Tristen

And yet, I have done so. You telling me, "it is absurd" is not a rational rebuttal of anything I've said. There is no indication in this statement that you have considered my argument. You are simply repeating your position. I look forward to your argument(s) articulating how my stated position is outside of the realm of logical possibility. An Appeal to Ridicule (fallacy) does not constitute a rational response to my stated position. Rather, the contrary. I have "explained" this very thing. You have elected to skip over my explanation - and act as though it doesn't exist - and just repeated your same challenge as though I hadn't already rebutted your claim. You mean - do I think there was an early stage of creation where the Earth was unordered and empty? - yes. I'm not blinded at all. I actually see through them. Big difference. Well, let me know when you decide to provide a rational rebuttal of my supposedly transparent arguments. Until such a time, you are merely engaging in empty posturing. This is just the second time you've given an answer. I have given a direct answer a handful of times in this thread, and more in a previous thread. I have no indication from your responses that your brain has even registered these answers. I look forward to you addressing the supposedly "irrational" aspect of my argument - demonstrating how it allegedly defies logic. You are free to your opinion. I have my "opinion". I also have the pattern of your engagement in the discussion prior to you realizing that your arguments were based on bad information. Read it again. Or you could show me where I said the thing you are claiming I said. Then we can compare what I actually said, to what you are claiming I said. Well - whenever you get a chance to go back and examine my response to this challenge, we will be able to ascertain whether or not my position falls outside of the bounds of logic. Until then, your above statement amounts to, '"How can there even be a rational conversation" when I still dare to disagree with you?'. You have thus far failed to demonstrate any flaw of logic in my position (nor even attempted to do so). That's clearly what you communicated. Yup. Only when your brain permits you to register my response to this claim, will we be able to properly scrutinize the rationality of my position.

I'm not sure what you think this means. Many birds have scales on their feet. Some birds also have feathers on their feet. This study investigates the molecular pathways that promote some cells differentiating into scales, but sometimes promotes these same undifferentiated cells into becoming feathers. The researchers were able to manipulate the undifferentiated cells that would normally become scales, to become feathers instead. The genes for scales are still completely distinct from the genes for feathers. This study simply revealed the switch that determines which gene is ultimately expressed for each cell.

Who is this post addressed to? It would be dishonest to characterize anything I have written as a "want to do sinful things" or to say I "enjoy getting your sinful lifestyle on". Such dishonestly would be a "sin". Did you not realize that prior to posting lies? If so, best not do it again - now you know. If you persist on being in league with my "accuser" (Rev 12:10), and not my Savior, then you'll have to take that up with God.

Beyond the "facts", "Substance" can also refer to whatever else is contained in an argument. That includes any "facts", but also the application of logic and reasoning. Case-in-point. I have several times now answered your challenge to explain how 'tohu vabohu' can apply to both the early creation conditions, and the post war conditions. You have, 1) ignored my explanation (except for the one case where you mocked my argument with a simple "Lol"), then 2) repeated your claim that it can't be explained. How can we have a conversation about that if you are so thoroughly blinded to my arguments? How many times must I repeat my answer before your brain allows you to properly consider it? As far as I am concerned, it is now on-you to go back and provide a rational rebuttal to my presented arguments. It is not on-me to continue to repeat myself until it gets through. Yes, my point. Lol. It was "my point" first. It is necessary to focus on "technique" - because allowing irrational "technique" to pass invalidates the whole conversation - and therefore wastes the time of everyone involved. My case-in-point (above) demonstrates this. How can we have a debate on an issue if you ignore my responses, and continue to repeat the same, rebutted, claims? If the debate is allowed to depart from rational convention (or "technique"), then nothing is achieved. It's as useful as sticking out your tongue and thinking yourself clever. I have done. I await your response to my provided argument. Both issues are "real" issues. And I have engaged on both issues. In our conversation(s), there was no suggestion that one "issue" was more important than the other until you realized your argument for the first was based on bad information. There is no objective reason to consider one "issue" to be more "real" than the other. It's purely a matter of you not wanting to talk about one any more - since you realized your argument for that one "issue" has been rendered much weaker than you initially thought. I have no idea what you mean here. You claimed I "don't want to discuss substance". That is a lie - and a mischaracterization of what I said. I am more-than happy to discuss "substance" - but only in the context of a fair-minded, rational conversation. Otherwise, we are wasting each other's time. Presumptuous claims about "substance" mean nothing outside the bounds of logic. Ask yourself, 'Why would a sincere person be so thoroughly determined to avoid holding their arguments accountable to the standard of logic?'. I'm here saying, 'Let's be fair-minded, and reasonable, and rational', and you're complaining that I'm being "overly focused on technique". You yourself admitted that. No, not obvious. Maybe preview before posting, in order to ensure what you mean is just what you have typed. This is a lie - and subsequently, an attempt to posture based on a lie. Actually, my focus has been on your lack of fair-mindedness, and your inability to take any rational account for your stated position. As you claimed earlier, my current "focus" in this conversation is about argument "technique". And so here we are again - a post ending with Innuendo (fallacy) based on a lie. To quote my previous post, "It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me.".

