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

[dad2]

Quote

Aren't you reading my posts?  Or just skimming them and missing most of what I have been posting?  Seems that way.  I have made clear from the start that God gave NO details about what or who caused the earth to become a mess.  So your question is quite odd.  You should have known better than to ask it.

You have no clue why the earth that you think was created perfect up and became desolate and wasted. OK. You didn't think God would tell us about something that big? 

Quote

And, btw, it's not my story

Yes it is your story.

Quote

 It is what the literal Hebrew says.  As I have proven from all the verses that use "tohu" and "tohu wabohu" for destruction.

False. You have shown that you ignore some meanings and cling to others that you thought fit your story.

Quote

And there is no such thing as 'formless' anyway.

If the planetary blob has no land I would say formless is a great word.

Quote

The word "made" in that verse is 'asah' in the Hebrew and is about making something from existing materials.

He did make plenty from the newly created, existing earth. That is what is referred to. It was all part of creation.

Quote

But when God "breathed into his nose the "breath of life", that was "bara", same word in Gen 1:1.

So what, it took both! Both are part of the creation of man. And woman.

Quote

In fact, God did create (bara) in the restoration.  

Yes, He sure did. So I guess it was not already perfect and finished!

Quote

Fortunately for you, salvation is not dependent upon understanding Genesis 1.  Or you'd be in huge trouble.

One of us would.

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, dad2 said:

You have no clue why the earth that you think was created perfect up and became desolate and wasted. OK.

Of course I don't.  I've already noted that.  God didn't give any details.  

12 hours ago, dad2 said:

You didn't think God would tell us about something that big?

If it doesn't apply to man, no.  Why would or should He?  

12 hours ago, dad2 said:

Yes it is your story.

I"ve proved from how the 2 Hebrew words are used throughout the OT, and that is not my story, but God's story to man.  Which you flatly deny.

12 hours ago, dad2 said:

You have shown that you ignore some meanings and cling to others that you thought fit your story.

The denials are from you.  In the only 2 passages that have "tohu wabohu" the context is about the total destruction of land.  

12 hours ago, dad2 said:

If the planetary blob has no land I would say formless is a great word.

Why don't you comprehend that "blob" is a form??  How can you be so naive?

12 hours ago, dad2 said:

He did make plenty from the newly created, existing earth. That is what is referred to. It was all part of creation.

The literal Hebrew says differently, but you reject what Moses wrote and prefer what the less than stellar translators of the KJV wrote instead.

12 hours ago, dad2 said:

In fact, God did create (bara) in the restoration. 

Yes, He sure did. So I guess it was not already perfect and finished!

When the earth became a wasteland, as the literal Hebrew says, of course it was not perfect and did require a restoration.  How is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

12 hours ago, dad2 said:

Fortunately for you, salvation is not dependent upon understanding Genesis 1.  Or you'd be in huge trouble.

One of us would.

Of course, since I ACCEPT the literal Hebrew, unlike yourself, it wouldn't be me in trouble.  Only those who REJECT what the Bible (not some translators) says will be in trouble.  For lots of reasons.

Are you aware that you haven't provided ANY evidence to support your claims and opinions?  All you have is the translation of the KJV, which was copied by most of the English translations.

However, here are 5 that actually translated the literal Hebrew correctly.

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.

How anyone could claim that these literal Hebrew words could be used for CONSTRUCTION is beyond reason.

They indicate DESTRUCTION.  

 

That explains perfectly why Genesis 1:2ff is about restoration.

[dad2]

Quote

Of course I don't.  I've already noted that.  God didn't give any details.  

Funny He gave details of when He will destroy the world and make a new one in the future. Ever consider that the reason there are no details for the mystery gap former world is that there never was one?

Quote

If it doesn't apply to man, no.  Why would or should He?  

Why do you think that the world exists, if not (in large measure) for man? The stars and sun also! He gave us the record of beginnings for this world. How is it you imagine He left a gap so big that one could stuff billions of years and a destruction of earth in there??

Quote

The denials are from you.  In the only 2 passages that have "tohu wabohu" the context is about the total destruction of land.  

So what? Ever consider that a destroyed land might bear some similarity to a proto-planet blob with no land light or life?

Quote

Why don't you comprehend that "blob" is a form??  How can you be so naive?

I do not share your extremist view that a planet without life or land plants or animals or even light should be considered well formed and finished. You take the meaning of having form to the extreme and ridiculous level. No verse says the newly created world on the first day did not exist! It just was nothing like the world we know and was totally unsuitable for man

Quote

The literal Hebrew says differently, but you reject what Moses wrote and prefer what the less than stellar translators of the KJV wrote instead.

