Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, FreeGrace.

Aw, sure it does! No language translation is one-to-one.

It doesn't have to be.  It just has to communicate the message.  You are saying that attempting to translate from another language RESULTS in a contradiction.  That doesn't make sense.  Any more than claiming objects can be formless.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

 

Look. If so many translators use the word "formless" to translate the Hebrew word "tohuw," then why do you insist that it is wrong since "every visible object HAS form"?

It should be obvious.  None of them had the courage to admit the earth became a wasteland, just because God didn't provide details.  The FACTof Jer 4:23 proves that "formless" is witless in EITHER verse.  And the phrase cannot mean 12 separate and different things. 

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

 

They are obviously (to me anyway) saying that there is a usage for "form" and its negative "formless" that you're not understanding, because you're stuck in a particular definition for "form."

It doesn't work in either verse.  Try again.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Wouldn't the more sensible thing to do be to find out what they mean by "form" and "formless?" You just have an adverse reaction to the word; that's all.

Well, you haven't given any sensible or reasonable definition.  In some of them, you even basically admitted that "final form" proves an inital form.  

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

And, there's absolutely NO CONTRADICTION between Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18. One just has to understand WHEN the earth was created! It's really that simple.

Only when we understand that the earth was NOT created tohu, whether formless (lol) or wasteland like.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

ONLY if one thinks that the earth was created PRIOR TO verse 2 (which it wasn't)!

That would be an opinion.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

TO GIVE US A "WEEK!" He gave us six days on which He worked to form His Creation and one day when He rested!

God spoke everything into existence.  During the restoration, He spoke a lot of things (none of which include creating "form") into existence.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

That gave us the pattern for our week! We are to work six days, Sunday through Friday, and have a day off on Shabbat ("Saturday") when we could take some time to spend with God!

I fully understand the pattern and a day of rest.  Got it.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Yeah, probably. I was just looking for a way to get you to understand that the "tohuw" doesn't come AFTER the Creation of the earth, but BEFORE.

There is NO WAY a wasted earth can come before the creation of the earth.  Just more non-sensibleness.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

 

The Septuagint isn't normally translated as "became." According to BibleStudyTools.com, which provides a translation of the LXX free, it gives us this for Genesis 1:2:

2 But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

We already know that there are many examples in the OT that the EXACT SAME form of the verb "was" can equally mean "became", such as "was the wife of..." meaning "became the wife of...".  Same thing.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

And, there's ANOTHER word for "tohuw!" "UNSIGHTLY!"

Exactly!! and that is what tohu means.  A wasteland is unsightly.  God does NOT create anything "unsightly", yet it seems you really think He did.  He is a Perfect Creator.  He didn't waste the earth.  He restored it.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Nope. Still no contradiction with Isaiah 45:18 AS LONG AS the "was unsightly" occurred BEFORE Day 3 on which the earth was created.

When the earth became a wasteland, it sure was unsightly.  Absolutely!!

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It doesn't have to be.  It just has to communicate the message.  You are saying that attempting to translate from another language RESULTS in a contradiction.  That doesn't make sense.  Any more than claiming objects can be formless.

Shalom, FreeGrace.

HOW MUCH of the message gets communicated? THAT'S the issue! A case in point: When Yeeshuwa` said,

Matthew 7:1-6 (KJV)

1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother,

"'Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye';

"and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you!"

When this is read in one's church, what is the look on the people's faces? Do they look serious? Are they confused? Are they deep in thought? Most are. 

A pastor friend of mine was reading this in his family's devotions, and all of a sudden his young son BURST OUT LAUGHING! He bawled him out for it, and said, "This is the Bible, son! It's no laughing matter!" His son replied, "But, Da-ad! IT'S FUNNY!"

HUMOR DOESN'T TRANSLATE EASILY! It IS funny! Yeeshuwa` was being humorous! He was making the example into a JOKE! Imagine a guy with a weaver's pole in one of his eyes, trying to say he'd "help out" someone else with a speck in his or her eye! But, if you have to explain your joke, then it's not funny anymore!

When something as simple to see as the CREATION of the skies and the earth is translated from one language to another, some of that message is going to be lost in the translation. It's just inevitable. And, some of that message can be garbled enough to APPEAR to be a contradiction with another verse in the Bible, even though originally there was absolutely NO "contradiction!"

It not only depends upon the translators, but also on the RECIPIENTS of that translation! How do they receive the translation? Can they understand all the word choices? Does the wording make sense to them?

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It should be obvious.  None of them had the courage to admit the earth became a wasteland, just because God didn't provide details.  The FACT of Jer 4:23 proves that "formless" is witless in EITHER verse.  And the phrase cannot mean 12 separate and different things. 

IF that was what the text said, but it doesn't! There's a REASON why so many have used the term "formless." It was as "formless" as a DESERT! It was a BLANK CANVAS, ready for God's Work of Art!

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It doesn't work in either verse.  Try again.

Well, you haven't given any sensible or reasonable definition.  In some of them, you even basically admitted that "final form" proves an inital form.

