Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Solus Christus]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Solus Christus.

Is it as important how one interprets what was said as what the author intended in what he said? Rather than second-guess what Peter meant by a particular word or phrase, one should just READ what the author had to say and understand it in its context, before one starts making applications. 

It is undoubtably difficult to do, but we must read first for understanding BEFORE trying to get some "spiritual truth" out of what was written.

With Science, we as a society have discovered ways to interpret what has been discovered in both the fossil record and in the light we see (or detect) from other objects in space, particularly from objects that emanate light, whether as a source or a reflection from a source. However, most of our knowledge about "other planets" is right here in our own solar system. And, these other planets are quite different than the earth, but NONE of them are capable of supporting the life forms we have on this planet like our own planet earth does! However, they too, as "round objects," were created on Day Four of Creation.

It’s not called second guessing Peter, it is valid interpretation. Just as there many schools of thought.

Peter is making a case that Jesus has not come back because he delays his return so more may believe and not perish. He then uses the point that a day can be thousand years and thousand years a day to the Lord to indicate that what seems slow to us, say a thousand years of human history is but a day to the Lord, and what may seem sudden to us is but a day to the Lord. 
 

This passage has been crucial to proving God is outside time. And that matters because God who is eternal had to become a man to die once for all time for the sins of man. It’s a crucial piece of theology. 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

FreeGrace said: 

Maybe you just aren't aware of all that Darwin mentioned, or failed to mention.  To him, the whole universe just "came into being", all by itself.  Fancy that!

Source?

Do you think he taught something else??  Didn't you go through primary and secondary education?  I didn't read his dopey book, but I sure heard a lot about it all through school.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

It seems a natural conclusion from making an unqualified statement that since a scientific paper did not mention God therefore it's satanic.

Why do you keep saying this?  I have addressed this already.  I never said or suggested ANY or EVERY "scientific paper".  Aren't you reading my posts more carefully?  I am referring to CREATION of the universe.  Only that.  Darwin addressed that but did not recognize the Creator.  

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

But you can't be consistent, can you?

Those who carefully DO read my posts know that I am very consistent.  It is comments like that of above that show who isn't reading posts very carefully.  Or consistently.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

You love posting on a computer, driving a car, living in a modern technological society built upon scientific discovery. But most of those papers on electromagnetic theory or gravity or what have you, don't mention God. Why are biology papers beholden to acknowledge God?

Again, Mr "read too quickly to grasp much", my comment was about original creation.  Only that.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

You are asserting claims that are false.

Prove it.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Further, I also know who made the universe and earth. We just disagree on the mechanics of it, not the agent.

Interesting that you think you know the mechanics, since the 'agent', meaning THE Creator, didn't give us any "mechanics".  But it seems some think they know without having been told.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

And again you demonstrate that you don't understand evolution. Theory of biological evolution is only about how the diversity of life occurred. It says nothing about the origin of the universe.

Evolution per "Origin of the species" is about a slimy ameoba crawling out of some kind of primordial muck and then slowly over a very long time, developed into all the "diversity" of species we see today.  Ain't that just cute.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Big Bang theory deals with the origin of the universe.

Not really.  According to the secular scientists, who have swallowed "evolution theory" hook, line and sinker, think something came out of nothing.  With no external causation.  Ain't that just cute.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

The other point is that they do not concern themselves with the matter of a Creator.

Of course they don't.  Which is where their error is.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Anything supernatural is not testable by scientific method. That is the limits. If people are making philosophical or religious claims on those theories, those people are in error, not the theories.

So what?

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Even if it was the age of the earth - that is not based on the fossil record, but on radiometric dating, but not C14, but U-Pb. Fossil record only goes back the Archaean, about 3.5 Gy.

Shalom, teddyv.

All radiometric dating methods have the same foibles: They CAN'T know how much of the daughter elements were in the original sample; they CAN'T determine that there were no changes in the rate at which these elements decayed; they CAN'T say for certain that there was no leaching of the daughter elements out of the system, throwing the age calculations off; they CAN'T tell you where the decay started in the process; and they CAN'T tell you if there was any outside bombardment of the material with radioactive radiation. All of these unknowns make the calculation of ages of the materials in which the sample is taken a GUESS AT BEST! What if I could show you that the lack of a ozone shield could cause some serious influx of radiation?