There are oodles of versions that say the same thing.

 

The earth was formless and empty  - NLT

Now the earth was formless and empty - NIV

And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness - NASB

 

etc etc etc

Quote

These 5 translation render “tohu” as “waste (4)/unsightly.  This cannot be applied to original creation.

How the world WAS on the first day of course can be applied.

Quote

How anyone could claim that these literal Hebrew words could be used for CONSTRUCTION is beyond reason.

The construction was over the week. Not all over afternoon tea. First one needs a foundation before one calls in the finishing carpenters! First we need a planet, before we add the continents, light, seas and life and light. The stars were not even needed that first day! They were added later! Science has a very myopic, degrading small view of mankind.

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Funny He gave details of when He will destroy the world and make a new one in the future.

Why is that funny?  Why are you arguing with God about what details He gives and what details He doesn't give?  Who are you to "talk back" to God anyway?

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Ever consider that the reason there are no details for the mystery gap former world is that there never was one?

That would be totally absurd since "tohu wabohu" is clearly a description of total destruction.

So, why do you want to claim it describes original creation?  That's the weirdness of your views.  I've proven the words are used to describe destruction throughout the OT.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Why do you think that the world exists, if not (in large measure) for man?

He created man and placed him on it.  Why else?  What are your opinions?

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

The stars and sun also! He gave us the record of beginnings for this world.

v.1 is the origin of the universe and earth.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

How is it you imagine He left a gap so big that one could stuff billions of years and a destruction of earth in there??

Why are you so bothered by lots of years?  What is your problem with that?

What you can't prove is that the earth is very young.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

 Ever consider that a destroyed land might bear some similarity to a proto-planet blob with no land light or life?

No, actually, that would be absurd.  And the 2 Hebrew words refute any concept of CONSTRUCTION.  Just the opposite:  DESTRUCTION.  Which is provable and I have done so.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

I do not share your extremist view that a planet without life or land plants or animals or even light should be considered well formed and finished.

I don't care.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

You take the meaning of having form to the extreme and ridiculous level.

Rather, I simply take it literally.  You are the extremist here with a very ridiculous argument for how anything can be formless.  If it is visible, it has form.  How is that extremist?  It's reality not extreme. 

To claim the earth was formless is unreality.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

No verse says the newly created world on the first day did not exist!

There were no "days" when God spoke the heavens and earth into existence.  So why do you keep bringing up days?  God didn't take days to create the earth.  

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

It just was nothing like the world we know and was totally unsuitable for man

Just an opinion.  No facts at all.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

The earth was formless and empty  - NLT

Now the earth was formless and empty - NIV

And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness - NASB

Here are the 5 translations that rendered tohu wabohu correctly.

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.

And I gave ALL 32 translations of Isa 34:11 that describe the total destruction of land by the 2 words "tohu wabohu".

Isa 34:11 “tohu wabohu”  same 2 words in Gen 1:2

New International Version

the measuring line of chaos and the plumb line of desolation.

New Living Translation

he will measure it for chaos and destruction.

English Standard Version

He shall stretch the line of confusion over it, and the plumb line of emptiness.

Berean Standard Bible

a measuring line of chaos and a plumb line of destruction.

King James Bible

the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.

New King James Version

The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.

New American Standard Bible

the line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.

NASB 1995

the line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.

NASB 1977

the line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.

Legacy Standard Bible

the line of utter formlessness And the plumb line of utter void.

Amplified Bible

the measuring line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.

Christian Standard Bible

a measuring line and a plumb line over her for her destruction and chaos.

Holman Christian Standard Bible

a measuring line and a plumb line over her for her destruction and chaos.

American Standard Version

the line of confusion, and the plummet of emptiness.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

a measuring cord of ruin shall be stretched upon it, and no joy will be there

Brenton Septuagint Translation

the measuring line of desolation shall be cast over it, and satyrs shall dwell in it.

Contemporary English Version

God will leave it in ruins, merely a pile of rocks.

Douay-Rheims Bible

a plummet, unto desolation.

English Revised Version

the line of confusion, and the plummet of emptiness.

GOD'S WORD® Translation

the measuring line of chaos and the plumb line of destruction over it.

Good News Translation

The LORD will make it a barren waste again, as it was before the creation.

International Standard Version

a measuring line, and chaos, and plumb lines of emptiness, and its nobles.

