Rev 16:18 suggests the earth is much older than Adam/Eve

[RV_Wizard]

33 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Again, I repeat, I haven't given any theory at all.

As I posted, you are quoting Gap Theory.  If you aren't promoting it, then you're plagiarizing it.

35 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

You're really not interested in FACTS, because they refute your flawed understanding of Genesis 1.

As I pointed out, the church had no issues at all with the Genesis 1 narrative until people tried to work long ages into the days of creation.  It's your premise that is wrong because it is contrary to the Scriptures, the laws of nature, and common sense.  You aren't convincing anyone.  We all know from Exodus 20:11 that the creation took six days and God rested on the seventh.  God said so.  There is no refuting Him.

[dad2]

Quote

I guess this is about as low as it gets.  When I said "the literal Hebrew of  1:2 every alert follower of this thread knows I was referring to Gen 1:2.  So you get cute and twist my words as if I were referring to Heb 1:2, which has NEVER come into the discussion.  That's pretty low.  But since you have no evidence at all for your views, you have to twist and deceive.

Let me get this straight. You make a typo, I try to address the verse and you accuse me of all sorts of evil. I can only think you must be getting desperate due to a sad and losing position.

Quote

You know very well I was referring to the ususal translation of Gen 1:2 contradicting with Isa 45:18.  

Truth be told I can barely pay attention to what you interpret verses to mean, because it is so weak and biased. I see no case at all for you.

Quote

Why won't you FACE the FACT that I gave you plenty of translations of Isa 45:18 that treat "tohu" properly, as "waste", "wasteland", "chaos" etc..  In fact, 19 translations out of 32.  That's a lot more than half of all the translations on biblehub.com.

Why don't you face the fact that it doesn't matter how the unknown state of the newly created world is described since no one knows at all. I already posted the plethora of possible uses of the word for all to see. Many uses totally apply to the world on day one. You have chosen to reject those and vociferously harp on the few that you think fit your previous planet restored theory.

Quote

That is absurd.  God is NOT a sloppy Creator.  What He creates is perfect, because He is perfect.  Maybe you weren't aware of that FACT.  You seem to be missing quite a lot of FACTS.

It is not 'sloppy' to take six days to finish creation. Your previous world fantasy is sloppy seconds!

Quote

Of course I don't believe that creation took 6 days.

Lurkers, there we have it. A clear statement of unbelief.

Quote

 I do believe that God took 6 days to restore the planet

That doesn't work since man and stars and etc is part of creation and it would be foolishness to claim man was 'restored' rather than created. Do you think God took bone from Adam and Eve was the result of some 'restoring'?

Quote

I call what God did in Gen 1:1 original creation, which is what it is

That was the first day. Why pluck out one particular day and declare that the original creation? It was all part of creation and only after the six full days was it finished the bible states clearly. You cherry pick Gen 1 to prop up your made up tale of two worlds (one that you say was strangely destroyed before the second verse of the bible)

Quote

As to your question about Psa 90:2, it is obviously referring to God's eternality; that He has existed eternally, which is way before He "ever hadst formed the earth and the world"

Psalms 90:2

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God

I do notice He formed the earth here. Not restored it.

[dad2]

Quote

It seems there is no point in trying to explain anything to you, since you seem unable to understand something being created, then destroyed, and then being restored.

Anyone can understand how something can be destroyed. What is not comprehensible is how the world and heaven God just created on the first of six days of creation could be stolen from Him and wiped out by forces unknown and reasons unknown and times unknown etc etc. All to justify your firm belief in the old ages science insists on

Quote

 Only one creation, which became a mess, and the restored

So on one of the six days the creating God did was overruled and messed up according to you. Did they slap Him around a little as well in your fable?

Quote

What are you talking about?  Who asked, "was man restored".  It sure wasn't me.

Man was part of creation, you do realize that?

Quote

Don't you remember WHEN man was created?  AFTER all the restoration was done.  At the end of day 6.  

