How Old Is The Earth

[Doug Brents]

I feel like you are missing the point here. In several books of the Bible, be at Jeremiah or being in Genesis or elsewhere, these terms are used to describe material objects. They are not used to describe nothing.

Just to borrow from some other writers:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(7) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.—If these words mean what they seem to do—and it is hard to see how they can mean anything else—then they furnish a very remarkable instance of anticipation of the discoveries of science. Here we find Job, more than three thousand years ago, describing in language of scientific accuracy the condition of our globe, and holding it forth as a proof of Divine power. Some have attempted to explain the latter clause of the destitution caused by famine; but that is precluded by the terms of the first clause.

Benson Commentary
Job 26:7. He stretcheth out the north — The northern part of the heavens, which he particularly mentions, and puts for the whole visible heavens, because Job and his friends lived in a northern climate; over the empty space — Hebrew, על תהו, gnal tohu, over the vacuity, or emptiness; the same word which Moses uses, Genesis 1:2, which does not prove that the author of this book lived after Moses wrote the book of Genesis, and had seen that book, but only that Moses’s account of the creation is the ancient and true account, well known in the days of Job and his friends, and therefore alluded to here. And hangeth the earth upon nothing — Upon its own centre, which is but an imaginary thing, and, in truth, nothing; or, he means, upon no props, or pillars, but his own power and providence. Bishop Patrick’s paraphrase is, “By his wonderful power and wisdom he stretches out the whole world from the one pole to the other, which he alone sustains; as he doth this globe of earth hanging in the air, without any thing to support it.”

We are discussing how the word is used in the Bible to understand the meaning of that word. When the word is used, it is used to describe material things. And Jeremiah and Genesis are good examples of that.

No, it does not necessarily refer to material things.

Just because something is figurative, doesn't mean that it doesn't say what it says.

If the passage describes Earth resting on pillars, then it is what it is.

And the "pillars" are the invisible, mighty hand of God. God is the only thing that supports all of the Universe, much less little old Earth.

The Earth, as a whole, itself is set over the waters, not a localized land that has earthquakes.

The waters that were "beneath" the Earth at Creation were broken open and poured forth in the Flood, as were the waters above the Earth. So unless those waters were restored (and we certainly know that the waters above were not restored), then the waters are now all in the seas.

And again, these are physically real things in the Bible, they aren't purely supernatural. I'll give another example here.

Numbers 16:30 ESV
[30] But if the Lord creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the Lord.”

What happens if the righteous are swallowed up by the Earth? Do they go to Sheol too? No, they go to Heaven. This is describing both a physical process and a spiritual process. The earth opens its mouth and swallows them up, then they die, and their spirit goes to Sheol.

There are many passages in the Bible about the underworld, but look at the way this is written, the ground opens up and they fall down into it.

The Old Testament doesn't separate the natural from the supernatural the way we do today. Similar to how the stars are identified as the heavenly host, the underworld is also here.

In Job, an angel became a fire, and another became a wind storm (tornado?), and another caused an enemy army to raid. Could the stars really be angels? Absolutely.

And there are lots of passages like this where people go down to sheol. And sometimes they come back up too, like Samuel.

And just as many about people going up to Heaven, like Paul. But that doesn't make them physical places related to Earth.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just to borrow from some other writers:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(7) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.—If these words mean what they seem to do—and it is hard to see how they can mean anything else—then they furnish a very remarkable instance of anticipation of the discoveries of science. Here we find Job, more than three thousand years ago, describing in language of scientific accuracy the condition of our globe, and holding it forth as a proof of Divine power. Some have attempted to explain the latter clause of the destitution caused by famine; but that is precluded by the terms of the first clause.

The North, Tsaphon, is the meeting place of the Gods. And "nothing" as noted before, or tohu, is a word used to describe a barren or empty place, such as a desert or an open sea.

It's describing ancient cosmology. It has nothing to do with space travel or anything like that. In fact, if you read the surrounding passages, you'll see:

Job 26:5-6, 10-13 ESV
[5] The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. [6] Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering.
[10] He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness. [11] The pillars of heaven tremble and are astounded at his rebuke. [12] By his power he stilled the sea; by his understanding he shattered Rahab. [13] By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent.


