Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

The Bible states:

[2:1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Clearly the heavens and the earth were created first then what goes in them= all the host of them thus angels were created after heaven and earth for the angels are host of heaven... and at least by day four as Job testifies

Job 38:7 (KJV)

[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job 38:7 doesn't indicate that angels were created after the 'heavens and earth'.  Rather, the verse shows that they sang for joy WHEN God created the 'heavens and earth'.

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

The s/Spiritual essence of God left man... This is why one must be born again 

I think there is a better answer.  When the Trinity said "let Us make man in Our image", they weren't talking about appearances.  They were talking about creating man with 3 parts, just as the Trinity has 3 members.  1 Thess 5:23 - May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Heb 4:12 clearly differentiates between soul and spirit:  For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Jesus told the woman at the well:

English Standard Version
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Berean Standard Bible
God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

I know there are translations that have "in the Spirit", but I respect the ESV and BSB.  So Jesus was teaching that in order to worship God, one must have a human spirit.  

Now, what died "on that day"?  Adam and Eve's human spirit.  That is called spiritual death.  Yes, separation from God, because the part of them that was created TO worship God died, kind of like an albatross around one's neck, so to speak.

That is the reason a person needs to be born AGAIN, or RE-generated.  It is the human spirit that is "made alive" (Eph 2:5) at the moment of faith in Christ.  Though the Bible doesn't specifically say so, I believe the Holy Spirit resides in the human spirit, because the other 2 parts of man are corrupt.

And we have this verse:  
New American Standard Bible
No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin continually, because he has been born of God.

Some take this verse to teach sinlessness, which is untrue.  The words "His seed" refers to the Holy Spirit.  

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

John 3:3 (KJV)

[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 4:24 (KJV)

[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 3:5-7 (KJV)

[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Amen!

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

https://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/

Is it Theologically Sound?

There are no theological issues with a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

The gap theory is also unsound theologically. The God of Creation is an omnipotent and omniscient God, and is also a God of grace, mercy, and love. The very concept of the geological ages, on the other hand, implies a wasteful and cruel "god," and therefore probably no god at all.

I don't know what you mean by "geological ages".  It is not difficult to undertand that God created the heavens and earth, and then at some point, someone/thing caused the earth to become an uninhabitable wasteland (literal Hebrew).  So God restored the earth before creating man.

To accept "formless and void" as legitimate for a description of original creation simply has to ignore the only other 2 texts where the 2 Hebrew words occur together; Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  In both texts, the words describe a warning of great destruction.  There is no way those same to 2 words can describe original creation AND total destruction of land.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

The supposed geologic ages are identified in terms of the fossils found in the earth's sedimentary rocks, and there are multiplied billions of them there. But fossils speak of death—even violent death. The preservation of dead animals requires rapid burial if they are to last very long.

Since God gave no details about anything before He restored earth, we simply don't know what went on.  But Romans 5 refers to man's sin that leads to death.  It does not apply to anything before the restoration.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

If the gap theory were valid, it would mean that God had instituted an ages-long system of suffering and death over the world, before there were ever any men and women to place in dominion over that world, and then suddenly destroy it in a violent cataclysm. Why would an omnipotent, merciful God do such a wasteful and cruel thing as that?

This is just a lot of speculation.  God created all angels, and 1/3 rebelled against Him and were kicked out of heaven.  We just don't know what they did.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

They cannot blame Satan, either. According to the gap theory, Satan's fall took place at the end of the geological ages, followed by the great pre-Adamic cataclysm on the earth.

I don't speak for anyone else, but that is nonsense.  I believe the ONLY reasonable and rational culprit IS satan and his horde of demons.  But God didn't give any details, so that's that.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

Thus the geological ages, with their eons of cruelty and waste, took place even before Satan's sin.

Unless one realizes that all that "wasteland" business WAS caused by satan and his horde.  Not after any "geological ages".  btw, satan's sin took place IN heaven, which was before God created the heavens and earth.  Job 38:7 tells us the angels sang for joy over God's creation.  So then satan rebelled and gathered 1/3 of all angels to join him.  And we don't know what they did to the universe and earth.

But "tohu wabohu" sure proves that something/someone DID something to the earth.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

God Himself would be solely responsible for the whole debacle, if it really happened.