It was on one of the six days before things were finished. Look at verse one in chapter two

Genesis 2:1

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

'Thus' refers to what we just read in chapter one. The six days. No doubt about it. It was all finished now, even the host of stars and etc. The earth was not then 'restored'! The creation was then finished. That means creation involved all we just read before this. Not just a part of one verse you pick out!

Quote

That you keep calling original creation as a "former world" only showcases your total inability to comprehend.  There is one creation of the "heavens and earth".  Got it?  Gen 1:1 is that creation.

That creation as just shown was only finished after the full six days. The fantasy world you claim as the same planet and heavens that got destroyed is not this creation in any way or part of it. So calling it a former world or non existent world or fantasy planet etc etc is fine. Don't confuse the rejection and exposing as unbiblical of your fable with some inability to comprehend. No. People understand little red riding hood, they just will not allow someone to inject that as part of Gen!

Quote

I reject the stupid and poor translation of Gen 1:2 when the evidence for what the words mean elsewhere in the OT are overwhelming.

The evidence is that the words have many uses and you obsess over only one inappropriately applied use. Period.

Quote

Since you filter everything through the lens of "there was only original creation" in Genesis 1, you aren't understanding anything, and you seem rather incapable of it.

Jesus concurs

Mark 13:19

For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be

He did not say 'since I restored the world that some big meanie destroyed after I created it'

Quote

Again, you keep twisting things.  There is no 56 day creation.  That is only an opinion from a very poor translation.  I gave you 5 that properly translate "tohu", proving that it cannot be referring to original creation .

? Another typo? I assume you mean 6 day creation?

 

Let's face it, God is not going to allow anyone to destroy the world, period. He is coming to live here and rule. Your idea that someone or something could have destroyed His world is less than laughable

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

Again, I repeat, I haven't given any theory at all.

As I posted, you are quoting Gap Theory.

Appears you have no clue what "theory" means.  There is a time gap.  I gave no theory  and God gave no details,which you seem unable to grasp.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If you aren't promoting it, then you're plagiarizing it.

Since I have not given any theory, your claims are irrelevant.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As I pointed out, the church had no issues at all with the Genesis 1 narrative until people tried to work long ages into the days of creation.

No one has to "work long ages" into anything.  There were no "days" of creation.  That is your fantasy only, and all other YECs.

Many English translations support what I believe, which is from the literal Hebrew.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It's your premise that is wrong because it is contrary to the Scriptures

It is contrary to the fouled up phony translation in most of the English translations.  I've proven what "tohu" means by all the translations that render it properly, which you just ignore.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  We all know from Exodus 20:11 that the creation took six days and God rested on the seventh.  God said so.  There is no refuting Him.

Again, that verse uses "asah" for "make" rather than "bara" for create.  There is no "creation" in that verse.  But your eyes and ears are stopped up tightly so no TRUTH will get in.

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

I said:

I guess this is about as low as it gets.  When I said "the literal Hebrew of  1:2 every alert follower of this thread knows I was referring to Gen 1:2.  So you get cute and twist my words as if I were referring to Heb 1:2, which has NEVER come into the discussion.  That's pretty low.  But since you have no evidence at all for your views, you have to twist and deceive.

Let me get this straight.

That would be a breath of fresh air!  :) 

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

You make a typo, I try to address the verse and you accuse me of all sorts of evil.

I didn't make a typo.  I explained exactly what I posted in the quote above in red.  There was no typo.  There was a huge READ-O by yourself.

As to "all sorts of evil" I challenge you to cite ANY.  Shouldn't be difficult since you imagine there are "all sorts" of it.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

I can only think you must be getting desperate due to a sad and losing position.

Nice fantasy, since that's all you have.  I've supported my understanding of the literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2 by many English translations that properly render "tohu" throughout the OT.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Truth be told I can barely pay attention to what you interpret verses to mean, because it is so weak and biased. I see no case at all for you.

