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

[RV_Wizard]

44 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Couldn't be more wrong.  The whole universe obviously looks WAY older than 6,000 years,

What does that have to do with anything?  Jesus looked like any other man, but He was the son of God.

45 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

On the contrary, fallible men altered the interpretation of the literal Hebrew to claim a very young earth.  

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

46 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Now explain WHY God NEEDED to create a universe/earth that only looks very old.

Why did God create an adult man?

Just because an unbeliever can't understand something, it doesn't mean God's word is flawed.  The earth was created with all the resources man would ever need by a God who knew when Adam was in the garden of Eden who all was going to be at the next Taylor Swift concert.  Your inability to grasp the omniscience of the Lord does not limit it.

49 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What I DO know is that the earth became a total mess, so God restored it in 6 days.

An I know that statement to be 100% false.  Period.  Finito.

51 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Because, that's all we have to study.

No, the study of God is called theology.  The earth is not the only thing we have to study.  

52 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Again, I don't care because I believe what the Bible says.

Since when?

52 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

You have no proof of anything.

I provided the proof.  Until you can show me where God created ANYTHING in its infancy, all rational people will understand that God made all things in their adult form.

54 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

But neither the universe nor earth needed to grow up.

Of course not.  Why, then, would you believe the earth needed to be billions of years old to support human life?

55 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What I cannot believe, is the claim that the earth is very young.

So you not only refuse to believe Genesis, you reject the genealogies of the Bible.  Do you also reject that Jesus was from the bloodline of David?

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What does that have to do with anything?

Oh, just reality itself.  Not that you have noticed, though.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Jesus looked like any other man, but He was the son of God.

Make a  point, please.  

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

And have you EVER proved that!!

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Why did God create an adult man?

He had work to do.  Obviously.  You didn't answer my question.  Do you think God was going to be a nurse maid for years?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Just because an unbeliever can't understand something, it doesn't mean God's word is flawed.

I wish you would really pay attention.  I never said God's word was flawed.  Why do you assume that ANY translation in ANY language was inspired?  

NO translation in ANY language is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  And there ARE flaws in every manuscript that's been found.  Why?  Because all manuscripts have been hand copied from other copied manuscripts that ultimately began with the original autograph.

If you really don't believe that ONLY the original autograph was inspired, your problems are far more than just earth age.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The earth was created with all the resources man would ever need by a God who knew when Adam was in the garden of Eden who all was going to be at the next Taylor Swift concert.

Of course that's true.  Do you have a point?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your inability to grasp the omniscience of the Lord does not limit it.

Why do you keep making such stupid comments?  I've NEVER said anything negative about God's omniscience.  Of course He knows everything.  He has ALWAYS known everything, even that there would be flaws in the copies of copies of copies of manuscripts of the Bible.  

Your hallowed KJV came from manuscripts dated from the 10th Century.  Do you have any idea how many copies of copies of copies it involved by the time the translators reached for those 10th Century manuscripts?  Probably not.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

What I DO know is that the earth became a total mess, so God restored it in 6 days.

An I know that statement to be 100% false.  Period.  Finito.

Your opinion has nothing to do with the facts.  Which I've shown you over and over.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

Because, that's all we have to study.

No, the study of God is called theology.  The earth is not the only thing we have to study.

I never said it was.  Why do you insist on making up stuff?  Like the democrats, you like to take things WAY out of context, and twist it to make it look like I said something I didn't.  How is that being honest?

This is what YOU said that I was responding to:

  RV_Wizard said:

If you understand science, you know that it is the study of the NATURAL world around us.

You mentioned "the NATURAL world around us".  And that is what my response was about.  Certainly NOT about theology.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 

  FreeGrace said:

Again, I don't care because I believe what the Bible says.

Since when?

Every time you reject what the literal Hebrew says, you are rejecting what God's word says.  So quit being a hypocrite.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I provided the proof.

Where?  What proof is there of a young 6,000 year old earth?  All you have is an English translation that ignores the literal Hebrew.  That is not proof. 

