Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[JimmyB]

36 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, FreeGrace.

It does to me; I speak Hebrew! I AM a Jew (according to my maternal grandmother), and I study the Scriptures in Hebrew (and, Greek)! I can't say that Hebrew is my mother tongue, because I grew up in the Midwest of the USA, but I started to learn Hebrew before I hit puberty! It used to freak out my dad, who was a Baptist minister. He would be preaching, and I was learning the Hebrew alefbet from Psalm 119, instead of listening to the sermon! He was upset that I wasn't listening to the sermon, but I caught him looking at me strangely afterward once or twice. I inherited an old copy of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with dictionaries from him, and my study of the languages began by looking up EVERY verse that was related to a particular Hebrew or Greek word! This was done by the English words that were used in translation of the KJV, listed at the end of each Hebrew or Greek entry in the dictionaries. (This was before I even KNEW there was an Englishman's Concordance!)

Shabbat shalom, FreeGrace.

Okay, I've done as you've asked. I honestly don't have a problem with any of the sources you've quoted. The only problem I have is with the conclusions that gap theorists have jumped to from these quotations.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was merely demostrating the ENORMITY of the project one is undertaking when taking on the challenge of looking up EVERY TIME the word family of "hayah" is used! I was also trying to show that the numbers and percentages used are not quite as accurate as you've been led to believe. Furthermore, it is important to understand that there are MANY English translations of the Bible, and it matters to which version you adhere.

I'll stick to the King James Version, because it is the version with which I am most comfortable. Having used it since I was old enough to read, I understand the archaic wording of the version; it's also been around more than 400 years now, and some (especially in the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia) will accept no other version! It's "KJV ONLY" country up there! I'm not that way, but I do believe the KJV has information that other versions have lost, such as the second-person, singular pronouns. Furthermore, it is one of the few versions that is not copyrighted.

I already have, and I am quite comfortable with my understanding of the Hebrew of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. I also know the Greek fairly well; so, I'm comfortable with the Greek of the New Testament and the Septuagint.

In your opinion, you mean. I've been trying to tell you that the "earth" wasn't created in verse 1; it was created in verse 9! It was named "'erets" in verse 10! Thus, there is NO conflict between Genesis 1:2 (which happened BEFORE the earth was created) and Isaiah 45:18! It is merely a PERCEIVED "contradiction!"

I can agree to that. That particular definition of ktisis, however, does NOT imply that the "wildness and disorder" was evil or the result of judgment!

I agree! "Tohuw vaVohuw" simply means, though, that the Land was LEFT "useless and empty." It IMPLIES that the army decimated it, but doesn't actually say it. The context of the words DO say what the phrase does not.

When it comes to the usage of Jeremiah 4:23, however, there are gap theorists that have used this verse to suggest that this is actually talking about the same time period as that which was assumed to be between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2! We have a few (which will remain nameless) right here on these forums!

No, in my opinion, the claim that the universe/earth was created much longer ago than a mere 6,000 years defies the evidence of a COLOSSAL, DEVASTATING, and GLOBAL FLOOD, revealed in Genesis 7 through 9! It only APPEARS to be a "much older earth" because of the misinterpretation of the fossil evidence! It only APPEARS to be a "much older universe" because people don't know or accept that God's Word tells us that God created the light FIRST and THEN He created the "round objects!" People also ASSUME that light travels at the constant speed of 186,000 mps! We don't actually KNOW that to be a fact that is applicable everywhere! They also misread Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, and ASSUME they are talking about "haSatan," equated to be "Lucifer," whom they say is a supernatural being usually called an "angel." There's too much to go into here, but NONE of this is true! "Angel" comes from the Greek word "aggelos" which means a "messenger." The Hebrew word often translated as "angel" is "mal'akh," which also means a "messenger." Revelation says that it was the "original serpent" who was called "Satan" and the "devil." Thus, he was created on Day 6 with all the other land animals! He wasn't even around before Genesis 1:2!

And, if all this is true, and I believe that there is ample evidence that it is, then, yes, it was a bozo who, back in the Dark Ages, suggested that haSatan was an angel of light that rebelled, who was more recently blamed for the devastation of the original creation.

It only has that "APPEARANCE" because people don't know how to read the evidence correctly! By MISREADING it, they SUPPOSE the universe and the earth are "very old!" One should NOT accuse God of deceiving mankind at all, base upon faulty readings of the evidence!

I hope you do!

Romans 3:1-4 (KJV)

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 MUCH EVERY WAY: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4 God forbid: yea, LET GOD BE TRUE, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR; as it is written, "That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

I LIKE it! Just be sure not to draw conclusion ahead of time! Let the Scriptures SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES! Don't put words in God's mouth!

Yes, I see that you have. Just don't jump to conclusions about what you read. You've received adequate information about the truth. Don't ruin it by making false assumptions ABOUT that information.

This is a long post; I will respond to only a small part of it. I agree totally with "Let the Scriptures SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!"  There are many opinions and interpretations of Scripture posted on this forum (and others), but I read the Bible carefully and let God speak to me by the Holy Spirit that He gave me long ago.  There is a gap between what I understand by the Spirit and what I am able to express in words, but I do my absolute best to avoid eisegesis and take a single word or phrase out of context to prove a point.  One of the biggest problems in that regard is the division of the Bible text into separate verses in some translations, which distorts the flow of the writing and leads people to use these index references as divisions by the authors, which of course they are not.

The  discussion of Genesis 1 is a perfect example.  Some even take a single word out of context and, by showing that it was used in an entirely different "book" written by another author many years later, establish doctrine.  Amazing!

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

FreeGrace said: 

As you know, providing the actual Hebrew words for "hayah" isn't helpful to me or to you.  It proves nothing. 

Shabbat shalom, FreeGrace.

It does to me; I speak Hebrew!

Like the advice from Paul to the Corinthians, if there is no interpreter for those with the gift of tonues, speak to God alone.  As for me, it just fills up an already very long post.  I am not edified by seeing what I can't read/understand.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I AM a Jew (according to my maternal grandmother), and I study the Scriptures in Hebrew (and, Greek)!

Interesting!  I owe my delving into biblehub.com to an elderly man who carries to church a Bible in which the OT is Hebrew and the NT is Koine Greek!  I wanted to know how "hayah" was translated elsewhere in the OT and he told me to use biblehub.com.  So you two seem to have a lot in common.  :)

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, FreeGrace.

Okay, I've done as you've asked. I honestly don't have a problem with any of the sources you've quoted. The only problem I have is with the conclusions that gap theorists have jumped to from these quotations.

Again, I'm not a "theorist".  I have never given any opinion of what may have occurred that would result in a wasteland.  So please don't put me into that crowd.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Yeah, sorry about that. I was merely demostrating the ENORMITY of the project one is undertaking when taking on the challenge of looking up EVERY TIME the word family of "hayah" is used!

