Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[RV_Wizard]

Ruin/reconstruction theory is such an essential part of God's word that it didn't even exist until the late 18th and early 19th century as a way to try and explain the age of the earth science claims with the revealed six day creation.  It's just another Satanic new age doctrine created to deceive many.

2 Timothy 4:2-4  Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Gap theory or ruin/reconstruction is a modern age heresy.  Anyone who preaches it from the pulpit should be removed from the pulpit.  As many have pointed out, prior to Genesis 1:0 there WAS NO LAND on earth.  Making up some prior unrecorded existence to satisfy unbelievers that, yes, the world is very old, doesn't fit Biblically or with the scientific community because such a destruction would have rendered the fossil record into pure chaos.  Like evolution, it is antithetical to sound Scriptural doctrine.

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, RdJ said:

Not intuitive. The only option if you ask me cause God immediately made the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so there was evil and if it was inbetween verse 1 and 2 there have to be remains in the ground of first one frozen creation and then another one with Noah's flood.

The tree of KGE doesn't mean that evil existed when Adam was created.  The issue was obedience.  God told them not to eat of that tree.  That was the only prohibition in the garden.  

Disobedience is evil.  When Satan rebelled (disobedience) per Isa 14:12-14, that was evil.  

 

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, RdJ said:

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html

God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). 

since the animals did no wrong, they died in place of the one performing the sacrifice. 

In summation, animal sacrifices were commanded by God so that the individual could experience forgiveness of sin. The animal served as a substitute—that is, the animal died in place of the sinner, but only temporarily, which is why the sacrifices needed to be offered over and over.

Thanks

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

FreeGrace said:

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

Didn't say 'formless', said 'featureless', a blank canvas.

But "tohu" is never translated that way.  Read Jer 4 and Isa 34 and note the context about what is being warned about.  The coming GREAT destruction to the land.  It's what besieging armies do.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Yes. And that condition was clearly featureless and empty as the creation account shows

The 2 Hebrew words, tohu wabohu, are found in only 3 texts:  Gen 1:2, Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  There are no details as to who, what or why the earth became 'tohu wabohu', but in both of the other 2 texts, the context is very clear about total destruction of the land.  So we know that 'formless and void' isn't what Moses was thinking.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

else there would be no need to create.

We don't know when God created the heavens and earth (v.1), but we do know that He restored the earth after it became an uninhabitable wasteland (v.2).

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

On the third day the oceans were separated and land appeared. Topographical features were thus created were it must be assumed they didn't previously exist. 

All part of God's restoration before he placed man on it.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

From the narrative of the 2nd and 3rd day, the earth was a water world, the 3rd day records the initial separation of the water and land under the expanse. So unless the earth existed and then reverted to 'water above and below with no separation of sky and water and water and land, the Genesis creation narrative is initial creation of the earth with no previous creation.

The 6 days of Genesis 1 are all about restoration.  v.1 is original creation.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

True. That's why I don't use formless. But from Day 2, the earth is waterworld with no forms and featureless.

No, we don't know that.  From the Hebrew, the "deep" would be a very deep ice pack, that the Holy Spirit hovered over to melt it.  And thus God began His restoration.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Only if one conjugates the verb out of context. It's not 'became' it's 'be', as in existed.

Have you done any research into the word?  I have.  The basic verb is "hayah" and comes in many many forms (spellings).  It occurs 3,560 times in the OT, kinda like the word "the".

However, the EXACT SAME FORM of that verb, ha-ye-tah, as found in v.2 IS translated as "became/become" in a number of verses.  Overall, that form occurs 111 times.

And the words "tohu wabohu" actually demands "became", otherwise the Bible is directly contradicted.

KJV Gen 1:1  "in the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and earth, v.2 and the earth was tohu"

Isa 45:18 - "...God did NOT create (bara) the earth tohu..."

So, which verse are you going to ignore?

When the verb is used to convey a change in state, there is no contradiction.

Also, the Septuagint (LXX), written around 300 BC translates the conjunction at the beginning of v.2 as "but" rather than "and", as nearly every English translation does.

When the LXX was written, Koine Greek (NT language) was a living language, unlike now.  They knew what they were doing.  

And the LXX translates "tohu" as 'unsightly', rather different than how you understand the word.

