Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[George]

2 minutes ago, Philologos said:

What does the word ‘eres mean in this verse?

It's actually eretz in Hebrew ... and it's the same word used in Genesis 1:1 ... and is most often translated Earth.   However, the word Eretz has a connotation of land as well.  For example, my wife sings ... Eretz Za Vat Halav ... which literally means ... the land of milk and honey.

Be blessed,

George

[Philologos]

38 minutes ago, George said:

It's actually eretz in Hebrew ... and it's the same word used in Genesis 1:1 ... and is most often translated Earth.   However, the word Eretz has a connotation of land as well.  For example, my wife sings ... Eretz Za Vat Halav ... which literally means ... the land of milk and honey.

Be blessed,

George

In most translations, eretz is translated “land” twice+ as often as “earth.” (I used KJV data since so many are fond of that translation and use it as a source translation.)

My concern is that we read the bias English translation of that word in a variety of ways and are unaware that we hang a whole mess of doctrine on an incorrect understanding of its meaning. We give meaning to it based on our theology. We read “eretz” as meaning the planet… it is never used in scripture with that in mind. 

I believe God made this planet, but scripture isn’t about the planet, it’s about the plot of land that God claimed for Himself to dwell among a chosen portion of His creation, a mere 1% of the earth’s surface.
 

When we read “earth” and think scripture is referring to the planet, we generalize what was written about something very specific. Most understand scripture as saying, “God created the planet and the universe…” It’s really focused on 1400x1400 mile plot of land and the atmosphere above it. This is revealed throughout scripture, including in descriptions of Mew Jerusalem, as well as OT prophets.

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Philologos

[George]

2 minutes ago, Philologos said:

I believe God made this planet, but scripture isn’t about the planet, it’s about the plot of land that God claimed for Himself to dwell among a chosen portion of His creation, a mere 1% of the earth’s surface.

Well, I'll disagree with you here ... since, the earth and all therein is His. 

Honestly, don't overthink the passage.  Genesis 1:1 ... eretz is not referring to a small portion of land, and simply the entire earth in that passage. 

Be blessed. 

[The Barbarian]

46 minutes ago, George said:

It's actually eretz in Hebrew ... and it's the same word used in Genesis 1:1 ... and is most often translated Earth.   However, the word Eretz has a connotation of land as well.  For example, my wife sings ... Eretz Za Vat Halav ... which literally means ... the land of milk and honey.

Be blessed,

"Eretz Israel."   The land of Israel.   The Hebrew word for "world" is "tebel."    That can mean the entire Earth, or it can mean the known world.    Similar to the usage in Koine Greek, where Caesar decreed a census for the whole world.  (κόσμος)  That is, the Roman Empire.

[NConly]

On 12/9/2022 at 8:10 PM, JohnR7 said:

This was 4.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.6 billion years ago.

If one looks at v 9-10 they see earth created, then when one looks at v14 they see the sun created.

The above statement indicates the sun created before the earth?

Edited June 28, 2023 by NConly
add

[Philologos]

3 minutes ago, George said:

Well, I'll disagree with you here ... since, the earth and all therein is His. 

Honestly, don't overthink the passage.  Genesis 1:1 ... eretz is not referring to a small portion of land, and simply the entire earth in that passage. 

Be blessed. 

“The land and all therein is His.” It’s the same meaning as earth, but not ‘planet.’ 

Sometimes adama is translated as “earth.” What do we make of that? In English, adama means planet also? 
I’m fine with people disagreeing with me- had a pastor recently mock me (& God) because he was teaching that “Mystery” is an actual city that he can travel to that is the source city of all sexual deviancy. I called him on it- he obviously disagreed with me. Another, nationally known pastor, adamantly spoke these words, “God is unsafe!”  I called him on it- think he agreed? 

How do we know eretz means “Planet Earth” and not “the land, territory, country?” It can be translated many different ways without considering its intended use… 

If we make no assumptions about ‘eretz,’ and consider the verb tense issue that has taken up way too much of this thread, we would actually accept the verb tense and have a reasonable and accurate understanding of what happened when, how, etc. It helps to ask God to provide some level of understanding… if you’re of the belief that God will give you wisdom when you want it/need it.

But, no worries. I tried. As long as we’re each set on our own preferred translations, there’s nothing more I can share on this topic.

[George]

22 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

"Eretz Israel."   The land of Israel.   The Hebrew word for "world" is "tebel."    That can mean the entire Earth, or it can mean the known world.    Similar to the usage in Koine Greek, where Caesar decreed a census for the whole world.  (κόσμος)  That is, the Roman Empire.

If it were so in Genesis 1:1 ... in that case it's simply the earth.  The context is the key.

Gen 1:1  In the beginningH7225 GodH430 createdH1254 (H853) the heavenH8064 and the earth.H776

Gen 1:2  And the earthH776 wasH1961 without form,H8414 and void;H922 and darknessH2822 was uponH5921 the faceH6440 of the deep.H8415 And the SpiritH7307 of GodH430 movedH7363 uponH5921 the faceH6440 of the waters.H4325

It's not that difficult to see the passage is not referring to Israel, but the earth at the beginning of creation.  Be blessed.

