The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I never said God created a universe without sun, moon, starts, light, heat, or life.

All of these things were created after verse 2, or after the six day creation had begun.  Any "restoration" would have already begun.  You see, Gap theory has no basis in either science or religion.  In other words, you're wrong.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The person who first mentioned a "gap theory" was a Scottish minister, in 1814.

You said at first there was no Gap theory.  Now you're suddenly aware of it.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You STILL haven't proven that objects that can be seen can be "formless".  

Something formless either has no definite shape, like fog or smoke, or lacks structure, like a formless movie that doesn't seem to have much of a plot.  source.

Obviously, you've never seen a cloud, or smoke, or anything else in a gaseous sate.

Once again, you're wrong.  

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

I never said God created a universe without sun, moon, starts, light, heat, or life.

All of these things were created after verse 2, or after the six day creation had begun.  Any "restoration" would have already begun. 

I have already shown from Scripture that the whole universe was affected in a negative way, causing it to GROAN.  You've seen the verses.  So God included the universe when He restored the earth.  This is not a difficult concept to understand.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You see, Gap theory has no basis in either science or religion.  In other words, you're wrong.

This isn't about "religion", whatever that is to you.  It's about what the Bible SAYS in the original, of which you show zero interest at all.  And all science is subservient to God's Word, since God created everything, of which science is supposed to study.

The idea of a very old earth came about WAY before Darwin wrote his stupid theory.  In fact, the idea came about, as I already showed, before Darwin was EVEN born. 

Let that sink in for a bit.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You said at first there was no Gap theory.  Now you're suddenly aware of it.

You just aren't listening.  The time gap is REAL.  What "theories" are real?  None, until such theory can and has been proven.  That's what I meant.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Something formless either has no definite shape, like fog or smoke, or lacks structure, like a formless movie that doesn't seem to have much of a plot.  source.

Nonsense.  Don't you realize that "no definite shape" does NOT MEAN "no shape" at all?  So by your own words, you have just proven again that nothing is formless if it can be seen.  And even what "lacks structure" doesn't mean "no form".  So you are still unable to prove your claims.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Obviously, you've never seen a cloud, or smoke, or anything else in a gaseous sate.

Once again, you're wrong.  

Don't be delirious.  I've even mentioned that some spend their time watching clouds CHANGE their form from one thing to another.  Again, proving that even clouds have form.

 Maybe it is YOU who have never seen clouds and watched them change FORM.You are desperate to defend your position, but every time you try, there is failure to do so.

"Formless" requires context.  Such as when a tall skinny woman, meaning she lacks the 'normal' curves, is called "formless", it is in contrast to woman who HAVE the normal curves.

But EVEN that tall skinny woman is called a "bean pole", which HAS FORM as well.

So, only when comparing her to other woman who HAVE curves, is she "formless".  It does NOT mean she has no form.

So, with Genesis 1, there is nothing of comparison.  So the earth was NEVER formless.

God created the earth NOT tohu, (Isa 45:18).  That is your contradiction.  

You prefer a lousy translation of Gen 1:2 rather than simply believe Isa 45:18.

None of your 'defenses' work.  

[RV_Wizard]

33 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

This isn't about "religion", whatever that is to you.  It's about what the Bible SAYS in the original, of which you show zero interest at all.

No, it's about the musings of second century non-Christian mystics and a 1970 book called Without Form and Void, written by  Canadian sociologist.  In other words, it's not, and never was, a Christian interpretation.  Once again, you're bringing non Biblical sources to interpret the Bible.

33 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Don't you realize that "no definite shape" does NOT MEAN "no shape" at all? So by your own words, you have just proven again that nothing is formless if it can be seen.

You like making up your own definitions, don't you?  Even when given the definition of words you far prefer your own.  You're making quite the spectacle of yourself here.  Not only are you using the words of the ungodly to discern the word of God, you seem to have a language that is entirely your own.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

This isn't about "religion", whatever that is to you.  It's about what the Bible SAYS in the original, of which you show zero interest at all.

No, it's about the musings of second century non-Christian mystics and a 1970 book called Without Form and Void, written by  Canadian sociologist.

Seems you are really hung up on trying to avoid the actual facts, and not what idiots and knuckleheads say about Genesis 1.  

I may have that book, actually.  And the writer IS an idiot.  He was into "day-age" theory, or some such nonsense. 

I STAND on the original.  You stand on extreme bias and a faulty translation of Gen 1:2 in the English.  iow, you have no standing at all.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

In other words, it's not, and never was, a Christian interpretation.  Once again, you're bringing non Biblical sources to interpret the Bible.

