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

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

  FreeGrace said:

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

I agree.

Welcome to the thread!  

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

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?

The length of duration isn't the point.  No one knows how long.  What scientists have measured/etc may be correct or not.  The point is that the earth changed from original creation to a mess that God restored for man's occupation.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

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. 

Whoever 'fills the gap' is spouting theory since God did not give any details of what, who or why the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  But that is what the Hebrew words "tohu wabohu" actually mean.

The 2 words occur together only 2 more times in the OT; Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  In both texts, the words describe total destruction of land.

There is no way Moses would have used those 2 words in Gen 1:2 for original creation.

They describe destruction, not construction.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

No, they only affirm their own laziness, by simply copying what the KJV did.

This statement struck me as a lie, so I picked a random version, which is the English Standard Version.  I neither own nor read this version, so I can show what it says without prejudice. It says "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep."  So how lazy were they?  We'll ask Wikipedia:

The English Standard Version (ESV) is a translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Published in 2001 by Crossway, the ESV was "created by a team of more than 100 leading evangelical scholars and pastors."  The ESV relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

Crossway claims that the ESV continues a legacy of precision and faithfulness in translating the original text into English. It describes the ESV as a translation that adheres to an "essentially literal" translation philosophy, taking into account "differences in grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages." It also describes the ESV as a translation that "emphasizes 'word-for-word' accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning."

Your statement, therefore, has proven to be a lie.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Said the guy who quoted a source that defined a shape as 2 dimensional and a form as 3 dimensional

While that is true, something who's shape is determined by it container has no form of its own.  Liquid Jello is formless.  When it cools and solidifies it takes the form of whatever mold is used.  Water conforms to the shape of its surround until it is frozen.  You may as well argue against the wind; which is also formless.  Pretending that without form doesn't exist is simply making yourself look foolish.

Again, you can't address the fact that the in the beginning the earth was formless and void and then the Creator formed it into the planet we have now.  Light was created on the first day, and dry land came about on the third day.  There could be no restoration because the planet wasn't completely formed until the third day.  

While God could speak another earth just like this one into existence, He chose not to.  He made sure that everything was just right, and that the planet had enough natural resources so that thousands of years later we could pull our boats with our SUV's to the lake for a weekend.  Your gap theory has basis neither in the language nor in reality.  It simply could not happen because even you agree that the creation week, once started, was a 6 day process.  Until the end of the third day, nothing could live on the planet and nothing DID live on the planet.

The more conclusively you are proven wrong the more shrill and bizarre your arguments become.  There is a reason that gap theory is rejected by well educated people.  It's the wishful thinking of people trying to justify the claims of long ages by geologists who can't explain our planet's existence otherwise.

Edited April 7 by RV_Wizard

[FreeGrace]

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

This statement struck me as a lie

So what?  Doesn't matter what strikes you.  What matters is truth, of which you seem rather allergic.  I've been told by those who are quite familiar with the translation process that it's common to just accept much of what has already been translated.

Your very negative view of my view demonstrates a very closed mind to truth.  

Your previous post continued to claim that think 'shape' and 'form' are synonymous.  However, when you quoted a source that distinguished them by dimensions, I IMMEDIATELY accepted that fact, and have been using that FACT to refute your nonsense about "formlessness".  Either you still aren't reading my posts, and just firing off your own opinions, or you are quite dishonest and continue to push false narratives about me.  

I am opened minded to facts, unlike yourself.  You apparently don't even read what I post.  

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

so I picked a random version, which is the English Standard Version.  I neither own nor read this version, so I can show what it says without prejudice. It says "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep."  So how lazy were they?

You just made my point.  The KJV wrote the ridiculous "without form and void", and so did most of the English translations.  However, I have repeatedly given you 5 English translations that rendered "tohu" correctly, since thinking people know that every object HAS FORM.  

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.

These 5 translations bucked the tide of tradition and did their own research, as I have done.

