Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[RdJ]

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

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.

If I search a word I get some titles of their resources with that word in it. I just bumped into this site when I asked Google.

Edited April 17 by RdJ

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

He has no facts or evidence, only huge biases against the Hebrew, which refutes his religion.

You really should stop posting things that are known to be false.  It is an indisputable fact that ruin/reconstruction theory has no basis in the Hebrew language.  Rather, new and different interpretations were made so as to accommodate the unbiblical claim of long ages.  That's why certain people are so hostile to the KJV and to the 86% of interpretations that confirm the six day creation.  Timothy warned us of false doctrines that would come to deceive many.  Islam is a false doctrine.  Evolution is a false doctrine.  Much of Catholicism is based on false doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism are false doctrines and ruin/reconstruction is a false doctrine.  That's why it didn't exist for the first 57 centuries.  If it had any bearing in truth, wouldn't someone have noticed it before then?

Again, with no sun, moon, light, heat or surrounding universe, the earth was a floating mass covered in water and maybe ice (but no land).  How, then, was it inhabited?  How, then, was it destroyed?  Light came AFTER verse two; verse three, to be exact.  There is no intelligent reason to fall for the false doctrine of ruin/reconstruction, so those who do are without excuse.  It's just an excuse not to believe in the Bible as written, and to play up to the old earth advocates who don't believe a word of it either.

Some issues with Gap heresy:

1. Although the gap theory originated out of a desire to accommodate
the millions of years of supposed geological time, only the most naïve
would think it succeeds. Uniformitarian geologists reject the idea of
any global Flood, whether the biblical Noah’s Flood, or the imagined
‘Lucifer’s Flood’ of the gap

theory. The fossils supposedly formed
over hundreds of millions of years, not rapidly as in a catastrophic flood
(ruin). Students from Christian homes went to secular universities
and found that the ‘gap theory’ made no sense with secular geology
anyway, so they saw it for what it is—an ill-informed attempt to make
the Bible fit secular science. And since their Christian leaders had
effectively made ‘science’ authoritative over Scripture in this matter,
many of these students took the next logical step: since ‘science’
says that dead men don’t rise, virgins don’t conceive, adultery and
homosexual behaviour are natural, then …

(False doctrine leading people to Hell... who'da thunk it?)

2. It postulates the fall of Satan and wholesale death and suffering in
a world that God declared ‘very good’ in Genesis 1:31 and thus undermines the doctrine of redemption and the need for Jesus' death and resurrection.

3. It contradicts the Sabbath command of Exodus 20:8–11, which is
based on the creation of the ‘heavens, earth, sea and everything in
them’ in six ordinary days. 

4. It is grammatically impossible to translate the verb היה) hayah) as ‘became’ when it is combined with a vav disjunctive—in the rest of the Old Testament, vav + a noun + היה) qal perfect, 3rd person) is always translated, ‘was’ or ‘came’, but never ‘became’. Moreover the qal form of היה does not normally mean ‘became’, especially in the beginning of a text, where it usually gives the setting.

5. Also, the correct Hebrew idiom for ‘become’ is to attach the verb ‘to be’ היה) hayah), e.g. ‘was’, to the preposition ‘to’ (Hebrew ל le). The verb ‘to be’ does NOT mean ‘become’ without this preposition. Since Genesis 1:2 lacks the preposition, it cannot mean ‘became’.

6. The Hebrew phrase tohu va bohu (ובהו תהו ,(translated ‘without form and void’ in Genesis 1:2, is claimed by gap theorists to indicate a judgmental destruction rather than something in the process of being built. But tohu occurs several times in the Bible in which it is used in a morally neutral state, describing something unfinished, and not yet organized, but not necessarily evil. Hebrew scholars and the church have for centuries taken the view that Genesis 1:2 is not a scene of judgment or an evil state created by the fall of angels, but a description of the earth in its undeveloped state. The plain and simple meaning of what Moses says is that on the first day there was a mass covered by water, with no dry land involving features such as hills (tohu = ‘unformed’), and no inhabitants yet (bohu = ‘unfilled’). The following verses simply describe the forming and filling.

