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

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

the Bible didn't describe the earth as "formless" anyway,

It said "without form."

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

They have the SAME form as the space in which they are confined.

Gases conform to the form of their container because they lack form of their own.  You may not like the definition, but your approval is not required.

 

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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

As I demonstrated, the word Formless is not only an actual word, but an actual state of matter. 

Not a single one of your definitions included the word "became."  Became requires a previous state of being.  However, no such previous state is mentioned in the Bible.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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.

Beginning as a molten or gaseous state and then cooling and solidifying is consistent with the natural properties of matter.  The notion that somehow the earth existed, flourished and fell into discord previous to the existence of anything else in the universe is quite simply nonsense.

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

the Bible didn't describe the earth as "formless" anyway,

It said "without form."

Gases conform to the form of their container because they lack form of their own.

So you think 'formless' and 'without form' mean different things??

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You may not like the definition, but your approval is not required.

Of course i don't need your approval.  But by your definition, gases that ARE contained "to the FORM' of their container HAVE form.  So thanks again for proving my point.

If a gas is invisible, then we can't see it and therefore cannot describe what form it takes.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As I demonstrated, the word Formless is not only an actual word, but an actual state of matter.

When will you provide a reasonable example?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Not a single one of your definitions included the word "became."

What I did prove is that the exact same form of the verb in Gen 1:2 IS translated as "became" elsewhere in the OT.  Why isn't that enough for you?  

In fact, no amount of evidence or proof will be enough for you because your mind is already made up and you don't want the facts.

And I proved that "was" and "became" can be synonymous with an example.

Mary WAS the wife of Joseph.

Mary BECAME the wife of Joseoph.

You're steamed just because God didn't give any details as to how or why the earth became a mess.

But the really big deal here is your irrational rejection of the FACT that "tohu wabohu" is only used for DESTRUCTION elsewhere in the OT.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Became requires a previous state of being.

No kidding!!

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  However, no such previous state is mentioned in the Bible.

How many times do I have to point out that God didn't give any details.  

However, the words "tohu wabohu" in themselves clearly indicate that the earth became something it wasn't created as.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Beginning as a molten or gaseous state and then cooling and solidifying is consistent with the natural properties of matter.

God is omnipotent.  He is way more than able to speak things into existence.  He certainly doesn't need to build things in stages, etc.  He gets the final PRODUCE immediately by merely speaking it into existence.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The notion that somehow the earth existed, flourished and fell into discord previous to the existence of anything else in the universe is quite simply nonsense.

Not for those who are objective enough to realize how "tohu wabohu" are used throughout the OT;  for DESCTRUTION.

Your view of how God creates is very strange.

[RV_Wizard]

On 3/10/2024 at 7:27 AM, FreeGrace said:

So you think 'formless' and 'without form' mean different things??

No, I corrected your verbiage.

On 3/10/2024 at 7:27 AM, FreeGrace said:

gases that ARE contained "to the FORM' of their container HAVE form.  

No, the container has form.

On 3/10/2024 at 7:27 AM, FreeGrace said:

If a gas is invisible, then we can't see it

Thus the word "void".

On 3/10/2024 at 7:27 AM, FreeGrace said:

Mary WAS the wife of Joseph.

Mary BECAME the wife of Joseph.

Not the same.  Was is a previous state of being.  Became is an action.  She became his wife when they were married.  She was his wife after she became his wife.

On 3/10/2024 at 7:27 AM, FreeGrace said:

How many times do I have to point out that God didn't give any details.

Why would God give details on things that never happened?
 

On 3/10/2024 at 7:27 AM, FreeGrace said:

He certainly doesn't need to build things in stages,

Job 38:

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

20Th at thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, I corrected your verbiage.

No you didn't.  Your post insinuated they are different.  Go back and read it.

6 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, the container has form.

And that means whatever it is containing as the SAME FORM.  Are you really unable to grasp this very simple concept.

6 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Thus the word "void".

I don't have a problem with that word.  It's "tohu" that you won't admit.

6 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Was is a previous state of being.  Became is an action.  She became his wife when they were married.  She was his wife after she became his wife.

Nice word salad.  The 2 sentences I gave mean the same thing.  No woman is born being a wife.  They BECOME a wife.  

6 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Why would God give details on things that never happened?

