6000 year old (or so) universe

[McCulloch]

The bible never claims that the universe is 6000 years old.

How old is the universe according to the writers of the Bible? Do they provide any information? How much of the data reported as fact does one have to ignore to believe that the Biblical writers would allow for a billions of years old universe?

[whirlwind]

You are adding 'became'.. it specifically says 'The earth was without form and void', and 'God separated the earth from the waters'.

In the context of the ancient Hebrews, this symbolized that God formed (as a potter forms clay) the earth by separating order (the earth) from Chaos (the deep waters).

The proper translation of "was" is "became," as footnoted in many Bibles. It should read as does [Gen.2:7]...."man became a living soul," the "earth became without form." The question would be....why and how did it "became without form?"

[whirlwind]

The earth became without form after being formed to be inhabited. Was there a previous age...the age in which "God created the heaven and the earth?" The age in which Satan rebelled?

Remember, Satan was already in his fallen state when we are first introduced to him in the garden.

Sorry, try again. There's not a single reference to Satan in the book of Genesis, much less at the Garden of Eden. There is a reference to a talking snake who is cursed along with all other snakes for his alleged role in the Adam and Eve debacle.

This "serpent" speaks to the woman. The "woman" is symbolic of God's children....the church. The serpent continues to speak to her/us today. Many continue to listen.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

3:13-15 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The serpent shall eat "dust" all of his life and his life doesn't end until the millennium ends. What is "dust?"

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul.

The dust the serpent devours is man. All men that allow his deception. The "Seed" of the woman is Christ. Satan bruised the heels of Christ when He was crucified. However, the "head" of Satan shall be bruised. Is that bruised head the "deadly wound?"

Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

The serpent is Satan, not a talking snake, and serpents are his followers....

Matthew 23:32-34 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

You wrote....

Also, Satan shows up in the book of Job as an angel hanging out with God and other angels and does the whole testing of faith thing on Job at God's direct order. Not exactly evidence that he was involved in some sort of rebellion, especially not before man's existence.

Satan shows up as an angel because he is an angel. The same angel that beguiled Adam and Eve in the garden. Serpent in Hebrew is "nachash," a "shining one." In [11 Cor. 11:14] he is transformed into an "angel of light." He is the angel of darkness but many will be/are being deceived.

Understand though that he is the servant of God. God allows him his power. His rebellion, which was a quest for power, happened before man was created in flesh but not before man was a soul.

[Goat]

You are adding 'became'.. it specifically says 'The earth was without form and void', and 'God separated the earth from the waters'.

In the context of the ancient Hebrews, this symbolized that God formed (as a potter forms clay) the earth by separating order (the earth) from Chaos (the deep waters).

The proper translation of "was" is "became," as footnoted in many Bibles. It should read as does [Gen.2:7]...."man became a living soul," the "earth became without form." The question would be....why and how did it "became without form?"

I suggest you get the JPS study bible, with a more modern Jewish translation, and a commentary from someone who knows the Hebrew and the traditions behind it.

For example the 1985 JPS translation says

"When God began to create heaven and earth, the earth being unformed and void"

In other words, you are making a big deal out of bad translation.

[whirlwind]

You are adding 'became'.. it specifically says 'The earth was without form and void', and 'God separated the earth from the waters'.

In the context of the ancient Hebrews, this symbolized that God formed (as a potter forms clay) the earth by separating order (the earth) from Chaos (the deep waters).

The proper translation of "was" is "became," as footnoted in many Bibles. It should read as does [Gen.2:7]...."man became a living soul," the "earth became without form." The question would be....why and how did it "became without form?"

I suggest you get the JPS study bible, with a more modern Jewish translation, and a commentary from someone who knows the Hebrew and the traditions behind it.

For example the 1985 JPS translation says

"When God began to create heaven and earth, the earth being unformed and void"

In other words, you are making a big deal out of bad translation.

Thank you for your suggestion but mine would be to stay away from "more modern Jewish," or Christian, "translations." Newer isn't necessarily better or more accurate. In other words....thanks but no thanks. "Beware the scribes" ya' know. They just love to alter the meaning.

By the way, the Bible I use, Companion Bible, KJV, has commentary by E.W. Bullinger. He uses the studies of Ginsburg who, I believe, was the only Christian allowed to study the masoretic text. In it corrections are made where the KJV was improperly translated from Hebrew to English.

[Goat]

You are adding 'became'.. it specifically says 'The earth was without form and void', and 'God separated the earth from the waters'.

In the context of the ancient Hebrews, this symbolized that God formed (as a potter forms clay) the earth by separating order (the earth) from Chaos (the deep waters).

The proper translation of "was" is "became," as footnoted in many Bibles. It should read as does [Gen.2:7]...."man became a living soul," the "earth became without form." The question would be....why and how did it "became without form?"

I suggest you get the JPS study bible, with a more modern Jewish translation, and a commentary from someone who knows the Hebrew and the traditions behind it.

For example the 1985 JPS translation says

"When God began to create heaven and earth, the earth being unformed and void"

In other words, you are making a big deal out of bad translation.