A Christian is someone who has sincerely surrendered ownership of their life to Jesus (i.e. confesses Jesus as their Lord) as a faith response to His Gospel. That Gospel includes His sacrifice for our sins, and resurrection - i.e. the fact that He permanently conquered death for us. There were many people named "Jesus" (Yeshua) in ancient Israel, and many who were "crucified" by Romans, but only one "Jesus" was permanently resurrected from the dead - paving the way for us into eternal life with God.

"Science" is a subset of "logic". "Science" works because it follows logical tenets; namely, those associated with Critical Reasoning. If all parties in a disagreement both understand and apply "logic" to the debate, then such discussions have a very high chance of an amicable resolution. By contrast, when one or more of the conversationalists decides to breach the rules of logic (for example, by insinuating something personal about their opponent which is not relevant to the topic being discussed), then the probability of an amicable outcome reduces significantly.

I can't speak to the intent of others. The Bible tells me the following: 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; I'd rather test and refine the quality of my arguments before Christians first. I want to know firstly if I'm wrong, and secondly if there is a better argument to be made (for both my benefit, and the benefit of those I'm speaking with). That is because the people involved depart from the conventions of basic logic. At its core, that is an active choice to move the conversation away from the topic being discussed. Lol. For example, the departure from logic when, instead of dealing with what the opponent has actually said, one tries to insinuate a nefarious motivation on their opponent.

Presumably, the reason we had debates in "school" was to teach us that there is a proper way to reason through a disagreement. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Why "debate" if we have no interest in "truth"? When I engage in discussion with someone I disagree with, I assume we are both trying to find the "truth" - by presenting our arguments for consideration by the opposing perspective. I have zero interest in trying to win some non-existent trophy - simply because I was able to out-clever an opponent by whatever means necessary. Such a discussion is a massive waste of everyone's time. Moreso, as Christians, whose primary goal in "debate" should be to seek and establish God's "truth", we (of all people) should be able to have a disagreement without forsaking the conventions of rational and mannerly conversation. The fleshly instinct to 'need to be right' can (and too often does) get in the way of appropriate disagreement conduct.

I disagree. Quite often people I agree with will make their point in an obstinate, unreasonable or irrational manner. I've yet to see this convince anyone of anything or have any positive outcome. Being right in a debate is a waste of time if one is right, but in the wrong way. Most commonly, such conversations stall, or worse, descend into vindictive antagonism. In a debate context, where both parties presumably have an interest in finding the truth, how a point is argued is at-least as important being right. Most recently, I have rather been "focused" on how the issue had "been dealt with". Again, I think this is disingenuous. I happily discussed "substance" - until you decided to employ improper and technically irrational argument strategies. At that point, the conversation became about how you were arguing your case - since there was little rational substance in your arguments for me to respond to. It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me. For example, here you needed to falsely claim that I have no interest in debating "substance". That is an obvious mischaracterization of what I wrote.

You are fluffing around the edges of a conversation using ambiguous, religious terminology. This is why I earlier asked you, "to be more specific about what it means to be "willingly and knowingly living in sin"." You did not respond. Here, I would ask you what you mean when you say, "FORSAKE their sin"? Do you mean to make a decision to turn from sin and follow after the Spirit, or are you advocating the hardline position that, if a Christian ever sins after knowing the action to be sin, they have lost their salvation? If you mean the latter, then we have all lost our salvation - including you - and the sacrifice of Jesus was a waste. Again, "Knowingly living in sin" is a vague phrase. In some instances, I would agree with you, but in many instances using the same phraseology, I would disagree. I am happy for you if you have lived a life that has been so free from the entanglements between flesh and sin, that you don't understand that some (most) sins require a process to outwardly overcome them. If all you've ever had to do to be free from sin is be given knowledge of that sin, then I am glad for you. The downside of such a life is that you lack enough life experience to understand what it means to be in the struggle against sin. Your perspective is limited, and therefore comes across as judgmental and condemning. Those sincerely in the fight against sin do not need another "accuser" (Revelation 12:10), they need the grace, love and mercy found at the cross. You have Decontextualized this verse - and thus failed to comprehend its true intent. Hebrews 10:26 is not talking about any "sin" in general. There is nothing in the context about general sins of the flesh. This verse is speaking to the specific "sin" of reverting back to the system of animal sacrifices required under Jewish Law - and thereby rejecting the only sacrifice that can wash our sins away. That is the context (topic and purpose) of Hebrews 10. Paul expresses a similar idea in his letter to the Galatians: Galatians 2:17-19 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. More specifically, "because" they were "trusting" in their own efforts to not sin according to the standard of Law, rather than being freely perfected by the grace of Christ.

Sometimes the topic is less important than the manner in which the topic is being argued. How can someone learn to argue rationally if no-one ever holds them to account for arguing improperly.

This is somewhat Circular statement. Everyone thinks that what they believe is correct - otherwise they wouldn't believe it. That doesn't give it any weight beyond the individual. Well - I don't want to "address" this "issue" again until I can be confident of your ability to firstly at-least recognize the provided argument, and then give my provided argument fair, rational, reasonable consideration. Once upon a time in our conversation, both were relevant. In fact, earlier in our conversation, I was supposedly being "ridiculous" and "unreasonable" for not "seeing" your position on "the verb" - right up to the point where you realized you had misunderstood the nature of your evidence. Before that point, our discussion about "the verb" took a much higher priority (i.e. back when you thought you had a stronger argument). Nevertheless, I have addressed both issues in this thread. Well - I can't speak to what you 'saw'. I can only speak to the evidence I provided. I provided several dictionary definitions of Adhominem. I also provided an explanation as to why Adhominem represents a breach of the rules of logic. If your brain filters out my arguments so that you don't "see" them, then I think you are correct about our capacity to "discuss" those issues.

