Young earth vs Old earth?

[Job 33:6]

This thread is a bit confusing. Let me tell a little joke I’ve told before. An atheist comes to God and says that science has advanced so much that mankind doesn’t need Him anymore. God says that He will leave mankind alone if mankind makes a human being out of dust. The atheist agrees and reaches down and scoops up some dust. God says, “Wait a minute, make your own dust.” Job seems to be saying that “something” existed before Genesis 1:3, and God used that “something” for the next six days to create everything on earth. The verses about creation that have been repeated in this thread make it clear that God created everything. Why is it a problem if God created that “something” before the first of the six days?

Yea exactly. Well, and that the something that existed before creation, was the formless earth. Just like Adam was formless, and God took Adam and gave him form. Not to say that the dust itself was not ultimately created out of nothing. But just to say that, when we read the story, it tells us the story of the molding of Adam, not the earlier ex nihilo creation of Adam. And the same would be the case for the heavens and the earth.

Because that's what you do with formless things, you give them form. As opposed to God creating and then after his completion, for some reason the creation is formless so God has to go back and create again a second time by giving it form.

There's only one creation going on and that's over 6 days, as opposed to two creations going on, one creation in verse 1:1 and the other creation over 6 days. Which of course, this two creation view requires the rejection of a handful of translations. Which is also problematic, among other issues.

The YEC position, when you really do take a moment to look at scripture and you break it down. Logically, It's actually very problematic. Denying a bunch of Bible translations, God's creates with the spoken word, but he doesn't do that until verse 3. So now God is creating in verse 1 without even speaking. And then the rest of the six days aren't even creation because the creation happened in verse 1. And the other 6 days, nobody even knows what's going on, He's just making plants or something.

But alternatively, it's actually really simple if we just acknowledge that the story starts with a formless Earth and then over 6 days it is created into an earth that has form. Simple as that.

But people are so dug into certain traditions that they can't just consider this simple alternative. Not even necessarily to accept it outright, but to at least understand that it is a plan and simple way of reading the text that is legitimate.

And then this straw man argument arises people conflate this with denial of ex nihilo creation rather than understanding that Moses and the biblical authors are not required to tell any particular story of creation.

If I buy a new computer and I'm excited to tell you about its processing speed and the applications it has and how much memory it can hold etc. That's an important story, that has nothing to do with how the laptop was manufactured. And there's nothing wrong with me being excited and talking about its processing speed. We don't have to get bent out of shape if the story doesn't include the original manufacturing.

It's not a question of what God is capable of or what God ultimately did in the grand story of things. It's a question of what story God wants to share.

If I go to a play on Broadway, I can appreciate that play without needing to know what year the stage was constructed or where or when all the actors were born.

And YECs argue that the story must talk about material origins in order to be important. Genesis has to talk about ex nihilo material origins otherwise it's useless to them. But to Moses and ancient Israelites, creation out of chaos is what was important. It's their story, it's not our story. It was written to them in ancient times, not written to us in Big Bang times.

 

[Jerry N.]

Yea exactly. Well, and that the something that existed before creation, was the formless earth. Just like Adam was formless, and God took Adam and gave him form. Not to say that the dust itself was not ultimately created out of nothing. But just to say that, when we read the story, it tells us the story of the molding of Adam, not the earlier ex nihilo creation of Adam. And the same would be the case for the heavens and the earth.

Because that's what you do with formless things, you give them form. As opposed to God creating and then after his completion, for some reason the creation is formless so God has to go back and create again a second time by giving it form.

There's only one creation going on and that's over 6 days, as opposed to two creations going on, one creation in verse 1:1 and the other creation over 6 days. Which of course, this two creation view requires the rejection of a handful of translations. Which is also problematic, among other issues.

The YEC position, when you really do take a moment to look at scripture and you break it down. Logically, It's actually very problematic. Denying a bunch of Bible translations, God's creates with the spoken word, but he doesn't do that until verse 3. So now God is creating in verse 1 without even speaking. And then the rest of the six days aren't even creation because the creation happened in verse 1. And the other 6 days, nobody even knows what's going on, He's just making plants or something.

But alternatively, it's actually really simple if we just acknowledge that the story starts with a formless Earth and then over 6 days it is created into an earth that has form. Simple as that.

But people are so dug into certain traditions that they can't just consider this simple alternative. Not even necessarily to accept it outright, but to at least understand that it is a plan and simple way of reading the text that is legitimate.