These are all common concepts of ancient Israelite cosmology. The circle on the face of the waters. The underworld, sheol. The fleeing sea serpent rahab. All of these are things found in ancient cosmological texts, and otherwise ancient near east literature. In fact, lotan, the Canaanite serpent, is also described with the exact same words as in the book of job.

Benson Commentary
No, it does not necessarily refer to material things.

Yes it does. Again, we see that this is explicitly how it is used throughout the Bible, such as in Jeremiah and Genesis.

The earth was tohu wa bohu. It doesn't mean that the earth didn't exist yet.

And the "pillars" are the invisible, mighty hand of God. God is the only thing that supports all of the Universe, much less little old Earth.

The passage describes Earth being held up by pillars. If you have a problem with that, then that's your own inability to accept the Bible.

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, And he hath set the world upon them.
1 Samuel 2:8

The waters that were "beneath" the Earth at Creation were broken open and poured forth in the Flood, as were the waters above the Earth. So unless those waters were restored (and we certainly know that the waters above were not restored), then the waters are now all in the seas.

No. The Bible says that the windows of the heavens were closed, and the waters above were restrained.

They never went anywhere, they are still up there. Just go outside and look up. What do you see? An "ocean" of blue. That is what the waters above are. It's the sky.

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2

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

What happens if the righteous are swallowed up by the Earth? Do they go to Sheol too? No, they go to Heaven. This is describing both a physical process and a spiritual process. The earth opens its mouth and swallows them up, then they die, and their spirit goes to Sheol.

In the old testament, there is no heaven. Sorry to burst your bubble on this one.

In Job, an angel became a fire, and another became a wind storm (tornado?), and another caused an enemy army to raid. Could the stars really be angels? Absolutely.

That's how the starry host are described. Yes, they do supernatural things. But the stars are supernatural in the old testament. Remember, the ancient Israelites didn't have Hubble telescope yet. They didn't know that stars were just giant balls of gas.

Daniel 8:10 ESV
[10] It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them.

You need to take off your 21st century NASA goggles, and put on your ancient near east old testament goggles.

And just as many about people going up to Heaven, like Paul. But that doesn't make them physical places related to Earth.

Paul isn't in the old testament.

 

[Job 33:6]

When Job says that the North is over tohu, and the earth is over beliymah, it's saying that the heavens are over the heavenly tohu. The waters above (the sky). And earth is over the netherworld tohu, or the waters below.

Heaven over tohu:
The Lord sits enthroned over the flood; the Lord sits enthroned as king forever.
Psalms 29:10

Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven,
Psalm 78:23

you set the beams of your chambers on the waters, you make the clouds your chariot, you ride on the wings of the wind,
Psalms 104:3

Earth over tohu:

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

Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:4‭-‬6

That's why the passage says "on what were it's bases sunk?"

It means that literally. The columns that hold up the earth, they go down into the deep. Where do they go?

Only God knows. Because He laid its cornerstone.

That's what it's saying.

It's not talking about a spherical planetary ball flying around in outer space. That's complete anachronistic.

 

[Doug Brents]

Paul isn't in the old testament.

Never said he was. You babble on and on about nonsense, and you think you are wise, but there is no point to what you say. God created (made something from nothing) the entirety of what was made (John 1:3). While we know this today, we also know that this is what God told Moses about what He had done at Creation. The point is that God is in control. God is all powerful, and He has set the world in place solely by His own power. He does not require a giant turtle to carry the Earth (as the ancient Indian people depict), and He does not rest the world on the back of a strong man (as the Greeks depict it). The Earth rests on nothing but the mighty power of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

Never said he was. You babble on and on about nonsense, and you think you are wise, but there is no point to what you say. God created (made something from nothing) the entirety of what was made (John 1:3).

Sorry, but John 1:3 is not part of the old testament.

Do you understand the meaning of "anachronism" ?

