Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[bishopsword]

Yes i believe exactly like you say between Gen 1:1,2 the fall ect... 

I believe God is remaking a new creation  covenant in Adam.  This is exactly what the Old Testament goes directly into after these few chapters in Genesis. 

We know the old way in Adam was passing away via the book of Hebrew's. And that Paul refered to Christ as the New Creation. 

But yes i believe it is not out of bounds to look at 6 days, as you say.

[Retrobyter]

11 hours ago, bishopsword said:

Hey guys and or gals. Hope you don't count me as an interloper for jumping in here on pp 63 of your discussion? Haven't been here long and just trying to make my way through everything. 

Shabbat shalom, bishopsword, and welcome to the discussion!

You're never an "interloper" for speaking your mind!

11 hours ago, bishopsword said:

Reconciling 6 (7) days to 13.7 billion yrs. Have you considered these days to be prophetic days of reckoning. As God is bringing forth here the Adamic covenant; to a creation that has been described as empty and void?  The bible is a document of the prophetic and covenants.

HOWEVER, I do feel I must disagree with you on this. First of all, the Bible is NOT just "a document of the prophetic and covenants," EXCEPT to the children of Israel. Now, we Gentiles (non-Hebrews) who have come along after the Messiah's first coming can be born into the family by FAITH - TRUST in God through the Sacrifice of His Son, but only through Him can we become recipients of the prophetic promises and covenants found in the Scriptures FOR the children of Israel, and Jews (children of Judah) in particular.

The "covenant" made with Adam (through the curse), was that a Messiah would come from the woman's seed. And, to the serpent, God said, 15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)

Chavah's part was that, in spite of the pain in childbirth, she would bear children!

16 Unto the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

To Adam, God promised him DEATH! However, He also made sure that it would not be a death that would be eternal, and He killed animals (the first sacrifice) to make coats of skins for them to wear, in anticipation of the covering He would provide through His Messiah:

Genesis 3:17-20 (KJV)

17 And unto Adam he said,

"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

20 And Adam called his wife's name "Eve" (Hebrew: Chavvaah = "Life" with the feminine ending); because she was the mother of all living.

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22 And the LORD God said,

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever...": 

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

That is the extent of the "covenant" with Adam. The only other "promises" implied are through the names of their children. "Qayin" ("Cain") was "Acquired" from YHWH; "Hevel" ("Abel") was given "Breath," and "Sheit" ("Seth") was a "Substitute" as the Line of Promise.

11 hours ago, bishopsword said:

When saying prophetic i mean God  giving a timeline in taking back what was taken from Him. 

I really don't see it that way at all. God, in His infinite foreknowledge and infinite wisdom, planned for His Son to inherit it all, anyway. With apologies to Maltbie Davenport Babcock, this is really the SON of God's world! Until He turns it over to His Father, God has given His Son all authority to judge: (See John 5:22 and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.)

11 hours ago, bishopsword said:

7 days= 7000 yrs.                                 1 day with the Lord as a 1000 yrs.     1000 yrs. As a day.

 From Adam to Adam abt 4000 yrs.   

Joshua's 2000 cubits.                           30ad to 2030ad; abt 2000 yrs.             From Pentecost till today. 

John's 1000 yrs in the Revelation. 

In my 40+ yrs in the ministry, it's the only thing i've found that works and allows me to go to the next problem. What ever that might be.

This reconciles the two very different sets of numbers. There is much more to say here but i was wondering your take on this. 

Tks!

Personally, I'd say you were right on the money, as far as the timing of events. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

To "cut to the chase", so to speak, do you believe that God created the earth empty and void?  Actually, "tohu wabohu" is unfortunately translated as "formless and empty".  To be empty and void are simply the same thing and is translated by "wa bohu".  But the same 2 words are found in Jer 4:23, to describe the condition of "the land" after a besieging (invading) army destroyed "the land".  So "formless and empty" hardly fits that scenario.  Rather, "tohu" is mostly translated as "waste", "wasteland", "waste place" "chaos" elsewhere in the OT and the LXX translates it in Gen 1:2 as "unsightly".

We don't know how long this period of waste and turmoil lasted. Just that it was.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So, "tohu wabohu" became the state of the earth AFTER original creation in Gen 1:1.  

