Questions for evolution believers

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What does any of these false teachings have to do with truth?

They are all convinced they have the truth.  We know they are teaching falsely.  As are gap proponents.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I don't know or care how many years there are between the 2 verses.

The earth didn't become a mess in one day, and God didn't restore anything.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 The "absence of light, leat or life" was the RESULT of the earth becoming a mess.  

Nope.  That dog won't hunt.  Light was created day one.  The rest of the universe day four.  None of these existed by verse 2.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why would God "begin life as a formless blob" anyway?  That's really weird,

What does fine pottery begin as?

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I don't care.  God didn't say

Why would God say something you made up?

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You haven't proven even a little bit that I've distorted anything.

Your own translations fail to say that the earth BECAME anything.  Don't blame me because you can't accept the definition of formless.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Neither of us read Hebrew.  But I have shown where the Hebrew is translated, which you don't care.

I also have shown where Hebrew was translated but you reject it because it doesn't say what you want to believe.  The difference is, the original definition fits perfectly with the six day creation, the seven day week and the well known history of our beginning.  It wasn't until the 18th century that people decided they needed to re-define words to allow for the old earth non-believers claim.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

No, "formless' IS BAD and STUPID.  It doesn't exist in reality.

Despite many such evidences to the contrary, you stomp your foot and call the definition of a word stupid.  Yet, you're breathing formless air.  Hmmmmm.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I never said God made a faulty world.

You said it got destroyed.  Obviously, He didn't destroy it, so it had to be faulty.  Connect your own dots.  It's your false claim.  You need to think it through.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There is no "theology" here.  Just a FACT about creation.  

You say fact, I say heresy.

[FreeGrace]

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

What does any of these false teachings have to do with truth?

They are all convinced they have the truth.

Right.  EVERYONE things they know/have the truth.  Why would anyone think they believe what is false?

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  We know they are teaching falsely.  As are gap proponents.

Another opinion.  I've proven with FACTS from Scripture.  All you've got is an English translation that doesn't line up with how the 2 Hebrew words are translated and used elsewhere IN the Bible.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The earth didn't become a mess in one day, and God didn't restore anything.

I never said "in one day".  I never said anything about how much time.  Why do you continue to slip in such dishonest junk?

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Nope.  That dog won't hunt.  Light was created day one.  The rest of the universe day four.  None of these existed by verse 2.

Day one of the restoration.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What does fine pottery begin as?

I don't care.  What I know from Scripture is that God spoke the entire universe into existence.  

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Why would God say something you made up?

First, I haven't made up anything, like you do.  Second, your questions continue to be infantile.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your own translations fail to say that the earth BECAME anything.

I've already proved that "was" and "became" can be synonymous.  And tohu wabohu clearly indicates that God had to fix the problem.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Don't blame me because you can't accept the definition of formless.

I've already explained the ONLY WAY "formless" can be used.  So I DO blame you for your continued resistance to the truth.  In Genesis 1, there is NO comparison to other planets that were formed differently than earth, and had the EXPECTED or USUAL form of planets.  So you still have no p0int.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I also have shown where Hebrew was translated but you reject it because it doesn't say what you want to believe.

I don't know what you are talking about.  What does "where Hebrew was translated" even mean?

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The difference is, the original definition fits perfectly with the six day creation, the seven day week and the well known history of our beginning.

There's no such thing as an "original definition" that changed over time.  Or prove that it did.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It wasn't until the 18th century that people decided they needed to re-define words to allow for the old earth non-believers claim.

Nope.  All translators know how to translate "tohu" elsewhere in the OT.  

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Despite many such evidences to the contrary, you stomp your foot and call the definition of a word stupid.

Only when it isn't even close to the context of other texts and other uses in the OT.  Of course that would be stupid.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Yet, you're breathing formless air.  Hmmmmm.

If you can't see it, you can't describe it.  btw, since air surrounds the earth, why would you even bother trying to describe its form?  That also would be less than sensible.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You said it got destroyed.  Obviously, He didn't destroy it, so it had to be faulty.

Since you don't read my posts, I'll repeat the context of the 2 other occurrences of tohu wabohu in the OT.  Both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 use the words to describe the DESTRUCTION of land.  Why hasn't that sunk into your skull yet?

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You say fact, I say heresy.

