Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And, "formless" does not exist in reality.  

It does, and apparently in your case so does "clueless."  Once again, the dictionary is not your friend.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

a "light-year" is the distance light travels in a year.

Proxima Centauri, is 4.24 light-years away.  This means that it's light takes 4.24 years to reach the earth.  Light from Proxima Centauri was visible on day four, the instant it was created.  God made it that way.

[RdJ]

7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Actually, scientists have very sensitive instruments with which to measure a whole lot of things.  Like the speed of light, for instance.  Did you know it takes light 8 minutes to travel from the sun to earth?  And a "light-year" is the distance light travels in a year.  And space (universe) is measured as:

 

7 trillion light-years

• By using the Bayesian model averaging, scientists estimated that the Universe is at least 250 times larger than the observable Universe, or at least 7 trillion light-years in diameter.
• Just ask this question:  "can science measure the width of the universe in light-years?"
• So, it is true that scientists can't see how old the universe is, but they can measure how old it is.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14‭-‬19 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/gen.1.14-19.NKJV

https://www.frankdeboosere.be/vragen/vraag66.php#:~:text=De zon staat op ongeveer,dan 8 minuten geleden uitzag. :

After the sun, the star Sirius is the brightest star in the sky. The light from Sirius takes almost 9 years to reach us. If you look at Sirius in the winter months, you will see the light that left in 2011 (this article was written in 2020).

The star Vega is 25 light years away. So you look back in time 25 years when you admire Vega in the summer starry sky.

Deneb is the brightest star in the constellation Cygnus. Deneb is located about 1,500 light-years from Earth. The light left there a few years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

In the constellation Andromeda you see a faint nebula glowing on a dark, moonless night. It is the large neighbor of our Milky Way at a distance of just over 2 million light years. This means that you can look back in time more than 2 million years with the naked eye.

 

So Genesis means: and it was so 25 years later for this star, 1500 light years later for that one? 

There was immediately light from the stars.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/

But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. 

gravity slows the passage of time.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. 

Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. 

Edited April 29 by RdJ

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

You just keep wanting to come up with details about what happened during the time gap, and I have to keep reminding you that God didn't give any details.

That's because there was no time gap.

No, that's NOT "because".  It is because you are simply a mean spirited person who wants to demonize a view you don't like.  No, make that 'hate'.  There are no details in Genesis 1, and you think because of no details, no time gap.  What a narrow thought.

However, there are plenty of details about how "tohu wabohu" are used in the only 2 other places they occur in the OT.  Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  And BOTH describe total destruction of land.  So we KNOW how "tohu wabohu" are used as descriptors in Gen 1:2.

But your stubbornness refuses to accept facts.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There was no light, no heat, no stars, no dry land, nothing which could have supported life.

Certainly NOT after the earth became tohu wabohu.  Which explains WHY God restored the earth.  So man could live on it.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Even if some cataclysm had destroyed the earth, how would it have destroyed the rest of the universe?

See?  There you go again.  Wanting, no, demanding details that God didn't give.  Just go to Jer 4 and Isa 34 and SEE for yourself how tohu wabohu is used.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You have no answer for this because even you know that it's quite impossible for a planet to thrive without the existence of any of the above.

I have told you over and over that there is NO answer because God didn't provide details for man in Genesis 1.  Is that what makes you so mad and irrational?  That He left out details that you demand before you would accept the clear meaning of tohu wabohu from Jer 4 and Isa 34?

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Moreover, the absence of land makes any land dwelling fossils equally impossible.

Where do you get the idea that there was no land?  The earth was created in v.1.  That means there was land.  But, as Jer 4 and Isa 34 show, the land was destroyed so that it became an uninhabitable wasteland.  So God restored the land so man could live on it.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The fact that only a select group of modern definitions partially support your claim further illustrates that it is nothing more than modern day heresy.

Your demonization is getting real tired.  I've proven what tohu wabohu means from both Jer 4 and Isa 34, but your stubborn refusal to accept facts showcases your irrationality.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It's a deliberate twisting of the language to make believe a prior existence that is unsupported either by the Bible or by anyone with even a little knowledge of geology.

And you can't even back up your weird claims and show how I've twisted anything.

I have shared both Jer 4 and Isa 34 which use tohu wabohu to describe the total destruction of land.

Yet, in your total irrationality, you believe that tohu wabohu describes creation of the earth in Gen 1:2.  

That would mean tohu wabohu means two totally opposite ideas.  Nothing short of irrationality.  

But that's that one gets when they reject facts.  They accept fantasy.

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

And, "formless" does not exist in reality.  

It does, and apparently in your case so does "clueless."  Once again, the dictionary is not your friend.

Oh, switching "sources", I see.  You quoted from a source that explained the difference between shape and form, which I appreciated, as I considered them to be synonymous.  Your source said shape is 2 dimensional and form is 3 dimensional.

That proves that every object HAS form, because God created a 3 dimensional universe and earth.  And yet, you seem completely unable to grasp that very simple FACT.

Just because ignorant people use "formless" doesn't mean it exists in reality.  It does mean it exists in their minds.  Only.

And you STILL haven't given any example of an object that is actually formless.  What you've done is noted objects whose form changes, etc.  They STILL have form.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Proxima Centauri, is 4.24 light-years away.  This means that it's light takes 4.24 years to reach the earth.  Light from Proxima Centauri was visible on day four, the instant it was created.  God made it that way.

Are you a scientist?  Were you THERE when God created and then restored the earth?

No, you weren't.  You don't know what you are talking about.

Your irrationality is shown clearly in several ways:

1.  you believe formlessness exists in a 3 dimentional world.

2.  you believe tohu wabohu can describe construction (Gen 1:2) and also describe total destruction (Jer 4 and Isa 34).