7. Some have attempted to use Jeremiah 4:23 to teach the gap theory, because it uses the same phrase, tohu va bohu, to describe the results of a judgment. Gap theorists like Arthur Custance used this to assert that ‘without form and void’ must mean ‘laid waste by a judgment’—so that use of these words in Genesis 1:2 must mean that the earth suffered a judgment. But this is fallacious— there is nothing in the Hebrew words tohu va bohu themselves to suggest that. The only reason they refer to being ‘laid waste’ is due to the context in which the phrase is found in Jeremiah 4.  The words simply mean ‘unformed and unfilled’. This state can be due either to nothing else having been created, or some created things having been removed. The context of Jeremiah 4 is a prophecy of the Babylonians attacking Jerusalem, not creation. In fact, Jeremiah 4:23 is known as a literary allusion to Genesis 1:2—the judgment would be so severe that it would leave the final state as empty as the earth before God formed and filled it.    source

The bottom line is, ruin/reconstruction theory or gap theory is false doctrine originating from the father of lies to deceive those who don't have a solid foundation in the word of God.  There is no truth in it.  It's modern nonsense and contrary to the sound teaching of God's word.  

 

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

He has no facts or evidence, only huge biases against the Hebrew, which refutes his religion.

You really should stop posting things that are known to be false.

Said by a religionist who has no facts, no evidence, only dogma.

I have proven my belief with the TRUTH of Scripture.  I researched the Hebrew words in v.2 to understand what they mean, and you reject the evidence.

All you want to believe is that the earth is very young.  And you are free to believe whatever you wantt.

All I want to believe is what the Bible SAYS.  Not what various translators say, esp when their errors are EASY to find.

There are 2 texts that clearly show HOW "tohu wabohu" are used and what they describe.  And those 2 texts are the ONLY OTHER places in Scripture where "tohu wabohu" occur together.

To claim that the 2 words describe original creation by God in Gen 1:2 EVEN THOUGH they are used to describe total destruction of land in the other 2 texts, is beyond absurd.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It is an indisputable fact that ruin/reconstruction theory has no basis in the Hebrew language.

Your claims are empty of evidence or facts.  I've proved that Genesis 1 is about restoration.  Even Heb 11:3 uses a Greek word for "restore" in the context of Genesis 1.

And the KJV and other copy cat translations of Gen 1:2 directly CONTRADICT Isa 45:18.

KJV  1 - in the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and earth, 2 - and the earth was tohu

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

So you believe a translation that CONTRADICTS another verse that SAYS the opposite of the KJV and its copy cat translations.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Rather, new and different interpretations were made so as to accommodate the unbiblical claim of long ages.

Nothing new or different, as I've shown.  The Septuagint translated "tohu" in v.2 as 'unsightly'.  So do you believe that something that you believe is "formless" is unsightly?  How can that be?  If something has NO form, there is no sight at all.  At least the LXX understood that "tohu" isn't a pretty picture.

But what really sinks your boat is Jer 4 and Isa 34, both of which used "tohu wabohu" to describe GREAT DESTRUCTION.

So, in your own mind, "tohu wabohu" can describe God's original creation AND total destruction of land.  Weird, to say the least.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  That's why certain people are so hostile to the KJV and to the 86% of interpretations that confirm the six day creation. 

Hostile?  I only point out their error.  If that's "hostile" to you, you need to rachet down your hyper-sensitivity.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Timothy warned us of false doctrines that would come to deceive many.

Uh, there's no doctrine here.  Only what Gen 1:2 actually says.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Islam is a false doctrine.  Evolution is a false doctrine.  Much of Catholicism is based on false doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism are false doctrines and ruin/reconstruction is a false doctrine.

Truth refutes ALL false systems.  And I've proven over and over that Genesis 1 is about restoration.  And you haven't been able to refute any of the evidence I've given.