Said the one who has NO evidence, NO proof, NO anything to support his claims.

[RV_Wizard]

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've proven with FACTS from Scripture.

No, a different interpretation is not a new fact.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I never said "in one day".

Genesis did.  The evening and the morning were the first day.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Day one of the restoration.

There was no restoration.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

First, I haven't made up anything,

No, but you're quoting the people who made it up.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've already proved that "was" and "became" can be synonymous.

You've proved only a poor application of the English language.  The words are not synonyms.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've already explained the ONLY WAY "formless" can be used.

Earlier you disavowed its existence and now you're an expert on its use?

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 In Genesis 1, there is NO comparison to other planets that were formed differently than earth, and had the EXPECTED or USUAL form of planets.

There were no other planets until day four.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What does "where Hebrew was translated" even mean?

It means the King James Bible wasn't originally written in Swahili.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

All translators know how to translate "tohu" elsewhere in the OT.  

However, none of them agreed with you for the first 57 centuries.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If you can't see it, you can't describe it.

Really?  Can a presence only be seen?  So blind people don't know what air is?  Air has weight.  It has a temperature.  It carries scents suspended in it.

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 Both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 use the words to describe the DESTRUCTION of land

Oh, you who do not understand the least proclaim the most.  Let's look at Jeremiah, and why HE QUOTES Genesis.   It was, by the way, a vision.

 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form and void: In turning around the images from Genesis 1, Jeremiah gives a poetic and powerful picture of the utter devastation that would come upon Judah in the coming judgment.

i. “It was as if the earth had been ‘uncreated’ and reverted back to its erstwhile primeval chaos. Order seemed to return to confusion.” 

b. The heavens, they had no light…the mountains, and indeed they trembled…all the hills moved back and forth…indeed there was no man…all its cities were broken down: The judgment Jeremiah prophetically saw was complete, and it all happened at the presence of the LORD, by His fierce anger.

i. Similar pictures are used to describe the Day of the LORD, looking forward to the ultimate passing of this world before the new heavens and the new earth (2 Peter 3:12-13, Revelation 21:1, Isaiah 65:17).  

ii. The point for Jerusalem and Judah was plain: the God who could devastate the entire earth by His presence and fierce anger could easily bring judgment to them through an invading army. They needed to remember the greatness of the God they had offended.

iii. Jeremiah rightly used this poetic imagery to describe the horror that would come upon Judah in the Babylonian invasion. Yet we should consider that the fullness of God’s judgment – even worse than what Judah experienced – came upon Jesus Christ, God the Son, as He was crucified and judged as our substitute.   source

How about Isaiah 34?  It is also a VISION; not something which was describing the current state of the world around them.

But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it,
Also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it.
And He shall stretch out over it
The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.
They shall call its nobles to the kingdom,
But none shall be there, and all its princes shall be nothing.
And thorns shall come up in its palaces,
Nettles and brambles in its fortresses;
It shall be a habitation of jackals,
A courtyard for ostriches.
The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the jackals,
And the wild goat shall bleat to its companion;
Also the night creature shall rest there,
And find for herself a place of rest.
There the arrow snake shall make her nest and lay eggs
And hatch, and gather them under her shadow;
There also shall the hawks be gathered,
Every one with her mate.

a. But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it: Much of the earth will be so destroyed that in many places, only wild animals will be able to live.

b. The wild goat shall bleat to its companion: The King James Version translates wild goat as satyr, which was a mythical demonic creature. The Hebrew word here is sair, which as an adjective means hairy (Genesis 27:11) and as a noun refers to a male goat (Genesis 37:31 and Leviticus 4:23). It is possible that Isaiah meant that wild goats would inhabit the desolate regions of Edom, or he may mean that it will be the haunt of demonic spirits.

i. Bultema suggested that the best translation “is satyrs, demons, or field devils.”

c. Also the night creature shall rest there: The Hebrew word for night creature is lilith, which is the feminine form of the word “night.” Old Jewish superstitions make Lilith a person who was a beautiful demon of the night, who seduced men and killed children. It is possible that Isaiah used the term to describe the demonic habitation of Edom after God’s judgment.  source

It is abundantly clear that you rant and rave about something you know nothing about.

 

 

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

I've proven with FACTS from Scripture.

No, a different interpretation is not a new fact.