If it doesn't then we are free to live in sin, and let our freak flag fly! Firstly, you made a statement about what the Bible claims. The fact that you don't like the implication doesn't really answer my question as to whether the Bible claims that sin separates us from God. Secondly, sin, from a Christian perspective, destroys us. Sin is bad for us. Sin is bondage, not freedom. The concept of being "free to live in sin" is an alien concept to Christians. According to the Gospel, we are free from sin, and its corrosive effects. Sin is something we need to be saved from. Our inescapable enslavement to sin is the reason we need a Savior. Anyone who interprets sin as a freedom has misunderstood the role of sin, and the purpose of the Gospel to set us free. These are of the sort who think sins are something a Christian is missing out on. It is not my job to defend the beliefs of others. "OSAS" is a different, and much more comprehensive, conversation. Anyone who mitigates the seriousness of sin is taking an unChristian stance. Nevertheless, the grace found through the blood of Christ is sufficient for those sincerely seeking to overcome their sins - even if they are still in the midst of that battle.

Does it? Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. But is that even the point? The Bible also teaches: Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. 1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. John 8:7 ... “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, The ministry of Jesus is to show grace to those held captive by sin, to set us free from bondage. Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? Haughty self-declarations conflating your own arguments with God's Word are meaningless. My arguments are also based on my sincere understanding of scripture. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

Rather, responding to YOUR continuation of a non point. Sure - your are insisting that I should "let it go", even to the point of calling me "obsessed" for not "moving on" - but here you are, also not "moving on"; but continuing to debate the issue. It lacks fair-mindedness - but I am also starting to get bored. Maybe if you hang-in long enough, you can bore me out of the conversation. I told you what it means to me; attacking one's character. And I haven't done that. Adhominem fallacy is not open to subjective definitions. It is both well-understood and thoroughly, precisely defined. Adhominem fallacy specifically refers to addressing the person, rather than the topic. It does not matter that you think your claim about the person is justified. It is a breach of logic because the personal attribute being criticized is not relevant to provided arguments on the topic of discussion. As I've said several times, whether or not I am "sensitive" or "obsessed" is entirely irrelevant to the proper translation of Genesis 1:2. The fallacy you employ here is called a False Analogy. If you were discussing the proper interpretation of Genesis 1:2, and you responded with a claim that your opponent's "breath stinks", that would be undeniably Adhominem. It bears no logical relevance to the debate whether or not your opponent's "breath" actually "stinks". Yep - still Adhominem. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe your claim to be true, or justified. If your comment is about the person, rather than the topic being discussed, it is Adhominem. I think this is dishonest. I just wanted clarification that you were walking away from a particular argument. Instead of being honest and clear, you decided on a strategy of inconsistency, ambiguity, gaslighting and fallacy. So now, all I'm doing is holding you to account for being disingenuous in your responses on this matter.

The irony here is, though you say there is "nothing more", you spend the rest of the post, 1) continuing to argue your point, and 2) continuing to justify your Adhominem accusation against me. See there? You haven't let it go. You are still arguing the point - but at the same time, trying to pretend it's me who can't "move on". And even after telling me you'd be "ignoring" the topic moving forwards. I don't care what "YEC's" can, or "cannot reconcile". I have reconciled the translations several times - and you mocked, then ignored my arguments on the matter. You already have, in case you're not aware of that. And I acknowledged it. There is nothing else to say about it. Except that you continue to, 1) argue your point, and 2) make negative characterizations against me personally. That's not what "nothing else to say about it" means. Well, it's NOT mine. The OP is the focus of this thread. Well, I entered into the conversation to address comments you made concerning your interpretation methodology of Genesis 1:2. If those comments were irrelevant to the OP, that's on you. Lol. Pretty sure we both played a role in this conversation. One more time with this issue. I have PROVED that "became" is a legitimate translation of ha-ye-tah. There are many times it is translated as "was" in the OT but I showed that the "was" could just as easily be translated as "became". So then, when you say, "nothing more" and "nothing else to say", what you mean is that you are free to make an extraordinary, absolutist, uncontested declaration of victory over the debate. Because, since you have arbitrarily decided that you are right, what more could there possibly be to discuss? Your definition of Adhominem is incorrect. Even if a personal accusation against a person is accurate, if the accusation is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, then the argument is Adhominem (and therefore technically irrational). Adhominem is purely about addressing the person rather than the argument. Whether or not the "attack on one's character" is proven or "unproven" has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the argument qualifies as Adhominem. The rationale of Adhominem: Even if the thing you claim about the person is true, that does not logically entail that what they have said is wrong. You are free to stop responding to my comments at any time.

I'm sure there are existing threads here debating the "once saved, always saved" doctrine. Or you could start a new one - if that is something you are interested in discussing. My contribution to the topic of this thread is to be cautious about judging someone's Christianity on the basis of sin. A person who is sinning may very well be a non-Christian, but they may also be a sincere, yet immature Christian, who either doesn't fully understand the seriousness of sin, or who is sincerely struggling to overcome their sin. Only God has the perspective to make that judgement - because only God sees our hearts.