In fact, you just brush over it with your unsubstantiated claims.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  That's why it didn't exist for the first 57 centuries.

It existed the MOMENT Moses wrote Genesis 1:2.  Your self deception seems to know no bounds. 

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If it had any bearing in truth, wouldn't someone have noticed it before then?

It's already clear that many many have.  I've quoted sources that acknowledge it.  But, like always, you just ignore what you don't like.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Some issues with Gap heresy:

1. Although the gap theory originated out of a desire to accommodate
the millions of years of supposed geological time, only the most naïve
would think it succeeds. Uniformitarian geologists reject the idea of
any global Flood, whether the biblical Noah’s Flood, or the imagined
‘Lucifer’s Flood’ of the gap

The time gap (no theory) originated from the actual Hebrew words.  But you are free to believe all the baloney you want.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

2. It postulates the fall of Satan and wholesale death and suffering in
a world that God declared ‘very good’ in Genesis 1:31 and thus undermines the doctrine of redemption and the need for Jesus' death and resurrection.

What God declared "very good" in Gen 1:31 refers to the restored earth.  But your extreme religious bias won't allow you the reason or discernment to understand that.

There is no doubt that the original creation was also very good.  But was laid waste, by God's permission, obviously, and God obviously left out all details.

But He did leave us with enough detail to UNDERSTAND what "tohu wabohu" is used to describe;  total destruction.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

3. It contradicts the Sabbath command of Exodus 20:8–11, which is
based on the creation of the ‘heavens, earth, sea and everything in
them’ in six ordinary days.

No, based on God's restoration FOR man's use on earth.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 4. It is grammatically impossible to translate the verb היה) hayah) as ‘became’ when it is combined with a vav disjunctive—in the rest of the Old Testament, vav + a noun + היה) qal perfect, 3rd person) is always translated, ‘was’ or ‘came’, but never ‘became’.

I don't know what your "source" is here, but what a sham.  The disjunctive actually supports the use of "became".

Again, most English translations begin v.2 with "and", like a conjunction of continuation.  And that contradicts Isa 45:18, which you can't explain, nor it seems you even care about.

But the Septuagint translates the conjunction as 'but", which SHOWS a change, or contrast.

iow, v.1 is original creation, BUT, v.2 shows a CHANGE of state of the earth.  

Proving that "became" IS the correct translation.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Moreover the qal form of היה does not normally mean ‘became’, especially in the beginning of a text, where it usually gives the setting.

Bullet in your foot by the word "normally".  Doesn't mean ALWAYS, as your mind is hoping.

And you're hardly a Hebrew expert.  I've researched ALL the key words in the Hebrew, and have seen how they are translated elsewhere, which you seem not even to care.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

5. Also, the correct Hebrew idiom for ‘become’ is to attach the verb ‘to be’ היה) hayah), e.g. ‘was’, to the preposition ‘to’ (Hebrew ל le). The verb ‘to be’ does NOT mean ‘become’ without this preposition. Since Genesis 1:2 lacks the preposition, it cannot mean ‘became’.

"idiom for become"??  Whatever are you talking about?  It is a verb of existence.  It has no idioms.  That is just idiotic.

To remind you once again, here is the base verb and it's meaning:

Strong's Concordance

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

So, RIGHT in the basic definition of the verb, we have "become".

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

6. The Hebrew phrase tohu va bohu (ובהו תהו ,(translated ‘without form and void’ in Genesis 1:2, is claimed by gap theorists to indicate a judgmental destruction rather than something in the process of being built.

Let's put this stupid thing to rest.  In the ONLY other 2 verses that have both words together, the context is clearly about a judgmental destruction.  Duh.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

But tohu occurs several times in the BiThat ble in which it is used in a morally neutral state, describing something unfinished, and not yet organized, but not necessarily evil.

You are just full of assumptions.  I've never said anything about "tohu wabohu" being evil.  The words simply describe great destruction.  Why can't that FACT not penetrate your skull?

And I've shown you ALL 10 verses where "tohu" occurs and here are the various translations of tohu:

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.

