Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why are you posting?

I'm done with your continuous claim of your ENGLISH translation being ORIGINAL Hebrew when I've already demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt via multiple sources that most Hebrew scholars disagree with you.  Reasonable doubt, it seems, pertains to the reasonable.

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

In fact, I've answered every one of your silly questions

Assuredly, you have not. 

You claim the six days of creation were actually a restoration, but dry land didn't even exist until the third day.  What was being restored?

You claim the earth "became a wasteland" when land had not yet emerged from the waters.  Do you mean the earth became a wastewater? 

There was no life of any kind on the earth prior to the third day of creation.  What do you think lived before?  How did it destroy the earth; especially when there was no dry earth on the earth?

What possibly could it have been before?  The sun, moon and stars didn't exist until day four.  You've never answered this question.  If the "restoration" begins with verse 2, and dry land didn't appear until verse 9, how could the earth have "become a wasteland?"

If your preferred definition of "tohu wabohu" is correct, why do 86% of the experts disagree?

You never answer these questions.  You simply repeat the same blocks of text you probably copied from another source without citing that source.  All of my sources are referenced.  Where are your references?

Like the atheists, you pretend there is a difference between God speaking materials into existence and forming things from those materials.  It's STILL God's creation.  He spoke the materials into existence and formed the earth from them.

You CLAIM the creation didn't happen in stages, yet Genesis 1 lists all the stages.  Why would anyone believe you after such a claim, when a five-year-old can read the difference?

You never answer these questions. 

[RdJ]

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 

You CLAIM the creation didn't happen in stages, yet Genesis 1 lists all the stages.  Why would anyone believe you after such a claim, when a five-year-old can read the difference?

Genesis 1:1 does not say: God spoke let there be an earth and boom there was the earth with mountains and all. That happened on day 3, like you said.

God spoke and boom there were the trees. That's how I read Genesis 1. He spoke and boom there were the humans. But then Genesis 2 goes into detail. It was not speak boom a tree. It was speak boom a seed and then a damp from the earth and the trees grew. And it was God forming Adam from dust and building the woman, so why would He not build the earth, put the cornerstone, tell the waters to stay there, like He says in Job 38, Proverbs. That's more detailed, just like Genesis 2.

 

By the way what is a cornerstone? Core stone that later became magma when He was angry and the foundations of the mountains were set on fire? 

I asked Google and offtopic but I saw this testimony:

 

 

Edited April 12 by RdJ

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I'm done with your continuous claim of your ENGLISH translation being ORIGINAL Hebrew when I've already demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt via multiple sources that most Hebrew scholars disagree with you.  Reasonable doubt, it seems, pertains to the reasonable.

Ridiculous.  I've shown how ALL 10 occurrences of "tohu" are translated.  And you still haven't proven that the condition of "formlessness" even exists.  And the source you quoted proves MY point; that form is in 3 dimensions, the dimension that humanity lives in.  So if you can see an object, you are seeing form.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You claim the six days of creation were actually a restoration, but dry land didn't even exist until the third day.  What was being restored?

It is obvious to reasonable people that the destruction was great enough to shift things around.  And God re-arranged what needed to be.  This isn't difficult to grasp.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You claim the earth "became a wasteland" when land had not yet emerged from the waters.

You're just going by your assumptions.  The Hebrew does mean "became a wasteland", which I proved from how those exact words are translated elsewhere.  Where is your reasonableness?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Do you mean the earth became a wastewater?

If I did, I would have said that.  Explain why the NASB translates "tohu" as "waste place" in Isa 45:18.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There was no life of any kind on the earth prior to the third day of creation.  What do you think lived before?  How did it destroy the earth; especially when there was no dry earth on the earth?

Since all you have are assumptions, none of your questions are relevant.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What possibly could it have been before?

How many times have I told you that God gave no details.  So why do you keep asking?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The sun, moon and stars didn't exist until day four.  You've never answered this question.  If the "restoration" begins with verse 2, and dry land didn't appear until verse 9, how could the earth have "become a wasteland?"

Assumptions.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

If your preferred definition of "tohu wabohu" is correct, why do 86% of the experts disagree?

Are you talking about just Gen 1:2?  Why don't you see how Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 are translated by the 32 translations on biblehub?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You never answer these questions. 

You ask biased questions  based on assumptions.  There are no answers.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You simply repeat the same blocks of text you probably copied from another source without citing that source.

Do you enjoy lying?  My only source, other than the Bible itself, is biblehub, where anyone is able to check out the FACTS that I've shared.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  All of my sources are referenced.  Where are your references?