What is truly "weak and biased" is your ability to pay attention.  I'm sorry pointing out all the FACTS I have in supporting the literal meaning of the Hebrew of v.2 is so taxing to you.  Maybe you should bow out of this discussion and get some rest.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Why don't you face the fact that it doesn't matter how the unknown state of the newly created world is described since no one knows at all.

Why don't you face the fact that God told us clear words that the earth became a wasteland?  We don't know the original state of earth, and it doesn't matter.

What does matter is the literal Hebrew of 1:2, which has been very poorly translated in most versions.  But there are enough to KNOW what "tohu" means, and it can't be applied to original creation.  Or God would have been a very sloppy Creator.  Which He isn't.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

It is not 'sloppy' to take six days to finish creation. Your previous world fantasy is sloppy seconds!

It IS when "tohu wabohu" is used to describe the condition of the earth as "original creation, but we KNOW that in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 the words are used to describe the total destruction of the land.

Why you think those words have any place in original creation is absurd.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Lurkers, there we have it. A clear statement of unbelief.

Do you have any understanding of what I was referring to?  Seems you don't.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Psalms 90:2

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God

I do notice He formed the earth here. Not restored it.

New International Version
Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Berean Study Bible
Before the mountains were born or You brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting You are God.

New American Standard Bible 
Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

International Standard Version
Before the mountains were formed or the earth and the world were brought forth, you are God from eternity to eternity.

NET Bible
Even before the mountains came into existence, or you brought the world into being, you were the eternal God. 

I don't see the word "formed" here.  Solid translations.  You're quoting from the KJV, which is rather archaic.  

You have no point because you have no evidence.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

Anyone can understand how something can be destroyed. What is not comprehensible is how the world and heaven God just created on the first of six days of creation could be stolen from Him and wiped out by forces unknown and reasons unknown and times unknown etc etc. All to justify your firm belief in the old ages science insists on

This really proves why it is impossible to have any kind of objective discussion with you.  You still don't understand what I've said.

Somehow, absurdly, you think my position is that God created the earth in 6 days and THEN it was "stolen from Him and wiped out by forces unknown and reasons unknown and times unknown etc etc."

So many errors here.  First, it is NOT my position that God created the earth in 6 days.  From Gen 1:1 and Pswa 33:6 and 9, He spoke the entire universe, including the earth, into existence out of nothing.  That's referred to as "ex nihilo".  

Then, I've proven which is supported by Genesis 1 that God gave NO details of the WHY or HOW the earth became a wasteland.  

Why can't you get over that?  What is clear from the literal Hebrew is that the earth BECAME tohu wabohu.

Which is used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 to describe the total destruction of the land.

Those 2 Hebrew words cannot be used to describe original creation.

[dad2]

Quote

Somehow, absurdly, you think my position is that God created the earth in 6 days and THEN it was "stolen from Him and wiped out by forces unknown and reasons unknown and times unknown etc etc."

No. You ignore that it took 6 days to complete creation. Your fantasy earth demolition and rejiggering was on the first of those six days. Creation included life and that was not here on that day. Life came later, as did the sun, land and etc.

Quote

Why can't you get over that?  What is clear from the literal Hebrew is that the earth BECAME tohu wabohu.

Which is used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 to describe the total destruction of the land.

Those 2 Hebrew words cannot be used to describe original creation.

Looking at the world that day, total destruction would be a word men might relate to.

As other uses of the root word would ALSO fit.

For 'void' it means From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.

 

And 'formlessness'

Brown-Driver-Briggs'

1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1a) formlessness (of primeval earth)

1a1) nothingness, empty space

1b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (figuratively)

1c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

1d) place of chaos

1e) vanity

Strong's
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

So as we can see MOST uses FIT the first day of creation. You are without excuse to grasp at straws to defend your pipe dream theory.

It was the beginning of creation, day one. Desolate, no land, no life, no stars no light. No one snuck in and wrecked God's creation! You should have a little faith in God and less faith in man's so called science wisdom.