I've given you SEVERAL! From an "empty house" to a "blank canvas." It's UNNECESSARY to think it had to be destroyed first to be a "wasteland." There was NO creation before THE Creation Week! Yes, He created the light throughout the Universe in a DAY with TWO HEBREW WORDS, that needed FOUR English words to translate it!

Then on DAY FOUR, He focused the light into the "from-lights" that shown within the earth's atmosphere. And, He made ALL the "round objects" that people think are "light sources" in the Universe with a single sentence! It was almost as though it was an afterthought!

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Only when we understand that the earth was NOT created tohu, whether formless (lol) or wasteland like.

It WASN'T created "tohuw!" The earth wasn't created until Day THREE!

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

That would be an opinion.

I had said, "ONLY if one thinks that the earth was created PRIOR TO verse 2 (which it wasn't)!" But, it's NOT just an opinion! THAT'S HOW THE CREATION ACCOUNT WAS WRITTEN! About Day THREE, God had Mosheh ("Moses") write:

Genesis 1:9-10 (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.

THAT was the creation of the earth!

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God spoke everything into existence.  During the restoration, He spoke a lot of things (none of which include creating "form") into existence.

There was no "restoration" until after the Flood of Noach's 600th year.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I fully understand the pattern and a day of rest.  Got it.

No, I don't think you do, because you don't count it as the CREATION, when it certainly was!

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There is NO WAY a wasted earth can come before the creation of the earth.  Just more non-sensibleness.

Sorry, but I just showed you Genesis 1:9-10 and that occurred AFTER Genesis 1:2!

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

We already know that there are many examples in the OT that the EXACT SAME form of the verb "was" can equally mean "became", such as "was the wife of..." meaning "became the wife of...".  Same thing.

Is it better to say that you WERE an inherently talented human being, or that you BECAME a talented human being? If there was nothing before God began His creative acts, then "WAS," as translators have translated "haaytaah," is the better word. It's only in the scenario you're trying to paint where there was something before the earth was created by a word on Day 3. But, Genesis 1:1 is STILL just a PREVIEW of what is to follow in chapters 1 and 2.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Exactly!! and that is what tohu means.  A wasteland is unsightly.  God does NOT create anything "unsightly", yet it seems you really think He did.  He is a Perfect Creator.  He didn't waste the earth.  He restored it.

When the earth became a wasteland, it sure was unsightly.  Absolutely!!

No, sir! He took a blank canvas, a bare house, and turned it into our home!

[FreeGrace]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, FreeGrace.

HOW MUCH of the message gets communicated? THAT'S the issue!

OK.  And your "take" is that when Hebrew is translated into English, a contradiction is created!!!  No way.  

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

A case in point: When Yeeshuwa` said,

Matthew 7:1-6 (KJV)

1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother,

"'Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye';

"and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you!"

When this is read in one's church, what is the look on the people's faces? Do they look serious? Are they confused? Are they deep in thought? Most are. 

A pastor friend of mine was reading this in his family's devotions, and all of a sudden his young son BURST OUT LAUGHING! He bawled him out for it, and said, "This is the Bible, son! It's no laughing matter!" His son replied, "But, Da-ad! IT'S FUNNY!"

HUMOR DOESN'T TRANSLATE EASILY! It IS funny! Yeeshuwa` was being humorous! He was making the example into a JOKE! Imagine a guy with a weaver's pole in one of his eyes, trying to say he'd "help out" someone else with a speck in his or her eye! But, if you have to explain your joke, then it's not funny anymore!

Humor isn't relevant to Creation.  And doesn't create contradictions.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

When something as simple to see as the CREATION of the skies and the earth is translated from one language to another, some of that message is going to be lost in the translation. It's just inevitable.

Being "lost in translation" is hardly the same as creating a contradiction.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And, some of that message can be garbled enough to APPEAR to be a contradiction with another verse in the Bible, even though originally there was absolutely NO "contradiction!"

Let's be clear; whatever "appears" to be, is.  That's reality.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It not only depends upon the translators, but also on the RECIPIENTS of that translation! How do they receive the translation? Can they understand all the word choices? Does the wording make sense to them?

If someone can READ the words, they should be able to understand what they mean.  If not, they are wasting their time reading.

You are still not defending the "apparent" but not real contradiction between v.2 and Isa 45:18.  

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

IF that was what the text said, but it doesn't! There's a REASON why so many have used the term "formless." It was as "formless" as a DESERT!

Deserts aren't formless, regardless of your protestations.  But they CAN be wastelands that are uninhabitable.  Even wastelands HAVE form.  But the form is UNSIGHTLY.  

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It was a BLANK CANVAS, ready for God's Work of Art!

Even a blank canvas HAS form.  You just can't avoid that FACT.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I've given you SEVERAL! From an "empty house" to a "blank canvas."

You are confusing lack of decorations as being formless.  Nope.  

From the internet:

People also ask

What is the word root meaning to form?

• The root form, which means ‘shape,’ gives us a number of words that are used every day, including reform, information, deformed, and form. To ‘form," for instance, is simply ’to shape,’ whereas to reform is merely to ‘shape again.’ To keep you in verbal “shape,” let’s take a look at the way some other words are formed!

Please show me a definition from a legitimate source that supports your ideas.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It's UNNECESSARY to think it had to be destroyed first to be a "wasteland."