Right.  Original FACT that so many have missed, all because of a poor translation in English.  You have presented no facts.  

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Genesis did.  The evening and the morning were the first day.

First day of the restoration.  Proved by Gen 1:2 and tohu wabohu

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There was no restoration.

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat a false statement will never make it true.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, but you're quoting the people who made it up.

Your eyes are shut to the FACT that my ONLY source is what Moses wrote, not what the KJV translators goofed up.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

I've already proved that "was" and "became" can be synonymous.

You've proved only a poor application of the English language.  The words are not synonyms.

I didn't say they ARE, I said they CAN BECOME.  Apparently it is you who has a very poor reading skill.  You keep making up stuff about what I said.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

I've already explained the ONLY WAY "formless" can be used.

Earlier you disavowed its existence and now you're an expert on its use?

Well, thanks for another example of poor reading/comprehending skills.  As I said above, "I've already explained how "formless" can be used.  And I gave an excellent example, which you probably skipped over.  I disavowed its existence as a state of being.  But apparently you aren't able to understand that, given your responses.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There were no other planets until day four.

Opinion.  We don't know whether there were at original creation or not.  All you give are opinions, and none are backed up with facts.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It means the King James Bible wasn't originally written in Swahili.

I think everyone is aware of that.  So what's your point?

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

All translators know how to translate "tohu" elsewhere in the OT. 

However, none of them agreed with you for the first 57 centuries.

How many English translations do you think there have been for the past 57 centuries.  You see, it's really silly comments like this that reveal your inabilities.

Here is how your loved KJV translated Isa 34:11 which contains tohu wabohu.

New King James Version
But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it, Also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it. And He shall stretch out over it The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.

Even the KJV recognizes what "tohu" means;  confusion.  And of course, "wabohu" means void, empty, etc.

So again, you have no point or case.  Why didn't the KJ translators render "tohu" as 'confusion' in Gen 1:2?

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Really?  Can a presence only be seen?  So blind people don't know what air is?  Air has weight.  It has a temperature.  It carries scents suspended in it.

I'm really sorry that you seem so limited in grasping rather simple concepts.  I was talking about objects that are visible.  Nothing you bring up is even relevant to that.

All I can do is give facts.  Whether or not you can understand them is out of my hands.

And neither "weight" or 'temperature" or "scents" has anything to do with form.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 Let's look at Jeremiah, and why HE QUOTES Genesis.   It was, by the way, a vision.

 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form and void: In turning around the images from Genesis 1, Jeremiah gives a poetic and powerful picture of the utter devastation that would come upon Judah in the coming judgment.

   source

Apparently your "source" is slow to understand too.  It wasn't a vision, it was how the land that had just been destroyed by a besieging army looked.  It would help to read the verses above to understand the context for v.23.  And your "source" thinks the besieging army returned the earth to an "uncreated state"

"It was as if the earth had been ‘uncreated’ and reverted back to its erstwhile primeval chaos. Order seemed to return to confusion.” 

What a stupid comment.  First, it says "as if" so a comparison to something else.  But the error is assuming "uncreated" which means there should be NOTHING there, not "confusion", nor "formlessness" nor anything else.  So your 'source' is as confused as you are.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How about Isaiah 34?  It is also a VISION; not something which was describing the current state of the world around them.  source

It is abundantly clear that you rant and rave about something you know nothing about.

I didn't bother to check what the "source" were, but they are probably the same.  Understandable.  Again, it ignored the context for v.11.  Destruction.

Can't get around the FACT that both verses are about DESTRUCTION.

You need to read better "sources", imho.

But I do see why you remain so confused.

You are rejecting what Moses wrote, and defaulting to what translators did.

Fact is, the earth and universe is WAY old, as measured by a number of instruments.  I have the ONLY rational answer as to why, and it doesn't have a thing to do with evolutionary theory.

You have NO facts for how the earth and universe is only about 6,000 years old.

You can tall the KJV a "source" or a "fact" but you'd be wrong.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Opinion.  We don't know whether there were at original creation or not.  All you give are opinions, and none are backed up with facts.

Moses wrote this book you should really read,  It's called Genesis.  If you read it, you wouldn't be posting such nonsense.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How many English translations do you think there have been for the past 57 centuries.  You see, it's really silly comments like this that reveal your inabilities.

