How Old Is The Earth

[SuperCow]

I’m not aware of any passage that says that the universe was made for man. Although it has been useful for navigation. But it would certainly be cool if we can explore it in the afterlife.

Sounds like we agree here.

Actually it says a thousand years are AS a day and a day is AS a thousand years to God. You’re removing the word AS and LIKE from those verses.

True, but irrelevant to the point. Applying a human focal point to an act of God is folly.

This has to do with God’s perception of time not actual time and it’s pretty much a loose analogy because to be more accurate God exists in all time simultaneously.

Speculative but possible. The Bible does not expand on the details here. It's all what we've interpreted time, prophecy and everlasting to be.

Technically according to the definition of omnipresent God was already in heaven with everyone who will be saved even before creation.

Actually, it says that heaven didn't exist until God created it in Genesis 1:1.

 

[Job 33:6]

And yes people can see Yahweh.

‭Exodus 24:9-10 LSB‬
[9] Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, [10] and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.

‭Exodus 33:21-23 LSB‬
[21] Then Yahweh said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; [22] and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. [23] Then I will remove My hand, and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

His face shall not be seen, but His figure can be witnessed and whether or not He is enthroned.

Especially in prophetic visions. Yahwey's figure is frequently seen in the OT, be it enthroned or not enthroned, be it prophetic visions or not.

@BNR32FAN

‭Daniel 7:9-10, 13 CSB‬
[9] “As I kept watching, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head like whitest wool. His throne was flaming fire; its wheels were blazing fire. [10] A river of fire was flowing, coming out from his presence. Thousands upon thousands served him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was convened, and the books were opened.
[13] I continued watching in the night visions, and suddenly one like a son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him.


And no, the ancient of Days is not Jesus, that's Yahwey. Jesus identifies as the son of Man. Approaching Yahwey, on the clouds, like in the book of Mark. So here we have another instance where Yahweh is not enthroned, and then goes and takes up the throne.

 

[lifepsyop]

There are plenty things in the Bible that imply to not take the Creation or the genealogies literally. Symbolism used in the texts, nice symmetrical divisions etc.

Symbolism is already a guaranteed part of a person's age of life in the Bible. God always ascribes meaning to timespans, so it doesn't make sense to use age symbolism as an argument against its historicity.

It would be like me claiming the temptation of Jesus was not really a forty-day timespan but was instead only symbolic because it invokes the symbolic number of 40. (the time of wandering echoed by Israel's duration in the wilderness)

Of course some would like to render the entire NT as symbolism/metaphor as well...

 

[BNR32FAN]

Actually, it says that heaven didn't exist until God created it in Genesis 1:1.

Yeah I’m still undecided on that one. I’m not sure if the heavens in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 is in reference to God’s place of dwelling or not.

 

[trophy33]

Symbolism is already a guaranteed part of a person's age of life in the Bible. God always ascribes meaning to timespans, so it doesn't make sense to use age symbolism as an argument against its historicity.

Did God ascribe meanings to genealogies in the Massoretic text or in the Septuagint? They differ.

 

[lifepsyop]

If you use the Septuagint, it will not give you 6000 years ago.

Bible is not the word of God, Bible is a library of various writings - written by people, composed by people, copied by people, translated by people, canonized by people and interpreted by people. It has been developing to its current form you have in your home today for about 3 millennia.

"library of various writings" seems like a pretty inaccurate characterization of the Bible...

It is for the very reason of consistency in Bible translations spanning gaps of over a thousand years that make it so unique. Finding copies of texts that were written over a thousand years earlier than your current oldest version and still have them virtually identical in content. Pretty impressive.

(Like a Jewish commoner getting nailed to a cross and then the nations of the world bow down to him as the Son of God for the next thousand years.)


In the first century, Jesus also affirmed that the Jewish people had access to the truthful, genuine translations of the Torah.

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47

That's probably not something Jesus would say about a fluid document that randomly mutated different meanings as often as it changed hands over the centuries.

 

[trophy33]

It is for the very reason of consistency in Bible translations spanning gaps of over a thousand years that make it so unique. Finding copies of texts that were written over a thousand years earlier than your current oldest version and still have them virtually identical in content. Pretty impressive.

