Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

  FreeGrace said: 

I see you are really sensitive about this

Ah - Adhominem fallacy - that old chestnut.

You aren't sensitive about this??  It's about all you've been posting about, even after I ADMITTED the problems.  And where is the ad hominem here?  

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

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

Well, I'm NOT.  I'm OVER it.  There are better fish to fry here.  Namely, "tohu wabohu" that occurs both in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23.  This proves that there is NO WAY the Genesis 1 6 days can be about original creation.

And proves that "formless" is ridiculous.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

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.

OK, 'disorder'.  So you want to plug 'disorder' into Gen 1:2?  That would mean God's creation of the earth began as some kind of disorder, that He had to 'arrange' to it's final form.  Regardless of that silliness, the very phrase "final form" PROVES an inital form.  So no matter what, there is NO SUCH THING as an object that is "formless".

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yes - this phrase means vacant disorder in both passages.

OK, so you DO believe that God began His creation of the earth with some kind of disordered object then.  Wow.  I believe God SPOKE the entire universe, including earth into existence in an instant, which He is MORE THAN capable of doing.  And ALL OF IT was "good, very good".  But, the earth BECAME a WASTELAND that He then restored for man's use.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

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'.

Idiot translation, imho.  No invading besieging army leaves a destroyed land 'formless'.  What they do is leave it a WASTELAND.  

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

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.

Time to move along here.  Your comments regarding "tohu wabohu" clearly show that in Gen 1:2 the earth BECAME 'disordered' or better, "a wasteland".  We just don't know why or how it did.  And it doesn't matter.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

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.

If you were really paying attention, you  would have realized that rather than "doubling-down" I have simply admitted the problem and MOVED ON to the real issue, which is "tohu wabohu".  

Because one of the YEC defended the idea that "tohu wabohu" could be used for original creation in Gen 1:2 AND as a result of an invading army destroying the land in Jer 4:23, which is completely nonsensical.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

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

Well, that's all you have going for you, which is:  the description of the earth in Gen 1:2 is the same 2 words as the description of "the whole land" AFTER an invading army DESTROYED it.

If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

Trying to have it both ways just doesn't work.

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You aren't sensitive about this??

It's just about you being fair-minded, and accountable for your position.

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It's about all you've been posting about

I would guestimate this issue was about 90% 0f both our posts - until a few posts ago when you realized you were wrong.

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

even after I ADMITTED the problems

If you had clearly "ADMITTED" your error, and that you had abandoned your wrong argument, I would have moved on. But instead, you ducked your head, like "Nothing to see here - why are you still on this? - why are you being so sensitive about this?".

Sorry, but that's not gonna fly here. If you choose to set an aggressive tone via all your posturing, then you should have the integrity to take accountability when you've been wrong.

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And where is the ad hominem here?

Instead of addressing any part of my arguments, you insinuated something personal about me - in this case, that I am being overly "sensitive".

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

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

Well, I'm NOT.  I'm OVER i

Then feel free to not respond.

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There are better fish to fry here.  Namely, "tohu wabohu" that occurs both in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23.  This proves that there is NO WAY the Genesis 1 6 days can be about original creation.

And proves that "formless" is ridiculous

Firstly - this is a hermeneutical issue.

Secondly - this does not "prove" what you think it "proves". It only demonstrates your incapacity to fairly consider an opposing position.

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

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.

OK, 'disorder'.  So you want to plug 'disorder' into Gen 1:2?  That would mean God's creation of the earth began as some kind of disorder, that He had to 'arrange' to it's final form.  Regardless of that silliness ...

Yes - God brought the raw materials into existence, then proceeded mold those raw materials into an inhabitable world. He then filled the world with His creatures. That is a summary of the narrative structure of Genesis 1.

You obviously disagree with this summary, but, given the text itself, there is nothing inherently weird, nonsensical or "silly" about it.

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

the very phrase "final form" PROVES an inital form.  So no matter what, there is NO SUCH THING as an object that is "formless".

Yes - I intentionally avoided using the term "form", because I know it triggers the parts of your brain that seem to be a bit numb; the parts that think they are being clever, when they are making absurd, persnickety arguments.

