The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[FreeGrace]

51 minutes ago, Sparks said:

No, the act of transliterating is the rendering of letters from one alphabet by equivalents in another.  It has nothing to do with pronunciation.

How else would one be able to read words if they can't pronounce them?  

51 minutes ago, Sparks said:

There was no total destruction of the land after the earth was created

Then tell that to Jeremiah who described what a "besieging army" that was a "destroyer of nations" did to the land in Jer 4.

And then tell Isaiah who described what God did to the land in Isa 34:11.

But you can ignore these FACTS about how "tohu wabohu" means in those passages, and hold onto an unreality translation about the earth having no form.  That's a hoot.

51 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Genesis is describing the assembly of the earth from nothing, by God.

Oh, so the earth came with assembly instructions, huh.  lol

51 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Here is the Greek Septuagint to English, translated to Greek from Hebrew by the ancient Jews:

Genesis 1:1-2  (BST) 1 In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. 2 But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

It does not seem to hint to a prior Earth. 

OK, now at least READ Jer 4 and Isa 34 and see how "tohu wabohu" was used in those passages.

Then, hopefully, you will see that "unsightly" ALSO is a way to describe the total destruction of the land by either a "besieging army" or God Himself.

The translation "unfurnished" is weird since everywhere else it is translated at empty or uninhabited.

[Sparks]

11 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

How else would one be able to read words if they can't pronounce them?  

Then tell that to Jeremiah who described what a "besieging army" that was a "destroyer of nations" did to the land in Jer 4.

And then tell Isaiah who described what God did to the land in Isa 34:11.

But you can ignore these FACTS about how "tohu wabohu" means in those passages, and hold onto an unreality translation about the earth having no form.  That's a hoot.

Oh, so the earth came with assembly instructions, huh.  lol

OK, now at least READ Jer 4 and Isa 34 and see how "tohu wabohu" was used in those passages.

Then, hopefully, you will see that "unsightly" ALSO is a way to describe the total destruction of the land by either a "besieging army" or God Himself.

The translation "unfurnished" is weird since everywhere else it is translated at empty or uninhabited.

I cannot take your argument seriously, any longer.  Good luck with your Earth II belief, and thanks for the chat.

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, Sparks said:

I cannot take your argument seriously, any longer.  Good luck with your Earth II belief, and thanks for the chat.

I can see why you are bailing, given the inability to understand what I have said.  I never said anyhing about an "earth II".  That's nuts.  And hardly serious.

And I don't need luck about knowing that God restored the ONLY earth He created.  The Hebrew words alone are enough to understand that.

And it is obvious WHY you are bailing from this conversation.  I gave solid evidence from Scripture regarding HOW the words "tohu wabohu" are used elsewhere, and it is very clear to objective people that they cannot mean "formless and void".  It means total destruction of the land.

So, since you aren't willing to admit those FACTS, it is best to end the discussion.

I prefer discussions with objective and rational people.  

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I can see why you are bailing, given the inability to understand what I have said.  I never said anyhing about an "earth II".  That's nuts.  And hardly serious.

And I don't need luck about knowing that God restored the ONLY earth He created.  The Hebrew words alone are enough to understand that.

And it is obvious WHY you are bailing from this conversation.  I gave solid evidence from Scripture regarding HOW the words "tohu wabohu" are used elsewhere, and it is very clear to objective people that they cannot mean "formless and void".  It means total destruction of the land.

So, since you aren't willing to admit those FACTS, it is best to end the discussion.

I prefer discussions with objective and rational people.  

If you mean to say that I don't think your facts are facts, then you have got my reasoning correct.  You have not made your case. 

I don't think all those expert translators, scribes and priests closest to the ancient times all messed up their translations, and that somehow only you have it right based on one word.   It's interesting that not even the Septuagint agrees with your assessment and the ancients who wrote the original Hebrew wrote that exacting Greek translation, too.  There were no closer translators than the ones who wrote the Greek Septuagint.  They were right there at the times of the Hebrew writings and knew both languages of the region.

 

[uncle_mike]

I think the issue with Evolution is the process of Natural Selection.  In theory, Nature, brings forth life.  But evidently, Nature, was unaware of Its own surroundings and forgot to create any particular species correct the first time.   So it then corrects Itself through the process of Selection in order to adapt and finally get it right.

 

The entire Theory requires one definition after another to back the original thought and every thought afterwards.   God's Creation is easy to explain because the truth requires no effort involved.  But Evolution requires one definition after another because each explanation leaves more unanswered questions.  It truly is circular reasoning.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

If you mean to say that I don't think your facts are facts, then you have got my reasoning correct.

You are free to believe anything other than facts.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

  You have not made your case.

I have.  You have ignored the FACTS.  You cannot get around Jer 4:23 and Iswa 34:11 where "tohu wabohu" is clearly shown for what the words mean.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I don't think all those expert translators, scribes and priests closest to the ancient times all messed up their translations, and that somehow only you have it right based on one word.

You really should at least make an attempt to actually grasp what I've posted.  I didn't rely on "ancient times translations".  I relied SOLELY on how "tohu wabohu" was used in the 2 other passages.  You should at least look at the contexts of Jer 4 and Isa 34.  FACTS.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It's interesting that not even the Septuagint agrees with your assessment and the ancients who wrote the original Hebrew wrote that exacting Greek translation, too.

Again, you should at least read what I posted before firing off inaccurate stuff.  The Septuagint translated "tohu" as "unsightly" which is HOW a totally destroyed land would look like.  But you can forget how the Septuagint rendered "tohu".  Just go to Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and realize what was being described and WHY.  The key to both contexts is total destrution.