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Until you can show me where God created ANYTHING in its infancy, all rational people will understand that God made all things in their adult form.

So now you are claiming that the universe and earth have an "adult form"?  Are you kidding !!??  Are you listening to yourself?  You sure need to.  Seems your problems here are actually untreatable.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Of course not.  Why, then, would you believe the earth needed to be billions of years old to support human life?

I never said that, so quit trying to insinuate that I did.  The earth didn't need anything, ever.  God created it, it became a wasteland, and God didn't provide any details, and then He restored it for man's use.  The earth has no "need".  Or explain this "need" that you seem to think the earth has.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

So you not only refuse to believe Genesis

There you go again, lying outright.  Stop it.  I believe the literal Hebrew, which shows that you refuse to believe Genesis.  You are more and more like the democrats, who continually commit projection and transference against those they disagree with.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

you reject the genealogies of the Bible. 

Wow.  You're really going low now.  I ACCEPT all the genealogies of the Bible.  What kind of twisting thinking is weaving its way through your grey matter?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you also reject that Jesus was from the bloodline of David?

What a stupid question.  Of course He was.  The Bible says so.  I believe the Bible.

Why don't you believe the evidence for what the literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2 says?
Why is a young earth so precious to you anyway?  It just makes you look rather dopey to scientists and anyone who can easily see that the universe and earth are very old.

And NO rational person would accept that the universe or earth has "an adult form".  That is over the top.

[RV_Wizard]

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Oh, just reality itself.

Reality lies not in a temporary dwelling that will soon pass away, but with the eternity of Jesus Christ.

24 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

He had work to do.  Obviously.

So did everything else, and the earth had to be able to sustain mankind for thousands of years.

25 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

If you really don't believe that ONLY the original autograph was inspired, your problems are far more than just earth age.

You can keep your new-aged "translations" that seem to find new doctrines which are contrary to the teachings of Christ and the disciples.  There is no true doctrine after Christ.  None of the apostles taught differently that what Christ taught.

29 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Your hallowed KJV came from manuscripts dated from the 10th Century.

As I posted earlier, the KJV has been revised many times, but for punctuation, copy errors and the like.  No new doctrine was added.  Even your minority versions do not say what you claim.  NONE support the gap theory.

35 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

You mentioned "the NATURAL world around us".  And that is what my response was about.

No.  You said the natural world around us was all we had to study.  That's wrong.  Properly understand the Creator and you'll understand the creation.

42 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Every time you reject what the literal Hebrew says,

I'm not discussing your make-believe interpretation of the Hebrew language which NONE of your sources agree supports the gap theory.

44 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What proof is there of a young 6,000 year old earth?  

We have all the genealogies from Adam to Jesus, but I suppose you don't believe in them either.

45 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

So now you are claiming that the universe and earth have an "adult form"?

What do you mean "now?"  I've always said the world was created in its mature form.  Why would God need millions of years to create oil when He knew we would need it in a few thousand years?  NOTHING was created in its infancy.

50 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 I believe the literal Hebrew,

No, you believe whatever mistranslation affords for an ancient earth.

53 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Why don't you believe the evidence for what the literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2 says?

1.  86% of the translations disagree with you.

2  Even the ones you like say nothing of a previously existing earth.

3.  You completely ignore the fact that Jeremiah was quoting Genesis.

57 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Why is a young earth so precious to you anyway?

I never said the earth was young, just that it was created by God about 6,000 years ago.  I think it's funny you're willing to talk against the Scriptures because people who don't have a clue how to create a planet think they know how God did it.  By the way, radiometric dating can only show an observed rate of decay.  It can't invalidate its supernatural creation because science cannot measure, study or account for the supernatural.

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Reality lies not in a temporary dwelling that will soon pass away, but with the eternity of Jesus Christ.

Reality is what is real.  Real simple.  Of course all believers will spend eternity with Jesus Christ, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.  Why are you trying to distract?

