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

[FreeGrace]

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

After his profound opening statement, the creation narrator sets the stage for all the miraculous events to follow. He narrows the story’s focus to one specific site, Earth, and more specifically yet, to the surface of Earth. He describes that surface as formless, empty, and dark. If one argues that “formless and empty” imply evil, darkness must also. While one can certainly find passages of Scripture in which darkness serves as a metaphor for evil, nothing in Genesis 1:2 argues for such a usage. In fact, when God brought about light on Earth, He retained darkness as part of the day-night cycle.  source

This article disproves every claim FreeGrace has made.  As I have said all along, Gap Theory has long ago been discredited.

So, let's see what this source says:

"Reformed theologians Chambers and Buckland advocated the gap interpretation, as did a few Catholic scholars during the nineteenth century, with limited acceptance.⁴ In the early part of the twentieth century, fundamentalists George Pember and Harry Rimmer popularized the view throughout the American church.^{5, 6} The largest contributor to its acceptance, however, was—and perhaps still is—C. I. Scofield, whose widely sold study Bible sanctioned the view.⁷ Evidence that Scofield still holds sway appears on the first page of the New International Version of the Holy Bible. Note A indicates that “was” (the Hebrew verb haya) in Genesis 1:2 may also mean “became.”⁸"

OK, this source ignores the SAME EXACT FORM of 'haya', also spelled 'hayah' as found in Gen 1:2.  I have been using ONLY that exact same form and shown how it is translated elsewhere in the OT.  As the base verb haya, the verb occurs some 3,560 times in the OT, so we MUST be specific as to the EXACT SAME FORM as found in Gen 1:2.  Otherwise, it's just apples to oranges.  Both a fruit, but that's where any similarity ends.

Let's continue with what this source says:

"The question must be asked, then: How solid is the case for the gap theory? The answer lies in testing the theory’s major premises, including these three:

1. Upheavals in Earth’s geology and life’s history as evidenced in the fossil record, especially those of the distant past, reflect evil rather than the goodness of God.

2. The literal accuracy of the creation week cannot (and need not) be attested via science.

3. Biblical exegesis permits, in fact demands, the flexible translation of haya (“was”) as “became.”"

The source is not looking at the MOST IMPORTANT facts and Hebrew words.  It is clear that the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb in Gen 1:2 HAS BEEN translated as either "become" or "became" so we don't have to beat this to death.

#2 is irrelevant.

The key is not 'hayah' but rather "tohu wabohu".

"In Hebrew tohû and bohû obviously are meant to be alliterative synonyms, each complementing the meaning of the other. Thus, both words convey the idea of formlessness and emptiness. The second term, bohû, occurs only three times in the Old Testament: Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11, and Jeremiah 4:23. In each instance, it refers to something’s being empty, whether not yet filled or unfillable.¹⁴"

I've already addressed this paragraph, but the NASB translates "tohu" in Isa 45:18 as "wasteland", so 'bohu' as the second word would be "uninhabitable", obviously to anyone with any sense.

More:

"The crux of gap theorists’ argument rests on the first term, tohû. They assert that Genesis 1:2 must be translated as “the earth became formless and empty” (sometime after its creation) because Isaiah 45:18 says, “[God] did not create the earth tohû."

This is just nuts.  I've more than proven that "formless" is senseless and doesn't exist as a description of any object.

"A hundred years previous to Youngblood’s analysis, the famed Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck wrote, “The trackless void by no means implies that the earth had been devastated, but only that though it was already earth, it was still unformed.” "

More senseless drivel.  All objects HAVE 3 dimensions; therefore there is no such thing as a formless object; whether earth or anything else.  Including blobs.

More:

"Another problem with the conclusion that the tohû wabohû implies chaotic, evil ruination arises from consideration of the spiritual and historical context of Genesis 1. Heathen myths of Moses’ time and Eastern culture depicted horrid monsters wreaking havoc on the early Earth."

More nonsense.  We KNOW what 'tohu wabohu' means from the 2 places where they occur together outside of Genesis 1:2.  The context is clear:  Both verses are in the context of coming disaster on the land.  That's what the 2 words mean together.

