Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[FreeGrace]

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Sure. But a blank canvas is void before the paint

Gotcha!!  :)  The word "void" is "wabohu".  There is no such thing as a formless object, which is "tohu" in the Hebrew.  That's the problem.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

a stone is unsightly before the chisel.

Not necessarily.  Maybe.  However, since "tohu" is used to describe great destruction in Jer 4 and Isa 34, we're not looking at God taking a chisel to earth in Genesis 1.  We're looking at the CONDITION of earth after creation.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

I agree with the contrast in that regard, a featureless earth is a contrast to what comes after.

Yet, 'featureless' isn't 'formless'.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

And what about the heavens? God created those. Were the heavens filled with the lights before they were created? 

We don't know.  The Bible doesn't say.  Because of v.2, everything that follows is about restoration, which obviously includes the heavens.  

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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

Other than angels, who witnessed the creation of the heavens and earth.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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

Not relevant or related to "tohu" in Gen 1:2.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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

The verb comes in many various forms.  But, the exact same form as in Gen 1:2 IS translated as "became/become" in a number of verses.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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

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.

Gotta stop you here.  The "besieging army" that is a "destroyer of nations" doesn't render the land 'formless'.  It lays WASTE to the land, so that it is uninhabitable (wabohu).

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

No problem. Isaiah 34 is the same, the earth is filled with nations, and they will come to destruction.

Exactly.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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.

And God left out all details in Gen 1.  But we do have the other 2 passages, which show how "tohu wabohu" are used.  The words describe great destruction in 2 out of 3 passages.  What the words cannot be used for is describing God's perfect creation.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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.

Again, 'featureless' and 'formless' aren't the same.  A "featureless" Christmas tree (without decorations) has the SAME FORM as one with decorations on it.

Yes, the earth CAN become a wasteland, even though God didn't give details.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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

That doesn't make sense.  Here is what does.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth, BUT the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND.  That is clear.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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.

v.1

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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.

Because you keep equating 'featureless' and 'formless' it's not getting through.

3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

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.

Sure it matters.  The other 2 passages show HOW "tohu wabohu" are used in describing the land.  Great destruction.

Just look at how "tohu" is used in all 10 occurrences:

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.

How much of this can be applied to God's perfect creation?

Tohu simply cannot be used to describe original creation.  The earth became tohu.

[RdJ]

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

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.

Yes. It started even before Lyell apparently I read in that link from Ken Ham, that they left the flood out to explain how the earth was formed. So before evolution it was already bad and not based on God's Word. Darwin just went with it and made it even worse.

Edited April 14 by RdJ

[FreeGrace]

18 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Yes. It started even before Lyell apparently I read in that link from Ken Ham, that they left the flood out to explain how the earth was formed.

Evolution began with Darwin, who wrote the book on "Origin of the Species".  In 1859.

I wouldn't expect a secular geologist to mention Noah's flood.

18 minutes ago, RdJ said:

So before evolution it was already bad and not based on God's Word. Darwin just went with it and made it even worse.

But an old earth doesn't support evolution.  But evolution requires an old earth.  

Evolution was satan's deception to take God out of creation.

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You've given NO evidence or proof, other than the KJV translation,

Plus 86% of the translations YOU posted from Bible Hub, plus that fact that none of the sources you posted say the earth became anything, plus the fact the before what you call the restoration, there was no land, no life, no sun, moon or stars, and no possibility of the earth having ever been anything other than what it was; formless and void before God formed it into the earth we have now.

You keep talking about Hebrew translations you don't understand.  I have one for you.  It reads like this.  "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and God said, Let there be light: and there was light, and God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness, and God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."  Punctuation mine.  You see, dear unbeliever, that there were no verses in the original text, neither was there punctuation or capitalization, and neither were there verses.  These things are English translations designed to make it easier for us to read and reference.  Not only was there no time gap between verse one and verse two, there wasn't even a comma.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've NEVER said anything a pre-existing world.

