How old is the earth?

[John Bauer]

If I understand your concept of material ontology correct...I say, why not?

You were asked a strict "yes" or "no" question. You were not asked a why-question.

 

[CrowCross]

But what did that mean? Did it mean the absence of photons? Or did it mean something deeper, more theological and profound,

It could mean God turned on Hs shekinah glory...kinda lke the way He will light up the city....5 There will be no more night in the city, and they will have no need for the light of a lamp or of the sun. For the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.

or...perhaps it's when He ceated the angels...or...perhaps God turned the watery earth into glowing magma used to form the land.

 

[John Bauer]

It could mean God turned on Hs shekinah glory...kinda lke the way He will light up the city....5 There will be no more night in the city, and they will have no need for the light of a lamp or of the sun. For the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.

or...perhaps it's when He ceated the angels...or...perhaps God turned the watery earth into glowing magma used to form the land.

I think you were a lot closer to the truth with that first one.

 

[CrowCross]

4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (a weighted average of meteorite and terrestrial evidence).

How do you know the meteorites are that old? Because the "scientist" say so?

 

[CrowCross]

You were asked a strict "yes" or "no" question. You were not asked a why-question.

What then is your definition of material ontology?

Do you believe there is only 3 dimensions + time?

 

[John Bauer]

How do you know the meteorites are that old? Because the "scientist" say so?

I don't know how old they are. The scientists do. And I've read their stuff, find them credible, and have reason to believe them.

And why are there scare-quotes around the word "scientist"?

What then is your definition of material ontology?

Material ontology is the branch of ontology that defines existence primarily in terms of matter or material substance. In other words, for a material ontology, to exist means to be materially constituted, to have physical substance, to be composed of matter, or to be embedded within space-time as a material entity.

Now, answer my question with either "yes," "no," or "I don't know."

Do you believe there is only 3 [spatial] dimensions + time?

No.

 

[Carbon]

The problem is the science developed by man that "suggest" the earth is old is flawed.

Well of course it is

 

[Carbon]

The problem is the science developed by man that "suggest" the earth is old is flawed.

It could also be they are in agreement with what they are actually finding?

 

[EarlyActs]

I understand the polemic function of the creation narrative. However, pointing that out does nothing to address the question at hand (i.e., whether the ancient Israelites shared our materialist ontology).

(Lamoureux? Really? You're citing a guy who denies that Adam was a historical person.)




And since that is roughly 850 years prior to the development of material ontology, it gives us more reason to doubt they had one.

I referenced Lamoreux because of knowledge of Egyptian theology, not Biblical

 

[EarlyActs]

I understand the polemic function of the creation narrative. However, pointing that out does nothing to address the question at hand (i.e., whether the ancient Israelites shared our materialist ontology).

(Lamoureux? Really? You're citing a guy who denies that Adam was a historical person.)




And since that is roughly 850 years prior to the development of material ontology, it gives us more reason to doubt they had one.

I have yet to see any reason not to think the material world of Gen 1 was substantially the same as Ps 104, or the Greeks. You seem to refer to some other conception of things and the source is Gen 1. Are you doing 'Bible code' or something when you read it? Hebrew numerology?

Are you saying the LXX team left a more supernatural world hinted in 1:2's 'tohu' when they used the Greek word for submerged to be more 'material', more grounded?

 

[EarlyActs]

Same.

It is worth noting that I never claimed it was.




What may be obvious to us is completely irrelevant to the task of interpreting the biblical text, which is what this is about.




Cool. Provide a link to just one.

re the obvious and interpretation
So once again, you put the narrative outside the realm of normal communication as far as I can tell. Meaning, instead of us being able to read it in transliteration and see word choices to gain the normal sense of it, some other kind of 'trick' is going on. I don't follow this line of thinking. The LXX provides a type of commentary, and the first one of its kind. There are the passages by Moses on the days of creation that provide a bit, but not of the whole. The LXX team made it refer to normal material reality and didn't bother to use any nuance that would confine it to a polemic of Egyptian theology.

 

[EarlyActs]

Same.

It is worth noting that I never claimed it was.




What may be obvious to us is completely irrelevant to the task of interpreting the biblical text, which is what this is about.