Go back to Jer 4 and understand the text.  The besieging army was described as an army that destroys nations.  And they left "the land" tohu wabohu.  You just can't get around that.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

There was NO creation before THE Creation Week!

There was NO "creation week".  There was original creation (Gen 1:1).  And then there was a 6 day restoration.  And you can't prove otherwise.  And I can support the words from the Hebrew that come to that conclusion.  

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It WASN'T created "tohuw!" The earth wasn't created until Day THREE!

Well, that would be your translation, but Gen 1;1,2 say clearly that the earth WAS tohu.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

No, sir! He took a blank canvas, a bare house, and turned it into our home!

Your "definition" of 'form' cannot be supported.

btw, aren't you aware that the shape/form of a bare house is STILL the same as "our home"?  Why aren't you seeing that?

[The Barbarian]

This stuff is fun to argue about, but it really has nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation.

 

 

[Tristen]

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

I am acknowledging that by misunderstanding what INT means on the "interlin" link, I counted "became" where it wasn't in any translation

Therefore, we can put your "59%" claim to bed?

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tristen said:

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

I have no idea why biblehub used "he" here, since he's can't become mothers, but consider this:  

I only included these verses to demonstrate that I didn't have to go far in your list to find these invalidating examples (3 in the first 5 verses on the list).

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

any woman who HAS children BECAME a mother on that basis, so 'became" or "become" is valid in those verses.  And there were a lot of those in the list

I might question that "mother of all living" could be considered more of a title, than a status.

But also - yes - I would consider it rational to argue for 'became' (or rather, 'would become') in this verse because, "any woman who HAS children BECAME a mother". I would therefore consider her status as the exclusive, inaugurate mother of all humans to be an element of context that could justify an extension of 'hayetha' beyond the normal definition, 'was'.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tristen said:

Genesis 29:17
HEB: רַכּ֑וֹת וְרָחֵל֙ הָֽיְתָ֔ה יְפַת־ תֹּ֖אַר
INT: were weak Rachel become was beautiful of form

Ditto here.  Rachel wasn't born "beautiful of form" for sure.  But she SURE BECAME that!

I don't think the context justifies this translation. This verse is not talking about Rachel's historical transition into beauty, but rather her appearance at the time when she met Jacob.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tristen said:

Genesis 36:12
HEB: וְתִמְנַ֣ע ׀ הָיְתָ֣ה פִילֶ֗גֶשׁ לֶֽאֱלִיפַז֙
INT: Timna become was a concubine Eliphaz

And ditto here.  Timna wasn't born a concubine, but she BECAME one.  So my point stands.

I really don't think your point does "stand".

Again, this verse is not about Timna's historical transition to becoming Eliphaz's concubine. The verse is simply making note of her status at the time she bore him a child. 

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tristen said:

Would you like me to do a survey of the NASB, like I did with the NKJV in the other thread?

You may do whatever you think would be appropriate.

If you're happy to set aside the "59%" claim, there's no need to do anything further.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

Depends on what the sentence says.  For example, in some of the verses, it says so and so WAS the wife of...   That could just as easily and accurately be worded "so and so BECAME the wife of...   Do you see my point?

So the translators used "was" where "became" is JUST AS VALID

It seems like your "point" is that context can influence how we translated words. But that was my "point" first.

The definition of 'hayetha' (or 'haya') is 'exists/is/to be'.

If we are talking in the past-tense, then 'existed/was' is more appropriate.

On the rarer occasions when the context explicitly describes a transition, we might extend that to 'became'.

That does not mean they are always interchangeable in every context. One is a definition, the other is a translation liberty taken because of contextual considerations.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

in some of the verses, it says so and so WAS the wife of...   That could just as easily and accurately be worded "so and so BECAME the wife of...   Do you see my point?

Your "point" is incorrect. These sentences mean different things.

"So and so WAS the wife of..." is a statement about the status of "So and so" at the time of the described events.

"So and so BECAME the wife of..." is a statement about "So and so" going through the process of becoming a wife.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

No such thing as "the established definitions of the words".

Lol. How very post-modernist of you.

Words only work because they have established, understood, agreed-upon definitions. The fact that we can sometimes apply words beyond their established definitions (context permitting) does not change how words work.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tristen said:

He does if He wants to communicate something different to the understood definitions of the words He uses.

If something DID happen after original creation that resulted in the earth needing to be restored, how would YOU translate v.2 when you decided NOT to give any details?

My position is that there is no justification for re-translating what God wrote - away from the understood meanings of the words He used.

If God wanted to communicate a history between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, He would have used different words.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

I will assume that you have a wife.  Was she always your wife, or did you marry her at some point in time?  Obviously she wasn't born married to you, so OBVIOUSLY she BECAME your wife.  This is an example of how "was" EQUALS" "became".

- Firstly, your logic is wrong. These do not mean the same thing. 

If a marriage happens in 2021, it could be said that the female 'was' a wife in 2022. She did not 'become' a wife in 2022. She 'became' a wife in 2021. She 'was' a wife in 2022 - and hopefully still 'is' a wife in 2023.

These sentences mean different things.