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

He had work to do.  Obviously.

So did everything else, and the earth had to be able to sustain mankind for thousands of years.

It already has.  What is your point?  I guess you don't follow context very well.  You asked why Adam was created as a mature male.  And I told you.  And you think that relates to WHY God "had to" create the universe and earth with apparent age, in order to sustain man?  It appears you really have no clue as to God's creative ability.

When God created the earth, there was no mankind.  It didn't "have to" do anything.  

And your previous comment about the earth having "an adult form" takes the cake.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You can keep your new-aged "translations" that seem to find new doctrines which are contrary to the teachings of Christ and the disciples.

What a weird comment.  I have STAYED with the literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2, which was written about 1400 BC.  And you call that a "new-aged translation"???  It really seems  impossible for FACTS to penetrate your skull.

The lol here is your dependence on the KJV, which used 10th Century manuscripts, which were subject to many copy errors.  Since the 10th Century, many more manuscripts have been found, some dating back all the way to the 2nd Century.  FAR FEWER copy errors the closer the manuscript is to the original.

And where do you get that the KJV was inspired?  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There is no true doctrine after Christ.  None of the apostles taught differently that what Christ taught.

Why would you or anyone else think I said otherwise?  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As I posted earlier, the KJV has been revised many times, but for punctuation, copy errors and the like.  No new doctrine was added.

The older manuscripts are better.  Period.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Even your minority versions do not say what you claim.  NONE support the gap theory.

Again, there is no theory here.  Just the literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2 which you reject out of hand.  I've shown from how tohu was translated elsewhere in the OT that it is only about chaos, confusion, waste, desolation, etc.  But that bruises your KJV flawed translation.  Not to mention the idiotic "formless" translation, which isn't even real.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You said the natural world around us was all we had to study.

Please quit pretending to be so dense.  You know the context.  It was about the natural world.  What else is there to study, other than the Bible.  Which NOT even you study.  You'd prefer to stick your nose in a flawed error ridden translation.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  That's wrong.  Properly understand the Creator and you'll understand the creation.

Well, you sure don't.  You think God spoke a "formless blob" (contradiction of terms) into existence and then fiddled with it for 6 days until it could sustain mankind.

That is beyond absurd.  God spoke the complete universe and earth into existence in a breath.  Psa 33:6 and 9.  2 other verses that you seem to reject as well.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I'm not discussing your make-believe interpretation of the Hebrew language.

lol.  I've proven what the literal Hebrew means by comparing the words in Gen 1:2 with how they are used and translated elsewhere in the OT.  But with your eyes shut real tight, of course you won't see the FACTS.

I've made up nothing.  You are the make believe artist here.  

1.  You claim God began creation with a "formless blob"

2.  Then He fiddled with it for 6 days before getting it to sustain mankind

3.  You claim "formless" is real.

4.  You cannot defend the contradiction between the KJV Gen 1:2 with Isa 45:18.  Maybe you can't even understand the contradiction, due to the blindness of your bias.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

We have all the genealogies from Adam to Jesus, but I suppose you don't believe in them either.

I've already told you I believe ALL the genealogies.  Why do you keep lying about what I believe?

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What do you mean "now?"  I've always said the world was created in its mature form.

No, you're not getting away with your flip flop.  You said God began creation with a "formless blob" and worked with it for 6 days until it could support mankind.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Why would God need millions of years to create oil when He knew we would need it in a few thousand years?  NOTHING was created in its infancy.

God doesn't need anything.  And I've never suggested that He did.  So you can quit all this very dishonest crap you type.

Since God is eternal and omniscient, He has always known everything.  Can you understand that fact?

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, you believe whatever mistranslation affords for an ancient earth.

OK, show me ANY "mistranslation" that I believe.  I dare you.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

1.  86% of the translations disagree with you.

