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

[FreeGrace]

20 hours ago, enoob57 said:

This is some good scholarship on the OP
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/gap-theory/

AiG seems to equate an old earth with evolution and can't seem to dissociate the two.

And they have to ignore what the Hebrew means, as can easily been seen by reading all the verses that have "tohu" and "tohu wabohu" in them.

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Have you realized yet that 16% is a minority view?

Why would anyone use democracy to understand Scripture?  The point is that I am not the only one, as you keep insinuating.  And I've proven what Tohu means by showing you all the other verses that have it and how they are translated.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Of the versions you like, 0% mention a restoration.  There's a reason most Christians reject Gap theory.  It's wrong.

What is wrong is ignoring the very plain meaning of tohu.  Which is what you do.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I've demonstrated it, defined it and I gave examples.  Oh, but those pesky textbooks must be wrong.  They don't say what you've chosen to believe.

So give me a  clear example of an object that has no form.  You still haven't done that.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Things which are formless conform to the environment, like water, or to the influences of the wind, like gases or steam.

That's already been dealt with.  Water take the SAME FORM as the container it is in.  Duh.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

It does NOT say "God DID NOT create (bara) the earth "tohu".

OK, so you cherry pick the lame verses that render tohu as 'vain'.  OK, let's go with that word.

KJV  "in the beginning, God created the earth and the earth was vain."

Isa 45:18  "God did not create the earth in vain."

Still a contradiction.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Now then, if God formed the earth to be inhabited, why did it sit around for billions of years and fall into destruction so that it had to be restored?

Since it is obvious to alert people that God did not provide any details, all such questions are stupid.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  No matter how you try to spin it, there is no scenario in which your gap claim makes any sense at all.

Simply tohu wabohu.  Which you simply deny.

In your fantasy world of make believe, a word can mean totally different things in different verses.  That is the ONLY WAY you are able to sleep at night.

So, in your make believe word of fantasy, In Gen 1:2, tohu describes creation, or construction.

And in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, tohu describes destruction.

Balderdash.

Tohu means the same thing in EVERY verse.  That's reality.  Not your world of fantasy.

[enoob57]

15 hours ago, RdJ said:

And the first day was 24 hours in which He first created angels who were rejoicing when He laid the cornerstone after creating the heavens, then hovering over the waters, then create light, which was the day and the rest was the darkness, so He was creating angels on the evening of day one in darkness?

The Bible does not say when angels were created... the Job account specifies their existence on the forth day but dies no claim they were existing when God created the heaven and the earth...

Job 38:4-7

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;

God states no other present at creating heavens and earth ... and in verse 7 below Scripture testifies of the presence of angels on the fourth day when God created the stars-'morning stars sang together'

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV
The pattern of God in creating: He makes the place and then creates the host that will be in that place.... so staying within the example God has laid out for us in His Creation we can say after God created the place heaven then angels could have been created anywhere from then to the fourth day when they are stated as being there...

[RdJ]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

The Bible does not say when angels were created... the Job account specifies their existence on the forth day but dies no claim they were existing when God created the heaven and the earth...

Job 38:4-7

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;

God states no other present at creating heavens and earth ... and in verse 7 below Scripture testifies of the presence of angels on the fourth day when God created the stars-'morning stars sang together'

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV
The pattern of God in creating: He makes the place and then creates the host that will be in that place.... so staying within the example God has laid out for us in His Creation we can say after God created the place heaven then angels could have been created anywhere from then to the fourth day when they are stated as being there...

Oh I read that as: He laid the cornerstone and at that moment the angels sang together, because they were so happy that He created the earth. I don't read morning stars as literal stars.

Edited March 21, 2024 by RdJ

[enoob57]

28 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Oh I read that as: He laid the cornerstone and at that moment the angels sang together, because they were so happy that He created the earth. I don't read morning stars as literal stars.

then your hermeneutic is based on your assumption and not on text... God is very clear about His Word 'It is written'...

[RdJ]

15 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

then your hermeneutic is based on your assumption and not on text... God is very clear about His Word 'It is written'...

No satan and Jesus are also called a or the morning star. This text says nothing about created literal stars.

How you are fallen from heaven,
    O morning star, son of dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
    you who laid the nations low! (Isa. 14:12)

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. (Rev. 22:16)

[enoob57]

51 minutes ago, RdJ said:

No satan and Jesus are also called a or the morning star. This text says nothing about created literal stars.

The text is speaking of creation in Job... We know Jesus is The Son of God and satan is an angel and how that relates to morning star is brightness not star itself... 
Ezekiel 28:17 (KJV)

[17] Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

1 Timothy 6:15 (KJV)

[15] Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

[16] Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

 

[enoob57]

8 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

AiG seems to equate an old earth with evolution and can't seem to dissociate the two.

And they have to ignore what the Hebrew means, as can easily been seen by reading all the verses that have "tohu" and "tohu wabohu" in them.

General principle in hermeneutics: when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense... when God, Who has no beginning, narrates to Moses 'In the beginning' with no other qualifiers! Then one is left with all from this point on begins ... so anything that began followed from in the beginning...

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

General principle in hermeneutics: when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense...

I agree fully!!  The key is found in the way "tohu" and "tohu wabohu" are used elsewhere in the OT.  

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

when God, Who has no beginning, narrates to Moses 'In the beginning' with no other qualifiers! Then one is left with all from this point on begins ... so anything that began followed from in the beginning...

Since God directed Moses to describe the condition of the earth as "tohu wabohu" and one sees how they are used in context and generally how they are translated elsewhere, it it very plain that the earth was in bad shape by v.2.  

It is interesting that God gave no details, but that is His prerogative.  He is not obligated to give more than necessary info.  

As to the English "formless" that is not even a real status.  Every object HAS a form, if it can be seen.  Some objects change forms, like water, gases, etc.  But every object has a form.

So we can know from the outset that what the earth was never "formless'.  And there is nothing in the chapter about God giving "form" to a formless earth.  

Basically, He decorated the earth with flora, fauna, etc.   A Christmas tree is a tree that  has been decorated with Christmas decorations.  But even before any decorations are placed on the tree, the form of the tree is the same, whether decorated or undecorated.

KJV  v.1,2  "God created (bara) the heavens and earth and the earth was tohu".

Isa 45:18  "God did not create (bara) the earth tohu".

Doesn't matter how one renders "tohu".  But, whatever is means in v.2 is the SAME MEANING in Isa 45:18.

So, the only logical way to understand Gen 1:2 is that the verb "was" can also mean "became/become".  Esp the same exact form of the verb.  

What God didn't include is any detail of how or why the earth became tohu.  And it doesn't matter.  We just need to accept what was written in the Hebrew.

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why would anyone use democracy to understand Scripture?

Why would anyone believe what you say?  Even among the minority of versions you cite, not a single one of them claim a restoration of a world gone bad.  Not one.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So give me a  clear example of an object that has no form.  You still haven't done that.

Water.  Steam.  Plasma.  Vapor.  Any gas.  Liquid Plumber. Motor oil.  Mazola.  Molten rock.  Whale vomit.  

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Since it is obvious to alert people that God did not provide any details, all such questions are stupid.

No, what's stupid is the Gap theory.

I'm not discussing this with you any longer.  You're clearly not teachable.