Thanks for proving my point again.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  We'll ask Wikipedia:

The English Standard Version (ESV) is a translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Published in 2001 by Crossway, the ESV was "created by a team of more than 100 leading evangelical scholars and pastors."  The ESV relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

And yet you have been very critical of all the "new age" translations.  Hmmm.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Crossway claims that the ESV continues a legacy of precision and faithfulness in translating the original text into English. It describes the ESV as a translation that adheres to an "essentially literal" translation philosophy, taking into account "differences in grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages." It also describes the ESV as a translation that "emphasizes 'word-for-word' accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning."

Your statement, therefore, has proven to be a lie.

No, you just proved my point.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

While that is true, something who's shape is determined by it container has no form of its own.

Since you're having a lot of trouble following this discussion, let's leave liquids and gases out of the discussion.  'Form' is something that all objects have.  Can you have a 2 dimensional form?  According to your source, no.  Because all forms are 3 dimensional.  

So, (conclusion here) EVERY solid object HAS form.  Are you really going to ignore reality and argue against this?

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Liquid Jello is formless.

Nope.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  When it cools and solidifies it takes the form of whatever mold is used. 

Sure.  It shares the FORM of what contained it.  You are not making your point.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Water conforms to the shape of its surround until it is frozen.  You may as well argue against the wind; which is also formless.  Pretending that without form doesn't exist is simply making yourself look foolish.

The foolishness is all on you.  You don't even understand the source you used.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Again, you can't address the fact that the in the beginning the earth was formless and void

Of course I've addressed it.  You might want to at least read a few of my posts, and you would see that it's all I've been addressing about the meaning of the 2 Hebrew words.  If you had been reading my posts, you would have already known that.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

and then the Creator formed it into the planet we have now. 

No, He spoke the planet (which HAS form) into existence.  Gen 1:1

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Light was created on the first day, and dry land came about on the third day.  There could be no restoration because the planet wasn't completely formed until the third day.

Not that you'll be reading any of this, your error continues to be your assumption that the 6 days were of creation, when the 2 Hebrew words refute that notion and show restoration.  But your mind is tightly closed.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

While God could speak another earth just like this one into existence, He chose not to.

What does this have to do with anything?  Nothing.  When God creates, He creates by speaking the total package into existence, and you have nothing that shows otherwise.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  He made sure that everything was just right

It is ridiculous to claim that God created in steps, stages, processes.  As if He couldn't speak the 'finished product' into existence.  Seems you have a huge problem with God's creative ability.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

and that the planet had enough natural resources so that thousands of years later we could pull our boats with our SUV's to the lake for a weekend.

Focus please.  All this is irrelevant.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your gap theory has basis neither in the language nor in reality. 

Again, a theory would be WHY and by whom the earth became a wasteland, and God didn't give us any details.  Why is that so hard to penetrate your skull?

The basis for my view is STRICTLY in the language and reality.  But your very closed mind is too biased for truth.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

It simply could not happen because even you agree that the creation week, once started, was a 6 day process.

No, you need to read what I post and quite making such false statements.  The 6 day event was restoration.  God created the entire universe and earth by speaking them into existence.  Are you familiar with the word "poof"?  Think of God's creation like a poof.  He spoke, then poof, and the universe and earth exist.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Until the end of the third day, nothing could live on the planet and nothing DID live on the planet.

You weren't there, so you only have your biased opinion.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The more conclusively you are proven wrong the more shrill and bizarre your arguments become.

Your wild statements really make me laugh.  My argument has been consistent the whole time.  It is your desperate attempts to refute that are all over the map.  

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There is a reason that gap theory is rejected by well educated people.  It's the wishful thinking of people trying to justify the claims of long ages by geologists who can't explain our planet's existence otherwise.

I don't have to justify anything.  I only have to believe what the Hebrew says.  You much prefer to believe in unreality, such as a formless planet, even though there is NOTHING in Genesis 1 about God giving form to the planet.  

However, there is plenty in Genesis 1 about God decorating the planet, which has nothing to do with form.

A Christmas tree with all the decorations removed as the SAME FORM as when all the decorations were on.  Undeniable fact.  More proof that the KJV was just sloppy.