I see no big problem at all.  Just click on the word under "interlin" of the verse you want to parse and biblehub.com gives you every verse where that exact form of the word occurs.  Like I did with the verb in Gen 1:2.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I was also trying to show that the numbers and percentages used are not quite as accurate as you've been led to believe.

I counted all of them myself.  Anyone can do it.  And I urge everyone who has any interest in the subject to do it for themselves.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Furthermore, it is important to understand that there are MANY English translations of the Bible, and it matters to which version you adhere.

I was satisfied with what biblehub.com provided.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I'll stick to the King James Version, because it is the version with which I am most comfortable. Having used it since I was old enough to read, I understand the archaic wording of the version; it's also been around more than 400 years now, and some (especially in the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia) will accept no other version! It's "KJV ONLY" country up there!

How sad!  Unfortunately, the KJV was translated from 10th Century manuscripts, which led to some insertions into manuscripts, plus the veruy archaic wording.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I'm not that way, but I do believe the KJV has information that other versions have lost, such as the second-person, singular pronouns.

I go to biblehub.com to get what the original language has, not what some Enlish translation uses.  That's why I love biblehub.com.  I go to the "source".

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Furthermore, it is one of the few versions that is not copyrighted.

Not sure why that is important.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I already have, and I am quite comfortable with my understanding of the Hebrew of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. I also know the Greek fairly well; so, I'm comfortable with the Greek of the New Testament and the Septuagint.

In your opinion, you mean. I've been trying to tell you that the "earth" wasn't created in verse 1; it was created in verse 9!

v.1 clearly states that God created the heavens and earth, so your claim here is rather odd.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It was named "'erets" in verse 10! Thus, there is NO conflict between Genesis 1:2 (which happened BEFORE the earth was created) and Isaiah 45:18! It is merely a PERCEIVED "contradiction!"

I still don't understand what point you are making.  God created erets in v.1 and restored erets in v.10.  

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I can agree to that. That particular definition of ktisis, however, does NOT imply that the "wildness and disorder" was evil or the result of judgment!

btw, I NEVER said or suggested that either tohu or ktisis has that connotation.  I don't believe that God wasted the planet.  But I do believe that God restored it.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I agree! "Tohuw vaVohuw" simply means, though, that the Land was LEFT "useless and empty." It IMPLIES that the army decimated it, but doesn't actually say it. The context of the words DO say what the phrase does not.

Exactly!  And Isa 45:18 said that God didn't create the earth "useless/empty".  And Gen 1:2 doesn't say that God created the earth "useless/empty", even though most of the English translations think He did.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

When it comes to the usage of Jeremiah 4:23, however, there are gap theorists that have used this verse to suggest that this is actually talking about the same time period as that which was assumed to be between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2! We have a few (which will remain nameless) right here on these forums!

That would be nonsense.  I think the obvious point is that the 2 words mean the same thing in both passages.  After original creation, the earth became a wasteland, which wasn't from the hand of God, but by other means, of which we know nothing.

And "the land" in Jer 4 became a wasteland after the besieging army finished.  

I don't see divine judgment in either text.  I can't imagine why the gap theorists would even think so.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

No, in my opinion, the claim that the universe/earth was created much longer ago than a mere 6,000 years defies the evidence of a COLOSSAL, DEVASTATING, and GLOBAL FLOOD, revealed in Genesis 7 through 9! It only APPEARS to be a "much older earth" because of the misinterpretation of the fossil evidence! It only APPEARS to be a "much older universe" because people don't know or accept that God's Word tells us that God created the light FIRST and THEN He created the "round objects!"

I doubt that Noah's flood "aged" the earth to appear billions of years old.   Seriously doubt it.  And Noah's flood had nothing to do with the obvious appearance of very old age either.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

People also ASSUME that light travels at the constant speed of 186,000 mps! We don't actually KNOW that to be a fact that is applicable everywhere! They also misread Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, and ASSUME they are talking about "haSatan," equated to be "Lucifer," whom they say is a supernatural being usually called an "angel." There's too much to go into here, but NONE of this is true! "Angel" comes from the Greek word "aggelos" which means a "messenger." The Hebrew word often translated as "angel" is "mal'akh," which also means a "messenger." Revelation says that it was the "original serpent" who was called "Satan" and the "devil." Thus, he was created on Day 6 with all the other land animals! He wasn't even around before Genesis 1:2!

Sorry, but I disgree on all this.  Isa 14 clearly reveals Satan's rebellion, with all those "I wills".

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And, if all this is true, and I believe that there is ample evidence that it is, then, yes, it was a bozo who, back in the Dark Ages, suggested that haSatan was an angel of light that rebelled, who was more recently blamed for the devastation of the original creation.

It doesn't take a bozo to KNOW what God's says about Satan's original sin.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It only has that "APPEARANCE" because people don't know how to read the evidence correctly! By MISREADING it, they SUPPOSE the universe and the earth are "very old!" One should NOT accuse God of deceiving mankind at all, base upon faulty readings of the evidence!

The universe and earth are very old because God created them that long ago.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I hope you do!

Acts 17:11 is the ONLY WAY to confirm/verify what others say about what the Bible says.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I LIKE it! Just be sure not to draw conclusion ahead of time! Let the Scriptures SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES! Don't put words in God's mouth!

That's what I have done.  I've shown how several words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere to get the meaning of said words.  That is the basis of my view.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Yes, I see that you have. Just don't jump to conclusions about what you read. You've received adequate information about the truth. Don't ruin it by making false assumptions ABOUT that information.

I have made no assumptions.  I have given information from scholarly sources that have helped form my view.  So I haven't made up anything and have sources that support my view.

I'm very comfortable with that.

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, JimmyB said:

The  discussion of Genesis 1 is a perfect example.  Some even take a single word out of context and, by showing that it was used in an entirely different "book" written by another author many years later, establish doctrine.  Amazing!

Actually, comparing how the exact same verb form in 1 verse with how the same exact verb form is translated elsewhere in the Ot is hardly being "out of context".  

It is seeing how a single word is usually translated elsewhere in the OT.  That's how we learn what a word means, by seeing how it is used in ALL the verses where it occurs.

[The_Patriot21]

9 hours ago, JimmyB said:

So you're not a man?  Why should I believe your opinion over my own?

Modern science is not evil, and it is not deceitful and flawed in every way possible.  You were sitting at a computer when you wrote that science is evil.  How do you think that machine was developed and your message transmitted electronically?

Many, many people would not be alive today if it were not by science.  Modern food production would not be possible if it were not by science.  My son is an airline pilot; he flies a machine that was developed by modern science and is safely guided by modern science.  Etc, etc, etc.

You can believe something all you want, but if it doesn't match up with the facts then your "belief" is not only wrong, but irrelevant, as no matter how much you believe in something it cannot change the facts.