3.  you have no problem with the contradiction between the KJV of Gen 1:1,2 and Isa 45:18, which says the OPPOSITE of Gen 1:2.

KJV = God created (bara) the earth and the earth was tohu

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

You have expressed the height of irrationality.

And it seems you don't even care.

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, RdJ said:

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14‭-‬19 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/gen.1.14-19.NKJV

https://www.frankdeboosere.be/vragen/vraag66.php#:~:text=De zon staat op ongeveer,dan 8 minuten geleden uitzag. :

After the sun, the star Sirius is the brightest star in the sky. The light from Sirius takes almost 9 years to reach us. If you look at Sirius in the winter months, you will see the light that left in 2011 (this article was written in 2020).

The star Vega is 25 light years away. So you look back in time 25 years when you admire Vega in the summer starry sky.

Deneb is the brightest star in the constellation Cygnus. Deneb is located about 1,500 light-years from Earth. The light left there a few years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

In the constellation Andromeda you see a faint nebula glowing on a dark, moonless night. It is the large neighbor of our Milky Way at a distance of just over 2 million light years. This means that you can look back in time more than 2 million years with the naked eye.

 

So Genesis means: and it was so 25 years later for this star, 1500 light years later for that one? 

There was immediately light from the stars.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/

But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. 

gravity slows the passage of time.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. 

Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. 

No offense, but none of this is relevant, because you haven't dealt yet with the actual meaning and use of "tohu wabohu" in Gen 1:2, translated as "formless and void".  Please go to Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and read the whole text to see how tohu wabohu was used and what it describes.  That is the same meaning as found in Gen 1:2.

You are treating Genesis 1 as creation when in fact it is describing a restoration of an earth that became an uninhabitable wasteland (tohu wabohu).

There's no getting around it.

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, RdJ said:

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural.

Everything God does is supernatural and contrary to the physical laws of the universe.  Those laws yield to a greater law; the will of God.  The light was there on day one because God created a mature world.  Everything was created in its maturity, from trees bearing fruit, to animals ready to reproduce, to Adam being a mature man who could walk and speak.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Everything God does is supernatural and contrary to the physical laws of the universe.

Actually, from what you've posted, I believe that MORE, MUCH MORE, than YOU do.  You believe God created the earth in steps, or processes, which is how you defend the view that "tohu wabohu" describes that initial process.  But we KNOW from Jer 4 and Isa 34 that "tohu wabohu" clearly describes total destruction, which is the exact opposite of creation or construction.

When God creates, He simply SPEAKS His creations into existence.  We KNOW this from Psa 33:6, 9.  That is supernatural.

Creating in steps or processes is what MEN do.  Because they can't speak anything into existence.  Except nonsense.  That is what men can do when they open their mouth.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Those laws yield to a greater law; the will of God.  The light was there on day one because God created a mature world.  Everything was created in its maturity, from trees bearing fruit, to animals ready to reproduce, to Adam being a mature man who could walk and speak.

Genesis 1 is all about restoring the "uninhabitable wasteland" (tohu wabohu).

And formless is not reality.  

[RdJ]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Everything God does is supernatural and contrary to the physical laws of the universe.  Those laws yield to a greater law; the will of God.  The light was there on day one because God created a mature world.  Everything was created in its maturity, from trees bearing fruit, to animals ready to reproduce, to Adam being a mature man who could walk and speak.

Yes suppose he immediately sinned and died 10 years later after getting some kids who raised themselves, if scientists would find his remains they would say he was 30 or 40 years old, but not a 10 year old kid.

[FreeGrace]

2 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Yes suppose he immediately sinned and died 10 years later after getting some kids who raised themselves, if scientists would find his remains they would say he was 30 or 40 years old, but not a 10 year old kid.

It is a mistake to use Adam as an example of instant creation yet appearing an adult.  How could God create an infant, like a brand new born infant?  How would that work?  It wouldn't.

But why would God create the entire universe and earth with what is called "apparent age"?  What would be the purpose in that?  Wouldn't that rather be dishonest and deceiving?

There is no reason to create a universe with apparent age.  So that is not a defense for the universe and earth only "appearing" to look much older.

The universe appears very old because it is.  Same for earth.

There is no functional reason for God to have created the universe/earth with "apparent age".  That only continues to ignore the meaning of "tohu wabohu" and accept the non-reality of "formless".

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 It is because you are simply a mean spirited person who wants to demonize a view you don't like.

Yep.  Meanie me, who refuses to let people spread heresies and false doctrine unchallenged.  

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Where do you get the idea that there was no land?  

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.  Not reappear.  Prior to verse nine, there was no dry land on the earth, thus again disproving the ruin/reconstruction heresy.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And you can't even back up your weird claims and show how I've twisted anything.

I did that several times.  Even the most current interpretation of the Bible says "without form and void."  You pick and choose what you want to believe and claim that is the true interpretation.  It is quite dishonest, but then, dishonesty is kind of a requirement for false teaching.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

you believe that tohu wabohu describes creation of the earth in Gen 1:2.  

As I've pointed out many times, there was virtually no question of the six day creation before the 18th century.  Your modern heresy is an attempt to placate the old earth believers by distorting the Scriptures.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

That proves that every object HAS form, because God created a 3 dimensional universe and earth.

You didn't read it very well, because it also gave examples of things without form.  I would say your mind is fogged, but you don't believe in fog because it is a formless mist.  Formless means that it has no shape of its own; it is NOT solid.  In your mind everything is solid or it doesn't exist.  I'm not sure how you breathe, because you don't believe in air.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Just because ignorant people use "formless" doesn't mean it exists in reality.

See what I mean?  Do you slice off pieces of air and swallow it?  You certainly couldn't breathe air if it was a three dimensional solid.