How old do you think the universe is?

[Amanah]

http://custance.org/Library/Volume6/.../Chapter2.html

When we look to the most ancient Hebrews themselves, who
were well exercised in and conversant with the peculiarities of their native tongue, we find that in this particular instance they all interpreted it by the disjunctive particle but, and none of them by the copulative and. Thus it was rendered by the first interpreters of the text, the Jews of Alexandria, nearly three hundred years before the Christian era:


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but . . . earth. . .

..........In the same sense it was understood by the learned Jew, Josephus, who thus paraphrased the passage:


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but, the latter not coming into view.

[Amanah]

http://custance.org/Library/Volume6/.../Chapter2.html

..In the second verse the usual Hebrew construction to express continuous development would have been, as Hebraists are aware, the imperfect with Waw Conversive, i.e., (wat-tehi ha-a-rets) which would be correctly translated "and the earth was," etc. The fact, however, is that the narrative goes out of the usual to say (weha-a-rets ha-yethah), the Waw being separated from its verb, the usual way of expressing in Hebrew the pluperfect. When we turn to the third chapter of Genesis, verse 3, we find the same peculiarity in the narrative. The "Serpent" used as the embodiment of the power of evil is spoken of thus: (Wehan-naghash ha-yah). "Now the Serpent had become," etc., not "was" as in our translation.
..........We now have this:

IN A FORMER STATE GOD PERFECTED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH; BUT THE EARTH HAD BECOME. . .

"Without form and void. . . ."

..........We come therefore to a consideration of the words, "without form and void" ( -- tohu wa-bohu). From the outset we can say unequivocally that both words, whether occurring together or singly, are used throughout Scripture in connection with something under God's judgment. Tohu is used of something which has been laid waste (Isaiah 24:10; 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23) or has become desert (Deuteronomy 32:10) or of anything which is the object of false "worship" and therefore displeasing to God, as in Isaiah 41:29, etc. With the Hebrew preposition (lamedh) it becomes an adverb, (Isaiah 49:4) and means "wastefully" or "in vain." In Isaiah 45:18 it is possibly an adverbial accusative of the noun, although the form is identical with the noun itself. We shall have occasion subsequently to examine this particular passage more carefully. Gesenius and Tregelles in their respective lexicons both define the meaning of the noun as "waste-ness; specifically that which is wasted or laid waste."

[Esaias]

‘Was’ [Hebrew hayetah] in Genesis 1:2 is translated ‘became’ by gappists, giving the reading, ‘And the earth became [or had become] without form and void.’ Gap theorist A.C. Custance devotes nearly 80% of his book Without Form and Void, including 13 Appendices, to advocating this translation, especially with the pluperfect, ‘had become’.

However, recognized grammarians, lexicographers, and linguists have almost uniformly rejected the translations ‘became’ and ‘had become’.11 It is a basic exegetical fallacy to claim that because Strong’s Concordance lists ‘became’ as one of the meanings of haya, it is legitimate to translate it this way in the particular context of Genesis 1:2. It is simply grammatically impossible when the verb haya is combined with a waw disjunctive—in the rest of the Old Testament, Waw + a noun + haya (qal perfect, 3rd person) is always translated, ‘was’ or ‘came’, but never ‘became’.

http://creation.mobi/from-the-beginning-of-the-creation

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I agree, I appreciate the time, study, and thoughtfulness of my Brothers.

Amen, I thoroughly enjoy this discussion.

Also your input as well.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

How long was adam in the garden of Eden before he fell? What was happening outside the garden during that time?

Is the answer to this question obvious or something?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

‘Was’ [Hebrew hayetah] in Genesis 1:2 is translated ‘became’ by gappists,

Why then should we not go to rabbis or others who speak Hebrew to get the answer?


All these claims about what the Hebrew says or does not say, and yet it seems I'm the only one wanting to deal with lexicons and definitions?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

This may be a dumb question, but how do the rabbi's know it? If it is a dead language that ceased to used how do people know it? The English translated Bible is the safest thing I have to go by. If the Hebrew word is used interchangeably throughout our Bible either the word is interchangeable or our Bible translation is wrong. I will take the KJV over a non believing Jewish Rabbi.

A dead language is not a language no one knows any more. It means it is dead in that it is not changing and evolving because it is not actually in use any more except by scholars who study it and its texts. It can be learned with the assurance the words won't change meaning.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Where does it say that life is always created? You implying that from its "usage" in a few places, and as Esaias has already stated it is not always used as created from nothing.



Do you believe that we are eternal? Eternity as I understand it is has no beginning nor end.



There is a lot that I do not know and I am speaking my own ideas that are based upon scritptures that come to me. IMHO



Are you not basing that from usage?




I interpret life as being given rather than created. Creation is just the finished product.

https://goo.gl/images/L0Ynpk




I prefer to say our life is from God's Spirit.



It is the breath of life that God breathed. The word breath/n šâmâ is also used in places as Spirit. I should say that is the Spirit of God that came into man to give him life. The Spirit of God is where our life comes and that Spirit of God is eternal (no, begining no end).



The Biblical usage indicates that it does not.

It's all moot without actual Hebrew definitions.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

A dead language is not a language no one knows any more. It means it is dead in that it is not changing and evolving because it is not actually in use any more except by scholars who study it and its texts. It can be learned with the assurance the words won't change meaning.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

As for asking a local rabbi, since that is an appeal to authority (not always a bad thing), I'd like to know who this rabbi is, his credentials in translation, etc. I'd like to know if he is qualified to overturn and correct all previous scholars' translations.

I'd like to also know if he is chabad or not, if he is chasidic or not, etc. And I'd like to see what sources he draws on for whatever he says.

And further, I'd like to know if he believes he is bound to tell the truth concerning Torah to a gentile.

Who do you think we should ask who knows Hebrew, then?