I reject theology by democracy.  That is idiotic.  Doesn't matter how few people believe the truth.  I believe the truth EVEN WHEN no one else does.  But apparently you ARE influenced by crowds.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

2  Even the ones you like say nothing of a previously existing earth.

Neither have I EVER said there was a "previously existing earth".  In fact, I've always said there is only ONE earth, period.  So your comments are nothing but lies after lies.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

3.  You completely ignore the fact that Jeremiah was quoting Genesis.

And you have no clue WHY he was.  Apparently context has no meaning for you.  I've shown you the context for WHY Jeremiah used the SAME EXACT words as Moses did in Gen 1:2, but your bias won't let you understand WHY.

The context of Jer 4:

v.6 - Raise a signal flag toward Zion.  Seek refuge! Do not delay!  For I am bringing disaster from the north, and terrible destruction.  

v.7 - A lion has gone up from his thicket, and a destroyer of nations has set out.  He has left his lair to lay waste your land.  Your cities will be reduced to ruins and lie uninhabited.

v.15 - For a voice resounds from Dan, proclaiming disaster from the hills of Ephraim.

v.16 - Warn the nations now!  Proclaim to Jerusalem: “A besieging army comes from a distant land; they raise their voices against the cities of Judah.

v.20 - Disaster after disaster is proclaimed, for the whole land is laid waste.  My tents are destroyed in an instant, my curtains in a moment.

and now, v.23 - I looked at the earth, and it was formless and void; I looked to the heavens, and they had no light.

It is obvious to every sane and rational person that Jeremiah quoted Gen 1:2 because it described what was about to occur to Israel.

I colored the the besieging army (v.16) that was a destroyer of nations (v.7) in blue, as the cause of the effect on the land, which is in red.  

v.6 - DISASTER from the north, terrible DESTRUCTION

v.7 - lay WASTE your land, cities will be REDUCED to RUINS and LIE uninhabited

v.15 - proclaiming DISASTER

v.20 - DISASTER AFTER DISASTER, whole land is LAID WASTE

This is the context for v.23.  Jeremiah clearly understood the condition of earth in Gen 1:2.  It was an uninhabitable wasteland, which is what the beseiging army that is a destroyer of nations is going to do to the land of Israel.

That is WHY he quoted Gen 1:2.

Why ELSE would Jeremiah quote something about original creation in the scence of TOTAL DESTRUCTION AND WASTE?  Such an idea is worse than idiotic.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I never said the earth was young, just that it was created by God about 6,000 years ago.

Uh, that's very young, given how OLD the universe and earth appear and have been measured.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  I think it's funny you're willing to talk against the Scriptures because people who don't have a clue how to create a planet think they know how God did it.

You're the one talking AGAINST Scripture.  You hold tightly to a flawed translation and ignore the literal Hebrew.  And I just again BLEW AWAY your ridiculous idea about Jer 4:23.  

There is nothing in the context of Jer 4 that relates to original creation.  It's all about total destruction and waste.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  By the way, radiometric dating can only show an observed rate of decay.

OK, that's fine.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It can't invalidate its supernatural creation because science cannot measure, study or account for the supernatural.

You call God speaking a "formless blob" into existence a "supernatural creation"???

Really???  

Your arguments are thinner than gauze.

I believe that God in an INSTANT spoke the whole universe and earth into existence, which is what Psa 33:6 and 9 refer to.

But you have a totally different idea.  An unbiblical one.

[RV_Wizard]

29 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

And you think that relates to WHY God "had to" create the universe and earth with apparent age, in order to sustain man

God "had to" do nothing.  God created a perfect world in which all living things could live in harmony, and of course, man messed it up with his disobedience.  Why would the earth appear old?  Everything else did, why not the planet?  Some people believe that the planet formed on its own naturally.  There are thousands of impossibilities that would have to happen.  In order to explain them, they pretend that given enough time all impossibilities become certainties.  I've even had otherwise intelligent people say that with enough time an airplane could assemble itself.  I do NOT make this up.