That's what happens when you choose to "believe" the wrong source, and not the "facts".

Lol yes, it absolutely is. Everything man touches, is corrupted by evil because man is evil.

And no, not all is used for evil. Computers are a tool that can indeed be used for good and came from modern science.

They're also being used for every evil purpose out there. The government is using them to track you and everything you do. Child traffickers use them to smuggle kids. Sex workers use them to feed people's porn addiction. The list goes on and on.

And modern "scientists" are lying to children every day telling them science says the Bible can't be true since the Bible says the earth is millions of years old, and we all evolved. Even though there's not a shred of actual scientific evidence for evolution. There's not even enough to classify evolution as a theory. Following the scientific method it is still in the hypothesis stage. But it's hammered down people's throats.

I'm not going to waste any more time here. But I encourage you to take a day and log on to answersingenesis.com and just read through a lot of the stuff there. There's a lot. 

[Tristen]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Seems everyone is totally misunderstanding things.  I used biblehub.com, which can be confirmed by anyone who simply goes there and clicks on the verb in Gen 1:2.  They will get a list of ALL the occurrences of that same verb form in the rest of the Bible, a total of 111 verses.  And that is "demonstrbly true".  How else would I get that %?  Do people actually think I am making any of this stuff up?

Ummm - your "biblehub.com" page was the evidence I scrutinized. There is no "misunderstanding". I simply don't think the page is logically applicable to the percentages you are claiming - for the reasons stated in my previous post.

 

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

btw, the base word "hayah" occurs some 3,560 times in the OT, in many different forms.  I focused on just the EXACT SAME FORM as in Gen 1:2, which narrowed down the number of verses to 111.

Right - the form of 'hayah' we are talking about can be transliterated 'hayetha'. That is the exact evidence I critiqued. When you provided this "biblehub.com" page for scrutiny, I demonstrated why it is a logically inappropriate tool to support your argument.

 

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

I demonstrated this claim to be untrue when you made it in another thread.

I don't recall that.  I do recall how many people don't like the idea of the earth being very very old.  Lots of pushback, but no evidence that refutes my view.

Well,

1 - I did provide an unbiased sample that demonstrated the percentage to be closer to 15% (nowhere near the purported "59%").

2 - I subsequently demonstrated your provided evidence to be unfit for purpose.

3 - Appeals to Motive are logic fallacies.

Most "no evidence" claims are invalid when subjected to scrutiny. Your claim here is no different.

 

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, I tested this claim against a common translation, and found became/become was only used for the form ‘hayetha’ around 15% of the time.

Did you use biblehub.com?

Yes - after much coaxing, you eventually provided the specific evidence from "biblehub.com".  I then scrutinized this evidence (from "biblehub.com") and demonstrated that it does not logically support your claim - for several reasons that make it unfit for such usage (as listed in my previous post to you).

 

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

From all this, I'd say you didn't ever do the search in biblehub.com.  I never said what you are claiming in point #3, which doesn't make sense for sure.

OK - the "biblehub.com" page you used can be found at this link:

Hebrew Concordance: hā·yə·ṯāh -- 111 Occurrences (biblehub.com)

If we look at the second entry on that list, we find:

Genesis 3:20
HEB: כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־
INT: because he become was the mother of all

Now, do you count this as an entry for 'was', or 'become'? We both know you tallied this as a point for 'become', and not for 'was'. That demonstrates, a) a bias in your counting techniques, and b) that the list was not designed to be counted that way.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Of course more than 1 translation was used.  Why wouldn't they?

The issue is that using "more than 1 translation" means the list was not designed to be used the way you are using it. If it was, using multiple translations would introduce bias.

For example, if two translations are presented for a single verse, and one says 'was', and the other says 'became', You would tally that as a point for 'became', and not 'was'. Therefore, using multiple translations for a single verse facilitates bias in your count.

If the list was designed for a straight count (as you are using it), using multiple translations generally would allow the authors to Cherry Pick the translations to suit their (your) argument. So even if only one-out-of-100 translations used 'became' for a particular verse, you could still count that towards your "59%" statistic. So yet again, this would artificially skew (and thereby misrepresent) the data towards a bias supporting your position.

NOTE: I don't know why they put the list together the way they did. But I do know that the list is not designed for the purpose of a straight count. I am therefore being critical of your misuse of the resource, and not the resource itself.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

21 hours ago, Tristen said:

And again – this was all evident in the first 5 verses of your list. The best you can claim from this evidence is that, if you survey all the English translations, in “59%” of the verses using ‘hayetha’, at-least one of the translations has found a way to translate ‘hayetha’ as “became/become”. That is a very weak claim; given that most versions use “was” (amongst other words) in most cases for these verses – and overwhelmingly use “was” when you consider other forms of ‘hayah’.

I can only urge you to use biblehub.com.  

I examined your evidence from "biblehub.com", and it does not logically support your position.

We therefore need to clarify your claim:

1 - Do you mean that, if we examine all English translations of the Old Testament, we find 'hayetha' translated as 'became/become' "59%" of the time?

OR

2 - Do you just mean that, if we examine all English translations of the Old Testament, we find at-least one translation that uses 'became/become" in "59%" of the 111 verses using 'hayetha'.

The first claim has been ostensibly debunked. The second claim is so logically weak, as to be easily, rationally dismissed as meaningless.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

21 hours ago, Tristen said:

 ‘Hayah’ simply means to exist (i.e. “is”). That (“is” or “exists”) is the base definition of the word.

Right.  The basic meaning of hayah is a verb of existence:  to be or BECOME.  So there you are!  That's what I read in my research.

If you need "research" to understand that there is a logical difference between "be" and "BECOME", then perhaps we are further apart than I imagined. These words do not mean the same thing. One describes a state, the other describes a process.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

21 hours ago, Tristen said:

When used in the context of past tense, it means “was”. When used in the context of explicitly describing something transitioning from one state to another, “became/become” might be more appropriate and/or intuitive. But ‘hayah’ does not mean “became” or “become” in the absence of such defining context – regardless of how it is used in other contexts.

To "demand" that there be "defining context" is disingenuous.

It's not at all "disingenuous". It is simply how words work.

Words have basic, agreed-upon definitions. Those basic definitions are what the word means when it is used generally. But sometimes a word might be used in a specific context that allows us to give more nuance beyond the usual meaning; maybe even change the meaning slightly away from the normal definition.

There is nothing strange or controversial (certainly not "disingenuous") about any of this.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God didn't give us any details, so your "demand" is irrelevant

My argument pertains to the correct, safe, elementary method of interpreting scripture (and written communication more generally). It's not my "demand" - it's just the way we do things when our sincere goal is to establish the intent of the Author - i.e. to protect ourselves from allowing personal bias to misrepresent His words.

