I've changed my mind. I now believe the "earth" is 6k years old

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, Roymond said:

FreeGrace said: 

Are you going to get around to explaining WHY you criticize my view of Gen 1:2 which EXPLAINS a very old earth all the while believing the earth is very old?

Then, since you reject my understanding of Gen 1:2, will you please explain how you think the earth is very much older than Adam?

I've already answered this:  the Hebrew will not sustain the view you propose

Actually, the Hebrew IS what I have shown.  Anyone can LOOK for themselves to see how the key words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT.  The proof is in the pudding.

3 hours ago, Roymond said:

it's a view that was put forth two generations ago and has been thoroughly demolished by scholars.

And, please do some research.  "2 generations" is WAY off the mark.  In FACT, the idea of a very old earth came from a geologist named Charles Lyell, in 1796, when he published his work on "geologic columns", which dated showed the earth to be very old.  When his work became known to a Presbyterian preacher named Chalmers, he wrote a piece in 1814 about the "GAP theory" to align Lyell's work to the Bible.  However, one doesn't need scientific evidence, though obvious.  Just know what the Hebrew words in v.2 mean in all the other OT verses where they exist.

btw, Charles Darwin was just 5 y/o when Chalmers wrote about the time gap.  So the time gap did NOT originate with evolutionists.  Darwin wrote his stupid "Origin of the Species" in 1859.

3 hours ago, Roymond said:

Your protest here is like arguing that because I say there is no stop sign at fifth street then no stop signs exist.  I'll try one final time to get through to you:

How about just explaining WHY you believe the earth is way older than Adam.

3 hours ago, Roymond said:

There is no gap.  Neither the Hebrew grammar not the Greek allow for a gap.

I've proven otherwise.  All the key words in v.2 are translated differently where they occur in other verses in the OT.  That is called "evidence".  

3 hours ago, Roymond said:

  The gap idea was invented out of thin air by someone trying to force the Bible to fit his personal views, and has been rejected by scholars.

I just gave the ACTUAL historical FACTS of the matter.  You are free to accept ot ignore them.

3 hours ago, Roymond said:

This time I will not respond any more since you ignore what I write.

lol.  Rather than ignore what you write, I CORRECT all your ERRORS and inform you of the truth.  Which you seem to be avoiding.

And, as a matter of fact, you have NOT explained why you believe the earth is way older than Adam, all without any time gap.

[ChristB4us]

On 4/25/2018 at 8:41 AM, Still Alive said:

After a re-read of Genesis and some of Revelation with a new perspective, I now believe that the "earth" is 6,000 years old. But to clarify, there is a reason I put "earth" in quotes. 

Thing is, Genesis begins with "in the beginning". Well, the beginning of what? And how long before the six days of creation was this "beginning".  All stories start at the beginning of the story, but rarely at the birth of the characters in the story.

Also, in revelation we are told the earth is destroyed (and there is no sea) and there is a new heaven and a new earth. Well, I always thought it meant the earth was COMPLETELY destroyed, but a better interpretation of the actual scripture is that the surface of the earth is basically scorched to the point that it is a clean slate on which God will build a new age. 

And that may be what happened before our six days of creation. The bible is silent regarding what happened before the beginning of the story.

I use mount Rushmore as an illustration/analogy. If I were to ask you, "how old is Mt Rushmore?", and you knew the history of the creation of the art that adorns it, you might quickly answer based on your understanding that construction of the memorial began in 1927 and ended in 1941. But as we know, Mt. Rushmore is a lot older than that.

So, I see the age of the monument as analogous to the age of the results of the "six days of creation" (six thousand years, approximately) and the age of the actual mountain as analogous to the age of this sphere we call the earth (quite a bit older, actually). 

BTW, I'm not bringing up here the subject of "how long were the six days, really". I see it as a different discussion.

 

Thoughts?

Look at the fourth day of creation for when God created the universe around the earth to give her lights to her let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.  So not only did God created the universe in that day but filled in the gaps with her lights to govern the earth with her lights that day.

So when people attempt to guess at how old the universe is by the billions of light years that it takes for that light to reach the earth, they are overlooking the fact for why it was created that fourth day and that was to give for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

Now when we go to the earth, the earth did not exist the first day being "without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."  What was created the first day when light appeared?  The first day with its evening and morning that day.

The second day, the beginning of the earth was being created as a water planet was formed with an upper atmosphere.

The third day was the completion of the earth when dry land appeared as one massive land mass teeming with plant life with all the waters in one place.

The fourth day was when the universe was created.

Now plants life were bearing seeds and fruits when created and not started out as seeds or saplings.  

Living things were created in the same way later on in the 5th day for marine life and birds & 6th day for animal life with an age of maturity and instant knowledge and instinct in caring for the young.

Now when you look at all this "instant age" in how the universe was created, the plants and animal life, why not the earth in its geological formation?

Indeed, when carbon dating deceased things like dinosaurs, we find the carbon dating of a living mollusk was 2,300 years old dead even though it is still alive.  If they are errant dating results within known human history, how likely the accuracy beyond human history?  Not likely.

So it is with any test of the geological realm.