I think the evidence from Scripture shows that the earth was once protected with a shield of water, whether as an ice canopy or as a vapor canopy, both of which had to be transparent to the outside light. When that canopy was shattered in the Flood, the earth had NO PROTECTION from outside radiation! It wasn't until an ozone (O3) layer was built around the earth that the influx of radiation could be curbed! The Uranium-Thorium-Lead chain of decay would have been JUST AS SUSCEPTIBLE as any other radiometric dating method!

Furthermore, in the process of dating the age of the earth, the process is STILL governed by a fundamental belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the 'creation'" (2 Peter 3:4), whether they date the fossils or they date the rocks containing the fossils. And, that uniformitarianism is based upon the Geologic Column, which is a PHILOSOPHICAL assumption forced into the view of the various strata of the earth. 

They base the ages of the earth upon the assumption that evolution must have occurred; therefore, it is another form of circular reasoning, but it is still FUNDAMENTALLY ACCEPTED as the process by which they date the earth!

[Retrobyter]

19 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

EVEN if 'the earth' HAD BEEN 'tohu' during some 'point' in the 'creation' SPEAK.  



The heavens and earth were CREATED, as in the past and so WERE COMPLETE by the end of GEN 1:1.  



BEING in a state OF COMPLETION in GEN  1:1

There is NO WAY the earth could be CALLED or even referred to as TOHU at the END of GEN 1:1 as GOD says HE DIDN'T create it that way and CREATION at that point WAS PAST

the PERFECT VERB tells us this is TRUTH, does it OR does it not?


7225 [e]   1
bə·rê·šîṯ   1
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית       1
In the beginning   1
Prep‑b | N‑fs   1



1254 [e]
bā·rā
בָּרָ֣א
created
V‑Qal‑Perf‑3ms





430 [e]
’ĕ·lō·hîm;
אֱלֹהִ֑ים
God
N‑mp


853 [e]
’êṯ
אֵ֥ת
 - 
DirObjM


8064 [e]
haš·šā·ma·yim
הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם
the heavens
Art | N‑mp



853 [e]
wə·’êṯ
וְאֵ֥ת
and
Conj‑w | DirObjM
  
 
776 [e]
hā·’ā·reṣ.
הָאָֽרֶץ׃
the earth
Art | N‑fs

Shalom, DeighAnn.

I'll keep this short: Genesis 1:1 is NOT a separate creation! It is a SUMMATION of what is to follow in the rest of chapters 1 and 2!

Look: the SAME WORDS "shaamayim" and "'erets," which are translated as "heavens" and "earth," are also found in Genesis 1:8 and Genesis 1:10, when God is NAMING the expanse and the dry ground! The ONLY difference in the Hebrew words is that Genesis 1:1 adds the definite article prefix on both names.

It's like an outline! Genesis 1:1 is the main point (I. The Creation Week) and the rest of chapter 1 are the subpoints (I.A. Day One, I.B. Day Two, I.C. Day Three, etc.)

Edited July 25, 2023 by Retrobyter
to correct my English!

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, teddyv.

All radiometric dating methods have the same foibles: They CAN'T know how much of the daughter elements were in the original sample; they CAN'T determine that there were no changes in the rate at which these elements decayed; they CAN'T say for certain that there was no leaching of the daughter elements out of the system, throwing the age calculations off; they CAN'T tell you where the decay started in the process; and they CAN'T tell you if there was any outside bombardment of the material with radioactive radiation. All of these unknowns make the calculation of ages of the materials in which the sample is taken a GUESS AT BEST! What if I could show you that the lack of a ozone shield could cause some serious influx of radiation?

When a zircon crystallizes, lead atoms cannot be incorporated into the crystal structure, but uranium can. Therefore, any lead in a zircon is the result of decay of the uranium contained. Since there are many additional methods which reproduce the estimated ages (within certain error bars, I'll grant), it seems that these "foibles" are just the imagination of whomever told you this.

Certainly care in sample selection is important, but all these factors can be accounted form Radiometric dating has been in use for some 60+ years and has been a powerful tool in establishing the geological history of the earth. It's also a critical element in oil exploration and has been reliably used for decades as well.

1 minute ago, Retrobyter said:

I think the evidence from Scripture shows that the earth was once protected with a shield of water, whether as an ice canopy or as a vapor canopy, both of which had to be transparent to the outside light. When that canopy was shattered in the Flood, the earth had NO PROTECTION from outside radiation! It wasn't until an ozone (O3) layer was built around the earth that the influx of radiation could be curbed! The Uranium-Thorium-Lead chain of decay would have been JUST AS SUSCEPTIBLE as any other radiometric dating method!