The only person acting "wise", is you. Acting like because you know about space travel in the 21st century, that you now understand the Bible better than people had for centuries beforehand. People in old testament times didn't know about the shape of the earth. The ancient Israelites knew of no such thing. Nor did they speak of such things.

And you don't get to change that, just because you have a 21st century science education. It is intellectual snobbery, as if we know the Bible better than the people who wrote it, just because we now know about general relativity.

 

[Doug Brents]

Sorry, but John 1:3 is not part of the old testament.

Do you understand the meaning of "anachronism" ?

Totally irrelevant. I do understand the term, but it doesn't change what is. We are told the same thing in John 1:3 that we are told in Gen 1:1 - when time began (In the Beginning...), God (with Jesus being with God and a part of God) made from nothing everything that was made, and nothing that was made from nothing was not made by God. John 1:3 confirms the account we have from Gen 1:1.

While we know this today, we also know that this is what God told Moses about what He had done at Creation. The point is that God is in control. God is all powerful, and He has set the world in place solely by His own power. He does not require a giant turtle to carry the Earth (as the ancient Indian people depict), and He does not rest the world on the back of a strong man (as the Greeks depict it). The Earth rests on nothing but the mighty power of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

Totally irrelevant. I do understand the term, but it doesn't change what is. We are told the same thing in John 1:3 that we are told in Gen 1:1 - when time began (In the Beginning...), God (with Jesus being with God and a part of God) made from nothing everything that was made, and nothing that was made from nothing was not made by God. John 1:3 confirms the account we have from Gen 1:1.

Nope. John isn't from the ancient near east. He speaks through a later Greco roman perspective. A perspective backgrounded by later Greek philosophy.

John is not saying the same thing as Moses here.

That's not to say that what John is saying isn't true. Rather they are both speaking truth, just from entirely different contextual backgrounds.

It seems like you're just ignoring the concept of anachronism, if you allegedly understand the meaning of the term.

 

[Doug Brents]

Nope. John isn't from the ancient near east. He speaks through a later Greco roman perspective. A perspective backgrounded by later Greek philosophy.

John is not saying the same thing as Moses here.

That's not to say that what John is saying isn't true. Rather they are both speaking truth, just from entirely different contextual backgrounds.

It seems like you're just ignoring the concept of anachronism, if you allegedly understand the meaning of the term.

The author of both of those texts is the same: God. He didn't change over the intervening 2500 years, nor did He suddenly change his mind. It does not really matter what the background perspective John had, or how it differed from Moses' perspective. They didn't have to understand what God told them to write down. All they had to do was put pen to paper and write what He commanded. Now, yes, a lot of what the writers wrote came across in their own personality and style, but it is God's words, not their own.

And yes, John is saying the same thing that Moses did: God made everything from nothing, and Jesus was there and helped do it all. He is the one in control.

 

[Job 33:6]

The author of both of those texts is the same: God. He didn't change over the intervening 2500 years, nor did He suddenly change his mind.

The Bible has human authors. That are inspired by God. God did not write the Bible himself.

Galatians 1:1 ESV
[1] Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Ephesians 1:1 ESV
[1] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

That's why Paul's letters begin with his greeting.

It doesn't say "I, God, Jesus Christ, am writing to the saints of ephesus".

People that are inspired by God, are the authors. Not God himself.

 

[Job 33:6]

The author of both of those texts is the same: God. He didn't change over the intervening 2500 years, nor did He suddenly change his mind.

This is kind of like me pointing out that the old testament is in Hebrew and the new testament is in Greek, and you responding by saying:

"NO, God didn't change his mind on what language he likes to use!"

I agree, God didn't change. God didn't write the Bible. Rather, the authors of scripture, who were human, changed. Hence why the Bible is written in various languages. God didn't change. But those writing the Bible did. All inspired. But different nonetheless.

And John and Moses are different people too. And when they tell the story of creation, not only do they tell it in different languages, but they tell the story in different ways. They tell the story according to their own respective cultural context. And that's why John and Genesis are two very very different books that should not be confused with one another as saying the same thing.

 

[Doug Brents]

The Bible has human authors. That are inspired by God. God did not write the Bible himself.

