Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Tristen]

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I'll say again where your answer "went wrong".  Claiming "tohu wabohu" can describe original creation AND at the same time describe the total devastation of a besieging army on the land.  If you don't understand the conflict here, there is nothing more to discuss.

Lol. So, if I don't arbitrarily disregard all arguments that disagree with you (as you have done), then, "there is nothing more to discuss". That is some twisted, ironic logic.

Your comment here is not an example of you telling me where I "went wrong". It's just you repeating your own claim - yet again - without any reference to my argument whatsoever.

I provided a path of reasoning that easily reconciled these two conditions being described by a single phrase. Your repeated claim that such an argument cannot exist, does not address my provided argument - it simply dismisses/ignores it.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, wrong again.  I have ADDRESSED and refuted your arguments from the FACTS of Scripture.  Both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 use "tohu wabohu" to describe devastation.  There is NO WAY the same two words can describe original creation.

Once again, there is no indication here that you have considered (or even seen) my argument whatsoever. 

You are effectively sticking your thumbs in your ears and crying, "Lalalalalala it's "impossible" lalalalala "There is NO WAY" lalalalal "irrational" lalalalala ... "

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

, and b) I have come to a point where I am determined to not repeat my arguments - at least until there is some acknowledgement from you that you have the capacity to recognize the existence my arguments.

See above.  

Yep - you are determined to ignore my position, and I am determined to not repeat my position until I have some indication that your brain permits you to recognize (and consider) the existence of my argument.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

And until you are prepared to consider my provided explanation - where I reconcile your claim of a supposed contradiction - The discussion can not move forward in any meaningful way.

Considered and refuted.  There is no "supposede contradiction" and since you admit you can't see the contradiction, there is no reason for more discussion.

You have not "refuted" anything.

Your mind is trapped. You appear incapable of seeing past your own claim that disagreement with you is "impossible" - i.e. to consider the possibility that you might be wrong; that there might be other ways to look at the issue.

According to you, it's a "contradiction". And if anyone claims otherwise, their arguments are unworthy of any time or consideration.

Until you can unlock yourself from this intractable mindset, "more discussion" is unlikely to yield any fruit.

 

 

[FreeGrace]

9 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Lol. So, if I don't arbitrarily disregard all arguments that disagree with you (as you have done), then, "there is nothing more to discuss". That is some twisted, ironic logic.

Again, thinking "tohu wabohu" can describe God's original creation of earth AND at the same time see that in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 is wht isa twist ironic NON-logic.

The 2 words mean the SAME THING in all 3 verses.  And you haven't proven otherwise.

I guess you think that God's original creation wasn't all that good, if you think it was tohuy wabohu.

btw, "tohu" cannot EVER mean "formless" or "without form" for that isn't even possible.  If you can see an object, then it has form.

9 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Your comment here is not an example of you telling me where I "went wrong". It's just you repeating your own claim - yet again - without any reference to my argument whatsoever.

No, I've repeated the whole issue of the meaning of "tohu wabohu" in all 3 passages.  Your argument isn't reasonable or rational at all.

As used in Gen 1:2, since it means the same thing as in the other 2 passages, we KNOW that the earth BECAME tohu wabohu.

Obviously.

[Tristen]

On 8/29/2023 at 8:48 AM, FreeGrace said:

Again, thinking "tohu wabohu" can describe God's original creation of earth AND at the same time see that in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 is wht isa twist ironic NON-logic.

Yes - you re-repeated the same thing once "again" - and "again", lacking any engagement with my provided argument.

When one refuses to engage with the opposing argument, and instead keeps repeating their own position over-and-over "again", One is utilizing Circular reasoning: i.e. 'If anyone disagrees with you, their argument cannot be correct, and is therefore dismissed as automatically wrong - and therefore does not require thoughtful consideration - because it disagrees with you and is therefore wrong - and is therefore not worthy of consideration - because, in disagreeing with you, it must be wrong - and you will therefore not even recognize the existence of such an argument - etc., etc..'

