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

[dad2]

5 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

My faith is in what the literal Hebrew, which was written by Moses, says.  Which is NOT what most English translated reflect.

No, your story lies in making stuff up about day one, and calling that some restoring of something you have no clue about. Something also that makes the creation of God in six days a lie in your mind.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

From the literal Hebrew there is a very obvious time gap between v.1 and 2, which you reject. 

False.

Your opinion is.  Because it's based solely on an English translation, rather than the literal Hebrew.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

God gave us the six days of creation, you harp on one where no details are given and try to hammer that to fit your science beliefs.

Harp?  Really.  It is a simple fact that God didn't give any details.  But the literal Hebrew is clear that the earth became something that it wasn't created as, whether you can understand that or not.

And, the lousy English translations conflict with Isa 45:18 directly.

English:  v.1 God created (bara) the earth v.2 and the earth was tohu (formless)

Isa 45:18  God did NOT create (bara) the earth tohu (formless)

Really doesn't matter how "tohu" is translated, but whatever word is used must be the same in both verses.  

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Before it was formed into land and water with light and all that He created after, it would look desolate. Big deal

Doesn't matter what you think is a big deal.  What does matter to me is what the literal Hebrew says.  And I have proved what it means, by comparing the words as used elsewhere in the OT.  

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

It actually became inhabitable after He continued to speak things into being that way. Of course if it was already perfect and inhabitable on day one the other 5 days were not needed. But they were. We have the record and we know that record is true. We are to correct science with the bible, not correct the bible with science.

I'm not correcting the Bible with science.  How silly.  I haven't said how old the earth is.  I don't care how old it is.   What I do know from the literal Hebrew of v.2 is that it is way older than Adam.  And you haven't proven otherwise, because you can't.

All you've got is an English translation that is contradicted by the literal Hebrew.

[FreeGrace]

3 minutes ago, dad2 said:

FreeGrace said: 

The literal Hebrew of v.2 is clear that God performed a restoration on a destroyed earth, which took 6 days.

Not even remotely close to the truth.

How would you know what is the truth, since you have no interest in the literal Hebrew?

3 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Creation is not a restoration project from some made up mystery destruction of what He created.

Of course it isn't.  And the Bible shows the difference.  Isa 45:18 SAYS that God DID NOT CREATE the eath tohu.  Not difficult to figure out.

But you can keep your opinion that God did create the earth tohu.  Not my problem.

[FreeGrace]

3 minutes ago, dad2 said:

No, your story lies in making stuff up about day one, and calling that some restoring of something you have no clue about. Something also that makes the creation of God in six days lie in your mind.

Since you rejecrt the literal Hebrew, there's no point in providing facts.  Your mind has already been made up.  

Those who don't want facts, because their mind has already been made up, are unteachable.

You'll know the truth in eternity.

[dad2]

Quote

Your opinion is.  Because it's based solely on an English translation, rather than the literal Hebrew.

False. I do not ignore the fact that the world was not inhabited or inhabitable on the first day of creation. Many words might describe that. You idea that some sort of mystery civilization used to exist and was then destroyed (or whatever vague fairy tale is in your head) is wholly made up and opposes the rest of the bible.

Quote

I'm not correcting the Bible with science.  How silly.  I haven't said how old the earth is.  I don't care how old it is.

You do care if you believe the old ages from so called science. When you declare the world to be more than 5 days older than Adam, you have opposed Scripture.

Another thing suspicious about your mystery religion is how you try to appear as not caring what science says. It is also a red flag when people invent a mystery planet full of mystery beings that mysteriously get destroyed for some mysterious reason smack in the middle of creation week!

[dad2]

7 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 

Quote

How would you know what is the truth, since you have no interest in the literal Hebrew?

You don't get to hide behind Hebrew. The words all fit how the earth was while still dark and without it's present land and etc.

Quote

Of course it isn't.  And the Bible shows the difference.  Isa 45:18 SAYS that God DID NOT CREATE the eath tohu.  Not difficult to figure out.