Cool. Provide a link to just one.

Pastor N Smith, Dungeness Comm Ch, Sequim WA but I don't have his source; he reviewed it in a creation apologetics week in the 90s. It might have been Waltke, below. I took intro to Hebrew from Waltke at Regent College in the early 80s.

B. Waltke, CREATION AND CHAOS

J. Peterson, U Toronto, Psychology, about 10 years ago on an interview on CBC Radio, addressed the 'imprint' we have as humans having the image of God, to change chaos to order, an imprint from Gen 1; the entire structure of the chapter was the evidence.

https://www.gotquestions.org/order-vs-chaos.htmlBut very brief

https://askjohnmackay.com/genesis-days-2-parallel-symbolic-lists-of-3-days-forming-3-days-filling/Obviously, enough people had noticed a pair of 3 days to comment about it. But it has too many exceptions to turn into poetry. There is still the sensible progression of spheres/realms before the populating of them.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, creating means bringing something into existence. Ontology is precisely the key issue. Your response simply assumes the very thing to be proved (that the original author and audience understood existence in material terms). You can't just impose an assumption on the text and call that an interpretation.

Interpretation is drawn from within the text (exegesis), not imposed on it from without (eisegesis).




You are still speaking of light in material terms—photons and electromagnetic activity—whether from the sun, moon, or stars. Did the ancient Israelites analyze "light" in terms of material particles? Clearly not, for that idea belongs to modern physics. They didn't even know that Earth was a planet or that it orbited the Sun.

This is why we need to understand their ontology; it will help us understand what "create" means, what "light" means, etc. Seriously, what if they had a radically different ontology? What if darkness meant obscurity, disorder, and threat, while light meant disclosure, order, and safety? It would really change what God meant when he commanded, "Let there be light!"

You're right, it was "utterly, insensibly dark (no sense of depth or distance)." But what did that mean? Did it mean the absence of photons? Or did it mean something deeper, more theological and profound, clues of which can be found simply in the original language and historical setting (and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic)?




I agree—but in its original language and historical setting (historical-grammatical exegesis). Our English language and categories of thought are irrelevant and out of place, especially our material ontology and how we understand light.

And I strongly suggest that a person explore the text in its original language and historical setting. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (the native language of the ancient people of God) and the New Testament in Greek (the language most widely known internationally at the time the New Testament was written) were directly inspired by God and have been kept uncontaminated throughout time by his special care and providence. They are therefore authentic and are to be the church's ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy" (WCF 1.8). The Reformers were adamant: Only the Hebrew and Greek autographs (as preserved in the apographa) carry divine authority.

But if you prefer to draw storyboards ... well, have fun.

Hey John! I have been in this kind of study for 50 years. No need to underestimate me by defining ex- or eisegesis, OK?

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, creating means bringing something into existence. Ontology is precisely the key issue. Your response simply assumes the very thing to be proved (that the original author and audience understood existence in material terms). You can't just impose an assumption on the text and call that an interpretation.

Interpretation is drawn from within the text (exegesis), not imposed on it from without (eisegesis).




You are still speaking of light in material terms—photons and electromagnetic activity—whether from the sun, moon, or stars. Did the ancient Israelites analyze "light" in terms of material particles? Clearly not, for that idea belongs to modern physics. They didn't even know that Earth was a planet or that it orbited the Sun.

This is why we need to understand their ontology; it will help us understand what "create" means, what "light" means, etc. Seriously, what if they had a radically different ontology? What if darkness meant obscurity, disorder, and threat, while light meant disclosure, order, and safety? It would really change what God meant when he commanded, "Let there be light!"

You're right, it was "utterly, insensibly dark (no sense of depth or distance)." But what did that mean? Did it mean the absence of photons? Or did it mean something deeper, more theological and profound, clues of which can be found simply in the original language and historical setting (and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic)?




I agree—but in its original language and historical setting (historical-grammatical exegesis). Our English language and categories of thought are irrelevant and out of place, especially our material ontology and how we understand light.