Galatians 1:1 ESV
[1] Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Ephesians 1:1 ESV
[1] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

That's why Paul's letters begin with his greeting.

It doesn't say "I, God, Jesus Christ, am writing to the saints of ephesus".

People that are inspired by God, are the authors. Not God himself.

Do you know what a "ghost writer" is? Not a single person who put pen to paper for God was the author of what he wrote; they were all just ghost writers for God. God is the author of all Scripture, that is why it is called "God's Word", not Moses' word, or John's word, or Paul's word. God is the only author of Scripture, and the writers, while putting the words in their own personality and perspective, are only putting down what God gave them to put down.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you know what a "ghost writer" is? Not a single person who put pen to paper for God was the author of what he wrote; they were all just ghost writers for God. God is the author of all Scripture, that is why it is called "God's Word", not Moses' word, or John's word, or Paul's word. God is the only author of Scripture, and the writers, while putting the words in their own personality and perspective, are only putting down what God gave them to put down.

Ok. Well when you're ready to acknowledge the human aspect of scripture. I'll be here. Simply saying "well God is the author" is really just a lazy way of ignoring the human cultural context backgrounding the Bible. Like I said before, God isn't switching languages from Hebrew to aramaic to Greek. Paul wrote his letters. He gave them to people to carry to various churches. Regardless of how you want to understand God's role in the authorship of scripture, scripture is largely us reading other people's mail.

There is a human component that you have to account for when reading scripture. Unless you don't care about actually understanding what the Bible is saying (which, unfortunately many in the church don't actually care what the Bible says).

Paul, seeking financial support from the church for example. That's not God asking for money.

Surprising Lessons in Generosity from the Book of Romans - Lausanne Movement

The epistle to the Romans is often regarded as one of the finest and most stirring expositions of the gospel. Early church father Augustine was converted reading the book. Martin Luther had an epiphany reading the epistle, sparking his personal renewal and eventually the Protestant Reformation...

lausanne.org

Paul's trip to Spain for example, isn't going to pay for itself.

God isn't switching languages based on culture through time. There is a person God is using to do the writing. And that person has a mind of his own. He has a language that he speaks. Clothes that he wears. He would have had friends and family. And these authors collectively would have lived in a culture unique to their time and place.

Kind of like how in America, we have Christmas coming up. There are presents and black Friday and certain types of music on the radio. People wear green and red clothes with bells. People hang lights on their house.

We live in an environment and have a culture that is specific to our time and place. And if you go to Africa, or South America, that culture might look different. If you went back in time to medieval Europe, it would look different. If you went back to the stone age, it would look different.

So when the authors of the Bible are writing scripture, you have to be able to account for their cultural context. Or more broadly understood as the context of the Bible.

And if you don't acknowledge or simply aren't aware of or familiar with the context of the Bible, then you'll never understand what it's actually talking about. Because you'll inevitably and by default, read the Bible through the lense of your own modern culture.

Jesus for example, in Asian countries, is sometimes drawn or illustrated as an Asian man. Or in the US, sometimes Jesus has blue eyes and blonde hair.

Why is the fruit in the garden, that Adam and Eve ate of, assumed to be a red delicious apple?

That's our cultural context being read backwards into the Bible.

But to understand the true story, you have to start with the original context and work forward. You don't want to start with today's culture, and read backwards.

Why did Jesus use parables about agriculture? Because his audience lived in an agrarian society.

Why are certain laws in the Old Testament focused on specific rituals or societal structures? Because those laws were framed within the culture of ancient Israel.

The Bible is not simply a direct writing of God's dictation.

Scripture is ultimately, Gods Word. But we still have to account for its human authors.

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok. Well when you're ready to acknowledge the human aspect of scripture. I'll be here. Simply saying "well God is the author" is really just a lazy way of ignoring the human cultural context backgrounding the Bible. Like I said before, God isn't switching languages from Hebrew to aramaic to Greek. Paul wrote his letters. He gave them to people to carry to various churches. Regardless of how you want to understand God's role in the authorship of scripture, scripture is largely us reading other people's mail.