And now, to your Circular argument, you add a Tu Quoque logic fallacy - because you also, apparently, lack originality.

 

On 8/29/2023 at 8:48 AM, FreeGrace said:

The 2 words mean the SAME THING in all 3 verses.  And you haven't proven otherwise.

I have neither attempted, nor claimed, to have "proven otherwise". This is something you would know if you engaged with my provided argument.

 

On 8/29/2023 at 8:48 AM, FreeGrace said:

I guess you think that God's original creation wasn't all that good, if you think it was tohuy wabohu.

You would also know this to be untrue if you had considered my provided arguments. But as you are seemingly incapable of thinking outside of your own arguments (at-least on this issue), your position has to rest on this false conclusion.

 

On 8/29/2023 at 8:48 AM, FreeGrace said:

btw, "tohu" cannot EVER mean "formless" or "without form" for that isn't even possible.  If you can see an object, then it has form.

Lol. That ole chestnut. Apparently, you are incapable of considering my provided arguments about this as well. Your default, when you have no answer, is to simply ignore the question and continue repeating yourself, over-and-over "again".

 

On 8/29/2023 at 8:48 AM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/29/2023 at 8:34 AM, Tristen said:

Your comment here is not an example of you telling me where I "went wrong". It's just you repeating your own claim - yet again - without any reference to my argument whatsoever.

No, I've repeated the whole issue of the meaning of "tohu wabohu" in all 3 passages.  Your argument isn't reasonable or rational at all.

As used in Gen 1:2, since it means the same thing as in the other 2 passages, we KNOW that the earth BECAME tohu wabohu.

Obviously.

To quote myself, "Your comment here is not an example of you telling me where I "went wrong". It's just you repeating your own claim - yet again - without any reference to my argument whatsoever.".

 

[farouk]

10 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Yes - you re-repeated the same thing once "again" - and "again", lacking any engagement with my provided argument.

When one refuses to engage with the opposing argument, and instead keeps repeating their own position over-and-over "again", One is utilizing Circular reasoning: i.e. 'If anyone disagrees with you, their argument cannot be correct, and is therefore dismissed as automatically wrong - and therefore does not require thoughtful consideration - because it disagrees with you and is therefore wrong - and is therefore not worthy of consideration - because, in disagreeing with you, it must be wrong - and you will therefore not even recognize the existence of such an argument - etc., etc..'

And now, to your Circular argument, you add a Tu Quoque logic fallacy - because you also, apparently, lack originality.

 

I have neither attempted, nor claimed, to have "proven otherwise". This is something you would know if you engaged with my provided argument.

 

You would also know this to be untrue if you had considered my provided arguments. But as you are seemingly incapable of thinking outside of your own arguments (at-least on this issue), your position has to rest on this false conclusion.

 

Lol. That ole chestnut. Apparently, you are incapable of considering my provided arguments about this as well. Your default, when you have no answer, is to simply ignore the question and continue repeating yourself, over-and-over "again".

 

To quote myself, "Your comment here is not an example of you telling me where I "went wrong". It's just you repeating your own claim - yet again - without any reference to my argument whatsoever.".

 

Hi @Tristen Did you study geology, maybe? because you've contributed a lot to this subject.

[DeighAnn]

Just asking for an opinion....


2602. katabolé ►
Strong's Concordance
katabolé: a laying down
Original Word: καταβολή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: katabolé
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ab-ol-ay')
Definition: a laying down
Usage: (a) foundation, (b) depositing, sowing, deposit, technically used of the act of conception.
HELPS Word-studies
2602 katabolḗ (from 2596 /katá, "exactly according to," down from the most general to the most specific detail, "following all the way along," and 906 /bállō, "to cast") – properly, a foundation, cast according to a blueprint (original design); the substructure which determines the entire direction (destination) of all that follows; the foundation-plan, upon which the entire super-structure is built; (figuratively) the beginning (founding) that purposefully designs all that follows.