You say that the earth appears old, but what is your point of reference?  What should a 6,000 year old planet created by God look like?  You think there would be no oil or precious minerals in it?  Why?  You say these things take millions of years to form?  God can form them in an instant.  All things created have the appearance of age to those who do not believe in their creation.  Would a tree created on day three have rings if cut down on day eight?  I contend they would.  Could you, then, have a "10,000 year old" tree on a 6,000 year old planet?  Absolutely.

39 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

When God created the earth, there was no mankind.  It didn't "have to" do anything.  

That's sophomoric.  God created the earth to house the human race, not just to be a floating rock in nothingness.

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Neither have I EVER said there was a "previously existing earth".  

Balderdash!  You claim the earth existed for millions of years prior to the creation week.  Do you even understand your own posts? 

43 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 It was an uninhabitable wasteland, which is what the beseiging army that is a destroyer of nations is going to do to the land of Israel.

That is WHY he quoted Gen 1:2.

The notion that the earth BECAME a wasteland when it had previously existed for millions of years is a heresy only Gap Theory proponents put forth.  You can't be educated on this, so we aren't discussing your heresy.

45 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Uh, that's very young, given how OLD the universe and earth appear and have been measured.

How old did Adam appear to be ten seconds after he was created?  Are you going to belief appearances, or God's word?

46 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

You call God speaking a "formless blob" into existence a "supernatural creation"???

Absolutely, when He created the formless blob in the beginning.  Can YOU create a planet?  If not, why do you think you could do it better?

48 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I believe that God in an INSTANT spoke the whole universe and earth into existence, which is what Psa 33:6 and 9 refer to.

Again, you add your own failed concepts.

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.  9  For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.  Where is the word "instantly?"  By Pilot's decree, Jesus was crucified.  Was that instantaneous?  What you BELIEVE and what the Bible SAYS are entirely different.

[FreeGrace]

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

And you think that relates to WHY God "had to" create the universe and earth with apparent age, in order to sustain man

God "had to" do nothing.

You sure seem to think He did, from what you posted.  Aren't you aware of what you post?  You insinuated that God HAD DO create the universe and earth in "an adult form" in to support mankind.  You simply don't know what you are talking about.  He didn't have to do anything.  So at least keep in mind what you already posted before making such an embarrassing comment that contradicts what you previously post.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  God created a perfect world in which all living things could live in harmony, and of course, man messed it up with his disobedience.

Yes, and that TOO.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Why would the earth appear old?  Everything else did, why not the planet?

That hardly answers the question.  There is an obvious REASON for creating man and woman as adults.  They had jobs to do.  Don't you get that?

So, what 'job' did the earth or universe need to do?  Can you answer that?

You can't, obviously.  There was no need.  The universe and earth LOOK OLD because they ARE OLD.  Real simple.  You are out of ideas.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Some people believe that the planet formed on its own naturally.

Irrelevant what 'some people' believe.  Who cares?  I care about what the Bible says.  And MORE than what some translations say.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There are thousands of impossibilities that would have to happen.

Again, totally irrelevant.  Please focus on the issue.  

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  In order to explain them, they pretend that given enough time all impossibilities become certainties.  I've even had otherwise intelligent people say that with enough time an airplane could assemble itself.  I do NOT make this up.

You've made up EVERY "reason" in trying to defend an old earth that doesn't appear young in any way.

Given that God is eternal, with NO beginning, the universe/earth could have been created billions, trillions or zillions of years ago.  And I don't care the number.  It doesn't matter.  

What matters is what the Bible says.  And the KJV goofed up.  And all the translations that just copied them.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

You say that the earth appears old, but what is your point of reference?

Objective science.  But I guess you reject ALL science, huh.  

Oh, and the Bible, of course.  It SAYS in the literal Hebrew that the earth became a mess.  That would obviously take time.  

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  What should a 6,000 year old planet created by God look like?

Please ask intelligent questions.  And you are just guessing anyway.  I don't guess.  I believe what the Bible says.  Unlike yourself.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You think there would be no oil or precious minerals in it?  Why?

