Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Retrobyter]

On 7/8/2023 at 7:30 AM, FreeGrace said:

Please explain why the scholars who translated the LXX begin v.2 with the Greek for "but".  They were showing a CONTRAST from v.1.  That's what a conjunction of contrast does.  It was NOT a conjunction of continuation, which is what "and" is.

Shalom, FreeGrace.

It's because there's more than one thing about which one may show contrast. God did create the material for the earth and sky in the first word of verse 2, BUT it was "without form"; that is, it was still UNFORMED, not DESTROYED. It was mere matter that had not yet been shaped into the beautiful earth and sky that we see a remnant of today in a sunrise or a sunset scene.

I know that seems awkward to you, but it's simply because God CHOSE to create things in an order.

He made the "light" (masculine) on Day 1, and He created the "from-lights" (feminine) on Day 4.
He made the skies and the waters below the skies on Day 2, and He created the "fowl and the fish" on Day 5.
He made the earth and and the plants on Day 3, and He created the land animals and man on Day 6.

And, then, of course, He RESTED from His labors. However, God is NOT static, and as a DYNAMIC God, He continues to make and create today! Every creature of God is created

On 7/8/2023 at 7:30 AM, FreeGrace said:

Second, for the umpteenth time, the concept of "formless" is impossible since ALL objects have a form.  And the most common use of "tohu" is "waste/wasteland/waste place/chaos", as shown from all the uses of that word in the OT.

Are you even reading what I've posted? Formless is QUITE possible since a "form" is the SHAPE that a thing is in! If it's a solid, it will tend to keep that shape unless acted upon by an outside force. If it is liquid or gaseous, it is NORMALLY shapeless or "formless" as it conforms to the shape or "form" of its container! As with anything newly made, it will need some finishing and polishing. The earth, when it was first made, was also in need of some finishing and polishing.

On 7/8/2023 at 7:30 AM, FreeGrace said:

Further, IF God did create the earth "tohu", then there IS a contradiction in the Bible, because Isa 45:18 says "God did NOT create the earth "tohu".

READ FOR CLARITY! It's pretty simple; the words in Isaiah 45:18 aren't talking about the Beginning, they just talk about the CREATION. That's what happened during ALL SIX DAYS! So, as can be seen at the END of the Creation Week,

Genesis 1:31-2:3 (KJV)

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

At this point, the earth was no more "tohuw vaVuw"- "shapelessness and empty."

And, THIS is what Yesha`yahuw was talking about in Isaiah 45:18:

Isaiah 45:18 (KJV)

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else."

This is talking about the WHOLE WEEK of Creation! Duh!

On 7/8/2023 at 7:30 AM, FreeGrace said:

So I strongly disagree with your conclusions.

How do you know what Psa 33:9 is referring to?  

BY ITS CONTEXT!!! What was the author talking about when He wrote this song?

Here's the whole psalm (song):

Psalm 33:1-22 (KJV)

1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright.
2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.
3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.
5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.
13 The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.
14 From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
15 He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.
16 There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength.
17 An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength.
18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;
19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.
20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.
21 For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name.
22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.

Not only does this psalm talk about the creation of the skies, but it also talks about the Exodus from Egypt and how YHWH God made the waters to stand "as an heap," hiding the true depths of the sea! (See Exodus 14 and the Song of Moses in Exodus 15, particularly verses 8-10.)

On 7/8/2023 at 7:30 AM, FreeGrace said:

It's a blanket statement about how God creates.  It certainly applies to Gen 1:1.  He spoke the universe and earth into existence.  And during the restoration, He spoke many things into existence.

Well, it's FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG to separate the TITLE of the Creation Week from the events of the Creation Week. That is what is being done in this silly Gap Theory!

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, JimmyB said:

Regarding this ruin/reconstruction hypothesis, which is based on a single word in ancient Hebrew...

Error alert!!  No, it is how particular words (plural) in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.  Hardly a "single word" as you suppose/guess/opine.

Based on how the particular words are translated elsewhere, this is the best rendering:

But the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.

The LXX translates the "waw" as a conjunction of contrast.  The particular verb form is translated as "became/become" in 59% of ALL occurrences in the OT, and "tohu" is translated elsewhere as "waste", "2 words wasteland" "waste place" and "chaos".

