How Old Is The Earth

[Platte]

But the Bible wasn't written in English.
And if we read it literally when the author did not intend it to be understood literally, we make it say something different.

Even worse, when you don’t take something literal when it was meant to be

I'm thinking of the Bible as a whole, not just Genesis 1.

Especially Genesis 1

First though, we have to find out what God said.

Some of the Bible includes pastoral letters written to churches that had asked specific questions, or had particular problems. Does that mean that Paul's words, to that church in that place, were God's command to all churches for all time? Which verses say that we are bound by the same advice that was given to a church in a different culture?

For example?

Some of the Bible is poetry; did the author expect us to take his poetic phrases, metaphors etc. literally?

If you don’t know how to read then definitely do not try to read the Bible. Taking something that has no indications of being metaphoric, and is also quoted throughout the Bible non-metaphorically, nonliterally is dumb. Even worse trying to impress upon others to take it mythical.

We read the Bible in English; it was written in Hebrew/Greek; Jesus spoke Aramaic.
All of that was translated into Latin and then English. How do you know that the English words always accurately translate/express what the Hebrew/Greek said? How do you know that, if Paul is now, somehow, reading our English translations, he is not saying, "no, no, no; that is NOT what I meant"?

Really? The most translated and most scrutinized book that has ever existed and you’re asking if it’s been translated correctly. I think it’s safe to say the translation is good.

So you don't understand exegesis then?
You believe that when Paul said that widows under the age of 60 are gossiping busybodies and need no financial assistance from the church - that God has spoken and that settles the matter?

It’s good to see godly men making decisions for their church. If the widows on that congregation were bad people then I see no issue with how they handled things. Each situation is unique. But it does come to can you read and understand the message being said. I don’t think all men have to have long hair because God wanted Sampson to have long hair

(1 Timothy 5:9-14.) Or that Paul contradicted himself - women must be silent in church, but they may prophecy? Or that anyone who teaches circumcision and the law is preaching another Gospel and should emasculate themselves?

Teaching something outside of the Bible is dangerously If you think you have to be circumcised to be accepted by God then you should probably be emasculated

 

[Strong in Him]

Even worse, when you don’t take something literal when it was meant to be

How do you know whether it is meant to be taken literally or not, without proper study?

For example?

The length of women's hair, for example.
Women not wearing gold, pearls, expensive clothes or having braided hair, for example.
Women being silent - when other churches had deacons, deaconesses and female prophets, for example.
Paul advising Timothy to drink wine because of his frequent illnesses, for example.
Paul advising that it would be better if people isn't marry, for example.
Paul instructing people on how to treat their slaves - when the church later played a big part in getting slavery abolished, for example.

Really? The most translated and most scrutinized book that has ever existed and you’re asking if it’s been translated correctly.

And you wonder if I have trouble reading?

I did not ask if it's been translated correctly. I said "how do you know that the English words always accurately translate/express what the Greek/Hebrew said?
Did you know that there are at least 3 words for "love" in Greek? Brotherly love, sexual love, love for God and, I think, maybe friendship as well.
We don't have that in English. We say "I love chocolate" and "I love my child" - same word; very different meanings.
I wouldn't be surprised there are other words in the Hebrew/Greek for which there is no English equivalent. Which, among other things, is why we need to look at the context of verses/words to understand what was meant.

It’s good to see godly men making decisions for their church. If the widows on that congregation were bad people then I see no issue with how they handled things.

Who said anything about them being bad people?
Do you withhold financially help from a woman, and maybe her children too, because they gossip from time to time? Is there a point where the church says; "you don't deserve help?"

Teaching something outside of the Bible is dangerously

The men at the time were not teaching "outside of the Bible" - there was no Bible.
Jewish law said that men had to be circumcised to belong to God's people. Paul said that it wasn't necessary.

 

[Platte]

How do you know whether it is meant to be taken literally or not, without proper study?

You think you have to STUDY something to determine whether to take something literal or not? Most people when they write convey that to the reader pretty obviously.

I did not ask if it's been translated correctly. I said "how do you know that the English words always accurately translate/express what the Greek/Hebrew said?

If it’s been translated correctly then it will express correctly to what the original says. The primary goal of the scholars who translated the KJV was just that. And they had highly skilled and experts in both Hebrew and Greek involved in the translation. Ive heard knowledge in Hebrew and Greek languages unmatched to todays Hebrew scholars

 

[BNR32FAN]

When God is described in ancient human terms and ways, is it not rather anthropomorphism than an exact description?

