Questions for evolution believers

[RV_Wizard]

49 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

So you I have lied and made this up?

No, you are repeating what you were told/ read by those who  lied and made it up.  There is nothing in the Bible consistent with long ages.

49 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 You need to familiarize yourself with biblehub.com and all the helpful information on it.

I use it for a reference, and then go to the KJV for context and accuracy.  Biblehub doesn't attest to the accuracy of any translation.

49 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I typed in Gen 1:2 and copied the verses I shared.

None of which support your claim that the earth BECAME desolate; indicating that it was previously not.  As I pointed out, there was no sun, no moon, no stars, no light of any kind, no heat of any kind but geothermal, no life, no plant life, and the waters and land were not separated yet.  Tell me how this original creation became anything other than what it was; a lifeless blob in the midst of nothingness.

I love learning new things, so if someone can demonstrate FROM THE SCRIPTURES that anything I post is wrong, that's a good thing.  If you try to convince me of things contrary to the Scriptures, it's not going to happen.  The word of God is the ultimate authority.  

 

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

So you think I have lied and made this up?

No, you are repeating what you were told/ read by those who  lied and made it up.

You clearly have NOT been following any of my posts then.  I've quoted no one, but only how Hebrew words are translated elsewhere, which is how to understand what they mean.  I wasn't told ANYTHING about what I've shared with you.  I was taught many years ago that there was a time gap between v.1 and 2, but that's all I was taught.  So when I became aware of Bible study helps on the net and STUDIED them, I AFFIRMED what I had been taught.  Pretty much just like the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There is nothing in the Bible consistent with long ages.

Only because you are extremely biased against the very idea of an old earth.  For some reason, that concept is evil or somerthing to you, even though you can't explain how or why it is to you.  I have refuted your "defense" regarding Ex 11:20.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I use it for a reference, and then go to the KJV for context and accuracy.  Biblehub doesn't attest to the accuracy of any translation.

You are not understanding.  Biblehub.com provides many translations, even a lexicon and interlinear translation.  And much much more.  Obviously you've never bothered to even check it out.  

When you claimed that NO translation says "and the earth was chaos" tipped the scales.  I included WHICH translation and you merely dismissed it as not real.  What chutchpa.  And using the archaic KJV as your scholarly "source" is also telling.  The manuscripts used for that translation were dated from the 10th Century.  Since then, many of the English translations have used manuscripts dating much FURTHER back, like to the 2nd Century.  

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

None of which support your claim that the earth BECAME desolate

The very words themselves, as shown by how they are used elsewhere.  Why you are so unimpressed with that FACT amazing.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

indicating that it was previously not.

The very words in v.2 don't mean what the KJV or most other translations say.  As I've shown.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  As I pointed out, there was no sun, no moon, no stars, no light of any kind, no heat of any kind but geothermal, no life, no plant life, and the waters and land were not separated yet. 

You are only assuming that this refers to original creation.  

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Tell me how this original creation became anything other than what it was; a lifeless blob in the midst of nothingness.

You are asking what isn't known.  If God had given details, you'd have read about it in Genesis 1.  But just because God left out the details, is no reason to reject what the words mean, as shown elsewhere.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I love learning new things, so if someone can demonstrate FROM THE SCRIPTURES that anything I post is wrong, that's a good thing.

If you "love learning" then get into Biblehub.com and see how words are used elsewhere.  You'll learn a lot.

And my point isn't about what you post, but what all the errant translations say.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If you try to convince me of things contrary to the Scriptures, it's not going to happen. 

Nothing I've said is contrary to Scripture, but it seems you aren't able to comprehend that.  

The ONLY difference between us is that you accept all of Genesis 1 as original creation, and I believe from the Hebrew words that it describes a restoration.

It is the "traditional translation" of Gen 1:2 that creates a huge contradiction with Isa 45:18 which you've never refuted with facts.

So please don't tell me what "is contrary to Scripture".  Any contradiction is certainly contrary to Scripture.  And yet, you seem unable to understand that.

[RV_Wizard]

2 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I've quoted no one, but only how Hebrew words are translated elsewhere, which is how to understand what they mean.

However, you ignore every translation which doesn't agree with you, which is, incidentally, ALL of them.  All of your arguments can be found on the internet, posted by non-believers and Bible critics.

2 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I was taught many years ago that there was a time gap between v.1 and 2, but that's all I was taught.

I was taught much the same thing, but after reading the Bible and realizing there is absolutely no support for such a claim, I rejected it.  The Bible supports the creation as described in Genesis and nothing to the contrary.

2 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I have refuted your "defense" regarding Ex 11:20.

No, you gave your OPINION, which is not support by the Scriptures.

2 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

When you claimed that NO translation says "and the earth was chaos" tipped the scales.  I included WHICH translation and you merely dismissed it as not real.

I said, no translation includes the word BECAME.  They do not.  Nothing you provided suggests that the earth was something else and then BECAME a wasteland.  Nothing you posted supports long ages; not in any language or with any translation.  Did you even read it?

2 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

If you "love learning" then get into Biblehub.com and see how words are used elsewhere..

And how they are not.  For example, not a single translation indicates that the earth BECAME anything.  Not one.  Your claim is contrary to the Scriptures, which makes it heresy.

[FreeGrace]

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

I've quoted no one, but only how Hebrew words are translated elsewhere, which is how to understand what they mean.

However, you ignore every translation which doesn't agree with you

No, I ignore every translation that ignores how the Hebrew words are used elsewhere.  This has nothing to do with agreeing with me.  It has EVERYTHING to do with how Hebrew words are translated elsewhere.  You are really missing the boat.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

, which is, incidentally, ALL of them.