There is a human component that you have to account for when reading scripture. Unless you don't care about actually understanding what the Bible is saying (which, unfortunately many in the church don't actually care what the Bible says).

Paul, seeking financial support from the church for example. That's not God asking for money.

Surprising Lessons in Generosity from the Book of Romans - Lausanne Movement

The epistle to the Romans is often regarded as one of the finest and most stirring expositions of the gospel. Early church father Augustine was converted reading the book. Martin Luther had an epiphany reading the epistle, sparking his personal renewal and eventually the Protestant Reformation...

lausanne.org

Paul's trip to Spain for example, isn't going to pay for itself.

God isn't switching languages based on culture through time. There is a person God is using to do the writing. And that person has a mind of his own. He has a language that he speaks. Clothes that he wears. He would have had friends and family. And these authors collectively would have lived in a culture unique to their time and place.

Kind of like how in America, we have Christmas coming up. There are presents and black Friday and certain types of music on the radio. People wear green and red clothes with bells. People hang lights on their house.

We live in an environment and have a culture that is specific to our time and place. And if you go to Africa, or South America, that culture might look different. If you went back in time to medieval Europe, it would look different. If you went back to the stone age, it would look different.

So when the authors of the Bible are writing scripture, you have to be able to account for their cultural context. Or more broadly understood as the context of the Bible.

And if you don't acknowledge or simply aren't aware of or familiar with the context of the Bible, then you'll never understand what it's actually talking about. Because you'll inevitably and by default, read the Bible through the lense of your own modern culture.

Jesus for example, in Asian countries, is sometimes drawn or illustrated as an Asian man. Or in the US, sometimes Jesus has blue eyes and blonde hair.

Why is the fruit in the garden, that Adam and Eve ate of, assumed to be a red delicious apple?

That's our cultural context being read backwards into the Bible.

But to understand the true story, you have to start with the original context and work forward. You don't want to start with today's culture, and read backwards.

Before the Tower of Babel, the people were "One". No other languages, or cultures/beliefs to make them different, or confuse the context. They were all of "one language/culture and heart/thought/mind", etc. But, what was it that was in their heart to do at that time, or what did they desire to do at that time, etc? That's right, build a tower so high that it would reach up to the Heaven's, so they could overthrow and replace God, and be their own rulers/gods, etc. And I think there is an inherent lesson/morality tale in that for the upcoming world that is yet to be, and is on it's way there again right now currently. People are slowly losing their cultures, and all their individual cultural identities, in favor of a global vision, etc. And as for the languages, I think they will be slowly eroded away also, and I believe new technologies are helping advance that greatly right now currently, reversing Babel, and clearing up all the confusion from having multiple languages, and will one day soon have or develop a cipher, clearing up all the confusion involved in having multiple languages, etc. Specifically having the internet, and search engines, and A.I. is helping to greatly advance that by leaps and bounds right now currently, etc. Soon we may have only one common root word/definition for what we have many different multiples of/for right now, etc, and that will reverse the effects of Babel I think. We'll just have to see what humanity does with it at that time this time around I guess, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Before the Tower of Babel, the people were "One". No other languages, or cultures/beliefs to make them different, or confuse the context. They were all of "one language/culture and heart and mind, etc. But, what was it that was in their heart to do at that time, or what did they desire to do at that time, etc? That's right, build a tower so high that it would reach up to the Heaven's, so they could overthrow and replace God, and be their own rulers/gods, etc. And I think there is an inherent lesson/morality tale in that for the upcoming world that is yet to be, and is on it's way there again right now currently. People are slowly losing their cultures, and all their individual cultural identities, in favor of a global vision, etc. And as for the languages, I think they will be slowly eroded away also, and I believe new technologies are helping advance that greatly right now currently, reversing Babel, and clearing up all the confusion from having multiple languages, and will one day soon have or develop a cipher, clearing up all the confusion involved in having multiple languages, etc. Specifically having the internet, and search engines, and A.I. is helping to greatly advance that by leaps and bounds right now currently, etc. Soon we may have only one common root word/definition for what we many different multiples of/for right now currently, and that will reverse the effects of Babel I think. We'll just have to see what humanity does with it at that time this time around I guess, etc.

