Bible Study Does the Bible communicate a young age of the Earth, Yes or No?

[chessman]

... I'd like to ask that you allow me (and others) to interject their thoughts and bring in the thoughts of experts on the subject. I trust this will not exceed your patience with dealing with the thoughts and opinions of others. ...I would like to ask you to contrast what you have said about the relative age of the mountains being "ancient" and what the Lord has said about His creative acts: Isa 48:3, "I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass," would seem an excellent target for further research, yes? This is the link from the tool you provided: Isa 48:3.

It's not for me to say what others are allowed to post or not. I'd just hope that people are quoting Scripture accurately and that they are relevant to what the Bible has to say about the age of the Earth and discussing them and yes even giving their opinions/analysis on them.

It's true that I'm not the most patient person in the world, I mean the USA, I mean Florida, I mean my house. I may be the most impatient person ever. But I do try to get better.

In my opinion, and with just a quick glance at what commentators have to say about this passage, I don’t see how it’s relevant. I could be wrong or missing your point or something. Is 48 in general (context) is about God chastising if you will, Israel for their stubbornness and unbelief in God’s word. Are you saying Is 48:3 is discussing what God had to say about Creation?
Maybe you are understanding “in the beginning†as reference to creation. I’m assuming here so correct me if I’m wrong. But if that’s true, I believe it’s an incorrect assumption. In fact the context is pretty clear that what God means here by “in the beginning†was in the beginning of Israel as a chosen people and/or of His prophesizing things that would happen to them (Israel) and that in fact had come true to them already in thier history. Yet they still refused to obey, etc. etc. I don't think "in the beginning" is a reference to creation in the frist place.

The Amplified notes (for just one example) on this passage indicate that this is not a reference to the beginning for the Earth or Creation.

Is 48 (AMP) 1Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel and who come forth from the seed of Judah, you who swear allegiance by the name of the Lord and make mention of the God of Israel—but not in truth and sincerity, nor in righteousness (rightness and moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation)—2 For they call themselves [citizens] of the holy city and depend on the God of Israel—the Lord of hosts is His name.</SPAN>3 I have declared from the beginning the former things [which happened in times past to Israel]; they went forth from My mouth and I made them known; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass [says the Lord].</SPAN>4 Because I knew that you were obstinate, and your neck was an iron sinew and your brow was brass,</SPAN>5 Therefore I have declared things to come to you from of old; before they came to pass I announced them to you, so that you could not say, My idol has done them, and my graven image and my molten image have commanded them.</SPAN>6 You have heard [these things foretold], now you see this fulfillment. And will you not bear witness to it? I show you specified new things from this time forth, even hidden things [kept in reserve] which you have not known.</SPAN></SPAN>
​

So when God says here “from of old†He “declared from the beginningâ€, etc. He means His prophecies prior to Isaiah's time. So let’s say Isaiah wrote this during Uzziah’s reign (ironically with regard to the genealogy discussions) around 740 B.C. It would then be all the prophecies already given to Isarel (people called by His name) that had come true by then that is being discussed , not creation. Anyway, there’s my take on the passage. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see how it’s relevant to our discussion.

Maybe you mean He in fact calls the prophecies "of old" when they were what, maybe just a few hundred years "old". I don't know. Was that your point?

 

[Sparkey]

Hasel begins his conclusion with many of the things we've discussed here. The "definite article "The", the "evening-morning boundary," Singular vs. Plural, its use in conjunction with numbers (both ordinal and cardinal) and etc.

• I've cut the footnote notations that you may see by navigating to the original; HERE. They were getting up past 100.
• I've modified some of the biblical references so that they would work with RefTagger add-in on this forum.
• I've added formatting
• Finally, I've pointed (in places) to where our discussions here coincide with the author's text.

5. Considerations Based on Singular Usage. The Hebrew term yom appears in the Hebrew Old Testament 2,304 times of which 1,452 usages are in the singular.

