Young earth vs Old earth?

[CoreyD]

Here, I've color coded the text to help highlight what it is saying, why do you think they are talking about a palace being made out of sewers in paralalle to creation out of disorder?

Lets just read it again:

The way of the world is that when a flesh-and-blood king builds his palace in [a location that had been] a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place, anyone who comes and says: ‘This palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place,’ is this not an insult? So, too, anyone who comes and says: ‘This world was created from emptiness and disorder,’ is this not an insult? This is a rhetorical question. Rav Huna said in the name of bar Kapara: Were the matter not written explicitly it would not have been possible to say it: “In the beginning, God created” (Genesis 1:1) – from what? “The earth was emptiness and disorder” (Genesis 1:2).

From what?

This palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse...it was stinky and smelly and worthless. Just like the emptiness and disorder that the world was created from or out of.

It's saying that something beautiful was created out of, or from, something disgusting. The question is, Is that not an insult? To God?

The rabbis are questioning if it is God honoring that creation would occur out of disorder.

And then they continue on and to determine the answer, bar Kapara says "were the matter not explicitly written, it would not have been possible to say".

Then he goes on to say, God created...from what? The answer? The earth was emptiness and disorder. It was waste. And the palace was built from that waste

To say that anyone who comes and says the world came out of emptiness and chaos, is like the person that says the palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse...it was stinky and smelly and worthless. Just like the emptiness and disorder that the world was created from or out of.
Hence they view it as an insult to God.

is this not an insult? So, too, anyone who comes and says: ‘This world was created from emptiness and disorder,’ is this not an insult?

 

[Job 33:6]

To say that anyone who comes and says the world came out of emptiness and chaos, is like the person that says the palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse...it was stinky and smelly and worthless. Just like the emptiness and disorder that the world was created from or out of.
Hence they view it as an insult to God.

To say that anyone who comes and says the world came out of emptiness and chaos, is like the person that says the palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse...it was stinky and smelly and worthless. Just like the emptiness and disorder that the world was created from or out of.
Hence they view it as an insult to God.

Nope. They explicitly conclude:
"“In the beginning, God created” (Genesis 1:1) – from what? “The earth was emptiness and disorder” (Genesis 1:2)."

They dont say creation from nothing. They conclude, creation occurred from...the earth was empty and disordered.

It's like saying, the palace was built from what? From the sewers. As the text is explicitly written.

 

[Job 33:6]

To say that anyone who comes and says the world came out of emptiness and chaos, is like the person that says the palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse...it was stinky and smelly and worthless. Just like the emptiness and disorder that the world was created from or out of.
Hence they view it as an insult to God.

It doesnt say that the sewers were created from nothing or that the palace was made from nothing. Just as:
It doesnt say that the disorder was created from nothing or that the completed creation was made from nothing.

They conclude, the palace was sewers. The earth was formless. And they point out that this is explicitly what the text says.

From what was the palace made? From the sewers. From the disordered world.

 

[CoreyD]

Okay. I took the time to read the nonsense from the beginning and this person - Rav Huna is saying what you are saying.
I'm not interested in the arguments here, as they are debating ideas, and interpretations, many of which are nonsense, to me.
They discredit the Bible with their erroneous interpretations.
I'll stick with the Bible, Thank you.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay. I took the time to read the nonsense from the beginning and this person is saying what you are saying.
I'm not interested in the arguments here, as they are debating ideas, and interpretations, many of which are nonsense, to me.
They discredit the Bible with their erroneous interpretations.
I'll stick with the Bible, Thank you.

Call it nonsense if you want. This is history. This is the reality of old testament history. I'm not just making stuff up for fun. I'm just pointing it out.

It's not like I just woke up one day in the morning and just started inventing ideas. These are all well-recorded concepts of church history.

And you were asking for references in history, so, I am providing them. And I have a lot of them. I could easily drop a couple dozen sources just like this.

I want you to know that I am not making this up.

So when the Jewish Publication Society in their JPS translation, says "When God began to ceate the earth, the earth was formless", you should know that they write it specifically this way, so that you would know, when you read it, that creation was formless when God began.

And this is significant because verse 1 is not an event.

"When I began to ride my bike to the store..."

This isnt even a complete statement. It's just me preparing you for something. It in and of itself is not an independent clause. And hundreds of hebrew Bible scholars have lots of writings on this subject. It is a well established and well known alternative rendering of the text, that is legitimate, is based on proper hebrew translation, and is historically accurate and well attested to. And here it is, 1500+ years ago, right there in writings by expert Rabbi's of the Torah.