We interpret communication according to the established, understood meanings of the words used. We only make adjustments to those meanings if there is a contextual reason to do so.

Your method skips the first step, then ignores the required caveats for the second step.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God WAS letting us know that the earth became something it was not created as

OK - you understand that the reason we are having this conversation is because we disagree that this is what the Bible says? You simply stating and restating your position doesn't contribute anything new to the debate.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

there is nothing inherent to the Hebrew word speaking to a “wasteland” – regardless of how it is translated elsewhere, i.e. where the context explicitly drives the translation towards “wasteland”.

The problem with this is Jer 4:23.  The exact same 2 words from Gen 1:2 occur there, and even though they are translated into English the same way they are in Gen 1:2, the context is very clear that a besieging (invading) army DESTROYED "the land" of Israel.  So please explain how and invading army that destroys the land can be descrribed as simply in an "incomplete state", as if they were in the process of making something of "the land".  That doesn't make sense.  "tohu wabohu" means an uninhabitable wasteland.  In both verses.  It cannot mean different things in the verses.

Again, to quote myself, "there is nothing inherent to the Hebrew word speaking to a “wasteland” – regardless of how it is translated elsewhere, i.e. where the context explicitly drives the translation towards “wasteland”."

You are making the same hermeneutical error that you made with 'hayetha'.

The words 'tohu vabohu' mean an unordered emptiness. That is all the words themselves mean.

Now, if that unordered emptiness describes a land that has been ravaged by war, then the translators might take a valid translation liberty of describing the land as an uninhabited wasteland.

That is the logically correct direction of the interpretation process. It does not work in the reverse - because the context allowing us to take translation liberties may not be present for every use of the phrase.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

Just to clarify - if your conscience allows you to massage scripture this way - so that it conforms to you existing world view, that's between you and God.

This is quite condesending.  My conscience is totally fine.  I have given evidence of how specific words are used elsewhere in Scripture and I've shown how they have different meanings than that used in Gen 1:2.

I'm glad your "conscience is totally fine".

From my perspective, I have gone to great personal efforts to, 1) demonstrate through evidence that your claim about how 'hayetha' is translated "elswhere" is untrue, 2) thoroughly scrutinize and debunk the "biblehub.com" evidence you provided as a valid support for your position, and 3) demonstrate through argument the unsafe hermeneutical methods your position employs.

Your responses:

"I can only urge you to use biblehub.com"

"I do recall how many people don't like the idea of the earth being very very old.  Lots of pushback, but no evidence that refutes my view."

You then proceed to repeat your position - as though my counter arguments don't exist - as you have done again here (e.g. "I have given evidence of how specific words are used elsewhere in Scripture").

You could therefore aptly interpret my words as me not respecting how you argue, and me being especially critical of the liberties you take with interpreting scripture. You've given me no reason to respect your position. You ignore my evidence and arguments, then simply repeat the same points I've already addressed.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Those who read the translated words in 1 verse and seem to fail to acknowledge how those words are translated elsewhere is wrong.  The ONLY WAY to understand what words mean is to look at how they are used throughout Scripture.

This is incorrect.

1. You are Equivocating. That is, you are not looking at how the words are "used throughout Scripture" (otherwise we would be dealing exclusively with the Hebrew), but rather, we are dealing with how the English translators have decided to translate those Hebrew words into English "throughout Scripture".

2. Hebrew is not a dead language. We know the established meanings of words. We do not have to work that out by appealing to "how those words are translated elsewhere". We can start the translation process according to known definitions of the words used - the same as we would for any other communication.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

According to the base definitions of the provided words, God didn't tell us that the earth became "a wasteland".

I'm not using the "base definitions" of the words, but HOW those words are translated elsewhere in the OT.  Seems you are stuck on the "base definitions".

Yes. When it comes to translation, I find myself "stuck" to the known definitions of the words the Author has chosen to use - unless I have a contextual reason to depart from the understood definitions.

I fully understand that you are skipping this fundamental part of the interpretation process. You are using subsequent translations to override the established meanings of the words used. But why would you do that, if not to satisfy an agenda to make the words say something other than the "base definitions" indicate?

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

My only "agenda" is to understand the Bible

I appreciate that you believe that. But your interpretation methods indicate otherwise.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And finding the same 2 Hebrew words used ONLY ONE other time in the OT (tohu wabohu) which describes what a "besieging army" did to "the land" of Israel, it's pretty clear to me that those who keep pushing back and defending the lame "without form" translation have an agenda.

Rather than appeal to the definitions of the words used, you have chosen to use one translation to override the meaning of the same words used in another context. Distorting the rules of interpretation that way speaks to bias and "agenda" - far more than those who simply appeal to the established definitions of the words used.

 

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Are you one of the YEC?  Or do you believe the earth is very old but simply reject that God restored the earth for man in Genesis 1?

This is a False Dichotomy (and probably an attempt to generate an Appeal to Motive).

I contest that Genesis 1:2 says anything even remotely approaching the idea that "God restored the earth for man in Genesis 1". The topic I am engaging with is exclusively about Bible interpretation methods.

 

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Several posters who have resisted my view do believe the earth is very old but won't explain how the earth could be very old and be consistent with Gen 1.

For the purpose of this conversation, I don't care about the age of the earth. If you were being honest when you wrote, "My only "agenda" is to understand the Bible", then personal presuppositions about the age of the earth should be irrelevant (or at-least secondary) to whether or not we are honestly investigating God's intended meaning of scripture.

 

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Let's talk about agendas.  I've asked about your view of the age of the earth.  Either you are a YEC or you are not.

That is self-evidently correct - though not relevant to the conversation about sound hermeneutical practices. 

 

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

My take on Ken Ham of "Answers in Genesis" seems unable to dissociate evolution with a very old earth.  I see that as a huge problem.

Neither "Ken Ham" nor "Answers in Genesis" are relevant to a conversation about sound hermeneutical practices - unless they have something to contribute to the arguments. If not, I don't know why they are being mentioned (apart from you not wanting to deal with the arguments).

 

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The problem is resolved by understanding that the earth became a wasteland and God restored it in 6 literal days

The "problem" is that you are claiming the Bible says something that it doesn't say. The "problem" is that you come to this conclusion using unsound hermeneutical practices - which proceed to override the established definitions of words, in deference to a contextually driven translation of the same words.

 

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And, my view does NO HARM to anything in the Bible, but just the mention of the earth being very old seems to set their hair "on fire" among the YEC.

Your conclusion results in a misrepresentation of what "the Bible" actually says. Your conclusion establishes a dangerous hermeneutical precedent that permits changing the definition of words away from there established meaning without appropriate cause.

 

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And, there is the contradiction between Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18, clearly.  Many believe Gen 1:2 means God created the earth tohu, while Isa 45:18 says clearly that "God did NOT create the earth tohu".