2602 /katabolḗ ("foundation-plan") typically relates to Christ's incarnation, i.e. coming to earth in the flesh to be our Redeemer. This divine plan was set and sealed (guaranteed) before creation (Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 1:20; Rev 13:8). In general, 2602 (katabolḗ) refers to the basis God has established, upon which all people can know Him. This was laid down before the first ray of sunshine or drop of water touched the earth.





DOES THAT define something more like

 

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.




or this?


2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, farouk said:

Hi @Tristen Did you study geology, maybe? because you've contributed a lot to this subject.

Hey Farouk,

The main "subject" in this thread is hermeneutics - specifically, the proper way to interpret Genesis 1:2.

But to answer your question, I did do some geology courses as an undergraduate. I've also looked informally into specific elements of geology and geophysics when I've found topics that interested me.

 

[farouk]

37 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Hey Farouk,

The main "subject" in this thread is hermeneutics - specifically, the proper way to interpret Genesis 1:2.

But to answer your question, I did do some geology courses as an undergraduate. I've also looked informally into specific elements of geology and geophysics when I've found topics that interested me.

 

Thanks, @Tristen . Good to study hermeneutics, indeed.

[farouk]

On 12/7/2022 at 9:33 PM, Tristen said:

A common strategy for those promoting the secular, long age, model, is to find a grammatical pause in the text, and insist that all that storytelling about time and evolution can be squeezed in between sentences. 

The only evidence that the first verses of Genesis should be understood differently (in any language) comes from those with an agenda to rewrite Genesis history to conform to their own preferred model of history.

 

Ironically, under the heading, "The evidence, the evidence…", no actual "evidence" is provided for scrutiny - only exaggerated, Unsupported Assertions.

"It is preposterous to state that the entire universe was created in six days and that every process necessary for life was completed in this period of time. Primarily because the text of Genesis 1:1 does not state this,"

The preponderance of historical literature on the subject teaches us that most people who have read Genesis 1:1-5 (including Hebrew readers) understand the passage in the same way - i.e. that the described events occurred on the first day of creation. So, apart from an ancillary agenda to rewrite the narrative, that is the most straight forward reading of the text. Therefore, claiming such a statement to be "preposterous" is purely rhetorical - an Appeal to Ridicule (fallacy).

"and secondly because scientists today are able to measure the age of the universe and conclude with certainty that nearly 14 billions years have passed since the original expansion of the universe began"

Here, the author's lack of scientific literacy is exposed. Not even experimental/operational science permits the ability to "conclude" anything "with certainty". That level of absolute confidence is simply not permitted by the logic governing the Scientific Method. It is therefore more absurd to suggest that "certainty" could be logically ascertained via the historical modelling method (a logical departure from the robustness of the Scientific Method).

 

I admire the effort - but all this article demonstrates to me is the degree to which someone who is compelled to support the secular narrative is prepared to go - tying themselves into logical pretzels, rather than simply accepting the most straight-forward reading of the text.

@Tristen You said this a while ago in the thread. You are right that some ppl love to talk about 'evidence', when even among scientists there is not a consensus about what that 'evidence' actually is.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

(Genesis 1:2)  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. [ESV]

Genesis 1:2 - One of several conservative interpretations of the Genesis account of creation, the creation-reconstruction view, says that between verses 1 and 2 a great catastrophe occurred, perhaps the fall of Satan (see Eze_28:11-19). This caused God's original, perfect creation to become without form and void (t–hû wãv–hû). Since God didn't create the earth waste and empty (see Isa_45:18), only a mighty cataclysm could explain the chaotic condition of verse 2. Proponents of this view point out that the word translated was (hãyethã) could also be translated "had become." Thus the earth "had become waste and empty." [Believer's Bible Commentary]

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Source: Bruce Waltke Restitution Theory

This is from the late Dr. Michael S Heiser's website, "The Naked Bible". I am fortunate to have Merrill F. Unger's 2-Volume OT Commentary referenced above.