Only in your presumptions.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

But is the Gap Theory Biblical?

Tohu wabohu IS biblical and occurs 3 times in the OT.  Only Gen 1:2 has no details to explain what happened to earth, but we KNOW from the other 2 texts what was coming;  great destruction of land.  So much so, that Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 as a description of what was coming.  "formless and void" ain't what was coming.

Rather, an uninhabitable wasteland.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

This groaning creation has indeed experienced one global cataclysm—one not inferred from vague hints in out-of-context quotes

If you are accusing me of "out-out-context quotes" please cite each quote that I used out of context.  

First, there is NO context for why Moses described the earth as tohu wabohu.

Second, there IS clear context for tohu wabohu in Jer 4 and Isa 34.  The words describe great destruction.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

This awesome spectacle of destruction and death was not part of God's "very good" creation.

No one says it was.  However, the Bible doesn't reveal what satan and his horde did after the rebellion.  

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

There was no death in the world until sin was in the world (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:21; etc.).

What we don't know is what the demons did after being kicked out of heaven.  

We DO know that satan is located IN the "Eden, the garden of God" BEFORE the text gets to his fall/rebellion/iniquity.  So we KNOW angels had access to the universe before satan's rebellion.  Not difficult to put together.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

In fact, death itself is "the wages of sin" (Romans 6:23).

This only refers to humans, never angels.  That is probably WHY God left out all details of what happened to earth.  It doesn't apply to humans.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

But if "death reigned" not "from Adam to Moses," as the Bible says (Romans 5:14), but had already reigned for billions of years before Adam, then death is not the wages of sin but instead was part of God's creative purpose. How then could the death of Christ put away sin? The gap theory thus undermines the very gospel of our salvation, as well as the holy character of God.

I've given reasonable and rational answers to your points.  

I would like to see which quotes I used "out of context" as you claim.

[RdJ]

59 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

There are no theological issues with a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2.

I don't know what you mean by "geological ages".  It is not difficult to undertand that God created the heavens and earth, and then at some point, someone/thing caused the earth to become an uninhabitable wasteland (literal Hebrew).  So God restored the earth before creating man.

To accept "formless and void" as legitimate for a description of original creation simply has to ignore the only other 2 texts where the 2 Hebrew words occur together; Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  In both texts, the words describe a warning of great destruction.  There is no way those same to 2 words can describe original creation AND total destruction of land.

Since God gave no details about anything before He restored earth, we simply don't know what went on.  But Romans 5 refers to man's sin that leads to death.  It does not apply to anything before the restoration.

This is just a lot of speculation.  God created all angels, and 1/3 rebelled against Him and were kicked out of heaven.  We just don't know what they did.

I don't speak for anyone else, but that is nonsense.  I believe the ONLY reasonable and rational culprit IS satan and his horde of demons.  But God didn't give any details, so that's that.

Unless one realizes that all that "wasteland" business WAS caused by satan and his horde.  Not after any "geological ages".  btw, satan's sin took place IN heaven, which was before God created the heavens and earth.  Job 38:7 tells us the angels sang for joy over God's creation.  So then satan rebelled and gathered 1/3 of all angels to join him.  And we don't know what they did to the universe and earth.

But "tohu wabohu" sure proves that something/someone DID something to the earth.

Only in your presumptions.

Tohu wabohu IS biblical and occurs 3 times in the OT.  Only Gen 1:2 has no details to explain what happened to earth, but we KNOW from the other 2 texts what was coming;  great destruction of land.  So much so, that Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 as a description of what was coming.  "formless and void" ain't what was coming.

Rather, an uninhabitable wasteland.

If you are accusing me of "out-out-context quotes" please cite each quote that I used out of context.  

First, there is NO context for why Moses described the earth as tohu wabohu.

Second, there IS clear context for tohu wabohu in Jer 4 and Isa 34.  The words describe great destruction.

No one says it was.  However, the Bible doesn't reveal what satan and his horde did after the rebellion.  

What we don't know is what the demons did after being kicked out of heaven.  

We DO know that satan is located IN the "Eden, the garden of God" BEFORE the text gets to his fall/rebellion/iniquity.  So we KNOW angels had access to the universe before satan's rebellion.  Not difficult to put together.