And then this straw man argument arises people conflate this with denial of ex nihilo creation rather than understanding that Moses and the biblical authors are not required to tell any particular story of creation.

If I buy a new computer and I'm excited to tell you about its processing speed and the applications it has and how much memory it can hold etc. That's an important story, that has nothing to do with how the laptop was manufactured. And there's nothing wrong with me being excited and talking about its processing speed. We don't have to get bent out of shape if the story doesn't include the original manufacturing.

It's not a question of what God is capable of or what God ultimately did in the grand story of things. It's a question of what story God wants to share.

If I go to a play on Broadway, I can appreciate that play without needing to know what year the stage was constructed or where or when all the actors were born.

And YECs argue that the story must talk about material origins in order to be important. Genesis has to talk about ex nihilo material origins otherwise it's useless to them. But to Moses and ancient Israelites, creation out of chaos is what was important. It's their story, it's not our story. It was written to them in ancient times, not written to us in Big Bang times.

Thanks for your reply. I would also like to point out that Moses, as smart as he was, didn’t know anything about particle physics or electromagnetic waves or even atoms. So the first light (Genesis 1:3) may have been electromagnetic radiation that was a bit unorganized. The light from the sun and stars in Genesis 1:14, may have been more organized, since eyes didn’t exist until Genesis 1:20. The waters above and below may have been two different forms of H2O that God separated. It is a bit of a stretch, but the waters Moses wrote about in Genesis 1:9 may have been a soup of more than just hydrogen and oxygen that God rearranged. Sea water contains a lot more than hydrogen, oxygen, and salt. Anyway, one can still say that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. (Note: I still don’t know how long the “day” was.)

 

[CoreyD]

Rashi who? What do you mean Rashi who? You don't know who Rashi is, of course you don't know.

https://academic.oup.com/book/36506

Rashi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Probably the most famous Rabbi of the Middle ages.

Just because you don't know about the history of Bible interpretation doesn't mean that these ideas didn't exist.

February 1040 – 13 July 1105!!! What?
Here you are talking about Near Eastern culture, and I asked for references to support the claims you were making, and you give me some guy that lived from February 1040 – 13 July 1105.

Then you ignore sources from Jewish rabbis, and scholars spanning from the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE to the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 638 CE.
LOL

That's the best joke I have had on these forums.
I'm not the one lacking knowledge of the history of Bible interpretation... among other things.
Perhaps you should go back and read what you ignored... again.
Is it any wonder you are ignoring facts.

You didn't explain anything. You just denied a plethora of Bible translations, called them illegitimate.

That's not an argument. That's denial. Like you're some kind of Hebrew expert and all these Bibles written by hundreds of Hebrew scholars are all wrong because you said so on an internet forum.

That's just hubris. That's not an argument.

Denial of the Bible is not a valid argument. Saying that only some translations are right and all these other ones are wrong. That's not valid at all. You can't just disregard a bunch of translations just because you don't like what they say.

Since you ignored it again, I'll post it again.

According to reliable sources, some Bible translations alter words, and this occurs due to differences in translation philosophy, manuscript evidence, and linguistic challenges. Translators may omit, add, or change words based on their interpretation of the original texts, which were written in ancient languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. For example, a table comparing modern Bible versions to the King James Version (KJV) shows that words like "Christ," "Lord," "Jesus," and "God" are omitted or added in various translations, with some versions adding or removing words in hundreds of instances.

Like everyone else, we have the God given right to reject alterations to God's word the Bible.
Religious freedom also allows us the right to do so... just as you have the right to look for a translated text that suits or supports your ideas.

The fact is, the Hebrew manuscripts do not use a verb, which some translations of Genesis 1:1 alter, which you favor.
The Hebrew manuscripts uses a noun, which I accept.
Do you fault me for loving honesty? Do you love dishonesty?
We all have freedom to make that choice.

4QGenb (4Q2)
You can grab any manuscript, and if you can read it, it says very plainly, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I do reject dishonest translations, that interpret text and then translate base on their interpretation.

