6,000 Years?

[2PhiloVoid]

Where could the waters possibly exist if there are no heavens or earth? If there was no place for water to exist then one would have to conclude that the waters had to have been created after the heavens and the earth.

I think part of the interpretive problem here is in thinking of 'waters' in terms of physics rather than in terms of contrasting, comparative cosmogonies among various people groups in the ANE during the Bronze Age.

 

[Job 33:6]

Where could the waters possibly exist if there are no heavens or earth? If there was no place for water to exist then one would have to conclude that the waters had to have been created after the heavens and the earth.

The waters do not need to be above the earth or below the heavens to exist. So I'm not sure what you mean. And I'll repeat, Genesis describes the creation of things that are already there (giving form to that which was formless and filling that which was empty).

If I said, "in the beginning when I created a boat, the boat was broken and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and a bird flew over the waters, then I said "someone pass me a hammer"".

And in 6 hours I created the boat, I put my passengers in it (Adam and Eve) and I said, that's very good. It now has form and it's filled with people.

You wouldn't turn and say "well how can waters be there if there is no boat? If there is no place for the waters to exist, then one would have to conclude that the waters had to have been created after the boat"

That doesn't make any sense. The waters are above the heavens and below the earth. They are of a further extent than these spaces.

To him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his loyal love endures forever.
Psalms 136:6

Praise him, highest heavens, and waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh, because he commanded and they were created. And he put them in place forever and ever, by a decree he gave that will not pass away.
Psalms 148:4‭-‬6

That's why Genesis even says,
Genesis 1:7-8 ESV
[7] And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. [8] And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

The heavens themselves are in the midst of the waters. The waters are not in the midst of the heavens.

Genesis 1:9 ESV
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

The waters below the heavens were gathered into one place, revealing the earth in the midst of the waters. The primordial mount, almost like an island.

Genesis 1:10 NASB1995
[10] God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

And the waters that were gathered into 1 place, were called "seas". That is, seas that surround the primordial mound.

So you see, the heavens and the earth are both in the midst of the waters. The waters are not in the midst of the heavens and the earth (at least not in totality).

And all this is of course subject to debate because the Bible shifts cosmological positions depending on what book of the Bible you're in. Like others are saying, it's not something to think about scientifically. It's more phenomenological and literary.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The waters do not need to be above the earth or below the heavens to exist. So I'm not sure what you mean. And I'll repeat, Genesis describes the creation of things that are already there (giving form to that which was formless and filling that which was empty).

If I said, "in the beginning when I created a boat, the boat was broken and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and a bird flew over the waters, then I said "someone pass me a hammer"".

And in 6 hours I created the boat, I put my passengers in it (Adam and Eve) and I said, that's very good. It now has form and it's filled with people.

You wouldn't turn and say "well how can waters be there if there is no boat? If there is no place for the waters to exist, then one would have to conclude that the waters had to have been created after the boat"

That doesn't make any sense. The waters are above the heavens and below the earth. They are of a further extent than these spaces.

To him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his loyal love endures forever.
Psalms 136:6

Praise him, highest heavens, and waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh, because he commanded and they were created. And he put them in place forever and ever, by a decree he gave that will not pass away.
Psalms 148:4‭-‬6

That's why Genesis even says,
Genesis 1:7-8 ESV
[7] And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. [8] And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

The heavens themselves are in the midst of the waters. The waters are not in the midst of the heavens.

Genesis 1:9 ESV
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

The waters below the heavens were gathered into one place, revealing the earth in the midst of the waters. The primordial mount, almost like an island.

Genesis 1:10 NASB1995
[10] God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

And the waters that were gathered into 1 place, were called "seas". That is, seas that surround the primordial mound.

So you see, the heavens and the earth are both in the midst of the waters. The waters are not in the midst of the heavens and the earth (at least not in totality).

And all this is of course subject to debate because the Bible shifts cosmological positions depending on what book of the Bible you're in. Like others are saying, it's not something to think about scientifically. It's more phenomenological and literary.

Genesis 2 specifically says that this is the account of when God created the heavens and earth and He rested from everything He CREATED AND MADE. Created is exnihilo, made is exmateria. If you don’t interpret created and made as exnihilo and exmateria then it doesn’t make any sense because both would be saying the same exact thing. You’d be saying that God rested from everything He formed and formed which doesn’t make any sense at all.