In the Five Books of Moses (Pentateuch) this term is used 668 times and in the book of Genesis it is employed 152 times. In Genesis the singular usage of "day" appears 83 times, the remainder usages are in the plural.

In the enumeration of the six "days" of creation the term "day" is used consistently in the singular. There is one plural use in the phrase "for days and years" in Gen 1:14 which is, of course, not a creation "day." This plural usage in vs.14 hardly enters the discussion of making creation "days" long periods of time since calendrical usage of "days and years" keeps it literal itself. There is no doubt but that the literal meaning of 24-hour days are meant in vs.14 just as the "years" are likewise understood as literal years.

The additional usages of "day" in the singular in Genesis 1 are found in vss.5 and 16. (Gen 1:5,16) "And God called the light 'day' (yom)" (Gen 1:5) and God made the "greater light to govern the day" (Gen 1:16). The term in vs.5 is employed in the sense of the literal daylight period of the light part of the 24-hour period of time in contrast to the night part, "the night" (Gen 1:16), of the same period of time.104 Both "day" and "night" make a "full day."

We have to recognize the fact that the term yom in every one of the six days has the same connection:

• a) It is used as a singular;
• b) it has a numeral; and
• c) it is preceded by the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning."

This triple interlocking connection of singular usage, joined by a numeral, and the temporal definition of "evening and morning," keeps the creation "day" the same throughout the creation account. It also reveals that "time is conceived as linear and events occur within it successively." To depart from the numerical, consecutive linkage and the "evening-morning" boundaries in such direct language would mean to take extreme liberty with the plain and direct meaning of the Hebrew language.
​

6. Considerations Based on Numeral Usage. The six creation "days" are in each instance joined with a numeral in the sequence of one to six (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). The day following the "sixth day," the "day" on which God rested, is designated "the seventh day" (Genesis 2:2 [2 times], Gen 2:3).

What seems of significance is the sequential emphasis of the numerals 1-7 without any break or temporal interruption. This seven-day schema, the schema of the week of six workdays followed by "the seventh day" as rest day, interlinks the creation "days" as normal days in a consecutive and non-interrupted sequence.

When the word yom, "day," is employed together with a numeral, which happens 150 times in the Old Testament, it refers in the Old Testament invariably to a literal day of 24 hours.​

This rule is pervasive in the Old Testament. The only exception in numbers of 1-1,000 is found in an eschatological text in Zechariah 14:7. The Hebrew expression yô'echad employed in Zechariah 14:7 is rendered into English in a variety of ways: "for it will be a unique day" (New American Standard Bible, New International Version); "and there shall be continuous day" (New Revised Standard Version); "it will be continuous day" (Revised English Bible); or "and the day shall be one." The "continuous day," or "one day," of the eschatological future will be one in which the normal rhythm of evening and morning, day and night, as it is known will be changed so that in that eschatological day there shall be "light even at the evening" (vs.7). It is generally acknowledged that this is a difficult text in the Hebrew language and can hardly be used to change the plain usage in Genesis 1.

7. Considerations Based on Article Usage. The term "day" is used in Hebrew without the article in each instance of each creation day, except in the cases of "the sixth day" (Genesis 1:31, Hebrew yom hashshish) and "the seventh day" (Genesis 2:2).

It is noted from time to time that the first "day" of Genesis 1:5 in Hebrew reads literally "one day," because we have the cardinal number "one" used with the term "day." [Here then is confirmation for the chessman observation]

The lack of the definite article has been interpreted to mean that all creation "days" (except "the sixth day," which has the article) will allow "for the possibility of random or literary order as well as a rigidly chronological order."