"How is it that I am speaking to you at all?" John 8:25

 

[CoreyD]

This thread is a bit confusing. Let me tell a little joke I’ve told before. An atheist comes to God and says that science has advanced so much that mankind doesn’t need Him anymore. God says that He will leave mankind alone if mankind makes a human being out of dust. The atheist agrees and reaches down and scoops up some dust. God says, “Wait a minute, make your own dust.” Job seems to be saying that “something” existed before Genesis 1:3, and God used that “something” for the next six days to create everything on earth. The verses about creation that have been repeated in this thread make it clear that God created everything. Why is it a problem if God created that “something” before the first of the six days?

That's a funny one.
I think you missed something Jerry.
However, I'd rather she told you, than I did, because it is indeed confusing.

 

[Job 33:6]

February 1040 – 13 July 1105!!! What?
Here you are talking about Near Eastern culture, and I asked for references to support the claims you were making, and you give me some guy that lived from February 1040 – 13 July 1105.

Then you ignore sources from Jewish rabbis, and scholars spanning from the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE to the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 638 CE.
LOL

Job 33:6 said:
... But in actuality, for centuries, Jews of antiquity and people of the ancient near east, have understood creation to involve pre existing material.

Jews of antiquity. And that's who Rashi is. And I gave ANE references as well. Many are cited in this video and directly quoted, Egyptian texts, Mesopotamian texts, and Jews and Christians in history recognizing that the text describes an ancient cosmology:

If you don't want to watch the video, that's fine, but don't act like I didn't share sources.

And you are welcome to deny a variety of Bible translations, I don't find this to be credible or reasonable to do, but if that's what you want to do, that's fine. We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't outright reject numerous translations. I view our collection of translations as carrying the message protected by God.

If you want to reject various Bible translations, that's your call. We can agree to disagree on this approach.

And countless Hebrew scholars acknowledge validity of the dependent clause translation of Genesis 1:1. I think their explanations are reasonable. You don't have to agree. But I'm comfortable with Hebrew scholarship on this one.

And in fact, dependent clause translations are used elsewhere in scripture, such as in Jeremiah 26:1 as an example. Most, if not nearly all, Hebrew scholars acknowledge the dependent clause translation as valid. We are talking about literally hundreds of Hebrew scholars.

I feel more comfortable with Bible scholars of Hebrew, than I would with the occasional rando on an internet forum. We're talking about literally the entire body of Hebrew scholars that authored translations like the NRSV and the NABRE, the JPS translation. And the BHS. Among others. Hundreds of Bible scholars.

That's who you're saying are wrong or illegitimate.

And I would say that's a major red flag of hubris. Especially given that, I suspect you don't actually speak or know Hebrew.

And "create" or "bara" is a verb and the Hebrew does use this term. So I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the Hebrew not including verbs.

 

[CoreyD]

The YEC position, when you really do take a moment to look at scripture and you break it down. Logically, It's actually very problematic. Denying a bunch of Bible translations, God's creates with the spoken word, but he doesn't do that until verse 3. So now God is creating in verse 1 without even speaking. And then the rest of the six days aren't even creation because the creation happened in verse 1. And the other 6 days, nobody even knows what's going on, He's just making plants or something.

Don't let your emotions get ahead of you like the average church women.
That tends to cloud the brain and prevent rational thought and reason.
Like not reading what someone posts.

I have already told you I am not a YEC, and I showed you that the translation did alter the part of speech to fit their interpretation.
I also showed you one of the manuscripts that does not use a verb, but rather the noun 'beginning'.
However, since you don't want to see facts, and thus you are ignoring my posts, you will keep running with your ideas... which is what you want to do anyway.

You even ignored a simple question in this post.
Why? You cannot answer questions that topple you platform.

 

[Job 33:6]

Don't let your emotions get ahead of you like the average church women.
That tends to cloud the brain and prevent rational thought and reason.
Like not reading what someone posts.

I have already told you I am not a YEC, and I showed you that the translation did alter the part of speech to fit their interpretation.
I also showed you one of the manuscripts that does not use a verb, but rather the noun 'beginning'.
However, since you don't want to see facts, and thus you are ignoring my posts, you will keep running with your ideas... which is what you want to do anyway.

You even ignored a simple question in this post.
Why? You cannot answer questions that topple you platform.

You're ignoring that the text is in construct form. It's not about whether it's a noun or a verb.

You're making arguments that suggest you don't know what you're talking about.

You're not paying attention to the situation.

For example:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The beginning is defined by when God acts. Not by the beginning of the cosmos. Bara is a verb. To create. To make or to do.

 

[Jerry N.]