JPS Tanakh 1917

The line of confusion, and the plummet of emptiness.

Literal Standard Version

A line of vacancy, and stones of emptiness.

Majority Standard Bible

a measuring line of chaos and a plumb line of destruction.

New American Bible

the measuring line of chaos, the plumb line of confusion.

NET Bible

the measuring line of ruin and the plumb line of destruction.

New Revised Standard Version

the line of confusion over it, and the plummet of chaos over its nobles.

New Heart English Bible

He will stretch the line of confusion over it, and the plumb line of emptiness.

Webster's Bible Translation

the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.

World English Bible

the line of confusion over it, and the plumb line of emptiness.

Young's Literal Translation

A line of vacancy, and stones of emptiness.

Very few of these 32 translations could be used in Gen 1:2 for original creation.  All of them can be used for the destruction of land.

These translations totally REFUTE your notion that Gen 1:2 describes original creation.  Not hardly.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

The construction was over the week.

Please at least READ all the translations of Isa 34:11 and see how tohu wabohu was translated.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Not all over afternoon tea. First one needs a foundation before one calls in the finishing carpenters! First we need a planet, before we add the continents, light, seas and life and light. The stars were not even needed that first day! They were added later! Science has a very myopic, degrading small view of mankind.

What drives your fear of many years of age of the earth?  I've already rejected any part of evolution in God's creation, and even in restoration.  It is a godless theory of the origin of the universe and earth.

So what's left that drives your fear of many many years?  Why is it so repugnant to you?

[RV_Wizard]

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why don't you comprehend that "blob" is a form?

It is not.  Neither is a liquid or a gas.  Perhaps you don't know the difference between shape and form.  Water is formless.  It conforms to fill its container but has no form of its own.  The same applies to gasses.  Gasses can also appear void; ie, nearly transparent; lacking something of substance.  We learn in science that there are three primary states of matter (yes, plasma is a fourth, but not primary).  A gas can cool to liquid form and then to solid form.  It conforms perfectly with the idea the the earth began as a formless cloud that then became the land and water.  

Despite your claims, however, there is nothing in the Bible to support a restoration, or an earth gone bad.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

Why don't you comprehend that "blob" is a form?

It is not.

This is a delusional.  Haven't you ever heard the description "blob-like"?  Who doesn't understand what a "blob" of something is?  Your denial isn't reality.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Neither is a liquid or a gas.

OK, so you've never laid on the ground, looking up at clouds and identifying identifiable shapes then.  It's a common activity.  And liquids take the shape or form of whatever contains them.  So again, every object has form.  You are just grasping at straws.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Perhaps you don't know the difference between shape and form.

Perhaps I do, and even more than you, from your unreal responses.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Water is formless.

Ok.  So rain doesn't contain water DROPS, huh.  Just more unreality.  Your dogmatic and quite unreal statements are laughable.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It conforms to fill its container but has no form of its own.

Who said anything about "its own"?  You're just desperately trying to move the goalposts.  And back to a water drop.  How is that not a form.  Everyone knows what form that it.  Maybe except you.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The same applies to gasses. 

Right.  Same as for liquids.  They take the form of what contains them.  When uncontained, they are "cloud-like" and everyone, except you, maybe, knows what that form is.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Gasses can also appear void; ie, nearly transparent;

Just getting more desperate, I see.  "void" and "invisible" are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.  You are really making a bunch of stuff up here.

And "nearly transparent" ISN'T transparent.  So, if the object can be seen, it HAS form.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

lacking something of substance. 

How does that render something invisible?

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

We learn in science that there are three primary states of matter (yes, plasma is a fourth, but not primary).

From all your made up dogmatic but unreal comments here, there is a lot that you need to learn.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

A gas can cool to liquid form and then to solid form.

As long as it is visible, it will have a form.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It conforms perfectly with the idea the the earth began as a formless cloud that then became the land and water. 

No cloud is formless.  I've been over that again and again.  People spend time watching clouds to see all the various FORMS the clouds make as they pass overhead.

As to a "formless cloud becoming land and water", where did you get that from?  Certainly not the Bible.  Overactive imagination.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Despite your claims, however, there is nothing in the Bible to support a restoration, or an earth gone bad.

There is.  "tohu wabohu".  But you simply ignore the FACTS that refute your dogma.

I've proven from all the verses that have "tohu" and how the word is translated from a lot of English translations that it describes DESTRUCTION and not CONSTRUCTION.

You simply have no point or case.  Just dogma.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

No cloud is formless.  I've been over that again and again.