[Expert opinion]: This is a rather shaky interpretation. It cannot be supported from semantic-syntactical points of view.
​

We need to understand the syntax of the Hebrew text and interpret the text accordingly without violence to the internal structure of the Hebrew language. The recent research grammar by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor points out that the indefinite noun yom with the indefinite cardinal numeral for "one" (Hebrew 'echad) in Genesis 1:5 has "an emphatic, counting force" and a "definite sense" in addition to having the force of an ordinal number which is to be rendered as "the first day." [confirming the westtexas assertion]

Based on this syntactical observation of the Hebrew language, "the first day" and "the sixth day" of the creation week are meant to be definite in the sense that they have the article by syntactical rule or by writing (not to speak of "the seventh day" which will be considered below). The first and last creation "days" are definite by syntax or writing, the first by syntactical function and the last by the usage of the article. One observation emerges -- this definite usage of the first and last day of creation forms a literary device, an inclusio, which frames the six creation "days" with definite or articular days. One of the intentions of this usage seems to be that the "days" of Genesis 1 do not permit the conclusion that random order or chronological order is an open-ended issue.

The opposite is actually the case. Since the first and sixth days are definite, providing a clear boundary, the days are meant to be chronological and sequential, forming an uninterrupted six-day period of literal 24-hour days of creation. Thus, the definite use of the first and sixth days respectively mark and frame the six-day sequence into a coherent sequential and chronological unit of time which will be repeated in each successive week.

"The seventh day" is also written with the Hebrew article. Since "the first day" (vs.5) is definite as well as "the sixth day" (vs.31), a larger unit is formed. It is the unit of six workdays followed by "the seventh day" (Genesis 2:2,3), the day of rest. In this way the sequence of six workdays find their goal and climax chronologically and sequentially in "the seventh day," making together the weekly cycle with the day of rest being the "seventh day" of the week.

The larger unit of literal time accordingly consists of the divinely planned unit of the "six-plus-one schema" which consists of the "six" workdays followed in an uninterrupted manner and in sequence by "the seventh day" of rest. This uninterrupted sequence is divinely planned and ordained as the rhythm of the time for each successive week.
​

8. Considerations Based on the "Evening-Morning" Boundary. The Genesis creation account not only links each day to a sequential numeral but it also sets the time boundaries by "evening and morning" (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The rhythmic boundary phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning," provides a definition of the creation "day." The creation "day" is defined as consisting of "evening" and "morning." It is a literal "day."

The term for "evening" (Hebrew 'ereb) covers the dark part of the day in a pars pro toto (meaning that a part, in this case the "evening," stands for the whole dark part of the day) usage (cf. "day-night" in Genesis 1:14). The corresponding term "morning" (Hebrew bqer) stands pars pro toto (meaning that a part, in this case the "morning," stands for the light part of the day) "for the entire period of daylight." It is to be noted that the "evening-morning" expression must be understood to have the same signification in every one of its six usages.
​

"Evening and morning" is a temporal expression which defines each "day" of creation as a literal day. It cannot be made to mean anything else.

9. Considerations Based on Pentateuchal Sabbath Passages. Another kind of internal evidence provided in the Old Testament for the meaning of days derives from two Sabbath passages in the Pentateuch which refer back to the creation "days." They inform the reader how the creation "days" were understood by God.

The first passage is part of the Fourth Commandment spoken by God on Mt. Sinai and recorded recorded in Exodus 20:9-11: "Six days you shall do all your labor...but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God....For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth...and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

"These words" are spoken by Yahweh Himself (vs. 1). The linkages to creation are in wording ("seventh day," "heaven and earth," "rested," "blessed," "made it holy") and in the "six-plus-one" schema (see also Deuteronomy 5:13-14) to mention but these. Evidently the words used in the Ten Commandments take the creation "day" as "a regular day"119 of 24 hours and demonstrate that the weekly cycle is a temporal creation ordinance.
​

These words of the Lord provide an internal Pentateuch and Old Testament guideline on how God, the Giver of the "Ten Words" understands the creation "day." The divine speech which promulgates the Sabbath commandment takes the "six days" of creation to be sequential, chronological and literal.