 

[River Jordan]

The theories of deep time evolution, including the evolutionary tree life -

Tree of life (biology) - Wikipedia

are just modern intellectual forms of idol worship.

No they're not. They're just the results of scientists doing their jobs.

Do you really think scientists are up to something? Do you think we go to work every day plotting and scheming?

Reducing our existence to random chance mutations among birds, four footed beasts, and creeping things. Worshipping a God of randomness, and completely improbable chance, of their own making. The new idols crafted by their own “intellect”, hands, persuit, and wild imaginations. Coming up with probably the silliest and most improbable theories possible. Nothing, or even something, blew up, and here we are. One random chance positively progressive event or mutation after another trillions of times over again, unto the incomprehensible complexity we observe today. And this passes for real science today. Go figure. I speak concerning atheistic evolution of course, which does not allow for any intelligent design.

It looks like you do think that.

Do you actually know any scientists who work on those things?

 

[trophy33]

Genesis 2 specifically says that this is the account of when God created the heavens and earth and He rested from everything He CREATED AND MADE. Created is exnihilo, made is exmateria. If you don’t interpret created and made as exnihilo and exmateria then it doesn’t make any sense because both would be saying the same exact thing. You’d be saying that God rested from everything He formed and formed which doesn’t make any sense at all.

There is no such verse. Do you mean this one?

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Gen 2:4

 

[Job 33:6]

Genesis 2 specifically says that this is the account of when God created the heavens and earth and He rested from everything He CREATED AND MADE. Created is exnihilo, made is exmateria. If you don’t interpret created and made as exnihilo and exmateria then it doesn’t make any sense because both would be saying the same exact thing. You’d be saying that God rested from everything He formed and formed which doesn’t make any sense at all.

Yeah I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. In Hebrew - bara and asah are used interchangeably.

And Hebrew paralism is pretty common in the old testament to emphasize God's completion as full in scope. It's the same reason that Genesis repeats the seventh day, the seventh day, the seventh day, over and over again.

Here is an example:
Psalms 19:1 NIV
[1] The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Heaven and skies.

Psalms 24:1 NIV
[1] The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;

Earth and world.

Psalms 59:1-2 NIV
[1] Deliver me from my enemies, O God; be my fortress against those who are attacking me. [2] Deliver me from evildoers and save me from those who are after my blood.

Enemies and evildoers etc.

And in Genesis 2 it's, created and made or created and accomplished.

Or that which God had initiated and brought to completion.

It's just parallelism related to fullness or scope. It's not about ex materia vs ex nihilo. The Bible uses bara for ex materia creation all the time and it doesn't have anything to do with ex nihilo creation.

 

[Job 33:6]

There is no such verse. Do you mean this one?

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Gen 2:4

I think he's referring to 2:3

Genesis 2:3 NASB1995
[3] Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

 

[trophy33]

I think he's referring to 2:3

Genesis 2:3 NASB1995
[3] Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

NIV translates it as:

Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

I.e. that God had done the creating, instead of "created and made", which would sound redundant.

 

[Job 33:6]

NIV translates it as:

Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

I.e. that God had done the creating, instead of "created and made", which would sound redundant.

Yea there are lots of different translations for it.

I'm seeing bara and Asah:

Bara:
Create, shape, form

Asah:
To do, to make, to accomplish, to perform, to act.

But these terms are often used interchangeably. For example, God bara people in Genesis 1:27 but obviously that doesn't mean ex nihilo creation unless the reader assumes that Adam and Eve were not actually people or not actually made from dust and a rib bone.

Among many other examples in which baras things that already exist.

Psalm 51:10, God bara a clean heart in me.

I'm pretty sure the psalmist already had a heart.

Or

Isaiah 43:15 God bara'd isreal.

Isaiah 54:16 God bara'd a blacksmith. Did God make a blacksmith appear out of thin air?

Etc.

So the idea that bara and Asah are ex nihilo and ex materia respectively, is pretty plainly incorrect.

 

[trophy33]

Yea there are lots of different translations for it.