So you don't accept that there is a difference between shape and form.  You don't understand that there are things in this world which are formless.  You reject the definition of anything other than those you agree with.  You wish to remain in your own private bubble.

In the immortal words of Paul Simon, "All lies in jest to the man who hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

I'll leave you to your own distorted version of reality and your bizarre claims of an ancient earth that existed for millions of years without light, heat, or life.  Although, perhaps you believe the rocks were once alive.  Such would not surprise me.

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

No cloud is formless.  I've been over that again and again.

So you don't accept that there is a difference between shape and form.

I don't unless someone can prove it to me.  All you do is make claims.  No evidence.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You don't understand that there are things in this world which are formless.

Claim without evidence.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You reject the definition of anything other than those you agree with.  You wish to remain in your own private bubble.

Read what I said above.  Prove to me your claim WITH evidence.  If you have any.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In the immortal words of Paul Simon, "All lies in jest to the man who hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Well, he sure nailed YOU!!  I've given plenty of evidence of what the literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2 means and you STILL reject the truth.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I'll leave you to your own distorted version of reality and your bizarre claims of an ancient earth that existed for millions of years without light, heat, or life.  Although, perhaps you believe the rocks were once alive.  Such would not surprise me.

As long as you continue to FAIL to provide any evidence, and only give your opinions, there is no reason at all to believe what you opine.

I've given you solid evidence of what the literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2.

You need to preach your opinions in a mirror.

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I don't unless someone can prove it to me.

I gave you the quotes and the links.  Do you want me to read them to you?

Shape refers to the external outline or appearance of an object. It is the two-dimensional outline that defines the object’s boundaries. Form, on the other hand, refers to the three-dimensional structure of an object. It is the shape of an object that gives it form.  source

Gases are formless fluids that expand to occupy the space or enclosure in which they are confined.

It has been proved.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've given plenty of evidence of what the literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2 means

When you learn more about the English language, you will learn that when something is written in another language and then written in English, those words have been translated.  The translation is not the original language, but the English interpretation of the original language.  You claiming that your TRANSLATION is actually the original Hebrew has me wondering if you understand the difference.

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

I don't unless someone can prove it to me.

I gave you the quotes and the links.  Do you want me to read them to you?

Shape refers to the external outline or appearance of an object. It is the two-dimensional outline that defines the object’s boundaries. Form, on the other hand, refers to the three-dimensional structure of an object. It is the shape of an object that gives it form.  source

So what.  You know as well as everyone else that the words are interchangeable.  However, the Bible didn't describe the earth as "formless" anyway, so your source is irrelevant.  The point is that everything has form.  That's always been my point, which proves that "formless" isn't what Moses had in mind when he wrote Genesis.  

btw, the last sentence from your "source" is as bogus as claiming that the earth was "formless". It is actually internally contradicting.  Shape cannot give form to an object since shape is only the 2 dimentional outline of an object whereas form is the 3 dimentional structure.

So now I suppose you are going to argue that 2 and 3 dimentionals are interchangeable, huh.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Gases are formless fluids that expand to occupy the space or enclosure in which they are confined.

It has been proved.

And that was my point, so thanks.  What's in error with the statement is that since gases "occupy the space in which they are confined" they CANNOT BE formless.  They have the SAME form as the space in which they are confined.  

Everyone knows that.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

When you learn more about the English language, you will learn that when something is written in another language and then written in English, those words have been translated.

Dang!!!!!!!!  Well, I'll beeeeee!!!!!  Who knew?  You must be smart, or something, to know all that.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The translation is not the original language, but the English interpretation of the original language.  You claiming that your TRANSLATION is actually the original Hebrew has me wondering if you understand the difference.

No, the only real problem here is your failure to understand what the Hebrew words mean throughout the OT.  And I've shown you how tohu wabohu is translated everywhere else.

But you prefer a non existent word, formless, rather than simply accept the words translated by all the English translations elsewhere in the Bible.

And since both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 are the ONLY other occurrences of the 2 Hebrew words, and the context CLEARLY indicates the total destruction of land, your refusal to accept that FACT and continue to believe that "tohu wabohu" can be used to describe the earth as God "began His creation".  Balderdash.

God simply spoke the earth into existence.  He didn't speak an irregularly shaped/formed blob of stuff into existence and then work on it, as you fantasize.

Your view is refuted at the translation "formless" which is non reality.  And I've shown how many verses translate "tohu" as "waste/chaos/desolation/etc", so you have no excuse.