Since I GAVE you several English translations that treat "tohu" properly, your comment here is just a big FAT LIE.

Here they are again.

American Standard Version
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Earth was chaos and empty and darkness on the faces of the depths and the Spirit of God hovered on the faces of the waters.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
English Revised Version
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Young's Literal Translation
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

5 translations that treat "tohu" correctly.  So please quit lying about the facts.  Go ahead and show me from Biblehub.com that these translations say anything differently.

Since you prefer to believe that any of these translations are describing original creation, your view of God is rather pathetic.  He doesn't create anything that is "unsightly", or "wasted", or in "chaos".

Psa 33:6 and 9 tells us that God spoke everything into existence.  And He didn't have for "reform" anything while He was creating out of nothing.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  All of your arguments can be found on the internet, posted by non-believers and Bible critics.

Then prove it.  Cite the links and quote what these so-called unbelievers and Bible critics say.  I'm defending the Bible, those whom you allegedly note certainly aren't doing that.  So go ahead and prove what you claim.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I was taught much the same thing, but after reading the Bible and realizing there is absolutely no support for such a claim, I rejected it.

Which unbeliever/bible critic was teaching you any of this?  

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The Bible supports the creation as described in Genesis and nothing to the contrary.

Certainly the Bible supports itself because the Bible is inerrant.  But you hold tightly to the absurd contradiction between the TT and Isa 45:18.  Aren't you able to see the glaring contradiction?

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, you gave your OPINION, which is not support by the Scriptures.

Everything I've shown is from Scripture, in the original, all of which you reject.  All you have is many English translations of Gen 1:2, which contradict Isa 45:18 and aren't even close to how "tohu wabohu" are used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.

It is YOU who aren't supported by Scriptures.  Just lousy or lazy English translations.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I said, no translation includes the word BECAME.  They do not.

I don't care what you opinion is.  The verb in the exact same form IS translated elsewhere as "became".  It seems you are allergic to the original language, or something. 

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Nothing you provided suggests that the earth was something else and then BECAME a wasteland.

Just the original Hebrew, but go ahead and ignore the FACTS.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Nothing you posted supports long ages; not in any language or with any translation.  Did you even read it?

Vague question.  Read what?  I've read ALL the English translations on biblehub and gave you 5 that AGREE with how "tohu" should be translated.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  For example, not a single translation indicates that the earth BECAME anything.  Not one.  Your claim is contrary to the Scriptures, which makes it heresy.

Since all you read are English translations, and blatantely ignore the Hebrew words, your mind is closed to FACTS.  

To your loss.  There is no way to defend a translation that ignores how the Hebrew words are translated elsewhere.  Thats where scholarship begins.

And you haven't even started yet.

[The Barbarian]

On 2/1/2024 at 6:01 AM, RV_Wizard said:

If the Bible says one thing and an atheist claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

Your difficulty is, the Bible says one thing, and you claim things to the contrary.

On 2/1/2024 at 6:01 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Jesus believed that the Bible is the inspired word of God. 

Which is why I'm urging you to stop putting words into His mouth.

 

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Your difficulty is, the Bible says one thing, and you claim things to the contrary.

We all know which of us posts the complete passages and which one takes excerpts out of context and lies about their meaning.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

We all know which of us posts the complete passages and which one takes excerpts out of context and lies about their meaning.

I don't think anyone here thinks you're actually lying.   You've just trusted people who lied to you.    And the partial context you post is less of a problem than the fact that it doesn't say what you want it to say.   

Edited February 28 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And the partial context you post is less of a problem than the fact that it doesn't say what you want it to say.   

Which is why you refuse to acknowledge the entire passage; because it doesn't say what you want it to say.  The Bible states very clearly that by the end of day six the plants and animals were all created.  You PRETEND that they came out of the earth over millions of years.  Dishonesty is the cornerstone of your religion.

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Barbarian said: 

Your difficulty is, the Bible says one thing, and you claim things to the contrary.

We all know which of us posts the complete passages and which one takes excerpts out of context and lies about their meaning.

The Barbarian nailed it!!

I've shown how certain words in Gen 1:2 are translated and used elsewhere in Scripture, which you simply ignore/reject.  

That's how scholars determine the meaning of words;  checking how they are used in other texts, which I've done.  Anyone can do it on biblehub.com for themselves.

You just don't want to know the truth because you are apparently happier with your own "truth".

[FreeGrace]

44 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Barbarian said: 

And the partial context you post is less of a problem than the fact that it doesn't say what you want it to say.

Which is why you refuse to acknowledge the entire passage; because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

lol x a million!  I've shown how tohu wabohu is used in the other 2 passages; both of which where the 2 words were describing the result of a "besieging army" that was a "destroyer of nations".  And you DARE to think those 2 words can be used to describe God's perfect creation.

The ONLY thing you use for a defense is how Gen 1:2 is translated in English.  However, what do you do with these 5?

American Standard Version
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Earth was chaos and empty and darkness on the faces of the depths and the Spirit of God hovered on the faces of the waters.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
English Revised Version
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Young's Literal Translation
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

So, obviously you must think that God starts by creating UNSIGHTLY WASTE AND CHAOS, and then moving.  Or that the translators were taught by the same evil atheists that you think I was.

44 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The Bible states very clearly that by the end of day six the plants and animals were all created.  You PRETEND that they came out of the earth over millions of years.  Dishonesty is the cornerstone of your religion.

Since you have no more authority or right to judge another's character, your comment only highlights your own issues.