Just gave them.  Again.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Like the atheists, you pretend there is a difference between God speaking materials into existence and forming things from those materials. 

I think you are very confused.  "like the atheists'???  They don't even believe in God, so your statement is absurd.  And telling me that I'm pretending anything is beyond the pale.  You need to grow up a bunch and act like an adult.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It's STILL God's creation.  He spoke the materials into existence and formed the earth from them.

Absolutely.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You CLAIM the creation didn't happen in stages, yet Genesis 1 lists all the stages.

There's that pesky assumption getting in your way.  The restoration was done in stages, obviously. 

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Why would anyone believe you after such a claim, when a five-year-old can read the difference?

You never answer these questions. 

What are you referring to here?  What "claim" now?  I've proven what 'tohu wabohu' means from the 2 texts that have those descriptive words and they describe total destruction of land.

So what claim do you think a 5 y/o sees differently?

As to answering your questions, since they are so full of assumptions and bias, there's no point.

[Dennis1209]

There are several provable "gaps" of events-time in the Bible, too lengthy to mention them all. First, I want to note the several views on the gap theory and the age of the Earth. I consider this theology a secondary issue, and in the grand scheme with the purpose of God's word, not worth fighting and arguing about.

I have studied this in detail only because I was curious, looking at all sides of this millennial debate. Ussher, G.H. Pember, Scofield, early church fathers, and what ancient Jews wrote, thought, and believed, etc., not to mention Greek/Hebrew word studies.

To make a long story short, I lean toward the Earth created more than 6-10 thousand years ago. Regardless of my studies or opinion, what difference does it make in the purpose of God's word?

One of several things that have puzzled me that might relate to this question:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. (Genesis 1:28)

God's purpose in creating human life in His image was functional: man is to rule or have dominion (1:26, 28). God's dominion was presented by a "representative." However, because of sin all things are not under man's dominion (Heb. 2:8). But Jesus Christ will establish dominion over all the Earth (Heb. 2:5–8) at His second coming.^[1]

Without question, our Lord is a Legalist, Ten Commandments, 613 Jewish laws, seven sealed scroll, etc. Adam was appointed divine authority over the Earth, and all that was in it.

Question: When Adam's authority was usurped, by what legal authority did Satan inherit it? When Jesus was tempted, He did not rebuke or discredit Satan's offer of the kingdoms of this world.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

From when, from where, and why did the above come?

In each day of the Six-Day Creation account of Genesis, save one,, God saw that it was good. What was different on the second day of creation that God did not mention, "That it was good?"

 

 

---

^[1] Ross, Allen P. “Genesis.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1, Victor Books, 1985, p. 29.

[RdJ]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Ridiculous.  I've shown how ALL 10 occurrences of "tohu" are translated.  And you still haven't proven that the condition of "formlessness" even exists.  And the source you quoted proves MY point; that form is in 3 dimensions, the dimension that humanity lives in.  So if you can see an object, you are seeing form.

It is obvious to reasonable people that the destruction was great enough to shift things around.  And God re-arranged what needed to be.  This isn't difficult to grasp.

You're just going by your assumptions.  The Hebrew does mean "became a wasteland", which I proved from how those exact words are translated elsewhere.  

Okay. Lets say this was a rearrangement and God destroyed the earth with water when satan fell in sin and He threw him on earth, earthquake, flood and He started again. What does it matter if that happened or not?

The whole reason they came up with GAP was that evolution said that layers were formed gradually and it was all billions of years old, while before that they just believed the fossils in layers were there because of the flood of Noah. So to still be able to take the Bible literal and have these old fossils they came up with GAP and who cares, I think they're wrong, but Derek Prince believed it too and it's not a salvation issue. It may even help people to believe in God if they can't believe YEC. But you dismiss evolution, layers, geology. Then what does it matter? Those fossils cannot be billions of years old because death came through one man, Adam. And if what is underneath al these layers with fossils is billions of years old and satan fell, why is that so important?

Edited April 12 by RdJ

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, RdJ said:

Genesis 1:1 does not say: God spoke let there be an earth and boom there was the earth with mountains and all. That happened on day 3, like you said.

God spoke and boom there were the trees. That's how I read Genesis 1. He spoke and boom there were the humans.

You are ignoring v.2 and what was actually written, in the Hebrew, and NOT English.

See all 10 occurrences of "tohu" (formless) in the OT and how they are translated, and pay particular attention to where both Hebrew words "though wabohu" (formless and void) are used in the only 2 other passages, both of which are describing coming DISASTER on the land.  Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.

Since both occurrences of both words are clear about what they are describing, explain how they can refer to creation conditions in Gen 1:2.