True.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So the 6 literal days refers to the restoration of the planet for man's use.

I too believe it was six literal days, but there are OEC who translate "day" differently. I am open to their understanding but lean heavy towards the traditional interpretation.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This would easily account for a very old earth and totally ignore the stupid theory of evolution.

Agree.

[bishopsword]

However, the entire Old Testament is this old world in Adam! 

The entire New Testament both Gospels and letter's are about the passing away of this old world in Adam; and Christ Jesus or Messiah making all things new! 

Why would the gospel of the old Testament not begin with God laying the foundation for it? 

What the Prophet Joel and the Apostle Peter says,....of the moon turning to blood, the sun dark as sackcloth, the stars falling from the sky, and the heavens rolling up as a scroll.... Was not this universe but the old world in Adam.  

It ends where it begins. 

I haven't had the time to really read everything you sent but i will. Tks for taking the time!  

Much love!

[Tristen]

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

Ummm - your "biblehub.com" page was the evidence I scrutinized. There is no "misunderstanding". I simply don't think the page is logically applicable to the percentages you are claiming - for the reasons stated in my previous post.

You've got to be kidding!!  How many verses did you count when you clicked on the verb form for hayah in Gen 1:2?

I’m critiquing your use of the following page.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hayetah_1961.htm

Is this the “Biblehub.com” page you are referring to? Or is there another?

My comments are related to the information on this page, and how it applies to your argument.

Your normal attempt to drag things out by not directing us to the specific page can therefore be skipped over. We are already there. All your normal posturing about me being too lazy to look for your evidence is therefore logically spurious and disingenuous.

Can we now move on to discussing the evidence you provided (in the other thread after much coaxing)?

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

And what do you mean by "not logically applicable to the %" that I claim?  Divide the number of verses that have "become/became" by 111, which is the total number of verses on the list andm voila!  You get the %.

Yes, exactly - using the page this way is the problem - as the structure of the page does not logically facilitate your conclusion.

Your claim is that "59%" of the uses of the 'haya' form 'hayetha' are translated 'become/became'. That means, if we surveyed all English translations of these “111” verses, "59%" of the time we will find "become/became" used.

Firstly - Is that what you mean?

I am operating on the assumption that the most obvious interpretation of your words is what we are debating. If so, the “biblehub.com” page linked above is not appropriate evidence for that claim. All you can legitimately claim from the “biblehub.com” page is that ‘hayetha’ is sometimes translated ‘become/became’. The “59%” claim is a specious misunderstanding of how mathematics works.

I suppose you could claim that “59%” of the selected translations (for “111” verses) on this page use ‘become/became’. But even that is not true – since there are actually over 200 translations on the page (as most verses use 2 or 3 translations per verse).

The way to support you claim is to look at all English translations, or to take an unbiased sample.

In the other thread, I provided an unbiased sample and arrived at only 14%. Whereas your “biblehub.com” page is heavily biased for the many reasons I’ve discussed in previous posts. As such, it does not legitimately support your claim.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

Right - the form of 'hayah' we are talking about can be transliterated 'hayetha'. That is the exact evidence I critiqued. When you provided this "biblehub.com" page for scrutiny, I demonstrated why it is a logically inappropriate tool to support your argument.

So what about how it can be transliterated.  That isn't even the point.

I was simply demonstrating that I understand we are dealing with the specific form of ‘haya’. You are being unnecessarily reactive and argumentative.

Your comment here is also a Red Herring – since I’m directly dealing with your provided evidence.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

The only point is how the same verb form in Gen 1:2 is translated elsewhere, and biblehub.com gives that information.  

The “biblehub.com” page only gives this information for selected translations. And even then, it does not legitimately support your “59%” claim.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

So forget about transliterations.  And look at all the sources I gave on the previous page that support my view.

Sorry - I only have time to read the information you provide to me in our conversation. If you’ve provided information to someone else, you’ll have to link that post, or repost the information in a response to me.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

There is no "appeal to motive".

Instead of addressing my arguments, you tried to suggest that my motivation for disagreeing with you was me having trouble with the earth being old. That is the epitome of an “Appeal to Motive”. You said, “I do recall how many people don't like the idea of the earth being very very old.  Lots of pushback”.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

That's a laugh

Lol. You defend your Appeal to Motive with an Appeal to Ridicule.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

I appeal to facts, which I have presented.