These aren't "neutral" words, by a long shot.

btw, what does "BiThat ble" mean?  

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Hebrew scholars and the church have for centuries taken the view that Genesis 1:2 is not a scene of judgment or an evil state created by the fall of angels, but a description of the earth in its undeveloped state.

And they are either just lazy or stupid.  The proof of what "tohu wabohu" describes is found in Jer 4 and Isa 34.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The plain and simple meaning of what Moses says is that on the first day there was a mass covered by water, with no dry land involving features such as hills (tohu = ‘unformed’), and no inhabitants yet (bohu = ‘unfilled’). The following verses simply describe the forming and filling.

And since you can't defend the use of "formless" and I have proved, even with a source you quoted, that if you can see an object, you are seeing its FORM.  

God created a 3 dimensional world for man, ultimately.  So there is NO WAY God could or would create a formless world.  No more possible than God sinning.  Impossible.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

7. Some have attempted to use Jeremiah 4:23 to teach the gap theory, because it uses the same phrase, tohu va bohu, to describe the results of a judgment. Gap theorists like Arthur Custance used this to assert that ‘without form and void’ must mean ‘laid waste by a judgment’—so that use of these words in Genesis 1:2 must mean that the earth suffered a judgment. But this is fallacious— there is nothing in the Hebrew words tohu va bohu themselves to suggest that.

I've colored your extreme bias.  Do you really think that just making a claim means it is true??

You have zero evidence.  The words simply describe the state of something.  And that state is a state of destruction.  In BOTH texts:  Jer 4 and Isa 34.  

God didn't give details in Genesis 1 as to why the earth became a wasteland.  Only that the earth did become a wasteland.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The only reason they refer to being ‘laid waste’ is due to the context in which the phrase is found in Jeremiah 4. 

No, "tohu" means 'waste'.  I've shown in the 10 verses that have tohu.  You're just not paying attention.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The words simply mean ‘unformed and unfilled’.

OK, plunk those words into Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and see how STUPID that would sound.

The words mean what they mean.  And we KNOW what they mean from these 2 verses.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

This state can be due either to nothing else having been created, or some created things having been removed.

Delirious.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The context of Jeremiah 4 is a prophecy of the Babylonians attacking Jerusalem, not creation.

And tohu wabohu describes what they are going to do to the land of Jerusalem.  The Babylonians aren't going to render the land "unformed and unfilled".  That is absolute insanity.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In fact, Jeremiah 4:23 is known as a literary allusion to Genesis 1:2—the judgment would be so severe that it would leave the final state as empty as the earth before God formed and filled it.    source

Doesn't matter what anyone opines.  What is clear is that Jeremiah understood the STATE of BEING in Gen 1:2 and quoted from that verse to DESCRIBE what the Babylonians were going to do to Jerusalem.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The bottom line is, ruin/reconstruction theory or gap theory is false doctrine originating from the father of lies to deceive those who don't have a solid foundation in the word of God.  There is no truth in it.  It's modern nonsense and contrary to the sound teaching of God's word.  

Once again, I've thoroughly refuted your ENTIRE post.  One point at a time.

And you can't refute anything I've posted.  All you do is complain and criticize. 

You make a lot of claims:

no truth in it

it's a false doctrine

it's modern nonsense

contrary to sound teaching

And NONE of these claims is proven in any of your posts.

Just a whole lot of hot air.

[RdJ]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

2. It postulates the fall of Satan and wholesale death and suffering in
a world that God declared ‘very good’ in Genesis 1:31 and thus undermines the doctrine of redemption and the need for Jesus' death and resurrection.

3. It contradicts the Sabbath command of Exodus 20:8–11, which is
based on the creation of the ‘heavens, earth, sea and everything in
them’ in six ordinary days. 

