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

[SavedOnebyGrace]

28 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Clouds are condensed water, not water vapour

What do you continue to ignore context of the use in Jeremiah as compared to Genesis?

We use the same words in different contexts all the time. Why can't the Hebrews? There is several hundred years between the writings of Genesis and Jeremiah. Was the Hebrew language static?

Yes, look at the various uses of the Hebrew word "adamah". The Jewish language has a limited number of words, from Earth to dirt to land et al.

[BeyondET]

19 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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.

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?

I've said before I'm OEC

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

I don't think I'm missing any point. Just because they are the same words doesn't prove they are talking about the same event.

Of course they aren't taking about the SAME EVENT.  But they ARE talking about the SAME RESULTS of some kind of action.  That's what a description is:  it describes results of an action in the case of "tohu wabohu".

One simply cannot accept "tohu wabohu" as being part of the creation process as most believers think Gen 1:2ff is about, AND being the result of an invading army that destroys nations.  That kind of thinking is incompatible with reality.

 God wouldn't begin creation of the earth as a wasteland.  That makes no sense.  And inb Jer 4:23 it is clear that the invading army left the "whole land" a wasteland.

10 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

People are creating something that isn't there. This "gap theory" thing about Genesis 1:2 was invented in the 1800's by a person who believed in evolution.

You have no facts, only a lot of misinformation.  The age of earth was determined by "geologic columns" by a geologist named Charles Lyell in 1796.  Then, in 1814, a Presbyterian minister named Thomas Chalmers attempted to reconcile Scripture with what science claimed and came up with the "gap theory".  Oh, btw, ol' Darwin was born in 1805, and didn't write his STUPID "origin of the species" until 1859.  So where ever you got your "facts" from are simply wrong.  An old earth has NO NEED for the theory of evolution.

God created a perfect earth (Gen 1:1).  But, then the earth BECAME a wasteland, and God didn't provide any details.  However, the words "tohu wabohu" describes what an invading army does to the land, per Jer 4:23.

So Gen 1:2ff is the story of God's restoration of the planet for man's use.  Real simple and eliminates any thought of the theory of evolution.

10 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

There is no hidden meaning in the words. This is a clever invention by the enemy to sow confusion and doubt about God's word. Sadly many have believed the lie and put more trust in man than God because of Man's supposed wisdom. Not sure what else to say. God Bless.

 

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

Clouds are condensed water, not water vapour

And?

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

What do you continue to ignore context of the use in Jeremiah as compared to Genesis?

Rather, why do you continue to ignore the CLEAR MEANING of "tohu wabohu" which describes what an invading army does to the land.  And you can't reconcile that with its use in Gen 1:2 as being the initial part of CREATION of the earth.

Such thinking is incompatible with reality.

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

We use the same words in different contexts all the time. Why can't the Hebrews?

You are speaking in vague generalities.  I am speaking of HOW Jeremiah described the RESULT of an invading army on the land.

Moses described the RESULT of "something" that left the earth a wasteland and in need of a restoration for man's use.

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

There is several hundred years between the writings of Genesis and Jeremiah. Was the Hebrew language static?

This is totally irrelevant.  Re-read what I posted above carefully and with an open mind.  

You CAN'T have words that describe the initial process of CREATION in one text and the same words that describe the total devastation of the land by an invading army in another test.  That is incompatible with reality.

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

Clouds are contained by air streams, weather patterns, gravity, and many other factors before the shapeless cloud is absorbed in the atmosphere and vanishes.

It's no strain on my part. Thanks for your concern.

I agree and have agreed with you on this subject. Pure gases expand until the container restricts further expansion.

Right!  As long as an object is visible, it has form.  It may be in flux and changing or static.  But if we can see something, it has form.

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I've said before I'm OEC

Then why are you rejecting the most simple and logical reason why the earth is much older than Adam?

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You CAN'T have words that describe the initial process of CREATION in one text and the same words that describe the total devastation of the land by an invading army in another test.  That is incompatible with reality.

Actually, now that I think about it - you might.

If (big if, and I am certain I'm in a minority here) you consider the Genesis narrative as composed similarly to something like the creation account in the Enuma Elish wherein Marduk creates the world out of the slain body/blood of the Tiamat after a great cosmic battle. The remains of cosmic battle is arguably alluded to in the Genesis narrative, with the imagery of the the "waters of the deep" an common ANE reference to chaos (also assigned to the sea or oceans). So perhaps the writer of Jeremiah is making the comparison between the chaos pre-creation to the mess after the invading army - hyperbole no doubt, but also a common literary device.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

FreeGrace said: 

You CAN'T have words that describe the initial process of CREATION in one text and the same words that describe the total devastation of the land by an invading army in another test.  That is incompatible with reality.

Actually, now that I think about it - you might.

If (big if, and I am certain I'm in a minority here) you consider the Genesis narrative as composed similarly to something like the creation account in the Enuma Elish wherein Marduk creates the world out of the slain body/blood of the Tiamat after a great cosmic battle.

This is all foreign to me.  I have no idea what any of this is about.  The fact is that God just didn't give any details about how the earth became a wasteland.  But it did, and God restored the planet for man's use.  

I imagine we'll get all the details once we enter eternity, or possibly after the Bema, when all believers receive their resurrection bodies.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

The remains of cosmic battle is arguably alluded to in the Genesis narrative, with the imagery of the the "waters of the deep" an common ANE reference to chaos (also assigned to the sea or oceans).

I heard a pastor many years ago who had 5 years of seminary training in Hebrew explained that "waters" in the plural suggested melting waters (running water) and the end of v.2 indicates that the Holy Spirit 'hovering' over the waters is the removal of very deep ice that covered everything and explains the darkness.  

Packing the earth in ice would surely create a wasteland on the surface.  So God removed the ice pack and then restored the planet.

Again, I don't get into theories of how any of this occurred.  But I'm familiar with them.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

So perhaps the writer of Jeremiah is making the comparison between the chaos pre-creation to the mess after the invading army - hyperbole no doubt, but also a common literary device.

I don't think Jeremiah was even thinking of Genesis 1, although he could have.  Remember, neither Jeremiah or Moses wrote in English the ridiculous phrase "without form and void".  That's what lazy English translators did.

I argue that every object HAS form.  Without exception.  I'm still waiting for any kind of exception.  No one has put any forth.

Since it is clear in Jer 4 that "the whole land" was destroyed by the "besieging army", there is no way "tohu wabohu" can have any relevance to original creation in Gen 1:2.

You mention "pre-creation".  What do you mean by that?  I only know about original creation, which is Gen 1:1.  Thanks.

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This is all foreign to me.  I have no idea what any of this is about.  The fact is that God just didn't give any details about how the earth became a wasteland.  But it did, and God restored the planet for man's use.  

I imagine we'll get all the details once we enter eternity, or possibly after the Bema, when all believers receive their resurrection bodies.

It might be worth a look over the contemporary creation myths of the time, those of the Babylonians and Egyptians, which the Israelites had extended contact with. 

I actually hope we don't get all the answers.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I heard a pastor many years ago who had 5 years of seminary training in Hebrew explained that "waters" in the plural suggested melting waters (running water) and the end of v.2 indicates that the Holy Spirit 'hovering' over the waters is the removal of very deep ice that covered everything and explains the darkness.  

I recall you bringing this up previously. I can't say I've heard this interpretation outside of yours here (or rather this pastor). Personally, I find the waters of chaos far more compelling within the ANE cosmologies. 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Packing the earth in ice would surely create a wasteland on the surface.  So God removed the ice pack and then restored the planet.

Again, I don't get into theories of how any of this occurred.  But I'm familiar with them.

There is the idea of "snowball earth" - is that what you mean here? I'm not well versed enough in that to know the effects of what it did to the earth's landforms.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I don't think Jeremiah was even thinking of Genesis 1, although he could have.  Remember, neither Jeremiah or Moses wrote in English the ridiculous phrase "without form and void".  That's what lazy English translators did.

I'm not sure I'd call the translators lazy. Question that you likely cannot answer, but I put it out for consideration: how did translators for other modern languages render it?

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I argue that every object HAS form.  Without exception.  I'm still waiting for any kind of exception.  No one has put any forth.

As others have said, gaseous and liquid states only take their form of the container that holds them. But this to me is irrelevant because I am not taking the formless in such a literal fashion, but rather a conceptualization.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Since it is clear in Jer 4 that "the whole land" was destroyed by the "besieging army", there is no way "tohu wabohu" can have any relevance to original creation in Gen 1:2.

I doubt the whole land was destroyed, but it is simply a use of hyperbole. As for relevance, it hinges on what I was saying about the link to "cosmic battle language" that is prevalent in the contemporary myths. Genesis does not include anything so specific, but the imagery does seem to have been used for the narrative.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You mention "pre-creation".  What do you mean by that?  I only know about original creation, which is Gen 1:1.  Thanks.

The "formless and empty" or state of chaos. The state before the creative acts of God on Day 1.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

It might be worth a look over the contemporary creation myths of the time, those of the Babylonians and Egyptians, which the Israelites had extended contact with. 

I actually hope we don't get all the answers.

In eternity, there will be no answers that will upset us.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

I recall you bringing this up previously. I can't say I've heard this interpretation outside of yours here (or rather this pastor). Personally, I find the waters of chaos far more compelling within the ANE cosmologies.

Where do you think the ANE cosmologies came from?

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

There is the idea of "snowball earth" - is that what you mean here? I'm not well versed enough in that to know the effects of what it did to the earth's landforms.

Not aware of it.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

I'm not sure I'd call the translators lazy. Question that you likely cannot answer, but I put it out for consideration: how did translators for other modern languages render it?

It's all laid out nicely at biblehub.com.  Type in any verse and you'll get about 28 English translations.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

As others have said, gaseous and liquid states only take their form of the container that holds them. But this to me is irrelevant because I am not taking the formless in such a literal fashion, but rather a conceptualization.

Could you expound on a conceptualization vs a literal fashion?  Thanks.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

I doubt the whole land was destroyed, but it is simply a use of hyperbole.

Have you read Jer 4?  It certainly describes total destruction.  That's noty hyperbole.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

As for relevance, it hinges on what I was saying about the link to "cosmic battle language" that is prevalent in the contemporary myths. Genesis does not include anything so specific, but the imagery does seem to have been used for the narrative.

Again, between v.1 and 2, God simply didn't give any detail.  Remember, you don't want to know.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

The "formless and empty" or state of chaos. The state before the creative acts of God on Day 1.

God creates out of nothing.  So there is nothing before He speaks.  So there is no state before He creates.  He doesn't create "tohu wabohu".  That describes a wasteland.