And you have been given all the evidence for how "tohu" and "tohu wabohu" are used and translated elsewhere, so you have no excuse for your opinions.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

The word formless can mean with out form or no material existence.  Meaning the earth had not been formed yet.

formless /fôrm′lĭs/
adjective
Having no definite form; shapeless.
"a formless unicellular organism."
Lacking order.
"formless activity."
Having no material existence.
"a formless void."

 

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

The word formless can mean with out form or no material existence.  Meaning the earth had not been formed yet.

When God spoke everything into existence, all of it had form.  There is no such thing as a formless object.

2 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

formless /fôrm′lĭs/
adjective
Having no definite form; shapeless.

"having no definite form" doesn't mean NO form, but rather, a FORM that can't be specifically defined or described.  

And the other poster quoted from a source that explained the difference between form and shape.  Shape is only 2 dimensions and form has 3.

So, an object has to have 3 dimensions in order to be seen.

length + width + height = a form.

2 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

"a formless unicellular organism."

A single cell has a form, or scientists wouldn't be able to see it.

2 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

Lacking order.
"formless activity."

Not discussing activities.  Only objects, like the earth when God created it out of nothing.

2 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

Having no material existence.
"a formless void."

No such thing.  If there is no material existence, there is no object.

I'm, talking about the planet called earth.  The Bible tells us that God creates by speaking into existence, from Psa 33:6 and 9.

There is NOTHING in Genesis 1 that addresses God giving form to the planet.  In fact, what we do read is about is God putting things, animals on the planet.

There is nothing about giving form to the planet.  Once created, the planet HAD form.

My only point is that the Hebrew word doesn't mean "formless" because all objects have 3 dimensions, which defines 'form'.

The real issue is what the Hebrew "tohu" and "tohu wabohu" mean.

We know what they mean by looking at how they are used and how they are translated elsewhere in the OT, but the other poster refuses to acknowledge these facts.

"tohu" occurs 10 times, 3 of which include "wabohu".  In the other verses, the context is about warning of disaster on the land.  So there's no way "tohu wabohu" can be used to describe God's good creation.

Here are the words that translate "tohu" in all 10 verses:

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.

[RV_Wizard]

53 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I've been told by those who are quite familiar with the translation process that it's common to just accept much of what has already been translated.

That's not what you said, and that's not what the creators of that particular bible did.  Should I show you others?  How about the NIV?  Chaired by Dennis, the fourteen-member Translation Oversight Committee was aided by more than fifty biblical experts serving as review scholars. The translation committee also received input from the Advisory Council, having more than fifty members.  

58 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I have repeatedly given you 5 English translations that rendered "tohu" correctly

So 5 versions agree with you and 31 disagree.  Given the fact that there was no land in existence prior to the beginning of the creation, we can form a consensus that you are repeating foolishness.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Form' is something that all objects have.

I have a 15' swimming pool, 48" deep.  According to you, the water inside the pool has form.  I'll bet you $100,000 that if I remove one panel all the water will rush out and seek the lowest level because it is, itself, formless.  Do we have a bet?

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So, (conclusion here) EVERY solid object HAS form.

Now you're changing the game.  Of course solid objects have form.  Land has form.  Water does not.  Land did not exist on the planet until the third day of creation.  Your "restoration" began on day one.  How did a perfect world fall into chaos when it was covered with water in absolute darkness?

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

when the 2 Hebrew words refute that notion and show restoration

Restoration requires a previous state to which a thing is being restored.  The Bible is very clear that light and dry land didn't exist prior to the declared state of being without form and void.  As I pointed out, 86% of the translations do NOT agree with you, and prior to the 19th century, NOBODY did.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 When God creates, He creates by speaking the total package into existence

Please cite your source.  Genesis says otherwise.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The basis for my view is STRICTLY in the language and reality.

Reality has nothing whatever to do with what you believe, and the language is a minority heretical view.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God created the entire universe and earth by speaking them into existence.

God spoke the sun, moon and stars into existence on day four.  Prior to that, the universe as we know it did not exist.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You weren't there, so you only have your biased opinion.