YEC is wrong about when satan fell. I agree with YEC that the earth is around 6000 or 7000 years old and that the fossils are from the flood. It's 2 seperate things. God made everything that's in it in 6 days. Yes but they assume also angels and it doesnt say that. Job 38 says the morning stars were cheering when God laid the cornerstone. He laid the cornerstone in the beginning. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So the morningstars were created before the beginning. And it says about satan on the day you were created until iniquity was found in you. Now if you insist 6 days then God created angels in the beginning of day one, who cheered and all was good and then after 7 days he fell because God called it good? No way. God also called the tree of knowledge of good and evil good, but it was not good to eat from and it was there. I read it as knowledge of God and satan, because satan is evil. Had he not fallen yet then how could God create that tree?  God is only good, so they could not get to know evil by experience through God.

And thou wart in Eden. If satan was as lucifer (I do not like him and refuse to write capitals lol) in the garden of Eden, then there was a mountain in Eden with stones on fire, come on and Adam and Eve just talked to Jesus who walked there, so they would have also seen that splendid cherub in the garden with all these stones that were ready on the day he was created. But they saw a snake or snake being. And he was created before the earth, so where did these stones come from? Those were spiritual or something, but not normal stones from Eden on earth. Plus the darkness is weird and sounds very much to me like he already fell and God threw him on earth maybe then (Job 38 and Genesis, darkness, abyss, evil) and then God said let there be Light and seperated it, only called the light good, not the darkness, there's no darkness in heaven and created order from chaos, but no ruined creation before Adam, because Peter says:

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
II Peter 3:5‭-‬7 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/2pe.3.5-7.NKJV

 

And he does not say that it was ruined twice plus there's no proof it was in the ground.

Edited April 18 by RdJ

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

4. It is grammatically impossible to translate the verb היה) hayah) as ‘became’ when it is combined with a vav disjunctive—in the rest of the Old Testament, vav + a noun + היה) qal perfect, 3rd person) is always translated, ‘was’ or ‘came’, but never ‘became’. Moreover the qal form of היה does not normally mean ‘became’, especially in the beginning of a text, where it usually gives the setting.

5. Also, the correct Hebrew idiom for ‘become’ is to attach the verb ‘to be’ היה) hayah), e.g. ‘was’, to the preposition ‘to’ (Hebrew ל le). The verb ‘to be’ does NOT mean ‘become’ without this preposition. Since Genesis 1:2 lacks the preposition, it cannot mean ‘became’.

According to biblehub.com, ha-ye-tah (translated as 'was') in Gen 1:2 occurs 111 times in the OT.

Of those, 18 are translated as "became/become" in the NAS translation.

The verb “was” in Gen 1:2 is hā·yə·ṯāh — 111 Occurrences

Notice that biblehub.com gives the actual Hebrew, then the KJV for Gen 1:2 plus their interlinear (INT), and in all other verses, the NAS which shows the word translated as “become” or “became”.

 

Genesis 1:2
HEB: וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ
KJV: And the earth was without form,
INT: the earth was was formless and void

Genesis 47:26
HEB: לְבַדָּ֔ם לֹ֥א הָיְתָ֖ה לְפַרְעֹֽה׃
NAS: of the priests did not become Pharaoh's.
INT: alone did not become Pharaoh’s

Joshua 14:14
HEB: עַל־ כֵּ֣ן הָיְתָֽה־ חֶ֠בְרוֹן לְכָלֵ֨ב
NAS: Hebron became the inheritance
INT: and after that became Hebron of Caleb

1 Samuel 10:12
HEB: עַל־ כֵּן֙ הָיְתָ֣ה לְמָשָׁ֔ל הֲגַ֥ם
NAS: Therefore it became a proverb:
INT: and it became A proverb also

1 Kings 2:15
HEB: כִּי־ לִי֙ הָיְתָ֣ה הַמְּלוּכָ֔ה וְעָלַ֞י
NAS: has turned about and become my brother's,
INT: know for and become the kingdom and

2 Kings 8:18
HEB: בַּת־ אַחְאָ֔ב הָֽיְתָה־ לּ֖וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֑ה
NAS: of Ahab became his wife;
INT: the daughter of Ahab became his wife did