And I strongly suggest that a person explore the text in its original language and historical setting. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (the native language of the ancient people of God) and the New Testament in Greek (the language most widely known internationally at the time the New Testament was written) were directly inspired by God and have been kept uncontaminated throughout time by his special care and providence. They are therefore authentic and are to be the church's ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy" (WCF 1.8). The Reformers were adamant: Only the Hebrew and Greek autographs (as preserved in the apographa) carry divine authority.

But if you prefer to draw storyboards ... well, have fun.

re creating
I made it clear that it is NOT always bring something into existence. You could call creation week 'creating' but part of it is 'placing' and the definition of that in proximal material is to bring something that exists and place it where it will make something happen. I also distinguished 'placing' from the more random 'spreading out.'

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, creating means bringing something into existence. Ontology is precisely the key issue. Your response simply assumes the very thing to be proved (that the original author and audience understood existence in material terms). You can't just impose an assumption on the text and call that an interpretation.

Interpretation is drawn from within the text (exegesis), not imposed on it from without (eisegesis).




You are still speaking of light in material terms—photons and electromagnetic activity—whether from the sun, moon, or stars. Did the ancient Israelites analyze "light" in terms of material particles? Clearly not, for that idea belongs to modern physics. They didn't even know that Earth was a planet or that it orbited the Sun.

This is why we need to understand their ontology; it will help us understand what "create" means, what "light" means, etc. Seriously, what if they had a radically different ontology? What if darkness meant obscurity, disorder, and threat, while light meant disclosure, order, and safety? It would really change what God meant when he commanded, "Let there be light!"

You're right, it was "utterly, insensibly dark (no sense of depth or distance)." But what did that mean? Did it mean the absence of photons? Or did it mean something deeper, more theological and profound, clues of which can be found simply in the original language and historical setting (and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic)?




I agree—but in its original language and historical setting (historical-grammatical exegesis). Our English language and categories of thought are irrelevant and out of place, especially our material ontology and how we understand light.




And I strongly suggest that a person explore the text in its original language and historical setting. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (the native language of the ancient people of God) and the New Testament in Greek (the language most widely known internationally at the time the New Testament was written) were directly inspired by God and have been kept uncontaminated throughout time by his special care and providence. They are therefore authentic and are to be the church's ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy" (WCF 1.8). The Reformers were adamant: Only the Hebrew and Greek autographs (as preserved in the apographa) carry divine authority.

But if you prefer to draw storyboards ... well, have fun.

re exegesis
I cannot see where I'm putting anything on the text; let me know a specific.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, creating means bringing something into existence. Ontology is precisely the key issue. Your response simply assumes the very thing to be proved (that the original author and audience understood existence in material terms). You can't just impose an assumption on the text and call that an interpretation.

Interpretation is drawn from within the text (exegesis), not imposed on it from without (eisegesis).




You are still speaking of light in material terms—photons and electromagnetic activity—whether from the sun, moon, or stars. Did the ancient Israelites analyze "light" in terms of material particles? Clearly not, for that idea belongs to modern physics. They didn't even know that Earth was a planet or that it orbited the Sun.

This is why we need to understand their ontology; it will help us understand what "create" means, what "light" means, etc. Seriously, what if they had a radically different ontology? What if darkness meant obscurity, disorder, and threat, while light meant disclosure, order, and safety? It would really change what God meant when he commanded, "Let there be light!"

You're right, it was "utterly, insensibly dark (no sense of depth or distance)." But what did that mean? Did it mean the absence of photons? Or did it mean something deeper, more theological and profound, clues of which can be found simply in the original language and historical setting (and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic)?




I agree—but in its original language and historical setting (historical-grammatical exegesis). Our English language and categories of thought are irrelevant and out of place, especially our material ontology and how we understand light.




And I strongly suggest that a person explore the text in its original language and historical setting. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (the native language of the ancient people of God) and the New Testament in Greek (the language most widely known internationally at the time the New Testament was written) were directly inspired by God and have been kept uncontaminated throughout time by his special care and providence. They are therefore authentic and are to be the church's ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy" (WCF 1.8). The Reformers were adamant: Only the Hebrew and Greek autographs (as preserved in the apographa) carry divine authority.