So, there is every reason to understand that the earth changed from original creation to a wasteland.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Who witnessed a previous creation?

God and angels only.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

And context gives us the correct form. The context in Gen is not the same as in Jeremiah and Isaiah.

Again, there is no context for "tohu wabohu" as in who, what or how the earth became that way.

We only have 2 contexts that clearly show that "tohu wabohu" describes destruction, desolation, etc.

"tohu" occurs 10 times in the OT.  Here they are:

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.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Exactly. A wholly diverse context rendering impossible the understanding of Jeremiah and Isaiah to be applied to Gen 1:1-2.

Since there is no context to understand who, how or why the earth became tohu, we only have the 2 other contexts that show clearly HOW the words are used, and what they are describing.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

FreeGrace said:

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.

You keep saying this, but the descriptions are not close to the same.

tohu wabohu are words that DESCRIBE the state of something, and in ALL 3 texts, the subject being described is LAND.  The 2 Hebrew words don't mean different things just because God didn't give any details about the what, who, or why in Gen 1.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

It's like saying 'I run to the store.' when a person already went to the store and returned.

Now, THAT is totally different.  I've focused on the descriptive words, tohu wabohu.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

It can. But did it? There are no clues to this based on evidence, other than a misuse of the verb.

Prove that I've misused the verb.  I've looked at ALL its occurrences in the OT.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

If it was clear we would likely not be debating.

Not necessarily.  Many people debate/argue from their biases, rather than just the facts.

Facts never contradict.  Reality does not contradict.  Biases do that all the time.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

FreeGrace said:

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

I do not. I have said 'featureless' from the onset. it's clear the earth had a form of some type as it was covered with water and showed no dry land till day 3.

You have no evidence from the Bible that "tohu" means 'featureless'.  I've shown you EVERY verse that contains "tohu".  Biblehub.com provided both the NASB and KJV translations for comparison.  It's never translated as 'featureless'.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Ergo, featureless, not formless.

Never translated that way in any of the 10 occurrences.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

  FreeGrace said:

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

In that context, I agree.

And those 2 passages are the ONLY context we have to understand what the land is being described as, from besieging armies.  They don't leave the land "featureless".  

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

I can't cherrypick. I need the context and logical construction.

There is no cherrypicking here.  We have "tohu wabohu" only 3 times total in the OT.  Gen 1:2 doesn't give us the details to understand the status of the earth.  However, the other 2 DO give us very clear context of how the words are used to describe the land;  total destruction. 

So we know that is what the words mean.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

The creation narrative as a whole proves the earth was covered with water after the waters above were separated from the waters below. All water, no land till day 3.

Proper understanding of "tohu wabohu" and "ha-ye-tek" in Gen 1:2 proves that the earth became a wasteland, and everything that follows is restoration.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

It can  with the correct context, and the secondary or tertiary definition applied as indicated by the context. 

We simply don't have "secondary or tertiary" definitions.  We have only 1.  Found in 2 texts.  Describing coming disaster to the land.

And don't forget the contradiction between KJV Gen 1:1,2 and Isa 45:18.  Unless the earth became tohu, a huge contradiction is created with Isa 45:18, which says the opposite.

God did NOT create the earth tohu.  So Gen 1:2 has been translated improperly.  The earth became tohu.  That removes the contradiction.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Ruin/reconstruction theory is such an essential part of God's word that it didn't even exist until the late 18th and early 19th century as a way to try and explain the age of the earth science claims with the revealed six day creation.  It's just another Satanic new age doctrine created to deceive many.

This poster is just deep into his young earth religion.  He has no facts or evidence, only huge biases against the Hebrew, which refutes his religion.

The 6 days of Genesis 1 ARE about restoration.  Proven by v.2, which has been very poorly translated, and creates a contradiction with Isa 45:18.

KJV (and most others) Gen 1:1 in the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and earth, v.2 and the earth was tohu.

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

Gen 1:2 translated properly:  BUT the earth became tohu.

No contradiction.

The poster's religion bias is so strong he can't see any contradiction.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Gap theory or ruin/reconstruction is a modern age heresy.  Anyone who preaches it from the pulpit should be removed from the pulpit.

