Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

I'm with truth.  My understanding of Gen 1:2 reveals that the earth is far older than Adam, which is the title of this thread, btw.

Billions of years older.   Why would that be a big deal for God?

Of course it isn't.  And I agree with however old scientists claim the earth is.

Why do you think that I think that would be a "big deal" for God?

1 hour 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.

It's just a fact.

Unfortunately, your opinion about what I am working from is wrong.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

  You're not even able to tell the difference between evolution and adaptation.

I proved that I am fully aware of what adaptation is.  What you've presented as evolution isn't what most people have been taught.  As I was taught.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

  Which is what I just told you.   Man's body is the result of evolution, but his soul is given immediately by God.

And you can't prove a thing.  God formed man from the dust of the earth.  You have no idea how He did it, or how long or quick it took.  All you have is speculation.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

What you don't get is that both of these are creation.   Some things God creates without intermediates like our souls.  Some things, like our bodies, He uses existing creation to produce.

Of course I get it.  I wonder why you haven't been able to comprehend that.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

You can't or at least haven't refuted my view about the restoration of the earth. 

I'm just pointing out that it's man's addition to scripture.

I've shown how the verb and noun in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere, which gives a completely different meaning to v.2.  So please don't tell me about additions.  

I haven't added anything, except clarity.

And why, since you agree that the earth is way older than Adam, would you have a problem with how the 2 words in v.2 are translated elsewhere and do mean the same thing in v.2 anyway?

Your evolutionary theory about why the earth is as old as it is doesn't come close to explaining anything in Genesis 1.  Mine does.  Easily.

[Philologos]

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Again, that very verb form is translated as "became/become" in 59% of all the verses with that exact verb form.  So I'm not giving an opinion, but HOW the verb form is translated elsewhere in the OT. So it is the most common  translation of that form.

We understand what words mean by seeing how they are translated generally.  And the translation "was" occurs only about 4% of the time.  

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’) 

This occurs a lot in both OT & NT. 

°Three completely different Greek words all translated “love.” 

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

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

°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.

°A messianic prophecy was censored- it removed a healing that Jesus performed, and Jesus even read the original text that included it when he first proclaimed his mission. He was popular for healing the blind, so the scribes created the Masoretic text without it, in hopes people wouldn’t think it meant him.

*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. 

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

[The Barbarian]

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.

It's just a fact.

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Unfortunately, your opinion about what I am working from is wrong.

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

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I proved that I am fully aware of what adaptation is.

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

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You have no idea how He did it, or how long or quick it took.  All you have is speculation.

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.

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Your evolutionary theory about why the earth is as old as it is

Evolutionary theory is only about how living populations change over time.  Nothing at all about how old the Earth is.  Remember when I told you that not knowing what evolutionary theory says, keeps tripping you up?    It just did again.   

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What you've presented as evolution isn't what most people have been taught.

This is an example of why it's a bad idea to sleep in biology class.   I used to review science textbooks.   None of them teach what you claim they do.   Feel free to show one that actually does.

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

 

 

 

[FreeGrace]

2 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’)

It's not the "word" but the "exact form" of the verb in v.2 that is the issue, and how that exact form of the verb is translated elsewhere in the OT.

The root word occurs about 3,650 times overall.  But the "exact form of that verb occurs just 111 times, and 59% of the time it is translated as "become/became", making that the most common translation for that exact form of the verb.

2 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. 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.

We know what the "exact form" of that verb is translated as "become or became" i9n 59% of its occurrences, making that is the most common usage or meaning.

2 hours ago, Philologos said:

 How does knowledge of the proper verb tense, in this case, change in people’s understanding of that one verse?

It makes all the difference.  Either God DID or DID NOT create the earth "tohu".  If we accept "was" in v.2 then it means that God created the earth and the earth WAS tohu.

But, that creates a conflict with Isa 45:18, which says that God "did NOT create the earth tohu".  

So, translating hayah as "was" creates a direct conflict with Isa 45:18, which says God DID NOT create the earth tohu.

The solution to the conflict is to translate "hayah" the MOST COMMON way in the rest of the OT, which is "became/become".  

And the LXX translates the first word in v.2 as "BUT" in the Greek, showing a conjunction of contrast, which fits the idea that the earth became something it was NOT created as.

[JimmyB]

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?

I believe that the items listed in verses 3-31 are in a hierarchy that we are to accept.  Light, night and day (in that order), the sky, the seas and the land, vegetation, the stars and planets, "swarms of living creatures", birds, sea monsters, "cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind", and finally, humans.

Although I don't fully understand why the creation was ordered in that way, I believe that we are to respect God's order of creation as a divine hierarchy.

 

[BeyondET]

15 hours ago, JimmyB said:

The Bible -- both Testaments -- is a spiritual book.  To try to equate science with God's word is an exercise in futility.

For example, the Bible mentions the Holy Spirit but doesn't mention cancer.

There is something called evolutionary stasis. In which some aspects have remained the same since the 6th day. 

Nearly all mammals, mice, giraffes, whales, humans have exactly 7 cervical vertebrae.

 “CTL” (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar, vertebrae) have been consist over millions of years. Humans have a few less thoracic and lumbar adding up to 24 CTL.

Man is one of the exceptions from most other mammals that have 26 to 27 CTL, a reduction of ribrae.

God taught Noah the physics of buoyancy, shipboard engineering. There's a science to building a proper keel to keep a ship afloat.

Edited June 28, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

8 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It's not the "word" but the "exact form" of the verb in v.2 that is the issue, and how that exact form of the verb is translated elsewhere in the OT.

The root word occurs about 3,650 times overall.  But the "exact form of that verb occurs just 111 times, and 59% of the time it is translated as "become/became", making that the most common translation for that exact form of the verb.

We know what the "exact form" of that verb is translated as "become or became" i9n 59% of its occurrences, making that is the most common usage or meaning.

It makes all the difference.  Either God DID or DID NOT create the earth "tohu".  If we accept "was" in v.2 then it means that God created the earth and the earth WAS tohu.

But, that creates a conflict with Isa 45:18, which says that God "did NOT create the earth tohu".  

So, translating hayah as "was" creates a direct conflict with Isa 45:18, which says God DID NOT create the earth tohu.

The solution to the conflict is to translate "hayah" the MOST COMMON way in the rest of the OT, which is "became/become".  

And the LXX translates the first word in v.2 as "BUT" in the Greek, showing a conjunction of contrast, which fits the idea that the earth became something it was NOT created as.

Hmm, Theia colliding with Earth forming the Moon.

Edited June 28, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Hmm, Theia colliding with Earth forming the Moon.

Hmm, never met her.

otoh, does THE most common translation of the verb form in Gen 1:2 bother you?

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Hmm, never met her.

otoh, does THE most common translation of the verb form in Gen 1:2 bother you?

And you never will meet.

Became a wasteland from a collision is fine.

Edited June 28, 2023 by BeyondET

[Philologos]

16 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But, that creates a conflict with Isa 45:18, which says that God "did NOT create the earth tohu".  

What does the word ‘eres mean in this verse? There are seven different translations in descending order of frequency: land, earth, country, ground, world, way, common, field, nations, wilderness. Our definition of ‘earth’ as “planet” has only been used since the 15th century. These manuscripts used that word before anyone ever referred to the whole planet as “earth.” These ‘translations’ are all the same word, not much to distinguish them from one another… which one is correct? All? Any of them?
Before we continue with hayah, I’d like to verify the intended meaning of ‘eres in each of these, since the focus is on the ‘eres and its status upon the arrival of the Spirit of God.