You'll just have to ask Him.  Maybe because none of it pertains to us humans.  Doesn't matter.  Tohu is clear about becoming a waste.  I've proved that with so many verses that show what it means elsewhere in Scripture.  Plus, the translation "formless" is just stupid.  No such thing.

6 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Job 38:

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

20Th at thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

Now show me with specific verse numbers where it contradicts anything I've said.

[RV_Wizard]

35 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

No you didn't.  Your post insinuated they are different.  

I question your comprehension skills if  thought that.  The Bible says "without form and void."  Without form means formless.  Had you said "And darkness was on the left shoulder of the deep," I would have reminded you that darkness was on the face of the deep.

38 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

And that means whatever it is containing as the SAME FORM.  Are you really unable to grasp this very simple concept.

Science and the English language would disagree, but then, you already knew that.  You can shape water by enclosing it in a box, but remove one panel and see if it retains that form.

42 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

It's "tohu" that you won't admit.

Tohu is what you eat when you don't like meat.  I read and speak English.  God said He created the heavens and the earth in six days.  I believe Him.  You don't.  That's on you.

44 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

They BECOME a wife.  

At their wedding they become a wife.  Became is an intransitive verb.  Was is a past tense third-person singular verb.

51 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Now show me with specific verse numbers where it contradicts anything I've said.

God is telling Job that he wasn't there.  Who is he to tell God anything about the creation?  You weren't there either, yet you accuse God of misrepresenting the creation in Exodus 20:11; as if He was covering up for the embarrassment of having made a defective planet at first.  It's not only bad theology, it's false teaching.

[FreeGrace]

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I question your comprehension skills if  thought that. 

Why would I care what you question?  Doesn't matter.  You have distorted the meaning of Gen 1:2 and rejected the FACTS.  

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Bible says "without form and void."

And here's where your DISTORTION begins.  No, the Bible NEVER said "w/o form and void".  You have elevated a poor translation to the level of God's own innerant Word.

Moses wrote "tohu wabohu".  And I showed how the 2 words were used in texts where they described the total destruction of land.  Now, why does that keep flying over your head?  

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Without form means formless. 

And even that is meaningless because it doesn't exist in reality.

The ONLY time it is used correctly is in a comparison way.  If an object that normally has a certain form which identifies that object, is missing, one could say the object is "formless", but that only means the object lacks what is normally there.

I wonder if you can understand this.  I've given an example that illustrates it, but you never address it.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Had you said "And darkness was on the left shoulder of the deep," I would have reminded you that darkness was on the face of the deep.

And I never said anything stupid.  

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Science and the English language would disagree, but then, you already knew that.  You can shape water by enclosing it in a box, but remove one panel and see if it retains that form.

Of course when any part of the containing item is changed, the form changes as well.  Everyone knows that, but maybe not you.  

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Tohu is what you eat when you don't like meat.

Are you serious??  Are you an adult?  Have you been following ANYTHING I've said?

The word "tohu" is the literal Hebrew found in Gen 1:2 and throughout the OT, and MOSTLY translated quite negatively, as you've seen already, unless you really blow off every post you disagree with.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  I read and speak English.

And, shock of all shocks, Moses never wrote in English.  He used Hebrew.  So I guess you're trying to excuse yourself from understanding anything in the Bible, since no part of the Bible was written in English.

Apparently you are just out of luck.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  God said He created the heavens and the earth in six days.  I believe Him.  You don't.  That's on you.

No, He never said that.  Gen 1:1 says "God created the heavens and earth".  Period.  No time limit.  Psa 33:6,9 says God spoke everything into existence.  Again, no time period.

Gen 1:2 tells us in the Hebrew that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  But you don't like those words.  Even though they are in English.  

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

At their wedding they become a wife.  Became is an intransitive verb.  Was is a past tense third-person singular verb.

yada yada.  So what?  point is that "was" and "became" can be synonymous.  Get used to it.  It is a fact, as I proved.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

God is telling Job that he wasn't there.  Who is he to tell God anything about the creation?

In fact, no one was there, except God and angels.  And they aren't giving any details.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You weren't there either, yet you accuse God of misrepresenting the creation in Exodus 20:11

This is a very reckless and stupid statement.  I've never accused God of anything.  What in the world is going on (or off) in your brain?