If that "contradiction" exists, it exists in the Hebrew text - regardless.

Though, as with most allegations of "contradiction" against the Bible, I would suggest this supposed "contradiction" can be easily resolved by examining the context of each usage.

We did this in the other thread (which you seem to have forgotten). We can do it again here if you like.

 

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So I do not accept the traditional translation of Gen 1:2.  Too many problems, all of which are resolved by my view.  Which is held by many others.

You can use unsound hermeneutics to make scripture say anything you want. That is the danger. That makes you an authority over scripture, rather than letting scripture be our authority. I suspect God doesn't care all that much about whether or not we can "resolve" anything He says to the presuppositions that make us comfortable.

 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Interesting!  I owe my delving into biblehub.com to an elderly man who carries to church a Bible in which the OT is Hebrew and the NT is Koine Greek!  I wanted to know how "hayah" was translated elsewhere in the OT and he told me to use biblehub.com.  So you two seem to have a lot in common.  

Again, I'm not a "theorist".  I have never given any opinion of what may have occurred that would result in a wasteland.  So please don't put me into that crowd.

I see no big problem at all.  Just click on the word under "interlin" of the verse you want to parse and biblehub.com gives you every verse where that exact form of the word occurs.  Like I did with the verb in Gen 1:2.

I counted all of them myself.  Anyone can do it.  And I urge everyone who has any interest in the subject to do it for themselves.

I was satisfied with what biblehub.com provided.

How sad!  Unfortunately, the KJV was translated from 10th Century manuscripts, which led to some insertions into manuscripts, plus the veruy archaic wording.

I go to biblehub.com to get what the original language has, not what some Enlish translation uses.  That's why I love biblehub.com.  I go to the "source".

Not sure why that is important.

v.1 clearly states that God created the heavens and earth, so your claim here is rather odd.

I still don't understand what point you are making.  God created erets in v.1 and restored erets in v.10.  

btw, I NEVER said or suggested that either tohu or ktisis has that connotation.  I don't believe that God wasted the planet.  But I do believe that God restored it.

Exactly!  And Isa 45:18 said that God didn't create the earth "useless/empty".  And Gen 1:2 doesn't say that God created the earth "useless/empty", even though most of the English translations think He did.

That would be nonsense.  I think the obvious point is that the 2 words mean the same thing in both passages.  After original creation, the earth became a wasteland, which wasn't from the hand of God, but by other means, of which we know nothing.

And "the land" in Jer 4 became a wasteland after the besieging army finished.  

I don't see divine judgment in either text.  I can't imagine why the gap theorists would even think so.

I doubt that Noah's flood "aged" the earth to appear billions of years old.   Seriously doubt it.  And Noah's flood had nothing to do with the obvious appearance of very old age either.

Sorry, but I disgree on all this.  Isa 14 clearly reveals Satan's rebellion, with all those "I wills".

It doesn't take a bozo to KNOW what God's says about Satan's original sin.

The universe and earth are very old because God created them that long ago.

Acts 17:11 is the ONLY WAY to confirm/verify what others say about what the Bible says.

That's what I have done.  I've shown how several words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere to get the meaning of said words.  That is the basis of my view.

I have made no assumptions.  I have given information from scholarly sources that have helped form my view.  So I haven't made up anything and have sources that support my view.

I'm very comfortable with that.

The real problem is the anti-science bias of some people on this forum who force an understanding of multiple scripture passages to support a YEC position which then brings into question God's inspiration to the Pentateuch. At some point in time, you'll have to let these people go their misguided way and rely on the truth of Holy Scripture.

This is what Spugeon writes:

Spurgeon's Verse Expositions of the Bible

Verses 1-31

Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

When that “beginning” was, we cannot tell. It may have been long ages before God fitted up this world for the abode of man, but it was not self-existent; it was created by God, it sprang from the will and the word of the all-wise Creator.

Genesis 1:2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

When God began to arrange this world in order, it was shrouded in darkness, and it had been reduced to what we call, for want of a better name, “chaos.” This is just the condition of every soul of man when God begins to deal with him in his grace; it is formless, and empty of all good things. “There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way.”

Genesis 1:2. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This was the first act of God in preparing this planet to be the abode of man, and the first act of grace in the soul is for the Spirit of God to move within it. How that Spirit of God comes there, we know not, we cannot tell how he acts, even as we cannot tell how the wind bloweth where it listeth, but until the Spirit of God moves upon the soul nothing is done towards its new creation in Christ Jesus.

Spurgeon Commentary

So Spurgeon acknowledges a potentially older Earth. As does Unger, Gill, BKC, BBC, Jamieson-Faucett-Brown, et al.

The people YEC are trying to fit a young Earth into an old world discounting all references to the contrary in the Bible. Very sad. Ken Ham is a misguided crackpot!

Edited July 16, 2023 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Ummm - your "biblehub.com" page was the evidence I scrutinized. There is no "misunderstanding". I simply don't think the page is logically applicable to the percentages you are claiming - for the reasons stated in my previous post.

You've got to be kidding!!  How many verses did you count when you clicked on the verb form for hayah in Gen 1:2?  And what do you mean by "not logically applicable to the %" that I claim?  Divide the number of verses that have "become/became" by 111, which is the total number of verses on the list andm voila!  You get the %.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Right - the form of 'hayah' we are talking about can be transliterated 'hayetha'. That is the exact evidence I critiqued. When you provided this "biblehub.com" page for scrutiny, I demonstrated why it is a logically inappropriate tool to support your argument.

So what about how it can be transliterated.  That isn't even the point.  The only point is how the same verb form in Gen 1:2 is translated elsewhere, and biblehub.com gives that information.  So forget about transliterations.  And look at all the sources I gave on the previous page that support my view.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

1 - I did provide an unbiased sample that demonstrated the percentage to be closer to 15% (nowhere near the purported "59%").

2 - I subsequently demonstrated your provided evidence to be unfit for purpose.

3 - Appeals to Motive are logic fallacies.

There is no "appeal to motive".  That's a laugh.  I appeal to facts, which I have presented.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Most "no evidence" claims are invalid when subjected to scrutiny. Your claim here is no different.

And that applies to your posts that clearly indicate you think I have no evidence.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yes - after much coaxing, you eventually provided the specific evidence from "biblehub.com". 

This seems to be rather disingenuous.  I gave my source at the beginning, but you simply weren't that interested in looking at it yourself.  So you can leave "coaxing" out.  It was you who had to be coaxed into seeing the evidence.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I then scrutinized this evidence (from "biblehub.com") and demonstrated that it does not logically support your claim - for several reasons that make it unfit for such usage (as listed in my previous post to you).

