Questions for evolution believers

[BeyondET]

15 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It does if you use the common definition of "morning."   If you have to use a personal definition, that's a pretty good indication there's something wrong with your interpretation.

Pretty much the question I asked you.   "Morning" has a very definite meaning, in Hebrew and in English.   If you have to change it to fit a new narrative, it's an indication you've gone wrong somewhere.

 

To job it was a end of a day, Should we use our understanding of morning? Considering God ask Job the same thing a human.

[RV_Wizard]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As I showed you, it's quite true. 

Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century.   source

As I have pointed out many times before, your statement is a straight up lie.

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I'm pointing out that you're trying to convert the first three chapters of Genesis to a literal history, when Christians have always know it isn't. 

Not only is Genesis considered literal history by the church, the entire Old Testament is considered reliable history.  You continue to make the same discredited arguments.  They were not true when you read them, they were not true when you repeated them, and they are still not true after posting them again and again.  It's still a lie.  Not only did the early church take the words of Moses seriously, anyone who made the claims you do would have been stoned to death.  If you dared to actually READ the Bible and not just copy what you find on atheist websites, you MIGHT learn something.

 

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

Now, why do you bother with this Hebrew word when you certainly won't bother with 2 other Hebrew words, tohu wabohu?

I simply reject your modern definition which is inconsistent with the plain teaching of the Scriptures.

That's hardly rational.  Throughout the OT "tohu" is used to describe DESTRUCTION, CHAOS, etc.  Even the KJV isn't that old.  Back around 300 BC Gen 1:2 was translated into Greek:  But the earth was unsightly.  Is that how you view God's creative powers?

Pitiful.

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

  FreeGrace said: 

That doesn't "say" the account isn't literal. 

It does if you use the common definition of "morning."

When God created the universe, why assume time didn't start then?  Of course time as we know it would be in play when the universe was spoken into existence.  We just don't know WHEN that happened.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

   If you have to use a personal definition, that's a pretty good indication there's something wrong with your interpretation.

Not using a personal definition.  We don't know precisely when the earth was spoken into existence, but time began then.  So the references to morning and evening are already in play before God created the sun.  

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Doesn't say it will have mornings and evenings, either.   So it reinforces the figurative nature of the creation story.

Doesn't have to say that.  I love when people insist on specific wordings, etc.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Genetics, anatomy, and a very large number of transitional forms show humans to have evolved from other primates.   No point in denying it.

{I've never denied transitional forms.  Once God created Adam and the woman, nature took over for everyone else, being born through natural means.  And things changed.  Obviously.  I'm talking about Adam.  He did not come about through natural processes.}

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.  That would be confusing analogy with homology.    For example bat wings are more like human arms than they are like bird wings, even though bat wings are "similar" to bird wings.   The anatomical data shows mammals are more closely related to each other than any of them are to birds.   And genetics now confirms that finding.

Not proving anything.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Jesus says God is a spirit.  He says that a spirit has no body.    God doesn't have knees or earlobes.    The "image" is in our minds and souls.

Point?

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

God created Adam intact as a fully grown and mature male of the species.  Same with the woman, who came from MAN, and not "other vertebrates"

That assumption is not supported by data or by scripture, unless you convert it to a literal history.  And the text already rules that out.

No assumption.  Straight from the text itself.  And the text doesn't need to be "converted to a literal history".  It reads that way.

When Scripture is figurative, it is clear enough to understand that.  When a text reads literally, there is no reason to convert it into anything else.

When texts are declared to be figurative rather than literal, one can say nearly anything and there is no way to refute the claim  of what was meant.

If I'm wrong, then I'll say "oops" in eternity.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

"Morning" has a very definite meaning, in Hebrew and in English.   If you have to change it to fit a new narrative, it's an indication you've gone wrong somewhere.

The word has a definite meaning, which is based on time as measured on earth.  Time began when God created the universe.  That's the key.

So when God began the restoration of the planet for man's use, He naturally used terminology that was in play already.  

And, as I showed in Rev 21, we won't need the sun on the new earth.  God Himself provides the light.  So He certainly was able to have a morning and evening without a sun.  But you have a different opinion.  That's ok.

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century.   source

You haven't commented on the Septuigant, written around 300 BC, translating the Hebrew into Koine Greek.

