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

[Indentured Servant]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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

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.

Everything that I've been shown conforms with Scripture. I specifically asked that He allow me the ability to "share his thoughts." 

Incidentally, I never said that I believe the earth was "unknown millions" of years old. I absolutely believe it is less than 10,000 years old. There is research conducted by Canadian and Russian scientists that dates this planet's age as such, and no older.

[Indentured Servant]

...

 

Edited April 6 by Indentured Servant
.

[Indentured Servant]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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

I only meant that it was in response to something previously stated. I assumed people would read it.

If I thought this was a "debate ONLY" forum, I would have withheld my submission to this topic, as I have previously indicated that I am (attempting to) back out of this conversation. It was obviously an error to post something that violated anyone's doctrinal upbringing.

will you, and others, allow me to excuse myself from this conversation? Please...

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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.

There is no reason to consider "the physical characteristics of matter", since we know what the Bible says about creation.  And there is nothing inherent in the "physical characteristics of matter" that speak of how the matter came to be.

The Bible says God spoke things into existence, per Psa 33:6,9.  He is omnipotent, therefore is fully ABLE to speak everything into existence without having to do it in steps, or by processes.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  That seems to fit the notion of being "without form and void."

Except the Hebrew doesn't say that.  And reality doesn't permit any object being "without form", as has been thoroughly proven.  If you can see an object, you are seeing a 3 dimensional object.  And you quoted a source that defined what is a shape and what is a form.  Might want that bullet in your foot looked at.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Did God need to do it that way?  No.  Does the Bible specifically say He formed the earth that way?  No, but it fits.

Wrong.  It totally DOESN'T fit the Hebrew.  The Hebrew poorly translated as "without form" is translated quite differently in the other 9 verses where it occurs:

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.

I've given the verses before.  Want to see them again?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 What doesn't fit?

The WRONG translation of "without form", that's what.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  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.

If you HAD paid attention, you would have known the truth.  God created a perfect and good earth.  Not in "absence of light, heat" lasting a long time.  The earth BECAME a wasteland which God didn't provide any details of why or how.  So God restored the earth for man's use, which is where v.2 begins.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Dry land itself didn't come about until day three of the creation, when trees bearing fruit, grasses and herbs appeared on the land.

From v.2ff, is about the restoration.  Creation was immediate, as Psa 33:6 and 9 clearly indicate.

[FreeGrace]

7 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

will you, and others, allow me to excuse myself from this conversation? Please...

You do not need anyone's permission to leave.  

[RV_Wizard]

6 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

I have previously indicated that I am (attempting to) back out of this conversation. It was obviously an error to post something that violated anyone's doctrinal upbringing.

Backing out of the conversation is as easy as not posting.  As far as the "doctrinal upbringing," though, I was always told that the earth was very old.  My mom would have been considered an old earth creationist.  She didn't dispute the Bible, but there were many things she didn't understand.  When I read the Bible I was looking for things that would align with my beliefs, like many do here.  The difference is I wouldn't take fractions of verses out of context to justify my beliefs, like some here do.  Consequently I eventually became convinced that there is no support for long ages in the Bible.

We all have opinions here.  We use the facts as we know them to support our opinions.  That constitutes discussion or debate.  It's a healthy exchange of viewpoints based on information.  Demanding that your opinion is the only one is more like teaching.  When that doesn't align with what the Bible says, it's false teaching.  I am always open to discuss my opinions, but when people deliberately misrepresent the Bible I find that annoying.  I support the Bible as the infallible word of God.  I believe in the King James version.  I've seen way too many changes in the newer versions to trust them.  For example, many don't call Jesus the only begotten son of God.  One version called Jesus God's "unique" son.  We're ALL God's unique children.  So what sets Jesus apart?  One version completely removes all mention of Shoel because the managing editor didn't like the idea.

So stay or go as you please.  There are things that interest us and thing which do not.  There is no sense wasting time with the do nots.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

There are things that interest us and thing which do not.  There is no sense wasting time with the do nots.

You have been clear about what interests you and what does not.  You are interested only in translations of Gen 1:2 that agree with the KJV, and you reject any that have a different meaning for "tohu wabohu".

