Creation

I will provide you with a source of information. When I read the text and look at the concordance it looks probable. When I look at nature, and the fossil record of humanity, history, etc it is probable. Using the word father does not always mean a direct son of a person. You will find the definition is as noted below father can mean to bring forth x fathered y can mean brought forth a person many ages later.Page not found - Reasons to Believe

quote:

---

I discuss in Who Was Adam?, a date for humanity’s origin around 150,000 years ago is not necessarily incompatible with the biblical account of human origins. Some Bible interpreters treat the genealogies in Genesis 5 (Adam to Noah) and Genesis 11 (Noah to Abraham) as exhaustively complete chronologies and have attempted to determine the date for Adam and Eve’s creation from them. This approach, however, is questionable for several reasons. The Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 genealogies were not intended as chronometers, but, like all genealogies found in Scripture, were meant to communicate theological truths.4

​

The range of meaning for the Hebrew words translated as father (’āb) and son (bēn) can include ancestor and descendant, respectively.5 Similarly, the Hebrew word translated as begot or become the father of can mean to father an individual, or to bring forth a lineage.6 In Hebrew thought, a father is not only the parent of his child, but also the parent of all his child’s descendants. According to K. A. Kitchen, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 could be read as, A fathered [P, who fathered Q, who fathered R, who fathered S, who fathered T, who fathered . . .] B. Genesis 5 and 11 could then be read as A fathered the lineage culminating in B, and after fathering the line, lived X years.7

​

It is also important to keep in mind that dates for humanity’s origin derived from coalescence analysis and molecular clocks are notoriously imprecise. Calibration of molecular clocks is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish.8 Researchers simply cannot determine with any real accuracy mutation rates and changes in these rates over time. Scientists typically must estimate the likely high and low values for mutation rates. The dates for humanity’s origin extracted from genetic data of human population groups must be regarded as crude estimates, not ironclad conclusions. One researcher noted that molecular clocks are best thought of as sun dials not stopwatches.9

​

The bottom line: There is no reason to regard the scientific dates for the origin of humanity to be in conflict with the biblical account.

---

It doesn't say that. You're making it up. It was written for humans so there's no reason to think it meant anything but what humans think it means.If all you can do is make up stuff to cover up the errors, that's not very satisfying.

I don't use the word "probable" unless it's an actual mathematical probability that can be calculated. Can you show what the mathematical value of the "probability" is? Or are you just stating your own preference? As I said, you need to show that it does mean that, not just that it hypothetically "could" mean that. Otherwise, you're just bending the word's meaning to fit your preconceived interpretation.We need to be honest here and decide what the text actually says and only then can we decide whether or not there are errors in it. We can't decide a priori that there are no errors and then look for flimsy excuses to mean something else.Edited by ringo, : Inserted missing word "you".

It says he created the heavens and the earth. There's no "then". There's certainly nothing to suggest billions of years.

If you read the scripture, it does not link each and every case by age. It is an interpretation one way or the other. And millions agree with the interpretation of scripture that does include billions of years for the earth or in this case hundreds of thousands of years for humanity. Ref Gen 1:1 to see that the heavens and the earth just came into existence. They were created prior to what happened in Gen 1:2. And ref to the genealogies Hebrew words to help you understand them. You are welcome to quote scripture to make whatever point you want to make. I am not making anything up, it is a body, or rather a revolution of people that this thought is ultimately culminating into this tiny forum. I am merely a messenger. I was seeking the LORD and it came upon me. Honestly several doctrines and scientific theories have come my way in seeking truth and many have been found false in my interpretation. I will admit though I wish I was the individual responsible for this interpretation permitting billions or hundreds of thousands as noted, because it is leaving the possibility within scripture. First the Hebrews didn't have to many words, so they reused the same words. IT is likely in consideration of all the definitions, Moses meant to use the genealogy for merely showing family lines to Noah, not to use it as a way to calculate age. Thus many generations are actually left out. You find this in the new testament when listing how Jesus was linked to Abraham. Matthew 1:1. If they had meant to use the genealogy to calculate the age of the earth, or humanity than it would have provided every generation. Ref Message 361IF this was Science, and you were in the lab with a purpose, you would expect to be given the chance to use the lab per your purpose. You should give the author the same consideration. You don't actually KNOW his purpose with the genealogies but if you read them it is pretty clear it is to link person A to person B. IT is not there to be used to calculate the age of the earth. It is MEN putting the age of things into the Bible while READING it, not the AUTHOR putting the age of the earth when writing it. So when reading it whether it is thought that the age of things is billions or thousands it is not actually stated in the Bible. I realize this point and SO should YOU.I also want to make another note regarding scripture because it is clear you are lost. Scripture is not just written for humans per-say. Scripture is written for truth. Meaning if it is written, it will reflect truth when kept in the context of each scripture. What different people see or interpret at different periods in history may or may not be that truth. IF they see the truth then that is what they see but many are fine just being faithful and do not care about the Science because they have revelation. Others want revelation and love Science and they can see where in using Science, even the main stream ideas such as the big bang fit right in with scripture. The fact they they are able to fit and make sense together, as long as you don't try to see it from a evolutionist lens, then that is good. I don't expect when looking at scripture, and Science, to see creation if you are merely looking at it from the lens of evolution. I have seen things differently in the past and understand other ways of thinking. After seeing and experiencing those other ways of thinking, I disagree with them.

quote:

---

2 tim 3:16-17

​

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

​

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

Edited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : Err

It should be logical grammatically since the translators put a "." after Gen 1:1. Clearly that was the end of that point....Scripture for reference below. And you can see in Gen 1:1, it does make a point that space and earth were created first, which in Gen 1:2 it goes on to discussing the earth from the perspective of being on the earth. Looking up at the heavens vs looking down from the heavens. I also want to note that there is nothing to suggest any time at all to be able to figure out what the scripture is telling you regarding the age of the earth. IT is using Science and Math that people come up with those things. However scripture does allow for a old earth. If scientists determine they screwed up with the age, that is fine because the Bible does not actually give an age for the earth.

quote:

---

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

---

Edited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : err

Yes, there IS a "then", at the beginning of verse 3, after the circumstantial clause which is verse 2. The Hebrew construction is called a "waw-consecutive" or "preterite", and is normally translated "and then".Here is the NASB 1995 translation:

quote:

---

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

​

3 Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light.

