Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Solus Christus]

@SavedOnebyGrace We will have to agree to disagree. I have said my view, you have yours. Have a blessed day. 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

3 minutes ago, Solus Christus said:

@SavedOnebyGrace We will have to agree to disagree. I have said my view, you have yours. Have a blessed day. 

I accept your surrender.

[Solus Christus]

19 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

I accept your surrender.

Its not a surrender, its we will never agree on this so why debate endlessly? 
 

Where is the grace in your namesake huh?  

[SavedOnebyGrace]

23 minutes ago, Solus Christus said:

Its not a surrender, its we will never agree on this so why debate endlessly? 
 

Where is the grace in your namesake huh?  

I was trying to be humorous and failed miserably. Personally, I am open to being corrected when I'm wrong. I feel responsible to correct others so their error doesn't lead others to a false belief. YEC and evolution are two errors and both are wrong. So if you are a YEC, we will never agree. That doesn't mean you're not saved, I never implied that. I think questioning my name is against the ToS though, FYI.

[Solus Christus]

14 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

I was trying to be humorous and failed miserably. Personally, I am open to being corrected when I'm wrong. I feel responsible to correct others so their error doesn't lead others to a false belief. YEC and evolution are two errors and both are wrong. So if you are a YEC, we will never agree. That doesn't mean you're not saved, I never implied that. I think questioning my name is against the ToS though, FYI.

What is YEC? 
 

I said I believe Genesis 1 is what it is saying it is, seven days of Creation. I stick to literal till its obvious its symbolism. 

I believe Scripture is clear, that it can be understood by as William Tyndale said “a plow boy.” 
 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

1 hour ago, Solus Christus said:

What is YEC? 
 

I said I believe Genesis 1 is what it is saying it is, seven days of Creation. I stick to literal till its obvious its symbolism. 

I believe Scripture is clear, that it can be understood by as William Tyndale said “a plow boy.” 
 

young earth creationism

[Solus Christus]

23 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

young earth creationism

Yeah I read up on it. 

[Tristen]

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/30/2023 at 12:22 PM, Tristen said:

You were unclear in your previous two posts about whether or not you have walked away from this argument.

Well, that wasn't your point.  The argument about "was" being better translated as "became" is solid.  

You have spent many, many posts, and much effort, over two threads, chastising me and declaring me to be "unreasonable" and "disingenuous" for not accepting your "evidence" that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' more than it is translated 'was' (initially 70%, then adjusted down to 59%).

This "point" has easily represented the majority of our discourse.

If you've now decided to walk away from that argument, I'm happy to let that go - but deserve clarification on the matter. You don't get to wave it away - pretending as though it's suddenly a minor "point" in our discussion.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/30/2023 at 12:22 PM, Tristen said:

I've tried to gracefully seek clarification, but since you have decided to posture, and since we've spent such a ridiculous amount of time examining the virtues of your "Biblehub.com" source, I can now freely declare that your previously ubiquitous claim, that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' in "59%" translations, has been thoroughly debunked due to the fact you were using an inappropriate data source.

Expand  

Feelin' better now?

It is moderately satisfying to know that I haven't completely wasted so much time enduring all your empty posturing. You now see something that you couldn't see throughout most of our conversation. It's win-win.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/30/2023 at 12:22 PM, Tristen said:

You are therefore left with the much weaker claim - that 'hayetha' is mostly translated 'was' but also occasionally translated 'became'.

Still wrong.  "hay-et-ah" isn't "mostly translated as "was".

How are you coming to this conclusion?

I showed (in the other thread - which I am happy to repost here), using an unbiased sample, that 'hayetha' is translated 'was', around 45% of the time, 'had' 21% of the time, and 'became' around 15% of the time.

It is not good enough to simply tell me I'm "still wrong".

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

And in many of the verses that were translated as "was" would be equally accurate to use "became", as I have already pointed out.

You didn't need to "point" anything "out". No one in our conversation has contested that the Hebrew word for 'was' can sometimes be validly translated 'became'. The same is true for English (context permitting).

