The timeline of the Bible

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

I agree that the line breaks or verse breaks are irrelevant to the grammar. But at least for the first few verses, the verse breaks (but not the line breaks) occur between clauses. Each verse starts a new clause.

---

Your obsession with verses is touching considering that there are no verses in the original text. The line breaks are impositions we have put upon the text to help make it readable. You are trying to impose spiritual meaning upon a convention that was made simply to make the text easier to read.

quote:

---

Are you reading the Torah in the Hebrew, or in an English translation?

---

Both.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You keep claiming that the earth existed before "the beginning" ..."

---

​

False. I have never claimed this.

---

Now, you're being less than truthful here, aren't you? Do you really want me to go back through your posts in this thread and find your direct statements about how there was an earth before the creative days that was then laid waste, how the earth existed under the water so that the water could then part and form the dry land, etc.?

quote:

---

My claim is that "the beginning" occurs before "and then God said."

---

Then it wouldn't be "the beginning." It would be "later." And it wouldn't be the first day. It would be "later." The text does not talk about "later." It talks about "the beginning" and ticks off the days from "the beginning" leaving no intervening time to exist.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Too, the text directly and clearly states that the earth didn't exist.

---

​

False.

---

Incorrect. We've been through this already. "Towhu and bowhu" means that it did not exist. That specific phrasing is not indicative of something that already exists but is barren of features but rather is indicative of nothingness itself, very much akin to what Greek means in the use of the word "chaos." In modern English, it has overtones of a morass of actual stuff but without any order, but Greek takes it much further: It is nothingness complete. "Unformed and void." When did "unformed" come to mean "formed"?

quote:

---

It does not say "non-existent."

---

Incorrect. That is PRECISELY what it says. That's what "to.hu va.vo.hu" means.

quote:

---

This phrase "tohu wa bohu" occurs one other place in the Bible, in Jer. 4:23

---

And it means the same thing: Nothingness itself.

quote:

---

And the two words "tohu" and "bohu" occur near one another in one other passage, Is. 34:11

---

Irrelevant. Context is king and different phrases have different meanings. That's why they use a different phrase: To convey a different meaning.

quote:

---

In neither instance do the words "tohu" and "bohu" mean "non-existent."

---

Indeed. That's because by themselves, they don't convey that meaning. But when they are put together in a single phrase, they mean nothingness itself.The text literally does not say what you claim it says. In fact, it says the exact opposite.No wonder you're having trouble.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

If "without form and void" in verse 2 means nonexistence, then what did the Spirit of God hover over? Even more what was the darkness on the surface of?"But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Recovery Version)Or from the 1901 American Standard if you don't care for my favorite English translation ."And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the surface of the deep"Nonexistence would probably mean no darkness. For sure it mean no "surface" of ANYTHING. And it should means no abyss or deep. How does anything hover over the surface of something that does not exist?We next have "and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters ..."It should be clear now, if not before, that "the deep" consists of water. Water is not the substance of nonexistence which has no substance."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (v.1) is the only verse in chapter one which speaks of something coming into existence preceeded by nothing or non-existence.The early Greek meaning of chaos was a empty yawning void as a recepticle of all matter. It latter meant a unformed confusion or mess.At anyrate the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The waters is something. And underneath that something something else was made to appear in verse 9 - "And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: and it was so ..." (v.9 my emphasis)Darkness, the deep (waters) with its surface, and the land hidden under its surface which was made to APPEAR, are things. They are not non-existence. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You keep claiming that the earth existed before "the beginning" ..."

---

False. I have never claimed this.

---

Now, you're being less than truthful here, aren't you? Do you really want me to go back through your posts in this thread and find your direct statements about how there was an earth before the creative days that was then laid waste, how the earth existed under the water so that the water could then part and form the dry land, etc.?