No, we have the word of God.  Before you post to me again, I would like for you to explain and clarify your claim.  How did the "perfect" earth thrive for what could have been millions of years with no light, no heat, and no exposed land masses?  The first recorded life in the Bible was plant life.  Plant life came about on day three.  The fishes didn't even exist until the fifth day.  Please describe for us this perfect world that somehow became a wasteland.  NOTHING you say is compatible with the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's not what you said, and that's not what the creators of that particular bible did.  Should I show you others?  How about the NIV?

You are just not paying any attention.  I've already noted the 26 translations that are the same as the KJV.  However, you just keep ignoring that there are 5 that translate "tohu" correctly.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

 So 5 versions agree with you and 31 disagree.

I'll help you with the math.  26 copied the KJV and 5 correctly translated "tohu".

FACT.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Given the fact that there was no land in existence prior to the beginning of the creation

Are you even listening to yourself here??!!  "prior to the beginning of the creation", OF COURSE rthere was no land in existence.  And, to be clear, the beginning of creation was when God opened His mouth to speak it all into existence.  At which time everything was IMMEDIATELY in existence.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

we can form a consensus that you are repeating foolishness.

"we"?  You mean you and your shadow?

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

I have a 15' swimming pool, 48" deep.  According to you, the water inside the pool has form.

Of course it does.  It takes the SAME FORM as the pool's form.  Flat on top, where there is no pool surface, and the sides conform to the pool's form.  Simple.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  I'll bet you $100,000 that if I remove one panel all the water will rush out and seek the lowest level because it is, itself, formless.  Do we have a bet?

You've already lost the bet, so where's the $100K?  Listen, even water that leaks out of your cheap pool forms a puddle.  Can you understand that?  And puddles have 3 dimensions, length, width, and thickness.  So according to YOUR OWN source, a puddle of water has form.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

Now you're changing the game.

No, I'm trying to get into your skull somehow.  But I guess you'd have to have an open mind for that to occur.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Of course solid objects have form.  Land has form.

So do all planets, from the moment they are created OUT OF NOTHING, when God spoke them into existence.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Water does not.

See above.  If you won't open your mind, then at least open your mouth.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Land did not exist on the planet until the third day of creation.

OK, now it's real clear that you aren't reading correctly.  

v. 9 - And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

This does NOT say or show that God "created land" at that time.  It clearly SAYS that God moved th waters around so that dry land would appear.  Real simple.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your "restoration" began on day one.

That is correct.  See?  You DO actually understand what I post.  So why do you so often claim that you can't understand any of it?

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  How did a perfect world fall into chaos when it was covered with water in absolute darkness?

Ask God.  I guess you have a real problem with reading anything I've posted.  I've answered that question many times.  GOD DID NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS.  However, He gave us words that describe the condition of the earth;  tohu wabohu.  And seeing how those 2 words are used in the other 2 places in Scripture give us all the info we need to understand why Genesis 1 is a restoration.

When are you going to address Heb 11:3, which has the Greek word 'katartizo' which is actually translated as "restored" several times in the NT?

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

Restoration requires a previous state to which a thing is being restored.

yes, Mr obvious.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The Bible is very clear that light and dry land didn't exist prior to the declared state of being without form and void.

Well, Mr stubborn pants, the Bible doesn't say that.  The Bible, in the Hebrew, says that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  And how do you or anyone else know that light needed to be restored as well?

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  As I pointed out, 86% of the translations do NOT agree with you, and prior to the 19th century, NOBODY did.

Get over it.  I've PROVEN what "tohu wabohu" means from the other 2 places they occur.  And you can't refute that FACT.  You just don't like it.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

 When God creates, He creates by speaking the total package into existence

Please cite your source.  Genesis says otherwise.

You won't even look at the Hebrew, so you can't possibly know what Genesis says.

As to source, Gen 1:1 with Psa 33:6,9

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

Reality has nothing whatever to do with what you believe, and the language is a minority heretical view.