Just inscrutable.  Anyone who knows simple arithmetic can see that my numbers are accurate.  Maybe your eyes are squinting too tightly while you are scrutinizing.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

OK - the "biblehub.com" page you used can be found at this link:

Hebrew Concordance: hā·yə·ṯāh -- 111 Occurrences (biblehub.com)

If we look at the second entry on that list, we find:

Genesis 3:20
HEB: כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־
INT: because he become was the mother of all

Now, do you count this as an entry for 'was', or 'become'? We both know you tallied this as a point for 'become', and not for 'was'. That demonstrates, a) a bias in your counting techniques, and b) that the list was not designed to be counted that way.

I can't explain why the site wrote that, but here is the actual verse:  Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

So much for your "scrutinizing".    Now, plug in that verse to the biblehub search and anyone can see that the various translations have "would become", "would be", and "was".  However, it is clear that at Gen 3:20, she hadn't had any babies yet.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

We therefore need to clarify your claim:

1 - Do you mean that, if we examine all English translations of the Old Testament, we find 'hayetha' translated as 'became/become' "59%" of the time?

OR

2 - Do you just mean that, if we examine all English translations of the Old Testament, we find at-least one translation that uses 'became/become" in "59%" of the 111 verses using 'hayetha'.

In the "interlin" menu for Gen 1:2, it shows "ha-yet-ah", so where do you get hayetha?  They aren't the same word.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

The first claim has been ostensibly debunked. The second claim is so logically weak, as to be easily, rationally dismissed as meaningless.

Thank you for your opinion.  

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

If you need "research" to understand that there is a logical difference between "be" and "BECOME", then perhaps we are further apart than I imagined. These words do not mean the same thing. One describes a state, the other describes a process.

Isa 45:18 very plainly says that "God did NOT create the earth tohu".  Yet, you accept Gen 1:2 as saying that God DID create the earth tohu.    I'm not the one with a problem.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

 

Again, to quote myself, "there is nothing inherent to the Hebrew word speaking to a “wasteland” – regardless of how it is translated elsewhere, i.e. where the context explicitly drives the translation towards “wasteland”."

just look at how tohu is translated elsewhere.

The website biblehub.com shows 10 occurrences of "tohu".

Gen 1:2 - was formless

Isa 45:18 - it a waste place,

Isa 45:19 - Me in a waste place

1 Sam 12:21 - for they [are] vain.

Job 26:7 - empty space

Isa 24:10 - of chaos

Isa 34:11 - of desolation

Isa 44:9 - of them futile,

Isa 59:4 - in confusion

Jer 4:23 - waste/wasteland

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

You are making the same hermeneutical error that you made with 'hayetha'.

And that isn't the word that I was checking on.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

The words 'tohu vabohu' mean an unordered emptiness. That is all the words themselves mean.

OK, so Isa 45:18 says that "God did NOT create the earth an unordered emptiness", yet you STILL accept Gen 1:2 as saying that God created the earth an unordered emptiness".  I am not the one with a problem.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Now, if that unordered emptiness describes a land that has been ravaged by war, then the translators might take a valid translation liberty of describing the land as an uninhabited wasteland.

Which would apply to Gen 1:2.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm glad your "conscience is totally fine".

I'm glad you are glad.  But how is your conscience fine when you accept direct contradictions in your understanding of verses?

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

I contest that Genesis 1:2 says anything even remotely approaching the idea that "God restored the earth for man in Genesis 1". The topic I am engaging with is exclusively about Bible interpretation methods.

I never said that v.2 says that.  You are now just making stuff up about my view.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

For the purpose of this conversation, I don't care about the age of the earth. If you were being honest when you wrote, "My only "agenda" is to understand the Bible", then personal presuppositions about the age of the earth should be irrelevant (or at-least secondary) to whether or not we are honestly investigating God's intended meaning of scripture.

Actually, I have already noted that the age of the earth is irrelevant to anything and everything in Scripture.  But the age IS a fact.  And there is no justification to accept a very young earth when there is clear evidence from words in the Hebrew and Greek and what science HAS measured to underststand that the earth and universe is very old.  And all without any evolution.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Neither "Ken Ham" nor "Answers in Genesis" are relevant to a conversation about sound hermeneutical practices - unless they have something to contribute to the arguments. If not, I don't know why they are being mentioned (apart from you not wanting to deal with the arguments).

Ken seems unable to separate an old earth from evolution.  Apparently like most of the YEC.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

The "problem" is that you are claiming the Bible says something that it doesn't say.

This is your opinion.  I believe otherwise.  And the sources I've cited support my view.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Your conclusion results in a misrepresentation of what "the Bible" actually says.

The sources I have cited support my view.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Your conclusion establishes a dangerous hermeneutical precedent that permits changing the definition of words away from there established meaning without appropriate cause.

lol.  I have seen how certain words were translated elsewhere, which is how we learn what words MEAN.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

If that "contradiction" exists, it exists in the Hebrew text - regardless.

It plainly exists if you accept the TT of Gen 1:2.  Anyone can see that.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Though, as with most allegations of "contradiction" against the Bible, I would suggest this supposed "contradiction" can be easily resolved by examining the context of each usage.

My view immediately removes any contradiction.  Obviously.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

You can use unsound hermeneutics to make scripture say anything you want. That is the danger. That makes you an authority over scripture, rather than letting scripture be our authority. I suspect God doesn't care all that much about whether or not we can "resolve" anything He says to the presuppositions that make us comfortable.

you have yet to prove that any visible object can be "without form" or "formless".  My view removes that impossibility.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The real problem is the anti-science bias of some people on this forum who force an understanding of multiple scripture passages to support a YEC position which then brings into question God's inspiration to the Pentateuch. At some point in time, you'll have to let these people go their misguided way and rely on the truth of Holy Scripture.

Amen.  I am not in the least trying to convince anyone.  I am just showing how particular words in Gen 1:2 have been translated elsewhere, to give a different perspective and show that holding to the traditional translation of v.2 creates a blatant contradiction with Isa 45:18, plus the very word "formless" or "without form" isn't even real, since every object has form.

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

This is what Spugeon writes:

Spurgeon's Verse Expositions of the Bible

Verses 1-31

Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

When that “beginning” was, we cannot tell. It may have been long ages before God fitted up this world for the abode of man, but it was not self-existent; it was created by God, it sprang from the will and the word of the all-wise Creator.

Genesis 1:2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

When God began to arrange this world in order, it was shrouded in darkness, and it had been reduced to what we call, for want of a better name, “chaos.” This is just the condition of every soul of man when God begins to deal with him in his grace; it is formless, and empty of all good things. “There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way.”

Genesis 1:2. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This was the first act of God in preparing this planet to be the abode of man, and the first act of grace in the soul is for the Spirit of God to move within it. How that Spirit of God comes there, we know not, we cannot tell how he acts, even as we cannot tell how the wind bloweth where it listeth, but until the Spirit of God moves upon the soul nothing is done towards its new creation in Christ Jesus.

