Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So you TWIST humor into something else, huh.

Your comment was a clear insinuation that my mind was "on something".  I view drugs as foul.  Your comment was foul.

Not when you knew what I was talking about the planet theia theory. You were being sarcastic not humorous towards me. You were doing the twisting.

I didn't say drugs either, so what ever foul you were thinking is your doing not mine.

I know you weren't thinking drugs because I did not say (On Something), you twisted that also.

Edited June 29, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

Not when you knew what I was talking about the planet theia theory. You were being sarcastic not humorous towards me. You were doing the twisting.

Unfortunately, you do not know what you are talking about.  You cannot know my mind when I put some humor into this.  And your snarky response clearly insinuated that I must be "on something".  Your denial doesn't work.

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

I didn't say drugs either, so what ever foul you were thinking is your doing not mine.

Yeah, you didn't have to.  Surely you are aware of what "insinuation" means.

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

I know you weren't thinking drugs because I did not say (On Something), you twisted that also.

Once again you make a judgment of which you have NO idea about.  You do not know anything about what I'm thinking, so please quit pretending that you do.

Just focus on the subject (OP) of this thread.  Prove your claims or refute mine with evidence.  Either way.

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Unfortunately, you do not know what you are talking about.  You cannot know my mind when I put some humor into this.  And your snarky response clearly insinuated that I must be "on something".  Your denial doesn't work.

Yeah, you didn't have to.  Surely you are aware of what "insinuation" means.

Once again you make a judgment of which you have NO idea about.  You do not know anything about what I'm thinking, so please quit pretending that you do.

Just focus on the subject (OP) of this thread.  Prove your claims or refute mine with evidence.  Either way.

Is pretty evident you are unapproachable.

In your mind you make no mistakes on insinuations or anything. Into something doesn't always mean the same thing as On something.

You on drugs was the farthest thing i was thinking of when I said what I said.

You can't even meet someone a 10th of the way.

You've been focused on verse 2 of Genesis 1. Earth became isn't the subject of the thread either.

Edited June 29, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

17 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Is pretty evident you are unapproachable.

In your mind you make no mistakes on insinuations or anything. Into something doesn't always mean the same thing as On something.

You on drugs was the farthest thing i was thinking of when I said what I said.

You can't even meet someone a 10th of the way.

You've been focused on verse 2 of Genesis 1. Earth became isn't the subject of the thread either.

Can you please let go and let's get on with the discussion?

 

This is how I ended my last post to you:

"Just focus on the subject (OP) of this thread.  Prove your claims or refute mine with evidence.  Either way."

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Can you please let go and let's get on with the discussion?

 

This is how I ended my last post to you:

"Just focus on the subject (OP) of this thread.  Prove your claims or refute mine with evidence.  Either way."

As long as its not about verse 2.

[FreeGrace]

26 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

As long as its not about verse 2.

Are you not able to refute the facts that I've shared about v.2?  Or prove that what I've shared is not a fact?

[BeyondET]

52 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Are you not able to refute the facts that I've shared about v.2?  Or prove that what I've shared is not a fact?

The common use of the word doesn't equal a fact.

Now if it was used 100% of the time then it could be called a fact. Since became isnt used in all occurrences, it's a interpretation.

Edited June 30, 2023 by BeyondET

[Retrobyter]

On 6/29/2023 at 8:56 AM, FreeGrace said:

To be clear, when the Hebrew was FIRST translated into the Koine Greek of the NT, which is the Septuagint, about 200-300 BC, the scholars KNEW to translate the Hebrew "waw" as a conjunction of contrast, so there is NO excuse for any English translation to use either "and" or "now".  

Further, the Hebrew scholars translated v.2 as "BUT the earth was unsightly and unfurnished", which is closer to the meaning of "tohu" than the traditional English translation of "without form", which is ridiculous, as EVERY object HAS form.  Can't get around it.

Shalom, FreeGrace.

Why can't one simply use the vav connective correctly? It is NOT translated correctly as "but" UNLESS the context dictates it to be that way. And, it does not in this context. Only when one is trying to add something to the Scriptures THAT ISN'T THERE, would one take such a position!

Furthermore, "without form" simply means "formless" or "unformed" as yet! Ha'aarets (the earth) had not yet been given its final, functional form! It was UNDER WATER and not given the life yet that would inhabit it after the Creation. You're harping about something that is unimportant!

On 6/29/2023 at 8:56 AM, FreeGrace said:

And, tohu is translated as "waste", "wasteland", "waste place" and "chaos" elsewhere in the OT.  So "unsightly" is far closer to reality than the ridiculous "formless" translation.

If being undeveloped is "unsightly," I would agree. If being SUBMERGED is "unsightly," that would be okay, too.

On 6/29/2023 at 8:56 AM, FreeGrace said:

And, IF God created the earth tohu (formless), then v.2 contradicts Isa 45:18, which says that "God did NOT create the earth tohu".  So there's that.