I'm seeing bara and Asah:

Bara:
Create, shape, form

Asah:
To do, to make, to accomplish, to perform, to act.

But these terms are often used interchangeably. For example, God bara people in Genesis 1:27 but obviously that doesn't mean ex nihilo creation unless the reader assumes that Adam and Eve were not actually people or not actually made from dust and a rib bone.

Among many other examples in which baras things that already exist.

The Septuagint:
And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it he ceased from all his works which God began to do.

I do not read Hebrew, but when I look at interlinear, I do not even see any "created and made" as a phrase, there. I am not sure where the KJV or NASB got it from.

 

[Job 33:6]

The Septuagint:
And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it he ceased from all his works which God began to do.

I do not read Hebrew, but when I look at interlinear, I do not even see any "created and made" as a phrase, there. I am not sure where the KJV or NASB got it from.

Walton covers it here in at 37:10 if interested.

 

[trophy33]

Walton covers it here in at 37:10 if interested.

I know this lecture of his.

However, he is just talking about what the words mean, I did not find an explanation why would the NASB or the KJV translated it as a phrase "created and made", maybe it is in some later time, but I did not find it in the video.

Gen 2:3

• וַיְבָרֶךְ (vayvarekh) — "And He blessed"
• אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) — "God"
• אֶת־יֹום (et-yom) — "the day"
• הַשְּׁבִיעִי (hashvi'i) — "the seventh"
• וַיְקַדֵּשׁ (vayqaddesh) — "and He sanctified" or "made holy"
• אֹתוֹ (oto) — "it"
• כִּי (ki) — "because"
• בוֹ (bo) — "in it"
• שָׁבַת (shavat) — "He rested"
• מִכָּל־ (mikkol) — "from all"
• מְלַאכְתּוֹ (melakhto) — "His work"
• אֲשֶׁר (asher) — "which"
• בָּרָא (bara) — "He created"
• אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) — "God"
• לַעֲשׂוֹת (la'asot) — "to do" or "to make"

bara is about the past, "created"
la'asot is infinitive

And there is no "and" between the words "bara" and "la'asot".

The translation "which God created to do" seems to be the correct one, even though such phrase sounds nonsensical in modern European languages. That is probably why all English translations are just guessing how to translate it and differ so much.

And maybe there is some textual corruption and the text originally read "which God began to do" as the older LXX translates.

In any case, the argumentation of @BNR32FAN falls apart both grammatically and semantically.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know this lecture of his.

However, he is just talking about what the words mean, I did not find an explanation why would the NASB or the KJV translated it as a phrase "created and made", maybe it is in some later time, but I did not find it in the video.

Gen 2:3

• וַיְבָרֶךְ (vayvarekh) — "And He blessed"
• אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) — "God"
• אֶת־יֹום (et-yom) — "the day"
• הַשְּׁבִיעִי (hashvi'i) — "the seventh"
• וַיְקַדֵּשׁ (vayqaddesh) — "and He sanctified" or "made holy"
• אֹתוֹ (oto) — "it"
• כִּי (ki) — "because"
• בוֹ (bo) — "in it"
• שָׁבַת (shavat) — "He rested"
• מִכָּל־ (mikkol) — "from all"
• מְלַאכְתּוֹ (melakhto) — "His work"
• אֲשֶׁר (asher) — "which"
• בָּרָא (bara) — "He created"
• אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) — "God"
• לַעֲשׂוֹת (la'asot) — "to do" or "to make"

bara is about the past, "created"
la'asot is infinitive

And there is no "and" between the words "bara" and "la'asot".

The translation "which God created to do" seems to be the correct one, even though such phrase sounds nonsensical in modern European languages. That is probably why all English translations are just guessing how to translate it and differ so much.

And maybe there is some textual corruption and the text originally read "which God began to do" as the older LXX translates.

In any case, the argumentation of @BNR32FAN falls apart both grammatically and semantically.

This is one reason I don't get bogged down in singular word studies.

I think it's enough to say that the main point of Genesis 1 is to present God as preeminent and preexistent over the primordial masses and processes, whereas Ptah, Marduk and Baal (among others gods and goddesses) of earlier Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic religions were not, but typically emerged out of the chaotic stuff that was "already there."

 

[Job 33:6]

This is one reason I don't get bogged down in singular word studies.