But if you prefer to draw storyboards ... well, have fun.

re their sense of darkness and light
The light defined the start of a day. There was utter darkness before and light arrived Day 1. Don't overthink.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, creating means bringing something into existence. Ontology is precisely the key issue. Your response simply assumes the very thing to be proved (that the original author and audience understood existence in material terms). You can't just impose an assumption on the text and call that an interpretation.

Interpretation is drawn from within the text (exegesis), not imposed on it from without (eisegesis).




You are still speaking of light in material terms—photons and electromagnetic activity—whether from the sun, moon, or stars. Did the ancient Israelites analyze "light" in terms of material particles? Clearly not, for that idea belongs to modern physics. They didn't even know that Earth was a planet or that it orbited the Sun.

This is why we need to understand their ontology; it will help us understand what "create" means, what "light" means, etc. Seriously, what if they had a radically different ontology? What if darkness meant obscurity, disorder, and threat, while light meant disclosure, order, and safety? It would really change what God meant when he commanded, "Let there be light!"

You're right, it was "utterly, insensibly dark (no sense of depth or distance)." But what did that mean? Did it mean the absence of photons? Or did it mean something deeper, more theological and profound, clues of which can be found simply in the original language and historical setting (and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic)?




I agree—but in its original language and historical setting (historical-grammatical exegesis). Our English language and categories of thought are irrelevant and out of place, especially our material ontology and how we understand light.




And I strongly suggest that a person explore the text in its original language and historical setting. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (the native language of the ancient people of God) and the New Testament in Greek (the language most widely known internationally at the time the New Testament was written) were directly inspired by God and have been kept uncontaminated throughout time by his special care and providence. They are therefore authentic and are to be the church's ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy" (WCF 1.8). The Reformers were adamant: Only the Hebrew and Greek autographs (as preserved in the apographa) carry divine authority.

But if you prefer to draw storyboards ... well, have fun.

re language
Our own language cannot be totally dismissed. There are still tenses. There are still times. There is still completeness or not. The loss or gain of meaning is actually in origins of phrases, which is why we can read English (!) from 200 years ago and be at a complete loss.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, creating means bringing something into existence. Ontology is precisely the key issue. Your response simply assumes the very thing to be proved (that the original author and audience understood existence in material terms). You can't just impose an assumption on the text and call that an interpretation.

Interpretation is drawn from within the text (exegesis), not imposed on it from without (eisegesis).




You are still speaking of light in material terms—photons and electromagnetic activity—whether from the sun, moon, or stars. Did the ancient Israelites analyze "light" in terms of material particles? Clearly not, for that idea belongs to modern physics. They didn't even know that Earth was a planet or that it orbited the Sun.

This is why we need to understand their ontology; it will help us understand what "create" means, what "light" means, etc. Seriously, what if they had a radically different ontology? What if darkness meant obscurity, disorder, and threat, while light meant disclosure, order, and safety? It would really change what God meant when he commanded, "Let there be light!"

You're right, it was "utterly, insensibly dark (no sense of depth or distance)." But what did that mean? Did it mean the absence of photons? Or did it mean something deeper, more theological and profound, clues of which can be found simply in the original language and historical setting (and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic)?




I agree—but in its original language and historical setting (historical-grammatical exegesis). Our English language and categories of thought are irrelevant and out of place, especially our material ontology and how we understand light.




And I strongly suggest that a person explore the text in its original language and historical setting. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (the native language of the ancient people of God) and the New Testament in Greek (the language most widely known internationally at the time the New Testament was written) were directly inspired by God and have been kept uncontaminated throughout time by his special care and providence. They are therefore authentic and are to be the church's ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy" (WCF 1.8). The Reformers were adamant: Only the Hebrew and Greek autographs (as preserved in the apographa) carry divine authority.

But if you prefer to draw storyboards ... well, have fun.

re original language
Been there, done that for years. And still find that people can miss the very action being reported to them. Pattern recognition is as important as translation. For ex., the repeated pattern in Genesis that a topic of less interest gets scant detail ('and he had other sons and daughters), while the most interest gets much more (the first born).

McKay, in the link above about the 3-day pairs, for ex., doesn't realize what 1:1 is and this makes people miss time before Day 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

Not really if you separate Gen 1 and Gen 2 as two differing accounts.