The argument that the relationship of the Fourth Commandment is but an "analogy" or "archetype" in the sense that man's rest on the seventh day ought to be like God's rest in creation is based on reductionism and an impermissible change of imagery. Terence Fretheim noted incisively that the Commandment does not use analogy or archetypal thinking but that its emphasis is "stated in terms of the imitation of God or a divine precedent that is to be followed: god worked for six days and rested on the seventh, and therefore you should do the same."​

The second Pentateuchal Sabbath passage is Exodus 31:15-17, which is again spoken by God Himself. It has several terminological linkages with Genesis 1 and is conceptually and thematically related to it. This passage has to be understood to mean that the creation "day" was a literal day and that the days were sequential and chronological. The weekly sabbath for God's people is based on imitation and example, for "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day he ceased from labor, and was refreshed" (vs. 17, New American Standard Bible).

God was refreshed because He had delight in His completed work of creation. Humankind will also be refreshed and have delight when the Sabbath as "seventh day" (vs. 15) is kept.

The "sign" nature of the Sabbath in vs. 15 reveals that the Sabbath keeper follows the divine Exemplar. He Himself kept "the seventh day" which humans who belong to Him will imitate. They will do so in the same rhythm of the literal weekly cycle of six literal workdays followed chronologically and sequentially by "the seventh day" as a day of rest and refreshment as their Creator had done during creation week.
​

10. Considerations Based on Sequence of Events. The creation of vegetation with seed-bearing plants and fruit trees took place on the third day (Genesis 1:11-12).

Much of this vegetation seems to need insects for pollination. Insects were created on the fifth day (vs.20). If the survival of those types of plants which needed insects for pollination depended on them to generate seeds and to perpetuate themselves, then there would be a serious problem should the creation "day" consist of long ages or aeons. The type of plant life dependent on this type of pollination process without the presence of insects could not have survived for these long periods of time, if "day" were to mean "age" or "aeon." In addition, "consistency of interpretation in the day-age theory" would demand a long period of light and darkness during each of the ages. This would quickly be fatal both to plant and animal life."​

It seems that the creation "day" is expected to be understood as a literal day and not as a long period of time whether ages, periods, or aeons.

Although these arguments may not be decisive, they nevertheless point in the same direction as the decisive linguistic and semantic points which are found in the Hebrew text itself.

 

[Sparkey]

It's not for me to say what others are allowed to post or not. I'd just hope that people are quoting Scripture accurately and that they are relevant to what the Bible has to say about the age of the Earth and discussing them and yes even giving their opinions/analysis on them.

It's true that I'm not the most patient person in the world, I mean the USA, I mean Florida, I mean my house. I may be the most impatient person ever. But I do try to get better.

In my opinion, and with just a quick glance at what commentators have to say about this passage, I don’t see how it’s relevant. I could be wrong or missing your point or something. Is 48 in general (context) is about God chastising if you will, Israel for their stubbornness and unbelief in God’s word. Are you saying Is 48:3 is discussing what God had to say about Creation?
Maybe you are understanding “in the beginning” as reference to creation. I’m assuming here so correct me if I’m wrong. But if that’s true, I believe it’s an incorrect assumption. In fact the context is pretty clear that what God means here by “in the beginning” was in the beginning of Israel as a chosen people and/or of His prophesizing things that would happen to them (Israel) and that in fact had come true to them already in thier history. Yet they still refused to obey, etc. etc. I don't think "in the beginning" is a reference to creation in the frist place.

The Amplified notes (for just one example) on this passage indicate that this is not a reference to the beginning for the Earth or Creation.

Is 48 (AMP) 1Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel and who come forth from the seed of Judah, you who swear allegiance by the name of the Lord and make mention of the God of Israel—but not in truth and sincerity, nor in righteousness (rightness and moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation)—2 For they call themselves [citizens] of the holy city and depend on the God of Israel—the Lord of hosts is His name.</SPAN>3 I have declared from the beginning the former things [which happened in times past to Israel]; they went forth from My mouth and I made them known; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass [says the Lord].</SPAN>4 Because I knew that you were obstinate, and your neck was an iron sinew and your brow was brass,</SPAN>5 Therefore I have declared things to come to you from of old; before they came to pass I announced them to you, so that you could not say, My idol has done them, and my graven image and my molten image have commanded them.</SPAN>6 You have heard [these things foretold], now you see this fulfillment. And will you not bear witness to it? I show you specified new things from this time forth, even hidden things [kept in reserve] which you have not known.</SPAN></SPAN>
​