I have disputed how you use your “facts” to support your conclusion. But rather than dealing with my arguments, or my evidence, or my rebuttals of your position, you resort to fallacy and simply repeat your position as though my rebuttals do not exist.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

Most "no evidence" claims are invalid when subjected to scrutiny. Your claim here is no different.

And that applies to your posts that clearly indicate you think I have no evidence.

I never claimed you had “no evidence”. Your “59%” claim is logically invalid, but ‘hayetha’ is indeed sometimes translated ‘become/became’ (when the context permits 😊 ).

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

Yes - after much coaxing, you eventually provided the specific evidence from "biblehub.com". 

This seems to be rather disingenuous.  I gave my source at the beginning, but you simply weren't that interested in looking at it yourself.  So you can leave "coaxing" out.  It was you who had to be coaxed into seeing the evidence.

There’s nothing “disingenuous” here. I don’t know why you thought (and apparently still think) it is appropriate to point to a general website, and to tell your opponent to search out the specific evidence supporting your position for themselves. That is not (and never has been, and never will be) a reasonable expectation.

But let’s not rehash that nonsense again. You eventually did provide the specific page that listed your evidence. That is what I am now trying to discuss.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

Just inscrutable.  Anyone who knows simple arithmetic can see that my numbers are accurate.  Maybe your eyes are squinting too tightly while you are scrutinizing.

The problem is that I have articulated the many ways that invalidate using your “simple arithmetic” to draw your conclusion based on the provided evidence. You have not attempted to address any of these reasons.

You just repeat the fact that you counted occurrences of ‘become/became’ on the list, divided by the “111” verses, then presumably multiplied that fraction by 100 to get a percentage. I fully understood your method from the start. But applying your method to this list is flawed (logically and mathematically), and therefore does not support the conclusion you are claiming (i.e. your “59%” claim).

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

I can't explain why the site wrote that, but here is the actual verse:  Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

What translation are you using here – because it is not the one from your evidence?

If you click the “INT:” link alongside the English translation,

Genesis 3:20
HEB: כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־
INT: because he become was the mother of all

it takes you to another page (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-20.htm) where you find:

You counted it for “become”, because the original page said, “become was” (which is methodologically biased, and therefore invalid, to begin with). Yet it just says “was” in the actual source translation. Neither of us know the intentions of the author of the page (which itself is problematic). But this exemplifies one of the many reasons the provided list is not designed to be counted the way you are counting it.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

So much for your "scrutinizing".

Lol. I scrutinized the evidence you provided to support your “59%” claim - and found it to be logically unsuitable to backup your claim. I did not scrutinize (nor claimed to scrutinize) a different source that is outside of your provided evidence. It would not be fair-minded to expect me to read your mind in advance – and to address evidence you have not yet provided.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

Now, plug in that verse to the biblehub search and anyone can see that the various translations have "would become", "would be", and "was".  However, it is clear that at Gen 3:20, she hadn't had any babies yet.

Given this information from the context, it may be appropriate to make a translation decision to adjust the meaning of ‘hayetha’, away from ‘was’ to ‘become’, because, in this instance, and according to the context, “she hadn't had any babies yet”.

But this is all irrelevant to your “59%” claim – which is the claim I am disputing – due to your misuse of a specific “biblehub.com” source as your supporting evidence.

I have never disputed that ‘hayetha’ can sometimes be translated ‘become’ – if the context permits a deviation from the base definition. That is all your new evidence demonstrates.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

In the "interlin" menu for Gen 1:2, it shows "ha-yet-ah", so where do you get hayetha?  They aren't the same word.

They are merely variant transliterations of the “same” Hebrew word ‘הָֽיְתָ֖ה’. There is no correct English spelling of Hebrew words – because Hebrew letters are commonly pronounced slightly differently to English letters.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

The first claim has been ostensibly debunked. The second claim is so logically weak, as to be easily, rationally dismissed as meaningless.

Thank you for your opinion.  

Except it’s not merely “opinion”. It’s a conclusion based on rational argument – and for which you have provided no rational rebuttal. Simply ignoring my arguments and repeating your position does not qualify as a rational rebuttal.