Psalm 114:2
HEB: הָיְתָ֣ה יְהוּדָ֣ה לְקָדְשׁ֑וֹ
NAS: Judah became His sanctuary, Israel,
INT: became Judah his sanctuary

Psalm 118:22
HEB: מָאֲס֣וּ הַבּוֹנִ֑ים הָ֝יְתָ֗ה לְרֹ֣אשׁ פִּנָּֽה׃
NAS: rejected Has become the chief
INT: rejected the builders has become the chief corner

Psalm 119:56
HEB: זֹ֥את הָֽיְתָה־ לִּ֑י כִּ֖י
NAS: This has become mine, That I observe
INT: likewise has become for your precepts

Isaiah 1:21
HEB: אֵיכָה֙ הָיְתָ֣ה לְזוֹנָ֔ה קִרְיָ֖ה
NAS: city has become a harlot,
INT: how has become A harlot city

Jeremiah 12:8
HEB: הָיְתָה־ לִּ֥י נַחֲלָתִ֖י
NAS: My inheritance has become to Me Like a lion
INT: has become my inheritance A lion

Jeremiah 50:23
HEB: הָאָ֑רֶץ אֵ֣יךְ הָיְתָ֧ה לְשַׁמָּ֛ה בָּבֶ֖ל
NAS: Babylon has become An object of horror
INT: earth How has become an object Babylon

Jeremiah 51:41
HEB: הָאָ֑רֶץ אֵ֣יךְ הָיְתָ֧ה לְשַׁמָּ֛ה בָּבֶ֖ל
NAS: Babylon has become an object of horror
INT: earth How has become an object Babylon

Lamentations 1:1
HEB: רַבָּ֣תִי עָ֔ם הָיְתָ֖ה כְּאַלְמָנָ֑ה רַבָּ֣תִי
NAS: of people! She has become like a widow
INT: was full of people has become A widow Who

Lamentations 1:1
HEB: שָׂרָ֙תִי֙ בַּמְּדִינ֔וֹת הָיְתָ֖ה לָמַֽס׃ ס
NAS: among the provinces Has become a forced laborer!
INT: was a princess the provinces has become A forced

Lamentations 1:17
HEB: סְבִיבָ֣יו צָרָ֑יו הָיְתָ֧ה יְרוּשָׁלִַ֛ם לְנִדָּ֖ה
NAS: Jerusalem has become an unclean thing
INT: round should be his adversaries has become Jerusalem an unclean

Ezekiel 36:2
HEB: עוֹלָ֔ם לְמֽוֹרָשָׁ֖ה הָ֥יְתָה לָּֽנוּ׃
NAS: heights have become our possession,'
INT: the ancient possession have become

Ezekiel 36:35
HEB: הַלֵּ֙זוּ֙ הַנְּשַׁמָּ֔ה הָיְתָ֖ה כְּגַן־ עֵ֑דֶן
NAS: land has become like the garden
INT: This desolate has become the garden of Eden

Zephaniah 2:15
HEB: ע֑וֹד אֵ֣יךְ ׀ הָיְתָ֣ה לְשַׁמָּ֗ה מַרְבֵּץ֙
NAS: me. How she has become a desolation,
INT: besides How has become A desolation 

Now, here are a number of verses where the verb was translated as “was”, but biblehub.com shows from their INT that the word actually means “became”, as in a change of status.  So these verses equate “was” with “become/became"

Genesis 3:20
HEB: כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־
INT: because she become was the mother of all  Obvious that Eve became the mother of all.