- Secondly, I never argued that these words can never be substituted for each other - only that such usage is context dependent.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tristen said:

And you don't seem to have considered that not every translator of Jeremaiah 4:23 took the same liberty as your preferred translation.

Are you kidding??  I considered the context, you know, where the besieging army came in and DESTROYED "the land".  And that's what tohu means.

You originally accused me of being "disingenuous" for not applying "how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4:23", to Genesis 1:2. That means you have not considered the issue from different perspectives.

Example 1 - you have not considered the possibility that the common translation of Genesis 1:2 uses the words according to their definitions, whereas the translators of Jeremiah 4:23 are the ones who have taken translation liberties.

Example 2 - you don't seem to have factored into your argument, the fact that very few translators have translated Jeremiah 4:23 in a way that supports your position. Therefore, you are trying to backwards engineer the translation of Genesis 1:2 based on a Cherry-Picked translation of Jeremiah 4:23.

'Tohu' does not mean a "besieging army came in and DESTROYED "the land"". 'Tohu' simply means disorder - as one might find after a "besieging army came in and DESTROYED "the land"".

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

What it CAN'T mean is "formless".  That would be ridiculous.  Invading armies don't leave the land formless.

I'm going to leave this argument alone for now - as I am now starting to feel embarrassed for you. At least your determination to not see the other perspective is somewhat enviable. Not the intellectual part, but the determination part.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

Why would you expect any reasonable person to accept such a ridiculous translation?

A "reasonable" person understands, 1) that when translating between languages, many concepts don't directly bridge the gap, and the translator has to choose the best fit, and 2) that something in a disordered state could be referred to a having no form or identifiable structure. Only people desperate to make their argument need to be so hyper-literal with some translations, yet ironically, very liberal with what they allow when translating other verses.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tristen said:

I've even tried to avoid this collision by using "unordered" instead of "formless". But you are so darn determined to charge head-first into fatuity.

OK, plug that word into Jer 4:23 and how sensible would that be?

Adjusted from the NKJV

"I beheld the earth, and indeed it was disordered and empty"

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

Just using the Hebrew word in both verses, we DO SEE a contradiction

Yes - thank you.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

Your error is claiming I "arbitrarily" translated certain words in Gen 1:2.  No, I used translations of how those SAME EXACT words are translated elsewhere.  So NO contradiction.

Your "error" is in missing the point.

Yes, in isolation, there is a "contradiction" in the Hebrew text.

Yes, you reconcile the alleged "contradiction" in one manner.

However, I reconcile the alleged "contradiction" in a different manner.

Therefore, you can not legitimately accuse my position of having to accept a "contradiction".

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tristen said:

I reconcile this supposed "contradiction" by applying information from the context of Isaiah 45:18 to justify a slight, context-specific, deviation from the normally understood definitions.

It seems you just don't even understand what an invading army does to "the land" when they invade.  But the text tells us that the invading army DESTROYS nations.

The text we are referring to only says the land is left empty and disordered. 

Now, given the context of an "invading army", I have no problem extending the translation to say, "an empty mess", or "wasteland" or however your preferred translation words it. But that is a translation liberty - and not what the words mean without that specific context.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 9:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

So I am on very solid ground.

eh - Not from my perspective.

[FreeGrace]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

This stuff is fun to argue about, but it really has nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation.

Amen to that!  And affects no doctrine either.

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Therefore, we can put your "59%" claim to bed?

It's been sleeping for quite a while now.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

I might question that "mother of all living" could be considered more of a title, than a status.

Doesn't matter.  A woman isn't born a "mother".  She BECOMES a mother.  Yet, it is also correct to say a woman was a mother.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

But also - yes - I would consider it rational to argue for 'became' (or rather, 'would become') in this verse because, "any woman who HAS children BECAME a mother". I would therefore consider her status as the exclusive, inaugurate mother of all humans to be an element of context that could justify an extension of 'hayetha' beyond the normal definition, 'was'.

picky picky picky.  My point stands.   

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't think the context justifies this translation. This verse is not talking about Rachel's historical transition into beauty, but rather her appearance at the time when she met Jacob.

Still doesn't matter.  She wasn't born looking the way Jacob saw her.  She most definitely BECAME a beauty.  

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

I really don't think your point does "stand".

So?

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Again, this verse is not about Timna's historical transition to becoming Eliphaz's concubine. The verse is simply making note of her status at the time she bore him a child.

Trying real hard to avoid the obvious fact, huh.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

If you're happy to set aside the "59%" claim, there's no need to do anything further.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

It seems like your "point" is that context can influence how we translated words. But that was my "point" first.

OK, so then we agree, huh.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

The definition of 'hayetha' (or 'haya') is 'exists/is/to be'.

I've seen the definition as "the verb of existence:  to be or BECOME."  The caps are mine.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

If we are talking in the past-tense, then 'existed/was' is more appropriate.

Except when the focus is on the present, such as Gen 1:2.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

On the rarer occasions when the context explicitly describes a transition, we might extend that to 'became'.

The LXX shows that with the conjunction being translated as "de" rather than "kai".

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

That does not mean they are always interchangeable in every context. One is a definition, the other is a translation liberty taken because of contextual considerations.

