6,000 Years?

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Jerry N. said:
I only watched the first 40 minutes or so, but it makes sense. It makes things clearer.

Yea. And that's about the size of it.

But of all the different ways that Genesis can be read. This is the only translation that aligns with the ancient Isrealite context. And that's the key to why it, in my opinion, is in fact, the actual traditional and correct view.

All this young earth creation stuff was completely alien to Moses. Completely absent to the actual isrealite tradition. Ever since the KJV, it was just an imported assumption, that modern evangelicals assumed. But the original tradition has always been around, just less popular. The medieval Jewish Rabbis Rashi has writings about this from about 1,000 years ago. And he points the issue out very clearly in his writings.

So, it's not as though hebrew scholars are inventing this new thing. It's always been around. People just have split in understanding of tradition. And the Bible, kind of like Protestants and Catholics, it has its origins in differing traditions. And so English translations split in different ways.

And today we have people that would give their life for the king james version. And so they might never know of those underlying assumptions built into the text.

The tindale tradition is highly respected. But that doesn't mean that it communicates everything flawlessly to meet our modern preconceptions. There are hundreds of words in the KJV that people have no idea what they even mean because we don't speak Old English. And this is similar. Grammatically we won't be able to pick up on things that are somewhat obscured by translation.

Jerry N. · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
And today we have people that would give their life for the king james version. And so they might never know of those underlying assumptions built into the text.

The King James Bible is very beautiful, but I try to compare other translations whenever I have a question. Do the people who "would give their life for the King James version" ever think about all of the Christians who don't speak English?

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
What do you mean by this question? When you say "created", are you referring to ex nihilo or ex materia?

The construct view implies that God did not initially create the earth as formless and void (tohu vavohu), but rather that:

When He began to create, the earth already was formless, dark, and watery.

The condition of “formless and void” is the starting point of the creative work, not the product of it.

God can do anything. But it's a question of how the text is understood.

Technically the answer would probably be, yes, the earth was not created void. Rather it was void first and God then created it.

Isaiah 45:18 NRSVUE
[18] 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.

He did not create it formless. He created it to be, or so that it would be, formed.

Isaiah 45:18 ESV
[18] 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 empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the Lord, and there is no other.

He did not create it tohu va bohu. He created it so that it would be formed and filled.

(ex nihilo) Are you suggesting God could not have created the earth void (without life)? Create the earth first...then add life a few days later...makes sense to me.

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Platte said:
(ex nihilo) Are you suggesting God could not have created the earth void (without life)? Create the earth first...then add life a few days later...makes sense to me.

Of course, God could create the earth ex nihilo and then, a few days later, create animals ex nihilo as well. God can do whatever He wants.

That said, I think the alternate reading of Genesis, the view that sees verse 1 as an introductory statement rather than a separate creative act, better aligns with the actual ancient traditions of Near Eastern cultures, including those of the Israelites, like Moses.

Textually, I find the independent clause reading a bit odd. In that view, God creates “the earth” in verse 1, empty and formless, without the usual pattern of "And God said," which is a key structural element repeated throughout Genesis 1. This moment is also out of step with the literary flow found in Genesis 2 and other Ancient Near Eastern texts, where introductions are often broad setups rather than discrete acts.

Then, in the independent clause reading, God seems to go back and create again, as if the initial act in verse 1 wasn’t sufficient. It implies God created the earth in a complete sense in verse 1, but then returns over the next six days to add or modify that creation. That structure feels disjointed. It makes more sense, in my view, to see creation as beginning with the six days, not as a second phase following an earlier act of creation.

If we take verse 1 as a dependent clause or an introductory summary, we avoid these textual and thematic oddities. It explains why verse 1 doesn’t include “And God said”, because it’s not an event, it’s a heading or prelude. That structure fits better with Genesis 2 and with typical Ancient Near Eastern literary patterns.

In this view, God’s act of creation unfolds clearly and cohesively over six days. There’s no need to read Genesis 1:1 as a separate, standalone act of creation that precedes the six days. Instead, we have one unified creation account, which is both simpler and more consistent with the historical and literary context.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
God of course could do that. Create the earth ex nihilo, and then a few days later, then create animals ex nihilo. God can do whatever He wants. I would just say that, the alternate approach to Genesis better aligns with the actual ancient traditions of near Eastern cultures (including the Isrealites like Moses).

I would be careful with that language of "alignment." Someone will probably misunderstand your intended context.

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
I would be careful with that language of "alignment." Someone will probably misunderstand your intended context.

Sure.

I think of it as, Moses was Egyptian. So when he speaks of creation, it will probably sound more like an Egyptian creation account (which includes pre existing formless and empty earth) than it would like a big bang astronomical account in which everything instantaneously appears ex nihilo.