Genesis 29:17
HEB: רַכּ֑וֹת וְרָחֵל֙ הָֽיְתָ֔ה יְפַת־ תֹּ֖אַר
INT: were weak Rachel become was beautiful of form  same idea.  She became beautiful

Genesis 36:12
HEB: וְתִמְנַ֣ע ׀ הָיְתָ֣ה פִילֶ֗גֶשׁ לֶֽאֱלִיפַז֙
INT: Timna become was a concubine Eliphaz

Exodus 9:24
HEB: מִצְרַ֔יִם מֵאָ֖ז הָיְתָ֥ה לְגֽוֹי׃
INT: of Egypt for became A nation  all translations have either became or had become

Exodus 16:24
HEB: וְרִמָּ֖ה לֹא־ הָ֥יְתָה בּֽוֹ׃
INT: worm nor become

Judges 2:15
HEB: יַד־ יְהוָה֙ הָיְתָה־ בָּ֣ם לְרָעָ֔ה
INT: the hand of the LORD become evil after

2 Samuel 14:27
HEB: תָּמָ֑ר הִ֣יא הָיְתָ֔ה אִשָּׁ֖ה יְפַ֥ת
INT: was Tamar she become was a woman of beautiful   again, she became beautiful

1 Kings 2:15
HEB: כִּ֥י מֵיְהוָ֖ה הָ֥יְתָה לּֽוֹ׃
INT: for the LORD and become

1 Kings 4:11
HEB: בַּת־ שְׁלֹמֹ֔ה הָ֥יְתָה לּ֖וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃
INT: the daughter of Solomon become to wife

1 Kings 14:30
HEB: וּמִלְחָמָ֨ה הָיְתָ֧ה בֵין־ רְחַבְעָ֛ם
INT: war become between Rehoboam

1 Kings 15:6
HEB: וּמִלְחָמָ֨ה הָיְתָ֧ה בֵין־ רְחַבְעָ֛ם
INT: war become between Rehoboam

1 Kings 15:7
HEB: יְהוּדָ֑ה וּמִלְחָמָ֥ה הָיְתָ֛ה בֵּ֥ין אֲבִיָּ֖ם
INT: Judah battle become between Abijam

1 Kings 15:16
HEB: וּמִלְחָמָ֨ה הָיְתָ֜ה בֵּ֣ין אָסָ֗א
INT: war become between Asa

1 Kings 15:32
HEB: וּמִלְחָמָ֨ה הָיְתָ֜ה בֵּ֣ין אָסָ֗א
INT: war become between Asa

2 Chronicles 13:2
HEB: גִּבְעָ֑ה וּמִלְחָמָ֥ה הָיְתָ֛ה בֵּ֥ין אֲבִיָּ֖ה
INT: of Gibeah war become between Abijah

2 Chronicles 21:6
HEB: בַּת־ אַחְאָ֔ב הָ֥יְתָה לּ֖וֹ אִשָּׁ֑ה
INT: daughter Ahab's become to wife did

2 Chronicles 22:3
HEB: כִּ֥י אִמּ֛וֹ הָיְתָ֥ה יֽוֹעַצְתּ֖וֹ לְהַרְשִֽׁיעַ׃
INT: for his mother become was his counselor to do

Ezra 8:31
HEB: וְיַד־ אֱלֹהֵ֙ינוּ֙ הָיְתָ֣ה עָלֵ֔ינוּ וַיַּ֨צִּילֵ֔נוּ
INT: and the hand of our God become was over delivered

Isaiah 11:16
HEB: מֵֽאַשּׁ֑וּר כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר הָֽיְתָה֙ לְיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּי֥וֹם
INT: Assyria who become Israel the day

Jeremiah 26:24
HEB: בֶּן־ שָׁפָ֔ן הָיְתָ֖ה אֶֽת־ יִרְמְיָ֑הוּ
INT: the son of Shaphan become was with Jeremiah

Ezekiel 16:56
HEB: וְל֤וֹא הָֽיְתָה֙ סְדֹ֣ם אֲחוֹתֵ֔ךְ
INT: not become Sodom your sister

Ezekiel 19:10
HEB: פֹּֽרִיָּה֙ וַֽעֲנֵפָ֔ה הָיְתָ֖ה מִמַּ֥יִם רַבִּֽים׃
INT: fruitful and full become waters of abundant