Here are the 10 verses that have "tohu" alone, and "tohu" with "wabohu".

kJV for all 10 occurrences of “tohu"

Gen 1:2 - without form and void  “tohu wabohu”

1 Sam 12:21 - vain

Job 26:7 - empty, nothing

Isa 24:10 - confusion

Isa 34:11 - confusion and emptiness  “tohu wabohu”

Isa 44:9 - futile

Isa 45:18,19 - in vain and in vain

Isa 59:4 - in vanity

Jer 4:23 - without form and void

How do the words "vain", "confusion", "futile" and "in vain" apply to original creation?  Can you explain this?

Here are the 5 verses that correctly translate Gen 1:2 -

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.

I'm interested in the truth.  Not translations that are not supported in the rest of Scripture.

[RV_Wizard]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Except the Hebrew doesn't say that.  And reality doesn't permit any object being "without form", as has been thoroughly proven.

Actually, almost all translations affirm the the Hebrew verbiage said just that.  New age revisionism does not equal truth.  All you've really proven is that you don't like the word "formless" and pretend that it doesn't exist; or that formlessness does not exist.  Despite seeing the actual definition and examples of formless things, you cling to your denial like you cling to your old earth gap heresy.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 God created a perfect and good earth.  Not in "absence of light, heat" lasting a long time.  The earth BECAME a wasteland which God didn't provide any details of why or how.

Give it a rest.  You claim that Genesis one is about the mythical restoration, but dry land didn't even exist until day three.  Light came about AFTER the earth was "without form and void," meaning there was no light, no heat, no dry land, no atmosphere and no life.  How could it have been a perfect and good earth when there was no dry earth on earth?

Gap theory makes no sense whatever.  It's about a crazy as pretending that water vapor or gas clouds have form.  Oh, wait.  In your world, form and shape are synonyms.  I keep forgetting I live in the world of reality and you live in a delirium of your own manufacture.

 

[Diaste]

On 12/10/2023 at 5:05 PM, FreeGrace said:

This supports an undetermined time gap between 1:1 and 1:2.

I agree.

On 12/10/2023 at 5:05 PM, FreeGrace said:

 

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

 

Wait, I thought it was undetermined. Now it supports a long duration?

If undetermined it's from a nanosecond to eternity of duration. 

I mean, fell free to fill the gap with whatever you wish, just let it be known it's bored speculation, not some profound discovery or important revelation. 

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Actually, almost all translations affirm the the Hebrew verbiage said just that.

No, they only affirm their own laziness, by simply copying what the KJV did.  And I have proved that by showing you all the verses that contain the key Hebrew words and how they are translated elsewhere.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  New age revisionism does not equal truth.

Never did.  But the literal Hebrew isn't new age.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  All you've really proven is that you don't like the word "formless" and pretend that it doesn't exist

lol.  Said the guy who quoted a source that defined a shape as 2 dimensional and a form as 3 dimensional, which DOES prove my point that every object HAS form.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

or that formlessness does not exist.

Yet, you cannot prove it does.  All you have is your imagination and bias.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Despite seeing the actual definition and examples of formless things

When did you do that?  Never.  Try again.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 You claim that Genesis one is about the mythical restoration, but dry land didn't even exist until day three. 

There's that bias of yours getting in the way of thinking.  All 6 days were about restoration.  Why haven't you addressed Heb 11:3 yet?  The Greek word actually means 'restoration' and the verse refers to Genesis 1.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Light came about AFTER the earth was "without form and void,"

If there is an earth, there is no 'formlessness'.  Impossible.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Gap theory makes no sense whatever.

Just because you can't seem to figure it out doesn't mean it isn't real.  It's your bias that has gotten in the way of understanding.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It's about a crazy as pretending that water vapor or gas clouds have form.

How many times do I have to remind you of reality??  Can you see the water vapor, or clouds?  Then you are seeing form, since both are in 3 dimensions.

In fact, as I've repeatedly reminded you, some people love lying on the grass and looking up to the sky and describing what they see as various FORMS.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Oh, wait.  In your world, form and shape are synonyms.

Only until  you shared that source which defined both, for which I am grateful.  Because your source PROVES my belief about form.  If you can see an object, you are seeing its form.

So the silly notion that the earth was EVER "formless" is pathetic.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 I keep forgetting I live in the world of reality and you live in a delirium of your own manufacture.

All delirium in this thread is the wacky notion that the earth was 'formless'.  

I've shown you every occurrence of "tohu" in the OT and you and your hopeless bias just ignore it.  Well, that doesn't make it false.  It makes your bias false.