So when God says here “from of old” He “declared from the beginning”, etc. He means His prophecies prior to Isaiah's time. So let’s say Isaiah wrote this during Uzziah’s reign (ironically with regard to the genealogy discussions) around 740 B.C. It would then be all the prophecies already given to Isarel (people called by His name) that had come true by then that is being discussed , not creation. Anyway, there’s my take on the passage. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see how it’s relevant to our discussion.

Maybe you mean He in fact calls the prophecies "of old" when they were what, maybe just a few hundred years "old". I don't know. Was that your point?

I suggest that you look at what I've said, without assumptions or implications (conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated), without looking beyond my words for additional meanings, and attempt to understand what I meant. I think God spoke. Do you think the response to His command was immediate or sudden or is there an alternative view?

Perhaps my point was not well articulated. Have you looked at Hasel's point?

 

[Sparkey]

From your Original Post, setting part of the tone for this discussion:

Does the Bible (the original Hebrew and/or Greek texts) communicate a young age of the Earth to its readers? Yes or No?

If the truth is no (and Christians are truth seekers), should Christians teach that it does?

I am claiming the answer is no, simply put, because nowhere in the text does the Bible state the age of the Earth as young. However, the closet thing I can find for an age is “ancient” or “old” in the Bible.

Genesis 49:26 (NIV) 26 Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than the bounty of the age-old hills.

So the purpose for this thread is to see if I am wrong about this assertion? I’m open to being wrong on this point. Maybe I’m missing something.

chessman, have I not offered something for you to consider in your private thoughts? I'm not insisting that you are wrong here, although you have invited that, what I mean to do is to show you another thought about it. I trust the Holy Spirit to guide you well. Others have stated that this is not a Salvic Issue. I agree. It may not be compared to the Salvic Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice, and I refuse to treat it that way. Certainly, I've offered more than the "Yes/No" answer you've called for, more than any other contributor to this thread when my quoted sections are included. I would ask your continued tolerance as I leave you to read Hasel's conclusions for yourself and go further to quote Jewish experts.

You have made the allegation that "YEC's ... are not being true to the text." Can you say the same for G. F. Hasel? I can't. Frankly, I'm out of my depth there and would not know where to begin if I were confronted so pointedly and expressly as that.

 

[reba]

I think it is just so cool the way God wrote His book.... He could have said the first thing I did was start a 24 hour clock... He could have said I formed the earth let is set for a 1,000,000 years then did XYZ..... Had he done so what would we all talk about? HIs Word is alive!

 

[jasoncran]

Lord I don't miss this argument of what genesis means. if we take genesis out of what it means then we miss the richness of what is there! the torah!

 

[chessman]

I suggest that you look at what I've said, without assumptions or implications (conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated), without looking beyond my words for additional meanings, and attempt to understand what I meant. I think God spoke. Do you think the response to His command was immediate or sudden or is there an alternative view? Perhaps my point was not well articulated. Have you looked at Hasel's point?

I did look at what you said. you said "I would like to ask you to contrast what you have said about the relative age of the mountains being "ancient" and what the Lord has said about His creative acts: Isa 48:3" I said I cannot find any creative acts in Isa 48:3 to contrast with "ancient mountains". I then politely asked for you to clarify what you meant. Then you respond with "I suggest that you look at what I've said, without assumptions or implications (conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated), without looking beyond my words for additional meanings, and attempt to understand what I meant."

But you're right about one thing. My patience wears too thin to continue this thread any linger. Thanks for yall’s time.

God Bless.

 

[Sparkey]

Three answers:

The 'catch all' meaning of the word 'yom' is 'time period'

The precise meaning of yom in tanach has 4 meanings depending on the context.