And, that starts with the Bible. First we have the Bible that can be understood as something similar to an ex materia creation. Then we turn to chapter 2 and we see the same literary introduction structure that includes a barren land that pre exists God's actions (creating Adam). And then in addition, the first time God speaks in chapter 1, it's verse 3, not verse 1. Therefore, it seems feasible that the account isn't ex nihilo. Rather it follows the dependent clause translation.

And then after all that, then we look and realize that this was actually a normal way that ancient Egyptians already went about talking about creation. And since Moses himself was Egyptian, so the story goes. It makes sense that this is probably what's going on. And since the Bible is already translated that way in some translations, it seems like a simple explanation.

I've updated my prior post to help clarify my thoughts.

BelieveItOarKnot · Jun 30, 2025

FaithT said:
Does anybody have proof that the earth and the entire universe really is 6,000 - ish years old beyond the usual arguments that science has debunked over and over again? Arguments like the rocks in the Grand Canyon or some other such weak examples? I’m looking for reputable scientists who’ve written peer reviewed papers on the subject and gained the support of other reputable scientists?

Belief in a literal 6 earth day entire creation narrative is not mandatory in Christianity

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Of course, God could create the earth ex nihilo and then, a few days later, create animals ex nihilo as well. God can do whatever He wants.

That said, I think the alternate reading of Genesis, the view that sees verse 1 as an introductory statement rather than a separate creative act, better aligns with the actual ancient traditions of Near Eastern cultures, including those of the Israelites, like Moses.

Textually, I find the independent clause reading a bit odd. In that view, God creates “the earth” in verse 1, empty and formless, without the usual pattern of "And God said," which is a key structural element repeated throughout Genesis 1. This moment is also out of step with the literary flow found in Genesis 2 and other Ancient Near Eastern texts, where introductions are often broad setups rather than discrete acts.

Then, in the independent clause reading, God seems to go back and create again, as if the initial act in verse 1 wasn’t sufficient. It implies God created the earth in a complete sense in verse 1, but then returns over the next six days to add or modify that creation. That structure feels disjointed. It makes more sense, in my view, to see creation as beginning with the six days, not as a second phase following an earlier act of creation.

If we take verse 1 as a dependent clause or an introductory summary, we avoid these textual and thematic oddities. It explains why verse 1 doesn’t include “And God said”, because it’s not an event, it’s a heading or prelude. That structure fits better with Genesis 2 and with typical Ancient Near Eastern literary patterns.

In this view, God’s act of creation unfolds clearly and cohesively over six days. There’s no need to read Genesis 1:1 as a separate, standalone act of creation that precedes the six days. Instead, we have one unified creation account, which is both simpler and more consistent with the historical and literary context.

See. We've solved all the world's problems and cracked the Genesis code. We can all retire and rest easy now.

Added note, here is an interesting interview more broadly about the Bible in its historical context:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Jerry N. · Jun 30, 2025

BelieveItOarKnot said:
Belief in a literal 6 earth day entire creation narrative is not mandatory in Christianity

6000 years from Adam to the present seems to be verified. What happened before that is the present topic of discussion.

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Of course, God could create the earth ex nihilo and then, a few days later, create animals ex nihilo as well. God can do whatever He wants.

Great - your comments surrounding the earth being created void (of life) at the time of creation are primarily centered around logic...your arguments usually center around a pizza.

I see no pizza comment in your agreeance.

Jerry N. · Jun 30, 2025

Platte said:
Great - your comments surrounding the earth being created void (of life) at the time of creation are primarily centered around logic...youru arguments usually center around a pizza.

I see no pizza comment in your agreeance.

The pizza analogy was actually pretty good.

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Jerry N. said:
The pizza analogy was actually pretty good.

Another analogy I like, is a boat.

In the beginning, God created a boat. Or when God created a boat. In the beginning when God created a boat, the boat was broken, and in pieces. And darkness was upon the face of the waters. And then God said (created by speaking), someone pass me a hammer and some nails.

And just like God pushes the waters off of the dry land to create the earth (day 3 of chapter 1). God reverses creation to destroy His enemies (the flood, or Moses crossing the red sea and pharaoh being smashed).

God doesn't merely flood the earth. God doesn't merely drown pharaoh. Rather these are theological reflections of God undoing all of creation. Returning creation to its pre-creation chaos.

In fact, the ark of Moses, the wooden basket that he was placed in on the Nile, the Hebrew word tebah, for ark, is the same Hebrew term for Noah's ark. The image of God delivered through chaos. Just as Adam first was.