Since you reject my view, please read both contexts and YOU tell ME the condition of the land and WHY it was in that condition.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

  There were no closer translators than the ones who wrote the Greek Septuagint.  They were right there at the times of the Hebrew writings and knew both languages of the region.

And how is "unsightly" much different than "wasteland" or "desolation"?  You tell me.

Please quit avoiding the REAL ISSUE of how "tohu wabohu" was used in Jer 4 and Isa 34.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

And how is "unsightly" much different than "wasteland" or "desolation"?  You tell me.

You are applying modern vocabulary to ancient writing, but in this case none of the words differ much but they also don't imply an Earth that contained prior life nor structures.  They imply an earth without resources and uninhabitable; a beginning.

That is what Biblical Hermeneutics is about; understanding what they meant when they wrote in those times.  In this case, it is God's own writing as none of us was here to see these events to record them (Genesis has 10 authors, and God is the first out of obvious necessity).   

If you cannot even see the possibility that those ancient translators, scribes and priests knew exactly what they were translating and were right about the the Earths first creation, and you would prefer to rely on 'secret knowledge' and theories, then know that we won't ever agree.

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

You are applying modern vocabulary to ancient writing

No, I'm applying the words as understood when they were written.  That's what translators are supposed to do.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

but in this case none of the words differ much but they also don't imply an Earth that contained prior life nor structures.

Why are you even mentioning this?  I'm not talking about any theory.  I am comparing how specific words are used in various contexts, and you are ignoring that FACT.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

  They imply an earth without resources and uninhabitable; a beginning.

Nope.  Then explain why the Septuagint translators chose "unsightly" for "tohu" in Gen 1:2, if that were what God created?  Doesn't make sense.  Does God's creation look unsightly?  

And, the traditional translation CONTRADICTS Isa 45:18, which is another huge problem for you.  My understanding of Gen 1:2 doesn't contradict Isa 45:18.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

That is what Biblical Hermeneutics is about; understanding what they meant when they wrote in those times.

Exactly!!  And that's what I have been doing.  All you've done is accept a sloppy translation of Gen 1:2 which doesn't even make sense, since there is no such thing as a formless object, planet or anything else.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

  In this case, it is God's own writing as none of us was here to see these events to record them (Genesis has 10 authors, and God is the first out of obvious necessity).

Irrelevant to the discussion.  The words "tohu wabohu" in Gen 1:2 MEAN THE SAME THING in both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  

So, the only issue is what the 2 words mean in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  And what they mean in those 2 verses means the SAME THING in Gen 1:2.

You cannot hide from this FACT.  So don't talk to me about when the words were written.  There would have been NO DIFFERENCE when Moses wrote as when Jer or Isa wrote.

We don't need red herrings.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

If you cannot even see the possibility that those ancient translators, scribes and priests knew exactly what they were translating and were right about the the Earths first creation

Since there is only ONE creation, you are very confused and aren't following any of my posts.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

and you would prefer to rely on 'secret knowledge' and theories, then know that we won't ever agree.

Really?  "secret knowledge", huh.  And "theories"?  When have I brought up either one?  

You know very well I haven't done that, so it is shameful that you would lower yourself in order to try to demonize my view, which is based on FACT rather than poor translations.

All y0u have to do is look at the contexts of Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and you will realize that the SAME MEANING applies to Gen 1:2.

The issue is that you just don't want to.

[Sparks]

35 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

No, I'm applying the words as understood when they were written.  That's what translators are supposed to do.

Why are you even mentioning this?  I'm not talking about any theory.  I am comparing how specific words are used in various contexts, and you are ignoring that FACT.

Nope.  Then explain why the Septuagint translators chose "unsightly" for "tohu" in Gen 1:2, if that were what God created?  Doesn't make sense.  Does God's creation look unsightly?  

And, the traditional translation CONTRADICTS Isa 45:18, which is another huge problem for you.  My understanding of Gen 1:2 doesn't contradict Isa 45:18.

Exactly!!  And that's what I have been doing.  All you've done is accept a sloppy translation of Gen 1:2 which doesn't even make sense, since there is no such thing as a formless object, planet or anything else.

Irrelevant to the discussion.  The words "tohu wabohu" in Gen 1:2 MEAN THE SAME THING in both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  

So, the only issue is what the 2 words mean in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  And what they mean in those 2 verses means the SAME THING in Gen 1:2.

You cannot hide from this FACT.  So don't talk to me about when the words were written.  There would have been NO DIFFERENCE when Moses wrote as when Jer or Isa wrote.

We don't need red herrings.

Since there is only ONE creation, you are very confused and aren't following any of my posts.

Really?  "secret knowledge", huh.  And "theories"?  When have I brought up either one?  

You know very well I haven't done that, so it is shameful that you would lower yourself in order to try to demonize my view, which is based on FACT rather than poor translations.

All y0u have to do is look at the contexts of Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and you will realize that the SAME MEANING applies to Gen 1:2.

The issue is that you just don't want to.

I don't have the time to waste on this anymore.  I appreciate the chat.  If you have other topics in mind, look me up, but this one is pointless. 

[RV_Wizard]

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.  The word of God trumps the theories of man.  These words inscribed on a stone tablet by the Creator are the basis of all law. 

Genesis 1 tracks the formation of the earth from a gaseous state to a liquid and then to a solid.  The states of matter perfectly correspond (excluding plasma, which was added later). 

Why does it look old?  We who have never created a planet wouldn't understand.  My thinking is that God created everything in a mature state, including man, and including the planet.  This is borne out by the text.  The earth was formed with oil deep inside because one day man would discover and use it.  The same applies to coal, gold, and lithium.  Every great resource was in place before we needed it.  There are no fossil fuels.  Oil was here from the beginning.