---

The first verse says that God created everything in the beginning ("heavens and earth" is a Hebrew figure of speech for "everything".)The second verse functions as an "aside", describing the conditions on the earth at an unstated later time. The focus of the story shifts to the earth here.The third verse describes God's next action in the story. It starts with the waw-consecutive; "and then God called the light into being".

quote:

---

Yes, there IS a "then", at the beginning of verse 3, after the circumstantial clause which is verse 2. The Hebrew construction is called a "waw-consecutive" or "preterite", and is normally translated "and then".

---

The point seems to be that there is no "then" between verse 1 and verse 2.It seems likely to me that verse 1 says what the story is about, while verse 2 describes the original state of everything. Heaven and Earth are created later in the story. The ancient Hebrews had a geocentric cosmology so there is no need to suggest that there is a sudden shift of focus to Earth - there really is nothing else in the author's world-view to shift away from.

Correct; there is no "then" between verses 1 and 2. Nor should there be. Verse 2 is not describing an event; it is a circumstantial clause describing the condition of the early earth after its creation in verse 1. Verse 2 is sometimes translated as "Now the earth was ..."Verse 1 can be seen either as a heading or title for the whole account, or as the initial divine action in the account. Grammatically and structurally, the latter seems most likely to me. I see the heaven and the earth having been created in verse 1, NOT later in the story.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Verse 1 can be seen either as a heading or title for the whole account, or as the initial divine action in the account. Grammatically and structurally, the latter seems most likely to me. I see the heaven and the earth having been created in verse 1, NOT later in the story.

---

Since the sky and the celestial bodies are all created in the rest of the text (starting in verse 6) and the dry land, called Earth is created in verses 9-10 it seems that there is good reason to think that they are created later.And certainly there is no good reason to assume that verse 1 refers to the creation of the universe as we see it, not when the stars aren't created until verse 15.

You can use the word probable in different circumstances. I suppose if you wanted to turn the issue into a math problem, what the mathmatical probability in this case is equal to depends on the scenario. I will let the readers decide. The genealogy in genesis is used to show a family line from adam to noah, just like the genealogy in matthew is used to show the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy in both cases are not used to calculate the age of the earth. So if you use it for calculating the age of the earth I would expect it to be incorrect. Therefor it should not be used to calculate the age of the earth and it is probable it would be incorrect. This does suggest that scripture is not in contradiction to the age of the earth or the age of humanity. Unless you can prove otherwise. If you want to use a concordance look up the hebrew words and you will see for yourself the english word father, i.e. begat can mean "to bring forth" which doesn't quantify to merely gave birth directly to.ExampleGen 5:6
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:I.e. and begat ( bring forth) enos.H3205 - yla - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)Does not mean as is interpreted by some that he directly gave birth to.. Edited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : Link

But the earth is not created in vv 9-10 (Day 3a); it already exists, overlain with water. In vv. 9-10 God separates the water from the dry land, and He names the dry land as "earth".Likewise, vv. 6-8 (Day 2) is about the separation of the seas from the heavens, not the creation of the heavens. What is created is the "firmament", which is the separator between the seas and the heavens.I agree that the sun, moon, and stars do not appear until Day 4.Verse 2 notes that the earth is formless and empty. In the literary structure of the account, Days 1-3 address forming (through separation and naming), while Days 4-6 address filling.

quote:

---

But the earth is not created in vv 9-10 (Day 3a); it already exists, overlain with water. In vv. 9-10 God separates the water from the dry land, and He names the dry land as "earth"

---

That doesn't exactly contradict my point. The dry land - the Earth - is created.

quote:

---

Likewise, vv. 6-8 (Day 2) is about the separation of the seas from the heavens, not the creation of the heavens. What is created is the "firmament", which is the separator between the seas and the heavens.

---

You seem to be contradicting yourself there. Are you assuming that creation must mean ex nihilism creation ?

quote:

---

Verse 2 notes that the earth is formless and empty. In the literary structure of the account, Days 1-3 address forming (through separation and naming), while Days 4-6 address filling.

---

I think that forming can be called creation. Why do you disagree ?

That isn't what it says. There is no "prior to" time frame mentioned between verse 1 and verse 2. I agree that it's a revolution of Biblical revisionism that came up with your interpretation. It wasn't Bible scholars who discovered that the earth was billions of years old. Bible revisionists have been struggling to shoehorn the Bible into reality ever since science was invented. So which is it? Are you looking for possibilities within scripture or are you looking for the truth? Huh? Are you disputing the length of time from Abraham to Jesus? Are you inserting untold generations in there? Remember that Abraham was from Ur and we can date Ur independently of the Bible.The biggest problem in Biblical dating of the earth is that the gap before humans is way too small. You can't insert generations there. Indeed. That includes your interpretation. That's why we need to look at what it actually says instead of trying to rewrite it to conform to the science of the day.

Scripture allows for a lot of things both true and false. You can't decide that scripture is accurate just because it maybe could possibly be warped to fit reality.You have to look at what it actually says. If it's wrong, it's wrong.