Jerry N. · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Another analogy I like, is a boat.

In the beginning, God created a boat. Or when God created a boat. In the beginning when God created a boat, the boat was broken, and in pieces. And darkness was upon the face of the waters. And then God said (created by speaking), someone pass me a hammer and some nails.

And just like God pushes the waters off of the dry land to create the earth (day 3 of chapter 1). God reverses creation to destroy His enemies (the flood, or Moses crossing the red sea and pharaoh being smashed).

God doesn't merely flood the earth. God doesn't merely drown pharaoh. Rather these are theological reflections of God undoing all of creation. Returning creation to its pre-creation chaos.

Nice.

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
And just like God pushes the waters off of the dry land to create the earth (day 3 of chapter 1).

Isn't it interesting how adding form (topography) to the earth can separate the waters off the dry land.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Another analogy I like, is a boat.

In the beginning, God created a boat. Or when God created a boat. In the beginning when God created a boat, the boat was broken, and in pieces. And darkness was upon the face of the waters. And then God said (created by speaking), someone pass me a hammer and some nails.

And just like God pushes the waters off of the dry land to create the earth (day 3 of chapter 1). God reverses creation to destroy His enemies (the flood, or Moses crossing the red sea and pharaoh being smashed).

God doesn't merely flood the earth. God doesn't merely drown pharaoh. Rather these are theological reflections of God undoing all of creation. Returning creation to its pre-creation chaos.

In fact, the ark of Moses, the wooden basket that he was placed in on the Nile, the Hebrew word tebah, for ark, is the same Hebrew term for Noah's ark. The image of God delivered through chaos. Just as Adam first was.

Another analogy is like a cleaver. Chop!

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Platte said:
Isn't it interesting how adding form (topography) to the earth can separate the waters off the dry land.

I think that's approaching the meaning. And once we get this far (understanding that the creation was unfolding during the 6 days, and not necessarily a complete independent act in verse 1 followed by modification over 6 days)...

Then we can look at how tohu is used in the Bible to get an idea of what that word actually means. What does it even mean to be formless? Because in Isaiah for example, the earth is formless and there are already mountains present. So, it might include things like topography in some circumstances? But it can also hold other meanings. Such as, worthlessness. Or things without purpose or function.

That broken down car on the side of the road, it is tohu. It's there. There's something wrong with it though. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. It's useless. It is "nothing". It's meaningless.

The ocean. The deep. It is tohu. It's there. It just doesn't do anything. Like a desert. In Isaiah, the beasts of the wilderness are in a place that is tohu. It might be wild and maybe even dangerous. Maybe disorderly.

So, in Genesis, the earth it's there. But it's tohu. And God's spirit is hovering over it.

And by the end of Genesis, God gives it form (days 1-3) and puts life into it (days 4-6). And then on day 7, he rests on the throne.

Isaiah 66:1-2 ESV
[1] Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? [2] All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord.

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
What does it even mean to be formless?

The earth without form would have not topography.
Topography is the study of the forms and features of land surfaces.

Google AI: If Earth were a perfectly smooth sphere, with no topography, it would be entirely covered by a global ocean of consistent depth.

We know the earth was covered by water and it was without form...its safe and logical that without form is referring to topography.
Later the water is gathered together and dry land appears - adding topography would do that...and now the earth has form.

What I am saying is not rocket science....and clearly explains what is happening. I'm not reading much into this.

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Platte said:
The earth without form would have not topography.
Topography is the study of the forms and features of land surfaces.

Google AI: If Earth were a perfectly smooth sphere, with no topography, it would be entirely covered by a global ocean of consistent depth.

We know the earth was covered by water and it was without form...its safe and logical that without form is referring to topography.
Later the water is gathered together and dry land appears - adding topography would do that...and now the earth has form.

What I am saying is not rocket science....and clearly explains what is happening. I'm not reading much into this.

Well where did you get that definition? Did you get it from a Bible lexicon? Like Strong's concordance?

Personally, I would follow word studies of tohu before I would plainly just go with Google. Because Google isn't a Christian Bible scholar. It's just the internet. It doesn't use Bible definitions. It's more generic.

Here is what I see, when I use AI to tell me what tohu is, chatgpt:

According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word תֹּהוּ (tohu) is:

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû

Definition:
Formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness, chaos.

Usage in the Bible:

Genesis 1:2 – “The earth was tohu and bohu” (formless and void)
Isaiah 45:18 – “He did not create it to be tohu, but formed it to be inhabited.”
1 Samuel 12:21 – Refers to tohu as “vain things” or “useless idols.”
Isaiah 24:10, Isaiah 34:11, Job 26:7, etc.