God Bless.

In this I am taking the liberty of assuming that many of you already know that translation of or between many different languages is not just as simple or easy as just replacing one word with another when it comes to translating things in or between a bunch of different languages, and nor can it be done with just a bunch of words in different languages either sometimes, etc. But A.I. is already starting to figure it out just by the way all kinds of different people speak, and search, and ask questions, and make requests in all kinds of different languages for different (or the same) information, etc. And I believe it will one day soon have a cipher to clear up all the confusion, if it doesn't already have it already, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Doug Brents]

Ok. Well when you're ready to acknowledge the human aspect of scripture. I'll be here. Simply saying "well God is the author" is really just a lazy way of ignoring the human cultural context backgrounding the Bible. Like I said before, God isn't switching languages from Hebrew to aramaic to Greek. Paul wrote his letters. He gave them to people to carry to various churches. Regardless of how you want to understand God's role in the authorship of scripture, scripture is largely us reading other people's mail.

Other people do not write mail that survives 2000 years. Other people do not write mail that supports, corresponds to, and agrees 100% of the time with, the books and stories written 2500 years earlier. The number of cross-references between the books of the Bible is so great, and so complex as to be impossible to accomplish if the author were human. Even a single writer could not do it.

There is a human component that you have to account for when reading scripture. Unless you don't care about actually understanding what the Bible is saying (which, unfortunately many in the church don't actually care what the Bible says).

Paul, seeking financial support from the church for example. That's not God asking for money.

Paul's trip to Spain for example, isn't going to pay for itself.

Sure there is a human element to the account. But God could very well have provided Paul with all the gold he needed to spread the Gospel. But that would have removed a tremendous teaching opportunity to show people the benefit of giving gained by the giver. It would also have removed the potential outreach for the ministers during the time when they were working to reach the people with whom they worked (Paul building tents). But that only points more emphatically to the divine authorship of the Word. People don't naturally know to include things like that in their letters to look back at later and make points about Godly living about.

God isn't switching languages based on culture through time. There is a person God is using to do the writing. And that person has a mind of his own. He has a language that he speaks. Clothes that he wears. He would have had friends and family. And these authors collectively would have lived in a culture unique to their time and place.

Jesus came to Earth "in the fullness of time": when the time was exactly right. What makes the time He came perfectly right? One part of that is that the language in which the NT was written was a relatively new language, and very soon after the NT was written the language fell into disuse. This is significant because languages change over time. "Gay" in English used to mean happy, but then it was changed to mean "queer", and now it is almost never used anymore because no one really knows how to use it or what you mean by it. But with Koine Greek, there is very rarely any dispute on the meaning of words because the language was in use for such a short period of time.

That's our cultural context being read backwards into the Bible.

But to understand the true story, you have to start with the original context and work forward. You don't want to start with today's culture, and read backwards.

Why did Jesus use parables about agriculture? Because his audience lived in an agrarian society.

This is partially correct. We are told that they ate a "fruit" of a tree. We are not told what fruit it was (it may have been unique, since it was a different type of tree than any other), but we certainly aren't told that it was an apple. But that being one of the most common fruits we eat today, it is often depicted as an apple.
And while this is true, we also can understand a lot more about the things we learn from "science" by comparing what we observe to what Scripture says. It is a two way street.

Why are certain laws in the Old Testament focused on specific rituals or societal structures? Because those laws were framed within the culture of ancient Israel.

Not really. The laws themselves formed the culture. The Israelite culture was distinct from, but very similar to, the Egyptian culture from which they were freed from slavery. But the Law of Moses was designed to change their culture, change their behavior, make them different from the nations around them.

The Bible is not simply a direct writing of God's dictation.

Scripture is ultimately, Gods Word. But we still have to account for its human authors.

