How old is the earth?

[EarlyActs]

The Bible does not need to "saved".


Why are you blasphemously claiming that the light created in Gen. 1 was "magical"?

The rational answer (rational, in the sense of believing what God says) is that the light in Gen. 1 was created by God, as part of Day 1 (before he created the stars).



The NET does indeed have many notes, in many of which the translators express their opinions as to the correct interpretations. This does not mean that their notes are always correct.

So are you saying those subsequent phrases are not adverbial?. You put yourself on a pedestal without answering the question.

 

[EarlyActs]

Straw man; appeal to ridicule; speculation - do you have any other logical errors or blunders in which you'd like to indulge?


Speculation and begging the question...



Speculation; begging the question and ignoring (or being ignorant of) the law of first use.



Day 1 was unique. In any case your alleged reason for why Day 1 does not start by telling us that God spoke is, again, speculation.

In your last line here, you refer to day 1. Yeah it was quite unique alright. It was a time period best limited by starlight travel from the earth POV.

“In any case”??? There are 5 other days and that’s the format. Deal with it. It is not “any case”

You will be less bothered when you have absorbed the mastheads, bc you think this is about evolution. It is not. It is a sensible question about normal starlight instead of turning starlight into a trick by a slur of speech. Shami is not kavov.

The starlight trick is one of several deal-breakers for the modern reader.

 

[EarlyActs]

What astrophysical conditions allow the location of earth to be utterly dark at the first reference?

There was already space but no light—at that location, our planet. Light was coming.

Space existed bc of the stretching out mentioned elsewhere. The account does not start with non-space, before space. God does not need space to be God ; he created it separate from Himself. That’s not Day 1. It’s already there, as the Hebrew grammar says in such cases. Like ch 5 or the cataclysm account or Rebbekahs relatives and beauty.

Starlight then narrows down how much time before Day 1 can happen.

 

[David1701]

re saved
You seem to be very young and everything is black and white to you. In the late 19th cent, German Higher Criticism developed the JEPD theory which gained a lot of momentum. It basically destroyed the historic meaning of the Bible by saying that it was collection during the kingdom period or perhaps after when the shock of captivity needed to be overcome.

Rabbi Cassuto defeated this by showing the 4 part verbal recitation format all through Genesis. The JEPD theory pretty much sank.

But in some modern schools like the U Toronto Linguistics, Cassuto was 'buried' (suppressed). One professor interviewed in THE MOSES CONTROVERSY by Malone, said that at least 16 years had gone by, ruining all his Ph.D. work, when he heard his Ph.D. mentor joking about how long they had hidden Cassuto from the public, and a new storm erupted.

If you don't have background like this, please just listen and learn instead of telling us all the little you know.

"Saved" was not even used in the present tense above , but there are other forces trying to destroy it.

I'm not young, so you're wrong again.

Genuine Christians are not led astray into Higher Criticism (or its later developments), because they are believers in the Lord and his word.

The Bible has never needed to be "saved" (I meant the "does not" as a generally applicable statement, not limited to the present day - the present tense can be used this way; perhaps you didn't know that).

 

[David1701]

In your last line here, you refer to day 1. Yeah it was quite unique alright. It was a time period best limited by starlight travel from the earth POV.

“In any case”??? There are 5 other days and that’s the format. Deal with it. It is not “any case”

You will be less bothered when you have absorbed the mastheads, bc you think this is about evolution. It is not. It is a sensible question about normal starlight instead of turning starlight into a trick by a slur of speech. Shami is not kavov.

The starlight trick is one of several deal-breakers for the modern reader.

Since you are such an expert in Hebrew, perhaps you would to tell us when a "day" refers to a literal, 24 hour day? There are certain contextual features that render this certain, in the Bible. Do you know what they are?

 

[EarlyActs]

Since you are such an expert in Hebrew, perhaps you would to tell us when a "day" refers to a literal, 24 hour day? There are certain contextual features that render this certain, in the Bible. Do you know what they are?

I defer to Hebrew experts; I was not a reader in my degree. I have assembled analytical lexicons in Latin and German with high school students and thus when the commentaries say there is a dependency or an adverbial phrase attached, it parses out one way, and not another.