Here's a beaut:

"Gap theorists grant more credit to the demons than Scripture allows. The Bible teaches that neither Satan nor any other created being has the power to destroy apart from God’s sovereignty, nor the power to create as God does.²⁰"

This bit of theory assumes that God in no way would allow any of His creatures to destroy anything.  Where does the Bible say that God has forbidden any of His creatures to do that?  Nowhere.  Let's not assume anything.  The 2 words "tohu wabohu" are clear enough in their own right to show what happened in Gen 1:2.  But, there are the truth deniers.

The source quoted by the other poster is just as full of assumptions and false notions.  Both simply miss the point, TOTALLY.

The key is 'tohu wabohu' and how they are used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, which is about the total destruction of the land.

 

[FreeGrace]

rv quoted a 'source', which was just an opinion article that has as much bias as rv has.

Well, I can quote sources as well.

Gen 1:1-2

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was (hayta -hayah) formless (tohu) and void (wabohu), and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters

OT:1961  hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)

OT:8414  tohuw (to'-hoo); from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:

OT:922  wabohuw (wabo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

My source uses Strong's Numbers and Concordance with an expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary.  Actual scholarly source.

Here is another source:

Englishman’s Concordance records 3560 occurrences of “hayah” in the OT.

‘hayah' = wayhi is also Strong’s # 1961 (hayah) and translated “came to pass”.

Englishman’s Concordance records the phrase “came to pass” 457 times.

Gen 2:7 the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became (hayah-wayhi) a living being.

The word “became” occurs 106 times in the KJV.  Of these, the following verses use the same form of “hayah” as in Gen 1:2 and translated as ‘became’:

Gen 47:26 - hayta translated ‘became’

Exodus 9:24       “           “

1 Sam 10:12       “              “

Joshua 14:14       “              “

The first word in Gen 1:2 is “and”.

“The Hebrew particle wª - "and," which is used to combine the successive links in the chain of this narrative, does not indicate any necessary connection between the sentences it unites.  Besides, so far is it from implying that the parts of a narrative where it occurs are connected by immediate sequence in point of time, a statement which it introduces may be separated by a considerable and even protracted interval from the course of events narrated in the preceding sentence, without any notice being taken of there being such a chasm.  (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

This source also says this about "tohu wabohu":

“The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculiar phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted; and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version 'invisible and unfurnished.' Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used, that the world, which had formerly been a scene of material beauty and order, was by some great convulsion plunged into a state of chaos or widespread disorder and desolation. Hence, some eminent critics, who take this view, render the clause thus: 'But (or afterward) the earth became waste and desolate.' This translation is declared by Kurtz to be inadmissible, as being contrary to the rules of grammatical construction; but Dr. McCaul has shown that the verb haayªtaah 'was,' is, in some twenty places, in this chapter, used as equivalent to 'became,' and that elsewhere it has the same signification without a following Lª - (preposition) (Isa 64:5,9). That the earth was not originally desolate seems also to be implied in Isa 45:18 “

(Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc.)

[Indentured Servant]

On 12/10/2023 at 6:05 PM, FreeGrace said:

Rev 16:18 - And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake such as there had never been since man was on the earth, so great was that earthquake.   English Standard Version

If Genesis 1 is the acccount of original creation, then why didn't John just say "since the creation of the earth", since Genesis 1:1 does begin with original creation.  Why even mention man at all?  Of course there was no earthquake at all between day 1 and day 6 when Adam was created.  

However, when one realizes that v.2ff is actually describing a restoration of an earth that "BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND", as the Hebrew words are translated elsewhere in Scripture, then we see that it is possible that there WERE earthquakes BEFORE Adam was created.  This supports an undetermined time gap between 1:1 and 1:2.

Words mean things.  And this verse gives support to an earth very much older than Adam.

 

I am intrigued by this. I ask people why, if planet was non-existent prior to the first day of creation, why did God have to change it from "formless and void" (common translation) to taking the first couple days to make customized changes to it? If He'd just then created it, (and the whole universe), why wasn't it already the way He envisioned it to be?

Of course, this has been mulled over now and then for centuries, but it is a fascinating perspective.