Are you aware of various textual families and of different historical canons? They are not "virtually identical in content", a lot of text is different, whole chapters are different, whole books are missing or added.

Thats why your Bible is not a translation of one manuscript, but a compilation of thousands of manuscripts created by scholars, probably in Munster, Germany, if you have a minority text Bible.

 

[lifepsyop]

Did God ascribe meanings to genealogies in the Massoretic text or in the Septuagint? They differ.

There could be errors in translations, no doubt.

However finding symbolism in the number of someone's age is not a good argument that they weren't real people in history that lived to that age. I thought that might be what you were arguing, but I might be mistaken.

 

[trophy33]

There could be errors in translations, no doubt.

However finding symbolism in the number of someone's age is not a good argument that they weren't real people in history that lived to that age. I thought that might be what you were arguing, but I might be mistaken.

The Septuagint is not just a translation, its a different textual family. Which textual family has the right genealogies, then?

Patriarchs can be real persons, but their ages are obviously symbolic (people did not live 777 years and similar) and their list does not need to be complete (there could be more people between names). We know these ages are symbolic, because other sources from the same era mention life span to be 70-80 years.

This is a useful video about the topic:

 

[Job 33:6]

Yeah I’m still undecided on that one. I’m not sure if the heavens in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 is in reference to God’s place of dwelling or not.

You can find passages that associate the heavens in which God dwells with the heavens of Genesis. For example:

The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.
Amos‬ ‭9:6‬ ‭NASB

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

These passages note that God sits over the heavenly waters, that is the water separated, the water's above and the water is below in Genesis.

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

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10

Sapphire stone was a common way that people described the firmament, or the solid sky in ancient times.

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
Job 22:14

He walks on the firmament. That's where God resides. And there are clouds around him where He is, in the skies above.


Here's a good one:

Praise Yah. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament.
Psalms 150:1

Here we have god sanctuary directly associated with the firmament of Genesis.

Over the heads of the angels there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22

More crystal language, common of descriptions of the firmament. Etc.

Suggesting that where God is, is above the firmament, the same firmament of Genesis.

So Gods sanctuary, or His dwelling place, is in or atop the firmament.

Where else would God be, but in the heavens made in Genesis 1? Heaven is His throne after all.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You said that it wasn't the Father, Yahwey, walking in the Garden. But it explicitly names Yahwey, the Father. Then you stated that "Yahweh" isn't a name and generically just means "God".

But this is fundamentally wrong. Yahwey is His name. His proper name. Just like Jesus is the name for Jesus.

Just because we are Trinitarian, doesn't give us the authority to essentially replace Yahwey with Jesus in the Old Testament.

Just like in Daniel 7. It just doesn't make any sense.

Everywhere in the Old Testament that it talks about Yahwey, it's now just automatically Jesus. Even when Yahwey is described alongside the Son of Man, it's actually just Jesus enthroned and Jesus again at the right hand.

‭Daniel 7:13 CSB‬
[13] I continued watching in the night visions, and suddenly one like a son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him.

It's just Jesus approaching himself. There is no Yahwey here.

‭Daniel 7:9 CSB‬
[9] “As I kept watching, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head like whitest wool. His throne was flaming fire; its wheels were blazing fire.

Look at this, the ancient of Days took his seat after the thrones were set in place.

So Yahweh is not seated on the throne, he then proceeds to take his seat on the throne, and then the son of Man approaches him.

Are we supposed to think that Jesus went and took the throne and then Jesus approached the enthroned Jesus, and that Yahwey is not in the picture here?

What Old Testament have you been reading?

To argue that Yahweh is not a distinct title for the Father is a complete misunderstanding of a very fundamental detail of the Old Testament.

And trying to say "well the Trinity is true, therefore every time Yahwey is mentioned it's just Jesus and the Father is nowhere to be seen" is just absurd.

And it awkwardly suggests that perhaps you knew the Bible better than Moses himself because Moses obviously wouldn't have been thinking about Jesus walking in the garden because Moses didn't know who Jesus was.

So now you know Genesis better than the author of Genesis himself?