We can believe that the earth did not exist in the beginning of that first day but there was just water before God created the water planet the second day.  Any instant geological formation of land created that third day may have appearances of age in them as well, since the universe and everything else was.

[BibleWords]

On 4/27/2018 at 5:44 AM, Still Alive said:

I'm not saying it's true. Rather, the bible is silent on it, which means that saying nothing came before it or saying what I hypothesized above are both speaking to something on which the bible is silent. But the evidence all around us supports the latter more than the former

I don’t know where you get your evidence that you say, “supports the latter more than the former”.

If some one who had never read or heard of the Bible and had never heard any theories about it suddenly picked up Genesis and read it for the first time, they would believe it for exactly what it says.

There is no doubt that Genesis is giving a literal account of creation as any unbiased reader would conclude.

All of the far fetched ideas of a gap theory or thousand year days or pre-creation existence of  created beings or other nonsense that the Bible does not teach are a feeble effort to somehow coddle the false teaching of evolutionary theory.

 

[FreeGrace]

31 minutes ago, BibleWords said:

If some one who had never read or heard of the Bible and had never heard any theories about it suddenly picked up Genesis and read it for the first time, they would believe it for exactly what it says.

There is no doubt that Genesis is giving a literal account of creation as any unbiased reader would conclude.

And that's the problem.  Gen 1:2 was NOT translated correctly.  All one has to do to understand v.2 is the see how key words were translated in every other verse in the OT.  That's how to understand what was meant.

v.2 -  Now (but) the earth was (became) formless (a waste place) and empty (uninhabited), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

biblehub.com is the place to go to research how words in the exact form being studied were translated elsewhere.

To begin, the LXX (Greek translation of the original Hebrew) translates the conjunction at the beginning of v.2 as "but" rather than "and" or "now".  

The specific form of "hayah" translated "was" is translated as either "became" or "become" in 70% of the other verses.

A simple reading of the entire chapter shows that God did NOT take a "formless earth" (which is an impossible state) and FORM it.  And all the other translations of "tohu" in the OT are either:  wasteland, wasteplace, uninhabitable or desolate desert.

EVERY solid object has a FORM.  It is impossible for every solid object NOT to have a form.  It may be irregular, but it HAS a form.

And there is nothing in chapter 1 that shows or describes God giving FORM to earth.

Finally, the universal translation of v.2 (see above) creates a contradiction with isa 45:18.

v.2 -  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Isa 45:18 -  For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formedthe earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited ), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.  NASB

So, Gen 1:1,2 says God created the earth formless and empty.

But, Isa 45:18 says clearly that God DID NOT CREATE IT (earth) A WASTE PLACE.

But, if one realizes how the key words are translated elsewhere, there is NO contradiction:

But, the earth became an uninhabited wasteland.  

Which shows that there is an obvious time gap between the 2 verses, of which we have NO further information.  But that is no excuse to reject the accurate translation.

Obviously, God didn't want that information to be shared with the human race.

31 minutes ago, BibleWords said:

All of the far fetched ideas of a gap theory or thousand year days or pre-creation existence of  created beings or other nonsense that the Bible does not teach are a feeble effort to somehow coddle the false teaching of evolutionary theory.

Quick study on WHY evolution has NO influence on the correct translation of v.2.

Charles Lyell, a geologist, developed the "geologic columns" which was a tool to measure how old the earth was.  This was in 1796.  In 1814, a Presbyterian minister named Chalmers came across the work by Lyell and wrote an article about a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2 to explain how the earth could be as old as Lyell measured it.

Oh, btw, Chuck Darwin was born in 1809, merely 5 years BEFORE Chalmers wrote his article about a time gap.  So neither Lyell or Chalmers were in ANY WAY influenced by the idiot Darwin or his stupid theory.

Darwin wrote about evolution in 1859.  So there is no need to bring up evolution in any conversation about earth age.

Evolution DEMANDS an old earth.  Sure.  But, a literal time gap in Gen 1:1,2 does NOT demand evolution.  They are mutually exclusive.

[BibleWords]

No evidence for any pre-adamic age or prior world civilization.

[Retrobyter]

On 4/27/2018 at 6:44 AM, Still Alive said:

Actually, no. What I'm accomodating is the evidence, not the theories and hypotheses that people make from it. 

Shalom, Still Alive.

And, what evidence might that be? Just remember that "evidence," too, can bear an interpretive slant. If "evidence" is given an evolutionary twist on its interpretation, the RAW evidence might be tainted with the interpretation.

For instance, radioactive dating methods are given supposed half-lives that PRESUMABLY may be thousands or millions of years long. HOWEVER, if the sample is too young, then the daughter elements were ALREADY PRESENT in the sample BEFORE it was said to have started!

Often, evolution will assume that there were no daughter elements in the original sample. They deal in such large amounts of time, that it's a "given" in their estimation. BUT, if the earth is no older than 6,000 years (10,000 years at a stretch), then that is a false assumption! Daughter elements of a substance with a large value for its half-life (in the upper thousands or millions of years) would have HAD to exist in the original sample!

On 4/27/2018 at 6:44 AM, Still Alive said:

My main focus is on the phrase "beginning" and its context within the context of the teaching of bible.