I can tell you my motivations exactly. I do not enter conversations under the premise that only I am accountable for my arguments. In this conversation, you recognized that you made an error (which is something I respect), but you then tried to turn that error around on me in a technically irrational and unfair/dishonest manner. Therefore, I am simply holding you to account for your behavior in the conversation. I entered the conversation to debate the hermeneutics you are using to interpret Genesis 1:2. That is my interest here. I both can, and have, made this reconciliation, several times, in this thread, in direct responses to you. Either you are sincerely incapable of recognizing that or you are not being honest. Either way, that's not a great foundation for any conversation. Nevertheless, I have always said that I'll consider engaging with you on other topics if you decide to start a thread (if it is a topic that piques my interest). I engaged you on this thread to discuss the hermeneutical claims you were making about Genesis 1:2. - "ad hominem, (Latin: “against the man”) in full argumentum ad hominem, type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter." (Ad hominem | Definition, Fallacy, Bias, Examples, & Facts | Britannica) - "ad hominem (of a criticism, etc.) directed against a person, rather than against what that person says: " (AD HOMINEM | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary) - "ad hominem : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made " (Ad hominem Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster) - "ad hominem attacking an opponent's character or motives rather than answering the argument or claim. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. " (Ad hominem Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com) Therefore, your attempt to label me as "sensitive" or "obsessed" rather than addressing my arguments, claims or contentions, is a very straight-forward example of you applying an Adhominem argument.

Yes - if you are so very determined to stick to technically-irrational, Adhominem arguments, then that is where the conversation is bound to stall.

I guess I'd need you to be more specific about what it means to be "willingly and knowingly living in sin". Even as Christians, most of the sins we commit are in some sense committed "willingly and knowingly". However, when a sincere Christian sins, we seek "His help" so that we might eventually overcome the influence of our corrupted flesh. However, there are also those who "willingly and knowingly" submit to sin; mitigating the seriousness of sin; even justifying their sins before God. I agree with you that this is not a Biblical perspective - and would consider this indicative of an insincere faith confession. I don't know who "they all" are. I can only speak for myself. If "once saved always saved" is correct, then the second group of sinners mentioned above (i.e. those who mitigate the seriousness of sin and perhaps even justify sin) are not "saved" (yet). It is also possible that they are sincere in their faith's confession - but have simply misunderstood salvation doctrine. I think the "once saved always saved" debate is a much bigger conversation. I don't think there is anything inherent to that teaching that condones "living in sin".

The reason we need a Saviour is because God knows that we are too weak and too corrupted to avoid sin without His help. That is why the covenant had to be of grace, not law. Ideally, we would, of course, not sin. However, sanctification is a process that is different for everyone. Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. I would be genuinely concerned for the spiritual welfare of any Christian not humble enough to admit their own weaknesses. Not to me - but to God and to themselves. All Christians sin - but less so as we grow and mature in God. All genuine Christians are "perfected", but also "being sanctified". A "sinner" is anyone who falls short of God's measure - not our own measure. No genuine Christian would claim "it's OK to willingly and knowingly do sin". When we do sin, we both acknowledge and regret our sin, decide to repent from our sin and turn back to God, and henceforth move forward with God - in faith; understanding that Jesus has dealt with our sin. I don't know who "these folks" are. But I would caution that people with a legalistic mindset towards sin tend to overindulge in self-condemnation when they do sin (which everyone does). That is a waste of God's time - and an indication that one does not trust in the sacrifice of Christ. Our sin is against God. If God forgives us, who are we to disagree? 1 John 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. We "need" grace the most when we have sinned. But we shouldn't wallow in self-pity. We should go straight to God and get it fixed. Jesus will "advocate" for us before the Father. I can't speak for others. In my position, there is no sense of grace being a license to sin. Only that grace is available when we do sin (which we all do - in recognition that, in this life, we will always have to carry around the corrupted and rebellious flesh).

For me, the idea in these verses is that a sincere salvation (a sincere surrender of one's life to Christ as our Lord) will produce change in the savee - from the inside, out. The influence of the inner Holy Spirit will effect light, and repentance, and righteousness in the life of the believer. The works themselves are a result of salvation, not a prerequisite for salvation. Given that sanctification is a process, the continuing absence of these good fruits could indicate that the initial confession of faith was not sincere. I would also note that this is between God and the individual. Only God knows our hearts. It could just be that some people are more broken, or more obstinate, and therefore maybe it takes a bit longer for their sanctification to become outwardly evident. An outward lack of fruit, regardless of salvation status, is an indication that the person is not mature enough to hold spiritual influence in our lives.