This only refers to humans, never angels.  That is probably WHY God left out all details of what happened to earth.  It doesn't apply to humans.

I've given reasonable and rational answers to your points.  

I would like to see which quotes I used "out of context" as you claim.

I don't claim that you quoted anything out of context. I copied this from a link of a YEC-er. It's not my own text. I just thought he made some good points.

You only believe based on the Bible that there was a satan flood and that satan caused the death of the animals that they found in the oldest layers of earth. But you only look at what the Bible says and you believe the ones who say it is very old, that that is scientific proof of the age, but that's not true. The foal they found in the ice with blood, you say it can be 40000 years old and you think it's from before Adam. But the whole reason they say it is that old is just that they look at the earth layers and how they turned to mountains and they refuse to believe there was a flood of Noah and assume it went as slow as now and then say it is very old, but if you believe that, since it is based on the fossils they found in layers and them thinking mountains form slow, earth moves apart slow, you must also believe that there were humans 20.000 years ago who are the forefathers of the aboriginals. You don't believe that, so then also don't believe the rest they say, cause they just took that idea from that geologian that it is very old and there was no worldwide flood and then they date the fossils they find in these layers, which is nonsense, because that is based on the evolution theory. Billions of years ago there were only tiny sea animals or whatever 1 cell things and then dino's blabla so this is billions of years old, dino's 100 million. No its just layers and mountains formed by Noah's flood and it's one big graveyard in layers from the flood. And before that there is no life/ fossils found, so that was the start.

So all that could have happened before Adam is that there were angels and they were thrown on the earth and who knows darkness because of that, but it's impossible that in that time there were animals like you see today. Also because those dino's had sharp teeth and ate each other and they were evil. I would not be surprised if some of the worst were manipulated by these nephilim. The earth was full of violence.

[FreeGrace]

41 minutes ago, RdJ said:

I don't claim that you quoted anything out of context. I copied this from a link of a YEC-er. It's not my own text. I just thought he made some good points.

Your post insinuated that I did.

41 minutes ago, RdJ said:

You only believe based on the Bible that there was a satan flood and that satan caused the death of the animals that they found in the oldest layers of earth.

I haven't said any of this.  I don't know what "a satan flood" is.  I never said anything satan causing death.  

What I absolutely believe is that "tohu wabohu" describes great destruction.  If you haven't read Jer 4 and Isa 34 yet, you are missing the whole point.  Tohu wabohu occur in those 2 chapters and the context is absolutely clear; coming disaster upon the land.  And that's how the authors described what was coming:  tohu wabohu.

So those 2 words cannot describe God's creation of earth.  Nor would Jeremiah have quoted from Gen 1:2 regarding the coming destruction of tohu wabohu did describe the creation of earth.  That would make no sense.  He was warning of disaster coming and he used the same words that Moses did.  Just look at how tohu is translated elsewhere.

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.

41 minutes ago, RdJ said:

But you only look at what the Bible says and you believe the ones who say it sais very old, that that is scientific proof of the age, but that's not true.

Of course I only look at what the Bible says.  Why would I bother with what scientists claim?  What is sad is how so many believers disregard what the Bible says in order to maintain a translation that gives them a young earth.  It's almost religion-like.  Any mention of an old earth is met with "blasphemy", etc.

I have looked AT what the Bible says and I have proved what "tohu" means, which isn't "formless".  Are you aware that we live in a 3 dimensional world?  That means every object in this world is 3 dimensional.  And rv wizard quoted from a source the difference between "shape" and "form"; shape being 2 dimensional and form being 3.

Which proves my point.  If you can see it, you are seeing form.

So when God created the earth, it couldn't have been in a state of formlessness.  Why so many people give up their senses and just accept what the KJV wrote is a mystery.

Moses described the condition of the earth in terms of what both Jeremiah and Isaiah were warning about;  coming disaster, and great destruction.

41 minutes ago, RdJ said:

The foal they found in the ice with blood, you say it can be 40000 years old and you think it's from before Adam.

I don't believe I said anything about it.