This is understandable; however, there is a difference between the two Hebrew words "בָּרָא" "baaraa' " and "עָשָׂה" "`aasaah." "Baaraa` " means to "create from nothing." "`Aasaah" means "to form" or "to shape," i.e., from existing material.

Everything that God created, He SPOKE it into existence! Some things He spoke into existence from nothing! Other things He SPOKE them into existence from things He had already spoken into existence!

On 4/27/2018 at 6:44 AM, Still Alive said:

The very first line of genesis 1 could theoretically be interpreted as "In the beginning of this dispensation..." and represent what God started on the clean slate of a bare planetary surface, made bare in the destruction of some sort of dispensation or age before it. And there could have been one before that, and before that, and before that, etc. 

The first word of Genesis is "בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית" transliterated as "Bree'shiyt." The "B-" prefix means "In," "At," or "With"; the rest of the word is a feminine, singular form of the noun, "רֹאשׁ" or "ro'sh," meaning "head" or as a feminine word that implies a "concept," rather than a "concrete thing," it means "beginning" or "chief." The definite article is not present. Thus, the translator supplied the word "the," which is common to make sense of it in English. Thus, it could just as easily be translated as  "at the head" or "with the chief."

On 4/27/2018 at 6:44 AM, Still Alive said:

I'm not saying it's true. Rather, the bible is silent on it, which means that saying nothing came before it or saying what I hypothesized above are both speaking to something on which the bible is silent. But the evidence all around us supports the latter more than the former.

It may SEEM that way to you, but the LANGUAGE of Hebrew says more than just a few translated English words do. There is NOTHING before the "head" of something. So, is the Bible really "silent" on it?

Secondly, the first verse is more of a summation of the rest of the chapter because in the rest of the chapter, God NAMES the firmament "heaven" or "shaamaayim" in verse 8 which, with the definite article prefix, is "haashaamayim" in verse 1!  God also NAMES the dry land "earth" or "'erets" in verse 10 which, with the definite article prefix, is "haa'aarets" in verse 1! This makes verse 1 a SUMMATION - a SYNOPSIS - of what is to follow! And, that is COMMON in Hebrew literature.

Now, what have the scientists actually discovered about the "known universe"? Well, they THINK they discovered the speed of light approximately measured in 1676 by Ole Roemer, who estimated 131,000 miles per second (later discovered to be closer to 186,000 miles per second). This was done by the speed-up and delay in the readings of the eclipses of Io by Jupiter and Io makes its orbit around Jupiter in 1.8 earth days, whether the earth was on the same side of the sun as Jupiter was, or six months later on opposite sides of the sun.

Then, they discovered spectrology

Then, they accepted the notion that light waves, like sound waves, could be shifted in their wavelengths by the Dopplar Effect. This gave them the redshift and the blueshift in the wavelengths of stars in their spectra, supposedly identifying light sources that were moving away from us and those moving toward us. And, between paralax measurements and the redshifts and blueshifts, they have concluded the immense sizes of the universe, and since there were more redshifts than blueshifts, the expansion of our universe. This, in turn, led to the theoretic assumption of a "big bang," which supposedly started the expansion. We've had advances in optical telescopes and radio telescopes, so we've been able to see farther, but the theories and hypotheses have abounded! Truly, the imagination of mankind is its greatest tool ... and its greatest "Achilles' heel!"

We've sent probes to the sun, to Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the outer planets, but we've only been to the moon so far. Yet, because of shows like Star Trek, and movies of Star Trek and Star Wars and their like, the theories of the universe have gained much momentum in the last 200 years! The first episode of Star Trek was aired September 8, 1966. It's now 2023. That's only 57 years! (I was 8 years old at the time!)

Jules Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon in 1865, and the genre of "Science Fiction" arguably began in 1616 with The Chemical Wedding by Christian Rosencreutz.

So, We're talking about the imaginations of space travel exploding for 2023 - 1865 = 158 years!

Do we really think that human beings have discovered in 158 years more than God could reveal in 6,000 years?!

[Retrobyter]

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And that's the problem.  Gen 1:2 was NOT translated correctly.  All one has to do to understand v.2 is the see how key words were translated in every other verse in the OT.  That's how to understand what was meant.

v.2 -  Now (but) the earth was (became) formless (a waste place) and empty (uninhabited), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

biblehub.com is the place to go to research how words in the exact form being studied were translated elsewhere.

Shalom, FreeGrace.

This is a popular misconception. It has been propagated by those who want to support a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Sorry, but that is NOT how the Hebrew reads!

As I said above, 

"It may SEEM that way to you, but the LANGUAGE of Hebrew says more than just a few translated English words do. There is NOTHING before the "head" (which is what "ro'sh," a part of the word translated "the beginning", "ree'shiyt," its femine form) of something. So, is the Bible really "silent" on it?

"Secondly, the first verse is more of a summation of the rest of the chapter because in the rest of the chapter, God NAMES the firmament "heaven" or "shaamaayim" in verse 8 which, with the definite article prefix, is "haashaamayim" in verse 1!  God also NAMES the dry land "earth" or "'erets" in verse 10 which, with the definite article prefix, is "haa'aarets" in verse 1! This makes verse 1 a SUMMATION - a SYNOPSIS - of what is to follow! And, that is COMMON in Hebrew literature."