As long as you are determined to mischaracterize me as having an “obsession”, I have a fair-minded right of reply – i.e. to defend myself from false accusation. Therefore, unfortunately, you continue to give me every incentive to not “move on” - for two main reasons: 1 – In using Adhominem arguments, i.e. in making the personal characterization of my position as an “obsession”, you are being both irrational, and lacking in fair-mindedness. Why should I let your mischaracterization of me stand, when you are the one who have been (admittedly) in the wrong? You want the right to label me “obsessed”, but then insist I must be the one to “move on”. 2 – You refuse to “move on”. You have reserved the right to continue to argue your case while insisting that I must “move on”. That kind of recalcitrant behavior doesn’t fly with me. In a conversation with me, you are also accountable for your behavior. If you want to “move on”, then “move on”. But that means you don’t get to continue arguing your case, and you certainly don’t get to throw negative, personal labels my way. An Adhominem argument is one that argues against something personal about the opponent, rather than addressing the topic itself. In labelling me “sensitive” and “obsessed”, that is exactly what you are doing. It sure is. Your determination to mischaracterize me as “sensitive” is 100% the epitome of an Adhominem argument. My alleged “sensitivity” has nothing whatsoever to do with how to translate Genesis 1:2. Your accusation against me is therefore nothing more than a poor attempt to manipulate me by frustrating me through false allegation. That is, your accusation that I am being “sensitive” is unequivocally, unambiguously Adhominem. No, I'm trying to get YOU to let this go. Right – You want ME (and ME only) “to let this go”, but “YOU” want the right to continue to negatively characterize me, and to continue to argue your position (which you have supposedly “ADMITTED” being wrong about). But apparently, it's on me to just walk away and let all that stand. Do you really think that is fair-minded? So here we are again, with you arguing your point – even though you keep insisting that I “move on”. And Lol. Are you really trying to dodge this? You originally said, “The list shows the NASB translating the word as "become" 19 times, and NEVER as "was"”. What I demonstrated (I rarely use the word “prove”), is that the NASB often translates “the word” as ‘was’. Therefore, your claim, based on “the list” (which you have already, supposedly “ADMITTED” to be an unsuitable source for your claims), that the NASB “NEVER” translates “the word as “was””, is debunked. No matter how much you pretend otherwise, this “issue” only became a “non-issue” to you after you realized you were wrong about your source of information. The problem here is that you are “addressing” my arguments in an unfair and irrational manner. You’ve decided to try and gaslight me, and to subsequently double-down when I call you out. But you still haven’t figured out that such behavior only gives me further opportunity to bring up your error. Conceding the argument through non-engagement has always been an option. 😊 It's a pity, when I asked for clarification, you didn't just say, 'Yes, I've realized that my 59% claim is based on inappropriate data - so I will no longer be making nor defending that claim'. - Done. But you decided to try and save face. On top of which, you tried to turn it on me - like I'm the one in the wrong. Nope. Lol. That didn't even take a sentence to break your new rule. So when you say, "from this point forward", you mean "After I'm done arguing for my position, I'm then going to "ignore" everything you have to say on the matter"? I'm wondering how many "LAST comments" there will be. Sometimes, if context permits, 'was' can indeed be substituted with 'became'. But certainly not every instance that follows your Non-Sequitur argument - i.e. that since everything that 'was' a certain way, previously 'became' that way, therefore 'was' equals 'became'. This argument fails the scrutiny of logic. I have not claimed to have "proven anything". I never contested this claim. So what exactly was my "error"? You are free to say whatever you want Thank you - I did say what I wanted. My point is that your argument to substitute "wasteland" for "void" in Genesis 1:2, simply because Jeremiah 4:23 translates the same Hebrew word as "wasteland", is based on the evidence of a single translation (that I could find). That is, only one translation translates Jeremiah 4:23 as "wasteland". So even according to your flawed 'elsewhere translation' methodology, this is a weak evidence. In your very long posts, I choose what to address or not. You are certainly free to "choose what to address or not". However, if you "choose" to not "address" my response to your challenge, then it is dishonest of you to continue to make the same challenge - as though I had not provided an answer. Wait - Did you just move the rule again? Maybe, "from this point forward" you'll stop addressing the 'hayetha' issue? I did not claim to have "proven" anything. I have unequivocally demonstrated that the primary translation of 'haya' (in all forms including 'hayetha') is 'was'. In some cases, where the context explicitly describes a transition, the rarer translation 'became' or 'become' might be appropriate. However, the fact that a Hebrew word can be translated away from its core meaning in some instances, does not logically permit that the deviant translation can be substituted for every instance of the Hebrew word. To apply this logically unsound methodology is very poor hermeneutics. This argument constitutes at least one "point". Sure it can. I've explained the reasoning. Whenever you "choose" to stop ignoring my explanation, I'll happily discuss it with you.

