOWLEDGE being demanded to be brought to the table.  IT CAN never WORK that way.  

GOD wrote the BIBLE and it wasn't only to or about that generation, but to all, even when carried out in that one.  MAN must know it is impossible to bring in the ways of the world and to find unity.  

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalms 12:6 KJV

GET the wisdom of MAN out of GODS WORDS and they will say the same thing to all.  

Way back when Christ walked the earth He told us 'the mystery of iniquity' doth already work.  WHERE did/does that mystery would work hardest?  And how does that mystery work?  

Yea, hath God said.  QUESTION WHAT IS WRITTEN with the wisdom/ignorance of man. 

IF the church leaders were PREACHING GODS TRUTH, then there would be no more 'falling away', would there?  Stands to reason GODS TRUTH is not being taught, doesn't it?  The GREAT DIVIDE between the 'educated' of the world 'in the word', and the seekers of the Spirit of Truth is not be acknowledged with THE LEADERS trying to bring about unity.   

ALL HUMANS can see with their own eyes the VASTNESS of the universe which SCREAMS MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD and for GOD to have made it 'ONLY APPEAR' to be old, when it wasn't, WOULD BE A DECEPTION on HIS PART.

 To say the heaven and earth are only 15,000 years old makes CHRISTIANS LOOK STUPID, not spiritual.  TRUTH is to believe OUR OWN EYES AND THE WORDS OF GOD at the same time, and that happens when we open our spiritual ones and seek for the SPIRIT OF TRUTH rather than trying to find it in the DISSECTION of words.

BUILD upon, precept on precept... and soon (or later) the words/Spirit of truth will show their intents and meanings.   At least it has worked for me.  Just like Jesus fought Satan, I think we should.  'IT IS WRITTEN'...nothing else needed, nothing can replace...IMO anyhow.  






 

[Tristen]

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have proven that certain words in Gen 1:2 are translated quite differently where else they occur in the OT. 

v.2 begins with "but", a conjunction of contrast, as translated by the scholars who translated the OT into Koine Greek, when Koine was a living language.

"without form" or "formless" is ridiculous, since ALL objects HAVE form or shape.  And there is nothing in Genesis about God giving form to the earth.  He created the earth (v.1) but restored the earth because it became a wasteland.

I wonder if you think my counter arguments disappear if you ignore them for long enough - and just keep repeating the same refuted arguments over and over again.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So, if you are not defending a young earth, why does it matter if the earth IS very old and God DID restore it for man's use?

If I'm "not defending a young earth", then the age of the earth is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Word meanings are based on USAGE

You have it backwards. "USAGE" is based primarily on agreed definitions, and secondarily on context. In terms of translation, both definition and context are pertinent.

It is not cogent to claim that a "USAGE" in one context is necessarily viable for all contexts. The logic simply does not follow.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've shown that certain words are translated quite differently elsewhere in the OT.  That is a fact

And I've argued that translations which deviate from the common definition of a word must be justified by context.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

When you called biblehub.com a "pseudo source" you revealed your very heavy bias against a legitimate source.  That equates to a total loss of credibility

When you completely ignore me explaining that I was criticizing your misusage of "biblehub.com", and not "biblehub.com" itself, then it is your "very heavy bias" that is exposed.

Once again, you are guilty of ignoring my position - preferring instead to repeat your demonstrable misrepresentation of my position. Technically, it's a Strawman argument (logic fallacy) - but it's even more dishonest - since I have already provided an explanation for that explicit allegation.

As for me, I am perfectly happy that my rational "credibility" in this discussion remains robustly intact.

I will refrain from posturing back about your "credibility" - since that kind of puerile nonsense contributes nothing of logical substance to the discussion.

 

[Tristen]

On 6/4/2023 at 2:48 PM, Roymond said:

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."

 

I have no problem being challenged by people with less knowledge on a subject than me. Expertise does not make me necessarily correct, nor impervious to correction.

My problem is with the arrogance and inconsistency in presuming only the opposing position is responsible to provide support for their arguments. No one gets to arbitrarily shield themselves from the mannerly conventions of the debate process.

 

[Tristen]

On 6/4/2023 at 3:11 PM, Roymond said:

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

True - but my refusal to go to biblehub was based on it being inappropriate, and fundamentally rude, behavior to send someone on an errand to find support for one's own position - especially after the graceless tone was set; me having been falsely, and frivolously, accused of making "FASLE statements" and "having no idea about what I was claiming".

If one wants to play that game, they'd best be prepared to be held to account for everything they then claim.

 

[Tristen]

On 6/4/2023 at 3:26 PM, Roymond said:

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"

Yeah that was weird. I don't know how that works. But it certainly undermines the logical integrity of any straight counting of the list.

 

On 6/4/2023 at 3:26 PM, Roymond said:

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

Yes - that is how it is supposed to work.

I'm not sure everyone understands that these words have established definitions. Usage is based on the foundation of those definitions - and not the other way around.

 

On 6/4/2023 at 3:26 PM, Roymond said:

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

I've only ever used biblehub occasionally.

Maybe there are valid reasons for the apparent inconsistencies. But they should have justified those reasons on the page.

[Tristen]

On 6/4/2023 at 3:52 PM, Roymond said:

So you found the same as I did:  it's a lousy source because it has internal contradictions plus it deviates from the basic meaning with no cause to do so -- and often makes nonsense when it does so!

You are more harsh than me.

I'm happy to assume there might be valid reasons - but I would also expect a quality source to provide the justification somewhere.

[Tristen]

On 6/4/2023 at 4:03 PM, Roymond said:

Not only does he not know Hebrew and/or Greek (as has been admitted) yet tell those who do that they are wrong, it's now plain he doesn't know how to do basic research

We've all succumbed to confirmation bias at some point.

For me, I think the problem here is the instinct to dig-in and double-down on the error; backing oneself into a corner, and forcing themselves to come out swinging.

 

On 6/4/2023 at 4:03 PM, Roymond said:

I'd work through another couple of dozen but it's a bit late at night for me to keep track of what information I've got open on which browser tab

Proof-of-concept has been sufficiently established - i.e. This source is not suitable for the purpose to which it has been utilized.

 

[Tristen]

On 6/4/2023 at 4:08 PM, Roymond said:

It's strange that people keep bringing up YEC and evolution when neither has any bearing on the matter.  It's as thought they can't conceive that someone is interested in the text and not anything outside it.

I agree.

It is also an attempt to deflect from a discussion that is going poorly.

And it is an attempt to generate and put forward an Appeal to Motive (fallacy).