1. Either Yom as in daylight (12 hours)
2. Yom as a single day (24 hours)
3. Yom as a year or two (As used in shmuel and Yehoshua)
4. Yom can be an indefinite amount of time, such as the word 'b'yom meaning 'when, or the phrase 'Ad hayom hazeh' (until this day)

In (Genesis) both the first and second meanings of the word are clearly used and the 4th meaning of the word is arguably used. There is no single opinion agreed upon by everyone as to which meaning is used where.

It is agreed upon by everyone that the word 'Yom' is not used to mean the rising and setting of the sun however, because the sun was not placed in the sky to rise or set until the 4th yom. (though 24 halachic hours is still the pshat, it's just not sun related halachic hours) And the Yom that is light, is defined in the first day. This often leads to understandings that the light of the yom is a spiritual rather than physical light. (see Rashi)

The idea of a yom in Genesis [our forum auto-censor will not allow me to quote the Hebrew word bere++++ without modification] being a very long period of time comes from tehilim, where it is written 'A day in your eyes is like one thousand years'. This then question's as to who's perspective the creation story is told before Adam is created.

Short answer: There are different opinions, each with their own proofs and backings.

Long answer: Avi's answer explains the different meanings of "yom" quite well. It is my understanding that up until recently, most Rabbis agreed that in regard to creation, it meant a 24 hour period. Once scientists came up with theories about the age of the universe many Rabbis began to engage in what has been called "apologetics", explaining that "day" was metaphorical for "eras".

In my experience, whenever something in the Torah isn't meant literally, its always explained in the Talmud. The most famous example of something not meant literally is "an eye for an eye" which the Talmud says quite clearly (Bava Kamma, 83b-84a) that it refers to monetary compensation. There is no such explanation in the Talmud regarding "day" in Bereishis.
____________________________________________

You asked for personal opinions so I'll say that I firmly believe that it was 24 hour periods. If it had meant anything else, certainly that would have been part of the oral tradition. Instead, the Rabbis in the Talmud explain what happened in each hour of the sixth day (Sanhedrin 38b). In addition, if it hadn't meant "days" literally, the Jewish observance of Shabbos as the seventh day of the week would be pretty meaningless. In fact, the entire concept of a seven day week would have no point. Also, the addition of "it was evening and it was morning, the _ day" makes it quite clear to me that it was a "day" in the traditional meaning, albeit without the sun.

As a final point, the Lubavitcher Rebbe points out in a letter that there are those Rabbis who don't hold that the six days are literal, and therefore say that the world is older than 5771 years (as of this writing). For these Rabbis there is a serious problem with the text of the "get" or bill of divorce. Halacha is very stringent with the exact text of the bill (here and here), because if the intended meaning is changed slightly - the bill is invalidated, the divorce is not valid, and any remarriage becomes adultery. On the bill of divorce, there must be written a date, and this date must be of the form - "Five thousand seven hundred and seventy one years according to the creation of the world according to our counting here". The Lubavitcher Rebbe points out that this would be contradicted by any interpretation of "days" being "epochs" or "eras".

In Genesis 1:5, yom obviously means a regular day. Evening and morning is used, as well as a number.

Now if you look at Exodus 20:9-10 it says "6 days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yhwh your God". Now yom here obviously means a regular, 24-hour day. But if you read on we'll see the reason for the Sabbath.

In Exodus 20:11 it says "For in six days Yhwh made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore Yhwh blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy". Now the Sabbath would be meaningless if it was based on 6 indefinite time periods.

And also, this solves the problem with the "indefinite" period between Genesis 1:1,2 and Genesis 3. It says, "For in six days Yhwh made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them". Plus, it says Yhwh created everything, therefore verifying that Genesis 1 and 2 are about the same creation.