---

I have already explained my position on this numerous times.You equate "the beginning" (Gen 1:1) with the start of the First Day (Gen 1:3), and you apparently cannot accept that I see it differently. I see "the beginning" as occurring before the start of the First Day.Thus:
1) Everything was created "in the beginning". This includes the land/earth. The earth did not exist before "the beginning."
2) Day One began with "and then God said." This occurred after "the beginning". The land/earth already existed before Day One began.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

If "without form and void" in verse 2 means nonexistence, then what did the Spirit of God hover over?

---

The waters. You act like nothingness and visions of that nothingness are incompatible. You need to start thinking mythologically. Greek uses the same concept with "chaos." It is not simply a jumbled mess of stuff. It is nothingness itself.And yet, Gaia came out of Chaos.

quote:

---

Nonexistence would probably mean no darkness.

---

Why? With no light, how is it anything but dark? Again, you need to start thinking mythologically. The first thing god creates is light and separates it from the darkness.

quote:

---

For sure it mean no "surface" of ANYTHING.

---

Why not? You need to start thinking mythologically. The imagery is of god moving within nothingness. How do you describe that to someone poetically?

quote:

---

The early Greek meaning of chaos was a empty yawning void as a recepticle of all matter. It latter meant a unformed confusion or mess.

---

I know. That's my point. "Tohuw and bohuw" is the same concept: It is nothingness itself, not just repetition.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

You equate "the beginning" (Gen 1:1) with the start of the First Day (Gen 1:3), and you apparently cannot accept that I see it differently.

---

Incorrect. I do accept that you see it differently. I also accept that you have no textual justification for your claim.

quote:

---

I see "the beginning" as occurring before the start of the First Day.

---

Which would mean that the "first day" wasn't actually the first and thus what is described as "the beginning" wasn't actually "the beginning" but was really sometime "later" than "the beginning."The "first day" necessarily ends 24 hours after "the beginning." You seem to want there to be something between "the beginning" and the "first day," which is not justified by anything in the text.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Incorrect. I do accept that you see it differently. I also accept that you have no textual justification for your claim.

---

The primary justification for my claim is textual, and this evidence has been repeated numerous times in this thread. It is precisely the textual evidence (the Hebrew grammar and the literary structure of the Days) which led me to the position that I now hold.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I see "the beginning" as occurring before the start of the First Day.

---

Which would mean that the "first day" wasn't actually the first and thus what is described as "the beginning" wasn't actually "the beginning" but was really sometime "later" than "the beginning."

---

Correct. The "first Day" was not "first" in an absolute sense, but was "first" in relation to the following days. It was the first of the six. Note that the text does not call it "the first", but "Day One." The text does not imply that it is the absolute first.

quote:

---

The "first day" necessarily ends 24 hours after "the beginning."

---

False.

quote:

---

You seem to want there to be something between "the beginning" and the "first day,"

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

which is not justified by anything in the text.

---

False. It is the text itself which led me to this position.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

The "first Day" was not "first" in an absolute sense

---

So "first" doesn't mean "first," "the beginning" doesn't mean "the beginning," and you wonder why we have spent 300+ posts on this matter?

quote:

---

Note that the text does not call it "the first", but "Day One."

---

No, it doesn't say that, either. It simply says, "a day." That is why the implication is that it is the very first one and not just some random one pulled out of many. That is why the implication is that it is a literal, 24-hour day and not some nebulous, vaguely defined period of time.When the imagery is to start at "the beginning" and then tell you that "a day" has passed, it is not talking about "10 billion years later."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

So "first" doesn't mean "first," "the beginning" doesn't mean "the beginning," and you wonder why we have spent 300+ posts on this matter?

---

False. "The beginning" is the absolute beginning of all things. After this we get a sequence of six "days." There is no textual reason for your assumption that the first "day" must start at the absolute beginning of all things.

quote:

---

When the imagery is to start at "the beginning" and then tell you that "a day" has passed, it is not talking about "10 billion years later."

