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

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

There is no theory.

You must have learned to deny truth from the same source as others here.  Learn about the origins of the theory you claim doesn't exist here.

“Bible commentaries written before the Theory of Uniformitarianism and the scientific revolution of the early 1800s, are silent about the ‘Ruin-Reconstruction’ theory.”

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

There is no theory.

You must have learned to deny truth from the same source as others here.

Your bias has really blinded you to the facts.  What "theory" have I claimed?  

Rather, I have shown HOW tohu wabohu is used in the only other 2 times in Scripture; both times the words DESCRIBE total destruction of the land.  

It is YOU who are denying truth.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Learn about the origins of the theory you claim doesn't exist here.

Oh, I'm nowhere near as naive as you are, who think I am the only one who believes what I do.  Yes, there are MANY THEORIES.  So what?  Anyone who studies the Hebrew words and how they are used elsewhere are on solid ground.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

“Bible commentaries written before the Theory of Uniformitarianism and the scientific revolution of the early 1800s, are silent about the ‘Ruin-Reconstruction’ theory.”

None of this has any effect on biblical truth.  How many real Hebrew scholars were there in the 1800s?  The first English translation occurred much further back, when there was still much to learn about what the Hebrew words mean.

Since there was no detailed context in Genesis 1 as to WHY the earth became a mess, they had nothing to go on.  Tough bite.

Words mean things, whether Hebrew or English.  And Moses wrote Hebrew, not English.

You are treating English translations as if they were inspired.  Which NONE of them were.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

How many real Hebrew scholars were there in the 1800s?  The first English translation occurred much further back, when there was still much to learn about what the Hebrew words mean.

The Hebrew language dates back to 1200 BC.  Nobody questioned the meaning of Genesis until new age geologists began to claim long ages in the 1800's.  Your presumption to know something that contemporaneous scholars didn't know is a joke.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Hebrew language dates back to 1200 BC.  Nobody questioned the meaning of Genesis until new age geologists began to claim long ages in the 1800's.

No one is "questioning" Genesis.  Just by comparing how tohu wabohu is used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, we EASILY understand what the word describe.

btw, your "information" regarding geologists is way off the mark.

It was Charles Lyell who came up with the age of the earth on the basis of "geologic columns".  Guess when.  1796, some NINE years before the idiot Darwin was born.  And "new age" wasn't even a "thing" until the 60's.  Get your facts straight, please.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your presumption to know something that contemporaneous scholars didn't know is a joke.

No, it's a total joke that anyone would IGNORE the clear meaning of tohu wabohu in the 2 passages that describe total destruction of the land.

Speaking of jokes, what about YOUR joke, by IGNORING the glaring blatant contradiction between the English translation of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18.

The joke's on you.

[MichaelSnow]

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.

 

² The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

WAS. Not "BECAME"

""BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND"

Where did you get that? There is no basis for it. See standard conservative commentaries, e.g. NICNT, BSC.

But, YES, there is an undetermined period of time between v. 1 and v. 3. Many 'Bible believers' seem to be oblivious to the context and falsely equate, "let there be light" with "In the beginning."

This is NOT, however, the imaginative "Gap Theory"

https://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/creation-young-earth-ham-nye-genesis-one/

 

Edited February 7 by MichaelSnow

[FreeGrace]

31 minutes ago, MichaelSnow said:

² The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

WAS. Not "BECAME"

""BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND"

Where did you get that? There is no basis for it. See standard conservative commentaries, e.g. NICNT, BSC.

I don't know how long you've been following this thread, but it's all been laid out.  The exact same form of the verb 'hayah' in Gen 1:2 translated as "was" is translated as "became" or "become" in numerous verses throughout the OT.

And, a number of verses that use "was" can easily be seen as also meaning "became".

Ex:  Mary WAS Joseph's wife.  True fact.  But it is also true that Mary BECAME Joseph's wife.  

However, the most important words in Gen 1:2 are "tohu wabohu" poorly translated as "formless and void".  First, every object visible HAS form.  The form may be quite irregular, or even be dynamic, meaning it is in constant change.  Doesn't matter.  Every object HAS form, so "formless" isn't even rational.

Then, the ONLY other verses that contain "tohu wabohu" are in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.

In both verses, the context is about the land being destroyed, and "tohu wabohu" is the description of the condition of the land after it's destruction.  So those 2 words cannot be a part of original creation.