February 1040 – 13 July 1105!!! What?
Here you are talking about Near Eastern culture, and I asked for references to support the claims you were making, and you give me some guy that lived from February 1040 – 13 July 1105.

Then you ignore sources from Jewish rabbis, and scholars spanning from the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE to the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 638 CE.
LOL

That's the best joke I have had on these forums.
I'm not the one lacking knowledge of the history of Bible interpretation... among other things.
Perhaps you should go back and read what you ignored... again.
Is it any wonder you are ignoring facts.


Since you ignored it again, I'll post it again.

According to reliable sources, some Bible translations alter words, and this occurs due to differences in translation philosophy, manuscript evidence, and linguistic challenges. Translators may omit, add, or change words based on their interpretation of the original texts, which were written in ancient languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. For example, a table comparing modern Bible versions to the King James Version (KJV) shows that words like "Christ," "Lord," "Jesus," and "God" are omitted or added in various translations, with some versions adding or removing words in hundreds of instances.

Like everyone else, we have the God given right to reject alterations to God's word the Bible.
Religious freedom also allows us the right to do so... just as you have the right to look for a translated text that suits or supports your ideas.

The fact is, the Hebrew manuscripts do not use a verb, which some translations of Genesis 1:1 alter, which you favor.
The Hebrew manuscripts uses a noun, which I accept.
Do you fault me for loving honesty? Do you love dishonesty?
We all have freedom to make that choice.

4QGenb (4Q2)
You can grab any manuscript, and if you can read it, it says very plainly, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I do reject dishonest translations, that interpret text and then translate base on their interpretation.

"How is it that I am speaking to you at all?" John 8:25

We do have the Hebrew of Genesis back to about 200 B.C. Imagine you just got the task to copy older manuscripts to make a fresh new copy. Would you make a mistake in the first few lines? I think not. Verses 1 and 2 are what we might call “perfective”in that act had stopped for some time. They can stand as introductory before verse 3. If you want to look at it linguistically, the following is very useful: https://www.grisda.org/bediako-2014-antecedent-creation.pdf

You might want to pay attention to “Clausal Analysis” on page six. I wouldn’t say it is definitive, but the case that something existed before verse 3 is pretty strong.

 

[CoreyD]

Actually, my mistake... I missed c. 22 for the period of Rashi's life.
Still, he is not the only rabbi during that period, and is outnumbered by other rabbis.
However, Jerry is right. The thread is about how long the creative days were, and so, I am going to refocus on that.

 

[CoreyD]

You're ignoring that the text is in construct form. It's not about whether it's a noun or a verb.

You're making arguments that suggest you don't know what you're talking about.

Me? Not me.

You're not paying attention to the situation.

For example:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The beginning is defined by whim God acts. Not by the beginning of the cosmos. Bara is a verb. To create. To make or to do.

Not according to Jewish rabbis, and scholars during the Talmudic period.

 

[Job 33:6]

Me? Not me.


Not according to Jewish rabbis, and scholars during the Talmudic period.

If you want to go back far enough, the ancient near East is the ultimate original context and I've provided sources for that. And you've denied wisdom of Solomon, what do you want me to do about that?

Also, several of the references I shared are in fact during the talmudic period. Maybe you didn't watch the video.

 

[CoreyD]

We do have the Hebrew of Genesis back to about 200 B.C. Imagine you just got the task to copy older manuscripts to make a fresh new copy. Would you make a mistake in the first few lines? I think not. Verses 1 and 2 are what we might call “perfective”in that act had stopped for some time. They can stand as introductory before verse 3. If you want to look at it linguistically, the following is very useful: https://www.grisda.org/bediako-2014-antecedent-creation.pdf

You might want to pay attention to “Clausal Analysis” on page six. I wouldn’t say it is definitive, but the case that something existed before verse 3 is pretty strong.

Later interpretations went that rout.
However, that was not the way the Jews saw it
Despite these diverse views, the majority of ancient rabbis understood the creation account as literal in its core message: that God is the sole creator of the universe, and that creation began with a divine act of will. The idea that the world was created from pre-existing matter was generally rejected, as it was seen as incompatible with strict monotheism, which holds that God alone is eternal and self-sufficient.
...ancient Jewish scholars consistently affirmed the divine origin of creation, with the event described in Genesis 1:1 serving as a cornerstone of Jewish faith and cosmology

 

[Jerry N.]