---

But that's not the imagery in Gen 1. It starts at "the beginning" where "everything" is created. The sequence of six "days" don't start until after this. Thus, the six days do not describe the original creation of "everything" from nothing. Rather, they describe a final forming, shaping, and filling of "everything", mostly using already existing material that was created "in the beginning."Like it or not, this is the implication of the Hebrew grammar. My view used to be more similar to yours. But then I learned biblical Hebrew and went through the Hebrew grammar of the passage verse-by-verse with a Hebrew scholar. This forced me to change my view to agree with the grammar of the text.

Then can I assume that before the first day it would be day -1. The first day would have to start at 0.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

There is no textual reason for your assumption that the first "day" must start at the absolute beginning of all things.

---

Then it isn't the "first" day, is it?

quote:

---

But that's not the imagery in Gen 1.

---

Huh? "In the beginning"...[god does work]..."and evening and morning, a day."How is that not the imagery of the text? The text directly tells you that god created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" and the six days are the description of how it happened. There is no textual evidence, either direct or implied, that there was some "before." There certainly isn't an grammatical indication of such. After all, the text uses the "tohuw and bohuw" construction which is indicative of "unformed and void."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Then it isn't the "first" day, is it?

---

Of course it is the "first day." But the question you are ignoring is, "The first day of what?" Monday is the first day of the week. Does that mean there were no days before it, that it was the first day of all time? Of course not. Likewise, Day One is the first day of the six-day account of the completion of creation. This does not mean that there were no days ever before it.

quote:

---

How is that not the imagery of the text? The text directly tells you that god created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" and the six days are the description of how it happened. There is no textual evidence, either direct or implied, that there was some "before." There certainly isn't an grammatical indication of such. After all, the text uses the "tohuw and bohuw" construction which is indicative of "unformed and void."

---

We've been over all of this before. There is nothing in the six day account that describes the creation of either the heavens or the earth. We have descriptions of separations in things that already exist (separations of waters above and below, separation of water and dry land). But the creation of these elements is not part of the six days; it happened earlier (in v. 1).I've repeatedly detailed the grammatical evidence that v.1 was prior to v.3 (i.e. the preterite or waw-consecutive construction). If you disagree, please provide an alternate, scholarly explanation of the Hebrew grammar of vv 1-3.Edited by kbertsche, : added first paragraph

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

Of course it is the "first day."

---

Then it started at "the beginning." That's what makes it "first." If it didn't start at "the beginning," then we're either talking about "later" or we're talking about some other day than the "first."But the text doesn't say that. It says that the heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning" and then it describes the six days of "the beginning" and what happened on each of them, starting from the first. And using very specific wording that indicates literal, 24-hour days, we are able to determine how much time has passed between "the beginning" of life, the universe, and everything and now.

quote:

---

But the question you are ignoring is, "The first day of what?"

---

Of everything. There was no "before." If there were, it couldn't be "the beginning." Instead, it would be "later." But the text doesn't start at "later." It starts at "the beginning."

quote:

---

Day One is the first day of the six-day account of the completion of creation.

---

Which commenced at "the beginning." That's what the text directly says: The heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning" and then we get a description of the six days and what happened on them. The heavens were created on day two, the earth on day three. And using very specific wording that indicates literal, 24-hour days, we are able to determine how much time has passed between "the beginning" of life, the universe, and everything and now.

quote:

---

This does not mean that there were no days ever before it.

---

Incorrect. That is precisely what it means. For if there were days before it, then it wouldn't be "the beginning" and it wouldn't be the "first" day.

quote:

---

There is nothing in the six day account that describes the creation of either the heavens or the earth.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? So "in the beginning" actually means "later," "first" actually means "umpteenth," a description of the creation and naming of "heaven" and "earth" is actually nothing of the sort.No wonder you're having such trouble with the text.

quote:

---

I've repeatedly detailed the grammatical evidence that v.1 was prior to v.3

---

No, you've asserted it, but you haven't shown it. In fact, the text and grammar indicate the exact opposite. That's why the Hebrew calendar, which starts from "the beginning" is only about 6000 years long.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

You mean you have not been persuaded. That is all.You've asserted some things also of which I am not persuaded. One thing which you seem to assert is that Judaism is in monolithic agreement with your analysis. And it by far is not, notwithstanding a calender.But since these matters have been rehashed over and over again to no avail, I would ask you this:Why is the alledged 6,000 year old universe as you see it in Genesis so important to you ?What does it establish for you which is the crucial point of truth?Without this interpretation, what do you lose ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Of course it is the "first day."