This poster is desperate to defend his young earth religion.  Genesis 1 is about restoration, and the NT notes that fact.

New International Version
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

English Standard Version
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

King James Bible
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
NASB 1977 
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Legacy Standard Bible 
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

The words "form/frame/create/prepared" is 'katartizo' in the Greek.

 

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 2675: καταρτίζω
καταρτίζω; future καταρτίσω (1 Peter 5:10 L T Tr WH (Buttmann, 31 (32); but Rec. καταρτίσαι, 1 aorist optative 3 person singular)); 1 aorist infinitive καταρτίσαι; passive, present καταρτίζομαι; perfect κατήρτισμαι; 1 aorist middle 2 person singular κατηρτίσω; properly, "to render ἄρτιος, i. e. fit, sound, complete" (see  κατά, III. 2); hence, 

a. to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair

b. to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust

c. ethically, to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be: is

The very FIRST usage is about "mending" or "repairing", and used that way in the gospels for disciples MENDING their nets.  Matt 4:21, Mark 1:19

In Col 6:1 and 1 Pet 5:10 it is translated as "restored".

And Heb 11:3 refers to Genesis 1.

Facts trump religion every time.

[RdJ]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

The tree of KGE doesn't mean that evil existed when Adam was created.  The issue was obedience.  God told them not to eat of that tree.  That was the only prohibition in the garden.  

Disobedience is evil.  When Satan rebelled (disobedience) per Isa 14:12-14, that was evil.  

Yes but God is good and if all the angels were good there would be no evil, so no experimental knowledge of evil either. God got to experience it when satan sinned against Him. He may have known that it would happen, but I heard that in this verse the word means know by experience.

e. know by experience, וִידַעְתֶּם בְּכָלֿ לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָלנַֿפְשְׁכֶם כִּי Joshua 23:14 (D) and know in all your hearts, and all your souls, that, etc.; learn to know ׳י Hosea 13:14; learn (a bitter lesson) Hosea 9:7; Isaiah 9:8; Psalm 14:4; experience ׳יs vengeance Ezekiel 25:14; Psalm 14:4 (absolute); quietness Job 20:20.

 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3045.htm

 

When they ate they got to experience how evil satan was and they sinned themselves.

 

I saw this on a site called hebrewinisrael  this is exactly what I mean. Where did that darkness come from when in God there is no darkness at all and He didnt call it good and seperated the Light from it:

 

The creation story of Genesis 1 begins with darkness, and the darkness is controlled by Elohim and separated from the light which was created in the beginning.  The darkness surprisingly is not described as being created by Elohim, but it actually seems to be a constant which was there from the beginning.  It can be argued that the darkness is external to the creation, and does not originate from Elohim in the story.  

 

Edited April 17 by RdJ

[FreeGrace]

29 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Yes but God is good and if all the angels were good there would be no evil, so no experimental knowledge of evil either. 

Since God is omniscient, He doesn't experiment.  I already knows everything.  And the garden wasn't about Satan, but the humans.  

Evil existed when Satan rebelled, whenever that was.  There's no evidence he rebelled after man was created.

29 minutes ago, RdJ said:

God got to experience it when satan sinned against Him. He may have known that it would happen, but I heard that in this verse the word means know by experience.

e. know by experience, וִידַעְתֶּם בְּכָלֿ לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָלנַֿפְשְׁכֶם כִּי Joshua 23:14 (D) and know in all your hearts, and all your souls, that, etc.; learn to know ׳י Hosea 13:14; learn (a bitter lesson) Hosea 9:7; Isaiah 9:8; Psalm 14:4; experience ׳יs vengeance Ezekiel 25:14; Psalm 14:4 (absolute); quietness Job 20:20.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3045.htm

Josh 23:14 applies "to know by experience" to humans, not to God.

God is omniscient, and that means He cannot learn, because He already knows.  Not that He is unable to learn.

29 minutes ago, RdJ said:

When they ate they got to experience how evil satan was and they sinned themselves.

Sure.  Evil applies to humans.