OK, if you are comfortable with determining facts by democracy, that's your business.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

God spoke the sun, moon and stars into existence on day four.  Prior to that, the universe as we know it did not exist.

As it is, you don't know much about Genesis 1 at all.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, we have the word of God.

And you have preferred an English translation over how the 2 Hebrew words are used in the other 2 verses.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Before you post to me again, I would like for you to explain and clarify your claim.  How did the "perfect" earth thrive for what could have been millions of years with no light, no heat, and no exposed land masses?

I never said how long the earth WAS an uninhabitable wasteland.  You would have to have read my posts to know I already addressed your by now very tired question.

We have no details.  But go ahead and take it up with God.  Maybe He'll tell you.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The first recorded life in the Bible was plant life.

Well, you'd be wrong again.  Actually, Eek 28:13 - You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.  Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.

It's pretty clear who Ezekiel is describing here; the devil.  And he was IN Eden, the garden of God.  And all this before he sinned.

v.15 - You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Plant life came about on day three.  The fishes didn't even exist until the fifth day.

Just decorations on a Christmas tree.  Nothing about giving form to a "formless blob".

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Please describe for us this perfect world that somehow became a wasteland.

Again, for the umpteenth time, Go ask God.  Maybe He will tell you.

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

  NOTHING you say is compatible with the clear teaching of the Bible.

The reverse is true.  You ignore or actually REJECT what the 2 Hebrew words mean, as shown in the other 2 verses where they are used.  Both describe total destruction of the land.  FACT.

[RV_Wizard]

43 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 Listen, even water that leaks out of your cheap pool forms a puddle.

Your lack of understanding is legendary.  Water doesn't form a puddle.  Water seeks the lowest level.  Puddles are formed by depressions in the earth.  The earth has a form.  Water conforms to it.  

46 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I'll help you with the math.  26 copied the KJV and 5 correctly translated "tohu".

Once more, you are lying.  The other translations all went back to the originals for accuracy and used language more closely associate with our current speech patterns.  Five gave definitions you like, twenty-six did not.  Because of your zealot nature, you proclaimed the minority translations the correct one.  However, NOT EVEN THEY suggest a previously existing earth.

50 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

It clearly SAYS that God moved th waters around so that dry land would appear.

If you had any understanding, you would realize that you just admitted the earth was covered with water and dry land was not present until the third day.  Yes, there was land, but land under water is not considered to be dry.

52 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 GOD DID NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS.

BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!

53 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, Mr stubborn pants, the Bible doesn't say that.

You JUST ADMITTED that the Bible says exactly that in Genesis 1:9.

54 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

As it is, you don't know much about Genesis 1 at all.

Let's see what the actual text says.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (Let there be means that they didn't exist previously).

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (See, stars did NOT exist prior to day four).

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 8And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

You are making claims a blind man could see through.

58 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I never said how long the earth WAS an uninhabitable wasteland.

You have yet to explain how it was anything else previously, since there was no dry land, no light, no heat and no life.  Gap theory is probably the dumbest of all false teaching, because it is so obviously made up.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

It's pretty clear who Ezekiel is describing here; the devil.  And he was IN Eden, the garden of God.

Plant life was brought into existence on day three.  Eden was created around day six; possibly later.  You DO understand that gardens came about AFTER plants were formed, right?  Eden wasn't a rock garden.  Your argument only shows how very little you understand about the Bible.

Before you post to me again, I would like for you to explain and clarify your claim.  How did the "perfect" earth thrive for what could have been millions of years with no light, no heat, and no exposed land masses?  The first recorded life in the Bible was plant life.  Plant life came about on day three.  The fishes didn't even exist until the fifth day.  Please describe for us this perfect world that somehow became a wasteland.  NOTHING you say is compatible with the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

[FreeGrace]

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

,  FreeGrace said:

 Listen, even water that leaks out of your cheap pool forms a puddle.

Your lack of understanding is legendary.

No, your unending insults and perjoratives are.  Apparently you weren't aware of what happens after you let water run out of your pool.  Might want to "do the math" befoere you post.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Water doesn't form a puddle.  Water seeks the lowest level. 