Wow, canopy theory. I did not know there were still adherents to that. I think most YEC organizations have abandoned that one. Outside of the Hebrew word used for dome (which I don't recall), that is the limit of any Scriptural support for that wild hypothesis. Everything else you posted is conjecture or speculation. Unless you can present some evidence to support it.

1 minute ago, Retrobyter said:

Furthermore, in the process of dating the age of the earth, the process is STILL governed by a fundamental belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the 'creation'" (2 Peter 3:4), whether they date the fossils or they date the rocks containing the fossils. And, that uniformitarianism is based upon the Geologic Column, which is a PHILOSOPHICAL assumption forced into the view of the various strata of the earth. 

I cannot believe that people continue to perpetuate the lie of circular reasoning in geological dating. You are smarter than that. A cursory understanding of relative and absolute dating explains this. You LAO appear to be invoking a quote mine from a letter sent to a journal in 1976.

1 minute ago, Retrobyter said:

They base the ages of the earth upon the assumption that evolution must have occurred; therefore, it is another form of circular reasoning, but it is still FUNDAMENTALLY ACCEPTED as the process by which they date the earth!

Biological evolution is not the reason geologists say the earth is old. The earth as being very old predates the formalization of evolutionary theory.

 

Sorry, I find you unserious, misled, and are repeating falsehoods with these posts.

[FreeGrace]

5 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

DeighAnn said: 

EVEN if 'the earth' HAD BEEN 'tohu' during some 'point' in the 'creation' SPEAK.

Shalom, DeighAnn.

I'll keep this short: Genesis 1:1 is NOT a separate creation! It is a SUMMATION of what is to follow in the rest of chapters 1 and 2!

Or, v.1 states original creation, and v.2ff refers to the earth becoming a wasteland and God resstoring the planet (not re-creating it) for man's use.  If one sees how a few words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.   

[Retrobyter]

9 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Or, v.1 states original creation, and v.2ff refers to the earth becoming a wasteland and God resstoring the planet (not re-creating it) for man's use.  If one sees how a few words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.   

Shalom, FreeGrace.

Why is it that you just WON'T accept the truth about a language that you don't understand and the literary practices of the culture that uses that language, which you ALSO do not understand? It's not that you CAN'T; it's that you WON'T! You REFUSE to accept the Scriptures as written, in lieu of your pet theory! You'd even argue with Moses!

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

It's not that you CAN'T; it's that you WON'T! You REFUSE to accept the Scriptures as written, in lieu of your pet theory! You'd even argue with Moses!

"as written', eh?  Right.  You are adamant about the 'traditional translation of Gen 1:2 IN SPITE of HOW 2 words are translated elsewhere in Scripture.  So please don't give me this "as written" dance.

You still haven't shown ANY example of ANY kind of object that has NO form.  So boom.

We know from Jer 4:23 and other verses how 'tohu' is translated:  wasteland, etc.  

I'm showing HOW hay-et-ah is translated elsewhere, which is more times as 'became' than the simple "was".

And your claim that there is no contradiction between the TT of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 is an lol.  Of course there is.

But, there is no contradition when we understand that v.2 REALLY says "but the earth became a wasteland".

Gen 1:2ff being a description of a restoration does NO HARM to any doctrine or other verse in the Bible.  Or please show me which doctrine/verse.

Your claim that I'd even "argue with Moses" only shows your desperation in trying to defend what you can't defend.

I'm showing what Moses really said, and it wasn't the TT.

From all you've posted, it seems all the argument is on your side.

Edited July 25, 2023 by FreeGrace

[Tristen]

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

I included in my count the verses that only had INT but not the NAS.  And the INT didn't make sense

So it should have been excluded, not "included"? I'm not sure I understand where you are going.

 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

I thought INT referred to a translation, but apparently not.

Interlinear texts are translations - of sorts. They're just not formally standardized.

But does that mean you didn't count Gen 3:20 for 'became' - since it only has the "INT" translation for that verse - which is the one that doesn't make sense (and turns out to be 'was' in the translated text)?

Can you see yet why this instance alone invalidates your counting method?

 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

So, basically, biblehub used the NASB as the translation for hayetah.