Another example:
"My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together."
Isaiah 48:13 (NIV)

Do you literally believe that God stretched the heavens with his right hand? Or that God even has hands like we do? Or that God literally summons them to their constellations?

If not, why do you then believe that He literally took a dust and formed a dusty statue and then breathed life into it? It seems to be the same style of writing to me.

The Bible says we are made in His image, maybe He did use His hand to stretch out the heavens. Maybe He used hand gestures during the process.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How can this work? How do you know what the scriptures say if you do not know what the author meant (and also what is actually the original text or which translation is the right one)?

It would lead to subjective interpretation of everything, i.e. every individual would determine for himself what the scriptures say and nothing could be judged to be objectively right or wrong.

So the choices I have here according to what you’re saying here is to trust an interpretation of a modern day scholar who is guessing at what the author intended because he has absolutely NO WAY of actually knowing what the author’s intention was, or take it as it is written.

And as far as the translations go I don’t see any significant differences in the translations. It’s pretty much clear what was actually written.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How can this work? How do you know what the scriptures say if you do not know what the author meant (and also what is actually the original text or which translation is the right one)?

It would lead to subjective interpretation of everything, i.e. every individual would determine for himself what the scriptures say and nothing could be judged to be objectively right or wrong.

Here’s the thing, I listened to the entire lecture and not once did he ever address any of the verses in Genesis 1. He never gave an examples of similar uses or idioms used by the Hebrews at all. All he did was built up this imaginary idea of a “cultural river” and used that to ignore everything that is written in Genesis 1. He didn’t give any examples of the word Yovm being used in the OT or anywhere in the Hebrew language that was intended to be interpreted as a period of time other than 24 hours. The only time he actually began to address any of the verses in Genesis 1 was after his lecture during the questions portion where he was forced to address the actual verses and his answers were still ridiculous and completely void of any evidence to support them. I pointed all of this out in my post refuting his lecture. Now if he had gave any actual examples or explanations that were backed by any type of evidence then I could understand someone seeing his points as having some validity but he didn’t. In the end it all comes down to you expecting me to accept what he said in that lecture based solely on the fact that he is considered to be a Hebrew scholar, not by any actual evidence that he produced during the lecture. If you expect me to do that then I should expect you to accept anything John MacArthur says because he has a degree in theology. But then even that causes a problem because like I’ve already said before there are “scholars” for every denomination of Christianity under the sun who all disagree with everyone which presents the problem that just because someone is considered to be a scholar doesn’t mean that they’re right. Your “Hebrew scholar” didn’t present any evidence whatsoever to make his points. Now if you feel that he did I challenge you to present that evidence and we can discuss it to reach a logical conclusion, otherwise there’s no point in talking about it any further.

 

[SuperCow]

You don’t think the purpose of Creation was to create man for God’s purpose of establishing his family with man (those who accept Christ) in the kingdom of Heaven?

No. That was completely unnecessary until Adam and Eve sinned. If Adam and Eve did not sin, then it was already established. Christ coming to earth was redeem mankind. If Adam and Eve (and children) did not sin, then there is nothing to redeem.

That’s what any said light shining on earth would do as the earth rotates
I disagree. It says God said let the land bring forth grass and it was so. (It happened)
It doesn’t say God said let the land bring forth grass and it was later

How do you know the earth was rotating back then, when it was formless and void? Why are the luminaries (presumably the son and moon) not established until day four? If you want to get literal it says in Genesis 1:16:

(KJV) "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
(NIV) "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

Genesis 1:10 - "And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

So when was the sun, moon and stars created? If it was on day 4, then there was no day to count before then. What was the light on day one, and was that enough for the plants on day three?

When God tells the land to bring forth grass - that’s what it does. Immediately.

Of course, the literal text reading says they did it without the sun. Yes, there was going to be a sun the next day (day 4), but how do I know how long the first three days are without a sun? Day one says the darkness was called night and the light was called day. Don't you see how using literal references causes all kinds of paradoxes?

 

[Platte]

No. That was completely unnecessary until Adam and Eve sinned. If Adam and Eve did not sin, then it was already established. Christ coming to earth was redeem mankind. If Adam and Eve (and children) did not sin, then there is nothing to redeem.

OK - Earth was not made for man...smh.