I don't actually care what you think of things.  My view is based SOLELY on what the original Hebrew SAYS, and not some faulty Engliwsh translation.

The most important FACTS that sink your boat are these:

1.  tohu wabohu clearly describes a destroyed land, from the 2 passages that describe that.

2.  the word "tohu" cannot mean "formless" because every object HAS FORM.  

3.  Isa 45:18 SAYS that God did not create the earth tohu.  The faulty English translation says that God created the earth and the earth WAS tohu.

You cannot prove any of these 3 points to be wrong.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

You like making up your own definitions, don't you?

Oh, that's rich.  No, I have used Hebrew lexicons for meanings of words, and I have researched where "tohu wabohu" occur together in the OT, and there are 2 other places, and these 2 places blows your theory out of the water.  BOOM!

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

 Even when given the definition of words you far prefer your own.

You speak recklessly.  And you actually know better than that.  But you have to demonize my views, in an attempt to prop your faulty view up. 

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

 You're making quite the spectacle of yourself here.  Not only are you using the words of the ungodly to discern the word of God

The spectacle here the one who ignores the actual meaning of "tohu wabohu" in the 2 

places where they describe total destruction of the land, and is apparently incapable of understanding that the English translation of Gen 1:2 is a contradiction of Isa 45:18.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

you seem to have a language that is entirely your own.

Anyone who has been following this thread knows how entirely untruthful you are.

I have STOOD on the original Hebrew language and ACCEPT how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, which describes the total destruction of the land.

And you make a spectacle of yourself by arguing that in Gen 1:2 the words describe original creation, which is absurd.

But, go ahead and keep making fun of the original language of Gen 1:2.  You are only making a huge spectacle of yourself.

You haven't supported the English translation by ANY facts at all.

Edited January 8, 2024 by FreeGrace

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 My view is based SOLELY on what the original Hebrew SAYS, and not some faulty Engliwsh translation.

None of the original Hebrews seemed to agree with you.

In fact, until the concept of long ages was developed they geologists, nobody questioned the plain language of Genesis.  Gap theory is nothing more than an attempt to re-define words to satisfy old earth believers.  However, is isn't accepted by either geologists or astronomers, and it isn't accepted by most Christians.  It is not even a false teaching, it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

If the Bible actually teaches the gap theory' however, then there might be some reason to try to accommodate it in our theology. But the Bible does not teach it! If there really had been billions of years of animals suffering and dying before Genesis 1:2, why would God say nothing about it? The best they can offer in support of such a notion are some out-of-context quotes from Isaiah and Jeremiah, along with an ad hoc translation of Genesis 1:1,2.

And why would God send such a devastating cataclysm at all? Satan's fall did not occur until after the creation week of Genesis 1, for at that time God had pronounced the whole creation "very good" (Genesis 1: 31). At present, however, "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together" (Romans 8:22) because of the great curse pronounced by God on man's dominion (Genesis 3:17-19), as a result of sin.

This groaning creation has indeed experienced one global cataclysm—one not inferred from vague hints in out-of-context quotes, but rather one described in great detail in Genesis 6-9 and referred to often and unambiguously in later passages—namely, the worldwide Flood in the days of Noah. Most of the vast fossil graveyards in the earth's crust can best be explained as one of the results of the Flood.

This awesome spectacle of destruction and death was not part of God's "very good" creation. There was no death in the world until sin was in the world (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:21; etc.). In fact, death itself is "the wages of sin" (Romans 6:23). Our future deliverance from sin and death has been purchased by the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, who is "the propitiation for our sins and ... also for the sins of the whole world" (John 2:2).

But if "death reigned" not "from Adam to Moses," as the Bible says (Romans 5:14), but had already reigned for billions of years before Adam, then death is not the wages of sin but instead was part of God's creative purpose. How then could the death of Christ put away sin? The gap theory thus undermines the very gospel of our salvation, as well as the holy character of God. source

The Gap Theory is just as much false doctrine as evolution is.

[FreeGrace]

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

 My view is based SOLELY on what the original Hebrew SAYS, and not some faulty English translation.

None of the original Hebrews seemed to agree with you.

lol.  All of it does.  Why do you keep DENYING what the words mean?  And why can't you answer the WHY in why would the words "tohu wabohu" mean something completely different in Gen 1:2 than they do in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, the ONLY other uses of those 2 words in the entire OT?

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

In fact, until the concept of long ages was developed they geologists, nobody questioned the plain language of Genesis.

What you really mean is, no one questioned the English translation of Genesis 1.

It may be plain, but it is sure in error.

Facts

1.  there are no such things as object that are "formless".