41 minutes ago, RdJ said:

But the whole reason they say it is that old is just that they look at the earth layers and how they turned to mountains and they refuse to believe there was a flood of Noah and assume it went as slow as now and then say it is very old, but if you believe that, since it is based on the fossils they found in layers and them thinking mountains form slow, earth moves apart slow, you must also believe that there were humans 20.000 years ago who are the forefathers of the aboriginals. You don't believe that, so then also don't believe the rest they say, cause they just took that idea from that geologian that it is very old and there was no worldwide flood and then they date the fossils they find in these layers, which is nonsense, because that is based on the evolution theory. Billions of years ago there were only tiny sea animals or whatever 1 cell things and then dino's blabla so this is billions of years old, dino's 100 million. No its just layers and mountains formed by Noah's flood and it's one big graveyard in layers from the flood. And before that there is no life/ fossils found, so that was the start.

I  believe there was a world wide flood in Noah's day.  However, scientists on both sides (believers, too) disagree on the effects of such a flood.

I'm not interested in the flood anyway.  Whatever effects were caused DOESN'T change the meaning of "tohu wabohu".  

41 minutes ago, RdJ said:

So all that could have happened before Adam is that there were angels and they were thrown on the earth and who knows darkness because of that, but it's impossible that in that time there were animals like you see today.

I never said anything about animals being like they are today.

You're making a bunch of assumptions about what I believe.  

41 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Also because those dino's had sharp teeth and ate each other and they were evil. I would not be surprised if some of the worst were manipulated by these nephilim. The earth was full of violence.

What?  Evil dinos??  Where do you get that?  

What I know is that the earth became tohu wabohu.  Trying to get people to just accept what the Bible says ain't easy.  But I'm not budging.

I've shown this thread all the verses where tohu occurs.  (see above).  I've explained how tohu wabohu was used in Jer 4 and Isa 34 to describe coming disaster.

Why do people just dismiss all this as if it doesn't matter and God created the earth tohu?

In FACT, Isa 45:18 says that God did not create the earth tohu, which directly contradicts the KJV of Gen 1:2.

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!),]who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create (bara) it empty (tohu), he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the LORD, and there is no other.

The NASB translates tohu as "waste place".  Go to biblehub.com and put in Isa 45:18 and see how 32 English translations treat 'tohu'.  

 

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I think you are just wasting your time.

True.  You are unteachable.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You keep asking silly questions about what may have happened in what you consider a theoretical time gap.

YOU are the one proposing a time gap where none exists, proposing a pre-existing world that somehow got destroyed before any dry land had formed and before any living thing was on the earth; ignoring definitions of Hebrew words accepted for 51 centuries and still accepted by 86% of Bible translations when the remaining 14% STILL don't agree with your claim, and YOU are the one who can't answer the simple questions pivotal to the heresy you are promoting.  You are the one promoting Gap Theory while denying any knowledge of Gap Theory.

These aren't silly questions.  They demonstrate the absolute impossibility of what you are saying being true.  If there was a previously existing world, you would be able to show how it existed.  There was not.  There was no earth on earth to become a wasteland.  The planet was covered with water and was lifeless.  If you ever bothered to actually READ Genesis 1, you would see the disconnect between what the word of God says and what you claim it says.

[RdJ]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I don't know what you mean by "geological ages".  

Unless one realizes that all that "wasteland" business WAS caused by satan and his horde.  Not after any "geological ages".  btw, satan's sin took place IN heaven, which was before God created the heavens and earth.  

You should look into those geological ages. It's man made nonsense based on the idea that there was no flood and that there was evolution. I can't explain it well. It's mainly Bible teachers and theologians who believe GAP because they are only interested in the Bible and not geology and paleontology.

There's the flood. Everything dies in the water. Water leaves. You have piles and piles of sedimentary layers of earth that have also formed into mountains. They can see if it eroded by wind, an ice age etc. Very interesting stuff. But they do it based on evolution and the geological time scale. They just see different layers of earth. The ones on the bottom have only small marine fossils in them. A layer on top has dino's. A layer on top has humans. So it's very easy. That's formed by the flood. Which is what they always believed until others said this was not scientific to count things in like a flood and left that out and said it formed in millions of years. Then Darwin came and he said: Yup indeed. The oldest layer formed billions of years ago only has one celled animals. That is the start of life. The dino's then came through evolution 400 million years ago or whatever. It's blabla nonsense. It was formed in one year with the flood and afterwards. There are stories all over the world about the flood and in Australia from about the time afterwards with a lower sea level because of an ice age in the North. They knew. They were there. Darwin and the geologians were not.