If you are incapable of even conceiving the concept of raw materials existing in an unordered (or unorganized) state prior to being shaped by a creator for a specific purpose, then that is the limiting factor in our conversation - and not the fact that some translators used "formless".

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yes - this phrase means vacant disorder in both passages.

OK, so you DO believe that God began His creation of the earth with some kind of disordered object then

Yes - relative to the order that would follow after God introduced light sources and separated the land from the water. I would probably prefer 'unordered' rather than "disordered" - because disordered in English can have a slight negative connotation. Whereas 'unordered' has a more neutral connotation - meaning the Earth simply hadn't been ordered yet.

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Wow

Lol. Mine is a perfectly valid, eminently sensible position.

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I believe God SPOKE the entire universe, including earth into existence in an instant

As do I. But that was not the completion of the creation process. There was more to do, like creating light, and luminaries, and separating the land from the waters.

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

which He is MORE THAN capable of doing

No one is questioning God's capabilities.

I simply believe He performed His creation in the manner described in Genesis. Just because He is capable of creating everything in perfect maturity "in an instant", does not mean He is incapable of creating everything over a few days - especially if that is how He describes the process.

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And ALL OF IT was "good, very good".  But, the earth BECAME a WASTELAND that He then restored for man's use.

Regardless of our translation disagreement, the Biblical text does not follow this narrative.

There is no sense in scripture of a "good" and "very good" pre-creation before Genesis 1:2. The Bible only claims creations to be "good" and "very good" during your prescribed restoration period.

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

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'.

Idiot translation, imho.  No invading besieging army leaves a destroyed land 'formless'.  What they do is leave it a WASTELAND.

But this is not you making a counter-argument. This is you obstinately refusing to consider an alternative argument, then repeating your own argument, and simply declaring that anyone who disagrees with your argument is being an "idiot".

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If you were really paying attention, you  would have realized that rather than "doubling-down" I have simply admitted the problem and MOVED ON to the real issue, which is "tohu wabohu".  

But you didn't directly, or clearly "admit" that you were wrong about this. One post, you were obstinate and confident, the next post you were suddenly sketchy and unclear. And even after your supposed admission, you were still claiming that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' more than 'was'.

So I have been perfectly justified in seeking clarification.

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Because one of the YEC defended the idea that "tohu wabohu" could be used for original creation in Gen 1:2 AND as a result of an invading army destroying the land in Jer 4:23, which is completely nonsensical.

Well, I don't know anything about what "one of the YEC" did.

My position is that 'tohu vabohu' means unordered and empty. That phrase can be used to describe both the state of materials at creation (before those materials were shaped into something useful), and the state of a land that has been ravaged by war (i.e. an undoing of the structure; a.k.a. a type of reverse-creation).

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, that's all you have going for you, which is:  the description of the earth in Gen 1:2 is the same 2 words as the description of "the whole land" AFTER an invading army DESTROYED it.

OK. No one is contesting that the same phrase is used in both contexts.

We are debating whether a particular translation in Jeremiah 4:23 necessarily informs our understanding of Genesis 1:2, or whether the minor translation in Jeremiah was influenced by context - to deviate from the literal meanings of the words used.

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

Based on this statement, I strongly suspect you really "don't know what" a Strawman argument is.

 

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Trying to have it both ways just doesn't work.

Lol. I don't know what this means.

 

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

FreeGrace said: 

You aren't sensitive about this??

It's just about you being fair-minded, and accountable for your position.

OK, I've already admitted my mistake and have moved on.  Maybe "obsessed" might have been a better word than "sensitive".

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

If you had clearly "ADMITTED" your error, and that you had abandoned your wrong argument, I would have moved on.

I did.  You didn't.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

But instead, you ducked your head, like "Nothing to see here - why are you still on this? - why are you being so sensitive about this?".

Which is the truth.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Sorry, but that's not gonna fly here. If you choose to set an aggressive tone via all your posturing, then you should have the integrity to take accountability when you've been wrong.

No posturing.  I admitted the problem and there was no "aggressive tone".  It is time to move on.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Instead of addressing any part of my arguments, you insinuated something personal about me - in this case, that I am being overly "sensitive".