It's called you refusing to be accountable for the content, style and tone of your presented position - and you trying to duck away from your reasonable responsibilities in the conversation. And you trying to manipulate me into backing down via use of Adhominem arguments. So then, the impetus and responsibility to "let.this.go" is on me alone - however you get to keep arguing your point? This is a testable claim. Genesis 1:2 (New American Standard Bible) 2 And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness Genesis 3:20 (New American Standard Bible) 20 Now the man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. Genesis 18:12 (New American Standard Bible) 12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have become old, am I to have pleasure, my lord being old also?” Genesis 29:17 (New American Standard Bible) 17 And Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in figure and appearance Genesis 36:12 (New American Standard Bible) 12 Timna was a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz, and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. These are the sons of Esau’s wife Adah. In the first five verses of the Old Testament using 'hayetha', the NASB translates 'was' four times. So much for "the NASB translating the word as "become" 19 times, and NEVER as "was"". This is plainly untrue. I ADMITTED my error, which you seem totally unable to accept. What is actually true is that, in one post you were accusing me of being ridiculous and unreasonable. Then in the next post you seemed to be agreeing with me on certain points. When I asked for clarification, instead of just saying you were no longer using that resource to support your claim, you started accusing me of being "sensitive"; which has now progressed to me being allegedly "obsessed". Can I just say that, despite your posturing about me having a "hang-up", you really don't seem to have "moved on". I "took [you] to task" for using a resource that was not logically suitable to support your arguments. I provided 4 or 5 reasons for this using only the first five verses on your 111-strong list (when one reason would be enough to disqualify this resource from your claims). I can find and quote these reasons from my earlier posts if you've forgotten. It is not "AS COMMON". 'Became' is a significantly less "COMMON" translation "for thaat exact same verb form". You have already seen this "evidence" several times. I selected a translation, and counted how many times they translated 'hayetha' 'became' as compared to how many times this "exact same verb form" is translated 'was'. My Results (warning - this will make the post appear very long - which I know you don't like - but you did ask): Genesis 1:2 - The earth was without form, and void Genesis 3:20 - And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living Genesis 18:12 - Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” Genesis 29:17 - Leah’s eyes were delicate, but Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance. Genesis 36:12 - Now Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz Genesis 38:21 - And they said, “There was no harlot in this place.” Genesis 38:22 - Also, the men of the place said there was no harlot in this place.” Genesis 47:26 - And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth, except for the land of the priests only, which did not become Pharaoh’s. Exodus 8:15 - But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart Exodus 9:24 - So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, so very heavy that there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation Exodus 16:13 - and in the morning the dew lay all around the camp. Exodus 16:24 - So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. Exodus 36:7 - for the material they had was sufficient for all the work to be done Leviticus 21:3 - also his virgin sister who is near to him, who has had no husband Numbers 14:24 - But My servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit in him Deuteronomy 2:15 - For indeed the hand of the Lord was against them, to destroy them from the midst of the camp until they were consumed. Deuteronomy 2:36 - as far as Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us Deuteronomy 3:4 - there was not a city which we did not take from them Joshua 11:19 - There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites Joshua 11:20 - For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts Joshua 14:14 - Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb Joshua 17:6 - and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead. Joshua 17:8 - Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim. Judges 2:15 - Wherever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for calamity Judges 21:3 - and said, “O Lord God of Israel, why has this come to pass in Israel Judges 21:5 - For they had made a great oath concerning anyone who had not come up to the Lord at Mizpah Ruth 1:7 - Therefore she went out from the place where she was, 1 Samuel 4:7 - And they said, “Woe to us! For such a thing has never happened before. 1 Samuel 4:17 - has been a great slaughter among the people. 1 Samuel 5:11 - For there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city 1 Samuel 10:12 - Therefore it became a proverb 1 Samuel 14:20 - indeed every man’s sword was against his neighbor 1 Samuel 27:6 - Therefore Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day. 2 Samuel 3:37 - For all the people and all Israel understood that day that it had not been the king’s intent to kill Abner the son of Ner. 2 Samuel 10:9 - When Joab saw that the battle line was against him before and behind 2 Samuel 13:32 - For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day that he forced his sister Tamar. 2 Samuel 14:27 - Tamar. She was a woman of beautiful appearance. 2 Samuel 17:9 - whoever hears it will say, ‘There is a slaughter among the people who follow Absalom.’ 