Spurgeon Commentary

So Spurgeon acknowledges a potentially older Earth. As does Unger, Gill, BKC, BBC, Jamieson-Faucett-Brown, et al.

The people YEC are trying to fit a young Earth into an old world discounting all references to the contrary in the Bible. Very sad. Ken Ham is a misguided crackpot!

Kind of harsh re: Ken.  It seems he just can't separate an old earth from evolution, which is really easy to do.

[teddyv]

14 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

And modern "scientists" are lying to children every day telling them science says the Bible can't be true since the Bible says the earth is millions of years old, and we all evolved. Even though there's not a shred of actual scientific evidence for evolution. There's not even enough to classify evolution as a theory. Following the scientific method it is still in the hypothesis stage. But it's hammered down people's throats.

The earth is in fact several billions years old because multiple lines of evidence are telling us that. Reading a Bronze age religious text as a modern scientific text is completely irresponsible. It is falling into the trap of viewing in through our lens of Modernity.

Biological evolution is a legitimate scientific theory. Even YEC biologists accept that fact. They may disagree with it, as you are free to do. 

14 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

I'm not going to waste any more time here. But I encourage you to take a day and log on to answersingenesis.com and just read through a lot of the stuff there. There's a lot. 

Haha. There is a lot all right -  a lot of BS. Ken Ham is legalist and, I dare say, a heretic. I'd also argue that AiG is becoming a cult.

Do not go to them for advice in this matter. They lie and obfuscate and are quite literally uninterested in the truth.

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Like the advice from Paul to the Corinthians, if there is no interpreter for those with the gift of tonues, speak to God alone.  As for me, it just fills up an already very long post.  I am not edified by seeing what I can't read/understand.

Interesting!  I owe my delving into biblehub.com to an elderly man who carries to church a Bible in which the OT is Hebrew and the NT is Koine Greek!  I wanted to know how "hayah" was translated elsewhere in the OT and he told me to use biblehub.com.  So you two seem to have a lot in common.  

Shalom, FreeGrace.

Yes! I'd love to meet him one day!

Don't get me wrong; I think biblehub.com is a WONDERFUL program and study help! I use it everyday for copying the Hebrew text into my posts! All one has to do is go to a particular verse, choose the "Hebrew" tab above, and click on "Go to Parallel Hebrew" for the different versions listed. I usually choose the Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC) because it includes the vowel pointing. To get to the next verse, one simply clicks on the right arrow next to the verse location. If one is REALLY into the Hebrew, it's fairly easy to actually enter the WLC and see the whole text of a passage! By doing this, one can copy a whole passage of Scripture and then go into the details with all the text in front of him or her.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Again, I'm not a "theorist".  I have never given any opinion of what may have occurred that would result in a wasteland.  So please don't put me into that crowd.

Okay, sorry about that. See what assumptions will do to a person? I had only assumed that, since you were arguing for a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, that you had to have a similar reason for including the gap as they do. So, what IS your reason for the gap of time you find between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I see no big problem at all.  Just click on the word under "interlin" of the verse you want to parse and biblehub.com gives you every verse where that exact form of the word occurs.  Like I did with the verb in Gen 1:2.

Yes, it does this through the "interlinear" choice and also through the "Hebrew" tab above. Both give one the same information, just represented differently. Then, one may click on the Strong's number associated with that Hebrew (or Greek) word and expand upon it. However, you should know that the main entry is the FAMILY key word for the whole family of words (or group of related words). See, in Hebrew, all the letters are consonants and most words, especially the key words for a family, are three-letter words. Vowel sounds will vary with the part of speech and also when prefixes are attached. Thus, the vowel pointing will express differences, but being variable, they are not as important as the consonants in the alefbet. So, "hayah" is in the "H-Y-H" or "hei-yod-hei" family. To this root word, stems and prefixes and suffixes and vowels are added to form all the other words in the family.

In the "hayah" entry, one will find the various forms (in transliteration) off to the right at the bottom of the entry, with numbers related to how often that particular form of the word is found in the Bible. Off to the left at the bottom, one will find a list of all the Hebrew words in Hebrew text as well as all their various forms in transliteration. I use a slightly different scheme of transliteration that is easier for me to type without having to remember how to reproduce letters with accents or graves attached. I only have to use the letters ans symbols on a standard keyboard.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I counted all of them myself.  Anyone can do it.  And I urge everyone who has any interest in the subject to do it for themselves.

If you don't mind me asking, WHAT did you actually count?

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I was satisfied with what biblehub.com provided.

How sad!  Unfortunately, the KJV was translated from 10th Century manuscripts, which led to some insertions into manuscripts, plus the veruy archaic wording.

They're happy with the KJV, and they will defend it to the death! (So a word of advice: Don't tell them you believe in any other version if you don't want a fight on your hands!) I was "saved" (justified by God) through the means of the KJV; so, I'm okay with the version, but I could probably lead someone to the Lord with ANY version of the Bible with very few exceptions. The formula has NEVER changed! It is always "By grace, through faith, by blood." It was that way in the Old Testament, and it's no different in the New Testament, with the added information that Yeeshuwa` the Messiah of God became the LAMB of God! HaKeves 'Elohiym! He is the FINAL Sacrifice, all of the other, animal sacrifices foreshadowed His Sacrifice!

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I go to biblehub.com to get what the original language has, not what some Enlish translation uses.  That's why I love biblehub.com.  I go to the "source".

I like it!

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Not sure why that is important.

Well, if you're ever involved in a copyright infringement case (and I hope you never will be), you WILL understand why it's important that the KJV is not copyrighted!

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

v.1 clearly states that God created the heavens and earth, so your claim here is rather odd.

Not really, when one understands that verse 1, like many places in the Hebrew Bible, is the SUMMARY of what is to follow. It's like the major point of an outline. Then, the rest of the chapter goes into the detail points below the major point. Yes, verse 1 states that God created the heavens and the earth, but then the rest of the chapter shows HOW He went on to create the heavens and the earth! Under the paragraph of Day 2, He created the "raqiya`" (expanse) and called it "shaamayim" ("skies" or "heavens"). Then, under the paragraph of Day 3, He created "hayabbaashaah" ("the dry [land]") and called it "'erets" ("land" or "earth").

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I still don't understand what point you are making.  God created erets in v.1 and restored erets in v.10.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on this, but the process described in 1:9 and 10 is not a "restoration"; it is the CREATION itself! As I said, verse 1 is merely the PRELUDE to the Creation and the details are found in the rest of the week's account.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

btw, I NEVER said or suggested that either tohu or ktisis has that connotation.  I don't believe that God wasted the planet.  But I do believe that God restored it.