 

[CoreyD]

Nope. They explicitly conclude:
"“In the beginning, God created” (Genesis 1:1) – from what? “The earth was emptiness and disorder” (Genesis 1:2)."

They dont say creation from nothing. They conclude, creation occurred from...the earth was empty and disordered.

It's like saying, the palace was built from what? From the sewers. As the text is explicitly written.

Not they.
Remember...
The Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Parashah I, verse 5, is part of a larger interpretive framework
The specific content of Bereshit Rabba 1:5, as referenced in the context, involves a discussion about the creation of the world and the nature of its origins
There are different interpretations here.
You just chose to highlight the one you like.
I'm done with that though. Moving on to the subject of the OP.
I don't know how I spent so much time discussing something that someone is arguing about that has nothing to do with old earth young earth.

 

[CoreyD]

Call it nonsense if you want. This is history. This is the reality of old testament history. I'm not just making stuff up for fun. I'm just pointing it out.

It's not like I just woke up one day in the morning and just started inventing ideas. These are all well-recorded concepts of church history.

And you were asking for references in history, so, I am providing them. And I have a lot of them. I could easily drop a couple dozen sources just like this.

I want you to know that I am not making this up.

So when the Jewish Publication Society in their JPS translation, says "When God began to ceate the earth, the earth was formless", you should know that they write it specifically this way, so that you would know, when you read it, that creation was formless when God began.

And this is significant because verse 1 is not an event.

"When I began to ride my bike to the store..."

This isnt even a complete statement. It's just me preparing you for something. It in and of itself is not an independent clause. And hundreds of hebrew Bible scholars have lots of writings on this subject. It is a well established and well known alternative rendering of the text, that is legitimate, is based on proper hebrew translation, and is historically accurate and well attested to. And here it is, 1500+ years ago, right there in writings by expert Rabbi's of the Torah.

It's not history. It's interpretations.
Do you know what history is?

 

[Job 33:6]

It's not history. It's interpretations.
Do you know what history is?

It is the history of Biblical interpretation and understanding.

And as noted above, if you have two possible interpretations, two legitimate translations, and two approaches to the text based on what the text plainly states...

Then one way to distinguish which of the two approaches is accurate, is to look at history and to see what people in history thought about the topic.

And you will find that the oldest of sources, all favor the position of creation out of disorder.

 

[Job 33:6]

And I have to go back to this other reference.

Wisdom of Solomon 11:17
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

The reality is that, there have been at least two competing traditions here. That have debated for centuries.

And YECism has put all its money on 1 of the two traditions. But the alternate tradition, completely eliminates the YEC position.

And I would say that, when we look deeply at the history of Biblical interpretation, what we find is that it is indeed the alternate tradition, that is actually older. Despite many people today oftentimes not being aware of it.

If verse 1:1 is not an actual event, but rather is just an introduction, then the question becomes, when or where did the formless matter/earth come from before God began to create it? The answer? The Bible doesn't say. Whatever the answer is, you won't get it from scripture. We can deduce based on Hebrews and John and other NT texts that God created the formless matter at some point before Genesis 1:1. But as far as when that actually happened, the text doesnt say. As soon as Genesis starts, the formless earth is already there.

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was [already] formless.

 

[CoreyD]

It doesnt say that the sewers were created from nothing or that the palace was made from nothing. Just as:
It doesnt say that the disorder was created from nothing or that the completed creation was made from nothing.

They conclude, the palace was sewers. The earth was formless. And they point out that this is explicitly what the text says.

From what was the palace made? From the sewers. From the disordered world.

That is not what it says.
You misunderstand the point.

I'll just clear this one for you, so you don't run with that idea... but if you want, go right ahead.
The way of the world is that when a flesh-and-blood king builds his palace in [a location that had been] a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place, anyone who comes and says: ‘This palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place,’ is this not an insult? So, too, anyone who comes and says: ‘This world was created from emptiness and disorder,’ is this not an insult? This is a rhetorical question.

The palace is built on a place that was a sewer, and stinky.
He is saying the world was created from emptiness and disorder, and it's not an insult to God, to say that.

He says this because, The Midrash argues that to claim the world was created from such pre-existent material diminishes God's glory, emphasizing instead the concept of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). This interpretation is part of a broader theological effort to affirm God's absolute sovereignty over creation

It is the history of Biblical interpretation and understanding.

It is not the history of Biblical interpretation and understanding.
Can you please stop making these claims.