You are the one doing that.  Ex 20:11 doesn't use "bara" which means creation from nothing, or "ex nihilo".  It uses "asah" which means to make from existing materials.  And I've already explained all that, but it is clear that nothing is getting through to you.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

as if He was covering up for the embarrassment of having made a defective planet at first.  It's not only bad theology, it's false teaching.

You have proved beyond doubt that you are simply unteachable.  There is no "theology" in the fact that God restored the earth.  It's clear from Gen 1:2, but facts just aren't penetrating your skull.

The false teaching is that the earth is 6 days older than Adam.

The literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2 proves that it is way older than Adam.  Simple fact.

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

No, the Bible NEVER said "w/o form and void".

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. KJV

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep. NIV

The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. NLT

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.  ESV

Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. BSB

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. New KJV

It goes on and on, so I guess that means you just lied, doesn't it? 

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And I never said anything stupid.  

Oh, let me count the ways.... but I won't.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Are you serious??

As serious as this idiocy you are pushing as Scriptural.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Moses never wrote in English.  He used Hebrew.

Hebrew scholars properly translated it.  However, it didn't allow for an ancient earth you you made up your own translation.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

point is that "was" and "became" can be synonymous.

Not in the English language they cannot.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Ex 20:11 doesn't use "bara" which means creation from nothing, or "ex nihilo".  

God created the earth and made life from the elements of the earth over a six day period.  God said, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”  He didn't say it was an urban renewal project because of faulty maintenance.

You obviously are so dedicated to the notion of an old earth that you cannot be educated.

 

[FreeGrace]

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

No, the Bible NEVER said "w/o form and void".

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. KJV

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep. NIV

The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. NLT

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.  ESV

Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. BSB

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. New KJV

It goes on and on, so I guess that means you just lied, doesn't it? 

Oh, let me count the ways.... but I won't.

So you don't know the difference between the original Hebrew and translations into other languages.  Weird.  I've sure explained it to you.

You have put faulty English translations ABOVE the literal Hebrew.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As serious as this idiocy you are pushing as Scriptural.

I've proven what the literal Hebrew says.  And why would the translators of the LXX render "tohu" in Gen 1:2 as "unsightly" if all Moses meant was "without form".  How is that unsightly?  They got much closer to the real meaning than ANY translation that uses "formless" which doesn't even exist.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Hebrew scholars properly translated it.

The LXX ones got much closer to "destruction" than ANY English translation did who used "formless".  Just brainless.  Probably like you, because God didn't give any details, they just made the BAD decision to ignore the implications of destruction so they came up with the bogus "formless".

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  However, it didn't allow for an ancient earth you you made up your own translation.

No one know how long the earth was in existence before v.2.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

point is that "was" and "became" can be synonymous.

Not in the English language they cannot.

I've already proven that they can be.  And I'll be happy to do so again.

Mary WAS the wife of Joseph.

Mary BECAME the wife of Joseph.

Both sentences mean the same thing.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

God created the earth and made life from the elements of the earth over a six day period.

Doesn't say that.

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  God said, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”  He didn't say it was an urban renewal project because of faulty maintenance.

Oh, that verse again??  The word "made" in the verse is "asah" and is used for creating or making something from EXISTING materials.  Kapeche?

If that verse had "bara" instead, Moses would have been describing original creation.  And you can't prove your weird theory that Moses meant what you keep claiming he meant.  

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You obviously are so dedicated to the notion of an old earth that you cannot be educated.

See?  That's your problem.  You're full of assumptions, and you have no evidence for the English translation.  You support it ONLY BECAUSE it indicates a young earth.

However, I've proven that "formless" cannot work in v.2, because there is nothing to compare the earth with.  And I've proven that tohu wabohu cannot describe original creation.

AND, Isa 45:18 says that God DID NOT create the earth TOHU, yet you continue to claim that God did, because of your flawed English translation of Gen 1:1,2.

Every fact is against what you believe.  

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So you don't know the difference between the original Hebrew and translations into other languages.

Earth to FreeGrace.  English and original Hebrew are completely different languages.  A translation is required.

8 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The LXX ones got much closer to "destruction" than ANY English translation did who used "formless".  Just brainless.