How do you know the earth was rotating back then, when it was formless and void? Why are the luminaries (presumably the son and moon) not established until day four? If you want to get literal it says in Genesis 1:16:

We know it was rotating because there was a light source and there was an evening and a morning.

(KJV) "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
(NIV) "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

Genesis 1:10 - "And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

So when was the sun, moon and stars created? If it was on day 4, then there was no day to count before then. What was the light on day one, and was that enough for the plants on day three?

God created light on day 1 and He said it was good. So you have a light shining on the earth and you have evenings and mornings.

Most plants can go several weeks without sunlight.

Of course, the literal text reading says they did it without the sun. Yes, there was going to be a sun the next day (day 4), but how do I know how long the first three days are without a sun? Day one says the darkness was called night and the light was called day. Don't you see how using literal references causes all kinds of paradoxes?

Ok - light day, dark night...whatever you call them is fine...there was an evening and morning and thus a day.

 

[SuperCow]

Somehow you misinterpreted every response I gave you.

OK - Earth was not made for man...smh.

I never said that. Without them sinning, his family with man was already established. Why would Christ need a sacrifice if humans never sinned? The entire point of the Bible is about redemption from sin.

We know it was rotating because there was a light source and there was an evening and a morning.

God created light on day 1 and He said it was good. So you have a light shining on the earth and you have evenings and mornings.

What was the light? Just random light from God? Maybe he just flashed the light on and off with a cosmic flashlight? Then he got around to realizing it would be easier if he put something more permanent there, like a fusing giant ball of hydrogen. Well throw in a moon and sprinkle a few stars out there so humans won't need a nightlight.

 

[Neogaia777]

No. That was completely unnecessary until Adam and Eve sinned. If Adam and Eve did not sin, then it was already established. Christ coming to earth was redeem mankind. If Adam and Eve (and children) did not sin, then there is nothing to redeem.



How do you know the earth was rotating back then, when it was formless and void? Why are the luminaries (presumably the son and moon) not established until day four? If you want to get literal it says in Genesis 1:16:

(KJV) "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
(NIV) "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

Genesis 1:10 - "And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

So when was the sun, moon and stars created? If it was on day 4, then there was no day to count before then. What was the light on day one, and was that enough for the plants on day three?



Of course, the literal text reading says they did it without the sun. Yes, there was going to be a sun the next day (day 4), but how do I know how long the first three days are without a sun? Day one says the darkness was called night and the light was called day. Don't you see how using literal references causes all kinds of paradoxes?

It is told from the perspective of the earth, or someone being/standing on the surface of the earth, and that is why the sun and the moon were only "uncovered or revealed" on day four, because until that time, all the volcanic choas/activity on earth, or on the surface of the earth, was preventing them from being seen or shining through, etc. And the first plant life was very, very primitive until much later on, and consisted mainly of very primitive algae, or the primordial ooze for a while, etc. Didn't require a ton of light, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Platte]

Somehow you misinterpreted every response I gave you.

So be clearer.

What was the light? Just random light from God? Maybe he just flashed the light on and off with a cosmic flashlight? Then he got around to realizing it would be easier if he put something more permanent there, like a fusing giant ball of hydrogen. Well throw in a moon and sprinkle a few stars out there so humans won't need a nightlight.

It wasn't random light - it was the Light that shown when God said "Let there be light" - and there was light - and God saw it.

 

[DejiDara]

If I tell you, then He is no longer God. The unknown is what make him God. I myself I don't know LOL

 

[SuperCow]

It is told from the perspective of the earth, or someone being/standing on the surface of the earth, and that is why the sun and the moon were only "uncovered or revealed" on day four, because until that time, all the volcanic choas/activity on earth, or on the surface of the earth, was preventing them from being seen or shining through, etc. And the first plant life was very, very primitive until much later on, and consisted mainly of very primitive algae, or the primordial ooze for a while, etc. Didn't require a ton of light, etc.

God Bless.

Exactly right. The only thing that is a problem is that it requires some interpretation to get to that analysis. The YEC viewpoint is forced to interpret much of the chapter to fit it into the 144-hour creation narrative. Granted, OEC must interpret much of it as well, but external evidence supports this interpretation. (And I think the actual text supports it better as well.)