One REALLY should learn to take a word IN CONTEXT! There's no contradiction between Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18. Let's go back to the Hebrew of both within context:

Genesis 1:1-5 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃
וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאֹ֖ור כִּי־טֹ֑וב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָאֹ֖ור וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ

This transliterates to ...

1 Bree'shiyt baaraa' 'Elohiym 'eet hashaamayim v'eet haa'aarets:
2 Vhaa'aarets haaytaah tohuw vaaVohuw vchoshekh `al-pneey t-howm vruwach 'Elohiym mrachefet `al-pneey hammaayim:
3 Vaayyo'mer 'Elohiym yhiy 'owr vayhiy-'owr:
4 Vayyire' 'Elohiym 'et-haa'owr kiy-TowV vayyaVdeel 'Elohiym beeyn haa'owr uwVeeyn hachoshekh:
5 Vayyiqraa' 'Elohiym | laa'owr yowm vlachoshekh qaaraa' laaylaah vayhiy-`ereV vayhiy-boqer yowm 'echaad: P

This translates to ...

1 In-beginning created God (d.o.->) the-skies(2) and-(d.o.->) the-earth:
2 And-the-earth was formless and empty-of-life and-darkness upon-face of-the-deep and-a-wind of-God blew-gently upon-face of-the-waters:
3 And-said God, "Become light" and became light:
4 And-saw God (d.o.->)-the-light that-good and-divided God between the-light and-between the-darkness:
5 And-gave-the-name God to-light "Day" and-to-darkness He-gave-the-name "Night" and-there-was evening and-there-was morning Day one: (end of paragraph).

Now, as I've said before, Hebrew literature usually begins with a general statement and then goes into the details of that statement afterward. It's like listing the main points in an outline first, and then going into the subpoints afterward.

Verse 1 is inherently linked in detail to verses 8 and 10, for the words "shaamayim" and "'erets" used in verse 1 are found in verse 8 and verse 10 respectively.

Here's Day Two:

Genesis 1:6-8 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃
וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֑יעַ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום שֵׁנִֽי׃ פ

This is transliterated as ...

6 Vayyo'mer 'Elohiym yhiy raaqiya` b-towkh hammaayim vayhiy maVdiyl beeyn mayim laamaayim:
7 Vayya`as 'Elohiym 'et-haaraaqiya` vayyaVdeel beeyn hammayim 'asher mittachat laaraaqiya` uwVeeyn hammayim 'asher mee`al laaraaqiya` vayhiy-keen:
8 Vayyiqraa` 'Elohiym laaraaqiya` shaamaayim vayhiy-`ereV vayhiy-boqer Yowm Sheeniy: P

This translates to ...

6 And-said God "Become an-expanse in-middle of-the-waters and-let-it divide between waters t0-the-waters":
7 And-made God (d.o.->)-the-expanse and-He-divided between the-waters that-were above to-the-waters and-between the-waters that-were below to-the-expanse and-it-was so:
8 And-gave-name God to-the-expanse "Skies" and-there-was-evening and-there-was-morning Day Two: (end of paragraph) 

"Shaamaayim" is the NAME that God GIVES TO the expanse between the waters that He makes on Day Two in verse 8. The fact that it is the SAME WORD used in verse 1 proves that verse 1 is a summary of what is to follow!

Here's Day Three:

Genesis 1:9-13 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יִקָּו֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם מִתַּ֤חַת הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ אֶל־מָקֹ֣ום אֶחָ֔ד וְתֵרָאֶ֖ה הַיַּבָּשָׁ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֹֽוב׃
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תַּֽדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ דֶּ֔שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינֹ֔ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעֹו־בֹ֖ו עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַתֹּוצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ דֶּ֠שֶׁא עֵ֣שֶׂב מַזְרִ֤יעַ זֶ֙רַע֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וְעֵ֧ץ עֹֽשֶׂה־פְּרִ֛י אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעֹו־בֹ֖ו לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֹֽוב׃
וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום שְׁלִישִֽׁי׃ פ

This transliterates to ...

9 Vayyo'mer 'Elohiym yiqqaavuw hammayim mittachat hashaamayim 'el-maaqowm 'echad v-teeraa'eh hayyabaashaah vayhiy-keen:
10 Vayyiqraa' 'Elohiym | layyabaashaah 'erets uwlmiqveeh hammayim qaaraa'  yammiym vayyar' 'Elohiym kiy-TowV:
11 Vayyo'mer 'Elohiym tadshee' haa'aarets deshe' `eeseV mazriya` zera` `eets priy `oseh-priy 'asher zar`ow-bow `al-haa'aarets vayhiy-keen:
12 Vattowtsee' haa'aarets deshe' `eeseV mazriya` zera` lmiyneehuw v`eets `oseh-priy 'asher zar`ow-bow lmiyneehuw vayyar' 'Elohiym kiy-TowV:
13 Vayhiy-`ereV vayhiy-boqer Yowm shliyshiy: (end of paragraph)

This translates to ...