So you not only haven't read Genesis, you also haven't read anything you've ever posted.  If the world was destroyed prior to some mythical "restoration," then there had to be a pre-existing world.  I can't restore a copy of Jaws on an old VHS tape that never had the movie on it in the first place, now can I?  Perhaps we'd know better what you're talking about if you had a clue what you're talking about.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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

Technically, almost every word has multiple meanings. How often do you look up a word in the dictionary and find only one meaning listed next to it? Practically never.  You've built an entire doctrine on a minority interpretation of words you don't understand, and you use that to attack the plain teaching of the Bible.  You spew false doctrine like all the other false teachers, repeating things they don't understand trying to make themselves look more enlightened than others.  Your words are toxic, and could cause those weak in faith to doubt their faith.  Evolution caused many to doubt or reject the Scriptures.  Gap theory is a lesser threat, but still a threat.  Christians should support each other and sound doctrine.  You attack sound doctrine based only on a minority interpretation that was formed to help accept the lie of long ages.

No, I don't post for your benefit, but to remind others that  your words are false and contrary to the Scriptures.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've NEVER said anything a pre-existing world.  That would mean God created a new world, which He didn't.

Please learn the English language before preaching to others about the Hebrew language.  The world and the earth are NOT synonyms.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've already proven that "formless" is bogus and doesn't exist for any object,

You've proven that neither English nor science are your strong points.  Not understanding what formless means does not equate to its non-existence.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Your so-called simple questions are all about what would have caused the earth to become a wasteland.

Again, you lack understanding.  I'm question pre-existence, not causation.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I only care about what the Hebrew really means.  

Would it not be prudent to first learn English, then take on other languages with which you have no familiarity?  You are not concerned with what the words really mean, but rather how they can be twisted to include long ages and a previous world that never existed.  You are seeking to prove a lie by re-defining the truth.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Your questions demand details that God never gave.  

Your posting demands a re-construction that God never did.  God doesn't usually give details on things that never happened.  

I hold no false hope of convincing you.  That's up to God.  I am only shining a light on the darkness of your false teaching for others to see through.  Whether they do is up to them.

 

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Plus 86% of the translations YOU posted from Bible Hub

That only demonstrates copy cats who were either not smart enough or too lazy to dig out the actual Hebrew.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

plus that fact that none of the sources you posted say the earth became anything, plus the fact the before what you call the restoration

I've already proven that the same exact form of the verb in Gen 1:2 IS translated as "became" in a number of other verses.  Why don't you like evidence/facts?  What do you have against them?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

there was no land, no life, no sun, moon or stars, and no possibility of the earth having ever been anything other than what it was; formless and void before God formed it into the earth we have now.

"formless" is not even a state of being.  Your own source was clear between shape and form.  We live in a 3 dimensional world, a world that God created.  So every object HAS form.  But you seem to be quite uncomfortable with facts.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You keep talking about Hebrew translations you don't understand.

What do you know about Hebrew?  I've given you plenty of facts and you just ignore all of them.  So don't tell me what I don't understand.  You think "formless" is a state of being, but you can't give me any examples.  How's that for not understanding?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  I have one for you.  It reads like this.  "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and God said, Let there be light: and there was light, and God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness, and God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Sure, I have read ALL of Genesis. And ch 1 numerous times.  So what?  All you did was copy the KJV, which a lot of translations did.  I've shown 5 that are consistent with how "tohu" is translated elsewhere, unlike all the copy cats.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You see, dear unbeliever, that there were no verses in the original text

In many cases, a verse is just a sentence.  So you are in error once again.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

neither was there punctuation or capitalization

And none of this refutes anything I've said.  But you never seem to have a point.  Just random sentences.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

, and neither were there verses.

Sure.  Believe what you want.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  These things are English translations designed to make it easier for us to read and reference.

And yet, you trust the lousy transation of "tohu wabohu" OVER how those words are used elsewhere.  You just keep demonstrating your distaste for facts.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Not only was there no time gap between verse one and verse two, there wasn't even a comma.

Irrelevant again.  I never said anything about a comma, as if that would make any difference.  I've already shown the difference between how most English translations mistranslated "tohu" in v.2.  But don't worry about it.  It's just a FACT.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

So you not only haven't read Genesis

And you have NO BASIS for such outlandish and unproven claims.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

you also haven't read anything you've ever posted.

Oh, that's real brilliant!!  Do YOU read what you post?  Why not begin and read what you just posted above.  

Actually, it's impossible to NOT read what I post.  So your apparent break with reality is getting worse and worse.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If the world was destroyed prior to some mythical "restoration," then there had to be a pre-existing world.

There was God's original world.  It pre-existed the great destruction (tohu wabohu) that is noted in v.2.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  I can't restore a copy of Jaws on an old VHS tape that never had the movie on it in the first place, now can I?