It always refers to a 24 hr unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. The same with light in v3, which answers darkness in v2. By v16 it is confirmed to be distant starlight. This triggers several rational starlight deductions, but these match the pre-existing conditions of v2, so that is not a problem.

I think the first time it shifts from literal, it means 'event.' In 22:14 it might be 'time' but it's still narrow. I don't see any non-literal in Moses.

We are trying to make the Bible sensible to the modern person, Acts 26. We don't need extra challenges on top of a talking snake and a levitating, swirling sword.

 

[David1701]

Be reasonable: if someone is attacking the core beliefs, then it is true that "the Bible needs to be saved" ie, it needs to be defended. Apologetics is "defending the faith." Phil 1. I don't know what you are about but it is excessively strange and ill-informed.

JEPD was so massive believers didn't know it was happening; 'science' was right. That's why in 1900, most fundamentalists believed the Genesis cataclysm was just a Caspian sea event.

It would be great if you looked at 01 and 20 of the video to see if they match the conditions before Day 1 and then Day 1.

Saved is not equivalent to "defended".

People who base their "faith" on what secular science declares, are proving that what they have is not biblical faith.

 

[David1701]

I defer to Hebrew experts; I was not a reader in my degree. I have assembled analytical lexicons in Latin and German with high school students and thus when the commentaries say there is a dependency or an adverbial phrase attached, it parses out one way, and not another.

It always refers to a 24 hr unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. The same with light in v3, which answers darkness in v2. By v16 it is confirmed to be distant starlight. This triggers several rational starlight deductions, but these match the pre-existing conditions of v2, so that is not a problem.

I think the first time it shifts from literal, it means 'event.' In 22:14 it might be 'time' but it's still narrow. I don't see any non-literal in Moses.

We are trying to make the Bible sensible to the modern person, Acts 26. We don't need extra challenges on top of a talking snake and a levitating, swirling sword.

In the OT, whenever "day" is accompanied by a number, evening or morning, it always means a literal, roughly 24 hour, day. In Gen. 1, the creation days are accompanied by all three. This means that Day 1, for example, was a literal, roughly 24 hour, day.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

A careful examination of all the date cues in the Old Testament (masoretic text) meshes exactly with the retro convergence of the 7 year Sabbatic cycles, the 49 year Jubilee year cycles, the 1000 year Great Day cycles along with the proper interpretation of the 70 Weeks prophecy and Ezekiel's 430 Day prophecy. It all points to what most likely is the first day of the calendar: Thursday, Nisan 1, Year 0 = April 14, 3970 BC = 1 day past new Moon.

 

[EarlyActs]

Saved is not equivalent to "defended".

People who base their "faith" on what secular science declares, are proving that what they have is not biblical faith.

If you read the masthead statements you will feel like a fool for saying the line about secular science. You work in a conditioned, compartmentalized, non-Hebrew world.

Funny how people can say they know what you think but won't respond to such a simple request.

re saved vs defended
Do you have a point to make? Cassuto saved and defended the Tanach. The JEPD theory collapsed. What are you even talking about?

 

[David1701]

If you read the masthead statements you will feel like a fool for saying the line about secular science. You work in a conditioned, compartmentalized, non-Hebrew world.

Funny how people can say they know what you think but won't respond to such a simple request.

re saved vs defended
Do you have a point to make? Cassuto saved and defended the Tanach. The JEPD theory collapsed. What are you even talking about?

Never mind.

 

[ChristB4us]

The earth was already there before day 1. Any Hebrew grammatical commentary will show you the adverbial role of v2, the same as in ch 5:1, 2. The question is a Hebrew grammar question not what things look like in English. 'when God began creating (forming the crust and atmosphere) of the earth...' This is the description consistent with the pottery imagery of 2 Peter 3.

Yes, he was outside 1 and 2.

There is at least 4 years of 'kavov' your #2, because Centauri's light did not get to earth until Day 1, and Centauri is 4 years plus away in LYs. God stretched out the 'kavov' he did not place it like the lights of 'shami' (your #1, the firmament). The ancients did not interact much with the 'kavov'; much more interested in the meaning of active objects.