Gen 1:2 - but the earth was unsightly.  

How can you apply that to original creation, unless you take the low road and claim God created everything in stages, which is contradicted by Psa 33:6,9.

[RV_Wizard]

43 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Gen 1:2 - but the earth was unsightly.

Doesn't matter, the only one to see it was God.

You know man and the animals on the earth were created on day six.  You know that the six day creation was part of the church teaching for the first 18 centuries, and for 40 centuries before that.  You know that NO translation uses the word "became."  All you have to do is to let loose of the other claims of man and look to the word of God.  There is no reference or inference in the Bible that hints at a previous earth.  If such a thing had happened, then the great flood would be the SECOND time all life on earth was exterminated.  The Scriptures say it was the ONLY time.

God didn't have to let the earth age.  He created a mature planet.  Gold, silver, diamonds and other jewels, oil, silicon, lithium, coal and all the other elements in the earth came not from decaying vegetation or dinosaur bones, they were there from the beginning.  God has allowed a great deception to filter out those who believe His word from those who believe Satan's lies.  Certain posters here are immersed in Satan's lies to where those lies are their religion.  You are right on many things.  You just spend most of your time pushing something on which you are wrong.

You'll never convince me that Genesis means other than what it says.  It is not a book of prophesy, but of history.

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

Gen 1:2 - but the earth was unsightly.

Doesn't matter, the only one to see it was God.

Does matter.  You try to make the point about WHEN various translations were done, as if the "older" English translation is superior to what came later.

Well, the above is the English translation of the Septuigant, written about 300 BC, which is about 1,400 years before the KJV.

And, the entire world is able to "see" how the earth looked, because had Moses write it down to let us know.

So, you are still arguing for Creator God creating the earth "unsightly", a "wasteland", "chaos", etc, which is how "tohu" is translated elsewhere in the OT.

Not a very skilled Creator, if "tohu" was describing original creation of earth.
You don't like that there are no details (context) for the need for restoration.  Sure there is.  Tohu wabohu IS the context.  The earth became a mess.  It was NOT created a mess.

And Isa 45:18 says exactly that.  "God did not create the earth a wasteland" NASB

Isa 45:18  “tohu”

New Living Translation

For the LORD is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am the LORD,” he says, “and there is no other.

New American Standard Bible

For this is what the LORD says, He who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it as a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited): “I am the LORD, and there is no one else.

NASB 1995

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else.

NASB 1977

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Amplified Bible

For the LORD, who created the heavens (He is God, who formed the earth and made it; He established it and did not create it to be a wasteland, but formed it to be inhabited) says this, “I am the LORD, and there is no one else.

Christian Standard Bible

For this is what the LORD says — the Creator of the heavens, the God who formed the earth and made it, the one who established it (he did not create it to be a wasteland, but formed it to be inhabited) — he says, “I am the LORD, and there is no other.

American Standard Version

For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.

English Revised Version

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; he is God; that formed the earth and made it; he established it, he created it not a waste, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Good News Translation

The LORD created the heavens--he is the one who is God! He formed and made the earth--he made it firm and lasting. He did not make it a desolate waste, but a place for people to live. It is he who says, "I am the LORD, and there is no other god.

International Standard Version

For this is what the LORD says, who created the heavens— he is God, and the one who formed the earth and made it, and he is the one who established it; he didn't create it for chaos, but formed it to be inhabited— "I am the LORD and there is no other.

JPS Tanakh 1917

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens, He is God; That formed the earth and made it, He established it, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD, and there is none else.

New American Bible

For thus says the LORD, The creator of the heavens, who is God, The designer and maker of the earth who established it, Not as an empty waste did he create it, but designing it to be lived in: I am the LORD, and there is no other.

NET Bible

For this is what the LORD says, the one who created the sky--he is the true God, the one who formed the earth and made it; he established it, he did not create it without order, he formed it to be inhabited--"I am the LORD, I have no peer.

New Revised Standard Version

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): I am the LORD, and there is no other.

New Heart English Bible

For thus says the LORD who created the heavens, the God who formed the earth and made it, who established it and did not create it a waste, who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

World English Bible

For Yahweh who created the heavens, the God who formed the earth and made it, who established it and didn’t create it a waste, who formed it to be inhabited says: “I am Yahweh. There is no other.