What does this have to do with anything?  Are you lowering God to your "abililties" and equating restoring the earth with restoring a tape???   That's far from reality.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Perhaps we'd know better what you're talking about if you had a clue what you're talking about.

What is clear is that you have no clue.  Which you just keep on demonstrating.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Technically, almost every word has multiple meanings.

Yes, Cap obvious.  We all know that.  And I have already shown you EVERY verse in the OT that contains "tohu".  Want to see them AGAIN?  Sure.

Tohu occurs 10 times in the OT

Genesis 1:2
NAS: The earth was formless and void,

1 Samuel 12:21
NAS: futile things which

Job 26:7
NAS: over empty space And hangs

Isaiah 24:10
NAS: The city of chaos is broken down;
KJV: The city of confusion is broken down:

Isaiah 34:11 Describes the total destruction of the land
NAS: it the line of desolation And the plumb line
KJV: upon it the line of confusion, and the stones

Isaiah 44:9
NAS: are all of them futile, and their precious things
KJV: a graven image [are] all of them vanity; and their delectable things

Isaiah 45:18   Directly contradicts Gen 1:2 usual translation
NAS: it [and] did not create it a waste place, [but] formed
KJV: it, he created it not in vain, he formed

Isaiah 45:19
NAS: Seek Me in a waste place; I, the LORD,
KJV: Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD

Isaiah 59:4
NAS: They trust in confusion and speak
KJV: they trust in vanity, and speak

Jeremiah 4:23   Describes the total destruction of the land by an invading army
NAS: and behold, [it was] formless and void;
KJV: the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void;

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.

So go ahead, and look up each verse on biblehub and see how they are translated.

NASB correctly translated "tohu" in Isa 45:18 as "a wasteland", yet fell on its face and just copied what the KJV translated in Gen 1:2.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How often do you look up a word in the dictionary and find only one meaning listed next to it? Practically never. 

More irrelevancy.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You've built an entire doctrine on a minority interpretation of words you don't understand, and you use that to attack the plain teaching of the Bible. 

This is ridiculous.  There's no "doctrine".  Just the fact that the earth became a wasteland.  It's YOU who won't even read how "tohu wabohu" are used in the only other 2 times.  Afraid of the facts, apparently.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your words are toxic

My words come from what the Bible SAYS in the Hebrew.  If that's your view, you are in for a lot of trouble.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

, and could cause those weak in faith to doubt their faith. 

Now, how would that work?  Could you expand on that?  Or is this just another dramatic outlandish claim that you can't prove?

Again, your irrelevancy seems to know no bounds.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Evolution caused many to doubt or reject the Scriptures.

And I have repeatedly rejected and refutes evolution.  Not that you noticed, obviously.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Gap theory is a lesser threat, but still a threat.

I'll bet that you can't explain WHY.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Christians should support each other and sound doctrine.

I agree, because that's what I've been trying to do with you.  But your resistance to evidence and facts is monumental.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You attack sound doctrine based only on a minority interpretation

So a young earth is "sound doctrine"?  No, that is just a young earth religion, of which you are full of its dogma.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

that was formed to help accept the lie of long ages.

You should really hear what you type.  It's beyond hilarious.  The concept of a time gap was formed by understanding what "tohu wabohu" means, and we have 2 texts where there is plenty of context from which to make a determination.

But, you, ototh, prefer to stick with a meaningless word translation of "tohu" by the KJV to preserve your young earth religion (YER).  

The "lie of long ages" came by way of Darwin, in 1859, when he wrote "The Origin of the Species".  That is where the lie started.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, I don't post for your benefit, but to remind others that  your words are false and contrary to the Scriptures.

Well, let's just let the readers make their own judgments.  I have provided all the evidence and facts for them to consider.  All you've done is ignore evidence and facts and just repeat your religion's mantra:  the earth is young, the earth is young, the earth is young.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Please learn the English language before preaching to others about the Hebrew language.  The world and the earth are NOT synonyms.

You really need a fact checker looking over your shoulder when you type.  That should lessen all the embarrassment from all these very erroneous claims.

My copy of Roget's Thesaurus:

earth:  planet, globe, world; ground, land, dirt, soil, mold.

world (noun):  creation, nature, universe; earth, globe, wide world, cosmos, macrocosm, etc, etc.