Except for the first verse in the list:

Genesis 1:2
HEB: וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ
KJV: And the earth was without form,
INT: the earth was was formless and void

And except for where the NASB was excluded (e.g. the second, fourth, fifth etc. verses on your list):

Genesis 3:20
HEB: כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־
INT: because he become was the mother of all

Genesis 29:17
HEB: רַכּ֑וֹת וְרָחֵל֙ הָֽיְתָ֔ה יְפַת־ תֹּ֖אַר
INT: were weak Rachel become was beautiful of form

Genesis 36:12
HEB: וְתִמְנַ֣ע ׀ הָיְתָ֣ה פִילֶ֗גֶשׁ לֶֽאֱלִיפַז֙
INT: Timna become was a concubine Eliphaz

Would you like me to do a survey of the NASB, like I did with the NKJV in the other thread?

 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/23/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

The “biblehub.com” page only gives this information for selected translations. And even then, it does not legitimately support your “59%” claim.

Actually, only ONE translation.  I thought INT was a translation.

If we exclude the "INT", we'll have to start taking verses off the list - since many only have the "INT" translation.

Can you see how using the page this way doesn't work - logically? It's just too much of a mess. Maybe the page serves the author's intent, but it doesn't serve the needs of your claim.

 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/23/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

I never claimed you had “no evidence”. Your “59%” claim is logically invalid, but ‘hayetha’ is indeed sometimes translated ‘become/became’ (when the context permits 😊 ).

Except when there is NO CONTEXT given.  Why is that so hard to accept.

It "hard to accept" any claim based on an absurdity.

There is unequivocally "CONTEXT" in Genesis 1:2. The problem is that there in nothing in that "CONTEXT" justifying any movement away from the established definitions of the words.

 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

God isn't required to give 'context' when He doesn't want to

He does if He wants to communicate something different to the understood definitions of the words He uses.

This is just how words work. They have definitions. Those definitions are what the words mean when they are used - unless the context provides a reason to deviate from the understood definitions.

 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

What is disingenuous is to see how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4:23 and STILL resist the idea that Gen 1:2 could describe the same RESULT

It demonstrates a lack of objectivity, or self-awareness, to not be able to see the same argument from the opposite perspective.

You don't seem to have considered the possibility that Genesis 1:2 is translated correctly. Whereas your preferred translation of Jeremaiah 4:23 reflects the deviation from the meanings of those words.

And you don't seem to have considered that not every translator of Jeremaiah 4:23 took the same liberty as your preferred translation.

e.g.

Jeremiah 4:23 (New King James Version)
 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;

 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

Second, translating "tohu" as "formless" is ridiculous, since NO object can be "formless".  That isn't even possible.  EVERY object has a form.  So the translation of Gen 1:2 is bogus.

Well, there's only so many times one can explain why an argument is dumb, before things start becoming awkward; Especially when the response is to simply repeat the same, um, let's instead say not-very-clever argument.

I've even tried to avoid this collision by using "unordered" instead of "formless". But you are so darn determined to charge head-first into fatuity.

 

On 7/23/2023 at 9:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

Third, the TT of Gen 1:1,2 says "God created the earth tohu", yet Isa 45:18 says "God did NOT create the earth tohu".

You are conflating a Hebrew word with translations. No translation uses the word 'tohu'. That's the Hebrew word. In Hebrew, Genesis 1:2 does directly claim, "God created the earth tohu" and Isaiah 45:18 does directly claim, "God did NOT create the earth tohu".

Prima facie, that is indeed a "contradiction" - in the Hebrew text.

That means, if we isolated the words from their contexts, and read them both in Hebrew, we would understand one as saying, "God created the earth tohu", and the other as saying, "God did NOT create the earth tohu".

In that sense, we both have the same "contradiction" to explain.

You reconcile that supposed "contradiction" by arbitrarily translating certain words of Genesis 1:2 to mean something beyond their understood definitions.

I reconcile this supposed "contradiction" by applying information from the context of Isaiah 45:18 to justify a slight, context-specific, deviation from the normally understood definitions.

 

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

So it should have been excluded, not "included"? I'm not sure I understand where you are going.

I am acknowledging that by misunderstanding what INT means on the "interlin" link, I counted "became" where it wasn't in any translation.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Interlinear texts are translations - of sorts. They're just not formally standardized.

OK, there you go.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

But does that mean you didn't count Gen 3:20 for 'became' - since it only has the "INT" translation for that verse - which is the one that doesn't make sense (and turns out to be 'was' in the translated text)?