5 hours ago, RdJ said:

But then Genesis 2 goes into detail. It was not speak boom a tree. It was speak boom a seed and then a damp from the earth and the trees grew.

I think you are just reading INTO the account with words that aren't there.  Where do you see seeds, and trees growing?

5 hours ago, RdJ said:

And it was God forming Adam from dust and building the woman, so why would He not build the earth

Speculative questions.  Irrelevant and prove nothing.

Psa 33:6 - By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

9 - For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

I don't see stages here.  God creates by speaking into existence.  Even His restoration included creating things for the earth.

5 hours ago, RdJ said:

By the way what is a cornerstone? Core stone that later became magma when He was angry and the foundations of the mountains were set on fire? 

I asked Google and offtopic but I saw this testimony:

What were the words (verses) this woman read that led to her conversion?

[FreeGrace]

29 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

There are several provable "gaps" of events-time in the Bible, too lengthy to mention them all. First, I want to note the several views on the gap theory and the age of the Earth. I consider this theology a secondary issue, and in the grand scheme with the purpose of God's word, not worth fighting and arguing about.

One should fight for truth, wherever it is found.  I am convinced that Gen 1:2 has been wrongly translated.

29 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

I have studied this in detail only because I was curious, looking at all sides of this millennial debate. Ussher, G.H. Pember, Scofield, early church fathers, and what ancient Jews wrote, thought, and believed, etc., not to mention Greek/Hebrew word studies.

To make a long story short, I lean toward the Earth created more than 6-10 thousand years ago. Regardless of my studies or opinion, what difference does it make in the purpose of God's word?

Of course, earth age has no relevance other than simply acknowledging what God's word says.  And no theological implications.

29 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

One of several things that have puzzled me that might relate to this question:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. (Genesis 1:28)

God's purpose in creating human life in His image was functional: man is to rule or have dominion (1:26, 28). God's dominion was presented by a "representative." However, because of sin all things are not under man's dominion (Heb. 2:8). But Jesus Christ will establish dominion over all the Earth (Heb. 2:5–8) at His second coming.^[1]

What, exactly, puzzles you here.  God created man to dominate over the earth, but Satan deceived the woman and gained control over the earth.

29 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Without question, our Lord is a Legalist, Ten Commandments, 613 Jewish laws, seven sealed scroll, etc. Adam was appointed divine authority over the Earth, and all that was in it.

Wow.  I disagree here. God is a God of grace, not legalism.  What you present isn't legalism but the evidence man needs to see to know he can't save himself and he can't reach God's goal of sinlessness.

Search the words "grace of God".  You'll find it everywhere.  Eph 2:8

29 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Question: When Adam's authority was usurped, by what legal authority did Satan inherit it?

He didn't inheit it.  Wrong word.  He took it from the humans.  

29 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

When Jesus was tempted, He did not rebuke or discredit Satan's offer of the kingdoms of this world.

In a way, He did.  He told Satan what the Bible says.

29 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

From when, from where, and why did the above come?

It's a reference to fallen angels.

29 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

In each day of the Six-Day Creation account of Genesis, save one,, God saw that it was good. What was different on the second day of creation that God did not mention, "That it was good?"

I view the 6 days as stages of restoration, given the proper understanding of Gen 1:2.

[FreeGrace]

27 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Okay. Lets say this was a rearrangement and God destroyed the earth with water when satan fell in sin and He threw him on earth, earthquake, flood and He started again. What does it matter if that happened or not?

No, that did not happen.  I never said God caused any destruction.  God didn't tell us what or why or how the earth became a wasteland.  But He sure did restore the planet for man's use.

27 minutes ago, RdJ said:

The whole reason they came up with GAP was that evolution said that layers were formed gradually and it was all billions of years old, while before that they just believed the fossils in layers were there because of the flood of Noah.

No, that's not the reason.  In fact, the father of evolution, Darwin was only 5 years old when a Presbyterian minister, Dr Thomas Chalmers, in 1814 wrote about a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2.  He came to that conclusion from the world of a geological named Charles Lyell, who wrote about the age of earth determined from the "geologic columns" in 1796.  Darwin didn't write his nonsense until 1859, so evolution had NO effect of any of what Lyell or Chalmers thought and wrote.

27 minutes ago, RdJ said:

So to still be able to take the Bible literal and have these old fossils they came up with GAP and who cares, I think they're wrong, but Derek Prince believed it too and it's not a salvation issue.

Amen.  It's just a fact to accept.  Even though God didn't give any details.  There's a poster here who keeps asking silly questions about what happened during the "mythical" time gap, even though I've told him numerous times we have no details.  He can't seem to accept that.