I've never made blanket statements.  And I've given many reasons for my view.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Your "point" is incorrect. These sentences mean different things.

"So and so WAS the wife of..." is a statement about the status of "So and so" at the time of the described events.

"So and so BECAME the wife of..." is a statement about "So and so" going through the process of becoming a wife.

So what?  Both statements are true and conclude the same thing.  Your point is irrelevant.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Words only work because they have established, understood, agreed-upon definitions. The fact that we can sometimes apply words beyond their established definitions (context permitting) does not change how words work.

OK, let's test this.  The words "tohu wabohu" occur in Gen 1:2 AND Jer 4:23.  You claim the words describe how God created the earth BEFORE He finished "decorating" it, which some would call "form".  But in Jer 4:23 the words clearly indicate that the "besieging army" destroyed "the land", which is just another way of saying it became a wasteland.  

Can't have it both ways.  The 2 words mean the same thing in both verses.  They cannot mean totally different things in the 2 verses.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

My position is that there is no justification for re-translating what God wrote - away from the understood meanings of the words He used.

lol.  I haven't "re-translated" anything.  I have shown how the poorly translated words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere.  A legitimate way to understand what words mean.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

If God wanted to communicate a history between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, He would have used different words.

Oh, I see.  Have a conversation with Him about this, huh?  The point is that He DIDN'T communicate a history.  He just let us know that what follows is a restoration.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

- Firstly, your logic is wrong. These do not mean the same thing. 

If a marriage happens in 2021, it could be said that the female 'was' a wife in 2022. She did not 'become' a wife in 2022. She 'became' a wife in 2021. She 'was' a wife in 2022 - and hopefully still 'is' a wife in 2023.

I hope you actually realize that none of this is relevant to our discussion.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

You originally accused me of being "disingenuous" for not applying "how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4:23", to Genesis 1:2. That means you have not considered the issue from different perspectives.

Huh?  So, "different perspectives" leads to totally different meanings???

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Example 1 - you have not considered the possibility that the common translation of Genesis 1:2 uses the words according to their definitions, whereas the translators of Jeremiah 4:23 are the ones who have taken translation liberties.

That is just amazing.  The text of Jer 4 couldn't be MORE CLEAR about what the "besieging army" did to "the land".  

Here is some context for v.23-

6 Raise the signal to go to Zion! Flee for safety without delay! For I am bringing disaster from the north, even terrible destruction.” 

7 A lion has come out of his lair; a destroyer of nations has set out. He has left his place to lay waste your land. Your towns will lie in ruins without inhabitant.

Now to color code for ease of understanding:  The red words describe what this invading army will do to "the land".  The blue words describes this invading army.

All of the red words FIT v.23 as to turning "the land" into a wasteland.

And the VERY SAME 2 word are found in Gen 1:2, and you really want me to believe that Moses only meant that God created the earth "formless" which needed tweaking to bring it up to code for man's use????

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Example 2 - you don't seem to have factored into your argument, the fact that very few translators have translated Jeremiah 4:23 in a way that supports your position. Therefore, you are trying to backwards engineer the translation of Genesis 1:2 based on a Cherry-Picked translation of Jeremiah 4:23.

How many translations do you require before you'll repent?
American Standard Version
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
I looked in the earth, and behold, chaos and emptiness, and to the Heavens, and their light is not there

English Revised Version
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Good News Translation
I looked at the earth--it was a barren waste; at the sky--there was no light. 

JPS Tanakh 1917
I beheld the earth, And, lo, it was waste and void; And the heavens, and they had no light.
New American Bible
I looked at the earth—it was waste and void; at the heavens—their light had gone out! 
NET Bible
"I looked at the land and saw that it was an empty wasteland. I looked up at the sky, and its light had vanished. 
New Revised Standard Version
I looked on the earth, and lo, it was waste and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.

New Heart English Bible
I saw the earth, and, look, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

World English Bible
I saw the earth and, behold, it was waste and void, and the heavens, and they had no light. 
Young's Literal Translation
I looked to the land, and lo, waste and void, And unto the heavens, and their light is not.

If 11 translations won't lead you to repentance, then nothing will.  

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

'Tohu' does not mean a "besieging army came in and DESTROYED "the land"". 'Tohu' simply means disorder - as one might find after a "besieging army came in and DESTROYED "the land"".

Read the whole text.  It's all there.  And, to be clear, I never said that 'tohu' means what you have erroneously ascribed to me.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Adjusted from the NKJV

"I beheld the earth, and indeed it was disordered and empty"

So you really believe that God initially created the earth disordered, huh.  Wow.  I am embarrassed for you.

 

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

The text we are referring to only says the land is left empty and disordered.

There are 11 translations on biblehub that disagree with you.  And destroying armies do much more than that when they "besiege".

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Now, given the context of an "invading army", I have no problem extending the translation to say, "an empty mess", or "wasteland" or however your preferred translation words it. But that is a translation liberty - and not what the words mean without that specific context.

Says you.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

eh - Not from my perspective.

Or opinion.  The fact is obvious.  The universe and earth have a very old appearance, and God did not deceive anyone by creating the universe/earth with just an apparent age.  Everything looks old because God created everything that long ago, however long ago that was.  Doesn't matter at all.  