If you are going to invent magical light when there are rational explanations, I can't continue with you. Adding more lifeless time before is not a problem because there is no evolutionary activity attached to it.

Big Ed has programmed us to attach evolutionary force to time. There is no such connection. So our Christian statements must make this clear. Really clear.

If the earth was already there along with the heavens, then why is there not a first day then before that first day starting in verse 2?

Why call that day the first day if the heavens and the earth were already made?

The point of the first day was to establish the very beginning of time; hence God is explaining to us how He did that in the beginning in creating the heavens and the earth which neither of them had existed yet in that first day.

Otherwise, if the earth was already there and covered with water as if by a deluge after a certain destruction, then what was God doing that second day if He was not creating a water planet with an upper atmosphere when dividing the water by gravity in forming that beginning of the earth that 2nd day?

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, ( gravity ) and divided the waters which were under the firmament ( water planet ) from the waters which were above the firmament ( sky or upper atmosphere ): and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. ( sky or upper atmosphere ) And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

So what was He doing that 2nd day? You fill in the blank.

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, ( ) and divided the waters which were under the firmament ( ) from the waters which were above the firmament ( ): and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. ( ) And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And why didn't God call it good at all that 2nd day?

Once God laid the foundations of the earth, then, He said it was good that 3rd day.

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

One thing I have noticed just now how after that, God created plant life and said that was good also. So God got done creating two things that 3rd day and the initial was finishing creating the earth for why it was good that day.

Anyway, you fill in the blank and explain what He was exactly doing that 2nd day and why, if the earth was already created?

 

[EarlyActs]

If the earth was already there along with the heavens, then why is there not a first day then before that first day starting in verse 2?

Why call that day the first day if the heavens and the earth were already made?

The point of the first day was to establish the very beginning of time; hence God is explaining to us how He did that in the beginning in creating the heavens and the earth which neither of them had existed yet in that first day.

Otherwise, if the earth was already there and covered with water as if by a deluge after a certain destruction, then what was God doing that second day if He was not creating a water planet with an upper atmosphere when dividing the water by gravity in forming that beginning of the earth that 2nd day?

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, ( gravity ) and divided the waters which were under the firmament ( water planet ) from the waters which were above the firmament ( sky or upper atmosphere ): and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. ( sky or upper atmosphere ) And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

So what was He doing that 2nd day? You fill in the blank.

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, ( ) and divided the waters which were under the firmament ( ) from the waters which were above the firmament ( ): and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. ( ) And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And why didn't God call it good at all that 2nd day?

Once God laid the foundations of the earth, then, He said it was good that 3rd day.

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

One thing I have noticed just now how after that, God created plant life and said that was good also. So God got done creating two things that 3rd day and the initial was finishing creating the earth for why it was good that day.

Anyway, you fill in the blank and explain what He was exactly doing that 2nd day and why, if the earth was already created?

Please learn to listen—to the text and me. A day takes a marker of evening and morning. That started when some kind of light arrived.

Do you know the astrophysical conditions that make total darkness?

 

[JIM]

Does it matter what age of the earth you believe to be? Perhaps it would for an astronomer or scientists where a scientific understanding of the earth and universe is needed but otherwise it's not important at all. It's hard for me to imagine where it would come up outside of forum such as this one.

It has to do with truth. If God says something that is not true, then the truth of anything God says can be suspect. Does it matter what you believe about the virgin birth of Jesus? Does it matter what you believe about Jesus having been raised from the dead? The answer must be yes to both. If so, then the actual truth of the Bible matters. The only basis for believing in the truth of the virgin birth and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is the integrity of God's word. The real problem is one of interpretation as illustrated by the events surrounding the trials of Galileo Galilei and other such individuals that ran head on into disputes by religious leaders and their interpretations. Can a rational thinking person of reasonable intelligence really think the bible presents the truth that sun revolves around the earth and that Jesus was born of a virgin and was raised from the dead when there is absolutely no question that the earth revolves around the sun? For a few, it might not matter, but for the world at large it most definitely matters.

 

[ChristB4us]

Please learn to listen—to the text and me. A day takes a marker of evening and morning. That started when some kind of light arrived.

Do you know the astrophysical conditions that make total darkness?