There hasn't been 114 centuries.  The 57 take us to the 18th century, so the score is 57 to 2 (Unless you bring in something written after the year 2,000, then you can say 57-3).

Perhaps you can have a friend explain to you that the verses didn't refer to anything observed, they were visions of destruction.  As I pointed out, Genesis was quoted precisely to show a parallel; as if the land had been de-created.  Referring to a previous work doesn't change the previous work; at least not for the rest of us.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You can tall the KJV a "source" or a "fact" but you'd be wrong.

I believe this is concluded.  You cannot reason with a person who makes up their own facts and definitions.

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

Opinion.  We don't know whether there were at original creation or not.  All you give are opinions, and none are backed up with facts.

Moses wrote this book you should really read,  It's called Genesis.

The difference between us is that I researched the original language, unlike you.  so I KNOW what Moses meant by the words he used.  Unlike you.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If you read it, you wouldn't be posting such nonsense.

The nonsense is ignoring the original Hebrew words, which you seem to be allergic to doing.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There hasn't been 114 centuries.  The 57 take us to the 18th century, so the score is 57 to 2 (Unless you bring in something written after the year 2,000, then you can say 57-3).

All irrelevant.  I went to the source, unlike yourself.  You may continue with flawed transitions if you want.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Perhaps you can have a friend explain to you that the verses didn't refer to anything observed, they were visions of destruction.

So close but still so far.  They used words of "destruction" because they were describing destruction.  Thanks for once again proving my point.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  As I pointed out, Genesis was quoted precisely to show a parallel; as if the land had been de-created.

Well, still have a problem.  Both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 were about destruction of the land, not being "de-created".  What does that even mean?  If something is de-created, it doesn't exist.  How come that never occurred to you?  That would take you back BEFORE Gen 1:1.  How silly.

You just won't admit that tohu wabohu describes destruction, NOT construction.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I believe this is concluded.  You cannot reason with a person who makes up their own facts and definitions.

Says the one who makes up his own facts and definitions.  And you have no idea just how much you refuted your own theory in this very post.

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 Both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 were about destruction of the land, not being "de-created".  What does that even mean?

Neither of them in any way indicated the existence of an earth that fell into decay.  Your Gap theory proponents made up that heresy.

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

 Both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 were about destruction of the land, not being "de-created".  What does that even mean?

Neither of them in any way indicated the existence of an earth that fell into decay.  Your Gap theory proponents made up that heresy.

They weren't written to indicate that.  They were written about land that was destroyed, and both used "tohu wabohu" that DOES indicate destruction.

It seems you aren't even trying to understand.  That's what such an extreme bias does to ones senses.  Blocks ALL evidence and facts.

Read my red words again.  They "were about destruction of the land".  They weren't "linking" to Gen 1:2, but they used the VERY SAME WORDS.

And thy used those 2 Hebrew words because they describe destruction, wastelands, chaos, unsightly things, etc.  As I have repeatedly proved over and over

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 They were written about land that was destroyed, and both used "tohu wabohu" that DOES indicate destruction.

They were visions.  They quoted Genesis for a state of barrenness.  There isn't a single verse in the Bible that supports your claim.

[FreeGrace]

41 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

They were visions.

The vision is what Jeremiah was seeing what the "beseiging army" would do.

Jer 4:7 - A lion has gone up from his thicket, a destroyer of nations has set out;
he has gone out from his place to make your land a waste; your cities will be ruins without inhabitant.

v.13 - Behold, he comes up like clouds; his chariots like the whirlwind; his horses are swifter than eagles— woe to us, for we are ruined!

v.20 - Crash follows hard on crash; the whole land is laid waste.  Suddenly my tents are laid waste, my curtains in a moment.

The red words describe what the destroyer of nations will do to the land.

So there is NO WAY Jeremiah was resorting to some kind of "first step" of the creation of the heavens and earth in Gen 1:2.  He is clearly describing total destruction of the land.  

41 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  They quoted Genesis for a state of barrenness.

It wasn't a "they".  It was a "him", that being Jeremiah the prophet.  And considering the context, it is more than clear that the destroyer of nations would destroy the land, and Jeremiah used the same words to describe earth in Gen 1:2.

41 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There isn't a single verse in the Bible that supports your claim.

You are self deluded.