And the same two words "tohu wabohu" (without form and void) occurs in Jer 4:23 in a passage that describes a "besieging army" that DESTROYS "the land".  So, how does an invading army leave "the land" FORMLESS AND VOID?  Can you explain that with a straight face?

5 hours ago, JimmyB said:

There is a part of the Bible that clearly describes what God did:  it is the story of the worldwide flood, in which Noah and his extended family, as well as animals and birds, were saved by surviving in an ark.  Genesis 6-8 -- two chapters -- describes this extensively.  Compare that to the single word in Genesis 1:2.

Which is credible and which isn't?

What is credible is how particular words are translated in the rest of the Bible.  And understanding that the 2 words in v.2 are found in Jer 4:23 which describes what a besieging army does to "the land".  It sure isn't "formless and void".  The passage plainly uses the word destruction to describe what the army does to "the land".

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Hebrews do not teach a restored earth. And if earth was restored thats implying earth was just like it is now before wasted.

Biblehub does not show that 70% are rendered waste.

You found a very old post, where I made a mistake, and have since corrected it.  According to biblehub.com the exact same form of the verb in Gen 1:2 (was) is translated as "became/become" in 59% of all occurrences, while it is translated as "was" in only 4% of the time.  Any particular reason to fight for the LEAST common translation over THE MOST COMMON translation?  

I got the 70% from the actual number of occurrences, but listed it as a % rather than the raw number, and I corrected it.

5 hours ago, BeyondET said:

The lxx has over 150 errors.

https://www.layittoheart.com/septuagint.html

How is this relevant to a particular word in a specific verse?  Maybe all those 150 errors are in other books in the OT.  Without specifying, your "data point" is irrelevant and vague.

[FreeGrace]

9 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, FreeGrace.

It's because there's more than one thing about which one may show contrast. God did create the material for the earth and sky in the first word of verse 2, BUT it was "without form"; that is, it was still UNFORMED, not DESTROYED.

There is no reason to accept the description "without form" as existing for any object.  If one can see an object it HAS form.  It cannot be "unformed" or "without form".

And how do you know that God creates the way you describe?  There is no text that says so.  In fact, Psa 33:9 says "For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm."

So you want me to believe that He spoke "material for the earth" first and then shaped it.  Well, ALL matter still has form.  I've seen models of atoms, molecules, etc and they can all be described based on how they look.  iow, they HAVE form.

And there is nothing in the text that supports the idea that God created "matter" and then shaped it.  Kinda reminds me of scooping up a handful of snow and packing it into a snowball.  There is no reason to reject the idea that when God spoke, the earth as is came into being.  And the same for the sun moon and stars.

9 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

I know that seems awkward to you, but it's simply because God CHOSE to create things in an order.

Except the text doesn't support what you present.

[Duncan]

31 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

By the facts that I have presented.  

How much have I missed?  I've asked many questions of the YEC and they have no serious answers. For example:

1.  contradiction between Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18.  v.2 read God created the earth tohu, yet Isa 45:18 says "God did not create the earth tohu".  

2.  Why would God create the entire universe with obvious apparent age, if the universe isn't nearly as old as it appears and has been measured as?

3.  How can any object be "formless" or "without form"?  If it is visible, it HAS form.

4.  The words "tohu wabohu" in Gen 1:2 also occur in Jer 4:23 in a passage about "a besieging army" that has invaded and DESTROYED "the land".  Yet, most translations render the words the same as Gen 1:2 as "without form and void".

Really?  How does a besieging army leave the land "without form and void"?

5.  The exact same form of the verb "hayah" (was) in Gen 1:2 occurs 111 times in the OT and in 59% of the time, is translated as "became/become", making that word the most common translation of that exact same form of the verb in v.2.  otoh, that exact same form of the verb is translated as "was" occurs only 4% of the time.

So, explain why so much embracing of one of the least common translation for the verb in v.2 rather than the most common translation.

Now, do you have any answers for these very thoughtful questions?  I would love to see them.

And, finally, how does a translation that clearly indicates an unknown time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2, indicating a very old earth, have ANY effect on any doctrine in the Bible?  iow, what's the issue with a very old earth yet Adam living only 6,000 years ago?