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):

תֹּהוּ (tohû) – From an unused root meaning "to lie waste"; a desolation (of surface), i.e., desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially: in vain.

Translated as:

confusion
empty place
nothing
vain
vanity
waste
wilderness

Summary:

Tohu describes formlessness, disorder, or emptiness, especially in a primordial or judgmental context. In Genesis 1:2, it portrays the earth as unformed, uninhabitable, and without structure — not necessarily evil or destroyed, but incomplete and unshaped.
Let me know if you want how it's used together with bohu (בֹּהוּ) or how ancient Near Eastern parallels may inform the term.

Job 33:6 · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Well where did you get that definition? Did you get it from a Bible lexicon? Like Strong's concordance?

Personally, I would follow word studies of tohu before I would plainly just go with Google. Because Google isn't a Christian Bible scholar. It's just the internet. It doesn't use Bible definitions. It's more generic.

Here is what I see, when I use AI to tell me what tohu is, chatgpt:

According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word תֹּהוּ (tohu) is:

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû
Definition:
Formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness, chaos.

Usage in the Bible:

Genesis 1:2 – “The earth was tohu and bohu” (formless and void)

Isaiah 45:18 – “He did not create it to be tohu, but formed it to be inhabited.”

1 Samuel 12:21 – Refers to tohu as “vain things” or “useless idols.”

Isaiah 24:10, Isaiah 34:11, Job 26:7, etc.

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):

Translated as:

confusion

empty place

nothing

vain

vanity

waste

wilderness

Summary:
Tohu describes formlessness, disorder, or emptiness, especially in a primordial or judgmental context. In Genesis 1:2, it portrays the earth as unformed, uninhabitable, and without structure — not necessarily evil or destroyed, but incomplete and unshaped.
Let me know if you want how it's used together with bohu (בֹּהוּ) or how ancient Near Eastern parallels may inform the term.

What this means is that, tohu, or formlessness, might include topography. But the definition is much more broad. And can include somewhat of a wide variety of ideas associated with utility.

Example:
1 Samuel 12:21 – Refers to tohu as “vain things” or “useless idols.”

Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter so much.

At the end of the day, I think just asking the question is more important that knowing all the answers and there are lots of different interpretations and even translations, and that's ok.

It could be interpreted that the mountains were already there, but the water was just moved off of them. Or the land could rise, or some combination of the two etc.

But really the textual focus is on the waters being gathered. Not so much the rising of land.

Genesis 1:9-10 NRSV
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

The land appears, or is revealed. But that's as a product of the waters being gathered. Not necessarily land rising. Although I've seen this interpreted a variety of ways.

Platte · Jun 30, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
Well where did you get that definition? Did you get it from a Bible lexicon? Like Strong's concordance?

How about an anti-Christian site and Science loving website

Topography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Job 33:6 said:
Personally, I would follow word studies of tohu before I would plainly just go with Google. Because Google isn't a Christian Bible scholar. It's just the internet. It doesn't use Bible definitions. It's more generic.

Here is what I see, when I use AI to tell me what tohu is, chatgpt:

According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word תֹּהוּ (tohu) is:

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû
Definition:
Formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness, chaos.

Usage in the Bible:

Genesis 1:2 – “The earth was tohu and bohu” (formless and void)

Isaiah 45:18 – “He did not create it to be tohu, but formed it to be inhabited.”

1 Samuel 12:21 – Refers to tohu as “vain things” or “useless idols.”

Isaiah 24:10, Isaiah 34:11, Job 26:7, etc.

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):

Translated as:

confusion

empty place

nothing

vain

vanity

waste

wilderness

Summary:
Tohu describes formlessness, disorder, or emptiness, especially in a primordial or judgmental context. In Genesis 1:2, it portrays the earth as unformed, uninhabitable, and without structure — not necessarily evil or destroyed, but incomplete and unshaped.
Let me know if you want how it's used together with bohu (בֹּהוּ) or how ancient Near Eastern parallels may inform the term.

What I described plainly and simply and logically explains the context.

6,000 Years?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critically Recalculating!

Well-Known Member

Rom 11:32-God bound everyone to disobedience so...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critically Recalculating!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû​

Usage in the Bible:​

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):​

Summary:​

Well-Known Member

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû​

Usage in the Bible:​

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):​

Summary:​

Well-Known Member

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû​

Usage in the Bible:​

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):​

Summary:​

Similar threads

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû

Usage in the Bible:

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):

Summary:

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû

Usage in the Bible:

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):

Summary:

Strong’s Hebrew 8414 – tohû

Usage in the Bible:

Strong's Concordance Entry (Condensed):

Summary: