6,000 Years?

Job 33:6 said:

I believe that God created it but that Genesis just isn't about that story.

And saying "well that doesn't make sense" isn't a valid response. Just because doesn't it make sense "to you", doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to the majority of Christian Evangelical Bible scholars that talk about this in old testament commentaries.

It's not my fault that you don't get it, despite me talking about it over and over and over and over again with you.

But the fact remains, the text factually is ambiguous. And there is nothing YECs can do about it. It is the Bible.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know which Evangelical scholars you read, but all those I regularly refer to believe that Genesis 1 is about God creating the earth and the heavens, in the sense of bringing them into existence. As for your sentence beginning, "it's not my fault that you don't get it......" I could say the same about you not getting what I say.

David Lamb said:

Well, I don't know which Evangelical scholars you read, but all those I regularly refer to believe that Genesis 1 is about God creating the earth and the heavens, in the sense of bringing them into existence. As for your sentence beginning, "it's not my fault that you don't get it......" I could say the same about you not getting what I say.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. But the fact of the matter is, the text is ambiguous. And I read dozens of Hebrew scholars on a routine basis. Michael Heiser, John Walton, Tremper Longman III, and Pete Enns are a few. Robert Holmstedt is well known for covering this topic. Dr. Henry Sun.

Among many many others, cover Genesis and have written very plainly about this.

You can even find it plainly stated in Bibles themselves, not just those that I'm citing, but in the footnotes of translations that translate it like the KJV, such as, the NET footnotes.

The text is factually ambiguous. And everyone knows this, everyone who understands basics about the Hebrew at least.

This isn't me just making stuff up. I'm informing you of a well known and established and well discussed topic of Genesis. This is a plain fact of the text.

And here is a brief video that explains it in simple terms, for anyone who isn't familiar with the dependent clause translation:

I feel like YECs (or the church more broadly, to be fair) just don't adapt well to new information. Even when the Bible says something, so plainly, and directly. That is, the text doesn't say either way, the text doesn't say anything at all about whether the Earth was or was not there before God began creating, nor does it indicate how long it may have been around before God began to create it.

And YECs can't come to terms with this fact about the Bible. Even when it's very plainly stated and shown to them.

This is indicative that YECs, and some of the broader church, are creating theological constructions that supersede the Bible itself. It doesn't matter if the Bible is ambiguous. Because to them, they've already made up their minds, so the Bible cannot possibly say something outside of what they believe.

They just can't imagine this possibility. They've lost their sense of wonder and have landed on an unquestionable understanding. They cannot even begin to process this alternative option. Even when 99% of Hebrew scholars and everyone else who has studied this fully well knows of it and understands it.

For some reason, they just don't get it. They can't get it.

And I can't sugar coat this. The Bible just can't communicate any more directly than this.

Here is a hybrid translation:
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.

"In the beginning when I road my bike to school, the bike had a flat tire."

Ok, how long was the tire flat before you began riding it to school? Did you get the flat while riding to school? Was it flat before you first began riding?

?????

It's unknown. The text doesn't explain these questions.

In its most plain and simple Hebrew, the Bible doesn't actually say anything about the ex nihilo creation of the earth. The Hebrew grammar leaves the question fully open-ended and ambiguous.

And to truly be honest about scripture, to allow the authority of the text to speak, and to disallow our own theological constructs from superceding God's word, we have to acknowledge that indeed, the text is ambiguous on the matter.

And many OECs also get this wrong too, so I don't want to single out YECs. But anyone who Loves and Respects God's word, should come to terms with this. Allow God's word to say what it says, and don't force it to say things that it doesn't say.

Hi Job
thank you for your post interesting read I do not agree with it but it is a good explanation but dose not account for the fact that when Noah stepped of the Ark there was nothing everything God had created before the flood was destroyed in the flood the only thing missing was man in the image of god not forgetting the word man must be interpreted as mankind this was the only thing God needed to create everything else was on the ark with Noah.
the first man he created was Israel the man of flesh which must come first not a success so God created the spiritual man the body of Christ the multitude of believers that he would present to the father on his return so man in the image of God is not one man but a whole multitude who would be divided up into different groups the same as Israel was this is Man in the image of God the end of creation.

Love and Peace
Dave

Job 33:6 said:

The Bible says:

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

And the text doesn't say how long it was formless and void before God began to create it.

So by what logic do you then claim that the earth is 6,000 years old based on geneologies?

Are you one of those KJV only-ists?

Click to expand...

I apologize I think I missed what you are saying? When did God began to create the heavens and the earth?

Job 33:6 said:

So by what logic do you then claim that the earth is 6,000 years old based on geneologies?

Are you one of those KJV only-ists?

Click to expand...

Creation was 6000 years ago - and it took approx 6 days to complete.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I think creating the earth without form (no topography) and void (of life) is an expected and logical 1st step in creation - day 1



The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) was released in 2021-2022 with the print version becoming available later in 2022.
You do know that even the Vatican has rejected this version of the bible...
"The NRSV is not a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology."

There are many many comments and articles I can share with you about the NRSVue....Can you start a new thread on the NRSVue version of the Bible? I think there is much you would learn....and in the end I dont think you would refer to it again.

The KJV may not be perfect but its the standard bearer.

Platte said:

Creation was 6000 years ago - and it took approx 6 days to complete.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I think creating the earth without form (no topography) and void (of life) is an expected and logical 1st step in creation - day 1



The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) was released in 2021-2022 with the print version becoming available later in 2022.
You do know that even the Vatican has rejected this version of the bible...
"The NRSV is not a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology."

Click to expand...

Where did you hear the Vatican saying this? If anything, I suspect that you're reading propaganda. This appears to be completely Made-up.

Further, let's look at the Vatican's own officially approved translation:

Genesis 1:1-2 NABRE
[1] In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth—[2] and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—

Again, we still see it here. The dependent clause. In the beginning when God did this, it was.

Is that the YEC strategy? If they don't like a Bible translation, to invent false propaganda against that particular translation?

And then to further contradict yourself by ignoring the Catholic churches own officially approved translation?

You guys are being so dishonest right now.

Job 33:6 said:

Where did you hear the Vatican saying this? If anything, I suspect that you're reading propaganda. This appears to be completely Made-up.

Further, let's look at the Vatican's own officially approved translation:

Genesis 1:1-2 NABRE
[1] In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth—[2] and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—

Again, we still see it here. The dependent clause. In the beginning when God did this, it was.

Is that the YEC strategy? If they don't like a Bible translation, to invent false propaganda against that particular translation?

And then to further contradict yourself by ignoring the Catholic churches own officially approved translation?

You guys are being so dishonest right now.

Click to expand...

AI Overview

The Vatican, through the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has rejected the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) for liturgical and catechetical use, primarily due to concerns about its use of inclusive language and perceived doctrinal issues.

Vatican's Rejection:
The Vatican initially approved the NRSV for Catholic use in 1991, but later reversed its decision in 1997, issuing guidelines that were seen as a critique of the NRSV's inclusive language and perceived doctrinal issues.

If Google AI is wrong you may want to submit a complaint...I still recommend you start the thread - would be a good forum for that.

Job 33:6 said:

Where did you hear the Vatican saying this? If anything, I suspect that you're reading propaganda. This appears to be completely Made-up.

Further, let's look at the Vatican's own officially approved translation:

Genesis 1:1-2 NABRE
[1] In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth—[2] and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—

Again, we still see it here. The dependent clause. In the beginning when God did this, it was.

Is that the YEC strategy? If they don't like a Bible translation, to invent false propaganda against that particular translation?

And then to further contradict yourself by ignoring the Catholic churches own officially approved translation?

You guys are being so dishonest right now.

Click to expand...

So are you saying this is what you believe?

• On day one, God created the light and separated it from the darkness, calling them Day and Night;
• on day two He created the expanse of the sky, separating the waters on earth from the waters above;
• on day three He separated the sea and the land, and caused vegetation to grow on the land;
• on day four He created the sun, moon, and the stars;
• on day five He created living creatures to inhabit the air and in the sea; and
• on day six, God created living creatures on the land, and man.

Platte said:

AI Overview

The Vatican, through the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has rejected the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) for liturgical and catechetical use, primarily due to concerns about its use of inclusive language and perceived doctrinal issues.

Vatican's Rejection:
The Vatican initially approved the NRSV for Catholic use in 1991, but later reversed its decision in 1997, issuing guidelines that were seen as a critique of the NRSV's inclusive language and perceived doctrinal issues.

If Google AI is wrong you may want to submit a complaint...I still recommend you start the thread - would be a good forum for that.

Click to expand...

Now you're moving your goalposts.

Here is what I'm seeing in AI:

❌ Misleading or Inaccurate Parts:
The Vatican never “approved” the NRSV for liturgy in 1991.

The 1991 imprimatur applied to study editions, not the lectionary (liturgical readings).

Lectionary approval (for liturgical use) is a separate process and involves both the national bishops' conference and Vatican recognition (called recognitio).

The Vatican didn’t “reverse” a prior approval in 1997.

Rather, in 1994, the Vatican informed the U.S. bishops it would not grant recognitio to the proposed NRSV-based lectionary.

In 2001, the Vatican issued Liturgiam Authenticam, an instruction tightening translation norms — which effectively formalized the stance that translations like the NRSV (as it stood then) were not suitable for new lectionary approvals.

Summary of Timeline:
YearEvent
1991NRSV Catholic Edition published with imprimatur (for study use)
1992–1994U.S. bishops propose a lectionary based on the NRSV
1994Vatican (CDF & CDW) denies recognitio due to inclusive language concerns
1997No reversal — just continued Vatican preference for translations closer to Nova Vulgata
2001Liturgiam Authenticam sets stricter norms for liturgical translations

✅ Bottom Line:
Yes, the NRSV-CE is approved for private and academic use.

No, it was never officially approved for U.S. Catholic liturgical use, and the Vatican did not reverse a prior approval, but withheld approval when requested.

The criticism related to inclusive language was about liturgical clarity and fidelity, not an accusation of doctrinal error in general.

Would you like a comparison between how the NRSV and NABRE differ in key passages where inclusive language becomes a concern?

NRSV-CE is approved for private and academic use.

No, it was never officially approved for U.S. Catholic liturgical use, and the Vatican did not reverse a prior approval, but withheld approval when requested.

The criticism related to inclusive language was about liturgical clarity and fidelity, not an accusation of doctrinal error in general.

--------------------

But again, even further, the NABRE, officially approved for use by the Catholic Church, and half a dozen other translations, say the same thing. So this idea that the Catholic Church has a problem with dependent clause translations is completely imaginary and misinformed.

"but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology"

And this is obviously just propaganda. As if the Vatican would issue a statement like this. This is complete misinformation.

Job 33:6 said:

Now you're moving your goalposts.

Here is what I'm seeing in AI:

❌ Misleading or Inaccurate Parts:
The Vatican never “approved” the NRSV for liturgy in 1991.

The 1991 imprimatur applied to study editions, not the lectionary (liturgical readings).

Lectionary approval (for liturgical use) is a separate process and involves both the national bishops' conference and Vatican recognition (called recognitio).

The Vatican didn’t “reverse” a prior approval in 1997.

Rather, in 1994, the Vatican informed the U.S. bishops it would not grant recognitio to the proposed NRSV-based lectionary.

In 2001, the Vatican issued Liturgiam Authenticam, an instruction tightening translation norms — which effectively formalized the stance that translations like the NRSV (as it stood then) were not suitable for new lectionary approvals.

Summary of Timeline:
YearEvent
1991NRSV Catholic Edition published with imprimatur (for study use)
1992–1994U.S. bishops propose a lectionary based on the NRSV
1994Vatican (CDF & CDW) denies recognitio due to inclusive language concerns
1997No reversal — just continued Vatican preference for translations closer to Nova Vulgata
2001Liturgiam Authenticam sets stricter norms for liturgical translations

✅ Bottom Line:
Yes, the NRSV-CE is approved for private and academic use.

No, it was never officially approved for U.S. Catholic liturgical use, and the Vatican did not reverse a prior approval, but withheld approval when requested.

The criticism related to inclusive language was about liturgical clarity and fidelity, not an accusation of doctrinal error in general.

Would you like a comparison between how the NRSV and NABRE differ in key passages where inclusive language becomes a concern?

NRSV-CE is approved for private and academic use.

No, it was never officially approved for U.S. Catholic liturgical use, and the Vatican did not reverse a prior approval, but withheld approval when requested.

The criticism related to inclusive language was about liturgical clarity and fidelity, not an accusation of doctrinal error in general.

--------------------

But again, even further, the NABRE, officially approved for use by the Catholic Church, and half a dozen other translations, say the same thing. So this idea that the Catholic Church has a problem with dependent clause translations is completely imaginary and misinformed.

Click to expand...

Well I'd recommend you place a submission to Google for correction...and start a new thread on NRSVue

Platte said:

Well I'd recommend you place a submission to Google for correction...and start a new thread on NRSVue

Click to expand...

Your point pressed misinformation that you couldn't verify, and then further was meaningless because other translations, such as the NABRE are officially approved by the Catholic Church and also have the dependent clause translation.

Making up false information, and then following up by ignoring the fact that many translations use the dependent clause, is not a valid argument.

People wonder why the church distrusts YECs, and this is precisely why. Your position is completely dishonest, whether you're intending to press misinformation or not.

"The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church, receiving the imprimatur of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1991. The NRSV-CE includes all 73 books of the Catholic Bible, including the deuterocanonical books, in the traditional Catholic order.

The NRSV-CE is based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), first published in 1989 by an ecumenical translation committee under the National Council of Churches in Christ U.S.A. whose stated goal was to deliver an English Bible “as literal as possible, as free as necessary” to convey accuracy and clarity from the original ancient languages.

The NRSV is the modern Bible translation with the widest support by academics and church leaders. The translation committee comprises thirty men and women representing top scholarship from Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Jewish faiths."

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV-CI
[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 NRSV-CE is approved for personal reading, study, and academic use by Catholics.

In Canada, a version of the NRSV lectionary has been approved for liturgical use (since 2007), after some revisions were made to conform with Vatican translation norms.

In the United States, the NRSV has not been approved for liturgical use, but remains acceptable for private devotion and Catholic scholarship.

And no, the Vatican never issued a statement saying "but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology".

To say that the Catholic Church ever suggest such a thing is completely false and is misinformation.

Job 33:6 said:

Your point pressed misinformation that you couldn't verify, and then further was meaningless because other translations, such as the NABRE are officially approved by the Catholic Church and also have the dependent clause translation.

Making up false information, and then following up by ignoring the fact that many translations use the dependent clause, is not a valid argument.

People wonder why the church distrusts YECs, and this is precisely why. Your position is completely dishonest, whether you're intending to press misinformation or not.

NRSV: Catholic Edition - Catholic Bible Press

The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church.

www.catholicbiblepress.com

"The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church, receiving the imprimatur of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1991. The NRSV-CE includes all 73 books of the Catholic Bible, including the deuterocanonical books, in the traditional Catholic order.

The NRSV-CE is based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), first published in 1989 by an ecumenical translation committee under the National Council of Churches in Christ U.S.A. whose stated goal was to deliver an English Bible “as literal as possible, as free as necessary” to convey accuracy and clarity from the original ancient languages.

The NRSV is the modern Bible translation with the widest support by academics and church leaders. The translation committee comprises thirty men and women representing top scholarship from Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Jewish faiths."

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV-CI
[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 NRSV-CE is approved for personal reading, study, and academic use by Catholics.

In Canada, a version of the NRSV lectionary has been approved for liturgical use (since 2007), after some revisions were made to conform with Vatican translation norms.

In the United States, the NRSV has not been approved for liturgical use, but remains acceptable for private devotion and Catholic scholarship.

And no, the Vatican never issued a statement saying "but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology".

To say that the Catholic Church ever suggest such a thing is completely false and is misinformation.

Click to expand...

But even still, it's not just the NRSV that uses the dependent clause translation of Genesis 1.

There are several translations:
Genesis 1:1-2 NABRE
[1] In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth—[2] and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—

The CEB:
Genesis 1:1-2 CEB
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth— [2] the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters—

Other versions of the NRSV, such as the CE and CI, the Catholic Interconfessional, and the Updated Edition:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV-CI
[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.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The JPS2006, Jewish Publication Society:
[1] When God began to create heaven and earth— [2] the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—

The RSV footnotes:
"Or, When God began to create"

The NET footnotes:
"Or 'When God began to create…"

The YLT:
"In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --”

The NLT...

The NAB

The GNT

The BHS or the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which follows the masoritic tradition.

The list goes on and on and on...

Job 33:6 said:

Your point pressed misinformation that you couldn't verify, and then further was meaningless because other translations, such as the NABRE are officially approved by the Catholic Church and also have the dependent clause translation.

Making up false information, and then following up by ignoring the fact that many translations use the dependent clause, is not a valid argument.

People wonder why the church distrusts YECs, and this is precisely why. Your position is completely dishonest, whether you're intending to press misinformation or not.

NRSV: Catholic Edition - Catholic Bible Press

The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church.

www.catholicbiblepress.com

"The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church, receiving the imprimatur of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1991. The NRSV-CE includes all 73 books of the Catholic Bible, including the deuterocanonical books, in the traditional Catholic order.

The NRSV-CE is based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), first published in 1989 by an ecumenical translation committee under the National Council of Churches in Christ U.S.A. whose stated goal was to deliver an English Bible “as literal as possible, as free as necessary” to convey accuracy and clarity from the original ancient languages.

The NRSV is the modern Bible translation with the widest support by academics and church leaders. The translation committee comprises thirty men and women representing top scholarship from Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Jewish faiths."

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV-CI
[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 NRSV-CE is approved for personal reading, study, and academic use by Catholics.

In Canada, a version of the NRSV lectionary has been approved for liturgical use (since 2007), after some revisions were made to conform with Vatican translation norms.

In the United States, the NRSV has not been approved for liturgical use, but remains acceptable for private devotion and Catholic scholarship.

And no, the Vatican never issued a statement saying "but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology".

To say that the Catholic Church ever suggest such a thing is completely false and is misinformation.

Click to expand...

how ironic....you claimed I was YEC....when I'm not.

what occured on day 1- 6?

Platte said:

what occured on day 1- 6?

Click to expand...

God created the heavens and the earth.

Job 33:6 said:

God created the heavens and the earth.

Click to expand...

So we agree

Platte said:

So we agree

Click to expand...

Sure.

And beyond that, The text is ambiguous to the question of how long the Earth was formless before God began to create it in those 6 days.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Job 33:6 said:

Sure.

And beyond that, The text is ambiguous to the question of how long the Earth was formless before God began to create it in those 6 days.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Click to expand...

And when was the sun moon and stars created? And how about the first man?