I don't care.  Makes no difference.  It is what it is.  And you don't believe it.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You say these things takes millions of years to form?

No I never said such foolishness.  God creates in a moment of time, because that is what Psa 33:6 and 9 say.  Why don't you believe those verses?  You've never even addressed them.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  God can form them in an instant.

That's what I've been saying all along.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  All things created have the appearance of age to those who do not believe in their creation. 

That is your opinion, and totally without any facts.  You are conflating living things with inanimate objects, that don't "mature" for function, like living things.  But maybe that is too complex for you to grasp.  Seems so.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Would a tree created on day three have rings if cut down on day eight?  I contend they would.  Could you, then, have a "10,000 year old" tree on a 6,000 year old planet?  Absolutely.

You keep asking ridiculous questions.  Try something more intelligent.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

 God created the earth to house the human race, not just to be a floating rock in nothingness.

Where did I ever even hint at such garbage?  

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

 You claim the earth existed for millions of years prior to the creation week.  Do you even understand your own posts? 

Way more than you understand what you post.  In FACT, I NEVER said how many years.  Because I don't care how many, as I just said AGAIN above.  It doesn't matter.

What does matter is that after God created the earth, it became a mess and so He  restored it.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The notion that the earth BECAME a wasteland when it had previously existed for millions of years is a heresy only Gap Theory proponents put forth.

It's only a heresy to those who have been fed FALSE news, such as the KJV translation.

News flash:  there is no such thing as an object being formless.  And you can't prove otherwise.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You can't be educated on this, so we aren't discussing your heresy.

Said Mr unteachable.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

How old did Adam appear to be ten seconds after he was created?  Are you going to belief appearances, or God's word?

More ridiculous questions from Mr obvious.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Absolutely, when He created the formless blob in the beginning. 

No such thing.  And God does create formless blobs.  I give Him WAY MORE credit than you seem willing to do.  

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Can YOU create a planet?

Stupid question.  No more than you can.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If not, why do you think you could do it better?

Can you show me where I said I could do it better than by starting with this unreal "formless blob" that you think God began with?

No, you can't.  You just keep lying or making stuff up.  And it isn't working.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Again, you add your own failed concepts.

What have I added?  I have given you the literal Hebrew, and you seem rather allergic to it.

46 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.  9  For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.  Where is the word "instantly?"  By Pilot's decree, Jesus was crucified.  Was that instantaneous?  What you BELIEVE and what the Bible SAYS are entirely different.

Apples and oranges.  What an absurd attempt;  to compare creation by breathing out words to the crucifixion.  But this is exactly where people go when they are totally out of ammo (defense).

You're through, and you just don't know it.

The more you post, the more you just embarrass yourself.  And you just don't know it.

You put words I've NEVER said into my mouth as if I did say (bleieve) them.

You make up a whole bunch of garbage as if I believe it.

You have NO defense for 'formless' being a real status.

You can't defend the KJV of Gen 1:2 against the contradiction with Isa 45:18.

I went through the context of Jeremiah 4 and PROVED with colors that he quoted from Gen 1:2 because of the terrible DESTRUCTION of the land coming by the beseiging army that was a destroyer of nations.

It was all about DESTRUCTION yet your fevered brain tries to force tohu wabohu into God's perfect creation.  That is actually beyond absurd, bizarre.  Totally.

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You insinuated that God HAD DO create the universe and earth in "an adult form" in to support mankind.

No, I said He DID; not that He had to.  However, he idea that He would put man here without the resources He needed to survive is rather mindless.  The grasses are only three days older than man, so obviously, there was no time to turn them into oil.  Since we have oil, it had to be there from the beginning.  It's really quite simple when you stop imagining that God had to do things the way people claim He did.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The universe and earth LOOK OLD because they ARE OLD.

The stars and planets around us were created on day four.  If they look old to you, it's because you have absolutely no point of reference as to what a star or planet would look like moments after it is spoken into existence.  We could Adam see stars many light years away?  Because God did it that way.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You've made up EVERY "reason" in trying to defend an old earth that doesn't appear young in any way.