1 Kings 2:15 - the kingdom has been turned over, and has become my brother’s; for it was his from the Lord 1 Kings 4:11 - Ben-Abinadab, in all the regions of Dor; he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon as wife; 1 Kings 11:11 - Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes 1 Kings 12:15 - So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from the Lord 1 Kings 14:30 - And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days. 1 Kings 15:6 - And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life. 1 Kings 15:7 - And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam. 1 Kings 15:16 - Now there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. 1 Kings 15:32 - And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. 1 Kings 18:46 - Then the hand of the Lord came upon Elijah 2 Kings 8:18 - the daughter of Ahab was his wife; and he did evil in the sight of the Lord. 2 Kings 24:3 - Surely at the commandment of the Lord this came upon Judah 2 Kings 24:7 - the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates 2 Kings 24:20 - For because of the anger of the Lord this happened in Jerusalem and Judah 1 Chronicles 7:23 - because tragedy had come upon his house. 1 Chronicles 19:10 - When Joab saw that the battle line was against him before and behind 2 Chronicles 1:11 - Then God said to Solomon: “Because this was in your heart 2 Chronicles 10:15 - So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from God 2 Chronicles 13:2 - And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam. 2 Chronicles 14:14 - they plundered all the cities, for there was exceedingly much spoil in them. 2 Chronicles 15:1 - Now the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded. 2 Chronicles 20:14 - Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah 2 Chronicles 21:6 - he had the daughter of Ahab as a wife; and he did evil in the sight of the Lord 2 Chronicles 22:3 - He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother advised him to do wickedly. [Not translated – his Mother was his advisor, or had become his advisor] 2 Chronicles 22:7 - His going to Joram was God’s occasion for Ahaziah’s downfall 2 Chronicles 22:11 - (for she was the sister of Ahaziah) 2 Chronicles 30:12 - Also the hand of God was on Judah Ezra 8:31 - the hand of our God was upon us Ezra 9:2 - the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass. Ezra 9:8 - And now for a little while grace has been shown from the Lord our God Esther 2:20 - Esther obeyed the command of Mordecai as when she was brought up by him. Esther 8:16 - The Jews had light and gladness, joy and honor. Psalm 42:3 - My tears have been my food day and night Psalm 114:2 - Judah became His sanctuary, Psalm 118:22 - Has become the chief cornerstone. Psalm 118:23 - This was the Lord’s doing; Psalm 119:56 - This has become mine, Proverbs 31:14 - She is like the merchant ships Ecclesiastes 6:3 - his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial Isaiah 1:21 - How the faithful city has become a harlot! Isaiah 11:16 - As it was for Israel In the day that he came up from the land of Egypt. Isaiah 50:11 - This you shall have from My hand: Jeremiah 2:10 - And see if there has been such a thing. Jeremiah 12:8 - My heritage is to Me like a lion in the forest; Jeremiah 25:38 - For their land is desolate Jeremiah 26:24 - Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah Jeremiah 32:31 - ‘For this city has been to Me a provocation of My anger Jeremiah 50:23 - How Babylon has become a desolation among the nations! Jeremiah 51:41 - How Babylon has become desolate among the nations! Jeremiah 52:3 - For because of the anger of the Lord this happened in Jerusalem and Juda Lamentations 1:1 - How like a widow is she, … Has become a slave! Lamentations 1:17 - Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them. Ezekiel 16:56 - For your sister Sodom was not a byword in your mouth in the days of your pride, Ezekiel 19:10 - Your mother was like a vine in your bloodline Ezekiel 26:17 - Who was strong at sea, Ezekiel 31:3 - And its top was among the thick boughs Ezekiel 33:22 - Now the hand of the Lord had been upon me the evening before Ezekiel 36:2 - The ancient heights have become our possession, Ezekiel 36:17 - to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity. Ezekiel 36:34 - The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate Ezekiel 36:35 - So they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden Ezekiel 37:1 - The hand of the Lord came upon me Ezekiel 40:1 - on the very same day the hand of the Lord was upon me Ezekiel 44:25 - for brother or unmarried sister may they defile themselves [i.e. not had a husband] Joel 2:3 - Surely nothing shall escape them. Jonah 3:3 - Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city Zephaniah 2:15 - How has she become a desolation, Malachi 1:9 - That He may be gracious to us. While this is being done by your hands, Malachi 2:5 - My covenant was with him, one of life and peace Malachi 2:6 - The law of truth was in his mouth, Tally: - was/were total 49 of 111 = 44% - became/become total 16 of 111 = 14% - had/has/have total 23 of 111 = 21% - Also, there were a bunch of miscellaneous other translations. And by "MOVE ON" you mean accuse me of being "stuck" and "obsessed" while continuing to press your point - so that your error is not the last word on the subject. I would consider it more accurate (and relevant) to say that it is translated "wasteland" in only one translation (maybe two or three - I could only find one). Or, more accurately, anyone who disagrees with your translation methodology. The pertinent question for me is; 'How many times do I have to answer this exact question before your brain both registers and considers my answer?'. The last response I received from you when I provided an answer to this question was "lol". In my previous post, you ignored my answer to this completely. Your comment also raises several other questions: Such as, 'Why should I "move on" from one point to another, when you are still debating the first point?', 'Why has the former "bigger issue" suddenly been relegated to a minor "issue" - strangely coinciding with your realization of error?' , 'Why can't we discuss both issues (since that is what we have been doing, and since you are seemingly still permitted to discuss both issues regardless?'.