 

[trophy33]

Here’s the thing, I listened to the entire lecture and not once did he ever address any of the verses in Genesis 1. He never gave an examples of similar uses or idioms used by the Hebrews at all. All he did was built up this imaginary idea of a “cultural river” and used that to ignore everything that is written in Genesis 1. He didn’t give any examples of the word Yovm being used in the OT or anywhere in the Hebrew language that was intended to be interpreted as a period of time other than 24 hours. The only time he actually began to address any of the verses in Genesis 1 was after his lecture during the questions portion where he was forced to address the actual verses and his answers were still ridiculous and completely void of any evidence to support them. I pointed all of this out in my post refuting his lecture. Now if he had gave any actual examples or explanations that were backed by any type of evidence then I could understand someone seeing his points as having some validity but he didn’t. In the end it all comes down to you expecting me to accept what he said in that lecture based solely on the fact that he is considered to be a Hebrew scholar, not by any actual evidence that he produced during the lecture. If you expect me to do that then I should expect you to accept anything John MacArthur says because he has a degree in theology. But then even that causes a problem because like I’ve already said before there are “scholars” for every denomination of Christianity under the sun who all disagree with everyone which presents the problem that just because someone is considered to be a scholar doesn’t mean that they’re right. Your “Hebrew scholar” didn’t present any evidence whatsoever to make his points. Now if you feel that he did I challenge you to present that evidence and we can discuss it to reach a logical conclusion, otherwise there’s no point in talking about it any further.

Not sure why you are talking about somebody else.

My question was:

How can this work? How do you know what the scriptures say if you do not know what the author meant (and also what is actually the original text or which translation is the right one)?

It would lead to subjective interpretation of everything, i.e. every individual would determine for himself what the scriptures say and nothing could be judged to be objectively right or wrong.

 

[trophy33]

The Bible says we are made in His image, maybe He did use His hand to stretch out the heavens. Maybe He used hand gestures during the process.

Maybe? Why is it suddenly just "maybe"? The text is clear.

 

[trophy33]

So the choices I have here according to what you’re saying here is to trust an interpretation of a modern day scholar who is guessing at what the author intended because he has absolutely NO WAY of actually knowing what the author’s intention was, or take it as it is written.

And as far as the translations go I don’t see any significant differences in the translations. It’s pretty much clear what was actually written.

Its not one scholar, its a body of knowledge of the scholarship. Thats how we know anything about history - scholars study it and present it to laymen.

If we are, instead, trusting just our "gut", its much worse (and lazy), because we do not know how to read such old literature.

 

[Platte]

So the choices I have here according to what you’re saying here is to trust an interpretation of a modern day scholar who is guessing at what the author intended because he has absolutely NO WAY of actually knowing what the author’s intention was, or take it as it is written.

And as far as the translations go I don’t see any significant differences in the translations. It’s pretty much clear what was actually written.

Don’t pay any mind to the nonsense Trophy33 is saying. He will be spinning in that nonsense forever.

Scripture is referred to hundreds of times in the New Testament by Jesus and the Apostles. Each reference takes a literal reading of events exactly as you and I read it today. Whether it’s Adam being the first man, Noah’s flood, Jonah in the fish, crossing the Red Sea. Details about Abraham, Moses, David, etc…. All references to Scripture (Old Testament) are referred to as real events exactly as you understand it.

Jesus and the apostles are the example you should follow not someone who disrespect the words in the Bible and disrespect and ridicule people that accept the words as they are written as if the Bible can’t be understood by those that read it today.

Stand up for what the Bible says and reject the scoffers wholly and completely.

 

[tdidymas]

A quote is always dictated by the one who is being quoted, not by the one who is citing the quote. You’re just trying to find any excuse you can to justify your unwillingness to accept what is written in the Bible but the way the scriptures are written it’s absolutely undeniable that God Himself revealed the creation account to Moses.

The Bible doesn't say that, so your conclusion is conjecture. Ex. 20:11 is easily explained by accommodation.

 

[tdidymas]

Ok so I gave you an explanation why we can observe supernovas 10 billion light years away and your rebuttal is basically saying “nuh uh”. Is that the best argument you can bring to the discussion or can you actually point out why my explanation is flawed?

You gave an explanation? Where? What was it? Can you please be specific (not vague) about it? Spell it out, please.

“Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭14‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to this passage where did God put the sun, the moon, and the stars?