Good luck finding a fact checker.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You've proven that neither English nor science are your strong points.

Rather, it seems I've proven that you make wild unsubsstantiated claims and that you worship a young earth, all without facts.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Not understanding what formless means does not equate to its non-existence.

I sure do understand it when used in a comparitive sense.  Which Gen 1:2 isn't.

So as a state of being, there is no such thing as formlessness.  Are you STILL very confused about your own source that defines form as 3 dimensional?

God created the heavens and earth in 3 dimensions.  So how can there be a formless object in a 3 dimensional universe?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Again, you lack understanding.  I'm question pre-existence, not causation.

Why question pre-existence?  Gen 1:1 is original creation.  v.2 tells of the earth becoming tohu wabohu.  But you can wallow in you YER.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Would it not be prudent to first learn English, then take on other languages with which you have no familiarity?

The Bible commands believers to love the brethren, which means to be kind and patient with them.  As I am with you.  So your comment above, common to most of your posts, is just snarky and mean, very unChristian-like.  Why do you allow yourself such abandon and ignore the commands of Scripture?

Maybe your young earth religion holds you tighter than anything else.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You are not concerned with what the words really mean

The Bible tells us to NOT one another, and yet, here you go, judging where you have no facts.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

, but rather how they can be twisted to include long ages and a previous world that never existed.

Tohu wabohu proves the opposite.  But your religion banns facts, it seems.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You are seeking to prove a lie by re-defining the truth.

And you can't prove or even demonstrate your very false claim.  And that is what all religions fail at.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your posting demands a re-construction that God never did. 

I've proven that tohu wabohu says just that.  Although the correct word is restoration.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

God doesn't usually give details on things that never happened.  

I hold no false hope of convincing you.

I'll tell you why you can't.  I have the truth and you have your religion.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  That's up to God.  I am only shining a light on the darkness of your false teaching for others to see through.  Whether they do is up to them.

You are deep in the darkness, sadly.  And you have no excuse.  Your religion has blinded your eyes.

[RV_Wizard]

42 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Good luck finding a fact checker.

World: (source: Dictionary.com)

noun
the earth or globe, considered as a planet. (one definition)

(often initial capital letter) a particular division of the earth:
the Western world.

the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period:
the ancient world.

humankind; the human race; humanity:
The world must eliminate war and poverty.

the public generally:
The whole world knows it.

the class of persons devoted to the affairs, interests, or pursuits of this life:
The world worships success.

a particular class of people, with common interests, aims, etc.:
the fashionable world.

Nothing else you said is important.  We've all read your claims.  We all know they are false.  We all know you can't show anything in the scriptures to validate your false teaching other than your tortured, minority description of two words you don't understand.  We all know there was no long time gap in the beginning of Genesis.  There wasn't a verse one and verse two in the original text, let alone some millions of years on a lifeless planet covered by water.  

Your false teaching has been exposed.  If anyone believes it after this, it's on them.

[FreeGrace]

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

Good luck finding a fact checker.

World: (source: Dictionary.com)

noun
the earth or globe, considered as a planet. (one definition)

(often initial capital letter) a particular division of the earth:
the Western world.

the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period:
the ancient world.

humankind; the human race; humanity:
The world must eliminate war and poverty.

the public generally:
The whole world knows it.

the class of persons devoted to the affairs, interests, or pursuits of this life:
The world worships success.

a particular class of people, with common interests, aims, etc.:
the fashionable world.

Thanks for confirming what I already proved;  that earth and world are synonymous .

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

 

Nothing else you said is important.  We've all read your claims.  We all know they are false.

When the "standard" for what's true and false is your young earth religion, sure, everything else would seem false.  

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  We all know you can't show anything in the scriptures to validate your false teaching

The opposite is true.  I'll let any readers make up their own mind.  Unless other readers are in your same young earth religion.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

other than your tortured, minority description of two words you don't understand.

You've rejected what they mean, which I've proved by showing the other 2 passages where the details are all too obvious.  They describe great destruction.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  We all know there was no long time gap in the beginning of Genesis.

You only know what your young earth religion teaches.  And all without facts or evidence.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There wasn't a verse one and verse two in the original text, let alone some millions of years on a lifeless planet covered by water.