You have yet to explain why it looks old.  What would a young planet look like?  How many have you made?  How many have scientists made?

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And the KJV goofed up.  And all the translations that just copied them.

Actually, the KJV has been revised 421 times.  You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Nobody just copied it, and it is not in error.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 God creates in a moment of time, because that is what Psa 33:6 and 9 say.

I did address them.  I pointed out that they don't say what you claim they say, which further shows your lack of understanding.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

News flash:  there is no such thing as an object being formless.

Discussions of formless are now terminated.  You simply cannot grasp the concept.

 

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Can you show me where I said I could do it better than by starting with this unreal "formless blob" that you think God began with?

See above.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What have I added?

Your own definition of the "literal Hebrew" and the lunacy of the planet falling into ruin and having to be restored, which is not shared by any of the versions you quote.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I went through the context of Jeremiah 4 and PROVED with colors that he quoted from Gen 1:2 because of the terrible DESTRUCTION of the land coming by the beseiging army that was a destroyer of nations.

Actually, I did that.  You at first claimed it wasn't a vision.  Then you said it proves the earth became a desolate wasteland.  Jeremiah was quoting the Genesis description of the earth at the beginning of creation, not after some imaginary catastrophe.  None of the Bible prophets ever said that the earth existed prior to the six day creation.  You bought into false teaching.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

You insinuated that God HAD DO create the universe and earth in "an adult form" in to support mankind.

No, I said He DID; not that He had to. 

Do you understand what an insinuation means?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

However, he idea that He would put man here without the resources He needed to survive is rather mindless. 

Of course.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It's really quite simple when you stop imagining that God had to do things the way people claim He did.

How silly.  From the meaning of "tohu wabohu", which Jeremiah lifted from Gen 1:2 in Jer 4, is it MORE THAN OBVIOUS that he was describing what that besieging army, the one that was a destroyer of nations, was going to do to the land of Israel.

The earth was destroyed.  I'm just sorry that you are unable to comprehend that.

God HAD TO restore the planet for man's use.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You have yet to explain why it looks old.

I did, but it seems there is quite a bit of difficulty following this discussion.  I'll say it again.  It looks old because it is old.  And we don't know how old because God didn't say when.  Nor did He say why the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  What would a young planet look like?  How many have you made?  How many have scientists made?

I don't care.  That is all irrelevant.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Actually, the KJV has been revised 421 times.  You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Nobody just copied it, and it is not in error.

I was obviously referring to the 10th Century manuscripts, from which the translators translated.  Why aren't you paying attention?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I did address them.  I pointed out that they don't say what you claim they say, which further shows your lack of understanding.

I have been saying what the literal Hebrew says.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Discussions of formless are now terminated.  You simply cannot grasp the concept.

Better than you can.  You STILL haven't provided an example.  Because there are no examples.  The lack of grasping is on you.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your own definition of the "literal Hebrew" and the lunacy of the planet falling into ruin and having to be restored, which is not shared by any of the versions you quote.

Really?

Genesis 1:2  tohu wabohu is 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.

You are free to apply all the red words to original creation.  That is your problem.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 You at first claimed it wasn't a vision.  Then you said it proves the earth became a desolate wasteland.  Jeremiah was quoting the Genesis description of the earth at the beginning of creation, not after some imaginary catastrophe.

Ridiculous.   Why would he include the beginning of creation in THAT particular context?  That makes zero sense.

I just showed you all the pertinent verses in Jer 4 that clearly show what was going to happen to Israel.  Why don't you pay attention?

There was no "imaginary catastrophe".  There was a "beseiging army" that was described as a "destroyer of nations" about to overtake the land and destroy it.

But it seems you just aren't capable of grasping the text at all.  Unteachable.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  None of the Bible prophets ever said that the earth existed prior to the six day creation.  You bought into false teaching.

