Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[RdJ]

I just had a dream. It may be because I read that article about light years.

There was a watch in an upside down bucket and the bucket was taken off and then the time started to tick.

Maybe there first was a protection/thing around the universe?

At the side of a black hole is no time.

I'll ask my son. He's intelligent.

Once when he was 9 he was commenting on a university program about black holes and he was trying to prove creation to a guy. I didn't even understand what he wrote. I saw it because the guy responded.

 

Edited April 30 by RdJ

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

There was a watch in an upside down bucket and the bucket was taken off and then the time started to tick.

Didn't Jim Croce want to save time in a bucket?

Or was that a bottle?

[RdJ]

14 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Didn't Jim Croce want to save time in a bucket?

Or was that a bottle?

Oh yes! If I could save time in a bottle.

 

Edited April 30 by RdJ

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, typo.  omnipresent.  Which any thinking person would easily realize.

Air isn't omnipresent either.  Those are attributes of the Creator.  Air is a created substance.  It's transparent, colorless and odorless, though particles which have odor can be suspended in it.  It is, in fact, formless and conforms to the surrounding environment.  Trapped in a steel can, it becomes pressurized air.  Floating up through water, it becomes an air bubble.  Helium and hydrogen are lighter, which is why balloons float upward until the air is thinner and the buoyancy is equalized.  

You are pretending to be an authority on a language you don't understand, and are defending that position using English words you don't understand.  Your postulation is untenable.

[RV_Wizard]

18 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Oh yes! If I could save time in a bottle.

But there never seems to be enough thyme to do the things you want to do once you find them.

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, farouk said:

FreeGrace said:

You can be sure when you see how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4 and Isa 34, both verses are describing total destruction of land.

Why would Jeremiah quote from Gen 1:2 if that verse was describing original creation, when Jeremiah was warning of coming destruction?

Thomas Chalmers (19th C) was into the gap theory; a lot of other conservative commentators have not necessarily been.

Could you answer my question, please?  I don't see what your comment has to do with theories.  The issue is what "tohu wabohu" describes, and it isn't creation.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What do REAL Hebrew experts say?

What does the BIBLE say?  That's your problem.  You only pick and choose those who agree with you.  Truth is ALWAYS in the minority.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

While Isaiah and Jeremiah use the same Hebrew phrase (tohu waw-bohu) to describe a setting of judgment, it is unsound to read later meanings back into earlier meanings. For example, one should not expect to read Isaiah’s first-known example of an apocalypse and see an angelic guide as became popular in later apocalypses such as Zechariah.

Idiotic.  Of course the meaning of "tohu wabohu" is the SAME in Gen 1:2 as in Jer 4 and Isa 34:11.  They describe total destruction, obviously.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 

Bohu appears 3x in the Hebrew Bible, always near tohu (Gen 1:2; Isa 34:11, Jer 4:23). In an entry by Edward J. Young, TWOT notes that the pictures of desolation in Isaiah and Jeremiah borrow from Genesis in the sense that the two prophets see the area under judgment as in the same shape as the earth after it was created but for different reasons. In Isaiah and Jeremiah, they see the land judged to the extent it is in the same shape as the world used to be. It is not that God destroyed the Earth to tohu and bohu in Genesis. Simply, when God created them, he made them tohu and bohu.

Yes, obviously for different reasons.  We know the reasons in Jer and Isa.  We don't know the reason in Gen 1.  But that doesn't change the meaning of the words.  Another idiotic claim by a supposed Hebrew scholar.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Tohu is used 20 times in 19 verses of the Hebrew Bible. 11 of those uses are in Isaiah. The meaning of the word is broader than the gap theory would like. Only rarely is the context of tohu judgment.

Another idiotic claim by a supposed Hebrew scholar.  Biblehub shows 10 occurrences of "tohu" in the OT.  And I've shown you ALL of them.  The error in your supposed scholar is his statement "context of tohu judgment".  I've NEVER made that link.

In fact, "tohu" is a word of DESCRIPTION, not of INTENT.  Do you understand the difference?  That's where all these hand-picked so called experts fail.  They attach "judgment" to "tohu" without reason.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Also, the parallelism in Isaiah 45:18 shows that the meaning is not the same as in Genesis 1:2.

Another totally idiotic claim.  Of course it is the same meaning.  It is the same word.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

(T)he following have all been found contrary to the Gap Theory:

Bara' and 'asah indeed have synonomous meanings.

Prove it.  The words "ex nihilo" describe creation out of nothing in bara, but asah is translated as made.

God speaks things into existence.  God makes things out of existing materials, which is clearly shown in Gen 1:26,27.  God MADE (asah) Adam's body, and God created (bara) Adam's soul and breathed it into his nose, to reach his brain.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The first waw in Genesis 1:2 is correctly translated as "and."

Just another "claim", or opinion.  The translators of the LXX, who were experts in both Greek and Hebrew begin v.2 with "but".  And they translated "tohu" as "unsightly", which is a far cry from what God creates.  An uninhabitable wasteland (tohu wabohu) is certainly unsightly.  God doesn't create unsightly things.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The hyth in Genesis 1:2 is correctly translated as "was."