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/30/2023 at 12:22 PM, Tristen said:

If a marriage happens in 2021, it could be said that the female 'was' a wife in 2022. She did not 'become' a wife in 2022. She 'became' a wife in 2021. She 'was' a wife in 2022 - and hopefully still 'is' a wife in 2023.

These sentences mean different things."

Not really.  In order to BE a wife, a woman must get married, in which she BECOMES a wife.  Anyone can see this.

I am confident that, given my above example, "anyone can see" that it is not always appropriate to use these words interchangeably. Sometimes it works (if context permits), and sometimes it doesn't. The two words exist separately because they are nuanced in their meaning - for the purpose of addressing slightly different ideas and contexts.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/30/2023 at 12:22 PM, Tristen said:

To take the example further, If I were to say, "She 'was' a wife in 2021", you might validly argue that it could also be said that "She 'became' a wife in 2021".

That would be ridiculous, and why use an example with a date attached, since Gen 1:2 included no dates

It's not "ridiculous" - I'm making a perfectly sensible argument demonstrating that these words cannot simply be substituted for each other without consideration of context.

These two words convey slightly different concepts. We therefore cannot simply swap-in one for the other without justification from the context. Doing so without justification potentially changes the meaning away from its intention.

If you are being honest, this is your purpose for Genesis 1:2. 'Was' fits perfectly naturally to the rest of the narrative. You're arguing for 'became' because you want the opportunity to squeeze some unstated history between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

I'm NOT arguing for "every use of the word".  Obviously to everyone else.

Your argument to me has been that you are permitted to use 'became' in Genesis 1:2 for 'hayetha', because that is how 'hayetha' is translated "elsewhere". You have repeated this argument over-and-over. 

If there is more nuance to your position than what you have previously stated, I'll happily consider your arguments.

I cannot read your mind. Simply assuming your position to be "obvious" is not helpful to my understanding of your position.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

I have used other verses to show that 'hay-et-ah' is translated as "became" more than as "was".

I haven't seen "evidence" for this claim (apart from your Biblehub.com page - that, if I understand you correctly, we now agree is unsuitable for such a claim).

Furthermore, I have shown you "evidence" that contradicts this claim.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/30/2023 at 12:22 PM, Tristen said:

For example:

If I were to instead say, "She 'was' a wife in 2022", and you argued to change the statement to, "She 'became' a wife in 2022", you would be objectively, unequivocally wrong.

Of course I would because that would be STUPID, and I haven't argued that way at all.  So you are just throwing out red herrings.  Your arguments are invalid.

Your attempt to dismiss my arguments through Unsupported Assertions is somewhat pathetic.

My argument, that these words mean different things, and therefore can not be substituted without consideration of context, is unambiguously, unequivocally demonstrated through my above argument.

Therefore, in order to use 'became' instead of 'was' for a form of 'haya' (the near ubiquitous Hebrew word for 'was') in Genesis 1:2, you have to be able to justify that decision by something other than "elsewhere" translations.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

The fact that you note that your argument "suggests liberties" shows your own biases and opinions

On the surface of it, that might be fair. 

The point I was making is that, prime-facie, that is a fair possibility from both perspectives.

You accused me of being "disingenuous" for not accepting your argument - that Genesis 1:2 should be interpreted in the Light of Jeremiah 4:23. Here, I'm merely pointing out that there is also a legitimate counter-position - that your preferred translation of Jeremiah 4:23 is the one that deviates from established definitions. Therefore, neither view is necessarily being "disingenuous". To claim such of me indicated a lack of objectivity on your part.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

How do you know anyone "took liberties" in Jer 4?

I am confident that the translation liberties were taken at the Jeremiah end of the disparity because:

- The understood meaning of 'tohu' is a sense of disorder or lack of organization, and the understood meaning of 'bohu' is emptiness.

- Using these core definitions makes perfect sense within the existing narrative of Genesis 1 - i.e. that God created the raw (unordered) materials, to later be 'formed' to purpose. The verses following Genesis 1:2 describe God both ordering and filling the Earth.