No, I studied the Hebrew and compared the words in v.2 with how the same words are used elsewhere in the OT.  So I understand EXACTLY why Jeremiah lifted "tohu wabohu" from Gen 1:2 in describing what was going to happen to Israel.

The text can be easily understood by grade schoolers.  Sorry you can't understand it.

Here are all the times "tohu" is used in the OT:

Tohu occurs 10 times in the OT

Genesis 1:2
NAS: The earth was formless and void,

1 Samuel 12:21
NAS: futile things which

Job 26:7
NAS: over empty space And hangs

Isaiah 24:10
NAS: The city of chaos is broken down;
KJV: The city of confusion is broken down:

Isaiah 34:11 Describes the total destruction of the land
NAS: it the line of desolation And the plumb line
KJV: upon it the line of confusion, and the stones

Isaiah 44:9
NAS: are all of them futile, and their precious things
KJV: a graven image [are] all of them vanity; and their delectable things

Isaiah 45:18   Directly contradicts Gen 1:2 usual translation
NAS: it [and] did not create it a waste place, [but] formed
KJV: it, he created it not in vain, he formed

Isaiah 45:19
NAS: Seek Me in a waste place; I, the LORD,
KJV: Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD

Isaiah 59:4
NAS: They trust in confusion and speak
KJV: they trust in vanity, and speak

Jeremiah 4:23   Describes the total destruction of the land by an invading army
NAS: and behold, [it was] formless and void;
KJV: the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void;

chaos, desolation, futile, waste place (3), confusion, formless (2).  But Jer 4:23 cannot be ‘formless’ since it describes the total destruction of land by a besieging army that destroys nations (from context).  So should be 4 x for “wasteland/place”.  None of these words can be applied to original perfect creation of the earth.  ALL of these translations describe very negative conditions.

So, there you go.  Proof positive.  

God holds you responsible for the facts that have been given to you.

Edited March 25 by FreeGrace

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Do you understand what an insinuation means?

You're the one having difficulty with the English language.

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God HAD TO restore the planet for man's use.

As I mentioned, I will not re-engage this much disproved ridiculous heresy.

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God holds you responsible for the facts that have been given to you.

God holds you responsible for false teaching.  Gap theory is as much a Satanic lie as evolution.  Both seek to deprive God the glory of His six day creation.

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As I mentioned, I will not re-engage this much disproved ridiculous heresy.

"much disproved", eh?  Where is the evidence?  You've only given your opinion about it.  And in the process, rejected very clear Hebrew words.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

God holds you responsible for false teaching.

God holds each believer responsible for the truth they have been given.  What have you done with the truth?  Rejection.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Gap theory is as much a Satanic lie as evolution. 

This seems to be the whole crux of the issue.  YEC cannot seem to differentiate an old earth from evolution, even though I've thoroughly rejected every form of evolution in the creation of the universe.  So there's no excuse for your silly thinking and equating one with the other.  There is no link.  Yes, evolution REQUIRES an old earth.

But, an old earth has NO NEED of evolution.  But it seems that just isn't penetrating your skull.

So all of your biases are coming from your inability to reason.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Both seek to deprive God the glory of His six day creation.

No, only evolution deprives God of His creation.  Which occurred in a moment, when He spoke everything into existence.

But your heavily biased view deprives God of that ability to create the vast universe in a moment, a breath of spoken word.  

You'd rather think that God spoke some kind of "formless blob" into existence and then fiddled with it for 6 days and ONLY THEN called it "good".

That is just pitiful.

So don't tell me my views deprive God of anything, when it's your crazy view that God began with a "formless blob" first, and then fiddled for 6 days.

And you think that is more educated than just accepting what "tohu wabohu" means from how it's used elsewhere in the OT, and realizing that God restored the earth in 6 days.

But since you don't have the reasoning skills to be able to separate evolution from an old earth, I'm not surprised.

I oppose evolution at least as much as you do, but you probably won't even understand that statement.  You probably don't think that is possible.

You are unreasonable.  But you will only hold onto your opinion until eternity.  Then it will all become clear.