That's a funny one.
I think you missed something Jerry.
However, I'd rather she told you, than I did, because it is indeed confusing.

Job is a lady?

 

[Job 33:6]

Later interpretations went that rout.
However, that was not the way the Jews saw it
Despite these diverse views, the majority of ancient rabbis understood the creation account as literal in its core message: that God is the sole creator of the universe, and that creation began with a divine act of will. The idea that the world was created from pre-existing matter was generally rejected, as it was seen as incompatible with strict monotheism, which holds that God alone is eternal and self-sufficient.
...ancient Jewish scholars consistently affirmed the divine origin of creation, with the event described in Genesis 1:1 serving as a cornerstone of Jewish faith and cosmology

Again, nobody is denying that God is the ultimate soul Creator of the cosmos, but it is a fact that Jewish writings throughout history going all the way back to the ancient near East reference things like ancient Israelite cosmology and the idea that the Earth was created out of the chaotic Waters.

This history has been around the whole time.

 

[Jerry N.]

Later interpretations went that rout.
However, that was not the way the Jews saw it
Despite these diverse views, the majority of ancient rabbis understood the creation account as literal in its core message: that God is the sole creator of the universe, and that creation began with a divine act of will. The idea that the world was created from pre-existing matter was generally rejected, as it was seen as incompatible with strict monotheism, which holds that God alone is eternal and self-sufficient.
...ancient Jewish scholars consistently affirmed the divine origin of creation, with the event described in Genesis 1:1 serving as a cornerstone of Jewish faith and cosmology

Of course God created everything. The question is when?

 

[Job 33:6]

Later interpretations went that rout.
However, that was not the way the Jews saw it
Despite these diverse views, the majority of ancient rabbis understood the creation account as literal in its core message: that God is the sole creator of the universe, and that creation began with a divine act of will. The idea that the world was created from pre-existing matter was generally rejected, as it was seen as incompatible with strict monotheism, which holds that God alone is eternal and self-sufficient.
...ancient Jewish scholars consistently affirmed the divine origin of creation, with the event described in Genesis 1:1 serving as a cornerstone of Jewish faith and cosmology

Here is another ancient Jewish source:

Bereshit Rabbah 1:5

Rav Huna began in the name of bar Kapara: “May they be silenced [te’alamna], those lying lips [that speak harsh words against the righteous one with arrogance...

www.sefaria.org

Rav Huna, speaking in the name of bar Kapara, addresses the question of what the world was created from. He asks rhetorically: “In the beginning, God created” (Genesis 1:1) – from what?. The response he provides, citing the next verse of Genesis, is: “The earth was emptiness and disorder” (Genesis 1:2).

This is 5th century CE.

This is well known in ancient literature that this topic was discussed, debated, disputed. This is part of Torah history.

Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, 1st century CE
For your all-powerful hand,
which created the world out of formless matter,
did not lack the means to send upon them a multitude of bears or bold lions

I'm not making the stuff up, it's right there in the historical records. You can just read this stuff if you just go online and look it up. You're acting like I'm crazy but the text is pretty clear.

 

[CoreyD]

Of course God created everything. The question is when?

We could argue about that for a long time, but if we use Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 as they are written, the answer is clear to me. In the beginning (See John 1:1; John 8:44), a period of time referred to as a day, which is... considering the other verses of Genesis 1 & 2, divided into periods of time referred to as days.
So, for quite some time, the heavens and earth were being created, and prepared, so as to be "very good" by the period of time referred to as day 7 (See post #20.)... which has not ended. It being the longest of the periods.

 

[CoreyD]

Job is a lady?

You didn't know? LOL
Name confusion as well.

 

[Jerry N.]

We could argue about that for a long time, but if we use Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 as they are written, the answer is clear to me. In the beginning (See John 1:1; John 8:44), a period of time referred to as a day, which is... considering the other verses of Genesis 1 & 2, divided into periods of time referred to as days.
So, for quite some time, the heavens and earth were being created, and prepared, so as to be "very good" by the period of time referred to as day 7 (See post #20.)... which has not ended. It being the longest of the periods.

It is not as clear to me. How does it matter? I agree that we are still in the Sabbath rest of God after creating, but what would indicate that it is the longest of the seven days?

 

[Jerry N.]

You didn't know? LOL
Name confusion as well.

No, I didn't know, but I greatly respect how she presents her arguments.