Swapping out one Adhominem fallacy for another doesn't make the statement any less fallacious (nor any more clever). I did. You didn't. Which is the truth. No posturing. I admitted the problem and there was no "aggressive tone". It is time to move on. Why do you continue to beat this DEAD HORSE then? I feel free to be free. And I post how I want to post. OK, let’s play this out: You made an error. In the context of our conversation, it was a very big error. But whatever – we all make errors. Hopefully we learn and move forward. Except you didn’t just make an error. During the commission of your error, you spent copious amounts of time opining about me being “ridiculous” and “disingenuous” and “unreasonable” etc. – for refusing to agree with your error. Then, after realizing your error, you tried to duck-and-cover, and to avoid any direct, unambiguous retreat of your erroneous position. And then, when I simply asked for clarification (i.e. that you are walking away from your error), you resort to accusing me of being “sensitive” and “obsessed”. Unsurprisingly, you now want me to just “move on”. But you are not prepared to “move on”. You are still arguing against my comments on this issue. So even though you have been the one in the wrong at every turn on this matter, you are still trying to demand the right of final response – as though you were in the right - and are now trying to play the ‘bigger person’ card. I am happy now to recognize that you have abandoned the erroneous argument. However, that leaves you with a much weaker position. No evidence you have provided supports the claim that ‘hayetha’ is translated ‘became’ more than ‘was’. As in English, where ‘was’ usually just means ‘was’, but can, on occasion, be substituted with ‘became’ – likewise, the Hebrew word for ‘was’ (‘haya’/‘hayetha’) can, on occasion, be translated ‘became’ instead of ‘was’. That is all ‘hayetha’ gives your argument. Also - A quick shoutout to @SavedOnebyGrace for your (cough) fair and unbiased contributions to the conversation. For me, the issue is what Gen 1:2 really means. We establish the Author's intent through sound translation practices (a.k.a. sound hermeneutics). Are you serious? I was brought up on YEC. Since "tohu wabohu" only occurs twice in the OT, and the other passage is Jer 4:23, where the context is about an invading army DESTROYING the land, the "opposing position" has NO validity. Lol. Yes, I am "serious". I am addressing your argument, not your background. Your argument here essentially claims that, since you have an argument, the mere existence of your argument "proves" your position, and therefore "the "opposing position" has NO validity". This actually explains why we have to go around the same circles so many times. You think that, because you have supposedly 'proved' your point, you therefore have no obligation to consider any counter-arguments. You can simply repeat your point - and pretend that I'm being unreasonable for not "seeing" your point. This is not how one rationally, objectively engages in debate. We've already established that it is possible for you to be in error (on rare occasions ). Therefore, you simply having an argument is not enough to settle a matter. Why then are we having a conversation? Presumably, we are both sincere in our faith. Presumably, we both want to know what God's true intention is for the text of Genesis 1:2 (even if that ultimately means we might have been wrong). Therefore, we each subject our arguments to the scrutiny of someone coming from a different perspective. Isn't that why we are here? This is yet more empty posturing. I have not contested any "facts". We are debating the appropriate application of those "facts" with regards to the interpretation process. Sure there is. You’ve made the same error of logic in several comments here (and in the previous post) – so I’ll just address it once. Simply calling an opposing view “silly” is an Appeal to Ridicule (a logic fallacy rendering the comment to be technically irrational). Worse than that – if I give you the benefit of the doubt (and assume you are being genuine, rather than obstinate), it means you lack the objective capacity to fairly consider opposing arguments – i.e. if your sincere default is that everyone who holds an opposing position to you is being “silly”. It means you haven’t registered, or properly thought through, the arguments (or at-least, there is no evidence from your comments that you have done so). To quote myself, I said, "If you are incapable of even conceiving the concept of raw materials existing in an unordered (or unorganized) state prior to being shaped by a creator for a specific purpose, then that is the limiting factor in our conversation". Your blinders are on - you are being reactionary, rather than thinking through what I said. No one is assuming anything. The first chapter of Genesis unequivocally describes a process of God creating light (and later the luminaries), then God separating the land from the water, then God filling the earth with living creatures. The fact that you have selected to plow an untold amount of time and history between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, does not change the fact that a process is clearly, unequivocally described in the Genesis text. So that seems like a pretty good "REASON". K then - see above. Well, at least you are admitting that you are assuming this - since no text actually states this, but there is text explicitly speaking to a process over time. Unless - 'tohu vabohu' simply means an unordered and empty state of existence. Then it could "certainly" mean both, the early state of creation, and the later state of a land ravaged by war. Right - God never mentions it again - or arguably, even the first time. What I am "convinced" about is not the point. We are trying to determine how to best interpret God's intent for Genesis 1:2. Your hermeneutical process allows you to read something into the scripture that is not present in the text itself. My hermeneutical process does not permit such extraordinary liberties be taken with scripture. I "resist" any interpretation of scripture that requires I accept the application of unsound hermeneutical practices. There is no such thing as a "pre-creation". That idea is only in your mind, regarding your vigorous rejection of what I believe. Gen 1:1 IS original creation, obviously. What follows is a restoration. You are using persnickety semantics to dodge the point. Your timeline is inconsistent with scripture. You said, "And ALL OF IT was "good, very good". But, the earth BECAME a WASTELAND that He then restored for man's use.". There is no sense in scripture that anything prior to Genesis 1:2 was explicitly declared to be either "good" or "very good". These descriptors are only applied to creations subsequent to Genesis 1:2. (though arguably including those things in Genesis 1:1 - having been created on the same day) Though you used quotation marks, I did not claim to have "proved" anything. In the other thread, you claimed that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' 70% of the time it is used in the Old Testament (which you later re-adjusted down to 59% - based on material that we both now agree to be unsuitable). [I note that you have also made the same claims earlier in this thread (before I arrived).] My response in the other thread was to pick a translation (an unbiased sample) and count them. The results were: 14% for 'became/become', 21% for 'had/has/have' and 44% for 'was/were'. I presented this data along with a complete list of the verses for your perusal, and also offered to do the same for any translation of your choosing. Clearly doesn't work in Jer 4:23. And what does 'unordered' even mean, after an invading army DESTROYS the land? In the context of a war-torn land, "unordered" means there is little-to-no evidence that any civilization existed in the land. Perhaps the land itself was rendered incapable of sustaining previously-abundant life forms. The phrase 'tohu vabohu' (alongside other contextual elements) is intended to generate imagery of a reversal of creation. It's a phrase that every Hebrew reader would have been familiar with at the time of authorship. lol OK - do you have an argument as to why my comments are worthy of derision? Because that is a pretty pathetic (and fallacious) response to my perfectly sensible comments. I explained how it is "reasonable" - and your response was "lol". You are not dealing reasonably with my arguments. You are still operating in the mindset that the mere existence of an argument supporting your position means you can disregard, and be arrogantly dismissive, of other arguments. Yes, it necessarily does inform our understanding of Gen 1:2. Why wouldn't it? If you read the above example carefully, I provided two counter-perspectives in my comment - your brain only registered the one you agree with, and the other was arbitrarily disregarded.