YEC's cannot reconcile "tohu wabohu" in Gen 1:2 with the same 2 words in Jer 4:23!

[FreeGrace]

1 minute ago, BeyondET said:

A snow ball earth, there is a section of the crust missing.

What does this mean, and why do you bring it up?  What YEC need to focus on is the fact that "tohu wabohu" is used in Gen 1:2 as the state of the earth just before the 6 days began, and is also found in Jer 4:23 as a description of what an invading army did to the whole land.  The text is found on page 1 of this thread.

That's the only important thing to understand.

[BeyondET]

7 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What does this mean, and why do you bring it up?  What YEC need to focus on is the fact that "tohu wabohu" is used in Gen 1:2 as the state of the earth just before the 6 days began, and is also found in Jer 4:23 as a description of what an invading army did to the whole land.  The text is found on page 1 of this thread.

That's the only important thing to understand.

You focus on YEC when OEC is no different.

You are pretty much saying verse 1:2 wasn't part of day 1 by saying just before the 6 days began. I don't believe that at all. Doesn't make sense.

Edited August 3, 2023 by BeyondET

[teddyv]

55 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Fact:  There is no such thing as a "primordial pre creation".  

Fact:  The words "ordered" and "formed" are NOT equivalent.  And "filled" is rather irrelevant.

Fact:  tohu wabohu is used for the condition of the earth BEFORE the 6 days even began.  And it is used in Jer 4:23 to describie what a besieging army did to the "whole land".  I gave all the context verses that prove that the army destroyed the land, which would leave the land a "wasteland".

One cannot apply "tohu wabohu" to original creation AND the result of an invading army that destroyed the land of Israel.  That makes no sense.  The 2 words mean the SAME THING.  

I'm not talking about or interested in the "prevailing creation myths of the day", so why do you bring this up?

Can you just deal with the FACT that "tohu wabohu" is used in Gen 1:2 AND Jer 4:23, so therefore does mean the same thing.

It can't refer to original creation in one text and the effect of a destroying army in another text.

When you treat the Bible as a historical text through the lens of Modernity, you will get silly interpretations. It is literature of a different culture and time with different base assumptions of the world and it's order. God used the prevailing mythology of the day and radically reformed it to relay the truths of who the Creator is, why he created and man's role in that creation. 

Overcomplicating it with endless speculation and forming doctrines using one verse or word distracts from the actual truths.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

You focus on YEC when OEC is no different.

So, just to be clear, you think "young" and "old" are synonymous??  How does that work?

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

You are pretty much saying verse 1:2 wasn't part of day 1 by saying just before the 6 days began. I don't believe that at all. Doesn't make sense.

You've been following this discussion already on another thread.  I've never said anything like what you claim here.

Gen 1:2 shows that the earth BECAME a wasteland.  That isn't hard to understand.  And God didn't create it that way.

What you need to deal with is how to equate "tohu wabohu" in Gen 1:2 with the same words in Jer 4:23, where it is very clear that the land was destroyed and was a wasteland.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

When you treat the Bible as a historical text through the lens of Modernity, you will get silly interpretations.

That's why I'm not doing that.  I am dealing with the SAME TWO WORDS in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23.  I leave "modernity" out of it.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Overcomplicating it with endless speculation and forming doctrines using one verse or word distracts from the actual truths.

Please show me where I've "speculated" or got distracted from the truth.

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

So, just to be clear, you think "young" and "old" are synonymous??  How does that work?

You've been following this discussion already on another thread.  I've never said anything like what you claim here.

Gen 1:2 shows that the earth BECAME a wasteland.  That isn't hard to understand.  And God didn't create it that way.

What you need to deal with is how to equate "tohu wabohu" in Gen 1:2 with the same words in Jer 4:23, where it is very clear that the land was destroyed and was a wasteland.

I'm saying rather a person believes the earth is young or old is not synonymous with verse 1:2.

Land was not called earth until it appeared. The wasteland as you describe it was formless and void before it appeared. Reason why it was called earth at that point.

Edited August 3, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I'm saying rather a person believes the earth is young or old is not synonymous with verse 1:2.