Why do you continue to beat this DEAD HORSE then?

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Then feel free to not respond.

I feel free to be free.  And I post how I want to post.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly - this is a hermeneutical issue.

For me, the issue is what Gen 1:2 really means.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Secondly - this does not "prove" what you think it "proves". It only demonstrates your incapacity to fairly consider an opposing position.

Are you serious?  I was brought up on YEC.  Since "tohu wabohu" only occurs twice in the OT, and the other passage is Jer 4:23, where the context is about an invading army DESTROYING the land, the "opposing position" has NO validity.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yes - God brought the raw materials into existence, then proceeded mold those raw materials into an inhabitable world. He then filled the world with His creatures. That is a summary of the narrative structure of Genesis 1.

OK, that's your position.  Doesn't matter to me.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I'm only presenting the facts and each person is accountable for seeing them.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

You obviously disagree with this summary, but, given the text itself, there is nothing inherently weird, nonsensical or "silly" about it.

Sure there is.

1.  The word "formless", as I have pointed out repeatedly, doesn't exist in reality.  A decorated Christmas tree has the SAME FORM as a naked tree.  God didn't CHANGE THE FORM of the earth anywhere in Gen 1.

2.  The words "tohu wabohu" are used in Jer 4 to describe the RESULT of an invading army that DESTROYED the land, and yet YEC types expect me to ignore that and believe that "tohu wabohu" is associated with original creation.  Impossible.

So, yes, that IS silly.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yes - I intentionally avoided using the term "form", because I know it triggers the parts of your brain that seem to be a bit numb; the parts that think they are being clever, when they are making absurd, persnickety arguments.

Doesn't matter if you use "form" or "shape".  NEITHER word is what "tohu" means.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

If you are incapable of even conceiving the concept of raw materials existing in an unordered (or unorganized) state prior to being shaped by a creator for a specific purpose, then that is the limiting factor in our conversation - and not the fact that some translators used "formless".

Since Psa 33:6 and 9 tell us plainly that God spoke everything into existence, there is NO REASON to assume that He spoke raw materials into existence and then played with them to come up with some "final FORM".  That is silly.  He simply SPOKE the entire universe into existence, all at once.  

There is no reason to assume anything other than that.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yes - relative to the order that would follow after God introduced light sources and separated the land from the water. I would probably prefer 'unordered' rather than "disordered" - because disordered in English can have a slight negative connotation. Whereas 'unordered' has a more neutral connotation - meaning the Earth simply hadn't been ordered yet.

All this can easily be explained as a restoration.  Certainly not original creation, ESP since we have "tohu wabohu" in v.2.  That's what the earth BECAME.  God just didn't explain how that came to be.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

I simply believe He performed His creation in the manner described in Genesis. Just because He is capable of creating everything in perfect maturity "in an instant", does not mean He is incapable of creating everything over a few days - especially if that is how He describes the process. 

Why are you so convinced that the earth is only 6 days older than Adam.  Why do you resist the idea that something caused the earth to BECOME "tohu wabohu" and God restored the earth for man's use?

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

There is no sense in scripture of a "good" and "very good" pre-creation before Genesis 1:2. The Bible only claims creations to be "good" and "very good" during your prescribed restoration period.

There is no such thing as a "pre-creation".  That idea is only in your mind, regarding your vigorous rejection of what I believe.

Gen 1:1 IS original creation, obviously.  What follows is a restoration.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

But you didn't directly, or clearly "admit" that you were wrong about this. One post, you were obstinate and confident, the next post you were suddenly sketchy and unclear. And even after your supposed admission, you were still claiming that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' more than 'was'.

Where have you "proved" that hay-et-ah is translated more as "was" than "became"?

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

My position is that 'tohu vabohu' means unordered and empty.

Clearly doesn't work in Jer 4:23.  And what does 'unordered' even mean, after an invading army DESTROYS the land?

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

That phrase can be used to describe both the state of materials at creation (before those materials were shaped into something useful), and the state of a land that has been ravaged by war (i.e. an undoing of the structure; a.k.a. a type of reverse-creation).

lol

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

OK. No one is contesting that the same phrase is used in both contexts.

