Diaste

Are you thinking the Day of the Lord is a single 24 hour day?

Sure. But a blank canvas is void before the paint, a stone is unsightly before the chisel. I agree with the contrast in that regard, a featureless earth is a contrast to what comes after. And what about the heavens? God created those. Were the heavens filled with the lights before they were created? "In the beginning God created...the earth" There really can't be anything before that. Have you seen some the examples of unsightly creatures from the oceans? A cheetah is sleek and stunning, a lion is majestic and royal, an axolotl is a bit jarring to look at. Even the elephant is not pleasing to look at, we are in awe of the size and power, not stunned by it's beauty! lol Why pick 'became'? Why not 'be', as in exist? Or 'came to pass'? hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be Original Word: הָיָה Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: hayah Phonetic Spelling: (haw-yaw) Definition: to fall out, come to pass, become, be I agree with that as it makes sense given the context. Jer 4 is clearly depicting an inhabited land bustling with daily life in all sectors: religion, politics, military, plowing, planting and reaping. The behaviors of God's people are so egregious it's going to result in a formless, empty land. No problem. Isaiah 34 is the same, the earth is filled with nations, and they will come to destruction. Not exactly. That's akin to concluding all 4 wheel vehicles are the same because one knows cars exist. Different context requires much different definitions of a 4 wheeled vehicle. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying the context is not the same, 'cause it isn't, and therefore the definition must fit the context. The earth cannot 'became' since it was creation of that earth, as a foundation for all that would be subsequently created, in and on an earth that was featureless and empty. The only thing the earth could 'became' was to exist where it did exist previously. the earth 'became' into existence. That just makes sense given what else we know about the creation story; everything in and on the earth was formed and created in the six days following. There is no account of any such creation of the topography, flora and fauna before v.2. If there is an account of a prior creation then I would like to read it. A quibble over a word is not going to prove there was. The default here is a featureless and empty created earth, like a canvas, readied for a master artist. It doesn't matter what other passage seem to indicate when not in the same context. Jer 4 and Isa 34 share a context with each other, not so with Gen 1:1-2.

I try to stay away from the term 'antichrist' as no prophecy I have read refers to this person as 'the antichrist'. But yes, the little horn is the same as what people like to call 'antichrist'. When he comes on the scene is ripe for speculation. Quite a few factors are associated with his rise to power and authority, none of which seem to be happening now, or have happened in the past. Some say he is alive and kicking now, but people have said this for centuries so it's of no real value in interpretation of the fulfillment of the prophecies. The Dispensationalists say he will rise when a 'covenant with many is strengthened with great strength. I tend to see evidence to support that.

Therefore her plagues will come in one day— death and grief and famine— and she will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.” Lament over Babylon 9Then the kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her will weep and wail at the sight of the smoke rising from the fire that consumes her 10In fear of her torment, they will stand at a distance and cry out: “Woe, woe to the great city, the mighty city of Babylon! For in a single hour your judgment has come.”

"In the beginning God created..." is the context. Best usage and definition given the context. Yes, that's the context, "In the beginning God created..." This leads to the usage of secondary and tertiary definitions that render the English as "existed featureless and empty". It's a not a necessity in Gen 1:-2 there was a thriving population on earth before 1:2, given the context of God created. Alternately, in Jer 4 the context is a discussion of the fate of an existing people, likened to a return to "existing featureless and empty". Truly horrifying. Kind of a reverse law of 1st mention? To liken the fate of the Jews to a featureless and empty people. Now that's surely a total destruction. It's not 'only'. There are secondary and tertiary definitions and usage to apply in a given context.

Been prepping them with all manner of false doctrine for millennia. The goad is the belly, they will fill their belly and worship the one who provides food. True. I agree. I have made this point to others in the past, they don't know how to answer as it's absurd. Another good point. Often white, western, Christian churches and their prophets and scholars demand others must think and behave like they do, too arrogant to realize other countries have very different views on religion and faith. Correct. This is ancient Jewish liturgy and fulfilling the desire to restore national and religious identity.

Gen 1 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.e 28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth.” I would think they both began immediately, before the fall, possibly before the days of life were counted as they were not dying before the fall, and the curse.

It would seem to me context is the path to understanding. In that case, the translation as is fits; " be without feature and empty of life." Is this a fresh take on law of first mention? I have to reject that. Context is King in understanding. The context surely changed.

Yes. As far as time gaps in the Genesis account go, this one seems supported.

I don't disagree. And if there were a 'gap' in time it isn't between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, and applying Rev 16:18 to some manufactured gap is equally fanciful. "Since men were on the earth" doesn't necessitate a time before men were on the earth, it's more like an idiom that tells us how long, no one has ever witnessed one, biggest one ever, or some such. Clearly there are gaps in the narrative, which give rise to many questions, questions unanswerable till we meet in glory; but that also doesn't give license to mere speculation out of boredom or some lack. I do think there is a gap in the Garden narrative, however. One we can see and is can be argued successfully.

I don't see a gap of eons either. But I do see missing time in the narrative of Adam and Eve's time in the garden.

@RV_Wizard @FreeGrace You all are goona get this one locked too. The claim is absurd, pitiful, hilarious, impervious, heresy, etc. Don't direct that at the person.

Rev 16:18 - And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake such as there had never been since man was on the earth, so great was that earthquake. English Standard Version Genesis 1 is the account of original creation, why didn't John just say "since the creation of the earth", since Genesis 1:1 begins with original creation. Does v.2ff is actually describe a restoration of an earth that "BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND", as the Hebrew words are translated elsewhere in Scripture? This supports an undetermined time gap between 1:1 and 1:2. Does verse gives support to an earth very much older than Adam?

The prophecy doesn't demand this. Doesn't have to, "Then the people of the prince who is to come..." That prince isn't Jesus. Jesus didn't destroy the Temple, Arabs did, Jesus didn't stop the rituals, the people who destroyed the Temple did. If it's translated into English, it better obey English grammar rules or, what a mess that would be. Belief isn't enough, facts must prove this. A person can believe anything, right or wrong. Sounds more like preconceptions and conclusions before fact. Sure. But the prophecy lists several things that must occur placing it in the realm of fulfillment at a different time than the 1st century and well past 70 AD. Not really. The OT is the same as the NT, just hidden. The NT is the OT, revealed. It's always been Jesus and no one was ever saved that was not saved by Him and through Him. It has always been grace. Not new, just no longer hidden. "Then after the sixty-two weeksh the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing." After 62 weeks. This says nothing about being cut off in the middle of a week. We should not associate events in this way. 69 weeks were up, Jesus died and was resurrected. Don't add. The prophecy doesn't say 'render meaningless and/or ineffective'. The prophecy requires the cessation of physical ritual. Then I guess the sacrifice and offering didn't stop in the Temple. And it does matter, for the prophecy to be fulfilled it matters very much. No physical elements were restored. Jesus fulfilled prophecy, He didn't come to make up for what the Jews were called to do. He's not a helicopter parent.

Well yeah. The war in Ukraine is nothing but money laundering for US politicians and enriching the military industrial complex. And as far as Israel goes...Israel is always wrong and Arabs are always the unsung freedom fighters.