Edited March 4 by dad2

[RV_Wizard]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Appears you have no clue what "theory" means.  There is a time gap.

Perhaps you should have begun your post with, "The angel Gabriel came to me and said," I might give you credit for originality.  However, when you quote 18th century Gap Theory, we call it what it is.  People have been attacking the Bible since it was written.  You are posting "new" revelations that were discredited 200 years before you were born.  Apparently it is you who are clueless.  There was no time gap.  There was no light until God said "Let there be light."  There was no life until God created the grasses and the trees on day four.

The stars around us work for seasons, and signs, and for navigation.  They were created on day four.  Want to discuss something NOT addressed?  What about life on other galaxies with stars that are too far away to be useful for us.  Could God have made a million "earths" over a billion years?  Nothing could prove or disprove that.  As for what you post, it was disproved long ago.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There were no "days" of creation.

So, like other posters here, you completely discount Genesis 1 and the fourth commandment?  Like others here you want to pick and choose what you want to believe about the Scriptures?  Like others here, you want to re-interpret God's word to conform with your opinion.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There is no "creation" in that verse.

First FreeGrace 20:10-15 “For in six days the LORD restored the earth from the mucked up mess it had become after billions of years of all living things eventually dying out because there was no sun, no light, no heat, no universe around it and nothing to eat but each other.  So the Lord decided to conceal this from all and reveal it only to His servant FreeGrace, though in the 18th century many would also discover it.  Therefore the Lord declared the seventh day to be the Sabbath for no particular reason whatever, so you'd better honor it."

When is your own Bible being released?

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, dad2 said:

You ignore that it took 6 days to complete creation.

You are simply unable or unwilling to realize that the 6 days follow v.2 which says in the LITERAL HEBREW that the earth became a wasteland.  So OBVIOUSLy it needed to be restored for mans' use.  This is not a difficult concept.  

11 hours ago, dad2 said:

Your fantasy earth demolition and rejiggering was on the first of those six days.

You mean God created the earth and a demolition with "rejiggering" was done by God?  Are you serious??!!  That's worse than absurd.

That makes God a rather unskilled Creator, if that happened.  What is clear from the literal Hebrew is that in v.2 the earth became demolished/ruined/wasteland which required a restoration, which you call a "rejiggering".  

11 hours ago, dad2 said:

Creation included life and that was not here on that day. Life came later, as did the sun, land and etc.

When one refuses to recognize the literal Hebrew, everything that follows v.2 is about a restoration, but you stubbornly keep claiming the 6 days were about original creation.

11 hours ago, dad2 said:

Looking at the world that day, total destruction would be a word men might relate to.

I refuse to accept your pitifully strange way of looking at God's creative power.  I KNOW He creates only good.  So, from v.1, the "heavens and earth" were good.  But then, the earth became a wasteland.  FACT from the literal Hebrew.

11 hours ago, dad2 said:

As other uses of the root word would ALSO fit.

For 'void' it means From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.

I have no problem with "void" since wabohu does mean empty or void.  It's "tohu" that you won't accept from how the word is translated elsewhere.  It is a word that describes "waste/chaos/desolation/unsightly/etc".

Here are the 5 translations of Gen 1:2 that support what I believe.

Genesis 1:2  tohu wabohu translated in red

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.

Darby Bible Translation

And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

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,

Brenton Septuagint Version

But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

These 5 translation render “tohu” as “waste (4)/unsightly.  This cannot be applied to original creation.

Now, let's see how all 32 English translations render Isa 34:11, which also contain the Hebrew "tohu wabohu", which is found in Gen 1:2.

Isa 34:11 “tohu wabohu”  same 2 words in Gen 1:2  Hebrew words in bold

New International Version

the measuring line of chaos and the plumb line of desolation.

New Living Translation

he will measure it for chaos and destruction.

English Standard Version

He shall stretch the line of confusion over it, and the plumb line of emptiness.

Berean Standard Bible

a measuring line of chaos and a plumb line of destruction.

King James Bible

the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.