[FreeGrace]

22 hours ago, Philologos said:

It’s the same word God used when Moses asked what name to tell the people. As well, you’ll find that word is also used to request and evaluate light in the following verse… “‘Amar Elohim, haya ‘or, haya ‘or.” (God said, ‘become light, and became light’)

I think you are still missing my point.  I'm talking about the SPECIFIC verb FORM as in v.2.  There are many forms for "the verb" hayah.  I'm ony focusing on the EXACT SAME FORM as what is found in v2.  So I'm not talking about "the same word", since the word comes in many forms.  Just the exact same form as in v.2, and in 59% of the time, Hebrew scholars translated that exact same form as "became/become".

22 hours ago, Philologos said:

°Three completely different Greek words all translated “love

Not relevant to my point.  

22 hours ago, Philologos said:

°At least three different Greek words representing death translated “hell.”

Not relevant to my point.

22 hours ago, Philologos said:

°”Lucifer” is a mistranslation in Isaiah. (No such word actually exists in scripture- it’s a known error that no one wants to fix.

Not relevant to my point.

22 hours ago, Philologos said:

°There are more than 600 years of genealogy that were altered and passed down into most English translations. Two different sets of older manuscripts show this.

And?

22 hours ago, Philologos said:

*My point is, that we can chase down every word that we don’t think is translated correctly, but until we come to an agreement with bibles publishers and pulpits, we’re just treading water in a hurricane.

Once again, it isn't abourt a "word" but the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb in Gen 1:2.

Hayah occurs in the OT some 3,560 times, in MANY different forms.  I am only interested in the EXACT SAME FORM as in v.2.

22 hours ago, Philologos said:

But my original point was that by using what you know the verb to actually say, will cause people to inquire about it.

Well, I do hope that those who read this thread will inquire about it.  And it is easily verified at biblehub.com.

22 hours ago, Philologos said:

The lack of an explanation negates the importance of that word. And… it adds more to the “we don’t understand pile” of scriptural knowledge. 
How does knowledge of the proper verb tense, in this case, change in people’s understanding of that one verse?

Again, if you accept the traditional translation (TT) of Gen 1:1,2 it says that "God created the earth and the earth WAS formless (TOHU)".

But, since that EXACT SAME FORM of the verb is MOST COMMONLY translated as "became" or "become", it is clear that SOMETHING HAPPENED to earth and it BECAME something it was not created as.

And the TT creates a conflict with Isa 45:18, which says "God DID NOT create the earth "tohu".

So, the TT says that "GOD created the earth tohu", while Isa 45:18 says "God did not create the earth tohu".  So, take your pick, if you are comfortable with Scripture contradicting itself.  I am not comfortable with any contradiction between verses.

Now, the word "formless" or "without form" isn't even a legitimate idea.  EVERY object has form.  If you can see an object, it can be described because it has a form.

Further, when searching how "tohu" is translated elsewhere in the OT we find "waste", "wasteplace" and "chaos".  So "formless" isn't even close to the meaning of that word.

[FreeGrace]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The current version is entirely consistent with Darwin's theory, with the addition of genetics.   Again, because you don't have any idea what evolutionary theory says, or what evolution itself is, you're once again working from imagination.

Please stop this silly condescention.  I do know what Darwin wrote about and his claim is that the earth evolved over a very long time and humans came from animals.  Which is a stupid claim.

You've demonstrated it for us.     You're not even able to tell the difference between evolution and adaptation.

Another very silly and empty claim.  I gave YOU an example of adaptation.  Fact.

You don't understand the difference between adaptation and evolution.  Which seems to be why you're having such difficulty here.

You don't know what you are talking about.  You believe in a very old earth but you don't accept that something happened and Genesis 1 is a restoration, which is clear from how several words in v.2 are translated elsewhere.  And there is nothing in your view that explains Genesis 1 and how it fits with your own theories.

Just so we know:

* What is the scientific definition of biological evolution?

* What is the scientific definition of adaptation?

* What is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

Not relevant in the slightest, but it seems you are confused about that.

Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, says otherwise.   He says that the large number of hominid fossils in the hominid series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."    He prefers his interpretation of scripture to the evidence, but he's honest enough to admit the facts.

Well, you just blew a hole in your foot by thinking Wise is a "fellow YE creationist".  This proves just how CONFUSED your understanding is about what I've been posting.

Or, you simply don't know what words mean.  To call Wise my "fellow YE creationist" means I am in agreement with YEC, which I AM NOT.

Evolutionary theory is only about how living populations change over time.

So, show how that even applies or relates to anything in Genesis 1, if you can. 

GLOSSARY
Evolution. Descent with modification; transformation
of species through time, including both changes that
occur within species, as well as the origin of new
species.

https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10100.pdf

Why can't of won't you even try to explain how your evolutionary theory is related to anything in Genesis 1.  Or do you reject Genesis 1 outright?  You've hardly made yourself clear.
For unknown reasons, I was unable to create paragraphs from your post, which is why I had to respond within  your single post, so I used red to separate my comments from yours.

[FreeGrace]

20 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I don't think it is appropriate to compare the creation described in Genesis 1 with modern science.

The Bible teaches spiritual truths.  

Genesis describes the earth as already existing in some primordial form.  Genesis 1:1-2, "When God began to created the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." Where did the deep, primordial waters come from?

Except, the "was" in v.2 should be "became" because that is the most common translation of that EXACT VERB FORM (59%)  It is translated as "was" in only 4% of the time.  

And you are correct that 'tohu' does mean "complete chaos".  It is also translated as "waste", "wasteland" and "waste place" elsewhere in the OT.

And Isa 45:18 plainly says that "God did not create the earth tohu".  So if God created the earth as a complete chaos, then that contradicts isa 45:18.
 

So, the earth became a complete chaos.  It wasn't created that way.