29 minutes ago, RdJ said:

I saw this on a site called hebrewinisrael  this is exactly what I mean. Where did that darkness come from when in God there is no darkness at all and He didnt call it good and seperated the Light from it:

The creation story of Genesis 1 begins with darkness, and the darkness is controlled by Elohim and separated from the light which was created in the beginning.  The darkness surprisingly is not described as being created by Elohim, but it actually seems to be a constant which was there from the beginning.  It can be argued that the darkness is external to the creation, and does not originate from Elohim in the story.  

Well, the problem is accepting the 6 days of Genesis 1 as creation, when there is plenty of evidence that something occurred between v.1 and 2 and the earth became a wasteland.

You want gap theory?  OK, here's one.  After Satan rebelled and recruited 1/3 of the angels, they were kicked out of heaven and had the universe to "play with".  Earth became "party HQ" and they totally trashed it.  So God packed the earth in ice so they couldn't access it.  At some point, God restored earth, placed man on it to prove something to angels.  

I know all that is speculation, since the Bible doesn't address it.  But it gives some "food for thought".  

The good news here is that we will all know ALL the truth about origins, etc in eternity.

All I know now is that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland, which is why God restored it before He created man and placed him on it.

[RdJ]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

 There's no evidence he rebelled after man was created.

No I believe he sinned before that. 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, the problem is accepting the 6 days of Genesis 1 as creation, when there is plenty of evidence that something occurred between v.1 and 2 and the earth became a wasteland.

You want gap theory?  OK, here's one.  After Satan rebelled and recruited 1/3 of the angels, they were kicked out of heaven and had the universe to "play with".  Earth became "party HQ" and they totally trashed it.  So God packed the earth in ice so they couldn't access it.  At some point, God restored earth, placed man on it to prove something to angels.  

I know all that is speculation, since the Bible doesn't address it.  But it gives some "food for thought".  

The good news here is that we will all know ALL the truth about origins, etc in eternity.

All I know now is that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland, which is why God restored it before He created man and placed him on it.

Yes or he was kicked off the mountain of God in heaven and thrown on the earth, which may or may not totally have been formed yet. I just don't believe there were plants nor animals since Job 38 sounds like initial creation and there was darkness. I don't believe that there was a Garden of Eden on earth either that got destroyed. 

https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/satans-creation-and-fall?locale=en

 

For example, Satan was on the holy mountain of God. The holy mountain of God is Mt. Zion, which is the name for the Heaven Jerusalem that exists in the Heavenly realm. The writer of Hebrews mentions this later in his letter in chapter 12, and in Revelation 21, we hear that this heavenly Zion will descend from Heaven to become our new dwelling place for eternity. So it would seem that there is a heavenly garden called Eden, which the earthly Eden represented.

 

[FreeGrace]

34 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Yes or he was kicked off the mountain of God in heaven and thrown on the earth, which may or may not totally have been formed yet.

I have no reason to think that God created the earth in a less than final state.

34 minutes ago, RdJ said:

I just don't believe there were plants nor animals since Job 38 sounds like initial creation and there was darkness.

This is only place I found any reference to darkness:

38:“What is the way to the abode of light?  And where does darkness reside?
39 Can you take them to their places?  Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

Looks like God was simply telling Job where the light and dark reside.  

34 minutes ago, RdJ said:

I don't believe that there was a Garden of Eden on earth either that got destroyed.

Ezek 28 tells us that Satan was in it, in v.13, before mentioning that he fell, in v.15.  I have no reason to believe that Eden didn't exist when God created the earth.  And, again, the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland (tohu wabohu), which led to a restoration.

34 minutes ago, RdJ said:

https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/satans-creation-and-fall?locale=en

For example, Satan was on the holy mountain of God. The holy mountain of God is Mt. Zion, which is the name for the Heaven Jerusalem that exists in the Heavenly realm. The writer of Hebrews mentions this later in his letter in chapter 12, and in Revelation 21, we hear that this heavenly Zion will descend from Heaven to become our new dwelling place for eternity. So it would seem that there is a heavenly garden called Eden, which the earthly Eden represented.

I heard a pastor many years ago say that the "holy mountain of God" was God's throne in heaven.  Surrounded by angels, described as "in the midst of stone of fire".  

Looking forward to having access to all truth.  :)

[FreeGrace]

Hey, RdJ

How does one access "verse by verse seminary"?  I have put several questions in the search bar, but I don't get any answers.

Thanks.