Nevertheless, you are most welcome. 😊

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

Isa 45:18 very plainly says that "God did NOT create the earth tohu".  Yet, you accept Gen 1:2 as saying that God DID create the earth tohu.    I'm not the one with a problem.

The “problem” exists for both of us since, in isolation, there is a direct contradiction in the Hebrew text.

You use context in an attempt to reconcile this contradiction - by changing the meanings of words in Genesis 1:2 away from their definitions, without any contextual justification, and thereby presuming to insert a whole historical narrative that does not exist in the text itself.

I also use context in an attempt to reconcile this contradiction – by taking information directly from the immediate context of Isaiah 45:18. That is, 1) this comment was referring to a time after the creation; i.e. after God had “created”, “made” and “established” the earth, and 2) this comment was made in juxtaposition to a statement of purpose – i.e. that God rather “formed” the earth not to be empty, but “to be inhabited”

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

just look at how tohu is translated elsewhere.

Whoever taught you that this is how to start the translation process lied to you.

The translation process starts with the established definitions. Only when context permits, do we consider adjustments away from the base definitions.

You should be able to understand this just by thinking it through (the logic is simple enough – and intuitive – since this is how things work in English). But for some reason, you are determined to perform the process using backwards logic.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

You are making the same hermeneutical error that you made with 'hayetha'.

And that isn't the word that I was checking on.

You are using the same backwards logic to change the definition of ‘tohu’ in Genesis 1:2, as you are using to change the definition of ‘hayetha’ in Genesis 1:2 - i.e. starting with how the word is “translated elsewhere”.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

The words 'tohu vabohu' mean an unordered emptiness. That is all the words themselves mean.

OK, so Isa 45:18 says that "God did NOT create the earth an unordered emptiness", yet you STILL accept Gen 1:2 as saying that God created the earth an unordered emptiness".  I am not the one with a problem.

Again – we both have the same “problem”.

Your solution is to change the meanings of words in Genesis 1:2 without any contextual justification. My solution is to change the meanings of the words in Isaiah 45:18 using several justifications found directly in the text itself.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

Now, if that unordered emptiness describes a land that has been ravaged by war, then the translators might take a valid translation liberty of describing the land as an uninhabited wasteland.

Which would apply to Gen 1:2.

Now you are using Circular logic. There is no information in, or around, Genesis 1:2 to justify assuming “a land that has been ravaged by war”. You can’t just say it does – because that is how you have decided to translate it.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

how is your conscience fine when you accept direct contradictions in your understanding of verses?

Because, unlike you, I resolve the alleged “contradiction” using information directly from the context of Isaiah 45:18.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

Your conclusion establishes a dangerous hermeneutical precedent that permits changing the definition of words away from there established meaning without appropriate cause.

lol.  I have seen how certain words were translated elsewhere, which is how we learn what words MEAN.

This is a lie. Whoever taught you this lied to you (though I suspect you misunderstood).

We know what words “MEAN” because they have established definitions. Looking to “how certain words were translated elsewhere” broadens our understanding of how the words can be used in a range of contexts. But it does not give us carte blanche to change the meanings of words without contextual justification.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Tristen said:

If that "contradiction" exists, it exists in the Hebrew text - regardless.

It plainly exists if you accept the TT of Gen 1:2.  Anyone can see that.

This is wrong as well. The direct contradiction is in the Hebrew text (regardless of translation). You simply reconcile the contradiction differently to me.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

My view immediately removes any contradiction.  Obviously.

As does mine. Only mine uses information derived directly from the context, whereas your solution applies unsound hermeneutics.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, FreeGrace said:

you have yet to prove that any visible object can be "without form" or "formless".  My view removes that impossibility.

But I have shown this argument to be persnickety to the point of being disingenuous.

[Retrobyter]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And...here's the problem.  Assuming that a very old earth is driven/fueled/etc by evolution.  Doesn't have to be.  And isn't.

A very old earth came way before darwin came up with his stupid theory.

Shalom, FreeGrace!

Perhaps. But, those who came up with this "very old earth" theory ought to take RESPONSIBILITY for the fact that THEY opened up the way for this "stupid theory" of evolution!

