Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[RdJ]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I didn't suggest such.  The point is that if Adam is only 65 days older than earth's creation, the wording wouldn't have even included Adam.  It would have just said:  "not since the creation of the earth".  The mention of Adam sure implies the earth could have had an earthquake before Adam appeared. 

I don't argue that.

Not familiar with either Nina or Pangaea.  Don't know what they are.

This discussion isn't about mountains.

I flatly reject ANY form of evolution.  God created the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1) by speaking them into existence immediately (Psa 33:6,9) just as we see during the 6 day restoration:  God spoke, and things appeared.  That's how God creates.

This isn't about mountains, actually.  It's about the fact that the earth must be much older than Adam, given the wording in Gen 1:2 and Rev 16:18.

There were mountains, so there must have been plates bumping into each other and earthquakes to form them on the initial earth before Adam was created. Thats not evolution. I read that a creationist came up with plate tectonics and they didnt believe him, but he thought it happened during the flood and they say it took billions of years and went slow.

I don't believe evolution theory, but the geologic time scale is useful when you just don't look at the ages they give it. They assume it took billions of years to form layers. I believe that their time scheme is off and the layers with fossils are caused by the flood. The light animals go to the bottom. But under those layers are old layers and mountains with no fossils, so that must have been earthquakes at creation before there was life. Proverbs 8.

I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled.

 

Edited April 10 by RdJ

[RdJ]

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/plate-tectonics-creationist-idea-still-makes-accurate-predictions-/

Gramling starts her story in 1912 with Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, who argued that “Earth’s landmasses might be on the move.” He was mocked for his idea, primarily because he had no mechanism that could move the land masses. Keep in mind, by this time geology was dominated by uniformitarianism (the idea that the present, and present-day processes, explain the past). It wasn’t until the 1960s when irrefutable evidence forced scientists to change their minds that plate tectonics became widely accepted and geology was revolutionized. Today it’s unquestioned, but scientists still operate from a uniformitarian perspective, believing that the very slow rate the continents move today is how they’ve moved for billions of years.

Wegener, however, wasn’t the first person to come up with the idea! Fifty-three years earlier, in 1859 (the same year Darwin published Origin of Species), a creationist named Antonio Snider-Pellegrini suggested that the continents have broken apart from a single landmass. Where did his idea come from? Well, Genesis 1:9-10.

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. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Snider-Pellegrini noticed that Genesis 1 says that God gathered all the waters into one place, suggesting a single landmass originally. He also noticed that the continents seem to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Based on this, he proposed that the landmass broke apart during the global flood of Noah’s day when the fountains of the great deep burst forth (Genesis 7:11). He didn’t believe the continents slowly drifted to their current locations—he argued they sprinted there during a global catastrophe! He couldn’t get his work published in English, so it was originally published in French. This resulted in his ideas not being well known at first, but his ideas were published.

The Bible held the clue to revolutionizing our understanding of geology.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

There were mountains, so there must have been plates bumping into each other and earthquakes to form them on the initial earth before Adam was created. Thats not evolution.

I reject evolution.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled.

?

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If true, then the words "not SINCE men were upon the earth" is meaningless.

Funny how anything you don't like is meaningless.  News flash: "such as was not since men were upon the earth," does not mean, infer or imply that they happened before men were upon the earth.  In the interest of accuracy, John was saying that such an earthquake had not been witnessed in the history of man.  Period.  

I care nothing of your adherence to improper translations of two Hebrew words which you misuse to support your false teaching.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Point being, we simply don't know how or why the earth became a wasteland.

What earth?  You claim the six days of creation were actually a restoration, but dry land didn't even exist until the third day.  Do you mean the earth became a wastewater?  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?"

You have no answer, because Gap theory is a profoundly poor excuse for a theory.

Edited April 11 by RV_Wizard

[BeyondET]

12 hours ago, RdJ said:

There were mountains, so there must have been plates bumping into each other and earthquakes to form them on the initial earth before Adam was created. Thats not evolution. I read that a creationist came up with plate tectonics and they didnt believe him, but he thought it happened during the flood and they say it took billions of years and went slow.

I don't believe evolution theory, but the geologic time scale is useful when you just don't look at the ages they give it. They assume it took billions of years to form layers. I believe that their time scheme is off and the layers with fossils are caused by the flood. The light animals go to the bottom. But under those layers are old layers and mountains with no fossils, so that must have been earthquakes at creation before there was life. Proverbs 8.

I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled.

 

Huh wonder when the settling will happen. The Nanga Parbat mountain in Pakistan is the fastest growing mountain on earth around .27 inches a year. It will eventually surpass mt. everest as the tallest on earth.

[Diaste]

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But there is no context.  However, try and fit what you propose into Jer 4:23 and Iswa 34:11, both of which are describing the total destruction of land.

