Diaste

Says 'unavailable'.

Didn't say 'formless', said 'featureless', a blank canvas. Yes. And that condition was clearly featureless and empty as the creation account shows, else there would be no need to create. On the third day the oceans were separated and land appeared. Topographical features were thus created were it must be assumed they didn't previously exist. From the narrative of the 2nd and 3rd day, the earth was a water world, the 3rd day records the initial separation of the water and land under the expanse. So unless the earth existed and then reverted to 'water above and below with no separation of sky and water and water and land, the Genesis creation narrative is initial creation of the earth with no previous creation. True. That's why I don't use formless. But from Day 2, the earth is waterworld with no forms and featureless. Only if one conjugates the verb out of context. It's not 'became' it's 'be', as in existed. Who witnessed a previous creation? And context gives us the correct form. The context in Gen is not the same as in Jeremiah and Isaiah. Exactly. A wholly diverse context rendering impossible the understanding of Jeremiah and Isaiah to be applied to Gen 1:1-2. You keep saying this, but the descriptions are not close to the same. It's like saying 'I run to the store.' when a person already went to the store and returned. I don't disagree. It can. But did it? There are no clues to this based on evidence, other than a misuse of the verb. If it was clear we would likely not be debating. I do not. I have said 'featureless' from the onset. it's clear the earth had a form of some type as it was covered with water and showed no dry land till day 3. Ergo, featureless, not formless. In that context, I agree. I can't cherrypick. I need the context and logical construction. The creation narrative as a whole proves the earth was covered with water after the waters above were separated from the waters below. All water, no land till day 3. It can with the correct context, and the secondary or tertiary definition applied as indicated by the context.

So is that a 'no'?

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.

I agree. Wait, I thought it was undetermined. Now it supports a long duration? If undetermined it's from a nanosecond to eternity of duration. I mean, fell free to fill the gap with whatever you wish, just let it be known it's bored speculation, not some profound discovery or important revelation.

You forgot to mention the Holy Spirit guided you to this conclusion. Dan 9:26 Then after the sixty-two weeksh the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Dan 9:27 Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. 27And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week,i but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation,j until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.k” 9:27 begins with, Then the people of the prince who is to come... So after the Messiah is cut off, THEN, there is a 'prince who is to come'. This isn't the Messiah. The 'prince who is to come' is the direct antecedent of 'he' here, "he will confirm a covenant" and here, "he will put an end to sacrifice and offering". Did Jesus put and end to sacrifice and oblation? No. The Jews were still sacrificing in the Temple the day it was destroyed in 70 AD; the Temple being destroyed by the legion X Fretensis, made up of Syrian and other Arab conscripts, contrary to the orders of General Titus.

They aren't synonymous, but can't have one without the other either.

Which Israel? The Land or the People?

The 'tribulation' is 3.5 years away minimum, as of 3/30/2024. Tomorrow it will still be 3.5 years away, minimum.

A qualified no. Jesus fulfilled so many prophecies His identity in the 1st C is beyond doubt. What prophecies of the antichrist have been fulfilled so we have even a little understanding of his identity? If you are going to categorize the identity with an analogy using Jesus, then the antichrist should be fulfilling some prophecy before his rise to power. This is a strawman. I didn't bring up that argument, you did. Then you argue against a point I didn't make? That is not logical. I didn't say anyone could not be the antichrist until fulfilling scriptural prophecies concerning identification, I said we can't know for certain until those are fulfilled; just like Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the Messiah, during His ministry in the first century. You do realize religious adherents have been saying for centuries English Royalty, the Popes, world leaders and half of the US presidents are the antichrist? And all under the supposed guidance of the Holy Spirit? One more claim and another book isn't really convincing. Well, no.. "the whole world marveled and followed the beast. 4They worshiped the dragon who had given authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can wage war against it?”" thaumazó: to marvel, wonder Original Word: θαυμάζω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: thaumazó Phonetic Spelling: (thou-mad'-zo) Definition: to marvel, wonder Usage: (a) intrans: I wonder, marvel, (b) trans: I wonder at, admire. HELPS Word-studies 2296 thaumázō (from 2295 /thaúma, "a wonder, marvel") – properly, wonder at, be amazed (marvel), i.e. astonished out of one's senses; awestruck, "wondering very greatly" (Souter); to cause "wonder; . . . to regard with amazement, and with a suggestion of beginning to speculate on the matter" (WS, 225). This is clearly starstruck admiration. No fear of death here. As Rev 13:3 makes clear. This sounds more like disdain that scholarship. I get it, you don't like DJT. Did you think the same of BO of JB? Or is it the eclipse around Easter and the Devil Comet that requires an antichrist figure and DJT is an easy target? I don't care about shadows. It's probably a category error in any case. What did DJT do that fulfilled a single prophecy of the antichrist, beast, little horn, man of sin, son of perdition that justifies the claim they are one and the same?