9 And-said God "Let-be-gathered-together the-waters under the-skies into-place one and-let-appear the-dry-[land]" and-it-was so.
10 And-gave-name God to-the-dry-[land] "Earth" and-to-[the]-gathering of-the-waters He-gave-name "Seas" and-saw God that-it-was-good.
11 And-said God "Let-bring-forth the-earth grass herb yielding seed tree of-fruit bearing-fruit that its-seed-in-it upon-the-earth" and-it-was so.
12 And-brought-forth the-earth grass herb yielding seed according-to-its-kind and-tree yielding-fruit that its-seed-in-it according-to-its-kind and-saw God that-it-was good.
13 There-was-evening there-was morning Day Three.

Again, "'erets" is the NAME that God GIVES TO the dry land that He makes on Day Three in verse 10. The fact that it is the SAME WORD used in verse 1 again proves that verse 1 is a summary of what is to follow!

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses a thing shall be established."

On 6/29/2023 at 8:56 AM, FreeGrace said:

Given your comments about translations for "6,000 years", please cite any source before the KJV was written that scholars believed the earth to be young.

The Hebrew text written in the Westminster Leningrad Codex.

Next will be a break-down of Isaiah 45:18 in context ....

Edited June 30, 2023 by Retrobyter
to colorize

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, BeyondET said:

FreeGrace said: 

Are you not able to refute the facts that I've shared about v.2?  Or prove that what I've shared is not a fact?

The common use of the word doesn't equal a fact.

Got news for you.  Yes, that is a fact.  I suggest you consult a dictionary and learn what a fact is.  It is a truth.  And I have shown the the MOST common use of the exact same verb form for "hayah" in Gen 1:2 is.  Why is that so difficult to accept?

And you didn't answer my question.

11 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Now if it was used 100% of the time then it could be called a fact. Since became isnt used in all occurrences, it's a interpretation.

You really don't understand what "fact" means.  Since the translation of "hayah" in Gen 1:2 is translated as "was" in ONLY 4% of all verses with that exact same form, that ALSO is a FACT.

Since you don't recognize what a fact is, why do you engage in discussions?

So, here's a FACT for you:  the ext form of the verb in Gen 1:2 is RARELY translated as "was", whereas is MOST COMMONLY translated as "became" in the rest of the OT.

Fact.  A fact that you seem unwilling to admit.  Why can't you simply accept FACTS?  They are what they are.

Now, if the MOST COMMON translation of the exact same verb form in Gen 1:2 was actually "was", that would be a fact, and I wouldn't have a point, would I?

No, I wouldn't have a point.  But I DO have a point, because the FACT is, THE MOST COMMON translation of that exact verb form was translated as "became" in the rest of the OT.  FACT.

You need to get your FACTS straight.

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, FreeGrace.

Why can't one simply use the vav connective correctly? It is NOT translated correctly as "but" UNLESS the context dictates it to be that way. And, it does not in this context. Only when one is trying to add something to the Scriptures THAT ISN'T THERE, would one take such a position!

Did the LXX translators use the vav "incorrectly"??  They translated the vav as a conjunction of CONTRAST (but) rather than "and" or "now".  Why did they?  They spoke Koine Greek as a living language, unlike today, as the Koine is now a DEAD language.  They also spoke Hebrew fluently, so they would be the BEST translators of Hebrew to Koine.  And they had more sense in translating "tohu" as "unsightly" which is exactly what a wasteland looks like!!

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Furthermore, "without form" simply means "formless" or "unformed" as yet! Ha'aarets (the earth) had not yet been given its final, functional form! It was UNDER WATER and not given the life yet that would inhabit it after the Creation. You're harping about something that is unimportant!

Not harping at all.  Making a very valid point, to the chagrin of all YECs.  No visible object can be "unformed", or "formless".  If you can see it, it HAS form.  And there is nothing in Genesis 1 that comes close to addressing such "formlessness" or "unformness".  God restored the planet after it became a wasteland.

And what do you mean by "functional form"?  The earth is a sphere, a ball.  Please explain how a sphere functions.  The Bible never said God created the earth 'under water'.  When God restored the earth, yes, it was under water.  That would be packed in ice, ie:  an ice age.  

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

If being undeveloped is "unsightly," I would agree. If being SUBMERGED is "unsightly," that would be okay, too.

Nope.  Being unsightly is what a wasteland looks like.  And you have to admit that "tohu" IS translated mostly as "wasteland", "waste", "waste place" and "chaos", all of which would look unsightly.