---

Then it started at "the beginning." That's what makes it "first." If it didn't start at "the beginning," then we're either talking about "later" or we're talking about some other day than the "first."

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that "Day One" (or "One Day") is the absolute first day in existence, not simply the first in a sequence of six days.

quote:

---

But the text doesn't say that. It says that the heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning" and then it describes the six days of "the beginning" and what happened on each of them, starting from the first.

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that the six days are days of the beginning. The text does not say this.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But the question you are ignoring is, "The first day of what?"

---

Of everything.

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that this is the first day of everything, not simply the frist day of six.Your theory would have more support if the text said the first day, the second day, etc. This would not prove your case; it would only make it somewhat more likely. But the text does not say this. Instead, it says "One Day" (or "Day One"), then a second day, a third day, etc. There is no definite article on "day" until "the sixth day." the fact that the first five days are indefinite suggests that they are not viewed as starting at the beginning of everything.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Day One is the first day of the six-day account of the completion of creation.

---

Which commenced at "the beginning."

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that the six days start at "the beginning".

quote:

---

That's what the text directly says: The heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning" and then we get a description of the six days and what happened on them. The heavens were created on day two,

---

False. The text says that this is a separation of already-existing material.

quote:

---

the earth on day three.

---

False. The text says that this is a separation of already-existing material.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This does not mean that there were no days ever before it.

---

Incorrect. That is precisely what it means. For if there were days before it, then it wouldn't be "the beginning" and it wouldn't be the "first" day.

---

So you assume and assert. Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence that "Day One" (or "One Day") is the absolute first day in existence, not simply the first in a sequence of six days.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is nothing in the six day account that describes the creation of either the heavens or the earth.

---

(*blink!*)

​

You did not just say that, did you?

---

Of course I did. Again you are ignoring the Hebrew grammar. "Heavens and earth" is a merism (a figure of speech) for "everything." I.e., verse one says that "in the beginning" God created "everything."You quoted the KJV: Note that the actions on Day Two are a separation of waters which already existed. These waters were not created on either Day One or on Day Two. So when were they created? Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence for the creation of "the waters."Perhaps you are allowing yourself to be misled by the KJV translation of verse 8, with its capitalized "Heaven". The NIV and NET do a more accurate job of translating this verse (except that the NIV, like the KJV, erroneously adds an article to "second day"): You quoted the KJV: Note that the actions on Day Three are a separation of water from land which already existed. God decrees to let land "appear" (ra'a, literally "be seen") not "be created" or to "come into existence." The land was not created on any of the first three days. So when was it created? Please provide some solid, scholarly, textual evidence for the creation of the land.Perhaps you are allowing yourself to be misled by the KJV translation of verse 10, with its capitalized "Earth". The NIV and NET do a more accurate job of translating this verse:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I've repeatedly detailed the grammatical evidence that v.1 was prior to v.3

---

No, you've asserted it, but you haven't shown it.

---

No, I've detailed the Hebrew grammar in basic reading of genesis 1:1. You have yet to respond to any of this evidence in a scholarly fashion. Please try to engage the textual evidence, i.e. the Hebrew grammar and the literary structure of the account.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

Why is the alledged 6,000 year old universe as you see it in Genesis so important to you ?

---

Did you not read the opening post? The only point I'm establishing here is the claim that, "The Bible doesn't say the earth is only 6000 years old," is false.It does say that everything is only about 6000 years old.That's it. That's all I'm trying to establish.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.