I think it's enough to say that the main point of Genesis 1 is to present God as preeminent and preexistant over the primordial masses and processes, whereas Ptah, Marduk and Baal (among others gods and goddesses) of earlier Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic religions were not, but typically emerged out of the chaotic stuff that was "already there."

I think this is meaningful. But is that to say that the text grammatically describes God bringing those primordial masses into existence ex nihilo, or rather is God giving order to those chaotic entities. Both cases involving a pre existing God, but still saying two different things. Or is that a question that you feel isn't meaningful?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think this is meaningful. But is that to say that the text grammatically describes God bringing those primordial masses into existence ex nihilo, or rather is God giving order to those chaotic entities. Both cases involving a pre existing God, but still saying two different things. Or is that a question that you feel isn't meaningful?

It's a question that, for me, has less meaning since I tend to think the importance of singular word studies is overshadowed by intercultural, intertextual, anthropological and historical factors. In my view, there are critical issues that prevent me from investing too much theological realism in Genesis 1 via studying the text by itself. But that's probably because my thinking runs more along the lines of various critical scholars (like Kenton L. Sparks or Peter Enns).

And I'm not saying (or necessarily recommending) that anyone should follow in my footsteps or in my thinking. I'd rather have folks be settled somewhat in their faith in God without feeling pressed too much by the critical issues. But this is just where I am at with Genesis and have always been with it, especially when reading and assessing the theological ambiguity of Genesis 1 and 2, along with other biblically related 'creation' texts.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is no such verse. Do you mean this one?

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Gen 2:4

No I was paraphrasing verses 1-3

“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yeah I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. In Hebrew - bara and asah are used interchangeably.

But obviously bara and asah are being used to represent two different types of creating in this verse. “He rested from ALL HIS WORK which He created and made”. ALL HIS WORK includes both exnihilo and exmateria which is why bara and asah are both being used in that statement. The implication of the usage implies two different types of creating that were used in ALL HIS WORK.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's just parallelism related to fullness or scope. It's not about ex materia vs ex nihilo. The Bible uses bara for ex materia creation all the time and it doesn't have anything to do with ex nihilo creation.

Now you’re ignoring the phrase “ALL HIS WORK”. This encompasses both exnihilo and exmateria.

 

[davetaff]

It's a question that, for me, has less meaning since I tend to think the importance of singular word studies is overshadowed by intercultural, intertextual, anthropological and historical factors. In my view, there are critical issues that prevent me from investing too much theological realism in Genesis 1 via studying the text by itself. But that's probably because my thinking runs more along the lines of various critical scholars (like Kenton L. Sparks or Peter Enns).

And I'm not saying (or necessarily recommending) that anyone should follow in my footsteps or in my thinking. I'd rather have folks be settled somewhat in their faith in God without feeling pressed too much by the critical issues. But this is just where I am at with Genesis and have always been with it, especially when reading and assessing the theological ambiguity of Genesis 1 and 2, along with other biblically related 'creation' texts.

It's a question that, for me, has less meaning since I tend to think the importance of singular word studies is overshadowed by intercultural, intertextual, anthropological and historical factors. In my view, there are critical issues that prevent me from investing too much theological realism in Genesis 1 via studying the text by itself. But that's probably because my thinking runs more along the lines of various critical scholars (like Kenton L. Sparks or Peter Enns).

And I'm not saying (or necessarily recommending) that anyone should follow in my footsteps or in my thinking. I'd rather have folks be settled somewhat in their faith in God without feeling pressed too much by the critical issues. But this is just where I am at with Genesis and have always been with it, especially when reading and assessing the theological ambiguity of Genesis 1 and 2, along with other biblically related 'creation' texts.

Hi
Jest wondering what
intercultural, intertextual, anthropological and historical. Means can we stick to simple English that we uneducated can understand christ did not preach to the well educated of his day so lets follow his example.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi
Jest wondering what
intercultural, intertextual, anthropological and historical. Means can we stick to simple English that we uneducated can understand christ did not preach to the well educated of his day so lets follow his example.

Love and Peace
Dave

No, I'm sorry. I can't do that, Dave. Everyone has their own journey toward Christ to make in their own way.

Have a blessed day!