Just stop with the stupid exaggerations already. I’ve already said several times that I never said that Yahweh always means Jesus. I said it means God and it’s not exclusive to The Father. That means that Yahweh can be referring to either Jesus or The Father.

 

[lifepsyop]

Are you aware of various textual families and of different historical canons? They are not "virtually identical in content", a lot of text is different, whole chapters are different, whole books are missing or added.

Thats why your Bible is not a translation of one manuscript, but a compilation of thousands of manuscripts created by scholars, probably in Munster, Germany, if you have a minority text Bible.

There's an easy shortcut around the translation debate. Happily, we do not all need to become gurus of history to verify the Bible's truthfulness.

I would recommend you look into Timothy McGrew's "Undesigned Coincidences" found in the Bible. Lydia McGrew

They show how the Gospels reflect the signature of genuine eyewitness testimony in the way multiple viewpoints of the Gospel authors agree in so many subtle ways. Such an unforced harmony would be naturally lost via "genetic drift" of translations that were not holding faithfully to the original testimonies.

The writers of the Gospel were putting real eyewitness testimony onto paper.

Once you accept that Jesus was who he said he was, then you also accept his affirmation of the writings they had of the Law and Prophets. (John 5:46-47)

 

[Job 33:6]

Just stop with the stupid exaggerations already. I’ve already said several times that I never said that Yahweh always means Jesus. I said it means God and it’s not exclusive to The Father. That means that Yahweh can be referring to either Jesus or The Father.

Alright, so back to the original topic, you asked for an example where Yahweh the father is not enthroned.

I'll share Daniel 7 again, because you don't seem to like Genesis 3.

‭Daniel 7:9, 13 NASB
[9] ¶“I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.
[13] ¶“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.

Here we have Yahwey taking up the throne. Though He is not initially on the throne. And the son of Man, approaches.

Now, here we have a distinction. The Ancient of Days is not Jesus. There's a clear distinction between Him and the Son of Man riding on the clouds (identified as Jesus in the book of Mark and mathew).

So:
A. Yahwey is not enthroned at the start. And;
B. We can't confuse Yahwey with Jesus because both are present together (yet distinct) in the passage.

You also said that no one sees Yahwey, but I gave an example of Moses seeing Yahwey's backside, just not His face.

Are we in agreement yet?

Yahwey does walk without being enthroned. The Father. He's not always enthroned in the Bible. Sometimes He stands up and moves and goes places. He comes down from heaven (His throne) at Babel. He walks in the Garden. He appears in the burning bush (He's not enthroned here). He wrestles Jacob.

He has a body in the old testament. He sits enthroned 1 kings 22 with other angels around Him. Or Isaiah 6.

And that's not talking about Jesus. I'm just informing you of this. Whether or not you can accept this is based on your own theology. But this is what the text is speaking of. It's not the son of Man at the right hand of Yahweh, rather it is Yahwey Himself, who has a body (at least in the old testament).

He is anthropomorphized.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, so back to the original topic, you ask for an example where Yahweh the father is not enthroned.

I'll share Daniel 7 again, because you don't seem to like Genesis 3.

‭Daniel 7:9, 13 NASB
[9] ¶“I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.
[13] ¶“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.

Here we have Yahwey taking up the throne. Though He is not initially on the throne. And the son of Man, approaches.

Now, here we have a distinction. The Ancient of Days is not Jesus. There's a clear distinction between Him and the Son of Man riding on the clouds (identified as Jesus in the book of Mark and mathew).

You also said that no one sees Yahwey, but I gave an example of Moses seeing Yahwey's backside, just not His face.

Are we in agreement yet?

Yahwey does walk without being enthroned. The Father. He's not always enthroned in the Bible. Sometimes He stands up and moves and goes places. He comes down from heaven (His throne) at Babel. He walks in the Garden. He appears in the burning bush (He's not enthroned here). He wrestles Jacob.

He has a body in the old testament. He sits enthroned 1 kings 22 with other angels around Him. Or Isaiah 6.

And that's not talking about Jesus. I'm just informing you of this. Whether or not you can accept this is based on your own theology. But this is what the text is speaking of. It's not the son of Man at the right hand of Yahweh, rather it is Yahwey Himself, who has a body (at least in the old testament).