Don't call yourself brainless, you're just deluded.  As I explained in the other thread, both Jeremiah and Isaiah were describing visions, and Jeremiah specifically quoted Genesis to liken his view of the destruction to the original state of creation.  The words are the same because Jeremiah and Isaiah quoted Genesis, not because of some mythological pre-existence to the earth.  Jesus also quoted Genesis.

8 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You support it ONLY BECAUSE it indicates a young earth.

You have that sideways.  I believe in a young earth because that's what the Bible teaches.  I DON'T believe in a restoration because it's NOT what the Bible teaches, and because it's the stupidest thing I've every heard.

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

So you don't know the difference between the original Hebrew and translations into other languages.

Earth to FreeGrace.  English and original Hebrew are completely different languages.  A translation is required.

<sigh>  Why do I even try?  Always missing the point, it seems.  You think the translations that you favor are exactly what the original means.  So you don't know the difference.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Don't call yourself brainless, you're just deluded.

otoh, you are free to say that in a mirror.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  As I explained in the other thread, both Jeremiah and Isaiah were describing visions

And I refuted both of your "sources".  They are as deluded as you are.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

and Jeremiah specifically quoted Genesis to liken his view of the destruction to the original state of creation.

And here is more proof or evidence of your complete confusion.  You still believe that God isn't "all that" and when He creates, it begins as a mess.  So He has to keep fiddling with everything until it is "good".  What hogwash.

The Bible says God spoke everything into existence, but you opine that He did it in stages, and the initial stage was pretty messy;  "unsightly, confusion, desolation, etc".  Unbelievable.  I have much more faith that God never makes anything unsightly or confused.  So we are quite different on that point.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The words are the same because Jeremiah and Isaiah quoted Genesis, not because of some mythological pre-existence to the earth.  Jesus also quoted Genesis.

No, neither quoted Genesis 1:2.  But both DID use the same 2 Hebrew words to describe what the context SHOWS as total destruction of the land.

And yet you still want to ascribe such a description to original creation.  That isn't rational or logical.

I gave you ALL 32 English translations on biblehub.com for Isa 34:11, and only 1 used "formlessness".  ALL the others used descriptions of DESTRUCTION.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You have that sideways.  I believe in a young earth because that's what the Bible teaches.

Only if you accept the KJV and all who copied it.  I went to the original Hebrew to determine what the words mean in other verses throughout the OT.

Are you aware that "tohu" occurs 10x in the OT?

Genesis 1:2
NAS: The earth was formless and void,

1 Samuel 12:21
NAS: futile things which

Job 26:7
NAS: over empty space And hangs

Isaiah 24:10
NAS: The city of chaos is broken down;
KJV: The city of confusion is broken down:

Isaiah 34:11 Describes the total destruction of the land
NAS: it the line of desolation And the plumb line
KJV: upon it the line of confusion, and the stones

Isaiah 44:9
NAS: are all of them futile, and their precious things
KJV: a graven image [are] all of them vanity; and their delectable things

Isaiah 45:18   Directly contradicts Gen 1:2 usual translation
NAS: it [and] did not create it a waste place, [but] formed
KJV: it, he created it not in vain, he formed

Isaiah 45:19
NAS: Seek Me in a waste place; I, the LORD,
KJV: Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD

Isaiah 59:4
NAS: They trust in confusion and speak
KJV: they trust in vanity, and speak

Jeremiah 4:23   Describes the total destruction of the land by an invading army
NAS: and behold, [it was] formless and void;
KJV: the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void;

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.

You can do what you want with these words, like ignoring or rejecting them as you have been doing.  Doesn't matter.  Truth is truth.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  I DON'T believe in a restoration because it's NOT what the Bible teaches, and because it's the stupidest thing I've every heard.

What have you proved?  Nothing.  The Bible doesn't say what the KJ translation says.  And I proved that.  You are free to go about your business clueless, or worse, rejecting what Moses meant by what he wrote.

You are just desperate to defend your young earth theory at the expense of the truth.  

And for no reason.  

There is no problem with a very old earth.  It changes nothing in the Bible.  Your only defense is Ex 20:11 and I refuted that by the FACT that Moses used "asah" for "made" rather than "bara" for create as in Gen 1:1.

That's all the proof one needs to understand that Ex 20:11 isn't talking about original creation.

Edited March 14, 2024 by FreeGrace