Of course not.  The point is that Jer 4:23 is about total destruction of the land by an invading army.  But you want me to believe that the 2 words are also used for original creation.  How is that reasonable?

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

We are debating whether a particular translation in Jeremiah 4:23 necessarily informs our understanding of Genesis 1:2, or whether the minor translation in Jeremiah was influenced by context - to deviate from the literal meanings of the words used.

Yes, it necessarily does inform our understanding of Gen 1:2.  Why wouldn't it?

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

 

[DeighAnn]

BEFORE - PREVIOUS TO - ERE to God saying "let there be light" (at the beginning of THIS AGE)

the earth already "WAS".  AND not just 'was' but it WAS in darkness, just sitting there a vacuity and in darkness (itself SYMBOLIC OF JUDGMENT).  BUT

how could there be ANY DARKNESS while GOD WAS in the PROCESS of the ORIGINAL CREATION?   

And why use a word figuratively used for "misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness -- dark(-ness), night, obscurity."?  

Especially when ANOTHER 'DAY' like that is coming...

14The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

15That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

16A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.

17And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.

18Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD'S wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.



 

And at the end of THAT DAY, we know EARTH will be 'made new' again...by Rev 

with
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.


and we KNOW there were SONS OF GOD previous to the earth being created...with Job 38

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


and here, and again, we are called 'the sons of God' 

and we know where we CAME FROM....1And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

(and return to)

 

Psalms 104
1Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.

2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

3Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

4Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

10He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.

11They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.

12By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches.

13He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.

14He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;

15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

16The trees of the LORD are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted;

17Where the birds make their nests: as for the stork, the fir trees are her house.

18The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; and the rocks for the conies.

19He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.

20Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.

21The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.

22The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.

23Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.

24O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.

25So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.

26There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.

27These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.

28That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.

29Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

30Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

31The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.

32He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.

33I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.

34My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.

35Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.


 

Isaiah 42
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

2He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.

3A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

4He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

6I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

8I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

9Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

10Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.

11Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.

12Let them give glory unto the LORD, and declare his praise in the islands.

13The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

14I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once.

15I will make waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their herbs; and I will make the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools.

16And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.

17They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.

18Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.

19Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant?

20Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.

21The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

22But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.

23Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come?

24Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the LORD, he against whom we have sinned? for they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law.

25Therefore he hath poured upon him the fury of his anger, and the strength of battle: and it hath set him on fire round about, yet he knew not; and it burned him, yet he laid it not to heart.

 

[Tristen]

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

Maybe "obsessed" might have been a better word than "sensitive".

Swapping out one Adhominem fallacy for another doesn't make the statement any less fallacious (nor any more clever).

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

If you had clearly "ADMITTED" your error, and that you had abandoned your wrong argument, I would have moved on.

I did.  You didn't.

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

But instead, you ducked your head, like "Nothing to see here - why are you still on this? - why are you being so sensitive about this?".

Which is the truth.

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

Sorry, but that's not gonna fly here. If you choose to set an aggressive tone via all your posturing, then you should have the integrity to take accountability when you've been wrong.

No posturing.  I admitted the problem and there was no "aggressive tone".  It is time to move on.

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

Instead of addressing any part of my arguments, you insinuated something personal about me - in this case, that I am being overly "sensitive".

Why do you continue to beat this DEAD HORSE then?

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

Then feel free to not respond.

I feel free to be free.  And I post how I want to post.

OK, let’s play this out:

You made an error. In the context of our conversation, it was a very big error. But whatever – we all make errors. Hopefully we learn and move forward.

Except you didn’t just make an error. During the commission of your error, you spent copious amounts of time opining about me being “ridiculous” and “disingenuous” and “unreasonable” etc. – for refusing to agree with your error.

Then, after realizing your error, you tried to duck-and-cover, and to avoid any direct, unambiguous retreat of your erroneous position.

And then, when I simply asked for clarification (i.e. that you are walking away from your error), you resort to accusing me of being “sensitive” and “obsessed”.

Unsurprisingly, you now want me to just “move on”. But you are not prepared to “move on”. You are still arguing against my comments on this issue. So even though you have been the one in the wrong at every turn on this matter, you are still trying to demand the right of final response – as though you were in the right - and are now trying to play the ‘bigger person’ card.