When you look at the Hebrew bereshít, the first two words in Genesis, most translations say "in the beginning", but actually it means "in the beginning/start of". So if you literally translate the first verse in the Bible from Hebrew, it reads "In the beginning/start of God create the heavens and the earth," Now the Hebrew word for create is bara. You can't tell if it's past, present, or future. English versions always put it in the past tense, but a lot of Hebrew scholars think it is in the present. So therefore it would read, "in the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth",

This makes much more sense, and it agrees with Exodus 20:21. And in Hebrew, Genesis 1:2 is clearly a description of when God was creating in Genesis 1:1. So the first two verses of Genesis should be, "In the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth, when the earth was without form and void..."

This means that the universe is only around 6,000 years old.

 

[Sparkey]

I did look at what you said. you said "I would like to ask you to contrast what you have said about the relative age of the mountains being "ancient" and what the Lord has said about His creative acts: Isa 48:3" I said I cannot find any creative acts in Isa 48:3 to contrast with "ancient mountains". I then politely asked for you to clarify what you meant. Then you respond with "I suggest that you look at what I've said, without assumptions or implications (conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated), without looking beyond my words for additional meanings, and attempt to understand what I meant."

But you're right about one thing. My patience wears too thin to continue this thread any linger. Thanks for yall’s time.

God Bless.

Sorry to hear this, chessman. I've not yet stated my position on the subject. Here then is the King James Version of Isa 48:3

I have declared the former things from the beginning;
And they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them;
I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

Blessings to you also.

I do hope you come back to see the next post:

chessman, have I not offered something for you to consider in your private thoughts? I'm not insisting that you are wrong here, although you have invited that, what I mean to do is to show you another thought about it. I trust the Holy Spirit to guide you well. Others have stated that this is not a Salvic Issue. I agree. It may not be compared to the Salvic Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice, and I refuse to treat it that way. Certainly, I've offered more than the "Yes/No" answer you've called for, more than any other contributor to this thread when my quoted sections are included. I would ask your continued tolerance as I leave you to read Hasel's conclusions for yourself and I go further to quote Jewish experts.

 

[Sparkey]

Lord I don't miss this argument of what genesis means. if we take genesis out of what it means then we miss the richness of what is there! the torah!

Oh, hey and welcome, Jason. I don't imagine you've had time to look at the whole thread.

 

[westtexas]

But you're right about one thing. My patience wears too thin to continue this thread any linger. Thanks for yall’s time.

Chessman, my work schedule keeps me away from this forum much more than it allows me to be here, so I didn't get much time to exchange thoughts with you, but I just needed to say that it has been quite enjoyable to disagree with someone and still be able to discuss scripture. Many times it does not happen this way. I hope you have just grown impatient with this thread and not with the forum itself. Looking forward to the next time.

God bless, Westtexas

 

[jasoncran]

Oh, hey and welcome, Jason. I don't imagine you've had time to look at the whole thread.

i will pass on what i have learned on beersherith(genesis) to you in private. Im tired of debating the bible's words. its fine to disagree but with athiests and theisticevolutionists. They must believe it by faith and only God can open their eyes.

 

[Sparkey]

Here is where I take my clue. There is a record of a conversation that God had with a man who may have thought too highly of himself. But that does not seem the case. Perhaps he thought to highly of his knowledge? The Lord spoke to him in a pointed and express manner that demonstrates how we, as His clay are to remain content in our calling, not trying to speak more than we know. He spoke to that righteous man in a manner that startles me. "If the Lord speaks in that manner to this righteous man, how may I fare?"

The conversation starts with the Lord answering out of the whirlwind, the storm was brewing, the wind was blowing, and the Lord came and spoke,

“Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?"

How would you like to be greeted by the Lord in that way? We may recall the disciples, who were out there, on the sea of Galilee, in the storm, as the wind blew and the waves crashed against them, and they, many of them experienced fishermen, were deathly afraid and feared as though they were about to go down.

And then the Lord appeared, you know what happened, walking on water. They thought, "It's a ghost," they were frightened. The the Lord said, to those boys in that storm, "Be of good cheer. It is I. Fear not." He came to them in the storm. Have we not found the same? When things are tough, the Lord draws near and can answer in profound ways.