27 minutes ago, RdJ said:

It may even help people to believe in God if they can't believe YEC.

But here's the problem.  Scientists view the YEC as morons for their claims of a very young earth.  There is scientific evidence that the universe/earth are much older.

But, understanding what Gen 1:2 actually says, I can look ANY scientist in the eye and agree with him about an old earth without any contradiction to the Bible. 

And the YEC can't do that.  They are always laughed off the stage.  I can agree with an old earth and explain WHY it's as old as they measure, AND it doesn't include any form of evolution.  Just the facts from the Bible.

27 minutes ago, RdJ said:

But you dismiss evolution, layers, geology. Then what does it matter?

It always matter to dismiss evolution, since it's still only a theoy and can't be proved.  Darwin himself admitted that if there would be any facts that refute his theory of evolution, then fine.  And there are such facts.  Comes under the idea of "irreducible complexity".  It's found in the mitochondria, in the "flaggellum motor", which consists of about 140 separate individual parts, ALL of which must be in working order for the cell to live.  If the cells die, then the host dies.  It's that important.

27 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Those fossils cannot be billions of years old because death came through one man, Adam. 

Easily explained.  We don't know what God put on earth when He created it.  We know that angels have full access to the universe because angels travel from God's abode to earth and back.  And in Job 1, during an angelic convocation, God asked Satan what he had been doing.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

So we know angels have access.  Because we don't have any details, we can easily assume there were animals before the earth became a wasteland.  We just don't know what they were.

Regarding death, the verse refers to death by Adam, or sin.  That's on the restored earth.  We know nothing about the originally created earth, before it became a wasteland.  All those really old fossils could have been from a time before the disaster ruined the earth.

27 minutes ago, RdJ said:

And if what is underneath al these layers with fossils is billions of years old and satan fell, why is that so important?

It's just facts.  How important are facts?  Esp facts from the Bible.  Why did God have Moses use "tohu wabohu" in describing earth after creating the earth, and have Jeremiah quote from Gen 1:2 in Jer 4:23 when he was describing the coming disaster and "great destruction" of the land?

These are serious questions.

[RdJ]

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 

I think you are just reading INTO the account with words that aren't there.  Where do you see seeds, and trees growing?

This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. NKJV

 

4  yThese are the generations

of the heavens and the earth when they were created,

in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 When no bush of the field1 was yet in the land 2 and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground ESV

 

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What were the words (verses) this woman read that led to her conversion?

It was about Job 38:4-6

[RdJ]

45 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

No, that's not the reason.  In fact, the father of evolution, Darwin was only 5 years old when a Presbyterian minister, Dr Thomas Chalmers, in 1814 wrote about a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2.  He came to that conclusion from the world of a geological named Charles Lyell, who wrote about the age of earth determined from the "geologic columns" in 1796.  

But here's the problem.  Scientists view the YEC as morons for their claims of a very young earth.  There is scientific evidence that the universe/earth are much older.

I Googled him.

He developed the theory of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism states that the processes by which current geological features were created were slow, steady, and constant.

 

Ah. But that's just what he assumed, that the plates moved slow and YEC says it was not slow steady and constant but quick and caused by the flood.

They can't prove that it is so old. It's based on their assumptions that there was no flood of Noah and that it all went gradually and calm.

They laughed about that guy who came up with plate tectonics too at first.

My brother once said, in the time I believed GAP:

I hardly dare say it and know it sounds stupid, but I believe YEC.

19th Century geologist Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin thought that there were no mass extinctions: rather, what we thought were Cuvier's "revolutions" were no more than extended gaps in the rock record, making the gradual loss and addition of species at the ordinary rate appear to be the sudden loss and appearance.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/4/l_024_01.html

It's been called the most important scientific book ever. A stunning claim, but certainly Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, published in 1830, shook prevailing views of how Earth had been formed. His book was an attack on the common belief among geologists and other Christians that unique catastrophes or supernatural events -- such as Noah's flood -- shaped Earth's surface. According to this view, a once-tumultuous period of change had slowed to today's calmer, more leisurely pace.

Lyell argued that the formation of Earth's crust took place through countless small changes occurring over vast periods of time, all according to known natural laws. His "uniformitarian" proposal was that the forces molding the planet today have operated continuously throughout its history. He also wrongly assumed that these causes must have acted only with the same intensities now observed, which would rule out asteroid impacts and the like.

Darwin read Lyell's landmark text while on the Beagle, and was much inspired by it. 

"The present is the key to the past," was the motto of uniformitarian science. And Darwin, greatly influenced by Lyell, extended that principle to biology.

Edited April 12 by RdJ