I am happy now to recognize that you have abandoned the erroneous argument. However, that leaves you with a much weaker position. No evidence you have provided supports the claim that ‘hayetha’ is translated ‘became’ more than ‘was’. As in English, where ‘was’ usually just means ‘was’, but can, on occasion, be substituted with ‘became’ – likewise, the Hebrew word for ‘was’ (‘haya’/‘hayetha’) can, on occasion, be translated ‘became’ instead of ‘was’. That is all ‘hayetha’ gives your argument.

 

Also - A quick shoutout to @SavedOnebyGrace for your (cough) fair and unbiased contributions to the conversation.  

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

Firstly - this is a hermeneutical issue.

For me, the issue is what Gen 1:2 really means.

We establish the Author's intent through sound translation practices (a.k.a. sound hermeneutics).

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

Secondly - this does not "prove" what you think it "proves". It only demonstrates your incapacity to fairly consider an opposing position.

Are you serious?  I was brought up on YEC.  Since "tohu wabohu" only occurs twice in the OT, and the other passage is Jer 4:23, where the context is about an invading army DESTROYING the land, the "opposing position" has NO validity.

Lol. Yes, I am "serious". I am addressing your argument, not your background.

Your argument here essentially claims that, since you have an argument, the mere existence of your argument "proves" your position, and therefore "the "opposing position" has NO validity".

This actually explains why we have to go around the same circles so many times. You think that, because you have supposedly 'proved' your point, you therefore have no obligation to consider any counter-arguments. You can simply repeat your point - and pretend that I'm being unreasonable for not "seeing" your point.

This is not how one rationally, objectively engages in debate. We've already established that it is possible for you to be in error (on rare occasions ). Therefore, you simply having an argument is not enough to settle a matter. 

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

OK, that's your position.  Doesn't matter to me.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything

Why then are we having a conversation?

Presumably, we are both sincere in our faith. Presumably, we both want to know what God's true intention is for the text of Genesis 1:2 (even if that ultimately means we might have been wrong). Therefore, we each subject our arguments to the scrutiny of someone coming from a different perspective. Isn't that why we are here?

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

I'm only presenting the facts and each person is accountable for seeing them

This is yet more empty posturing.

I have not contested any "facts". We are debating the appropriate application of those "facts" with regards to the interpretation process.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

You obviously disagree with this summary, but, given the text itself, there is nothing inherently weird, nonsensical or "silly" about it.

Sure there is.

You’ve made the same error of logic in several comments here (and in the previous post) – so I’ll just address it once.

Simply calling an opposing view “silly” is an Appeal to Ridicule (a logic fallacy rendering the comment to be technically irrational).

Worse than that – if I give you the benefit of the doubt (and assume you are being genuine, rather than obstinate), it means you lack the objective capacity to fairly consider opposing arguments – i.e. if your sincere default is that everyone who holds an opposing position to you is being “silly”. It means you haven’t registered, or properly thought through, the arguments (or at-least, there is no evidence from your comments that you have done so).

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

Doesn't matter if you use "form" or "shape".  NEITHER word is what "tohu" means.

To quote myself, I said, "If you are incapable of even conceiving the concept of raw materials existing in an unordered (or unorganized) state prior to being shaped by a creator for a specific purpose, then that is the limiting factor in our conversation".

Your blinders are on - you are being reactionary, rather than thinking through what I said.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

Since Psa 33:6 and 9 tell us plainly that God spoke everything into existence, there is NO REASON to assume that He spoke raw materials into existence and then played with them to come up with some "final FORM".

No one is assuming anything. The first chapter of Genesis unequivocally describes a process of God creating light (and later the luminaries), then God separating the land from the water, then God filling the earth with living creatures.

The fact that you have selected to plow an untold amount of time and history between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, does not change the fact that a process is clearly, unequivocally described in the Genesis text. So that seems like a pretty good "REASON". 

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

That is silly.

K then - see above.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

He simply SPOKE the entire universe into existence, all at once.  

There is no reason to assume anything other than that.

