Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[The Barbarian]

21 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Seems no one is bothered by the fact that NO object is "formless" or "without form", which is how v.2 is translated.  Every object HAS a form.

In the Middle East, water, which is formless, was a symbol of chaos and disorder.   Hence the early Hebrew conception of the earth as a flat disk with a solid dome above it, and the waters of chaos above the dome and below the disk.

God is using symbols that Abraham, (a citizen of Ur) would understand.

 

 

[Philologos]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

the KJV translators were puzzled by the meaning

I agree with any disparaging comments made about KJV, lol. 
 

The most common form of the word, yes, but no grammatical rule to necessarily count this in the 59% of that. Also correct? Translating it that way leaves the door open for meaningless conjecture; making the translation process more important than what God was conveying in the text. (knowledge over spirit)

The first chapter of Genesis was written before grammatical rules were developed. Word meanings aren’t even the same. The original text was very primitive, and was literally stick-figure drawing that was later developed into language.
 

While I’ve translated many parts of scripture, I have translated the entire first chapter of Genesis with great obsession. I’ve found that the writing style is different- considerably from chapter two and on…) which means the era it was written & the individual who penned it, all preceded the subsequent chapters & eras in scripture. (There are characteristic ‘habits’ in writing that are carried down by scribes providing they copy correctly. The content & style of this one chapter places it as having been written during the first 235 years of Adam’s life. (Yes, I did the research- that’s what I do… used to do.)


 

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

Interesting that you mention what Christians don't "buy".  The reason is simple;  most have been trained to simply accept what they are taught in the pulpit, on Christian radio, or in the Christian books they read.

Particularly the Bible.    That's the Christian book that pretty much rules out YE creationism.

That's odd.  YEC claim that Genesis 1:1,2 prove a young earth.  Calling the Bible "the Christian book" seems odd too.  Are you a born again Christian?

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I just showed you why you're confused about adaptation and evolution.   Remember?

Just the opposite.  With examples.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.

God didn't start with "a population".  He started with nothing, and created out of nothing the universe.  Psa 33:9 says so.  You know, the Christian book.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Your revisions of Genesis are contrary to the Word of God.    

I didn't "revise" anything.  Prove my view of Gen 1:2 is "contrary to the Word of God", or as you have said, "the Christian book".  

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

A "religious belief", eh?  My view comes directly from Scripture, whether you recognize that or not.

Your view is merely the changes you made to God's word to make it more acceptable to you.

I don't think this is that difficult.  I didn't change anything.  I found how 2 words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere in the OT, which is how to understand HOW words are used and thereby what they MEAN.  It was the KJV translators who "took liberties" with the verse.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

God says otherwise.   He says that he used earlier creation to make many things.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

I know what God said.  And v.24 shows that there were previous (earlier) creatures before what He created in Genesis 1.  Thank you.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In the Middle East, water, which is formless, was a symbol of chaos and disorder.

No, water takes on the form of whatever is holding it.  If you can see something, it HAS form.  Even steam has form, even though constantly changing.  

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

   Hence the early Hebrew conception of the earth as a flat disk with a solid dome above it, and the waters of chaos above the dome and below the disk.

So, they were the original "flat earther's", huh.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

God is using symbols that Abraham, (a citizen of Ur) would understand.

It wasn't Abraham who wrote Genesis, but Moses.  

[Philologos]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As God says, by eating from the tree, they became like Him.    And thus potentially capable of fellowship with Him.    Ironically, it was misuse of knowledge th

Sadly, it was the serpent who said that; but then, you credited it to God… just as the serpent intended for Eve to believe. 
 

Perhaps you and I can part ways here. 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

As God says, by eating from the tree, they became like Him. 

12 minutes ago, Philologos said:

Sadly, it was the serpent who said that; but then, you credited it to God…

You should read the Bible every now and then; it would disabuse you of such errors:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

Read the Bible and learn about it.

[The Barbarian]

30 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

That's odd.  YEC claim that Genesis 1:1,2 prove a young earth.

That's why they are a minority among Christians.  Most accept it as it is, without adding YE doctrines.

31 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Calling the Bible "the Christian book" seems odd too.

It's a Christian Book.  We had it first.   Not that we mind if others read it, but please keep in mind it was ours first.

Try to keep in mind the difference between evolution and adaptation. 

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.   That can be adaptation, but sometimes it's not adaptation.

Adaptation is a change in organisms to make them more fit to the environment.   Sometimes that's due to a change in alleles in a population and sometimes it's not.   The former is both adaptation and evolution and the latter is only evolution.

Clear now?

36 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

God didn't start with "a population".  He started with nothing, and created out of nothing the universe.  

Right.   We didn't have populations until later when the Earth brought forth living things as God created it to do.   Gen. 1:25.   You know, that Christian book.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

The original text was very primitive, and was literally stick-figure drawing that was later developed into language.

Can you enlarge on that?    I suppose you mean that they went from a form of symbolic pictures to an alphabet or syllabary, but I'd like to know more about the specifics.   If you think that's a distraction here, I'd be pleased to see a new thread about that.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

FreeGrace said: 

the KJV translators were puzzled by the meaning

I agree with any disparaging comments made about KJV, lol.

:)

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

The most common form of the word, yes, but no grammatical rule to necessarily count this in the 59% of that. Also correct? Translating it that way leaves the door open for meaningless conjecture; making the translation process more important than what God was conveying in the text. (knowledge over spirit)

No one who disagrees with what I've pointed out can prove that there is any grammatical rule that refutes what I've pointed out.  

The biggest problem for YEC is to explain WHY God would create a universe with "apparent age", since it clearly appears to be very old.  There is no good reason for it.

And the translation of "tohu" as "formless" is equally silly since very object DOES have a form.  God did NOT create the earth formless or without form.  That doesn't even make sense.  But you'd be surprised how the YEC try to defend the translation.

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

The first chapter of Genesis was written before grammatical rules were developed. Word meanings aren’t even the same. The original text was very primitive, and was literally stick-figure drawing that was later developed into language.

Grammatical rules are in play when a language is written.  So Moses was as aware of any Hebrew "rules" as any scholar today.  It isn't today's scholars who determine what Moses meant by what he wrote.

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

While I’ve translated many parts of scripture, I have translated the entire first chapter of Genesis with great obsession. I’ve found that the writing style is different- considerably from chapter two and on…) which means the era it was written & the individual who penned it, all preceded the subsequent chapters & eras in scripture. (There are characteristic ‘habits’ in writing that are carried down by scribes providing they copy correctly. The content & style of this one chapter places it as having been written during the first 235 years of Adam’s life. (Yes, I did the research- that’s what I do… used to do.)

How could it be determined to have been written during Adam's life?  And who has any evidence of that?  I've never heard this before.  Thanks.