Again, I counted ALL the times I saw the word "became" or "become", even in the verses where all biblehub had was INT.  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Can you see yet why this instance alone invalidates your counting method?

I've already admitted that.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Except for the first verse in the list:

Genesis 1:2
HEB: וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ
KJV: And the earth was without form,
INT: the earth was was formless and void

And except for where the NASB was excluded (e.g. the second, fourth, fifth etc. verses on your list):

Yes, a few times they used the KJV instead of NAS.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Genesis 3:20
HEB: כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־
INT: because he become was the mother of all

I have no idea why biblehub used "he" here, since he's can't become mothers, but consider this:  any woman who HAS children BECAME a mother on that basis, so 'became" or "become" is valid in those verses.  And there were a lot of those in the list.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Genesis 29:17
HEB: רַכּ֑וֹת וְרָחֵל֙ הָֽיְתָ֔ה יְפַת־ תֹּ֖אַר
INT: were weak Rachel become was beautiful of form

Ditto here.  Rachel wasn't born "beautiful of form" for sure.  But she SURE BECAME that!

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Genesis 36:12
HEB: וְתִמְנַ֣ע ׀ הָיְתָ֣ה פִילֶ֗גֶשׁ לֶֽאֱלִיפַז֙
INT: Timna become was a concubine Eliphaz

And ditto here.  Timna wasn't born a concubine, but she BECAME one.  So my point stands.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Would you like me to do a survey of the NASB, like I did with the NKJV in the other thread?

You may do whatever you think would be appropriate.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

If we exclude the "INT", we'll have to start taking verses off the list - since many only have the "INT" translation.

Depends on what the sentence says.  For example, in some of the verses, it says so and so WAS the wife of...   That could just as easily and accurately be worded "so and so BECAME the wife of...   Do you see my point?

So the translators used "was" where "became" is JUST AS VALID.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

There is unequivocally "CONTEXT" in Genesis 1:2. The problem is that there in nothing in that "CONTEXT" justifying any movement away from the established definitions of the words.

No such thing as "the established definitions of the words".  As I have just proven.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

He does if He wants to communicate something different to the understood definitions of the words He uses.

If something DID happen after original creation that resulted in the earth needing to be restored, how would YOU translate v.2 when you decided NOT to give any details?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

This is just how words work. They have definitions. Those definitions are what the words mean when they are used - unless the context provides a reason to deviate from the understood definitions.

I will assume that you have a wife.  Was she always your wife, or did you marry her at some point in time?  Obviously she wasn't born married to you, so OBVIOUSLY she BECAME your wife.  This is an example of how "was" EQUALS" "became".

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

And you don't seem to have considered that not every translator of Jeremaiah 4:23 took the same liberty as your preferred translation.

Are you kidding??  I considered the context, you know, where the besieging army came in and DESTROYED "the land".  And that's what tohu means.

What it CAN'T mean is "formless".  That would be ridiculous.  Invading armies don't leave the land formless.  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

e.g.

Jeremiah 4:23 (New King James Version)
 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;

 

Well, there's only so many times one can explain why an argument is dumb, before things start becoming awkward; Especially when the response is to simply repeat the same, um, let's instead say not-very-clever argument.

I'm happy to tell you that "without form and void" in Jer 4:23 is DUMB.  No army ever has invaded the land and left it without form.

Why would you expect any reasonable person to accept such a ridiculous translation?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I've even tried to avoid this collision by using "unordered" instead of "formless". But you are so darn determined to charge head-first into fatuity.

OK, plug that word into Jer 4:23 and how sensible would that be?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

That means, if we isolated the words from their contexts, and read them both in Hebrew, we would understand one as saying, "God created the earth tohu", and the other as saying, "God did NOT create the earth tohu".

Just using the Hebrew word in both verses, we DO SEE a contradiction.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

In that sense, we both have the same "contradiction" to explain.

You reconcile that supposed "contradiction" by arbitrarily translating certain words of Genesis 1:2 to mean something beyond their understood definitions.

Your error is claiming I "arbitrarily" translated certain words in Gen 1:2.  No, I used translations of how those SAME EXACT words are translated elsewhere.  So NO contradiction.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I reconcile this supposed "contradiction" by applying information from the context of Isaiah 45:18 to justify a slight, context-specific, deviation from the normally understood definitions.

It seems you just don't even understand what an invading army does to "the land" when they invade.  But the text tells us that the invading army DESTROYS nations.

So I am on very solid ground.