One work which is part of a larger interpretive framework that explores the creation narrative in Genesis 1:1 is not the history of Biblical interpretation and understanding.

Have your say.
I'm finished with that fruitless argument with Job 33:6

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@CoreyD and @Job 33:6, may I ask you gentlemen why a discussion as to whether God created ex nihilo or ex materia is directly relevant to whether or not the earth is Old or Young?

I'm asking because, for the life of me, I don't see the importance here.

Just wondering, guys.

 

[Job 33:6]

@CoreyD and @Job 33:6, may I ask you gentlemen why a discussion as to whether God created ex nihilo or ex materia is directly relevant to whether or not the earth is Old or Young?

I'm asking because, for the life of me, I don't see the importance here.

Just wondering, guys.

The importance is that, if the formless matter was the original starting point of creation, then it's not clear how long that formless earth existed before God began to create the earth.

It would be like saying, if a formless pizza was sitting in my freezer, and that was the starting point, then it's not clear how long that formless pizza existed before I began to make it by baking it or rolling it etc.

And you therefore can't determine how old the pizza actually is, you can only determine how much time has passed since you took it out of the freezer and started to make it.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is not what it says.
You misunderstand the point.

I'll just clear this one for you, so you don't run with that idea... but if you want, go right ahead.
The way of the world is that when a flesh-and-blood king builds his palace in [a location that had been] a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place, anyone who comes and says: ‘This palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place,’ is this not an insult? So, too, anyone who comes and says: ‘This world was created from emptiness and disorder,’ is this not an insult? This is a rhetorical question.

The palace is built on a place that was a sewer, and stinky.
He is saying the world was created from emptiness and disorder, and it's not an insult to God, to say that.

Correct

He says this because, The Midrash argues that to claim the world was created from such pre-existent material diminishes God's glory, emphasizing instead the concept of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). This interpretation is part of a broader theological effort to affirm God's absolute sovereignty over creation

Everyone agrees in creation ex nihilo. But the text is verifying that creation in Genesis was done out of disorder. Just like you've acknowledged above. You said, and I'll quote: "He is saying the world was created from emptiness and disorder, and it's not an insult to God, to say that.".

The world was created from ... Disorder. The text is describing the world created from disorder. The Earth was tohu wa bohu. It was disordered.

That's the whole point. Creation in Genesis of the earth, is from that starting point. From that formless state. From the sewers.

The text doesn't say that creation was done out of nothing. Even though we all believe that to be true, that is not what the text specifically says, which is to say that that's not what Genesis is about.

The palace was made from the sewer. And that is not an insult to God.

Likewise, the Earth was made from a formless and empty state. The formless Earth. And that is not an insult to God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The importance is that, if the formless matter was the original starting point of creation, then it's not clear how long that formless matter existed before God began to create the heavens and the earth out of that formlessness.

Yes, I understand that part of the ongoing discussion. But for me, it doesn't matter one way or another because I think the unspoken point of the first few verses in Genesis is to establish God's prior existence to all of the matter He either 1) creates out of nothing or 2) already has at hand to work with, either of which directly contravenes Egyptian and Sumerian/Bablyonian creation texts which reverse this order by placing Nun, Nammu or Tiamat as "primordial chaos" with various creative gods coming afterward.

But....................that's my emphasis. I know other fellow Christians may think otherwise.

 

[CoreyD]

So here is the evidence the earth is not 144 hours old.
Proof #1

Genesis 2:4
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The Hebrew word יוֹם is used here, which is the same Hebrew word used throughout Genesis 1.
It is used in reference to the six days combined, and refers not to 24 hours, but a period of time.

Genesis 2:5, 6
5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up - for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
6 a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground

Please read Genesis 1:9-13
Dry land appears, and then the earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”... all in a matter of 24 hours.
Yeah?

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up - for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground
That's some "miracle grow" right there. The kind you don't buy in a store.

So, here is what the YEC would have you believe.
On day three, the land came up, in what... a matter of seconds. Followed by a mist that kept going up and watering the land; Vegetation and plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them” all sprung up within a matter of minutes, hours.... 24 hours.
Yeah?

Does that sound reasonable? You decide.
Considering that Genesis 2:4 shows that a day does not necessarily mean 24 hours in Genesis, what is more reasonable to believe... That God's creation was a progressive process spanning thousands, of years, if not millions, or God just whoosh things into existence?