Human writers, not human authors. But you are correct that we have to account for them. As I have said before, they colored what they wrote through their culture, their personality, and their personal experience. But their coloring of the message did not in any material way change the message from God. Peter says that Paul is sometimes hard to understand, but most of what Jesus taught was hard to understand, because He deliberately taught in parables that would disguise the lesson to anyone who didn't have the Holy Spirit to help them understand it.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is partially correct. We are told that they ate a "fruit" of a tree. We are not told what fruit it was (it may have been unique, since it was a different type of tree than any other), but we certainly aren't told that it was an apple. But that being one of the most common fruits we eat today, it is often depicted as an apple.
And while this is true, we also can understand a lot more about the things we learn from "science" by comparing what we observe to what Scripture says. It is a two way street.

The Bible doesn't contain modern science. It's not a two way street, at all. That's what the Catholic Church thought when they argued for geocentrism based on scripture.

You've referenced literally 1 passage about earth hanging on tohu, which has nothing to do with empty space. Meanwhile, I've cited dozens of passages. People falling into the earth, down to sheol. The solid dome firmament opening and closing to release and restrain the waters above. Earth resting on pillars etc. dozens of passages that describe ancient Israelite cosmology.

Oh, and you've cited a passage about earth being a circle, which it's not.

There is no modern science in the Bible.

 

[Doug Brents]

The Bible doesn't contain modern science. It's not a two way street, at all. That's what the Catholic Church thought when they argued for geocentrism based on scripture.

Is the Earth the center of the Universe physically? We cannot tell.
Is the Earth the center of the Universe spiritually? Absolutely.

Oh, and you've cited a passage about earth being a circle, which it's not.

There is no modern science in the Bible.

It is good to know your opinion. Thank you for sharing.

There is an immense amount of scientific knowledge that can be gleaned from the Bible. Is it a "science textbook"? No. Does it confirm/correct what we have "learned" through science? Absolutely!

 

[Job 33:6]

Is the Earth the center of the Universe physically? We cannot tell.

I don't think that it's appropriate to take a position of "maybe the solar system actually orbits around the earth".

If you have to stretch science that far, then you're not actually aligning with science.

It is good to know your opinion. Thank you for sharing.

There is an immense amount of scientific knowledge that can be gleaned from the Bible. Is it a "science textbook"? No. Does it confirm/correct what we have "learned" through science? Absolutely!

Um, no. There is no modern science in the Bible.

 

[Doug Brents]

Um, no. There is no modern science in the Bible.

Again, your opinion is duly noted. Thank you.

 

[AveChristusRex]

If a thousand years for us is but a day for God, in God's eyes this should make the earth 7 + 6 = 13 days old, am I right ?

It is younger than 10,000 years at most:

• “They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years. Though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not even 6,000 years have yet passed.” ~ St. Augustine (354 – 430 AD)
• “According to Scripture, less than 6,000 years have elapsed since [man] began to be.” ~ St. Augustine (354 – 430 AD)
• “Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated.” ~ St. Origen (184 – 253 AD)
• “And there was evening and there was morning: one day. And the evening and the morning were one day . . . Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day—we mean of a day and of a night . . . It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there.” ~ St. Basil (330 – 379 AD)
• “In as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: ‘Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.’ This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.” ~ St. Irenaeus (130 – 202 AD)
• “All the years from the creation of the world, [until now], amount to a total of 5,698 years.” ~ St. Theophilus (120 – 183 AD)
• “Man, O Death, despise it not, that image of Adam: which like a seed is committed to earth, till the Resurrection. To you be glory Who descended and plunge, after Adam: and draw him out from the depths of Sheol, and bring him into Eden! Death, I marvel at this seed, and at your words: for lo! After five thousand years, it springs not yet.” ~ St. Ephrem (306 – 373 AD)
• ”Thus we find it said at first that ‘He called the light Day’: for the reason that, later on, a period of twenty-four hours is also called ‘day,’ where it is said that ‘there was evening and morning, one day.’” ~ St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 AD)
• “Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed . . . God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day, on which He rested from His works.” ~ Lactantius (240 – 320 AD)
• No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, we must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names (1, p. 282). ~ St. Ephraim the Syrian