Questions for evolution believers

[FreeGrace]

  FreeGrace said: 

I have no idea when these translations were done, but they sure aren't new.
American Standard Version published 1971

Aramaic Bible in Plain English Copyright © 2012

Brenton Septuagint Translation published 1884

English Revised Version published 1895
 

Young's Literal Translation published 1862

As opposed to the King James Bible, Published 1611.  They all look a lot newer to me.

Thanks, RV for putting in the dates of the 4 English translations that got "tohu" right.  But what does it matter than any of them were published after the KJV? 

Speaking of newer, are you aware that the KJV was translated from manuscripts dated from the 10th century, which means a whole lot of manual copying of text over many centuries.  Ever think about typos?

Since then, much older manuscripts have been discovered, as far back as the 2nd century, which means much LESS potential for errors in copying.

Regardless, we have the Hebrew and we know how words are used in the OT. 

Bottom line:  you reject the meaning of the literal Hebrew, because it is clear that the earth is much older than Adam, an idea that you are absolutely allergic to.

For no rational reason.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Yes, you've lost the argument. 

If you feel the need to declare victory, that's a sure indication that you lost.

You've conclusively proven that the only way to believe in YE creationism and the Bible is to misrepresent everything in the Bible that disagrees with the beliefs of men opposed to God.

You've continuously tried to redefine common words to make your new doctrines fit scripture, but you failed.  

As you know, the Bible does not say the flood was global, and the evidence shows it was regional, covering the highest mountains in the area where it occurred.   

Why not just set your pride aside and accept it God's way?

 

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But what does it matter than any of them were published after the KJV? 

You said they weren't new.  Two were very new.  The others are certainly not very old.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Bottom line:  you reject the meaning of the literal Hebrew, because it is clear that the earth is much older than Adam, an idea that you are absolutely allergic to.

No, I reject your new translation of the original Hebrew which was already translated accurately.  Regardless, even your new translations do not say the earth BECAME a wasteland, and nothing in the Scriptures support the nothing that any such existence preceded the six day creation.  Gap Theory is unbiblical.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You've conclusively proven....

I've proved that you lie about my posts.

I've proved that I refer to the complete passage when I post, while you take phrases out of context to pretend an entirely different meaning than what is intended.

I've proved you can't accept that light was created on day one, or that the creation happened in six days.

I've proved that you reject that sin and death came from the fall of man.

I posted the verse that shows all animals on earth were given herbs to eat, thus confirming all were vegetarian before the fall.

I proved you don't believe God Himself as the author of the 4th commandment.

I proved you can't accept that a flood which can cover a mountain peak would seek the easy run-off to the sea.  Somehow you believe water can be stacked on low lying ground, rising 12,000 feet above sea level in one area while not bothering adjoining land a mere 1,500 feet above sea level.

I proved that when the study of the creation disagrees with the word of the Creator, you side against the Bible 100% of the time.

There is nothing left to prove.  Your religion of choice is naturalism.  Our God is supernatural.  There can never be agreement.

Edited March 3, 2024 by RV_Wizard

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I've proved that you lie about my posts.

I don't think you lied.   You just get so worked up that you call others liars.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your religion of choice is naturalism. 

You may think Christianity is "naturalism", but you're dead wrong.    This is the source of all your problems with God's word.

 

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You may think Christianity is "naturalism",

Naturalism: the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.  

Naturalist views, grounded in science, provide a framework for understanding what seems real. These include a central story, the epic of evolution, that explains the origins of the cosmos and humans, with perspectives from which to consider why we do what we do.

You subjugate the word of God at every point where it doesn't conform to your beliefs on evolution.

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You said they weren't new.  Two were very new.  The others are certainly not very old.

So what?  You're picking at straws.  They KNEW how to translate "tohu".  

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, I reject your new translation of the original Hebrew which was already translated accurately.

Go ahead and ignore all the other places in the OT, all that were written WAY long ago and have been translated accurately.  You seem to just not like the FACTS.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Regardless, even your new translations do not say the earth BECAME a wasteland, and nothing in the Scriptures support the nothing that any such existence preceded the six day creation.

All except v.2.  It's very clear.  God is NOT a sloppy Creator and ends up with the total destruction when attempting to create the earth, as you obviously believe.

 

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Gap Theory is unbiblical.

Any theory is unbiblical as there is no evidence for any theory.  But I'm not talking about any theory.  I've given you FACTS about what the Hebrew words in v.2 mean, as shown elsewhere in the OT.

FACTS that you can't refute.  You are free to reject them, of course.

[RV_Wizard]

56 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

God is NOT a sloppy Creator and ends up with the total destruction when attempting to create the earth, as you obviously believe.

God did not create a world that fell into desolation, as you claim.  You seem to not be able to see the obvious flaws in your claim.

1. You are claiming that an English translation hundreds of years earlier is less accurate than a much more recent translation that occurred at a time when people were trying to find a way to get long ages into the creation.

2. It ignores the fact that before light the planet would be totally incapable of supporting life.  No life, no fossils.

3. It is not only NOT supported by the Scriptures, other verses specifically contradict it.

4. Like other theories of origination, it MUST ignore the 4th commandment as written by God.

5. It's just plain stupid.  God created a place inhospitable to any known life form that lasted for millions of years and then became an uninhabitable wasteland?  Then God, being embarrassed, lied about it?  No chance.

[enoob57]

When I read above @RV_Wizard  I thought of the boys in Babylon and the fiery furnace... funny how we limit God to creation as if God were in submission to it... The Son said it best
Mark 10:27 (KJV)

[27] And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

So what is possible and impossible ? One must check with God!

[The Barbarian]

You may think Christianity is "naturalism",

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Naturalism: the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.  

That's not Christianity.   Nice try, though.   You attempt to subjugate the word of God at every point where it doesn't conform to your beliefs on YE creationism.