Gotta chime in here. Seems to me there are several attributes the 'antichrist' must have according to scripture. I'm of the opinion the labels: little horn, beast, man of sin, willful king, etc., are all descriptions of the same person. On the lowest level of understanding I just don't think we are going to have multiple 'antichrists' all as chosen ones of Satan, all given power at the same time for the same ends, there's going to be just the one. That being said, we have scriptural evidence of many attributes and characteristics evident in this person Revelation has told us is the beast. Daniel shows us a few in the interpretations by the Angel: After them another king, different from the earlier ones, will rise and subdue three kings. 25He will speak out against the Most High and oppress the saints of the Most High, intending to change the appointed times and laws; and the saints will be given into his hand for a time, and times, and half a time Just here prophecy demands he must subdue 3 kings, oppress the saints, and change times and laws. It's hard to determine who this might be since the above must come to pass before identification, so far it has not. The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power. In the above we see the four horns replace Greece. Here, "From one of these horns a little horn emerged" the little horn arises from one of the four. History tells us the eventual disposition of Greece was divided into four regions: Greece, Egypt, Asia Minor and Mesopotamia. I agree with scripture, the little horn must rise from one of the above four. Then the king will do as he pleases and will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and he will speak monstrous things against the God of gods. So far I have not heard a man speak like the above. I'm sure someone does, but even in my conversations with atheists I don't hear more than, "God doesn't exist." which is opinion. The person above is slandering God as if he knows God exists, and hates Him. He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and over all the riches of Egypt, and the Libyans and Cushitesj will also submit to him. This is also a prophesied action, but it's future, when the self exalted king rules wide regions in the Mideast with great military power and apparently some furious need for vengeance or revenge. As far as I know none of the above has happened so it's impossible to pinpoint a single contemporary leader to fit all that. Paul says something as well: He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. This beast, antichrist, little horn, man of sin, son of perdition must do the above. This is a clear identifier. It hasn't happened yet, so how do we know who this is? It can't be based on political leanings or feelings of disdain. Revelation tells us: One of the heads of the beast appeared to be mortally wounded. But the mortal wound was healed... You mentioned the above can be likened to a political wound then a victory. There's more associated with this. the whole world marveled and followed the beast. they worshiped the beast, And all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast Does one think the world will worship a man that 'survived' a political defeat then got reelected? I personally don't believe that would ever come close to motivating the whole world to worship the beast. Something that did cause a many billions strong worship over many centuries and created the #1 best selling book of all time was a death and resurrection. IMO we are probably looking for the same thing in the beast, or a clever imitation of death and resurrection. And the beast opened its mouth to speak blasphemies against God and to slander His name and His tabernacle—those who dwell in heaven. Again, this person must have a deep hate for all things of God and His throne. There is of course much more. Bottom line; everything prophesied about the little horn, beast, willful king, antichrist is prophesied, as in future. I haven't see any of it come to pass and I know of no one who testifies it has all come to pass, or any of it, as written. We really don't know before the event, yet we will know when it comes to pass, and probably only then.