Thank you for your suggestion but mine would be to stay away from "more modern Jewish," or Christian, "translations." Newer isn't necessarily better or more accurate. In other words....thanks but no thanks. "Beware the scribes" ya' know. They just love to alter the meaning.

By the way, the Bible I use, Companion Bible, KJV, has commentary by E.W. Bullinger. He uses the studies of Ginsburg who, I believe, was the only Christian allowed to study the masoretic text. In it corrections are made where the KJV was improperly translated from Hebrew to English.

Uh.. No. Every solitary theologian can study the Masoretic texts, and I am surprised that you would make such a mistake about 'was' and 'become' if you are using such a well respected commentary.

I found a site that has his entire book in PDF format you can download for free, so let me see what HE says about Genesis...

When it comes to his commentary on the first couple of chapters, frankly, I am not impressed at all., and I am not impressed by your 'was' and 'became', since it is not in his commentary at all.

You can tell from his commentary that a lot of what he said is in reaction to the Victorian realization that the world was far older than they thought in previous centuries, because he was worrying about the term 'day', and he added ''fossils' into the mix of his commentary. Right then and there it breaks from what the text says in context, and is starting to worry about modern thought and theology.

One point I will make is that he was enough of a scholar to point out that 'was' is translated in italicis in his commentary , because there is no hebrew for 'to be'.

That makes your entire point moot.


And, as a counterpoint, lets see the commentary of Rashi, who was a Jewish medieval commentator

[whirlwind]

You are adding 'became'.. it specifically says 'The earth was without form and void', and 'God separated the earth from the waters'.

In the context of the ancient Hebrews, this symbolized that God formed (as a potter forms clay) the earth by separating order (the earth) from Chaos (the deep waters).

The proper translation of "was" is "became," as footnoted in many Bibles. It should read as does [Gen.2:7]...."man became a living soul," the "earth became without form." The question would be....why and how did it "became without form?"

I suggest you get the JPS study bible, with a more modern Jewish translation, and a commentary from someone who knows the Hebrew and the traditions behind it.

For example the 1985 JPS translation says

"When God began to create heaven and earth, the earth being unformed and void"

In other words, you are making a big deal out of bad translation.

Thank you for your suggestion but mine would be to stay away from "more modern Jewish," or Christian, "translations." Newer isn't necessarily better or more accurate. In other words....thanks but no thanks. "Beware the scribes" ya' know. They just love to alter the meaning.

By the way, the Bible I use, Companion Bible, KJV, has commentary by E.W. Bullinger. He uses the studies of Ginsburg who, I believe, was the only Christian allowed to study the masoretic text. In it corrections are made where the KJV was improperly translated from Hebrew to English.

Uh.. No. Every solitary theologian can study the Masoretic texts, and I am surprised that you would make such a mistake about 'was' and 'become' if you are using such a well respected commentary.

I found a site that has his entire book in PDF format you can download for free, so let me see what HE says about Genesis...

When it comes to his commentary on the first couple of chapters, frankly, I am not impressed at all., and I am not impressed by your 'was' and 'became', since it is not in his commentary at all.

You can tell from his commentary that a lot of what he said is in reaction to the Victorian realization that the world was far older than they thought in previous centuries, because he was worrying about the term 'day', and he added ''fossils' into the mix of his commentary. Right then and there it breaks from what the text says in context, and is starting to worry about modern thought and theology.

One point I will make is that he was enough of a scholar to point out that 'was' is translated in italicis in his commentary , because there is no hebrew for 'to be'.

That makes your entire point moot.


And, as a counterpoint, lets see the commentary of Rashi, who was a Jewish medieval commentator

Goat, instead of playing dueling scholars....let's go to the crux of the "was" or "became" topic about the beginning of creation and the age of the universe. You will see it as you wish and I see it as I believe. To me it is obvious that the correct translation is became because of the following reasons....

Genesis 1:1-2 In the (a) beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

God created "the heaven and the earth." When? Does it say? How much time elapsed between the creation and the time it "became" void? And then, how much time before "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters?" We are only given the time from the Spirit moving...not before.

In a following verse we see...."Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." [2:1] Heaven is now heavens...plural. Why? We also read....

11 Peter 3:5-8 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Add to that the fact that Satan was already a wicked individual when he (referred to as a serpent) beguiled Eve. When did that happen? When was his rebellion from God? Could that be the reason the earth "became" void?

[Goat]

You are adding 'became'.. it specifically says 'The earth was without form and void', and 'God separated the earth from the waters'.

In the context of the ancient Hebrews, this symbolized that God formed (as a potter forms clay) the earth by separating order (the earth) from Chaos (the deep waters).

The proper translation of "was" is "became," as footnoted in many Bibles. It should read as does [Gen.2:7]...."man became a living soul," the "earth became without form." The question would be....why and how did it "became without form?"

I suggest you get the JPS study bible, with a more modern Jewish translation, and a commentary from someone who knows the Hebrew and the traditions behind it.

For example the 1985 JPS translation says

"When God began to create heaven and earth, the earth being unformed and void"

In other words, you are making a big deal out of bad translation.