I simple sphere that needed some sprucing up wouldn't necessarily look unsightly.  And there is nothing in Genesis 1 that addresses anything unsightly.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

One REALLY should learn to take a word IN CONTEXT! There's no contradiction between Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18. Let's go back to the Hebrew of both within context:

Genesis 1:1-5 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃
וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאֹ֖ור כִּי־טֹ֑וב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָאֹ֖ור וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ

What good does this do?  I don't read Hebrew, so you aren't proving anything to me by copying the Hebrew.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

This transliterates to ...

1 Bree'shiyt baaraa' 'Elohiym 'eet hashaamayim v'eet haa'aarets:
2 Vhaa'aarets haaytaah tohuw vaaVohuw vchoshekh `al-pneey t-howm vruwach 'Elohiym mrachefet `al-pneey hammaayim:
3 Vaayyo'mer 'Elohiym yhiy 'owr vayhiy-'owr:
4 Vayyire' 'Elohiym 'et-haa'owr kiy-TowV vayyaVdeel 'Elohiym beeyn haa'owr uwVeeyn hachoshekh:
5 Vayyiqraa' 'Elohiym | laa'owr yowm vlachoshekh qaaraa' laaylaah vayhiy-`ereV vayhiy-boqer yowm 'echaad: P

Ditto here.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

This translates to ...

1 In-beginning created God (d.o.->) the-skies(2) and-(d.o.->) the-earth:
2 And-the-earth was formless and empty-of-life and-darkness upon-face of-the-deep and-a-wind of-God blew-gently upon-face of-the-waters:
3 And-said God, "Become light" and became light:
4 And-saw God (d.o.->)-the-light that-good and-divided God between the-light and-between the-darkness:
5 And-gave-the-name God to-light "Day" and-to-darkness He-gave-the-name "Night" and-there-was evening and-there-was morning Day one: (end of paragraph).

One more time;  there is NO SUCH THING as a "formless" object.  If you can see it, it HAS form.  The form can be uniform, or irregular, but EVERY object has form.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Verse 1 is inherently linked in detail to verses 8 and 10, for the words "shaamayim" and "'erets" used in verse 1 are found in verse 8 and verse 10 respectively.

This doesn't change the meaning of the key words in v.2.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Here's Day Two:

Genesis 1:6-8 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)

This translates to ...

6 And-said God "Become an-expanse in-middle of-the-waters and-let-it divide between waters t0-the-waters":
7 And-made God (d.o.->)-the-expanse and-He-divided between the-waters that-were above to-the-waters and-between the-waters that-were below to-the-expanse and-it-was so:
8 And-gave-name God to-the-expanse "Skies" and-there-was-evening and-there-was-morning Day Two: (end of paragraph) 

Right, God divided the land on the spherical ball between water.  No big deal.  This doesn't change an "unsightly" ball into a sightly ball, by any means.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

"Shaamaayim" is the NAME that God GIVES TO the expanse between the waters that He makes on Day Two in verse 8. The fact that it is the SAME WORD used in verse 1 proves that verse 1 is a summary of what is to follow!

This isn't proving anything about how to understand v.2.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Here's Day Three:

Genesis 1:9-13 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)

This transliterates to ...

This translates to ...

9 And-said God "Let-be-gathered-together the-waters under the-skies into-place one and-let-appear the-dry-[land]" and-it-was so.
10 And-gave-name God to-the-dry-[land] "Earth" and-to-[the]-gathering of-the-waters He-gave-name "Seas" and-saw God that-it-was-good.
11 And-said God "Let-bring-forth the-earth grass herb yielding seed tree of-fruit bearing-fruit that its-seed-in-it upon-the-earth" and-it-was so.
12 And-brought-forth the-earth grass herb yielding seed according-to-its-kind and-tree yielding-fruit that its-seed-in-it according-to-its-kind and-saw God that-it-was good.
13 There-was-evening there-was morning Day Three.

Again, "'erets" is the NAME that God GIVES TO the dry land that He makes on Day Three in verse 10. The fact that it is the SAME WORD used in verse 1 again proves that verse 1 is a summary of what is to follow!

This does not have any relevance for understanding v.2.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses a thing shall be established."

The Hebrew text written itn the Westminster Leningrad Codex.

And?  My point is valid.  No object can be "formless" or "without form".  I can't believe I have to even say this.  It is beyond obvious.  The translators simply didn't know how to handle "but the earth became a wasteland" so they punted with non-sensical translations.

Remember your own point:  the Hebrew begins with a summary and v.2 is just that.  A summary of what happened after original creation and what God did to remedy it.

Since you resist what I think v.2 is really saying, seems to suggest that you argue against a very old earth.  So that would make you a YEC.  

So, what's the problem with a very old earth that God restored for man's use?  What doctrines are affected, and why is a very old earth a problem for Christians?

If you can answer this, we'll see what the real problem is with my understanding of v.2.