Also, the word "haaytaah" is the Qal Perfect form of the word "haayaah," used for the third-person of the feminine, singular noun "haa'aarets," immediately prior to this word. The Qal Perfect is simply "was" or "has been." The Hebrew for "she became" is "היא הפכה". The word "הפכה" is the feminine, singular form of (2015) "הָפַךְ" meaning "to change" or "to overturn." (The word "היא" is pronounced "he." I like the little memory clue, "Who is he? and he is she!" The Hebrew word "huw," pronounced as "who," means "he," and the Hebrew word "hiy' " pronounced "he," means "she!")

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

To begin, the LXX (Greek translation of the original Hebrew) translates the conjunction at the beginning of v.2 as "but" rather than "and" or "now".

The vav connective, the conjunction when translated into English, can mean either "and," or "but," and when it begins a sentence translated into English, many translators use the word "now," instead. But, the vav connective simply connects sentences together into a single subject or thought. They end when the "F" is encountered, as at the end of verse 5. Here's the Hebrew of the first 5 verses of Genesis 1:

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃
וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאֹ֖ור כִּי־טֹ֑וב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָאֹ֖ור וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ

Notice the vav (וְ) at the beginning of each verse (except for verse 1), and the ending "F" (פ) at the end (the left) of verse 5! This is the Hebrew construct that serves as a "paragraph" would in English.

Here's verse six, notice its beginning:

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃

Notice that the vav connective (וַ) is still there, meaning that the SUBJECT hasn't ended yet, but only the paragraph has ended so far.

Every verse in chapter 1 (except 1:1) begins with the vav connective! The subject ends in chapter 2 verse 4 where no vav connective is found at its beginning. This implies that the end of the subject is in verse 3, which also ends with the "F." Here are verses 3 and 4 of chapter 2:

וַיְבָ֤רֶךְ אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־יֹ֣ום הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י וַיְקַדֵּ֖שׁ אֹתֹ֑ו כִּ֣י בֹ֤ו שָׁבַת֙ מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתֹּ֔ו אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָ֥א אֱלֹהִ֖ים לַעֲשֹֽׂות׃ פ
אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום עֲשֹׂ֛ות יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃

"And" and "but" are simply at the whim of the translator for the vav connective.

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 The specific form of "hayah" translated "was" is translated as either "became" or "become" in 70% of the other verses.

Which can be a problem for those 70% of other verses! And, to which English version are you referring?

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

A simple reading of the entire chapter shows that God did NOT take a "formless earth" (which is an impossible state) and FORM it.  And all the other translations of "tohu" in the OT are either:  wasteland, wasteplace, uninhabitable or desolate desert.

EVERY solid object has a FORM.  It is impossible for every solid object NOT to have a form.  It may be irregular, but it HAS a form.

And there is nothing in chapter 1 that shows or describes God giving FORM to earth.

Au contraire, mon frere! "On the contrary, my brother!" You're making too much of the verb "form." Those words, "wasteland, wasteplace, uninhabitable or desolate desert," ARE correct interpretations of the word "תֹ֙הוּ֙" "tohuw," but those ARE also "formless places!" That's how the earth started! It was formless in the sense that it was not yet how God would make it! The next word is "וָבֹ֔הוּ" "vaaVohuw," which means "and the emptiness," means that it was "VOID" of life! Why? Because life hadn't been created, yet!

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Finally, the universal translation of v.2 (see above) creates a contradiction with isa 45:18.

v.2 -  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Isa 45:18 -  For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited ), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.  NASB

So, Gen 1:1,2 says God created the earth formless and empty.

But, Isa 45:18 says clearly that God DID NOT CREATE IT (earth) A WASTE PLACE.

But, if one realizes how the key words are translated elsewhere, there is NO contradiction:

Nonsense! You aren't reading Isaiah 45:18 correctly.

First, here's what the KJV says:

Isaiah 45:18 (KJV, some quotational punctuation added)

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else!"

Now, here's the Hebrew:

כִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָֽמַר־יְ֠הוָה בֹּורֵ֨א הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם ה֣וּא הָאֱלֹהִ֗ים יֹצֵ֨ר הָאָ֤רֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ֙ ה֣וּא כֹֽונְנָ֔הּ לֹא־תֹ֥הוּ בְרָאָ֖הּ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יְצָרָ֑הּ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה וְאֵ֥ין עֹֽוד׃

This transliterates to ...

18 Kiy koh 'aamar-YHWH bowree' hashshaamayim huw' haa'Elohiym yotseer haa'aarets v`osaah huw' kownnaah lo'-tohuw Vraa'aah laasheVet ytsaaraah 'aniy YHWH v'eeyn `owd:

And this translates word-for-word to ...

18 For thus says-YHWH who-created the-skies He [is] the-God who-formed the-earth and-made-it; He has-made-it-firm; not-emptiness who-created-it; to-be-inhabited He-formed-it, "I-[am] YHWH and-[there-is]-no other."  