"expanse" is an incorrect translation of Heb. "Rakia" which the LXX renders "firmament" (as in KJV and LV) which is a solid dome, ceiling, or tent. It is translated "expanse" (and affirmed in many commentaries) only to accommodate modern science and modern cosmology. These two commentaries are more accurate IMO (taken from Bible Hub):

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:
(6) A firmament.—This is the Latin translation of the Greek word used by the translators of the Septuagint Version. Undoubtedly it means something solid; and such was the idea of the Greeks, and probably also of the Hebrews. As such it appears in the poetry of the Bible, where it is described as a mighty vault of molten glass (Job 37:18), upheld by the mountains as pillars (Job 26:11; 2Samuel 22:8), and having doors and lattices through which the Deity pours forth abundance (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23). Even in this “Hymn of Creation” we have poetry, but not expressed in vivid metaphors, but in sober and thoughtful language. Here, therefore, the word rendered “firmament” means an expanse. If, as geologists tell us, the earth at this stage was an incandescent mass, this expanse would be the ring of equilibrium, where the heat supplied from below was exactly equal to that given off by radiation into the cold ether above. And gradually this would sink lower and lower, until finally it reached the surface of the earth; and at this point the work of the second day would be complete.

Ellicott clearly states that rakia is solid, but concedes to modern geological theory.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
6–8. The Firmament of the Heaven

6. Let there be … waters] The work of the “second day” is the creation of the so-called “firmament” of heaven. The Hebrews had no conception of an infinite ethereal space. The vault of heaven was to them a solid arched, or vaulted, structure, resting upon the pillars of the earth (Job 26:11). On the top of this dome were the reservoirs of “the waters above the heaven,” which supplied the rain and the dew. Beneath the earth were other reservoirs of waters, which were the sources of the seas, lakes, rivers and springs. After the creation of light the next creative act was, according to the Hebrew cosmogony, the division of the primaeval watery abyss, by means of a solid partition which is here denoted by the word rendered “firmament.” The waters are above it and below it.

a firmament] This word reproduces the Lat. firmamentum; LXX στερέωμα. The Hebrew râqîa denotes (see Heb. Lex.) “extended surface, (solid) expanse” (as if beaten out; cf. Job 37:18). For the verb raq‘a=beat, or spread, out, cf. Exodus 39:3, Numbers 17:4, Jeremiah 10:4, Ezekiel 1:22, “and over the head of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament … stretched forth over their heads above.” Compare Job 37:18, “canst thou with him spread out (tarqi‘a) the sky which is strong as a molten mirror?” See Psalm 19:1; Psalm 150:1, Daniel 12:3, where “firmament” = sky.

From Dr Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, by kind permission of Messrs T. & T. Clark:
For the solidity of the heaven according to this conception, cf. Amos 9:6, “it is he that buildeth his chambers in the heaven, and hath founded his vault upon the earth.” The fall of rain was regarded as the act of God in opening the sluices of heaven, cf. Genesis 7:11, 2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 7:19, Psalm 78:23; Psalm 148:4, “ye waters that be above the heavens.”
This Cambridge commentary is more accurate IMO.

So then, to answer your question: Gen. 1:7 says that God placed the sun, moon, and stars IN THE FIRMAMENT, which means they truly believed what their naked eyes saw, and concluded that they existed in the dome above the Earth. "Heavens" means the dome above the Earth, since the firmament is called "heaven."

Again, God accommodates to man such things, as He doesn't think it important to correct men about science, technology, and other things that are understood my natural observation and reasoning. God in the Bible is concerned with morality, idolatry, how people treat each other, and other moral and ethical matters. IOW, theology.

 

[tdidymas]

No it just depends on how God chose to make the light visible to man within 2 days after creating the stars. If He accelerated the speed of light and these supernovas took place during that time then that would explain why we’re seeing them. We’ve only actually witnessed 4 that I know of. The first one is from the second century. The second is from the 11th century. The third is from the 16th century. And the last one was in 1987. So we can’t even verify that the first two even took place. Nobody knew what a supernova was back then and they didn’t even have telescopes yet. If supernovas were happening while the speed of light was accelerated then it would explain why we are seeing them take place.

In order for a supernova to occur, you have to first have stars (and many of them), since you have to have stars that are old enough to collapse and explode, so you have to have a stable universe for these things to happen. You speculate on God accelerating the speed of light, as if that was a viable theory, but again you are trying to accommodate modern science and push it into the scripture, which is bad hermeneutics. Incidentally, the supernova of 10BLY away was observed recently in telescopes.