Now that guy who came up with GAP hears from a geologian that it is billions of years old. He thinks: the guy is so intelligent and studied so hard. He must know and this is science, proof that the earth is old and the fossils are old and to still be able to believe the Bible literal he combines the 2 and comes up with GAP.

Little problem: He combined God's Word with false evolution and uniformitarianism.

 

Here, this is copied from:

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/where-did-the-idea-of-millions-of-years-come-from/

Prior to 1750, one of the most important geological thinkers was Niels Steensen (1638–1686), or Steno, a Danish anatomist and geologist. He established the principle of superposition, namely that sedimentary rock layers are deposited in a successive, essentially horizontal fashion, so that a lower stratum was deposited before the one above it. In his book Forerunner (1669), he expressed belief in a roughly 6,000-year-old earth and that fossil-bearing rock strata were deposited by Noah’s flood. Over the next century, several authors, including the English geologist John Woodward (1665–1722) and the German geologist Johann Lehmann (1719–1767), wrote books essentially reinforcing that view.

In the latter decades of the 18th century, some French and Italian geologists rejected the biblical account of the Flood and attributed the rock record to natural processes occurring over a long period of time. Several prominent Frenchmen also contributed to the idea of millions of years. The widely respected scientist Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) imagined in his book Epochs of Nature (1779) that the earth was once like a hot molten ball that had cooled to reach its present state over about 75,000 years (though his unpublished manuscript says about 3,000,000 years).

 

 

Edited April 14 by RdJ

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

I think you are just wasting your time.

True.  You are unteachable.

You need a mirror.  You've rejected the evidence and proof.  You've given NO evidence or proof, other than the KJV translation, which has been proved to be in error.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

YOU are the one proposing a time gap where none exists

You won't honestly consider what "tohu wabohu" means.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

proposing a pre-existing world that somehow got destroyed before any dry land had formed and before any living thing was on the earth

Why do you keep making these false statements?  I've NEVER said anything a pre-existing world.  That would mean God created a new world, which He didn't.

Maybe you just don't understand what "restore" means.  That might explain some of your errors.  Same world.  Original creation and then restored.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

ignoring definitions of Hebrew words accepted for 51 centuries and still accepted by 86% of Bible translations when the remaining 14% STILL don't agree with your claim

I've already proven that "formless" is bogus and doesn't exist for any object, so your argument for "accepted" translation for 51 centuries is laughable.

In 300 BC Hebrew scholars translated "tohu" as 'unsightly'.  How is that 'formless'?  Those words aren't even related. 

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

and YOU are the one who can't answer the simple questions pivotal to the heresy you are promoting. 

Your so-called simple questions are all about what would have caused the earth to become a wasteland.  The reason I can't answer those questions is because God didn't give any details in Genesis 1.  Why is that so hard to accept?  

However, God DID give us context and details in Jer 4 and Isa 34 about how "tohu wabohu" are used to describe GREAT DESTRUCTION of the land.

And you just dismiss the evidence.  You are the unteachable one.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You are the one promoting Gap Theory while denying any knowledge of Gap Theory.

Since I've already claimed over and over that I haven't provided ANY theory, but only what the Hebrew really says by comparing the words where else they occur, you are demonstrating your own limited capacity to comprehend.  Of course there are many theories of why and how the time gap.  So what?  I don't care about any of them.

I only care about what the Hebrew really means.  And I've shown what they mean by quoting all the other verses where they occur.

And the context of Jer 4 and Isa 34 show what "tohu wabohu" means.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

These aren't silly questions.

Of course they are.  Maybe worse than silly.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  They demonstrate the absolute impossibility of what you are saying being true.

They do no such thing.  Your questions demand details that God never gave.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If there was a previously existing world, you would be able to show how it existed.

I've already demolished this nonsense, since I never menetioned a "pre-existing world", as if the 6 days in Genesis 1 was about a new and different world.