Yeesha`yahuw (Isaiah) is SUMMARIZING the whole of Genesis 1 into the one verse!

Since this is true, one must READ ON in Genesis 1...

Genesis 1:9-13 (KJV)

9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear": and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land "Earth"; and the gathering together of the waters called he "Seas": and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth": and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And, if it's still unclear, read the REST of Isaiah 45!

Isaiah 45:11-12 (KJV)

11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker,

"Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. 12 I HAVE MADE THE EARTH (Hebrew: 'Anokiy `aasiytiy 'erets = "I have-made earth"), and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But, the earth became an uninhabited wasteland.  

Which shows that there is an obvious time gap between the 2 verses, of which we have NO further information.  But that is no excuse to reject the accurate translation.

Actually, there's no excuse for reading more into the text than God gave us through Moses!

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Obviously, God didn't want that information to be shared with the human race.

Quick study on WHY evolution has NO influence on the correct translation of v.2.

Charles Lyell, a geologist, developed the "geologic columns" which was a tool to measure how old the earth was.  This was in 1796.  In 1814, a Presbyterian minister named Chalmers came across the work by Lyell and wrote an article about a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2 to explain how the earth could be as old as Lyell measured it.

The "geologic columns" is a TOOL to facilitate a belief in an old earth, paving the way for "the stupid theory" of Charles Darwin. It should come as no surprise that haSatan and his minions had their own agenda in the wings and used BOTH men, Lyell and Darwin, to produce a method by which men could reject God.

Chalmers just played into their idiocy. This was the excuse that many needed for feeling justified in believing in the humanistic theory of evolution. That gap theory played right into the hands of the old-earthers.

Romans 1:18-32 (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (THIS EXACTLY DESCRIBES EVOLUTION! Here's the results:)

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and WORSHIPPED AND SERVED THE CREATURE MORE THAN THE CREATOR, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly (homosexuality), and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (fitting; venereal diseases).

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication (sex outside of marriage), wickedness, covetousness (lust), maliciousness (looking for trouble); full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers (DIVORCE), without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them! 

We're seeing all these things in our society today! And, they are the NATURAL OUTFLOW of EVOLUTION and other theories that DENIGRATE God's RIGHTFUL place as the Creator and the ONLY TRUE GOD!

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Oh, btw, Chuck Darwin was born in 1809, merely 5 years BEFORE Chalmers wrote his article about a time gap.  So neither Lyell or Chalmers were in ANY WAY influenced by the idiot Darwin or his stupid theory.

Darwin wrote about evolution in 1859.  So there is no need to bring up evolution in any conversation about earth age.

Evolution DEMANDS an old earth.  Sure.  But, a literal time gap in Gen 1:1,2 does NOT demand evolution.  They are mutually exclusive.

That doesn't mean the gap theory is right, either! The errors of men are many, but there is only ONE truth! And, the gap theory ain't it!

[Kaio-Ken]

You are correct that Genesis does not explicitly describe the creation of the entire universe. The Bible focuses on conveying important spiritual lessons for man rather than providing a detailed account of the universe's creation. Upon revisiting Genesis, you may perceive that God's actions resemble shaping a planet from a rock, rather than simply creating a planet in its completeness, which is important to my explanation later on.

 

As a young Christian, I mistakenly recalled "let there be light" as the first act of God, but the Bible's true first verse emphasizes that God made the heavens and the earth. Genesis primarily records the creation of the earth and its atmosphere, and the lineage of man. If you continue reading Genesis, you can then turn to Job 38:4-11, which sheds further light on the subject. In one of God's questions to Job, we find an answer: Jesus laid the cornerstone. Take note of the question who measured and take note of the reference of sons of the morning and sons of god.

 

The biblical accounts of Genesis and Job 38:4-11 reveal a collaborative creation process involving God and His angels, suggesting a project-like construction of the Earth angels witnessed. An important clue is that God did not explicitly state that He made the waters on any of the creation days, implying their prior preparation. This is evident from the mention in...

(Genesis 1:2).                                                                                                                      "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

So before we skipped over a bunch of over read information there, an earth with form and void would be an earth with no hills mountains or elevations. A flat playing field, and if you understand physics/fluids you will understand the earth would be submerged in water entirely, hence why gods spirit was upon the face of the water and not on the earth. 

Additionally, I ask, what do you suppose In Genesis 1:3-5, God spoke, and light came into existence. However, God's act of dividing the light from the darkness set the Earth in motion, establishing the cycle of day and night. By designating light as "Day" and darkness as "Night," God established the concept of day time and night time the alternating periods of light and darkness. It is worth considering that in Job 38:4-11, where angels sang and rejoiced at creation, both God and angels already existed before the accounts of genesis. Therefore, if God and angels preexisted earth, light must have already existed as well because god is light. This suggests that God's statement in Genesis 1:3, "Let there be light," may not be a literal act of creating light. Instead, it invites us to delve deeper into the meaning. Perhaps God is orchestrating something related to the atmosphere or the sun, resulting in light being casted on the Earth. I encourages us to approach scripture with a thoughtful and wise approach, recognizing that there may be more profound implications behind the words.