"In the beginning God created..." is the context. 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The best transation of the 2 words together are "uninhabitable wasteland", which sure does fit both Jer 4 and Isa 34.

Best usage and definition given the context. 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There is no context in Gen 1.  Simply, God created the earth in v.1 and in v.2  "uninhabitable wasteland", all without any details.

Yes, that's the context, "In the beginning God created..." This leads to the usage of secondary and tertiary definitions that render the English as "existed featureless and empty". It's a not a necessity in Gen 1:-2 there was a thriving population on earth before 1:2, given the context of God created.

Alternately, in Jer 4 the context is a discussion of the fate of an existing people, likened to a return to "existing featureless and empty". Truly horrifying. 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The details ARE given in the other 2 passages, however.  It is from there we learn about the use of "tohu wabohu".

Kind of a reverse law of 1st mention? 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why would Jeremiah, in the middle of warning of coming disaster and total destruction on the land, quote from Gen 1:2, if it only described original creation?

To liken the fate of the Jews to a featureless and empty people. Now that's surely a total destruction. It's not 'only'. There are secondary and tertiary definitions and usage to apply in a given context. 

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Funny how anything you don't like is meaningless. 

Why are you posting?  You said you were through.  You're not interested in the truth, and everything else is meaningless.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I care nothing of your adherence to improper translations of two Hebrew words which you misuse to support your false teaching.

You've never come close to proving any of your claims.  You think the words can mean something totally different in Gen 1:2 just because God didn't give details.  Well, He wasn't giving you or anyone else such license to make up stuff.  

The 2 passages where the 2 words DO HAVE clear context shows that the 2 words are used to describe total destruction.  Show me how that is an "improper translation" in Jer 4 and Isa 34.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You have no answer, because Gap theory is a profoundly poor excuse for a theory.

In fact, I've answered every one of your silly questions.  And I've repeatedly explained that I haven't provided ANY theory, so your repeated use of that word only reveals your own SOUL.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

"In the beginning God created..." is the context.

 Not really.  The Septuagint translates the Hebrew conjunction as a contrast, (but) and those translators would know much better than any translator after them because Koine Greek was a living language then, unlike since the KJV.  It's called a 'disjoiner' and shows a contrast.  Futher, the LXX translates "tohu" as "unsightly".  Do you really think God creates anything that is unsightly?

What IS unsightly is a wasteland.  So the word fits.

And there is no context for "tohu wabohu".  Only original creation (v.1) and "but the earth became a wasteland" (v.2).

btw, the verb in the EXACT SAME FORM as in v.2 IS translated as "became/become" in other verses in the OT. 

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

Best usage and definition given the context.

The context for "tohu wabohu" occurs in Jer 4 and Isa 34.  Both describe the total destruction of land.  Please correct, if that is wrong.

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes, that's the context, "In the beginning God created..." This leads to the usage of secondary and tertiary definitions that render the English as "existed featureless and empty".

You are ignoring v.2. "but the earth became a wasteland" is legitimate since the Hebrew words ARE translated that way elsewhere in the OT.

Also, the KJV is contradicted between Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 regarding "tohu".

v.2  and the earth was "tohu".

Isa 45;18  God did NOT create the earth "tohu".

The NASB translates "tohu" in Isa 45:18 as "wasteplace".

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

 

 

[JoeCanada]

A great explanation by the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser:

Have we Translated Genesis 1 Wrong All this Time?!

 You Tube

[FreeGrace]

7 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

A great explanation by the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser:

Have we Translated Genesis 1 Wrong All this Time?!

 You Tube

It is interesting that a PhD in Hebrew accepts without a blink the translation "formless and void" from "tohu wabohu", especially since we have 10 verses in the OT that have "tohu", and 3 of those 10 include "wabohu"; Gen 1:2, Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.

Genesis 1 doesn't give us any clue as to what "tohu wabohu" describes, but the other DO show us.  In Jer 4, Jeremiah quotes from Gen 1:2 regarding the land, and most translations simply fall in line and quote the common accepted way; KJV.  But not all do.  

So, if Gen 1:2 is part of the creative act, or something existed BEFORE God supposedly began to create the heavens and earth, why in the world would Jeremiah quote from that verse when the clear context of Jer 4 is great destruction of the land (v.6) by a beseiging army (v.16)that is a destroyer of nations (v.7)?

ESV - v.20 - Crash follows hard on crash; the whole land is laid waste.  Suddenly my tents are laid waste, my curtains in a moment.

The same is true of Isa 34:11.  It's about destruction of the land.

So we have 2 texts with "tohu wabohu" where the clear subject is about coming disaster and great destruction of the land.

Why would there be great destruction of anything BEFORE God began to create?  Unfortunately, Heiser didn't explain.  Or even point out.  He seems fine with "formless" even though no object is formless.  If you can see it, you are seeing its form.