- It makes more sense that a later occurrence of a phrase is alluding to the earlier event, rather than the other way around.

- Many translators did not take the same liberty when translating the same Jeremiah passage, selecting instead to stick to the established definitions.

- There is context in Jeremiah 4 validating the existence of such translation liberties. By contrast, there is no information in the Genesis 1 text justifying the assumption of an unstated history before the existence of light.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

You just don't like the FACT that the same 2 words in Genb 1:2 are used in Jer 4:23 to describe the destruction of "the land".  That's the core problem

Ah - I see. I thought you asked the previous question because you wanted to know my position. It turns out you were just trying to set up an Appeal to Motive. Pity.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

And it supports my point about Gen 1:2.  You have to deflect to scholars "taking liberties" when they clearly didn't have to at all.  The SAME WORDS in both verses.  And Jer 4:23 is clearly about destruction.  No way of getting around that.

And once again, your lack of objectivity problem raises its ugly head.

I think a few translators took some valid liberties in their translation of Jeremiah 4 because of the presence of information in the context. You think those translators of "the TT" are wrong in their translation of Genesis 1:2.

You question how some translators dealt with Genesis 1:2, and I highlight how some translators dealt with Jeremiah 4:23. Therefore, neither of our appeals (or deflections???) exclusively "supports your point".

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

The SAME WORDS in both verses.  And Jer 4:23 is clearly about destruction.  No way of getting around that.

Same Hebrew words, mostly the same translations, but a few deviated translations - which you have chosen to latch on to. 

There's nothing to get around. Translation is a complicated process. Sometimes (context permitting) it is valid for translators to take liberties. Nothin' to see here.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/30/2023 at 12:22 PM, Tristen said:

Your argument was that Genesis 1:2 should be translated a "wasteland".

Uh, that's what happens when a "besieging army" (v.16) that "destroys nations" (v.7) does to "the land" (v.20)

That is not in question.

The question is whether the word 'tohu' means "wasteland" (as its definition), or whether 'tohu' simply means unordered, and the one or two translators who chose to use "wasteland" did so on the basis of context.

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

So, explain to me, please, how tohu in Jer 4:23 describes v.20 but CAN'T in Gen 1:2.

Sure, verse 20 from Jeremiah 4 is not present in Genesis 1:2. Therefore, the translators of Genesis 1:2 have no justification to move away from the definitions of the used words. Whereas those translating Jeremiah 4:23 are permitted to do so because of the context (i.e. the scene being described in detail in the surrounding verses).

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

OK, then God creates waste, huh?  Really?  I certainly disagree with that.

The English word "waste" describes the state of something after use - which is similarly as disorganized as its state before being formed into something useful. In that sense, they can describe a similar state. However, "waste" has a negative connotation in English that is not present in the Hebrew 'tohu'.

I would therefore use a different word. Maybe 'unorganized', or 'unordered'. (In reality, I have no problem with "without form" - but that seems to trigger the less active parts of your brain.)

 

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/30/2023 at 12:22 PM, Tristen said:

To answer your question, I "really", "really" "REALLY believe" that God created in a process of first bringing the raw, unstructured (or unordered) materials into existence - and then subsequently molded those materials into their final forms - fit for human habitation.

OK, you are free to argue that the universe and earth are only about 6-10,000 years old, if you really really REALLY want to

Nothing in my quoted statement spoke to the age of the earth. Nice try though.  

 

SUBSEQUENT POST

On 7/30/2023 at 9:56 PM, FreeGrace said:

Tristen, do you realize that your argument regarding the 2 words "tohu wabohu" is that it describes the beginning of God creating the earth in Gen 1:2 but describes the total destruction of Israel in Jer 4:23?

It would be a serious problem if you don't realize this, but this is your argument.

Of course I "realize" this.

Jeremiah is using the same phrase to allude to the same lack of order described in Genesis 1:2; i.e. before the earth was fit for human habitation. This is reinforced by the lack of "light" also described in Jeremiah 4:23.