Why would I be able to show any detail when God didn't give the details?  That the question that you would rather ignore, so you can continue with your silly or worse questions.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There was no earth on earth to become a wasteland.

Well, this certainly demonstrates your confusion.  "no earth on earth".  What does that even mean?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The planet was covered with water and was lifeless.

Before God restored it.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If you ever bothered to actually READ Genesis 1, you would see the disconnect between what the word of God says and what you claim it says.

Another wild claim that shows your complete inability to comprehend.  I've shown key Hebrew words and how they are used elsewhere that shows what they mean in Gen 1:2.  But all you can do is focus on a translation that isn't even real; "formless".

The source you quoted about the difference between shape and form actually refutes your nonsense belief that 'formless' is a legitimate translation for God's creative efforts.  What hogwash.

We live in a 3 dimensional world.  Created by God.  The very moment God created the earth, it HAD FORM.  You can't have an object without form.  That is impossible.

But you can't seem to comprehend that FACT.  Anyway, thanks for the source that proves my claim about 'formlessness'.  It doesn't exist.

It is impossible to have an adult rational and reasonable conversation with you.

You seem allergic to truth and facts.  Seems you have a religion about a young earth.  You've called me a heretic, which shows your own warped mindset.

Earth age has no effect on any doctrine.  God created the heavens and earth, and God restored a wrecked earth, before He created man and placed man on the earth.

The ONLY difference between us is that something or someone ruined earth, not because they were stronger than God, but because God's will allowed it.  And God left out all details of the who, why and how, which you can't seem to grasp.

So you can take your religion and do whatever you want with it.  I'm not interested in such stuff.  

God did not create the earth formless (tohu).  In fact, Isa 45:18 SAYS He didn't create the earth tohu.  But that's just another fact that you can't deal with.

The good news for you is that religion doesn't need facts.

[Diaste]

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, FreeGrace said:

 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".  

Sure. But a blank canvas is void before the paint, a stone is unsightly before the chisel. I agree with the contrast in that regard, a featureless earth is a contrast to what comes after. And what about the heavens? God created those. Were the heavens filled with the lights before they were created? 

"In the beginning God created...the earth" There really can't be anything before that. 

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, FreeGrace said:

Do you really think God creates anything that is unsightly?

Have you seen some the examples of unsightly creatures from the oceans? A cheetah is sleek and stunning, a lion is majestic and royal, an axolotl is a bit jarring to look at. Even the elephant is not pleasing to look at, we are in awe of the size and power, not stunned by it's beauty! lol

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, FreeGrace said:

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. 

Why pick 'became'? Why not 'be', as in exist? Or 'came to pass'?

hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

Original Word: הָיָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hayah
Phonetic Spelling: (haw-yaw)
Definition: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, FreeGrace said:

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.

I agree with that as it makes sense given the context. Jer 4 is clearly depicting an inhabited land bustling with daily life in all sectors: religion, politics, military, plowing, planting and reaping. The behaviors of God's people are so egregious it's going to result in a formless, empty land. No problem. Isaiah 34 is the same, the earth is filled with nations, and they will come to destruction. 

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, FreeGrace said:

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.

Not exactly. That's akin to concluding all 4 wheel vehicles are the same because one knows cars exist. Different context requires much different definitions of a 4 wheeled vehicle. 

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying the context is not the same, 'cause it isn't, and therefore the definition must fit the context. The earth cannot 'became' since it was  creation of that earth, as a foundation for all that would be subsequently created, in and on an earth that was featureless and empty. 

The only thing the earth could 'became' was to exist where it did exist previously. the earth 'became' into existence. 

That just makes sense given what else we know about the creation story; everything in and on the earth was formed and created in the six days following. There is no account of any such creation of the topography, flora and fauna before v.2.

If there is an account of a prior creation then I would like to read it. A quibble over a word is not going to prove there was. The default here is a featureless and empty created earth, like a canvas, readied for a master artist.

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, FreeGrace said:

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".

 

It doesn't matter what other passage seem to indicate when not in the same context. Jer 4 and Isa 34 share a context with each other, not so with Gen 1:1-2.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

You should look into those geological ages. It's man made nonsense based on the idea that there was no flood and that there was evolution.