Well, the whirlwind was blowing as the Lord spoke out of the storm and answered Job. And the Lord said to Job,

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"

Then the Lord spoke sixty (60) questions to Job. He comes on the scene with question after question after question. "Gird up now thy loins like a man," Job was sitting there, on the ash heap, "Stand up, for I will demand thee, an answer for Me."

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth (vs. 4). Now wouldn't that be a great verse to have inscribed on the cover of every Geology book? A pause and a thought; this reminds me of the tour of the museum where the guide pointed to a dinosaur skeleton and said, "This brontosaurus is two million and six years old." One of the tourists paused, scratched his head and then asked, "How can you know with such precision that these bones are 2,000,000 and six years old? The guide paused and explained, "Well, I began working here 6 years ago, and they told me it was two million years old back then.

And you know we have all these facts and figures and ideas and theories and stuff, you see? Then the Lord shows up and says, "What do you really know, really?"

"Where where you, when I laid the foundations of the earth?"
"Declare, if thou hast understanding."

"Where upon were the foundations of the earth placed?" He asked if Job knew the underpinnings of the earth. God was speaking to Job about the creation of everything. When it was being created, formed and put together and the stars of the morning and the Sons of God (angels) were singing. When God was putting it all together, there was background music, so to speak. The angels were singing, shouting.

I would suggest that it would be good for us to realize that when things seem confused or chaotic or dark or empty, that there is a blessing, there is a wonderful privileged possibility and that is to sing. For you and I may smile and think (even in our darkest hours) that the Lord seems to do some of His best work (if such a think could be, for all the works of God are marvelous and wonderful) when there is background music. At our worst we can yet sing. "Sing O barren one," Isa 54:1, says. "Sing out, shout." (thou who bearest no young).

Sing like Paul and Philippi, while they were in the dungeon, they too sang. They put on the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness. We too may choose to put on the garment of praise instead of wearing the spirit of heaviness.

Tohu and Bohu, black and nothingness, empty and void, whatever it was when He was there forming the heavens and the earth, were you there, Job when he began to do these wondrous works? Or were you there when the sea was shut up with doors and bars so that the waves could not break forth and cross?

Imagery of water breaking forth from the womb, when the cloud was made as a garment or swaddling band for it? Did you, Sparrowhawke, see? Have you seen? Declare, if thou understandeth.

Boundaries were placed upon the oceans. 5/7ths of our planet is covered by oceans. It's amazing. If we dropped a rock in the Mariana's Trench in the Pacific ocean, six miles deep, it would take an hour for the rock to hit the bottom. But if you took all the waters of the oceans, and spread them around equally, the waters would be a mile and 1/2 deep. Why isn't it that way?

Because the Lord has placed boundaries. "Where you there, when I said you can come here, but no further," asks the Lord, "Here your proud waves are to be staid." The questions continue, "Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days, and caused the Day Spring to know his place?" Do you cause the stars to shine, Job? Do you Sparrow? Do you? Do you even know how that works?

"Have the gates of death (vs. 17) been opened to thee?" Earlier, in chapter 3, Job was desiring to die. And he made the declaration, "Why had I not died from the womb?" Job was saying, in the early part of the story, Job was saying, "I wish I was dead, where everyone was at rest." Now he is asked what he knows, really. He was talking about things that he doesn't understand.

Some take scriptures from Job chapter 3 to form a doctrine about 'soul sleep" but Paul later declared, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." We simply can not declare doctrine from things we do not know. The Lord continues his questions for righteous Job. But it is here that I repent. "Lord, I do not know. I was not there."

Guys, I've enjoyed the function of research assistant in this thread. WE have looked at this very many angles and views. This then is mine: I do not know, for truly I was not there. Perhaps this thread is winding down, maybe I'll return and highlight some of the best posts for others to consider but not tonight. Tonight my song is for the ears of another. I'm asking for prayers that my voice may be blessed to reach to my loved ones as I am not able.