He is anthropomorphized.

And this is important because, Going back to Genesis day 7, God, that is Yahwey, rests.

And everywhere Yahwey rests, it's always enthroned. He doesn't rest on a couch. He rests on a throne. And resting is what God does whenever temples are completed in the Bible. And temples in the Bible are inaugurated in 7 days prior to God resting. 2 chronicles 1-8.

So, back to Genesis, what do you see? 7 days, and God rests. Isaiah 66;1-2. Psalm 132.

That's not a coincidence. That's Genesis.

@BNR32FAN

 

[BNR32FAN]

‭Exodus 3:15 LSB‬
[15] And God furthermore said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name from generation to generation.

Here is an example passage. "Yahwey, the God of your fathers".

Yahwey is His name. It's really that simple. And the Bible plainly states this.

How do you not know this?

How do I not know this? Well let’s see first of all Jesus said no one has ever seen The Father and Yahweh spoke to Abraham face to face and even ate with him. So that would seem to be a contradiction if it was God The Father standing in from of Abraham. Second people don’t usually go around changing an actual name to either the title “the Lord” or “God”. Third the name Yahweh doesn’t appear not even once in reference to God The Father in the New Testament, not sure why the name would’ve changed to Logos there, there’s no resemblance to Yahweh. Everybody else’s name seemed to stay pretty much the same, a slight difference in pronunciation but still recognizably the same. Fourth Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him, I don’t recall the name Jesus ever appearing in any of Moses’ writings.

So apparently there are several perfectly good reasons why many Christians believe that Yahweh is not the actual name of God The Father and instead is a reference to God which is often translated as either God or the Lord. Oh and I noticed you switched from the CSB to the LSB in your example of Exodus 3:15 above, why is that? Is it because the CSB that you usually use translates Yahweh to “the Lord”? Why would they translate a name to a title?

 

[trophy33]

There's an easy shortcut around the translation debate. Happily, we do not all need to become gurus of history to verify the Bible's truthfulness.

I would recommend you look into Timothy McGrew's "Undesigned Coincidences" found in the Bible. Lydia McGrew

They show how the Gospels reflect the signature of genuine eyewitness testimony in the way multiple viewpoints of the Gospel authors agree in so many subtle ways. Such an unforced harmony would be naturally lost via "genetic drift" of translations that were not holding faithfully to the original testimonies.

The writers of the Gospel were putting real eyewitness testimony onto paper.

Once you accept that Jesus was who he said he was, then you also accept his affirmation of the writings they had of the Law and Prophets. (John 5:46-47)

Comparing gospels to each other is actually a good lesson on their inspiration. Because we have 3 synoptic ones, we can easily see they were not dictated by God, but written by people. Main theological points remain the same (or else they would not be collected into the biblical canon), but details differ significantly, even to the point of different contexts for the same events or talks or producing different doctrines (for example about marriage/divorce).

Even prominent texts like the Our Father prayer are different among gospels.

With this knowledge, its really strange that some people postulate that for example Genesis is inspired word after word and even preserved perfectly.

 

[Job 33:6]

And this is important because, Going back to Genesis day 7, God, that is Yahwey, rests.

And everywhere Yahwey rests, it's always enthroned. He doesn't rest on a couch. He rests on a throne. And resting is what God does whenever temples are completed in the Bible. And temples in the Bible are inaugurated in 7 days prior to God resting. 2 chronicles 1-8.

So, back to Genesis, what do you see? 7 days, and God rests. Isaiah 66;1-2. Psalm 132.

That's not a coincidence. That's Genesis.

@BNR32FAN

The tabernacle was also consecrated in 7 days. And the tabernacle was constructed of 7 stages (Exodus 40:17-33), in which the features of the tabernacle were a reflection of the creation of Genesis 1 as well.

