So far, I've provided 2 evidences for believing that the earth is far older than Adam. The first evidence is that the exact same form of "hayah" in Gen 1:2 was translated as "became" in 4 other verses. This is hardly my main point. It's only my first point. Seems some think this is my only point. Not at all.
The second point was that the phrase "without form and void" only occurs 3 times in Scripture, all the others translated as "waste place/wilderness/etc". No reason not to understand it that way in Gen 1:2.
OK, since no one has provided any evidence that my first 2 points aren't valid, I will now move on to my next point.
So far, I haven't quoted anything outside of Scripture itself, other than what lexicons or interlinears say. However, I will cite from "Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary on the Whole Bible" per QuickVerse, regarding v.2:
"the earth was without form and void—or in“confusion and emptiness,” as the words are rendered in Isaiah 34.11. This globe, at some undescribed period, having been convulsed and broken up, was a dark and watery waste for ages perhaps, till out of this chaotic state, the present fabric of the worldwas made to arise."
Notice that they acknowledge "some undescribed period", "for ages perhaps", in a "chaotic state". Keep in mind that Isa 45:18 says that God didn't create (barah) the world a waste place. Yet, v.2 does say that the world was/became a waste place or chaotic place.
JFB further says this: "The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculair phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor wa fit to be tenanted, and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version "invisible and unfurnished". Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used, that the world, which had formerly been a scene of material beauty and order, was by some great convulsion plunged into a state of chaos or widespread disorder and desolation. Hence, some eminent critics, who take thi view, render the clause thus: 'But (or afterward) the earth became waste and desolate.' This translation is declared by Kurtz ato be inadmissible, as being contraruy to the rules of grammatical construction, but Dr. McCaul has shown that the verb haayhtaah "was" is, in some 20 places, in this chapter, used as equivalent to 'became', and that elsewhere it has the same signification without a following La (superscript)(preposition) (Isa 64:5,9). That the earth was not originally desolate seems also to be implied in Isa 45:18." 2003, Biblesoft.
While I don't rely on commentaries, this one clearly acnowledges that 'eminent' critics have the same view as I do. I know that doesn't prove anything, as there's always at least 2 sides to every argument. But there's much more evidence that just this.
I included JFB only to show a commentary that acknowleges the position, without taking sides.
The second point was that the phrase "without form and void" only occurs 3 times in Scripture, all the others translated as "waste place/wilderness/etc". No reason not to understand it that way in Gen 1:2.
OK, since no one has provided any evidence that my first 2 points aren't valid, I will now move on to my next point.
So far, I haven't quoted anything outside of Scripture itself, other than what lexicons or interlinears say. However, I will cite from "Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary on the Whole Bible" per QuickVerse, regarding v.2:
"the earth was without form and void—or in“confusion and emptiness,” as the words are rendered in Isaiah 34.11. This globe, at some undescribed period, having been convulsed and broken up, was a dark and watery waste for ages perhaps, till out of this chaotic state, the present fabric of the worldwas made to arise."
Notice that they acknowledge "some undescribed period", "for ages perhaps", in a "chaotic state". Keep in mind that Isa 45:18 says that God didn't create (barah) the world a waste place. Yet, v.2 does say that the world was/became a waste place or chaotic place.
JFB further says this: "The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculair phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor wa fit to be tenanted, and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version "invisible and unfurnished". Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used, that the world, which had formerly been a scene of material beauty and order, was by some great convulsion plunged into a state of chaos or widespread disorder and desolation. Hence, some eminent critics, who take thi view, render the clause thus: 'But (or afterward) the earth became waste and desolate.' This translation is declared by Kurtz ato be inadmissible, as being contraruy to the rules of grammatical construction, but Dr. McCaul has shown that the verb haayhtaah "was" is, in some 20 places, in this chapter, used as equivalent to 'became', and that elsewhere it has the same signification without a following La (superscript)(preposition) (Isa 64:5,9). That the earth was not originally desolate seems also to be implied in Isa 45:18." 2003, Biblesoft.
While I don't rely on commentaries, this one clearly acnowledges that 'eminent' critics have the same view as I do. I know that doesn't prove anything, as there's always at least 2 sides to every argument. But there's much more evidence that just this.
I included JFB only to show a commentary that acknowleges the position, without taking sides.
Last edited:
