The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I'm amazed at your great fear of 'millions' of years.  What's to fear?  All you are fearing is the FACT that you have accepted a very lousy translation that isn't factual.

I completely reject the claim that the King James Version of the Bible is a lousy translation.  It has served humanity well for many years and has been instrumental in the salvation of millions.  Your translation is wrong, and the application of it to imply a world created, destroyed and then recreated is foolishness.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You can't even defend the translation of "without form".  Every object HAS a form.

Anyone who has ever passed high school science class knows that gasses are without form, and that anything in a gaseous state is considered to be without form.  Cloud formations are not fixed, but rather constantly changing.  In a confined area, gasses expand to fill the available space.  You're trying to compromise the truth of the Scriptures with the lie of long ages.  The truth plus a lie = a lie.

 

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

I'm amazed at your great fear of 'millions' of years.  What's to fear?  All you are fearing is the FACT that you have accepted a very lousy translation that isn't factual.

I completely reject the claim that the King James Version of the Bible is a lousy translation.  It has served humanity well for many years and has been instrumental in the salvation of millions.

I never said anything about the KJV.  In fact, EVERY English translation on biblehub.com says the same silly thing:  "formless and void".  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your translation is wrong

When comparing HOW words are used when there IS context, that isn't a "translation".  It's HOW to understand the words in texts without specific context.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

and the application of it to imply a world created, destroyed and then recreated is foolishness.

Only to closed minded people who flatout reject FACTS.  What you cannot get around is the FACT that "tohu wabohu" is used TWICE in contexts where the words describe the total destruction of the land.  And it's found no where else except for Gen 1:2. 

The foolishness is to apply the words to original creation EVEN THOUGH the other 2 contexts clearly describe destruction.  That is beyond foolishness.  It's irrational.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Anyone who has ever passed high school science class knows that gasses are without form

If you cannot see a gas, of course you can't describe any form because you CAN'T see the gas.  However, when a gas can be seen, like clouds, they will take on various forms.  Any high school student knows that.  You're really straining at gnats here.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

and that anything in a gaseous state is considered to be without form.

Unless you can see it.  Case closed.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Cloud formations are not fixed, but rather constantly changing.

So what.  They take the shape of things that can be identified.  Maybe you never laid on your back and watched cloud FORMations.  You need to get out more.  But wait for summer.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  In a confined area, gasses expand to fill the available space.

So do liquids.  They take the FORM of what contains them.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You're trying to compromise the truth of the Scriptures with the lie of long ages.  The truth plus a lie = a lie.

Compromise?  Really?  No, I'm proving that "tohu wabohu" is used to describe total destruction, as proven by the  OTHER 2 contexts in the OT.  And you can't prove that the earth had no form.  That is a really stupid translation of "tohu".

From biblehub.com -

Strong's Concordance

tohu: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

Original Word: תֹּהוּ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: tohu
Phonetic Spelling: (to'-hoo)
Definition: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

NASB Translation
chaos (1), confusion (1), desolation (1), emptiness (1), empty space (1), formless (2), futile (2), futile things (1), meaningless (2), meaningless arguments (1), nothing (2), waste (3), waste place (2).

The NASB is a translation of "formal equivalence", meaning the translation uses the original language and translates it according to its meaning.

So, go ahead and keep thinking that "tohu" means "formless" all you want.  Doesn't bother me at all.  I'm only showing what the word means according to a legitimate English translation and in the other 2 uses of "tohu" and "wabohu" together.

In NO WAY can "tohu" be used for original creation.  Because God is just NOT a sloppy Creator.
Rather, what He creates is perfect, and "tohu" cannot describe His perfect creation.  But go ahead and believe the lie that you believe.  

I will stick with what the Hebrew SAYS, not what various English translators did.

Edited January 1 by FreeGrace

[RV_Wizard]

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I never said anything about the KJV.  In fact, EVERY English translation on biblehub.com says the same silly thing:  "formless and void."

And yet, you disagree with them.  Perhaps in your opinion the English language is lousy.  The fact is, "formless and void" is consistent with a six day creation and the restoration of a planet gone wrong is neither consistent with Scriptures nor the nature of a perfect God.

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

When comparing HOW words are used when there IS context, that isn't a "translation".  It's HOW to understand the words in texts without specific context.

Scholars throughout the ages interpreted them one way, you do another and THEY are wrong?  Your belief has no Scriptural support.

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

The foolishness is to apply the words to original creation EVEN THOUGH the other 2 contexts clearly describe destruction.

Only in your mind.  As you said, every English translation, which were done by experts in their field, disagree with you.  Everyone I've ever met who studied from the original languages disagrees with you.  You are unique.

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

If you cannot see a gas, of course you can't describe any form because you CAN'T see the gas.

Ever hear of a cloud?  Water vapor is water in the gaseous state.

Actually, gases aren’t invisible: many are quite brightly coloured. For example, nitrogen dioxide is brown-y orange, chlorine has a yellowish green hue and iodine vapour is a vivid purple (see image above).

Other gases in the atmosphere (particularly oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapour) also absorb light, but at ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths that we can’t see.  source

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 However, when a gas can be seen, like clouds, they will take on various forms.  Any high school student knows that.  You're really straining at gnats here.

However, they never maintain the same form, even for a moment, because they are formless masses of water vapor being pushed around by the wind.

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Compromise?  Really?  No, I'm proving that "tohu wabohu" is used to describe total destruction, as proven by the  OTHER 2 contexts in the OT.  And you can't prove that the earth had no form.

And yet, by your admission, EVERY English translation says "formless and void."  You know more than EVERY Hebrew translator since 1610.  I am impressed.  We are truly in the presence of unparalleled expertise.

This line of discussion is concluded.  Every authority is in agreement.  You alone claim that God needed a do-over because He first created a planet with no light, heat, atmosphere, or life-sustaining properties.  Your god certainly messed up his first try.   Thankfully, God the Father was able to do much, much better.

ובכך סיימנו.

[FreeGrace]

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

I never said anything about the KJV.  In fact, EVERY English translation on biblehub.com says the same silly thing:  "formless and void."

And yet, you disagree with them.

And yet, you seem to ignore EVERYTHING I post.  ALL of the English translations say the "same silly thing".  I never singled out the KJV.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

 Perhaps in your opinion the English language is lousy.

No, of course not.  And that is silly.  It is the translators who didn't do their "due diligence" and realize how "tohu wabohu" was used in the other 2 context.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The fact is, "formless and void" is consistent with a six day creation and the restoration of a planet gone wrong is neither consistent with Scriptures nor the nature of a perfect God.

Again, there is no such condition as "formless" for a planet.  God created earth as a sphere, which is its form.  So it wasn't created formless.

Oh, that reminds me.  Isa 45:18 SAYS SAYS SAYS "God did not create 'bara' the earth "tohu" (formless).  

Well, go ahead and enjoy the contradiction you seem to accept.  I believe Isaiah and what he wrote about the earth.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Scholars throughout the ages interpreted them one way, you do another and THEY are wrong?

Did they compare how "tohu wabohu" was translated in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11?

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your belief has no Scriptural support.

Ridiculous.  It has TOTAL Scriptural support.  What it doesn't have is the silly English translations that have NO Scriptural support.

Why do you place English translations ABOVE the original language?  That's the question.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Only in your mind.

Only in the original language.  Which I accept.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  As you said, every English translation, which were done by experts in their field, disagree with you. 

They FAILED to compare "tohu wabohu" in the other 2 uses in Jer and Isa.  

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Everyone I've ever met who studied from the original languages disagrees with you.  You are unique.

You need to get out more.  There are many who agree with what I believe.  Where do you think I got the idea from?  I heard a pastor many years ago teach that there is a time gap between v.1 and 2, but didn't provide any details of why.  Other than explain what the words meant in the original.  It seems that's just not good enough for you.  Well, it is for me.  

So, with that background, when I discovered biblehub.com and was able to do my own research on "tohu wabohu" and found the ONLY other 2 passages, and the context for those 2 passages, I FOUND that the pastor was RIGHT about what the Hebrew words meant.  He never mentioned Jer 4:23 or Isa 34;11.  So my finding them from biblehub.com is like what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11.

You should do your homework.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Ever hear of a cloud?  Water vapor is water in the gaseous state.

I've already mentioned clouds.  You really should read my posts before making that error.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Actually, gases aren’t invisible: many are quite brightly coloured. For example, nitrogen dioxide is brown-y orange, chlorine has a yellowish green hue and iodine vapour is a vivid purple (see image above).

What is your point?  If a gas, liquid, or solid is visible, it has form.  

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Other gases in the atmosphere (particularly oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapour) also absorb light, but at ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths that we can’t see.  source

So what.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

However, they never maintain the same form, even for a moment, because they are formless masses of water vapor being pushed around by the wind.

Of course neither gases nor liquids maintain the same form.  That is just irrelevant.  If you can see the gas, you WILL SEE form, and see it changing with the wind.  So what.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

And yet, by your admission, EVERY English translation says "formless and void."  You know more than EVERY Hebrew translator since 1610.  I am impressed.  We are truly in the presence of unparalleled expertise.

So what?  I KNOW how "tohu wabohu" is used in the 2 contexts where the total destruction of the land occurred, so I KNOW what it means in Gen 1:2.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

This line of discussion is concluded.  Every authority is in agreement.

Rather, the apparently lazy translators just copied what the first English translation said.  That is not uncommon among translators.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You alone claim that God needed a do-over because He first created a planet with no light, heat, atmosphere, or life-sustaining properties.

From all I've posted, this is just a big fat LIE.  I never said any of what you accuse me of.  He restored the planet, as even Heb 11:3 SAYS in the Greek.  But why bother with that FACT since FACTS seem of no importance to you.

Because the earth BECAME an uninhabitable wasteland, mankind couldn't survive on the planet.  So therefore, a restoration was necessary.

You have zero support for your translation when the FACTS of the Hebrew language are considered.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your god certainly messed up his first try.

You have really hit rock bottom with this bit of absurdity.  As a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and I acknowledge that God created the whole universe by simply speaking it into existence, your very petty snippy comment reveals the depths of your own inadequacy at undestanding what is so clear when FACTS are considered.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

   Thankfully, God the Father was able to do much, much better.

In FACT, He did perfectly when He created the whole universe, including earth.  But He allowed something/someone to destroy the earth, whether you even understand that.  And He restored earth for man's use, before He created man and placed him on earth.

You have NO facts to support your beliefs.  Only English translations, which are NOT inspired texts.  The original text IS inspired.

And Moses didn't write 'formless and void'.  He wrote in Hebrew 'uninhabitable wasteland'.  As proven by the 2 other texts with those 2 words together.

I guess it can be said, "your mind is made up, you don't need the facts".  

That's your choice.

[Starise]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:47 PM, LisaLola said:

So he was the first human formed  by God....so, all mankind are descendants of Adam?

Yes, I see you said that...to another member.....All humans came from Adam...

And after the flood they continued through those people. Yes Adam, but a narrowed progeny after the flood. I believe the gene pool had been polluted before that as it is being polluted again.

[Starise]

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Are you kidding?  You have REJECTED what they clearly and obviously describe in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  And therefore mean the SAME THING in Gen 1:2.

The fact that you're not willing to admit when you have been corrected says volumes.

But go ahead and fall on your sword.

What I find is that alternate views grab at "maybes" to make a point or work outside of context. I am pretty much with @RV_Wizard.

Lets remove the emotion once again and look at this logically.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

In FACT, He did perfectly when He created the whole universe, including earth.  But He allowed something/someone to destroy the earth, whether you even understand that.  And He restored earth for man's use, before He created man and placed him on earth.

How could something which was created on day Four be part of a wasteland that existed prior to day Two?  The rest of the universe was created on day Four.  As I said, your claim has no Scriptural backing.  

[LisaLola]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

And after the flood they continued through those people. Yes Adam, but a narrowed progeny after the flood. I believe the gene pool had been polluted before that as it is being polluted again.

Commentary.

God sent the flood to judge the world at that time of heinous, continual, worldwide sin. Yes, He knew that the flood would not eradicate the sin problem and that mankind would remain sinful after the flood. But God was not done dealing with sin. He sent His Son into the world to disarm the powers of evil and make “a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15). Because of Christ, the new heaven and new earth are promised (Revelation 21:1), and “no longer will there be any curse” (Revelation 22:3).

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

What I find is that alternate views grab at "maybes" to make a point or work outside of context. I am pretty much with @RV_Wizard.

Lets remove the emotion once again and look at this logically.

First, I am not emotional.  That's a problem when typing and people see emotions where there aren't any.  I've been focusing on the facts of what the Hebrew says esp since we can see how "tohu wabohu" was used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  I cannot get around that fact.

I don't see "maybes" here.  I see clear facts.  I see what the Hebrew words mean.

I have looked at this logically.  For example, all the English translations say the same thing:  "in the beginning, God created (bara) the heavens and earth, and the earth was "tohu".

Yet, Isa 45:18 says "but God did not create (bara) the earth "tohu".

Is it logical to accept a contradiction in the Bible?

I have shown that Gen 1:2 says in the original, "but, the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland".

That does not contradict Isa 45:18.  

Therefore, it is not logical to accept what all the English translations say.

Where am I going wrong?  Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace]

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

In FACT, He did perfectly when He created the whole universe, including earth.  But He allowed something/someone to destroy the earth, whether you even understand that.  And He restored earth for man's use, before He created man and placed him on earth.

How could something which was created on day Four be part of a wasteland that existed prior to day Two?

Ok, the days of Genesis 1 are the days of restoration, all 24 hour days.  So your question isn't logical or reasonable.  The entire earth was a wasteland prior to the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters in v.2b.  Which necessitated a restoration.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The rest of the universe was created on day Four.  As I said, your claim has no Scriptural backing.  

No, the entire universe was created in v.1.  Supported by Psa 33:6 and 9.

God spoke the entire universe into existence.  It didn't take 6 days.  What did take 6 days was the restoration.