That cannot be true.  The geological ages was written about in 1796 by a geologist named Charles Lyell.  Darwin hadn't been born yet.  So evolution had NO part in it.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

I can't explain it well. It's mainly Bible teachers and theologians who believe GAP because they are only interested in the Bible and not geology and paleontology.

I'd much rather believe what the Bible says than any geologist, etc.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

There's the flood. Everything dies in the water. Water leaves. You have piles and piles of sedimentary layers of earth that have also formed into mountains.

Mountains are formed by violent earth movements, not deep water.  Mountains could be formed by the "breaking up of the deep" when God initially started the flood.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

They can see if it eroded by wind, an ice age etc. Very interesting stuff. But they do it based on evolution and the geological time scale. They just see different layers of earth. The ones on the bottom have only small marine fossils in them. A layer on top has dino's. A layer on top has humans. So it's very easy. That's formed by the flood. Which is what they always believed until others said this was not scientific to count things in like a flood and left that out and said it formed in millions of years. Then Darwin came and he said: Yup indeed. The oldest layer formed billions of years ago only has one celled animals. That is the start of life. The dino's then came through evolution 400 million years ago or whatever. It's blabla nonsense. It was formed in one year with the flood and afterwards. There are stories all over the world about the flood and in Australia from about the time afterwards with a lower sea level because of an ice age in the North. They knew. They were there. Darwin and the geologians were not.

Not sure what your point is here.  My focus is on what Gen 1:2 says.  Regardless of Noah's flood.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

Now that guy who came up with GAP hears from a geologian that it is billions of years old. He thinks: the guy is so intelligent and studied so hard. He must know and this is science, proof that the earth is old and the fossils are old and to still be able to believe the Bible literal he combines the 2 and comes up with GAP.

I have no idea what went through Chalmers mind, or the guy many years before.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

Little problem: He combined God's Word with false evolution and uniformitarianism.

No problem.  I have left evolution and its derivatives out of the discussion.  My focus is on what the Bible SAYS in Genesis 1.  Which shows an earth much older than Adam.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

Here, this is copied from:

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/where-did-the-idea-of-millions-of-years-come-from/

Prior to 1750, one of the most important geological thinkers was Niels Steensen (1638–1686), or Steno, a Danish anatomist and geologist. He established the principle of superposition, namely that sedimentary rock layers are deposited in a successive, essentially horizontal fashion, so that a lower stratum was deposited before the one above it. In his book Forerunner (1669), he expressed belief in a roughly 6,000-year-old earth and that fossil-bearing rock strata were deposited by Noah’s flood. Over the next century, several authors, including the English geologist John Woodward (1665–1722) and the German geologist Johann Lehmann (1719–1767), wrote books essentially reinforcing that view.

Sadly, my view about Ken Ham is that he is unable to separate an old earth from evolution.  It seems he equates them, which is ridiculous.  

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

In the latter decades of the 18th century, some French and Italian geologists rejected the biblical account of the Flood and attributed the rock record to natural processes occurring over a long period of time. Several prominent Frenchmen also contributed to the idea of millions of years. The widely respected scientist Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) imagined in his book Epochs of Nature (1779) that the earth was once like a hot molten ball that had cooled to reach its present state over about 75,000 years (though his unpublished manuscript says about 3,000,000 years).

Again, my only focus is on what the Hebrew actually means in Gen 1.

[RdJ]

5 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Before God restored it.

It could be possible. To me it does not matter. I also believe satan fell before God even created the earth and if He threw him on earth no problem with me. But if there were not only angels, but also physical animals, grass, trees that got destroyed by an ice age or flood whatever then there would be evidence in the earth. Except when the whole bunch exploded and all the evidence is gone, but then what are we talking about? I don't care if the darkness was a swaddle band from initial creation or caused by satan. I'll know when I'm in heaven if it even interests me to ask. It's not even in the Bible. It's not important.

But if there was only destruction by ice or water what you would see is the oldest mountains containing all kinds of fossils, trees, animals, dino's and the way younger mountains again animals, plants, humans, because that's from after Noah's flood and that is not the case. The oldest earth has no fossils at all and then you get a layer with small marine animals and one on top with bigger animals etcetera which is all from Noah because all these animals were created in Genesis.