Further evidence that creation and Genesis are Gods temple. What God does in the heavens, man reflects on earth. @BNR32FAN

 

[Job 33:6]

How do I not know this? Well let’s see first of all Jesus said no one has ever seen The Father and Yahweh spoke to Abraham face to face and even ate with him. So that would seem to be a contradiction if it was God The Father standing in from of Abraham. Second people don’t usually go around changing an actual name to either the title “the Lord” or “God”. Third the name Yahweh doesn’t appear not even once in reference to God The Father in the New Testament, not sure why the name would’ve changed to Logos there, there’s no resemblance to Yahweh. Everybody else’s name seemed to stay pretty much the same, a slight difference in pronunciation but still recognizably the same. Fourth Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him, I don’t recall the name Jesus ever appearing in any of Moses’ writings.

So apparently there are several perfectly good reasons why many Christians believe that Yahweh is not the actual name of God The Father and instead is a reference to God which is often translated as either God or the Lord. Oh and I noticed you switched from the CSB to the LSB in your example of Exodus 3:15 above, why is that? Is it because the CSB that you usually use translates Yahweh to “the Lord”? Why would they translate a name to a title?

Moses saw Yahwey. He didn't see Yahweys face, but he still saw Yahwey's figure.

And I switched to LSB to show you where the Hebrew explicitly names Yahwey so you couldn't hide from the passages.

And again, Daniel 7, if you don't like Yahwey walking in the garden, here we have God, taking up the throne, do not initially enthroned while this thrones were being set. Then Jesus approaches after Yahwey takes the throne.

Since you can't seem to accept that Yahweh is an independent figure in the Old Testament, we just have to pull out a text that has both Yahwey and Jesus together at the same time, in which Yahwey is not enthroned.

The Bible is so excessively clear on this. But you just, for whatever reason, seem to have a problem with what the Bible says.

And again, Moses sees God. You know these passages, that's why he has horns, and his face glows because he saw the holy One.

However, as you also know, God showed Moses his backside, but did not show Moses his face.

So it's true that Moses did not see Yahweh's face, but he still saw Yahweh. And he wasn't enthroned, Moses saw his backside.

In fact Exodus 24 explicitly says that they looked up and saw God and under his feet was pavement of sapphire stone. He's moving up there. It's His residence.

And it's not talking about Jesus.

You don't seem to like what the Bible is plainly saying. And only you know why that is. There's something about your theology that's stopping you from accepting the text.

I mean what, are you going to call Daniel 7 a metaphor? It says what it says. And don't tell me that the ancient of days is Jesus. It's not. That's Yahwey. That's why the one like the son of man approached to his right hand.

And it's the same thing with 1 Kings 22 and Isaiah 6. That's Yahwey, the Father.

 

[Job 33:6]

The tabernacle was also consecrated in 7 days. And the tabernacle was constructed of 7 stages (Exodus 40:17-33), in which the features of the tabernacle were a reflection of the creation of Genesis 1 as well.

Further evidence that creation and Genesis are Gods temple. What God does in the heavens, man reflects on earth. @BNR32FAN

@BNR32FAN

You didn't want to accept that God rests in temples.

I gave you many passages on this.

You said that they were just metaphorical and that God is always enthroned.

I gave you passages on this.

You then said that Yahweh isn't the name of God. And that Yahweh walking in the garden was talking about Jesus.

Yahwey is the name of the Father. Whether you like it or not. You can't erase Yahwey and replace Him with Jesus wherever you're uncomfortable with the text.

Now I'm going to step further and I'm showing you a passage with Jesus and Yahweh side by side, with God not enthroned, and taking up the throne after the thrones were set.

So, there's no confusing the two here.

What excuse will you make now?

When will you come to terms with what the Bible is saying?

Creation, that is God's created heaven and earth, that's God's temple. It's the place that he rules, that is everything.

And that's what Isaiah 66:1 and 2 is about. "All these things my hand has made, where is the temple you could build from me?".

And in the Bible, temples are inaugurated in 7 days. And at the end of the 7 days, God takes up the throne, Psalm 132.

And that's just the way that it is. That's just what the Bible says, and there's nothing we can do about it except simply receive the text as it is.

When will you come to terms with the reality that Genesis has nothing to do with the age of the earth?

 

[BNR32FAN]

And I switched to LSB to show you where the Hebrew explicitly names Yahwey so you couldn't hide from the passages.

I haven’t hidden from a single passage throughout the entire discussion.