Everyone is free to their own opinion.  But your statement here simply ignores what "tohy wabohu" means, which is the SAME in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23.

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Land was not called earth until it appeared. The wasteland as you describe it was formless and void before it appeared. Reason why it was called earth at that point.

When will you actually defend the claim that the earth was "formless".  That word is absurd in Gen 1:2 since every object HAS form, and worse than absurd in Jer 4:23.

Your statements are not reasonable or rational.

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Everyone is free to their own opinion.  But your statement here simply ignores what "tohy wabohu" means, which is the SAME in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23.

When will you actually defend the claim that the earth was "formless".  That word is absurd in Gen 1:2 since every object HAS form, and worse than absurd in Jer 4:23.

Your statements are not reasonable or rational.

Your title of the thread is not reasonable. The verse 1:2 doesn't imply a old earth or young earth.

As I said before you think a absurd word shouldn't be in the English language because in your opinion all objects have form even a earth that hasn't been formed into a sphere.

And God didn't call any land earth until it appeared. Rather a waste land or a promise land.

Edited August 3, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Your title of the thread is not reasonable.

Sure it is.  There are 2 words in Gen 1:2 that the YEC accept as how God began the process of creating earth, before He finished it, YET those SAME 2 WORDS in Jer 4:23 describe what an invading army did to the land (total destruction).  

The problem is obvious.

11 hours ago, BeyondET said:

The verse 1:2 doesn't imply a old earth or young earth.

The title didn't address age of earth.  It is about the 2 words that occur in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23.  And what those 2 words describe.

11 hours ago, BeyondET said:

As I said before you think a absurd word shouldn't be in the English language because in your opinion all objects have form even a earth that hasn't been formed into a sphere.

Yes, "formless/without form" IS absurd.  Now, can you provide an example of any object that can be described as "formless"?  If not, what's the problem?

11 hours ago, BeyondET said:

And God didn't call any land earth until it appeared. Rather a waste land or a promise land.

You mean there was a "waste land" BEFORE God even started the creation process?  Because that is exactly what your statement insinuates.

Have you ignored or rejected Gen 1:1?  That verse is what Psa 33:6 and 9 describe.  Original creation was instant!  He spoke the universe and earth into existence, all at once.  YEC creations are just kidding themselves when they have to dig so deep to come up with excuses for Gen 1 being a description of God's creative act as being a "process".  That is nonsense.  God simply SPOKE it all into existence.

And from v.2ff His restoration of what the earth had become (a wasteland) was by simply speaking all of it into existence.

So, with God, there is no"process" of creation.  

I look forward to any example you can provide about an object that is "formless".  

[BeyondET]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Sure it is.  There are 2 words in Gen 1:2 that the YEC accept as how God began the process of creating earth, before He finished it, YET those SAME 2 WORDS in Jer 4:23 describe what an invading army did to the land (total destruction).  

The problem is obvious.

The title didn't address age of earth.  It is about the 2 words that occur in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23.  And what those 2 words describe.

Yes, "formless/without form" IS absurd.  Now, can you provide an example of any object that can be described as "formless"?  If not, what's the problem?

You mean there was a "waste land" BEFORE God even started the creation process?  Because that is exactly what your statement insinuates.

Have you ignored or rejected Gen 1:1?  That verse is what Psa 33:6 and 9 describe.  Original creation was instant!  He spoke the universe and earth into existence, all at once.  YEC creations are just kidding themselves when they have to dig so deep to come up with excuses for Gen 1 being a description of God's creative act as being a "process".  That is nonsense.  God simply SPOKE it all into existence.

And from v.2ff His restoration of what the earth had become (a wasteland) was by simply speaking all of it into existence.

So, with God, there is no"process" of creation.  

I look forward to any example you can provide about an object that is "formless".  

I still believe the verse doesn't imply to YEC or OEC just a disagreement in its translation.

Earth can only be called a sphere if it's in the form of a sphere. If it's spread out into single atoms like in the beginning it's not in the shape the form of sphere.

I would like to know why you think translators supposedly mistranslationed the passage.