2.  tohu wabohu means the SAME thing where ever they are found together.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Gap theory is nothing more than an attempt to re-define words to satisfy old earth believers.

Actually, it is YOU who is doing that; redefining words.  Tohu wabohu means the SAME THING in Gen 1:2 as they do in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  So QUIT re-defining the words to suit your own theory.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  However, is isn't accepted by either geologists or astronomers, and it isn't accepted by most Christians.

Oh, I see.  Theology is determined by politics, eh?  Take a vote to see who is right?  lol

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It is not even a false teaching, it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

You are only insulting yourself if you really believe that.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

If the Bible actually teaches the gap theory' however, then there might be some reason to try to accommodate it in our theology.

There is no reason to "accommodate" anything.  Just accept the facts.  And the Bible didn't teach ANY "theory".  It simply stated that the earth BECAME an uninhabitable wasteland.  And you are incapable of understanding that, as you just noted.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

But the Bible does not teach it! 

Earth age in't something taught.  Gen 1:2 explains WHY God restored the earth.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

If there really had been billions of years of animals suffering and dying before Genesis 1:2, why would God say nothing about it?

I've already told you, but your eyes and ears are shut tight.  There is no reason to tell humans about what isn't relevant to them.  But He did give us enough info to realize that Genesis 1 is about a restoration.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The best they can offer in support of such a notion are some out-of-context quotes from Isaiah and Jeremiah, along with an ad hoc translation of Genesis 1:1,2.

OK, another totally bogus claim.   Prove that either verse was taken "out of context".  Again, all you are doing is inadvertantly admitting you don't have a clue as to what "out of context" means.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

And why would God send such a devastating cataclysm at all?

I never said God sent anything.  But again, why should I be surprised at your comments.  You aren't absorbing anything, and you have even admitted so in this post I'm responding to.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Satan's fall did not occur until after the creation week of Genesis 1

You have no proof of that at all.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

for at that time God had pronounced the whole creation "very good" (Genesis 1: 31). 

What was "good" was God's restoration of what He created, which was ALSO "good".  But the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland (v.2).  Which is why He restored it.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

At present, however, "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together" (Romans 8:22) because of the great curse pronounced by God on man's dominion (Genesis 3:17-19), as a result of sin.groan

Please explain WHY "the whole creation" would groan in pain over what Adam did on one little old planet.  The evidence is clear;  God's creation of sun, moon, stars, etc reveal that His restoration reached "the whole creation".  

It is your failed explanation that doesn't make sense.  

One "groans in pain" when one is injured.  No one groans in pain when someone ELSE is injured.  Fact

Again, I challenge you to back up your baseless claim by proving that the 2 verses where "tohu wabohu" occur (Jer 4:23 and isa 34:11) are "out of context".

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

but rather one described in great detail in Genesis 6-9 and referred to often and unambiguously in later passages—namely, the worldwide Flood in the days of Noah. Most of the vast fossil graveyards in the earth's crust can best be explained as one of the results of the Flood.

Of course there was a world-wide flood.  So what?  And why accept your claim (opinion) when you can't even understand the concept of restoration anyway?

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

This awesome spectacle of destruction and death was not part of God's "very good" creation.

Well, you are right on this one!  The destruction was not.  But it occurred nonetheless, and God restored earth for man's use.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

There was no death in the world until sin was in the world (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:21; etc.).

Context is everything.  No death ON the restored earth until sin.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

But if "death reigned" not "from Adam to Moses," as the Bible says (Romans 5:14), but had already reigned for billions of years before Adam, then death is not the wages of sin but instead was part of God's creative purpose.

I don't know how many times I must repeat the facts.  Maybe they will never sink in.  However, whatever happened AFTER the creation of earth and the universe, isn't something that God revealed to mankind.  Why can't you at least grasp that simple concept?

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

How then could the death of Christ put away sin?

Christ died for humans.  And humans didn't appear on earth until after Gen 1:2.  Fact

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The gap theory thus undermines the very gospel of our salvation, as well as the holy character of God. source

Pure nonsense.  All your comments are buried in extreme bias against the simple and obvious concept of restoration.

36 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Gap Theory is just as much false doctrine as evolution is.

I haven't given any theory.  Anything claimed as to what happened during the time gap may very well be as false as evolution.

But since I have repeatedly condemned evolution and the idiot Darwin, my view isn't tainted with that notion.

Are you unable to separate evolution from my view?  If so, how sad for you.

[RV_Wizard]

On 1/8/2024 at 1:14 PM, FreeGrace said:

Why do you keep DENYING what the words mean?

Why do you?  The plain fact is, you're wrong.