 

Job 38:4-11 provides further insight:

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements? Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together, (angels)
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (angels)

This passage emphasizes God's active involvement in shaping the Earth and highlights the participation of celestial beings in this magnificent creation.

 

But i would like to add, did you know we will also have a moment like this. We will witness a new earth and heaven too! The devil and his kingdom, ashes to our feet :).

im getting tiered and i forget if i answered your question but ill watch the convo tomorrow

 

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, FreeGrace.

This is a popular misconception. It has been propagated by those who want to support a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

What I want to support is a proper understanding of all of Scripture.  Why does the earth APPEAR to be very very old, if it was created only 6-10,000 years ago?  Sure, Adam and the woman were created as adults, so some will argue that God created A&E with "apparent age" and did so as well for the earth.  Yet, this argument is specious.

God created adults that were FUNCTIONAL.  It had NOTHING to do with apparent age.  And there is no reason for God to create earth with "apparent age" other than to simply confuse everyone.  If God created humans as "fresh from the womb", how functional is that?  Obviously not.  God created adults, because they had work to do.

There is no plausible reason to create an earth with "apparent age" just becuase.  Makes no sense.  I was in an evening class at church, one of Ken Ham's video series on creation.  During discussion at one of the sessions, someone brought up carbon 14 dating.  The leader acknowledged that carbon 14 dating is accurate out to 10-15,000 years, and then loses accuracy.  Hm.  I was strongly tempted to point out that it would be easy for carbon 14 dating to prove that the earth was that young then, but didn't because I didn't want to start a riot.  

The age of the earth has NO bearing on any doctrine at all.  So why all the hubbub about such emotional defense of a young earth?  Ken Ham, an excellent evangelist btw, seems to equate anyone who believes in an old earth to be an evolutionist.  But that simply ignores the actual facts, as I pointed out in my previous post.  Darwin was only 6 y/o when Chalmers wrote about a "gap theory", based on Lyell's work on the geologic columns.  All that was WAY before Darwin wrote his stupid evolutionary garbage.  And the principle of irreducible complexity DESTROYS his ridiculous theory when studying bacterial flagellum.  Even Darwin himself admitted that he would have to jettison his theory if there were evidence for irreducible complexity.  He just didn't have the tools to find them.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Sorry, but that is NOT how the Hebrew reads!

As I said above, 

"It may SEEM that way to you, but the LANGUAGE of Hebrew says more than just a few translated English words do. There is NOTHING before the "head" (which is what "ro'sh," a part of the word translated "the beginning", "ree'shiyt," its femine form) of something. So, is the Bible really "silent" on it?

I don't see how any of this has impact on v.2.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

"Secondly, the first verse is more of a summation of the rest of the chapter because in the rest of the chapter, God NAMES the firmament "heaven" or "shaamaayim" in verse 8 which, with the definite article prefix, is "haashaamayim" in verse 1!  God also NAMES the dry land "earth" or "'erets" in verse 10 which, with the definite article prefix, is "haa'aarets" in verse 1! This makes verse 1 a SUMMATION - a SYNOPSIS - of what is to follow! And, that is COMMON in Hebrew literature."

Yes, v.1 is an overall statement of the original creation.  However, v.2 begins with a conjunction of contrast, per the LXX, which shows a CHANGE.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Also, the word "haaytaah" is the Qal Perfect form of the word "haayaah," used for the third-person of the feminine, singular noun "haa'aarets," immediately prior to this word. The Qal Perfect is simply "was" or "has been." The Hebrew for "she became" is "היא הפכה". The word "הפכה" is the feminine, singular form of (2015) "הָפַךְ" meaning "to change" or "to overturn." (The word "היא" is pronounced "he." I like the little memory clue, "Who is he? and he is she!" The Hebrew word "huw," pronounced as "who," means "he," and the Hebrew word "hiy' " pronounced "he," means "she!")

Seems you know so much Hebrew but you seem to ignore the fact that I studied ALL the verses that had the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" and 70% were translated as either "became" or "become".  Only 6% had "was" as the translation, and that included v.2.  

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

The vav connective, the conjunction when translated into English, can mean either "and," or "but," and when it begins a sentence translated into English, many translators use the word "now," instead. But, the vav connective simply connects sentences together into a single subject or thought.

I'm going to stick with the LXX translators, who spoke fluent Hebrew AND Koine Greek and were the BEST translators of Genesis.  They used the Greek "de", which is a conjunction of contrast.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

They end when the "F" is encountered, as at the end of verse 5. Here's the Hebrew of the first 5 verses of Genesis 1:

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃
וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאֹ֖ור כִּי־טֹ֑וב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָאֹ֖ור וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ

Notice the vav (וְ) at the beginning of each verse (except for verse 1), and the ending "F" (פ) at the end (the left) of verse 5! This is the Hebrew construct that serves as a "paragraph" would in English.

Here's verse six, notice its beginning:

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃

Notice that the vav connective (וַ) is still there, meaning that the SUBJECT hasn't ended yet, but only the paragraph has ended so far.