Here is how "tohu" is translated by various English translations in Gen 1:2 -

Gen 1:2 - formless

1 Sam 12:21 - futile things NASB ISB, useless NIV, worthless Christian Standard Bible

Job 26:7 - desolation literal standard version, waste place Aramaic Bible in Plan English

Isa 34:11 -  chaos NIV Berean Standard Bible, confusion ESV KJV ASV, desolation NASB,

Isa 45:18 - waste place NASB Christian Standard Bible ASV ERV JPS Tanakh, chaos ISV NRSV

Isa 45:19 - wasteland NASB Berean Standard Bible Christian Standard Bible, chaos ISV

Isa 59:4 - confusion (empty words) NASB Legacy Standard Bible, worthless words Christian Standard Bible

Jer 4:23 - formless ISV, waste ASV ERV JPS Tank NAB NET NRSV New Heart English Bible World English Bible Youngs Literal Translation, chaos Aramaic Bible in Plain English

So I'm not making anything up.  

Further, if the standard translation (ST) of Gen 1:1,2 are correct, there is a glaring contradiction with isa 45:18.

ST:  In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and earth, v.2 and the earth was "tohu".  

But Isa 45:18 says "God did NOT create (bara) the earth "tohu".

So, take your pick as to which verse you want to believe.  But they are clearly in contradiction.

31 minutes ago, MichaelSnow said:

But, YES, there is an undetermined period of time between v. 1 and v. 3. Many 'Bible believers' seem to be oblivious to the context and falsely equate, "let there be light" with "In the beginning."

This is NOT, however, the imaginative "Gap Theory"

https://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/creation-young-earth-ham-nye-genesis-one/

OK, so you believe thtere is an undetermined period of time between v.1 and 2.  But you reject a gap of time.  Do you understand that you have contradicted yourself.

If there IS an "undetermined period of time" between verses, THAT means there is a GAP of time.

Since you mentioned "theory", I agree.  We have no information from the Bible as to what may have occurred during that indeterminant gap of time, so WHATEVER people suggest as what may have happened IS a theory only.

I reject all theories since we simply don't know what happened.  God didn't give us that information.

Edited February 7 by FreeGrace

[MichaelSnow]

Well, no translation uses "Became" nor any standard conservative, evangelical commentary on Genesis.

But what do they know?

This is all just a bunch of fancy footwork to promote an unbiblical view.

And an unknown period of time between verse 1 and verse 2 Does NOT = the unbiblical "Gap Theory" sprung from men's imaginations, not from Holy Scripture.

Edited February 8 by MichaelSnow

[RV_Wizard]

6 hours ago, MichaelSnow said:

This is all just a bunch of fancy footwork to promote an unbiblical view.

Indeed.  Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

I would add that also coal, oil, lithium, silicon, and everything else we have found to be mined from the earth was prepared in the earth at the time of its creation.  That's why there are no fossil fuels.  Fossils came later.  No dead plant or animal ever became sweet crude.  Natural oil seeps are as old as our recorded history, so this resource was shown to man from the beginning.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, MichaelSnow said:

Well, no translation uses "Became" nor any standard conservative, evangelical commentary on Genesis.

But what do they know?

This is all just a bunch of fancy footwork to promote an unbiblical view.

And an unknown period of time between verse 1 and verse 2 Does NOT = the unbiblical "Gap Theory" sprung from men's imaginations, not from Holy Scripture.

Those who do a thorough search of the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb used in Gen 1:2  for "was" will find that there are a number of verses throughout Scripture that translate that exact same form as "became" or "become".  And I gave an example of where "was" ALSO means "became" in context.  Just because God didn't give us any context doesn't mean nothing happened.  He did give us enough to understand that something SURE DID happen and resulted in the earth being "tohu wabohu".  

Those 2 words are the real key to understanding v.2.  They occur together only 2 more times, Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  In both of those contexts, the 2 Hebrew words are used to describe the destruction of the land.  So there is NO WAY those 2 words could be used to describe original creation.  Unless one is simply irrational.

My previous post gave how various translations treated "tohu".  Might  want to take a look at that.

And, the Septuagint, a Greek translation from the Hebrew OT, starts the verse with a conjuction of contrast, "but", and translates "tohu" as "chaotic".

If you are comfortable using "chaotic" for God's creative hand for original creation, I hope you can sleep at night.

There is plenty enough evidence to understand that something caused the earth to become a wasteland and God restored it in 6 days.

And none of this negatively effects anything in Scripture.

It seems the main reason YECs are so adamant about defending a young earth is their inability to grasp that an old earth does not demand or even suggest evolution.  

If you could get past that hurdle, there would be no other problems.  But when seeing "old earth" and thinking 'evolution', there seems to be brain freeze.

Too many YECs are emotionally attached to a young earth, just because of how Gen 1:2 was translated.  But when comparing Hebrew words from v.2 with how they are translated elsewhere in the OT, a different picture emerges.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Indeed.  Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

How come you  haven't answered my question about who this passage is really describing?  Yes, King of Tyre is mentioned at the beginning, but he was NEVER "in Eden the garden of God".  So who does that verse refer to?