 

[BeyondET]

55 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

You found a very old post, where I made a mistake, and have since corrected it.  According to biblehub.com the exact same form of the verb in Gen 1:2 (was) is translated as "became/become" in 59% of all occurrences, while it is translated as "was" in only 4% of the time.  Any particular reason to fight for the LEAST common translation over THE MOST COMMON translation?  

I got the 70% from the actual number of occurrences, but listed it as a % rather than the raw number, and I corrected it.

How is this relevant to a particular word in a specific verse?  Maybe all those 150 errors are in other books in the OT.  Without specifying, your "data point" is irrelevant and vague.

Anyone can look at the translations at biblehub, 99% is was not became.

Again the Hebrew Bible never taught a earth that became a wasteland.

That's why they are deemed mistranslations of the original scripture.

It's not maybe the OT has errors in the original word of God, it doesn't.

You want to justify the lxx at the expense of the original OT that's outrageous.

Edited July 11, 2023 by BeyondET

[NConly]

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This is only your opinion about what others thing.  My facts are determined by how various words are translated throughout the OT.  I perform the Berean verification method to determine what is truth.

I've heard most evangelical Bible teachers criticize a very old earth, because of how Gen 1:1,2 is translated in nearly every English translation.

I've also heard some evangelical Bible teachers point out what the words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere in the OT and give a different meaning to v.2, which indicates an unknown time gap.

So I studied the SAME verb form in v.2 in the rest of the OT, I found that in 59% of all occurrences of that exact same verb form, it was translated as "became/become", and was translated as "was" in only 4% of the time.

So why push one of the LEAST common translations of the verb form for v.2 rather than THE MOST COMMON translation?  

The opening of your post shows strong bias, which has no supporting evidence, but only your opinion of how others think.

59% vs 41% ?

[BeyondET]

This is similar in the beginning, God mentions the ark before telling how to form it, the ark was formless until the gosher wood was collected and milled and it was void of desks until it was built. It was the first and only of such a vessel.

Gen 6

14Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark and coat it with pitch inside and out.

15And this is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.

16You are to make a roof for the ark, finish its walls a cubit from the top, place a door in the side of the ark, and build lower, middle, and upper decks.

In the beginning God created earth "ark" and was hovering over the waters "gosher wood" in which earth was divided from. Like the ark the hull, desks, doors then the formation of dryland and seas, vegetation, animals, man. These accounts are no difference in creating things rather the universe or an ark.

Edited July 11, 2023 by BeyondET

[Tristen]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

Well first in verse 1, we have God who just created the universe. Right?

 

Then in verse 2, we have the Spirit hovering over the waters, right?

 

So why would you need something between verses 1 & 2?

Wouldn’t it be natural that God went from creating the universe and then getting right down to forming the earth? 
 

The verse says, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

 

God is creating and calling us to look at His glory as Creator and in His creation. And from the Spirit hovering over the water is where we should be focusing our attention and viewpoint. 

I was contesting that there is anything between these verses - and you criticized my view as being "only [my] opinion".

You then said, "The best way to prove anything theologically is through scripture". Well - 100% of my "attention" is on what the "scripture" actually says.

I'm not exactly sure where we disagree.

 

[JimmyB]

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This is only your opinion about what others thing.  My facts are determined by how various words are translated throughout the OT.  I perform the Berean verification method to determine what is truth.

I've heard most evangelical Bible teachers criticize a very old earth, because of how Gen 1:1,2 is translated in nearly every English translation.

I've also heard some evangelical Bible teachers point out what the words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere in the OT and give a different meaning to v.2, which indicates an unknown time gap.

So I studied the SAME verb form in v.2 in the rest of the OT, I found that in 59% of all occurrences of that exact same verb form, it was translated as "became/become", and was translated as "was" in only 4% of the time.

So why push one of the LEAST common translations of the verb form for v.2 rather than THE MOST COMMON translation?  

The opening of your post shows strong bias, which has no supporting evidence, but only your opinion of how others think.

Your post shows strong bias, which has no supporting evidence, but only your opinion.

I stand by what I said.  You have given no evidence for your mistranslation and no evidence of how/why the earth that God created somehow decayed.  You are basing your hypothesis on one word!