 

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

I ask people why, if planet was non-existent prior to the first day of creation, why did God have to change it from "formless and void" (common translation) to taking the first couple days to make customized changes to it?

We who have never created a world are poorly suited to critique the work of the one who did.  Job 38 gives us a sense of humility,

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

I am intrigued by this. I ask people why, if planet was non-existent prior to the first day of creation, why did God have to change it from "formless and void" (common translation) to taking the first couple days to make customized changes to it? If He'd just then created it, (and the whole universe), why wasn't it already the way He envisioned it to be?

If you read all the posts, I address the fact that the word "formless" doesn't exist for objects as a state of being.  The reason is that all objects have 3 dimensions.  So, if you can see an object, you are seeing its 3 dimensions, or form.  The only way 'formless' is used correctly is when an object lacks some or all of the distinctive form of similar objects.

Also, I've provided all of the uses of "tohu" that the KJV translates as "formless" and where they occur in the OT.  None of the words can be used for creation.  All describe chaos, desolation, waste, etc.  Therefore, the 6 days in Gen 1 are about the restoration of the earth.

11 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Of course, this has been mulled over now and then for centuries, but it is a fascinating perspective.

Having researched all the verses where "tohu" and "tohu wabohu" occur and how they are translated elsewhere, we find that Gen 1:2 actually says, but the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

We who have never created a world are poorly suited to critique the work of the one who did.

But it is you who challenges God's ability to immediately speak (create) the entire universe and earth into perfect and good existence.  You keep claiming that God began with a "formless blob" (your words) and worked from there.  

The problem is there is no evidence of God doing that in Genesis 1, and that you simply ignore what the actual literal Hebrew means.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Job 38 gives us a sense of humility,

When given actual facts to consider, humility goes a long way.  Goes with repentance, or changing the mind.

[Indentured Servant]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

We who have never created a world are poorly suited to critique the work of the one who did.  Job 38 gives us a sense of humility,

I would never presume to critique the work of our Creator; however, I have every right and responsibility to critique human interpretation against what I've been shown.

I chose to not to mention my communications with God, and will ask that you not critique His sharing of information with me.

My comment was intended as a response to a specific person's post, not as fodder for debate. 

Admittedly, my comment was made using human reasoning. I suppose I could have just completed this by explaining everything in the manner in which I've seen it. Had I, I would immediately be rejected by everyone on here, since most people don't believe that God has the power to answer questions that we ask of Him in His Name, despite His invitation to do so.

My apologies for any offense I may have caused. I will humbly leave this thread if my words have become an affront to your traditional beliefs. 

"Do all you can to live peaceably with others." 

[FreeGrace]

28 minutes ago, Indentured Servant said:

My apologies for any offense I may have caused. I will humbly leave this thread if my words have become an affront to your traditional beliefs. 

"Do all you can to live peaceably with others." 

I would humbly ask that you stay.  You show an open mind.  

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But it is you who challenges God's ability to immediately speak (create) the entire universe and earth into perfect and good existence.  

Not His ability to do so, but the reality of how He actually formed the earth.  The truth; not the lies of long ages Gap proponents claim.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

My comment was intended as a response to a specific person's post, not as fodder for debate. 

It was, however in a public forum, and thus available for commentary.

10 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Had I, I would immediately be rejected by everyone on here, since most people don't believe that God has the power to answer questions that we ask of Him in His Name, despite His invitation to do so.

He assuredly does have that power, though most would contend that He speaks through His word and not audibly or via dreams.  Such revelations would be spiritual in nature, but the fact is that evil sprits are as able as good sprits to speak to you.  The test is always, does it come true, and does it conform with God's word?  These tests historically have always been used to tell God's prophesies from false ones.

Based on the physical characteristics of matter, it is consistent that the earth began as a gas cloud, cooled to a liquid form, and then the dry land separated from the waters.  That seems to fit the notion of being "without form and void."  Did God need to do it that way?  No.  Does the Bible specifically say He formed the earth that way?  No, but it fits.  What doesn't fit?  The notion that in absence of light, heat, or the rest of the universe, that the earth lasted unknown millions of years before falling into ruin and needing to be restored.  Dry land itself didn't come about until day three of the creation, when trees bearing fruit, grasses and herbs appeared on the land.