Well, at least you are admitting that you are assuming this - since no text actually states this, but there is text explicitly speaking to a process over time.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

All this can easily be explained as a restoration.  Certainly not original creation, ESP since we have "tohu wabohu" in v.2.  

Unless - 'tohu vabohu' simply means an unordered and empty state of existence. Then it could "certainly" mean both, the early state of creation, and the later state of a land ravaged by war.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

That's what the earth BECAME.  God just didn't explain how that came to be

Right - God never mentions it again - or arguably, even the first time.  

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

Why are you so convinced that the earth is only 6 days older than Adam

What I am "convinced" about is not the point. We are trying to determine how to best interpret God's intent for Genesis 1:2.

Your hermeneutical process allows you to read something into the scripture that is not present in the text itself. My hermeneutical process does not permit such extraordinary liberties be taken with scripture.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

Why do you resist the idea that something caused the earth to BECOME "tohu wabohu" and God restored the earth for man's use?

I "resist" any interpretation of scripture that requires I accept the application of unsound hermeneutical practices. 

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

There is no sense in scripture of a "good" and "very good" pre-creation before Genesis 1:2. The Bible only claims creations to be "good" and "very good" during your prescribed restoration period.

There is no such thing as a "pre-creation".  That idea is only in your mind, regarding your vigorous rejection of what I believe.

Gen 1:1 IS original creation, obviously.  What follows is a restoration.

You are using persnickety semantics to dodge the point. 

Your timeline is inconsistent with scripture. You said, "And ALL OF IT was "good, very good".  But, the earth BECAME a WASTELAND that He then restored for man's use.".

There is no sense in scripture that anything prior to Genesis 1:2 was explicitly declared to be either "good" or "very good". These descriptors are only applied to creations subsequent to Genesis 1:2. (though arguably including those things in Genesis 1:1 - having been created on the same day)

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

Where have you "proved" that hay-et-ah is translated more as "was" than "became"?

Though you used quotation marks, I did not claim to have "proved" anything.

In the other thread, you claimed that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' 70% of the time it is used in the Old Testament (which you later re-adjusted down to 59% - based on material that we both now agree to be unsuitable). [I note that you have also made the same claims earlier in this thread (before I arrived).]

My response in the other thread was to pick a translation (an unbiased sample) and count them. The results were: 14% for 'became/become', 21% for 'had/has/have' and 44% for 'was/were'. I presented this data along with a complete list of the verses for your perusal, and also offered to do the same for any translation of your choosing.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

My position is that 'tohu vabohu' means unordered and empty.

Clearly doesn't work in Jer 4:23.  And what does 'unordered' even mean, after an invading army DESTROYS the land?

In the context of a war-torn land, "unordered" means there is little-to-no evidence that any civilization existed in the land. Perhaps the land itself was rendered incapable of sustaining previously-abundant life forms.

The phrase 'tohu vabohu' (alongside other contextual elements) is intended to generate imagery of a reversal of creation. It's a phrase that every Hebrew reader would have been familiar with at the time of authorship.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

That phrase can be used to describe both the state of materials at creation (before those materials were shaped into something useful), and the state of a land that has been ravaged by war (i.e. an undoing of the structure; a.k.a. a type of reverse-creation).

lol

OK - do you have an argument as to why my comments are worthy of derision? Because that is a pretty pathetic (and fallacious) response to my perfectly sensible comments.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

The point is that Jer 4:23 is about total destruction of the land by an invading army.  But you want me to believe that the 2 words are also used for original creation.  How is that reasonable?

I explained how it is "reasonable" - and your response was "lol".

You are not dealing reasonably with my arguments. You are still operating in the mindset that the mere existence of an argument supporting your position means you can disregard, and be arrogantly dismissive, of other arguments.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 8:47 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/6/2023 at 10:32 AM, Tristen said:

We are debating whether a particular translation in Jeremiah 4:23 necessarily informs our understanding of Genesis 1:2, or whether the minor translation in Jeremiah was influenced by context - to deviate from the literal meanings of the words used.

Yes, it necessarily does inform our understanding of Gen 1:2.  Why wouldn't it?

If you read the above example carefully, I provided two counter-perspectives in my comment - your brain only registered the one you agree with, and the other was arbitrarily disregarded. 

