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

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On 8/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, BeyondET said:

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.

Actually an old earth understanding is not dependent on a particular understanding of Genesis 1:3-31. Days 1-3 could mean one length of time, while Days 4-6 another. A combination of the Day-Age method and Old Earth Creation which has been proposed by some theologians. I've studied the Day-Age creation explanation and it seems somewhat clumsy to me. I study a lot of things I don't agree with including: evolution; day-age creation; Calvinism; Roman Catholicism; etc.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On 8/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, BeyondET said:

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.

The subject of Genesis 1:2 has been danced around because of what it implies. Using science, we know with a high degree of certainty that there were many explosions of new species that did not survive to modern times. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution, but that God had other (non-human) related creation for other purposes. It is safe to say that angels were involved from texts we have access to.

Edited August 5, 2023 by SavedOnebyGrace

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

The subject of Genesis 1:2 has been danced around because of what it implies. Using science, we know with a high degree of certainty that there were many explosions of new species that did not survive to modern times. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution, but that God had other (non-human) related creation for other purposes. It is safe to say that angels were involved from texts we have access to.

There's a pretty large section of earth's crust missing the theory is from global glaciation, most species living would of gotten scraped off by the movement of large ice sheets. Interestingly it is true that when glaciers on continents start moving they do scrounge out the earth taking part of the ground with it. The hypothesis is most species went extinct along with majority of fossils of the period around 600 millions ago in a runaway atmosphere or catastrophic event that turned earth into a frozen snowball tundra, warmed and took a chunk of earth down seduction plates and the bottom of the ocean. The huge chunk got recycled.

The verse with the waters being divided and the waters below being named seas and dryland being called earth. Imo Seems to imply the place when earth became planet pretty much.

The upper waters is beyond the expanse where the lights are. Earth today came from those upper waters.

The waters together could of been a wasteland place without order a collection of atoms or something else. God was hovering over the waters brought order divided the waters.

Maybe the first mentioning of earth wasn't in the form of sphere but a wasteland that wasn't dryland or a sphere yet earth nonetheless.

In Genesis the word earth seems to have multiple usage.

Edited August 5, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

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

OK, you are free to believe whatever you want.  But those who believe that the earth is real young MUST FACE the FACT that Jer 4:23 shows a completely different condition of the land than the same words in Gen 1:2.  Which clearly indicates that there is an unknown time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2, which easily explains the "apparent" very old age of the earth.  It is apparent because it is true.

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

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.

How is this relevant to the same 2 words in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23?  Did God begin the creation of the earth by creating atoms and strung them out in a single line?  Are you serious?  Do you hear yourself thinking?  Or maybe not thinking?  You bring up totally irrelevant info.  Is it just to distract from the obvious problem you don't want to discuss or face?

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

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

I don't know why.  But what I DO know is that "tohu wabohu" CANNOT mean what the translators said it means in those 2 verses.  The context of Jer 4 PREVENTS such stupid word choice.  And the 2 words means the SAME THING in both verses.  Duh.

[tim_from_pa]

Figuring out creation is like a detective story.  There's a crime scene and all they find are receipts, notes, maybe some other written material which gives the detective a good idea what happened but then must piece a story together and find yet more evidence to support it.  What we know is that God created everything, but we do not know when, how long it took or how it was done.  Science can help out there and help determine if some of creation took long to do based on existing laws, or if there was direct intervention of God (like my watch example earlier).  The problem with science it that it does not assume there is a being that would directly intervene which is a surprise to me given WE are beings and we definitely rearrange creation and create things ourselves in the same image as God. So that's one bias that needs to be overcome, but that's not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. However, they assume everything must be done slowly.  As for the age of the earth and universe, that's beyond question that it is very old.  But age does not equate to timing something may come about.  It just means that's it's old.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

15 hours ago, BeyondET said:

There's a pretty large section of earth's crust missing the theory is from global glaciation, most species living would of gotten scraped off by the movement of large ice sheets. Interestingly it is true that when glaciers on continents start moving they do scrounge out the earth taking part of the ground with it. The hypothesis is most species went extinct along with majority of fossils of the period around 600 millions ago in a runaway atmosphere or catastrophic event that turned earth into a frozen snowball tundra, warmed and took a chunk of earth down seduction plates and the bottom of the ocean. The huge chunk got recycled.

The verse with the waters being divided and the waters below being named seas and dryland being called earth. Imo Seems to imply the place when earth became planet pretty much.

The upper waters is beyond the expanse where the lights are. Earth today came from those upper waters.

The waters together could of been a wasteland place without order a collection of atoms or something else. God was hovering over the waters brought order divided the waters.

Maybe the first mentioning of earth wasn't in the form of sphere but a wasteland that wasn't dryland or a sphere yet earth nonetheless.

In Genesis the word earth seems to have multiple usage.

You've given me something else to study. How does this fit in to something like the Cambrian Explosion of species?

[BeyondET]

On 8/5/2023 at 7:11 AM, FreeGrace said:

OK, you are free to believe whatever you want.  But those who believe that the earth is real young MUST FACE the FACT that Jer 4:23 shows a completely different condition of the land than the same words in Gen 1:2.  Which clearly indicates that there is an unknown time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2, which easily explains the "apparent" very old age of the earth.  It is apparent because it is true.

How is this relevant to the same 2 words in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23?  Did God begin the creation of the earth by creating atoms and strung them out in a single line?  Are you serious?  Do you hear yourself thinking?  Or maybe not thinking?  You bring up totally irrelevant info.  Is it just to distract from the obvious problem you don't want to discuss or face?

I don't know why.  But what I DO know is that "tohu wabohu" CANNOT mean what the translators said it means in those 2 verses.  The context of Jer 4 PREVENTS such stupid word choice.  And the 2 words means the SAME THING in both verses.  Duh.

I'm fine with the earth becoming a wasteland it isn't that big of deal breaker.

I never said strung out in a single line, you added that and insinuated that I meant that which I didn't.

[BeyondET]

On 8/5/2023 at 8:32 PM, SavedOnebyGrace said:

You've given me something else to study. How does this fit in to something like the Cambrian Explosion of species?

That's a good question, the global glaciation appears to be right before the Cambrian explosion. Maybe it enhanced the explosion.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

I'm not sure what this has to do with being a YEC, since I'm a YEC and I have never for a moment thought the passage in Jeremiah was connected to Genesis. I don't know why anyone would ever think they are related. Even a casual; glance at Jeremiah 4 clearly shows it has NOTHING to do with the creation account. I'm not sure why people think it does.

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I'm fine with the earth becoming a wasteland it isn't that big of deal breaker.

It's hard to keep track of the different views on earth age.  Are you a YEC or OEC?  If a YEC, then how can you accept the earth becoming a wasteland?  That changes everything for Gen 1.

3 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I never said strung out in a single line, you added that and insinuated that I meant that which I didn't.

Then you need to be more clear.  It sure seemed as if you meant that.  That is why I posted what I did.

So, btw, what did you really mean then?