Why was a mist needed, if a tree will shoot up into the air, and bear fruit instantaneously?
Does not make sense, does it... Or does it, to you?

 

[Job 33:6]

So here is the evidence the earth is not 144 hours old.
Proof #1

Genesis 2:4
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The Hebrew word יוֹם is used here, which is the same Hebrew word used throughout Genesis 1.
It is used in reference to the six days combined, and refers not to 24 hours, but a period of time.

Genesis 2:5, 6
5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up - for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
6 a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground

Please read Genesis 1:9-13
Dry land appears, and then the earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”... all in a matter of 24 hours.
Yeah?

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up - for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground
That's some "miracle grow" right there. The kind you don't buy in a store.

So, here is what the YEC would have you believe.
On day three, the land came up, in what... a matter of seconds. Followed by a mist that kept going up and watering the land; Vegetation and plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them” all sprung up within a matter of minutes, hours.... 24 hours.
Yeah?

Does that sound reasonable? You decide.
Considering that Genesis 2:4 shows that a day does not necessarily mean 24 hours in Genesis, what is more reasonable to believe... That God's creation was a progressive process spanning thousands, of years, if not millions, or God just whoosh things into existence?

Why was a mist needed, if a tree will shoot up into the air, and bear fruit instantaneously?
Does not make sense, does it... Or does it, to you?

I agree here. And i think that would also including the naming all the animals of the world? Which sounds like it would take up a bit of time. But how could all 6 days be in a single day anyway? Or days 4-6?

I tend to think of chapter 2 as being a continuation of chapter 1, like it comes after all of the events almost like a day 7. And day 6 creation of mankind would be, other people (because Adam and Eve aren't actually mentioned).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So here is the evidence the earth is not 144 hours old.
Proof #1

Genesis 2:4
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The Hebrew word יוֹם is used here, which is the same Hebrew word used throughout Genesis 1.
It is used in reference to the six days combined, and refers not to 24 hours, but a period of time.

Genesis 2:5, 6
5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up - for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
6 a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground

Please read Genesis 1:9-13
Dry land appears, and then the earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”... all in a matter of 24 hours.
Yeah?

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up - for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground
That's some "miracle grow" right there. The kind you don't buy in a store.

So, here is what the YEC would have you believe.
On day three, the land came up, in what... a matter of seconds. Followed by a mist that kept going up and watering the land; Vegetation and plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them” all sprung up within a matter of minutes, hours.... 24 hours.
Yeah?

Does that sound reasonable? You decide.
Considering that Genesis 2:4 shows that a day does not necessarily mean 24 hours in Genesis, what is more reasonable to believe... That God's creation was a progressive process spanning thousands, of years, if not millions, or God just whoosh things into existence?

Why was a mist needed, if a tree will shoot up into the air, and bear fruit instantaneously?
Does not make sense, does it... Or does it, to you?

I'm not sure who you're addressing this post to, Corey. But just so you know, both @Job 33:6 and myself are not YEC. And if you're not either, then I guess all three of us are more or less on a similar page.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright. So it's 3-0 Old Earth.

The YEC side is crickets these days I guess.

 

[CoreyD]

Correct


Everyone agrees in creation ex nihilo. But the text is verifying that creation in Genesis was done out of disorder. Just like you've acknowledged above. You said, and I'll quote: "He is saying the world was created from emptiness and disorder, and it's not an insult to God, to say that.".

The world was created from ... Disorder. The text is describing the world created from disorder. The Earth was tohu wa bohu. It was disordered.

That's the whole point. Creation in Genesis of the earth, is from that starting point. From that formless state. From the sewers.

The text doesn't say that creation was done out of nothing. Even though we all believe that to be true, that is not what the text specifically says, which is to say that that's not what Genesis is about.

The palace was made from the sewer. And that is not an insult to God.

Likewise, the Earth was made from a formless and empty state. The formless Earth. And that is not an insult to God.

The Bible does not agree with what that Rabbi says.
He can be passed off as just like those Rabbis Jesus was stern with.
You recall what he said... “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’ Mark 7:6, 7

The Bible is the final word on truth. Not man's ideas.
That is my final word to on this.

 

[CoreyD]

I'm not sure who you're addressing this post to, Corey.

The OP wants the evidence.

But just so you know, both @Job 33:6 and myself are not YEC.

I'm aware @Job 33:6 is not a YEC.
She made that quite clear when she was referring to me as a YEC.

And if you're not either, then I guess all three of us are more or less on a similar page.

Old earth page? It appears we are. Thanks.