New King James Version

The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.

New American Standard Bible

the line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.

NASB 1995

the line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.

NASB 1977

the line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.

Legacy Standard Bible

the line of utter formlessness And the plumb line of utter void.

Amplified Bible

the measuring line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.

Christian Standard Bible

a measuring line and a plumb line over her for her destruction and chaos.

Holman Christian Standard Bible

a measuring line and a plumb line over her for her destruction and chaos.

American Standard Version

the line of confusion, and the plummet of emptiness.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

a measuring cord of ruin shall be stretched upon it, and no joy will be there

Brenton Septuagint Translation

the measuring line of desolation shall be cast over it, and satyrs shall dwell in it.

Contemporary English Version

God will leave it in ruins, merely a pile of rocks.

Douay-Rheims Bible

a plummet, unto desolation.

English Revised Version

the line of confusion, and the plummet of emptiness.

GOD'S WORD® Translation

the measuring line of chaos and the plumb line of destruction over it.

Good News Translation

The LORD will make it a barren waste again, as it was before the creation.

International Standard Version

a measuring line, and chaos, and plumb lines of emptiness, and its nobles.

JPS Tanakh 1917

The line of confusion, and the plummet of emptiness.

Literal Standard Version

A line of vacancy, and stones of emptiness.

Majority Standard Bible

a measuring line of chaos and a plumb line of destruction.

New American Bible

the measuring line of chaos, the plumb line of confusion.

NET Bible

the measuring line of ruin and the plumb line of destruction.

New Revised Standard Version

the line of confusion over it, and the plummet of chaos over its nobles.

New Heart English Bible

He will stretch the line of confusion over it, and the plumb line of emptiness.

Webster's Bible Translation

the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.

World English Bible

the line of confusion over it, and the plumb line of emptiness.

Young's Literal Translation

A line of vacancy, and stones of emptiness.

Very few of these 32 translations could be used in Gen 1:2 for original creation.  All of them can be used for the destruction of land.

11 hours ago, dad2 said:

And 'formlessness'

Brown-Driver-Briggs'

1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1a) formlessness (of primeval earth)

1a1) nothingness, empty space

1b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (figuratively)

1c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

1d) place of chaos

1e) vanity

 

Strong's
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

So as we can see MOST uses FIT the first day of creation.

{Seems you are willfully BLIND.  All these fit destruction, as proved by Isa 34:11}

 

You are without excuse to grasp at straws to defend your pipe dream theory.

It was the beginning of creation, day one. Desolate, no land, no life, no stars no light. No one snuck in and wrecked God's creation! You should have a little faith in God and less faith in man's so called science wisdom.

iow, God was unable to create a good earth by just speaking it into existence, even though Psa 33:6 and 9 says He did.  

Here's more proof that the earth was destroyed and needed a restoration.

Jer 4:23   “tohu wabohu”  same 2 words as in Gen 1:2  Hebrew words bolded.

Aramaic Bble in Plain English

I looked in the earth, and behold, chaos and emptiness, and to the Heavens, and their light is not there

English Revised Version

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Good News Translation

I looked at the earth--it was a barren waste; at the sky--there was no light.

JPS Tanakh 1917

I beheld the earth, And, lo, it was waste and void; And the heavens, and they had no light.

New American Bible

I looked at the earth—it was waste and void; at the heavens—their light had gone out!

NET Bible

"I looked at the land and saw that it was an empty wasteland. I looked up at the sky, and its light had vanished.

New Revised Standard Version

I looked on the earth, and lo, it was waste and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.

New Heart English Bible

I saw the earth, and, look, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

World English Bible

I saw the earth and, behold, it was waste and void, and the heavens, and they had no light.

Young's Literal Translation

I looked to the land, and lo, waste and void, And unto the heavens, and their light is not.

Of 32 translations, these 10 translate “tohu wabohu” that shows total destruction of the land by an invading army.