No offense, but putting the Hebrew language is not at all helpful.  While it does show that you have training in the language, it proves nothing to me.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Every verse in chapter 1 (except 1:1) begins with the vav connective! The subject ends in chapter 2 verse 4 where no vav connective is found at its beginning. This implies that the end of the subject is in verse 3, which also ends with the "F." Here are verses 3 and 4 of chapter 2:

וַיְבָ֤רֶךְ אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־יֹ֣ום הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י וַיְקַדֵּ֖שׁ אֹתֹ֑ו כִּ֣י בֹ֤ו שָׁבַת֙ מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתֹּ֔ו אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָ֥א אֱלֹהִ֖ים לַעֲשֹֽׂות׃ פ
אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום עֲשֹׂ֛ות יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃

"And" and "but" are simply at the whim of the translator for the vav connective.

Which can be a problem for those 70% of other verses! And, to which English version are you referring?

Ditto here.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Au contraire, mon frere! "On the contrary, my brother!" You're making too much of the verb "form." Those words, "wasteland, wasteplace, uninhabitable or desolate desert," ARE correct interpretations of the word "תֹ֙הוּ֙" "tohuw," but those ARE also "formless places!" That's how the earth started! It was formless in the sense that it was not yet how God would make it! The next word is "וָבֹ֔הוּ" "vaaVohuw," which means "and the emptiness," means that it was "VOID" of life! Why? Because life hadn't been created, yet!

Guess what; I'm NOT!  There is no such thing as an object that is "formless".  EVERY object has some kind of form, even if it is quite irregular.  My point is that "formless" is a very BAD translation, becuase it isn't even real.  
But since you bring up "form", can you point out where in the chapter that God deals with this "formless earth"?  No, that can't be done because there is NOTHING about God making a "formless earth" formed.  When God created (ex nihilio) the earth in v,1, you can be SURE it had form.  I call it "round", or "spherical".  So the description of the earth in v.2 about being "formless" is actually ludicrous.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Nonsense! You aren't reading Isaiah 45:18 correctly.

First, here's what the KJV says:

Isaiah 45:18 (KJV, some quotational punctuation added)

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else!"

The NASB (and others) translate "tohu" as "waste place".  However, here is the real issue.  Let's not focus on HOW that word is translated in different verses, but what the traditional and universal translation of v.2 is compared to Isa 45:18.

Gen 1:1-2  In the beginning God created the earth...and it (earth) was "tohu".

Isa 45:18  He (God) created it NOT "tohu".

That is a contradiction.

You really can't get around "formless".  That's a meaningless word to describe a round earth.  With the translation that considers how all other verses handle the key words in v.2, there is NO contradiction at all.

So you are defending a contradiction, and a meaningless word in v.2.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Now, here's the Hebrew:

כִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָֽמַר־יְ֠הוָה בֹּורֵ֨א הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם ה֣וּא הָאֱלֹהִ֗ים יֹצֵ֨ר הָאָ֤רֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ֙ ה֣וּא כֹֽונְנָ֔הּ לֹא־תֹ֥הוּ בְרָאָ֖הּ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יְצָרָ֑הּ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה וְאֵ֥ין עֹֽוד׃

This transliterates to ...

18 Kiy koh 'aamar-YHWH bowree' hashshaamayim huw' haa'Elohiym yotseer haa'aarets v`osaah huw' kownnaah lo'-tohuw Vraa'aah laasheVet ytsaaraah 'aniy YHWH v'eeyn `owd:

Once again, giving the actual Hebrew or transliteration doesn't help anyone except those who know the language.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And this translates word-for-word to ...

18 For thus says-YHWH who-created the-skies He [is] the-God who-formed the-earth and-made-it; He has-made-it-firm; not-emptiness who-created-it; to-be-inhabited He-formed-it, "I-[am] YHWH and-[there-is]-no other."  

What word represents "tohu" here?  "not emptiness" doesn't refer to "tohu" but "wabohu" in v.2.  

In Gen 1:2, for "formless and void", the Hebrew is "tohu wabohu".  Seems you have ignored "tohu" in Isa 45:18.  But it is there.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And, if it's still unclear, read the REST of Isaiah 45!

I'm not unclear at all.  My understanding doesn't defend a contradiction, nor does it defend a meaningless word.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Actually, there's no excuse for reading more into the text than God gave us through Moses!

My understanding focuses ONLY on what Moses wrote.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

The "geologic columns" is a TOOL to facilitate a belief in an old earth, paving the way for "the stupid theory" of Charles Darwin.

So Lyell knew that Darwin was coming along later and he was simply helping to "pave the way"?  Are you kidding?  Lyell was a geologist, not a theologian or scientist.  The dates of Lyell's work, and Chalmer's writing PROVE that there was NO concept of evolution before 1859.  So we can ignore Darwin.  

As I said, evolution DEMANDS an old earth, but an old earth doesn't NEED evolution.

I think the only reason YEC keep bringing up evolution is to bolster their defense for their views, since they really don't have any evidence for an old earth, other than the translation of Gen 1:2, which I believe is faulty and misleading.

btw, I have heard a pastor who had 5 years traning in Hebrew at a seminary who believed that the earth is very old.  This only proves that scholars disagree among themselves.  