Wow.  Really!!  Who knew that?!  Of course it does, Capt obvious.  

Maybe you should just do a bit of research on what puddles are, and how they look.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Puddles are formed by depressions in the earth.  The earth has a form.  Water conforms to it.

Again, contained water, either by your cheap pool, or by some divot in the ground takes the FORM of what contains it.

Really, this isn't difficult to understand.  But it seems you are not understanding it.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Once more, you are lying.

That statement is just plain stupid.  You are desperate to denigrate my view, by whatever means are necessary.  That is disgusting.  You have no evidence at all.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The other translations all went back to the originals for accuracy and used language more closely associate with our current speech patterns.

If they only checked to see how "tohu wabohu" was used as a description in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, they would know how poorly the KJV translated Gen 1:2.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Five gave definitions you like, twenty-six did not.

No, I proved by looking at ALL of the occurrences of "tohu" in the OT, and here they are AGAIN:

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.

Now, go ahead and argue that these translations of "tohu" can easily be used in describing creation.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Because of your zealot nature, you proclaimed the minority translations the correct one.

I'm not going by democracy, like you prefer.  I'm going by HOW the Hebrew words are used throughout the OT, which you DON'T prefer.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  However, NOT EVEN THEY suggest a previously existing earth.

No, the 5 correct translations simply knew what "tohu" means.  Unlike the "majority".

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

If you had any understanding, you would realize that you just admitted the earth was covered with water and dry land was not present until the third day.

Since you don't read my posts, or very carefully, let me remind you of what I said about the end of v.2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Red words describe the condition of the land with a very deep ice pack on it.

Blue words describe the Spirit hovering over that ice pack, so that it began to melt.  The plural of the Hebrew 'waters' indicates running water from melting.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Yes, there was land, but land under water is not considered to be dry.

I never said it was dry BEFORE God separated the water from the land.  Please pay attention.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!

Opinion alert!!!!!!

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

You JUST ADMITTED that the Bible says exactly that in Genesis 1:9.

I've always agreed with what the Bible says.  What's your point?

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Let's see what the actual text says.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (Let there be means that they didn't exist previously).

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (See, stars did NOT exist prior to day four).

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 8And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 

Since all this is part of the restoration, what is your point?

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

You are making claims a blind man could see through.

You are making very unreal claims, just like the earth is young.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

You have yet to explain how it was anything else previously, since there was no dry land, no light, no heat and no life.

I am deeply sorry that this is so difficult for you to grasp.  I cannot explain what God did not explain.  What He did describe was that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland, and you don't believe what God said.

Worse, you believe that objects can be formless, even when your source claims that form is 3 dimensional.  Which means, any object that can be seen HAS FORM.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Gap theory is probably the dumbest of all false teaching, because it is so obviously made up.

I've proved otherwise.  Not that you have understood any of it.  What is dumb is guessing as to what happened during the time gap.  No one knows because God didn't give the details, which also seems to slip through your grasp.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Plant life was brought into existence on day three.  Eden was created around day six; possibly later.  You DO understand that gardens came about AFTER plants were formed, right?  Eden wasn't a rock garden.  Your argument only shows how very little you understand about the Bible.

No, rather, how little you comprehend what a restoration is, and what "tohu wabohu" means.

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Before you post to me again, I would like for you to explain and clarify your claim.  How did the "perfect" earth thrive for what could have been millions of years with no light, no heat, and no exposed land masses?  The first recorded life in the Bible was plant life.  Plant life came about on day three.  The fishes didn't even exist until the fifth day.  Please describe for us this perfect world that somehow became a wasteland.  NOTHING you say is compatible with the clear teaching of the Bible.

Why do you persist in these nutty requests?  No one can answer the "how" or "why" questions since God didn't provide any.

And it doesn't matter than He didn't.  He did give us the description of what happened, which Jeremiah used to describe the coming disaster to the land by a besieging army that was a destroyer of nations.  I wonder why you never read Jer 4?

Allergic to truth, no doubt.

[Michael37]

Fallacious Argument Overload.