What does matter is that God restored the earth in 6 days for man's use.

btw, I haven't shared a verse in the NT that sheds additional light to the discussion.

Mark 10:6 - “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

This verse was quoted in a Ken Hamm video as support for a young earth.  The key to this verse is the word "creation", or κτίσεως (ktiseōs).

 

NT:2937 ktisis (ktis'-is); from NT:2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):   Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's

NT:2936 ktizoo:

to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon,)

“To make habitable” can refer to “katartizo” in Heb 11:3, and therefore, a restoration of earth in Gen 1:2ff.

However, from my Analytical Greek Lexicon, Harper and Row, NY, and Bagster and Sons, London, under “ktizoo”:  “properly, to reduce from a state of disorder and wildness; in NT, to call into being, to create, Mark 13:19, to call into individual existence, to frame, Eph 2:15; to create spiritually, to invest with a spiritual frame, Eph 2:10, 4:24”.

So there's that.

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It's been sleeping for quite a while now.

Doesn't matter.  A woman isn't born a "mother".  She BECOMES a mother.  Yet, it is also correct to say a woman was a mother.

picky picky picky.  My point stands.   

Still doesn't matter.  She wasn't born looking the way Jacob saw her.  She most definitely BECAME a beauty.  

So?

Trying real hard to avoid the obvious fact, huh.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

OK, so then we agree, huh.

I've seen the definition as "the verb of existence:  to be or BECOME."  The caps are mine.

Except when the focus is on the present, such as Gen 1:2.

The LXX shows that with the conjunction being translated as "de" rather than "kai".

I've never made blanket statements.  And I've given many reasons for my view.

So what?  Both statements are true and conclude the same thing.  Your point is irrelevant.

OK, let's test this.  The words "tohu wabohu" occur in Gen 1:2 AND Jer 4:23.  You claim the words describe how God created the earth BEFORE He finished "decorating" it, which some would call "form".  But in Jer 4:23 the words clearly indicate that the "besieging army" destroyed "the land", which is just another way of saying it became a wasteland.  

Can't have it both ways.  The 2 words mean the same thing in both verses.  They cannot mean totally different things in the 2 verses.

lol.  I haven't "re-translated" anything.  I have shown how the poorly translated words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere.  A legitimate way to understand what words mean.

Oh, I see.  Have a conversation with Him about this, huh?  The point is that He DIDN'T communicate a history.  He just let us know that what follows is a restoration.

I hope you actually realize that none of this is relevant to our discussion.

Huh?  So, "different perspectives" leads to totally different meanings???

That is just amazing.  The text of Jer 4 couldn't be MORE CLEAR about what the "besieging army" did to "the land".  

Here is some context for v.23-

6 Raise the signal to go to Zion! Flee for safety without delay! For I am bringing disaster from the north, even terrible destruction.” 

7 A lion has come out of his lair; a destroyer of nations has set out. He has left his place to lay waste your land. Your towns will lie in ruins without inhabitant.

Now to color code for ease of understanding:  The red words describe what this invading army will do to "the land".  The blue words describes this invading army.

All of the red words FIT v.23 as to turning "the land" into a wasteland.

And the VERY SAME 2 word are found in Gen 1:2, and you really want me to believe that Moses only meant that God created the earth "formless" which needed tweaking to bring it up to code for man's use????

How many translations do you require before you'll repent?
American Standard Version
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
I looked in the earth, and behold, chaos and emptiness, and to the Heavens, and their light is not there

English Revised Version
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Good News Translation
I looked at the earth--it was a barren waste; at the sky--there was no light. 

JPS Tanakh 1917
I beheld the earth, And, lo, it was waste and void; And the heavens, and they had no light.
New American Bible
I looked at the earth—it was waste and void; at the heavens—their light had gone out! 
NET Bible
"I looked at the land and saw that it was an empty wasteland. I looked up at the sky, and its light had vanished. 
New Revised Standard Version
I looked on the earth, and lo, it was waste and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.

New Heart English Bible
I saw the earth, and, look, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

World English Bible
I saw the earth and, behold, it was waste and void, and the heavens, and they had no light. 
Young's Literal Translation
I looked to the land, and lo, waste and void, And unto the heavens, and their light is not.

If 11 translations won't lead you to repentance, then nothing will.  

Read the whole text.  It's all there.  And, to be clear, I never said that 'tohu' means what you have erroneously ascribed to me.

So you really believe that God initially created the earth disordered, huh.  Wow.  I am embarrassed for you.

 

There are 11 translations on biblehub that disagree with you.  And destroying armies do much more than that when they "besiege".

Says you.

Or opinion.  The fact is obvious.  The universe and earth have a very old appearance, and God did not deceive anyone by creating the universe/earth with just an apparent age.  Everything looks old because God created everything that long ago, however long ago that was.  Doesn't matter at all.  

What does matter is that God restored the earth in 6 days for man's use.

btw, I haven't shared a verse in the NT that sheds additional light to the discussion.

Mark 10:6 - “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

This verse was quoted in a Ken Hamm video as support for a young earth.  The key to this verse is the word "creation", or κτίσεως (ktiseōs).