I wish you would listen to His words for why that first day was marked as evening and morning because that was the very beginning of creation starting with time by that light that was created.

Therefore Genesis 1:1 is being explained on how God did that in the following verses in the beginning.

 

[EarlyActs]

I wish you would listen to His words for why that first day was marked as evening and morning because that was the very beginning of creation starting with time by that light that was created.

Therefore Genesis 1:1 is being explained on how God did that in the following verses in the beginning.

All 6 days are said to have begun by God saying “Let…”. Stop making an exception for prior to day 1 when all three features have duration and those features are before Day 1 and made use of on the other days. And when the style all through Genesis is a loop of previous conditions before new action.

Rebekah had relatives and beauty for years before the day of the meeting with Jacob. Hence pre-existing.

Yes 1:1 is a title; it is not action.

 

[ChristB4us]

Yes 1:1 is a title; it is not action.

And yet,,,, were you not saying that the earth & the heavens were already there before day one?

All 6 days are said to have begun by God saying “Let…”. Stop making an exception for prior to day 1 when all three features have duration and those features are before Day 1 and made use of on the other days. And when the style all through Genesis is a loop of previous conditions before new action.

Then the earth and the universe is only about 6,000 years old which is the literal reading of the first Genesis creation account that ends in Genesis 2:3.

Rebekah had relatives and beauty for years before the day of the meeting with Jacob. Hence pre-existing.

You are confusing me. Now you play on words to imply earth and the heavens were already pre existing? Is that what you are inferring?

You wither believe the literal creation account for why everything is about 6,000 years old or you do not.

 

[EarlyActs]

And yet,,,, were you not saying that the earth & the heavens were already there before day one?


Then the earth and the universe is only about 6,000 years old which is the literal reading of the first Genesis creation account that ends in Genesis 2:3.

You are confusing me. Now you play on words to imply earth and the heavens were already pre existing? Is that what you are inferring?

You wither believe the literal creation account for why everything is about 6,000 years old or you do not.

On your first line:
The unformed earth was there since the ‘spreading out’ of Ps 104. That’s also when distant stars were stretched out.

We must use Hebrew about astronomy and not confuse the firmament (Laraqi shami) with distant stars (kavov) nor with Gods presence.

The firmament is from our atmosphere out to the few marker stars that move a bit in our POV but are not planets. I doubt if the ancient eye knew any difference. Their category was moving vs static.

 

[EarlyActs]

And yet,,,, were you not saying that the earth & the heavens were already there before day one?


Then the earth and the universe is only about 6,000 years old which is the literal reading of the first Genesis creation account that ends in Genesis 2:3.

You are confusing me. Now you play on words to imply earth and the heavens were already pre existing? Is that what you are inferring?

You wither believe the literal creation account for why everything is about 6,000 years old or you do not.

Re the start of the material of earth
The language of 1:2 clearly means materials were already there. The LXX (which means the leading rabbis of the 2nd cent BC trying to make the text understood by their world) put ‘unseen’ in v2 where we would say ‘unformed.’ That meant simply it was covered by water!

Where did those materials come from in this unformed way? There was a spreading out of lifeless things which we can almost date. We need to know the distance from earth to the ‘center’ as best as red-shifting inficates.

It will be more than the 4 years between earth and Centauri our neighbor.

This neither allows evolution nor changes anything about the week, which is only about the firmament sector.

 

[EarlyActs]

Re the start of the material of earth
The language of 1:2 clearly means materials were already there. The LXX (which means the leading rabbis of the 2nd cent BC trying to make the text understood by their world) put ‘unseen’ in v2 where we would say ‘unformed.’ That meant simply it was covered by water!

Where did those materials come from in this unformed way? There was a spreading out of lifeless things which we can almost date. We need to know the distance from earth to the ‘center’ as best as red-shifting inficates.

It will be more than the 4 years between earth and Centauri our neighbor.

This neither allows evolution nor changes anything about the week, which is only about the firmament sector.

The creation week of the local system and earths surface shape and sky was recent. I’m not sure exactly about the date bc of the Velikovsky finding about the earth being hit or nearly so which would slow rotation speed. 6000 rotations occurred but if slowed then that needs to factored in. We have to decide if we mean before or after contact.