If you actually read all the verses I quoted from biblehub.com, you cannot miss the point that "tohu wabohu" was used to describe total destruction of the land.

The 2 Hebrew words in v.2 simply CANNOT be used for original creation, or that would make God a rather lousy Creator.

You can't have it both ways.

And thank you for proving my point by quoting from Brown-Driver-Briggs and Strongs.  That's where I went to understand the Hebrew words, and I have shared where those words are used in Scripture and for what condition.

It's destruction, NOT construction.  You and your bias is confused.  Way confused.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

Appears you have no clue what "theory" means.  There is a time gap.

Perhaps you should have begun your post with

Perhaps you should address what you quote from others, rather than go off on a weird tangent.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

, "The angel Gabriel came to me and said," I might give you credit for originality.

I'm glad you bring up "originality" because that's what I'm trying to get into your skull;  the literal Hebrew, which is the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE that Moses wrote which we call Genesis.

So when you use certain words, it would be objective to apply them to yourself as well.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  However, when you quote 18th century Gap Theory, we call it what it is.

Well, it is just too bad that you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of "theory" of which I've said nothing.  So your repeated harping on it only reveals your true nature.

I have no idea what was written in the 18th Century about the time gap, nor what theory was proposed as to how or why there was one.  So saying that I am quoting from sources that I've never read isn't very smart.

btw, please cite some sources who did write about what you are referring to.  Were they atheists or Christians?  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  People have been attacking the Bible since it was written.

And you are too, by rejecting the LITERAL HEBREW, which is the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You are posting "new" revelations that were discredited 200 years before you were born. 

This is beyond absurd.  I've proven from how the Hebrew in v.2 is translated elsewhere where the context makes very clear that "tohu wabohu" is used to describe DESTRUCTION rather than CONSTRUCTION.  But you've shown you have no ability to discern the difference, and you apply words of DESTRUCTION to God's original creation.  That would make God very clumsy.  Why don't you realize that very obvious fact?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Apparently it is you who are clueless.  There was no time gap. 

I really don't need your empty opinions.  I have the LITERAL HEBREW so I KNOW what Gen 1:2 says.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  As for what you post, it was disproved long ago.

Let's think about what I've posted.  Many translations of 2 verses that use "tohu wabohu" to describe DESTRUCTION of the land, per the context, yet in your own cluelessness you claim the words also describe CONSTRUCTION when God created the earth.  That is beyond absurd.  It makes God out to be clumsy at the least.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

So, like other posters here, you completely discount Genesis 1 and the fourth commandment?

What a dishonest claim.  I've explained that Ex 20:11 isn't about original creation which was "ex nihilo" from the Hebrew "bara", but "asah" which is to create or make something out of something, which indicates a restoration.  

otoh, you won't be honest about the lousy English translation of Gen 1:2 that directly conflicts with Isa 45:18.

You believe Gen 1:2 says that God created the earth tohu.

Yet, Isa 45:18 says that God didn't create the earth tohu.

And you deny there is any contradiction between the 2.  But every grade schooler can see the contradiction.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Like others here you want to pick and choose what you want to believe about the Scriptures? 

Where have I done that?  I've shown the many verses that contain the same Hebrew words as in Gen 1:2 but translate them to show destruction, and never construction.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Like others here, you want to re-interpret God's word to conform with your opinion.

In fact, I have proven that the KJV and others who copied them are wrong.

Genesis 1:2  tohu wabohu in red

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.

Darby Bible Translation

And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

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,

Brenton Septuagint Version

But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water

These 5 translations render “tohu” as “waste (4)/unsightly.  This cannot be applied to original creation.  To do so makes God a very lousy Creator, which I reject strongly.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

When is your own Bible being released?

I've already proven from the Bible that the Hebrew words 'tohu wabohu' are used throughout the Bible to describe DESTRUCTION rather than CONSTRUCTION.

And you are clueless about that.  And you don't have a very high regard for God's creative abilities, obviously.

Because of all you've said, you have zero credibility with me regarding objectivity or reason.