 

NT:2937 ktisis (ktis'-is); from NT:2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):   Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's

NT:2936 ktizoo:

to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon,)

“To make habitable” can refer to “katartizo” in Heb 11:3, and therefore, a restoration of earth in Gen 1:2ff.

However, from my Analytical Greek Lexicon, Harper and Row, NY, and Bagster and Sons, London, under “ktizoo”:  “properly, to reduce from a state of disorder and wildness; in NT, to call into being, to create, Mark 13:19, to call into individual existence, to frame, Eph 2:15; to create spiritually, to invest with a spiritual frame, Eph 2:10, 4:24”.

So there's that.

Shabbat shalom, FreeGrace.

Well, let's think this through a bit more:

You quoted your Analytical Greek Lexicon saying,

"kitzoo": “properly, to reduce from a state of disorder and wildness; in NT, TO CALL INTO BEING, TO CREATE, Mark 13:19, to call into individual existence, to frame, Eph 2:15; to create spiritually, to invest with a spiritual frame, Eph 2:10, 4:24”.

I noticed that you did NOT highlight the portion I made all caps. That seems a little disingenuous.

Also, we must look at the family of words associated with this verb:

If we look in Ephesians, we also find ...

Ephesians 3:1-12 (KJV)

1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD HATH BEEN HID IN GOD, WHO CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places (Greek: en tois epouraniois = "in the above-the-skies") might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

And, of course, this dovetails nicely with John 1:1-3:

John 1:1-3 (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made BY him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So, while you may prefer the term "restoration," it is clear from the context in which these words are found that God called it, THROUGH INSPIRATION, "creation."

Furthermore, God Himself is called "Ktistee" in 1 Peter 4:19:

1 Peter 4:12-19 (KJV)

12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: 13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's (the Messiah's) sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. 14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ (the Messiah), happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. 16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. 17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator (Greek: Ktistee = "Creator" not just a "Restorer.").

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, FreeGrace.

Well, let's think this through a bit more:

You quoted your Analytical Greek Lexicon saying,

"kitzoo": “properly, to reduce from a state of disorder and wildness; in NT, TO CALL INTO BEING, TO CREATE, Mark 13:19, to call into individual existence, to frame, Eph 2:15; to create spiritually, to invest with a spiritual frame, Eph 2:10, 4:24”.

I noticed that you did NOT highlight the portion I made all caps. That seems a little disingenuous.

Disingenuous?  Not at all.  Did you miss the word just before "to reduce..."?  The word is "properly".  What does that mean?  it means what follows is the most common understanding of the word being defined.

I didn't include all my research, but I offer this for your edification:

Mark 10:6 - “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Obviously, the reference to Adam and the woman takes us to Genesis 1 and 2.

2 Pet 3:4 - They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

Again, the reference to “our ancestors” would take us back to the original parents, Adam and Eve, and Genesis 1 and 2.

So, how do these verses relate to the age of the earth?  The Greek word for “creation” in both verses is κτίσεως.  My lexicon refers this word to ‘ktisis’.  This Greek word is found under ‘κτίζω’.  Under this word we read:  “to reduce from a state of wildness and disorder”, from Bagster & Sons lexicon.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 2936: κτίζω

κτίζω: 1 aorist ἔκτισα; perfect passive ἐκτισμαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκτίσθην; the Sept. chiefly for בָּרָא; properly, to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, others); hence to found, a city, colony, state, etc.

So from 2 independent Greek lexicon sources, this Greek word for ‘creation’ refers to a creation from a state of disorder and wildness.  Or, to make something habitable that wasn’t habitable before.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in a long dissertation of κτίζω, that “in the religion of many peoples chaos stands at the beginning of being and becoming”.

The major mythologies (Greek, Roman and Norse) are all parallel accounts, with the names changed among the 3, which is best explained by understanding that Genesis 6 involved fallen angels contaminating the human race, which led God to destroy it, save 8 people; Noah and his family.

In a similar way, the account of creation from Adam and Eve was passed down among the generations.  So the common thread of “chaos” in so many different religions would have come from what Genesis 1:2 actually says in the original, not in how every English translation renders it.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, by Balz and Schneider Eds. makes notes that “the OT creation narratives are most intelligible within the framework of ancient Near Eastern views, each motif has parallels.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology & Exegesis, by Sylva, notes that κτίζω is used in the the Septuagint for the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra 5:17.  It further notes that the word group for κτίζω is used always of divine creation, with 1 exception, in 1 Pet 2:13.

Silva also connects κτίζω with the believer being a new creation.  This point is also noted in Kittel’s text.  This parallels the restoration of the earth in Gen 1 with regeneration of the believer.

That's 5 scholarly sources that support my view.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

(Greek: Ktistee = "Creator" not just a "Restorer.").

I never said the word means "restore" or "restorer".  Please re-read what I have written regarding the word.

[Tristen]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

Therefore, we can put your "59%" claim to bed?

It's been sleeping for quite a while now.

You were unclear in your previous two posts about whether or not you have walked away from this argument.