 

 

[BeyondET]

On 8/8/2023 at 2:38 PM, DeighAnn said:

Psalms 104

19He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.

This verse is fascinating, the precision of the seasons on earth is caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. Without the moon the four seasons wouldn't be stable. And the sun's gravitational pull is the greater.

Edited August 12, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Swapping out one Adhominem fallacy for another doesn't make the statement any less fallacious (nor any more clever).

OK, let’s play this out:

You made an error. In the context of our conversation, it was a very big error. But whatever – we all make errors. Hopefully we learn and move forward.

Except you didn’t just make an error. During the commission of your error, you spent copious amounts of time opining about me being “ridiculous” and “disingenuous” and “unreasonable” etc. – for refusing to agree with your error.

Then, after realizing your error, you tried to duck-and-cover, and to avoid any direct, unambiguous retreat of your erroneous position.

need.to.let.this.go.  If this isn't an obsesssion, what would one call it?

Here is the fact:  I counted "become" from the numerous occurrences in the list of 111 times "ha-ye-tah" occurs in the OT that were from "int", meaning an interlinear.  

another fact.  The list shows the NASB translating the word as "become" 19 times, and NEVER as "was".  

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

And then, when I simply asked for clarification (i.e. that you are walking away from your error), you resort to accusing me of being “sensitive” and “obsessed”.

This is plainly untrue.  I ADMITTED my error, which you seem totally unable to accept.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Unsurprisingly, you now want me to just “move on”. But you are not prepared to “move on”. You are still arguing against my comments on this issue. So even though you have been the one in the wrong at every turn on this matter, you are still trying to demand the right of final response – as though you were in the right - and are now trying to play the ‘bigger person’ card.

News flash:  I HAVE moved on.  Sorry about your hang-up.

How come in that 111 verse list for the verb, it shows "was" only once in the KJV and only 4 times in the "int".  But you took me to task for including the "int" for the number of times the verb is translated as "became", so let's ignore the 4 "int" occurrences.  What does that leave us with?  ONLY 1 occurrence of "was", and that is in the KJV.  So, 19 from NASB and 1 from KJV.  Easy to do the math here.

Why don't you produce the evidence that "was" is AS COMMON as "became" in the OT for thaat exact same verb form?

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Presumably, we are both sincere in our faith. Presumably, we both want to know what God's true intention is for the text of Genesis 1:2 (even if that ultimately means we might have been wrong). Therefore, we each subject our arguments to the scrutiny of someone coming from a different perspective. Isn't that why we are here?

I read through the rest of your long post and you're still stuck on the verb.  Well, I HAVE MOVE ON to a more significant fact.

"tohu wabohu" is translated as "formless and void" in the majority of translations in Gen 1:2, however not all.  As well, the same 2 words are found in Jer 4:23 and also mostly translated the same way as in Gen 1:2 but again, not all.

Here's the deal for YEC's to explain.  If Gen 1:2 is part of the original creation mentioned in v.1, you need to address the FACT that in Jer 4:23, the 2 words describe the result of a "besieging army" that destroys the land.  

How can the 2 words be part of what describes creation AND what describes a clear destruction of the "whole land"?

Are you able to move on and address this bigger issue?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

As a OEC, I am not afraid of science. According to cosmology, the Earth and its Moon are not the same age. The Moon is much younger so that's another thing for YEC to deny.

[DeighAnn]

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How can the 2 words be part of what describes creation AND what describes a clear destruction of the "whole land"?

Have you addressed the 'darkness' problems with it being any part of/during creation yet?  If so, any CLUE as to what pages I missed?   

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, DeighAnn said:

FreeGrace said: 

How can the 2 words be part of what describes creation AND what describes a clear destruction of the "whole land"?

Have you addressed the 'darkness' problems with it being any part of/during creation yet?  If so, any CLUE as to what pages I missed?   

No, my emphasis has been on the 2 Hebrew words used in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23.

YEC's must address the problem of believing that "tohu wabohu" can be part of creation AND be part of total destruction of the land.

Thanks for pointing out the additional fact of the "darkness" in Gen 1:2.  Another nail for the coffin.