In the original Hebrew the phrase ‘without form and void’ appears as ‘Tohu Va-Vohu’ {תהו ובהו}and is a difficult one to translate because it is a Hebrew play on words. The first and primary thing that stands out is the ability of the Hebrew language to describe the ‘absence of things’ in one or two words WITHOUT using the negation form.

In other words, while the English translation speaks about a certain condition that was characterized by the ABSENCE of form or ‘FORMLESS,’  the original Hebrew describes the condition of the earth as ‘Tohu Va-Vohu’ which literally means an ’empty desert’ and is another word for a desert without water.

The big difference between the two descriptions – the English translation versus the original Hebrew – is that the English description makes one imagine a total mess and chaos. In contrast, the Hebrew description does not illustrate a mess but rather describes an empty, waterless land…a land without mountains, trees, rivers and so on – a land  that ‘awaits’ to be developed.  source

Absolutely NOTHING about a restoration.

On 1/8/2024 at 1:14 PM, FreeGrace said:

1.  there are no such things as object that are "formless".

Perhaps you are incapable of learning some things.  As you may remember, I gave you a list of things that are formless.

On 1/8/2024 at 1:14 PM, FreeGrace said:

Oh, I see.  Theology is determined by politics, eh?

Not at all, but when Hebrew scholars, the world's best translators, and even the ones who claim long ages disagree with you, sooner or later you might come to the conclusion that you're just plain wrong.

On 1/8/2024 at 1:14 PM, FreeGrace said:

Prove that either verse was taken "out of context."

I already did that.

On 1/8/2024 at 1:14 PM, FreeGrace said:

What was "good" was God's restoration of what He created, which was ALSO "good".  

There was no restoration because God never made an imperfect world in the first place.

On 1/8/2024 at 1:14 PM, FreeGrace said:

Are you unable to separate evolution from my view?  

False teaching is false teaching.  Evolution, Gap Theory, alchemy, Scientology, Islam, Buddhism etc. 

[The Barbarian]

Just now, RV_Wizard said:

False teaching is false teaching.

YE creationism, for example.

 

[FreeGrace]

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

Why do you keep DENYING what the words mean?

Why do you?  The plain fact is, you're wrong.

I don't.  And the plain fact is, your opinion has NOT been proven.

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

In the original Hebrew the phrase ‘without form and void’ appears as ‘Tohu Va-Vohu’ {תהו ובהו}and is a difficult one to translate because it is a Hebrew play on words. The first and primary thing that stands out is the ability of the Hebrew language to describe the ‘absence of things’ in one or two words WITHOUT using the negation form.

Big deal.  The same 2 words in Gen 1:2 are used 2 other passages where they describe the total destruction of the land.  

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

In other words, while the English translation speaks about a certain condition that was characterized by the ABSENCE of form or ‘FORMLESS,’  the original Hebrew describes the condition of the earth as ‘Tohu Va-Vohu’ which literally means an ’empty desert’ and is another word for a desert without water.

Stupidity.  God did not initially create the globe as an empty desert.  However, when a "besieging army" that is a "destroyer of nations" as Jer 4:23 talks about, you can bet that when they finish destroying the land, it WILL BE an empty desert.

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The big difference between the two descriptions – the English translation versus the original Hebrew – is that the English description makes one imagine a total mess and chaos. In contrast, the Hebrew description does not illustrate a mess but rather describes an empty, waterless land…a land without mountains, trees, rivers and so on – a land  that ‘awaits’ to be developed.  source

Absolutely NOTHING about a restoration.

You love to find deniers like yourself, huh.

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Perhaps you are incapable of learning some things. 

You're the one who could use some learning.  But your biases prevent that.

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

As you may remember, I gave you a list of things that are formless.

And I proved that NONE of them were actually formless.  If they can be seen, they HAVE form.

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Not at all, but when Hebrew scholars, the world's best translators, and even the ones who claim long ages disagree with you, sooner or later you might come to the conclusion that you're just plain wrong.

You have a direct contradiction between the English of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18.  That's on you.

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

There was no restoration because God never made an imperfect world in the first place.

The fallacy here is assuming God created something imperfect and had to re-do it.  I never said such a stupid thing.  Something occurred that destroyed the land, and God restored it for man's use.

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

False teaching is false teaching.  Evolution, Gap Theory, alchemy, Scientology, Islam, Buddhism etc. 

YE creationism, for example.  Just a lousy English translation of v.2 that hides what really occurred.

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

YE creationism, for example.

 

Evolution, especially.

The Bible teaches the special creation of man, in addition to a six day creation, and all things being made after their kind.

Believe it or reject it, that's exactly what is written.