Well, seeing as how the planet was never fully formed until the Creation Week, then it is not possible for it to be REstored, any more than it is possible for it to be REcreated! It was created ONCE, and God's Word says that it will last FOREVER! (Ecclesiastes 1:4) However, the SURFACE of the earth will be destroyed twice: First, it was destroyed in the Flood of Noach's day, and then it will be destroyed in the Fire associated with the Great White Throne Judgment, just before the earth is remade as the New Earth with its New Skies upon which the New Jerusalem shall descend.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Exactly!  And Isa 45:18 said that God didn't create the earth "useless/empty".  And Gen 1:2 doesn't say that God created the earth "useless/empty", even though most of the English translations think He did.

That would be nonsense.  I think the obvious point is that the 2 words mean the same thing in both passages.  After original creation, the earth became a wasteland, which wasn't from the hand of God, but by other means, of which we know nothing.

This is not what the text teaches, however. Just because the earth WAS a "wasteland" doesn't mean that it underwent anything that turned it INTO a "wasteland!" IT JUST WASN'T FORMED, YET! It's WRONG to assume that anything BAD had happened to it to make it that way! 

But, GOD! He stepped in and formed the earth from the dry ground separated from the waters by the point of "sea level," and the earth was freed from its uselessness, and God created life upon it. First, He created grass, herbs, and fruit trees, and then later He created animals upon it: the domesticated herds, the wild animals, and all those things that "creep upon the earth" (the insects and arachnids) were all created on Day 6, each after their kinds. The birds - actually, ALL flying creatures (Hebrew: `owf) - had already been created on Day 5. See, there's no connotation to the words "tohuw" or "bohuw." They are just words that describe the earth's CONDITION, but that condition didn't have to be "caused" by anything! God had created the earth perfectly, but the matter just needed IMPROVEMENT!

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And "the land" in Jer 4 became a wasteland after the besieging army finished.  

I don't see divine judgment in either text.  I can't imagine why the gap theorists would even think so.

I agree with this.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I doubt that Noah's flood "aged" the earth to appear billions of years old.   Seriously doubt it.  And Noah's flood had nothing to do with the obvious appearance of very old age either.

Then, I assume you've never studied the extent of what a VIOLENT, WORLDWIDE FLOOD would do to the earth. This was probably the greatest contribution that Dr. Henry Morris, Sr. did for creationism. See, He was a doctor of hydraulic engineering. He understood WELL the dynamics of fluids. He built scale models of the ark and tested each in tanks of water put in various wave conditions. It was the IDEAL shape to withstand tidal wave effects! He also understood what those waves could do to the earth's surface. He understood how sediments were deposited, and how the weight of the water could in itself crack the earth's crust! With subterranean conditions already under pressure, the additional pressure of TONS AND TONS of water, particularly focused on the lowest points, can do some SERIOUS terraforming! Psalm 104 talks about this when it says, "the mountains rose, and the valleys sunk!" If one will just look at a globe that shows mountains and valleys, including ocean trenches, one will see how the mountains were formed at calculated distances from the shores of the oceans! This was no "local flood!"

Now, consider how that VIOLENT, WORLDWIDE FLOOD would bury all the herds and flocks and other groups of animals, each one SCRAMBLING in whatever way it could to stay alive! They weren't just drowned; some were buried alive by underwater lava flows! Some were buried under overturned rocks! Some were buried under toppled trees and layer after layer of mud and sand!

Everyone knows that "it rained for forty days," but hardly anyone considers the fact that this Flood lasted on the earth for a YEAR! During all that time, it continued to rain off and on! There were HUGE temperature variations, too, because the surface of the whole earth, covered by water, didn't have any resistance to the winds and waves! The arctic regions could get VERY COLD VERY QUICKLY! And, the equatorial regions could get VERY HOT VERY QUICKLY! Guess where glaciers are formed? Guess where mammoths were frozen solid in seconds? Most know that diamonds are produced by heat and pressure, and we can make diamonds under controlled conditions in laboratories. Guess where most diamonds are found? 

This earth went through a MAJOR, CATECLISMIC EVENT! And, such an event left a HUGE footprint that uniformitarianism CANNOT explain, try as it might! What LOOKS like a "long time," was actually quite short, restricted to the year of the Flood and the subsequent years until the weather patterns subsided into a uniform cycle.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Sorry, but I disgree on all this.  Isa 14 clearly reveals Satan's rebellion, with all those "I wills".

The text is quite clear who is being addressed, and it says NOTHING about "Satan!" Instead, we read ...

Isaiah 14:3-12 (KJV)

3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, 4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against THE KING OF BABYLON, and say,

"How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!"

5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. 6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. 7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. 8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying,

"Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us!"

9 Hell (Hebrew: Sh'owl) from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. 10 All they shall speak and say unto thee,

"Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? 11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave (Hebrew: Sh'owl), and the noise of thy viols: THE WORM IS SPREAD UNDER THEE, AND THE WORMS COVER THEE. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER (Hebrew: Heeyleel = "a shining one"; "morning star"), son of the morning! HOW ART THOU CUT DOWN TO THE GROUND, WHICH DIDST WEAKEN THE NATIONS!"

and

Isaiah 14:16-19 (KJV)

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon (squint at) thee, and consider thee, saying,

"Is this THE MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? 18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But THOU ART CAST OUT OF THY GRAVE (Hebrew: miqqiVr'khaa = "from-your-sepulcher") like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, THRUST THROUGH WITH A SWORD, that go down to the stones of the pit; AS A CARCASE TRODDEN UNDER FEET."

Since when is the "angel Satan" called a "man?" How is an "angel" bothered by worms in a grave? How could he become a "carcase trodden under foot"?

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It doesn't take a bozo to KNOW what God's says about Satan's original sin.

No, it take a bozo to read a passage of Scripture and assign it to "Satan" when it's TOTALLY about someone else!

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The universe and earth are very old because God created them that long ago.

Upon what do you base this? One cannot claim this on the basis of Genesis 1:2, because that would be circular reasoning! That's the verse we are trying to determine how it shows a long age! One cannot say, "the gap determines that a long age was inserted here." and then turn arouund and say "the long age is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 becauee there is a gap between these verses!"

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Acts 17:11 is the ONLY WAY to confirm/verify what others say about what the Bible says.

Okay, so in "searching the Scriptures," how do YOU attribute to the earth a long age? You can't just say "it's very old" without some PROOF upon which you base your claim! And, we're trying to determine the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; so, you can't use that to "PROVE" that "it's very old!" WHY do you INSIST on the earth being very old?

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

That's what I have done.  I've shown how several words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere to get the meaning of said words.  That is the basis of my view.

I have made no assumptions.  I have given information from scholarly sources that have helped form my view.  So I haven't made up anything and have sources that support my view.

I'm very comfortable with that.

You really HAVE made assumptions, and the biggest is that "the earth is very old." Where's your PROOF?!