 

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

If you're happy to set aside the "59%" claim, there's no need to do anything further.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I've tried to gracefully seek clarification, but since you have decided to posture, and since we've spent such a ridiculous amount of time examining the virtues of your "Biblehub.com" source, I can now freely declare that your previously ubiquitous claim, that 'hayetha' is translated 'became' in "59%" translations, has been thoroughly debunked due to the fact you were using an inappropriate data source.

You are therefore left with the much weaker claim - that 'hayetha' is mostly translated 'was' but also occasionally translated 'became'.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

I might question that "mother of all living" could be considered more of a title, than a status.

Doesn't matter.  A woman isn't born a "mother".  She BECOMES a mother.  Yet, it is also correct to say a woman was a mother.

You conveniently skipped over the part of my argument that dealt with this.

I said, "- Firstly, your logic is wrong. These do not mean the same thing. 

If a marriage happens in 2021, it could be said that the female 'was' a wife in 2022. She did not 'become' a wife in 2022. She 'became' a wife in 2021. She 'was' a wife in 2022 - and hopefully still 'is' a wife in 2023.

These sentences mean different things."

To take the example further, If I were to say, "She 'was' a wife in 2021", you might validly argue that it could also be said that "She 'became' a wife in 2021". However, you could only make that argument if you had some external information about the marriage date - i.e. some context to justify changing the meaning from 'was' to 'became'.

But that does not mean you can ignore context and proceed to substitute 'became' for 'was' in every instance (as your current argument entails). For example:

If I were to instead say, "She 'was' a wife in 2022", and you argued to change the statement to, "She 'became' a wife in 2022", you would be objectively, unequivocally wrong.

It is therefore not logically legitimate to conclude an "elsewhere" translation can be applied to every use of the word.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

21 hours ago, Tristen said:

But also - yes - I would consider it rational to argue for 'became' (or rather, 'would become') in this verse because, "any woman who HAS children BECAME a mother". I would therefore consider her status as the exclusive, inaugurate mother of all humans to be an element of context that could justify an extension of 'hayetha' beyond the normal definition, 'was'.

picky picky picky.  My point stands.   

Yep - it does - in this specific example - because I was agreeing with you here.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

You originally accused me of being "disingenuous" for not applying "how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4:23", to Genesis 1:2. That means you have not considered the issue from different perspectives.

Huh?  So, "different perspectives" leads to totally different meanings???

If you are accusing me of being "disingenuous", that means you are only seeing the issue from your perspective. Therefore, from your perspective, I am not being honest with the evidence.

In a comparison between Gen 1 and Jer 4, your argument sees the problem with how Gen 1 is usually translated. Therefore, Gen 1 should be translated the same as Jer 4. Whereas my argument suggests liberties have been taken with the Jer 4 translation. That is, some translators of Jer 4 decided to render a word in a more context-specific manner, rather than translating the word according to its core definition.

No one is necessarily being "disingenuous' here. We're both just coming at the issue from different angles.

And they are not "totally different meanings". One is just translated to be more specific to its context. Whereas the other translators more strictly adhered to the base definition of the word.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

That is just amazing.  The text of Jer 4 couldn't be MORE CLEAR about what the "besieging army" did to "the land".  

Here is some context for v.23-

Yes - that is my point!!! Some translators of Jer 4 made a decision to deviate from the core definition - to make the statement more context-specific. 

That is a perfectly valid decision. What is not valid, is to assume that a context-specific deviation from the definition can be applied to every other use of the same term. I demonstrated this in the marriage example above.

 

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

All of the red words FIT v.23 as to turning "the land" into a wasteland.

And the VERY SAME 2 word are found in Gen 1:2, and you really want me to believe that Moses only meant that God created the earth "formless" which needed tweaking to bring it up to code for man's use????

That interpretation perfectly fits the narrative - i.e. that creation was a process; that God first brought the raw, unstructured materials into existence, then subsequently formed them to purpose. There is nothing inherently remarkable or unrealistic about that interpretation.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How many translations do you require before you'll repent?
...

If 11 translations won't lead you to repentance, then nothing will.

Wow! "Repentance" you say? That's posturing on steroids. Will I be expected to "repent" every time you think you've scored a point? I suppose it happens rarely enough  .

Your argument was that Genesis 1:2 should be translated a "wasteland".

I counted 1 on your list. Maybe I'll give you "barren waste" as well - since I think an empty landscape is implied by that English phrase.

The term "waste" generally just means not used or not useful. I have no problem with "waste" for Genesis 1:2.

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

to be clear, I never said that 'tohu' means what you have erroneously ascribed to me

Lol. That's not really what "clear" means.

Clarifying what you actually mean would be an example of trying to be "clear".

 

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

21 hours ago, Tristen said:

Adjusted from the NKJV

"I beheld the earth, and indeed it was disordered and empty"

So you really believe that God initially created the earth disordered, huh.  Wow.  I am embarrassed for you.

An Appeal to Ridicule (fallacy) and a Tu Quo Qu (fallacy) wrapped together in one comment. You are right to be "embarrassed". I wonder if you get double-points for fallacy combos.

To answer your question, I "really", "really" "REALLY believe" that God created in a process of first bringing the raw, unstructured (or unordered) materials into existence - and then subsequently molded those materials into their final forms - fit for human habitation.