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It should come as no surprise that haSatan and his minions had their own agenda in the wings and used BOTH men, Lyell and Darwin, to produce a method by which men could reject God.

lol.  So, inspiration by the devil, then?  Nope.  Lyell was a serious geologist who had NO agenda.  He just wanted to determine earth age.  An old earth DOESN'T "reject God".  Evolution had NO PLAY in Lyell's work, or Chalmer's.  Simply men who wanted to know the truth.  I DO agree that Satan used Darwin, for sure.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Chalmers just played into their idiocy. This was the excuse that many needed for feeling justified in believing in the humanistic theory of evolution. That gap theory played right into the hands of the old-earthers.

This is quite sad.  You have NO idea what Chalmers was thinking.  He was simply trying to square facts of science with Scripture.  The tactic of using "evolution" to defend a young earth simply reveals the agenda of the YECs.  They have accepted a bad translation

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Romans 1:18-32 (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (THIS EXACTLY DESCRIBES EVOLUTION! Here's the results:)

I AGREE that evolution is from the devil.  But an old earth is FACT.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and WORSHIPPED AND SERVED THE CREATURE MORE THAN THE CREATOR, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly (homosexuality), and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (fitting; venereal diseases).

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication (sex outside of marriage), wickedness, covetousness (lust), maliciousness (looking for trouble); full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers (DIVORCE), without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them!

All this is about SIN.  Not earth age.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

 We're seeing all these things in our society today! And, they are the NATURAL OUTFLOW of EVOLUTION and other theories that DENIGRATE God's RIGHTFUL place as the Creator and the ONLY TRUE GOD!

Once again, evolution has NO influence on an old earth.  Evolution didn't "create" the idea of an old earth, as much as you might want to believe that, like Ken Ham does.

An old earth came from a geologist without any "evil agenda".  Chalmers was simply trying to reconcile science with the Bible.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

That doesn't mean the gap theory is right, either! The errors of men are many, but there is only ONE truth! And, the gap theory ain't it!

As I already addressed, the ONLY THING that would be a "theory" is what occurred during the unknown gap of time.  And I haven't addressed that because the Bible doesn't.  

Gen 1 is a summary of a restoration of earth, AFTER it became a waste place.  How does that "reject God", as you have charged?  It doesn't.  

God created the ROUND earth, BUT the earth BECAME an UNINHABITED WASTELAND.

So from v.2bff we see God restoring planet earth.  No change in form at all.  He replenished it.  

This is even supported in the Greek in the NT.

Heb 11:3 - By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Here is a verse that addresses Genesis 1.  However, the word "formed" is another BAD translation.  The Greek is "katartizo", and properly translated as "mending" in several gospel accounts of Jesus' disciples fixing their fishing nets.  In other verses, the word is translated as "restored".  So there you go.  My lexicon says this about the word's meaning:  to adjust thoroughly, to restore to a forfeited condition, to reinstate, a complete adjustment, etc.  From lexicons on the internet:  to adjust to fit, to repair, to mend.

I'm not trying to convince anyone.  I'm providing the evidence for WHY I believe the earth is much older than Adam.

If you can prove that my view "rejects God", then please explain.  I would appreciate it.

[ChristB4us]

On 5/6/2023 at 8:35 PM, FreeGrace said:

And that's the problem.  Gen 1:2 was NOT translated correctly.  All one has to do to understand v.2 is the see how key words were translated in every other verse in the OT.  That's how to understand what was meant.

v.2 -  Now (but) the earth was (became) formless (a waste place) and empty (uninhabited), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

biblehub.com is the place to go to research how words in the exact form being studied were translated elsewhere.

There was no earth in the beginning but just water that first day as the length of that first day was created by its evening and morning that first day.

The second day was the beginning of the creation of the earth by creating a water planet with an upper atmosphere.

The third say was when land appeared teeming with plant life, thus the completion of the creation of earth by the third day..

There was no earth that first day.  Just water.

You cannot have any wasteland when there was nothing there.

Translators today apply the word void in how we use it to mean by removing a transaction or what was there, but void just mean empty; as in non-existent.  Earth cannot have form if it is without form to help see how void means non-existent.

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

So Bible Hub is wrong when concentrating on the word "void" as if to remove what was there by ignoring the other words that testify that the earth was without form.

The Hebrew word "bohuw" for empty has been influenced by today's culture but the original meaning is still among it.

"from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void."

The Hebrew word "tohuw" for form has been influenced by today's culture as if inferring a wasteland, but the origin of that word us still there too.

"from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:--confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness."

So there was no Pre-Adamic age for that would mean Adam was not responsible for bringing death into the world because of his sin.

The Pre-Adamic age originates from Satanism as they teach that Satan had created the world before Adam and God got jealous and destroyed it.

Probably why Satan is using that lie of the evolution theory when they cannot confirm any scientific testing beyond human history aka 6,000 years and yet they get errant testing results by those scientific testing as exposed within human history like a "living" mollusks carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead".

But "science" continues to categorize all fields of science per the evolution theory.

Real science is about what can be observed and proven and the phenomenon of macroevolution can never be observed nor proven, thus the evolution theory is a false science and should be regarded as that theory of spontaneous generation which was disproven.