 

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

You have spent many, many posts, and much effort, over two threads, chastising me and declaring me to be "unreasonable" and "disingenuous" for not accepting your "evidence" that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' more than it is translated 'was' (initially 70%, then adjusted down to 59%).

I see you are really sensitive about this.  But it's time to get over it because there is a much more important issue to face and resolve.  One of the YEC, whether you or retrobyter, or someone else, tried to explain "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4:23 as meaning the same thing in Gen 1:2, which is the ONLY OTHER occurrence of these 2 words in the OT.

So, that poster (?) wants me to believe that "tohu wabohu" was used in a passage describing origi9nal creation in Gen 1:2 AND what an invading besieging army did to the land in Jer 4.

So, to be perfectly clear, the 2 words are describing simultaneously creation and destruction.  Anyone who believes that has some reality issues.

The 2 words mean the SAME THING in both passages.  And in Jer 4:23, it is REAL CLEAR that they describe the result of a "nation destroyer" that leaves the land a wasteland.  

It's time to leave "hay-et-ah" alone and focus on the real issue here.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

This "point" has easily represented the majority of our discourse.

If you've now decided to walk away from that argument, I'm happy to let that go - but deserve clarification on the matter. You don't get to wave it away - pretending as though it's suddenly a minor "point" in our discussion.

Well, I have "waved it away".  It is immaterial in light of "tohu wabohu" and it ramifications.  

You are free to prove that "tohu wabohu" does refer to original creation AND it means total destruction in Jer 4:23.

You will need LOTS of luck, since you will have no facts with which to prove such a thing.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

I see you are really sensitive about this

Ah - Adhominem fallacy - that old chestnut.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

But it's time to get over it because there is a much more important issue to face and resolve

I'm only interested in the hermeneutical aspect of this topic.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

One of the YEC, whether you or retrobyter, or someone else, tried to explain "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4:23 as meaning the same thing in Gen 1:2, which is the ONLY OTHER occurrence of these 2 words in the OT.

I don't know what this means, or what it is referring to.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

So, that poster (?) wants me to believe that "tohu wabohu" was used in a passage describing origi9nal creation in Gen 1:2 AND what an invading besieging army did to the land in Jer 4.

So, to be perfectly clear, the 2 words are describing simultaneously creation and destruction.  Anyone who believes that has some reality issues.

The Hebrew phrase 'tohu vabohu' describes a state of vacant disorder, such as;

1 - the vacant disorder one might find in raw materials before they have been molded into something useful, or 

2 - the vacant disorder one might find in a war-torn land.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

The 2 words mean the SAME THING in both passages.  And in Jer 4:23, it is REAL CLEAR that they describe the result of a "nation destroyer" that leaves the land a wasteland.

Yes - this phrase means vacant disorder in both passages.

With Jeremiah 4:23, a few translators decided to translate these words in a manner more specific to the post-war context. However, many translators simply stuck to the meanings of 'tohu vabohu'.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

It's time to leave "hay-et-ah" alone and focus on the real issue here.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

This "point" has easily represented the majority of our discourse.

If you've now decided to walk away from that argument, I'm happy to let that go - but deserve clarification on the matter. You don't get to wave it away - pretending as though it's suddenly a minor "point" in our discussion.

Well, I have "waved it away".  It is immaterial in light of "tohu wabohu" and it ramifications.

Lol. You've tried to wave it away. But that's not how this works.

You don't get to make such a big deal of the issue, all the while ridiculing and posturing against me for being "disingenuous" and "unreasonable", but then, after realizing you were wrong all along, try to pretend that it was never important.

It's ironic that in your previous post, you were accusing me of trying to "deflect".

I do wonder how long it will take you to figure out that doubling-down on this will only give me more opportunity to highlight your error.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

You are free to prove that "tohu wabohu" does refer to original creation AND it means total destruction in Jer 4:23.

You will need LOTS of luck, since you will have no facts with which to prove such a thing.

Lol. No - strangely enough, I will not be attempting to defend the Strawman argument you are trying to attribute to me.