Thank you for your suggestion but mine would be to stay away from "more modern Jewish," or Christian, "translations." Newer isn't necessarily better or more accurate. In other words....thanks but no thanks. "Beware the scribes" ya' know. They just love to alter the meaning.

By the way, the Bible I use, Companion Bible, KJV, has commentary by E.W. Bullinger. He uses the studies of Ginsburg who, I believe, was the only Christian allowed to study the masoretic text. In it corrections are made where the KJV was improperly translated from Hebrew to English.

Uh.. No. Every solitary theologian can study the Masoretic texts, and I am surprised that you would make such a mistake about 'was' and 'become' if you are using such a well respected commentary.

I found a site that has his entire book in PDF format you can download for free, so let me see what HE says about Genesis...

When it comes to his commentary on the first couple of chapters, frankly, I am not impressed at all., and I am not impressed by your 'was' and 'became', since it is not in his commentary at all.

You can tell from his commentary that a lot of what he said is in reaction to the Victorian realization that the world was far older than they thought in previous centuries, because he was worrying about the term 'day', and he added ''fossils' into the mix of his commentary. Right then and there it breaks from what the text says in context, and is starting to worry about modern thought and theology.

One point I will make is that he was enough of a scholar to point out that 'was' is translated in italicis in his commentary , because there is no hebrew for 'to be'.

That makes your entire point moot.


And, as a counterpoint, lets see the commentary of Rashi, who was a Jewish medieval commentator

Goat, instead of playing dueling scholars....let's go to the crux of the "was" or "became" topic about the beginning of creation and the age of the universe. You will see it as you wish and I see it as I believe. To me it is obvious that the correct translation is became because of the following reasons....

Genesis 1:1-2 In the (a) beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

God created "the heaven and the earth." When? Does it say? How much time elapsed between the creation and the time it "became" void? And then, how much time before "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters?" We are only given the time from the Spirit moving...not before.

In a following verse we see...."Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." [2:1] Heaven is now heavens...plural. Why? We also read....

11 Peter 3:5-8 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Add to that the fact that Satan was already a wicked individual when he (referred to as a serpent) beguiled Eve. When did that happen? When was his rebellion from God? Could that be the reason the earth "became" void?

Repeating an inaccuracy does not make it anymore accurate. Adding a word that does not exist in the Hebrew, weather it is 'was' or 'became' , based on your predermined theology is not reading things in context.

And, projecting onto Genesis the concept that the snake was Satan is SOOO later Christain, and is not supported by the text in Genesis. The snake was a snake, and not satan.

[lao tzu]

Adding a word that does not exist in the Hebrew, weather it is 'was' or 'became' , based on your predetermined theology is not reading things in context.

Hello goat,

I suspect that if any particular word in the creation narrative deserves attention, it should be the Hebrew verb "bara" translated as "create," which occurs only about 50 times in the OT. John Walton argues that the common view, creation ex nihilo, is a gloss that would have been foreign to the early Hebrews:

What is obvious from this listing is that grammatical objects of the verb [bara] are not material in nature, and even when they are, it is questionable that the context is objectifying them. What would be the alternative? Is there anything else “creation� could refer to other than bringing something material into existence? Even a quick look at English usage would alert us to alternatives. For example, we might speak of creating a committee; a curriculum; a masterpiece; havoc—none of these are material in nature. We would instead refer to these as the creation of something functional.

Rather than creation out of nothing, this would render the "creation" to be out of functionlessness, which aligns well with other creation tales of the time which are more clearly ex materia. In contradistinction, the ex nilhilo interpretation reflects instead the relatively novel Greek philosophical approach that attempts to identify objects by their substances. One need look no further than the first Nicene council to identify this influence on early Christianity, and appeal to nothing more than interpretive inertia to see how this reading has carried over to the present day.

As ever, Jesse

[whirlwind]

Repeating an inaccuracy does not make it anymore accurate. Adding a word that does not exist in the Hebrew, weather it is 'was' or 'became' , based on your predermined theology is not reading things in context.

I agree....one should understand one's error.

And, projecting onto Genesis the concept that the snake was Satan is SOOO later Christain, and is not supported by the text in Genesis. The snake was a snake, and not satan.

So how often do you converse with snakes?


Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

[Goat]

Repeating an inaccuracy does not make it anymore accurate. Adding a word that does not exist in the Hebrew, weather it is 'was' or 'became' , based on your predermined theology is not reading things in context.

I agree....one should understand one's error.

And, projecting onto Genesis the concept that the snake was Satan is SOOO later Christain, and is not supported by the text in Genesis. The snake was a snake, and not satan.

So how often do you converse with snakes?


Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

And what does the 'Great Dragon' have to do with the snake of Genesis? The writer of Genesis didn't have any 'great dragon' it in.

If there is anything that the 'Great Dragon' could be equated to in the Jewish Scriptures, it would be the leviathan, not the snake in Genesis.

Dragons have legs, and the snake in Eden was cursed to crawl on his belly forever.. (I.e. no legs)