I proved otherwise.  I showed you a number of verses where that same verb form was translated as "became" or "become".  Further, many of the verses where that same verb form was translated as "was" could have just as easily been translated as "became".

Here's the example, AGAIN.

Mary WAS the wife of Joseph.

Mary BECAME the wife of Joseph.

No difference.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Tohu and bohu mean that the Earth was originally created in a state that was uninhabited, but God's intention in the creation was to make them inhabitable.

The earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Replenish in 1:28 simply means "fill." It gives no indication that there had been prior inhabitants on the earth.

Are you not aware that "re" means again?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Isaiah, in a similar manner to Jeremiah but more ornate in his poetry, also compared the desolate and unordered earth, in Genesis 1, to God’s judgement on the nations:  source

Tohu doesn't mean "unordered".  The NASB translates "tohu" in Isa 45:18 as "waste place".

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2)

"formless" is a fantasy.  Not a state of existence.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In the original Hebrew the phrase ‘without form and void’ appears as ‘Tohu Va-Vohu’ {תהו ובהו}and is a difficult one to translate because it is a Hebrew play on words.

No, it is simply a description of the state of what the earth became.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In other words, while the English translation speaks about a certain condition that was characterized by the ABSENCE of form or ‘FORMLESS,’  the original Hebrew describes the condition of the earth as ‘Tohu Va-Vohu’ which literally means an ’empty desert’ and is another word for a desert without water.

No such thing as formless or "absence of form".  God created a 3 dimensional universe, so every object in God's creation has form.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The big difference between the two descriptions – the English translation versus the original Hebrew – is that the English description makes one imagine a total mess and chaos.

Because that's what "tohu wabohu" means and describes, as shown in Jer 4 and Isa 34.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In contrast, the Hebrew description does not illustrate a mess but rather describes an empty, waterless land

An empty WASTELAND.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

…a land without mountains, trees, rivers and so on – a land  that ‘awaits’ to be developed.

Not what "tohu" means or describes.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It is an unmistakable and undeniable fact that ruin/reconstruction is a heresy that came about in the 18th century

Another erroneous opinion.  Moses wrote Genesis around 1400 BC.  Jer and Isa wrote about 700 and 600 BC.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

and is NOT based in a clearer understanding of the Hebrew language, but rather an attempt to justify old earth theology within the text of Genesis.

Another faulty opinion.  The focus is on what Moses, Jeremiah and Isaiah wrote.  All 3 were describing the condition of the land.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  I have provided multiple sources from experts in the Hebrew language who agree that the text reads "without form and void."

All you've done is hand picked those who agree with you.  So what.  Comparing Gen 1:2 with Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 proves that "tohu wabohu" describes TOTAL DESTRUCTION of land.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Genesis one is, as has been taught since Adam walked the earth and as recorded by Moses, God's explanation of the six day creation and the establishment of the seven day week.  That is what the ACTUAL HEBREW says.

I've focused solely on what the ACTUAL HEBREW SAYS.  And you've rejected.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The truth lies within the words of God; not the lies of men.

It sure does.  And there are a lot of LIARS out there, and many who have been taught very untrue things.  

I focus on how the Bible defines itself, which it seems your so-called experts didn't think to do.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Air isn't omnipresent either.  Those are attributes of the Creator.

Are you also a flat earthed kind of guy?  God created the earth that is SURROUNDED by air.  Maybe you missed that in science class.  Not surprised.

You can leave earth and be in space, which has no air, but I am talking about the planet we are on.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Air is a created substance.

What part of the planet is air not found?

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

 It is, in fact, formless and conforms to the surrounding environment.  Trapped in a steel can, it becomes pressurized air.  Floating up through water, it becomes an air bubble.  Helium and hydrogen are lighter, which is why balloons float upward until the air is thinner and the buoyancy is equalized.

If air isn't omnipresent on the earth, please tell me where there is no air.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You are pretending to be an authority on a language you don't understand, and are defending that position using English words you don't understand.  Your postulation is untenable.

Everything you say is false.  You think objects can be formless, which would mean don't have 3 dimensions, yet you can't come up with any examples.

You claim that I don't understand either Hebrew or English but you can't prove it.

You don't have any evidence for any of your empty claims.  Just a lot of opinions.

[RdJ]

3 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

If air isn't omnipresent on the earth, please tell me where there is no air.

In the vacuum sealed bag with tofu (Dutch: tahoe) in my fridge. I seriously started to eat bunches of that stuff to lose weight, thanks to this thread and you continually saying tohu.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RdJ said:

In the vacuum sealed bag with tofu (Dutch: tahoe) in my fridge. I seriously started to eat bunches of that stuff to lose weight, thanks to this thread and you continually saying tohu.

Thanks for making my point!  Air has to be sucked out of a container for there to be no air.  So my statement stands!