But you can keep your opinion that God did create the earth tohu.  Not my problem.

The whole six days are creation. You ignore 5 of them, and try to misapply that verse to day one only.

[dad2]

8 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Since you rejecrt the literal Hebrew, there's no point in providing facts.  Your mind has already been made up.  

Those who don't want facts, because their mind has already been made up, are unteachable.

You'll know the truth in eternity.

The facts are what God said, not some inserted long ages and mystery civilization and destruction of the world in creation week.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

I said:

It's based solely on an English translation, rather than the literal Hebrew.

I do not ignore the fact that the world was not inhabited or inhabitable on the first day of creation.

You've mocked and sneered at what the literal Hebrew says.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

Many words might describe that. You idea that some sort of mystery civilization used to exist and was then destroyed (or whatever vague fairy tale is in your head) is wholly made up and opposes the rest of the bible.

Would YOU please stop with the fairy tales.  I never even suggested a 'mystery civilization', so quit putting words in my mouth.  That's not even honest.  You can do better than that.  Or maybe not.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

You do care if you believe the old ages from so called science.

Read what I post.  I don't care what science measures.  I care what the Bible says.  And there was obviously a time gap between v.1 and v.2.  How long?  Don't know.  God didn't tell us.  Or any other detail.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

When you declare the world to be more than 5 days older than Adam, you have opposed Scripture.

No, I have opposed a lousy English translation.  And you are ignoring the literal Hebrew.  

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

Another thing suspicious about your mystery religion is how you try to appear as not caring what science says.

Why are you bringing a "mystery religion" into the discussion.  I've already told you what I believe and religion has nothing to do with what the literal Hebrew says.

And Christianity is NOT a religion.  But maybe you didn't even know that.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

It is also a red flag when people invent a mystery planet full of mystery beings that mysteriously get destroyed for some mysterious reason smack in the middle of creation week!

You sure like to over use the word "mystery".  

The real mystery is why you are so unable of understanding the literal Hebrew.  Or you just don't like it because it doesn't match your dogma.

Either way, doesn't matter to me one bit.  I've proved what the literal Hebrew means and backed it up with how the words are used elsewhere.

If you don't like the facts, that's your business.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

I said:

How would you know what is the truth, since you have no interest in the literal Hebrew?

You don't get to hide behind Hebrew.

That's a good one.  But real silly.  I'm not hiding from anything.  I'm revealing what the literal Hebrew says, which you don't like.  Well, you'll have to take that up with Moses sometimes.  He is the author.  He didn't write any English translation.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

The words all fit how the earth was while still dark and without it's present land and etc.

The literal Hebrew all fit of an earth that became a mess.  So God restored it.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

The whole six days are creation. You ignore 5 of them, and try to misapply that verse to day one only.

I ignore your English translation because it isn't what the literal Hebrew says.

And you won't even try to refute any of my points.  Because you know you can't.  You have no ammo.

 

You can't reconcile the contradiction of the English of v.2 with Isa 45:18.

You can't reconcile that "tohu wabohu" is used twice (the only other occurrences) to describe a total destruction of the land, and ignore that and STILL try to claim that it is a legitimate description of God's feeble attempt at creating the earth.  

 

[dad2]

Quote

You've mocked and sneered at what the literal Hebrew says.

No I showed that the world was not perfect before the land appeared and there was light etc. Nothing to do with Hebrew

Quote

 I never even suggested a 'mystery civilization'

You said the earth was destroyed or some such and then restored. So are you saying that God created a world and none and nothing was on it but it gets destroyed? Be clear rather than blaming others for assuming the obvious

Quote

 I don't care what science measures.  I care what the Bible says.  And there was obviously a time gap between v.1 and v.2.

The rest of the bible shows there was no mystery gap. You claimed The world was much older than Adam, correct? That means you are trying to find old ages in the bible to align with science. Be honest