Even the Hebrew scholars back in 300 BC who translated the OT into Koine Greek understood the conjunction wasn't one of continuation, like "and".  But rather, a disjoiner which they translated as "but".  Their translation, plus "tohu wabohu" proves that the earth BECAME a total mess.  And the exact form of the verb in v.2 IS translated as "became" or "become" in other verses in the OT.

So I have facts with evidence which prove my view.  You just have your young earth religion, based on NO facts or evidence.  

You know very little, but that's because you aren't interested in facts, which you just keep on demonstrating over and over.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your false teaching has been exposed.  If anyone believes it after this, it's on them.

No, if they believe your religion, that would be on them.

You have shown no interest in how Hebrew words are translated outside of Gen 1:2, showing that you have no objectivity.  

You've been blinded by religion, like so many others.

[RV_Wizard]

55 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Thanks for confirming what I already proved;  that earth and world are synonymous .

No, that you are clueless.  The earth is the planet.  The world is what's on the planet.

Third world countries are not third earth countries.  In neither world war did the earth itself engage in combat.  There is no planet named World.  CAN the words be used interchangeably in some instances?  Yes, because many don't realize there is a difference.

[Still Alive]

I just happened on this thread when I logged in today. As I read through a lot of posts, this came to mind:

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

1 Timothy 6:4
he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

1 Timothy 3:3
not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.

2 Timothy 2:14
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.

2 Timothy 2:24
The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,

Romans 16:17
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

Romans 13:13
Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy.

Proverbs 20:3
Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man,
But any fool will quarrel.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Avoid-Quarrels

 

Edited April 14 by Still Alive

[Still Alive]

In the vein of "science is about how and religion is about why", and understanding from where we get our book of Genesis, I'm pretty unprejudiced about how old the earth is, how Adam and Eve actually came about, the creation of the "heavens and earth", and tend to trust actual scientific discovery.

After all, we're looking at pretty old translations from very old translations of mostly, if not literally, dead language. I personally interpret the phrase "the earth" as "the surface of the earth". Or even "the age of man". 

And I find it interesting that scientific discovery has convinced most of us that we are on a sphere orbiting the sun, which is travelling at a high rate of speed through a galaxy of quite a few other disparate "suns", yet many of us try to literally interpret the translated words of these ancient texts and therefore refuse to accept equally compelling evidence that the earth is a heck of a lot older than 6,000 years.

But I'm not saying it is or isn't 6,000 years old. I'm saying the bible leaves room for both opinions and neither prevents me from living under the Grace of God and the salvation and atonement brought through Jesus death and resurrection.

One might as well get wrapped around the axle about this age old question: Which is better - Ford or Chevy. 

So, the bottom line, at least for me, is that I am fascinated by science and it's fun to discover how creation works. But WHY we are here is the higher pursuit. And in that one word is the entire message of Christ and the history of mankind as presented in the library of books and letters spanning many centuries, languages and many diverse authors that we call "the Bible". It's a great teaching tool. But regarding the secondary* issues, it leaves room for all sorts of interpretation, even among experts in the ancient and not-so-ancient languages from which it comes. 

So by all means, study it, but as one scholar told me, the more a person knows and understands about the bible's message on secondary subjects, the less confident they are in their opinion on such subjects. It could be racked up as a Dunning Kruger thing.

*secondary issues, from here: Primary and Secondary Issues

The primary purpose of scripture is to make clear the way of salvation, therefore I believe primary beliefs are those vital to the doctrine of salvation – they are gospel issues. Gospel issues include: credal beliefs (covering the nature of God, the person and work of Christ etc.); the normative divine inspiration of Scripture without which we would not know of salvation; the explicit moral law taught in Scripture (Jesus upheld the ten commandments and their implications.  The Pauline epistles and others specify sins which will, if persisted in, prevent a person entering the kingdom).  I would also include clear issues of justice. 

I define a secondary issue as one on which numerous Christians, with an equally high view of Scripture, interpret the Bible differently, giving full weight to the traditional interpretation and using sound hermeneutical (interpretative) principles. I believe it is sinful to divide the church, or divide from the church, over secondary issues.

We need to be objective about secondary issues. Any of us can subjectively elevate our favourite secondary issue into a primary issue or a shibboleth by which we judge other people’s orthodoxy. But, as we have seen, the purpose of scripture is salvation and primary beliefs are those vital to the doctrine of salvation – they are gospel issues. I am not saying these secondary issues are unimportant, but I am saying that because they are not gospel issues they are not primary.

Edited April 14 by Still Alive