No... this is what I mean. And I am condensing and simplifying as much as I can.... Y'all can look it up for verification

In Gen 1

The First Day
3And God said, “Let there be light,

The Second Day
6And God said, “Let there be an expanse ~ 8God called the expanse “sky.”

The Third Day
9“Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, 10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” 11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation:

The Fourth Day
14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky
16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.

The Fifth Day
20And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth

The Sixth Day
24And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds:

TO THIS POINT IT WAS ALL NICE AND ORDERLY.

light
sky
waters and dry land
vegetation
more light
waters with life and birds in the air
and living creatures for the earth

ORDERLY

AND THEN

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,
27male and female He created them.
28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth
29Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. They will be yours for food

In Gen 2

Once we pass the 7th day rest intro

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created,

5Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant, no man to cultivate the ground.

NOTE: IN GEN 1 EVERYTHING WAS MADE AND GROWING BEFORE GOD MADE MAN AND WOMAN. THE SEAS WERE STOCKED, THE BIRDS IN THE AIR WERE FLYING, THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD WERE MADE AND THEN CAME THE MAN AND THE WOMAN.

6 But springsc welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

STILL AT THIS POINT NOTHING IS GROWING, THERE ARE NO FISH BIRDS OR ANIMALS.

NOW
7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

AFTER THE MAN IS FORMED AND GOD BREATHED LIFE INTO HIM HE GOES AND PLANTS A GARDEN FOR THE MAN TO LIVE IN... NOT THE ENTIRE EARTH....

8And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.

9 Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

AND THROUGH VERSE 10 THROUGH 14 WE HEAR OF THE RIVERS AND WHY THEY ARE SPECIAL

15Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.

BY HIMSELF

16And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,

17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;

18The LORD God also said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper.”

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

21So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the area with flesh.

22And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him

23And the man said:

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’

IN GEN 1 WE HAD AN ORDERLY START TO THINGS WITH GOD MAKING MAN AND WOMAN AT THE END OF
ALL PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE. THEY WERE TOLD TO GO CARE FOR IT AND THE EARTH AND TO MULTIPLY.

IN GEN 2 WE HAVE

no shrub yet but a mention of springs
nothing is growing yet. no fish, birds or animals
then God made man and breathed life into him
finally he made the garden in Eden
and THEN put the man there.
And God caused the trees to grow, including the ones forbidden
And God told the man to cultivate the garden
And he told the man he could eat of every tree except
the tree of knowledge of good and evil

then God knew he needed a helper
So he brought all the animals, and birds for the man to name
BUT no helper was found for him

So God caused him to fall asleep and took a rib.
And formed a woman from the man's rib
And Adam called her woman, for she was taken from man

NOT EXACTLY THE NICE ORDER OF GEN 1

Gen 1 and the first couple were told to tend the earth, to multiply, and that they were allowed to eat of the plants and trees with NO exception.

Gen 2 and the man was placed in a specially made garden just for him , and God was going to allow him to name and pick an animal or bird to be his helper, and when none was found created a woman from the mans rib. He was told to eat of all the trees, just not the one of Good and Evil.

The difference is, aside from telling the man to cultivate the garden, they could eat of any tree but the one of good and evil.

Adam and Eve were treated entirely differently from the first couple.

Adam had life breathed into him. There was no mention of this when God simply said Let us make man in our image and he made them... at the same time.

And the fact there was not a 7th day to be rest and kept holy in Gen 1 leads me further to believe that Gen 2 is an entirely different story being tied together or trying to with Gen 1 and we have no real way of knowing the timing of either.

Do you know a theological article on the pair of 2 creation days?

 

[EarlyActs]

re language
Our own language cannot be totally dismissed. There are still tenses. There are still times. There is still completeness or not. The loss or gain of meaning is actually in origins of phrases, which is why we can read English (!) from 200 years ago and be at a complete loss.

Re apographa
I need a reference here. The term is about a census like Lk 2, or other inventories. And the ‘book of life’ in Rev20. Perhaps it gets used for the canon of documents in the Bible; but the BAG lexicon with all its citations out to the 10th century AD does not locate such a usage.