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I’m critiquing your use of the following page.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hayetah_1961.htm

Is this the “Biblehub.com” page you are referring to? Or is there another?

Yep, that's the one.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

My comments are related to the information on this page, and how it applies to your argument.

Your normal attempt to drag things out by not directing us to the specific page can therefore be skipped over. We are already there. All your normal posturing about me being too lazy to look for your evidence is therefore logically spurious and disingenuous.

Can we now move on to discussing the evidence you provided (in the other thread after much coaxing)?

No need.  I included in my count the verses that only had INT but not the NAS.  And the INT didn't make sense.  I thought INT referred to a translation, but apparently not.  So, basically, biblehub used the NASB as the translation for hayetah.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

The “biblehub.com” page only gives this information for selected translations. And even then, it does not legitimately support your “59%” claim.

Actually, only ONE translation.  I thought INT was a translation.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I never claimed you had “no evidence”. Your “59%” claim is logically invalid, but ‘hayetha’ is indeed sometimes translated ‘become/became’ (when the context permits 😊 ).

Except when there is NO CONTEXT given.  Why is that so hard to accept.  God isn't required to give 'context' when He doesn't want to.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

There’s nothing “disingenuous” here. I don’t know why you thought (and apparently still think) it is appropriate to point to a general website, and to tell your opponent to search out the specific evidence supporting your position for themselves. That is not (and never has been, and never will be) a reasonable expectation.

What is disingenuous is to see how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4:23 and STILL resist the idea that Gen 1:2 could describe the same RESULT.  To my knowledge, those 2 words only occur in those 2 verses.  How in the world could they mean differerent things?

Second, translating "tohu" as "formless" is ridiculous, since NO object can be "formless".  That isn't even possible.  EVERY object has a form.  So the translation of Gen 1:2 is bogus.

Third, the TT of Gen 1:1,2 says "God created the earth tohu", yet Isa 45:18 says "God did NOT create the earth tohu".

That is a contradiction.  

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, FreeGrace!

Perhaps. But, those who came up with this "very old earth" theory ought to take RESPONSIBILITY for the fact that THEY opened up the way for this "stupid theory" of evolution!

Well, there you go!  No, the sole responsibility for the stupid theory of evolution comes from none other than satan, the master deceiver.  Don't blame people for what satan does so well.  

But your point does illustrate the fact that YEC seem unable or at least quite reticent to dissociate evolution from an old earth.

Again, Darwin's stupid theory was written in 1859.  Geologist Charles Lyell wrote about the "geologic columns" in 1796.  It was Thomas Chalmers, a Presbyterian minister who came up with a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2 in 1814.

So let's just leave Darwin and evolution out of this.  There is no connection.  What satan does with facts should be obvious.  He's a liar and deceiver.  

I think Jer 4:23 is the main fact that sinks the YEC boat.  "tohu wabohu" describes the RESULT of the besieging army that destroys nations.  Yet, you want me to believe that God created the earth "without form"?  That isn't even possible.

What is clear is that something happened (?) that resulted in the earth becoming a wasteland and God restored the earth in 6 literal days for man's use.

That is reasonable and easily explains why scientists measure the age of the universe and earth to be very old.  With NO HARM to the Bible or any doctrine.

But the YEC believe the impossibility that objects (earth) can be "formless" and have to defend the contradiction between Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18, and that "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4:23 cannot mean something different than the same two words in Gen 1:2.

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Perhaps. But, those who came up with this "very old earth" theory ought to take RESPONSIBILITY for the fact that THEY opened up the way for this "stupid theory" of evolution!

You're confusing the phenomenon of evolution, which we observe going on around us, with the theory of evolution that explains it.

If God magically poofed the whole universe into being last Tuesday, evolution would still work exactly as we see it working now.

 

[JimmyB]

On 7/22/2023 at 1:32 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

We don't know how long this period of waste and turmoil lasted. Just that it was.

True.

I too believe it was six literal days, but there are OEC who translate "day" differently. I am open to their understanding but lean heavy towards the traditional interpretation.

Agree.

We don't know how long this period of waste and turmoil lasted, just that some people think that it was.  There is no proof.  And the six days were the time it took for God to create and populate His world.