These 16 English translations (50%) refute the idea that "tohu" describes original creation.  

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You know man and the animals on the earth were created on day six.

Check.  

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You know that the six day creation was part of the church teaching for the first 18 centuries, and for 40 centuries before that.

No check.  What I know is what the literal Hebrew means, by proving it with all the verses that translate "tohu" to describe DESTRUCTION rather than CONSTRUCTION.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You know that NO translation uses the word "became."

I know what the verb means; a verb of existence:  to be or become.  That is how it is presented in a Hebrew lexicon.   And I proved that "was" and "became" are synonymous in certain verses.  And the Septuigant translated the Hebrew conjunction as "but", which is the conjunction of CONTRAST, rather than a conjunction of continuation.  And those translators knew more than the English translators from 10th Century manuscripts.  

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  All you have to do is to let loose of the other claims of man and look to the word of God.

Where have you been?  That's all I've done.  I've researched all the occurrences of "tohu" and tohu wabohu" and shown how OFTEN they describe DESTRUCTION.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There is no reference or inference in the Bible that hints at a previous earth.

Where have you been?  There's NEVER been a "previous earth".  Please pay better attention.  The ONLY earth was created in v.1 BUT BECAME a tohu wabohu in v.2.

Real simple.  But for some reason (bias??) you aren't getting it.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If such a thing had happened, then the great flood would be the SECOND time all life on earth was exterminated.  The Scriptures say it was the ONLY time.

Give me the citation at least.  Please don't throw out a claim without evidence.  You ignore research, so i don't believe anything you opine.  So please show me.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

God didn't have to let the earth age.  He created a mature planet.  Gold, silver, diamonds and other jewels, oil, silicon, lithium, coal and all the other elements in the earth came not from decaying vegetation or dinosaur bones, they were there from the beginning.

You really think that makes sense?  To create a planet with apparent age???  He had to create man as a fully mature person for the job he had immediately.  Why would the earth have to look older than it was?

Thanks for at least acknowledging that the earth LOOKS WAY OLDER than it is.  

It looks that way because it IS that way.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  God has allowed a great deception to filter out those who believe His word from those who believe Satan's lies.

Oh, my goodness!!!!!!  You have already basically charged God with DECEPTION for creating the planet already mature (aged).  Don't you even proofread before submitting?  How does that hole in your foot feel?

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Certain posters here are immersed in Satan's lies to where those lies are their religion.

I don't care about anything that can't be shown from Scripture.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You are right on many things.

Please tell me what I have gotten right.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You just spend most of your time pushing something on which you are wrong.

This is a thread about earth age, so why wouldn't I spend ALL of my time on this thread quoting from literal Hebrew?

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You'll never convince me that Genesis means other than what it says.  It is not a book of prophesy, but of history.

What you really mean is that you won't be convinced by the literal Hebrew, even though it contradicts your English translation.  

Half of all 32 translations on biblehub.com have been shown to you regarding isa 45:18.  And they directly contradict your English translation.

your bias prevents any objectivity.

I've shown you over and over what Genesis 1:2 means by comparing with all the other occurrences in the OT, and the FACTS just go over your head.

Edited March 10 by FreeGrace

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The word has a definite meaning, which is based on time as measured on earth.

No.  It has to do with sunrise.   By definition.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So when God began the restoration of the planet for man's use, He naturally used terminology that was in play already.  

So during the unpleaantness, you think the Sun and Moon were also obliterated, and He had to make new ones?    Then mornings would be again possible.  But not until the third day.

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And, as I showed in Rev 21, we won't need the sun on the new earth.

That's true.  There won't be night or morning. 

[FreeGrace]

37 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

The word has a definite meaning, which is based on time as measured on earth.

No.  It has to do with sunrise.   By definition.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.  Anyway, Genesis 1 is obviously about a restoration, minus v.1, based on the OT wide use of "tohu" elsewhere.

37 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So during the unpleaantness, you think the Sun and Moon were also obliterated, and He had to make new ones?

I don't speculate.  I simply accept what Moses wrote;  but the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  I have no idea what happened.  Obviously, it didn't relate to man so He left it out.

37 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

    Then mornings would be again possible.  But not until the third day.

Of a restoration.

37 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That's true.  There won't be night or morning. 

No need.