Ezekiel 26:17
HEB: הַהֻלָּ֗לָה אֲשֶׁר֩ הָיְתָ֨ה חֲזָקָ֤ה בַיָּם֙
INT: renowned Which become was mighty the sea

Ezekiel 31:3
HEB: וּבֵ֣ין עֲבֹתִ֔ים הָיְתָ֖ה צַמַּרְתּֽוֹ׃
INT: was among boughs become top

Ezekiel 36:17
HEB: כְּטֻמְאַת֙ הַנִּדָּ֔ה הָיְתָ֥ה דַרְכָּ֖ם לְפָנָֽי׃
INT: the uncleanness her impurity become their way before

Ezekiel 40:1
HEB: הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֗ה הָיְתָ֤ה עָלַי֙ יַד־
INT: day he become and the hand

Joel 2:3
HEB: פְּלֵיטָ֖ה לֹא־ הָ֥יְתָה לּֽוֹ׃
INT: escapes and nothing become

Jonah 3:3
HEB: יְהוָ֑ה וְנִֽינְוֵ֗ה הָיְתָ֤ה עִיר־ גְּדוֹלָה֙
INT: of the LORD now Nineveh become city great

Malachi 1:9
HEB: וִֽיחָנֵ֑נוּ מִיֶּדְכֶם֙ הָ֣יְתָה זֹּ֔את הֲיִשָּׂ֤א
INT: may be gracious your part become will he regard

Malachi 2:5
HEB: בְּרִיתִ֣י ׀ הָיְתָ֣ה אִתּ֗וֹ הַֽחַיִּים֙
INT: my covenant become for of life

[RdJ]

Darkness was on the face of the deep.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h8415/nkjv/wlc/0-1/

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8415.htm

tehom: deep, sea, abyss

 

Was satan kicked in the abyss?

“Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
17 Have the gates of death been [d]revealed to you?
Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?

 

Septuagint in English;

Or have you gone to the source of the sea, and walked in the tracks of the deep? 17 And do the gates of death open to you for fear; and did the porters of hell quake when they saw you?

 

Jonah 2

Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the fish’s belly. And he said: “I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction, And He answered me. “Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, And You heard my voice. For You cast me into the deep, Into the heart of the seas, And the floods surrounded me; All Your billows and Your waves passed over me. I went down to the moorings of the mountains; The earth with its bars closed behind me forever; Yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord, my God.
Jonah 2:1‭-‬3‭, ‬6 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/jon.2.1-6.NKJV

 

Demons are in the abyss now. That's in the earth. Jesus was in the heart of the earth.

 

Edited April 18 by RdJ

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Said by a religionist who has no facts,

I have the Bible.  That's good enough for me.  I also have all the articles and commentaries from those who have studies the false claims of gap theory proponents, including your improper translation of the Hebrew language.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 I researched the Hebrew words in v.2 to understand what they mean,

And you only posted the definitions you like.  We know.  Only your new age distortions of the language meets your approval.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

All I want to believe is what the Bible SAYS.

And you don't think it strange that after 57 centuries, scientists start claiming an old earth and suddenly there is a new translation to support the claim?

1 Timothy 6:

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And the KJV and other copy cat translations of Gen 1:2 directly CONTRADICT Isa 45:18.

Only to those who lack understanding.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 The Septuagint translated "tohu" in v.2 as 'unsightly'.  So do you believe that something that you believe is "formless" is unsightly?

No, in all but a handful of new age Bibles the words are "Without form and void."  You claim you're right, but most experts say you're wrong.  Your false doctrine was invented in the late 18th century to try and find agreement with the old earth crowd.  That is an indisputable fact.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Nothing new or different, as I've shown.

Of course that's a lie.  The NAS, your go-to version, was published in 1971.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Truth refutes ALL false systems.

Which is why very few here believe you.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It existed the MOMENT Moses wrote Genesis 1:2.

Again, that's a lie.  Nobody interpreted it that way before the late 18th century.

Let's pick one of your newer Bibles, the NRSN, published in 2021. "The earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."

Picking and choosing the minority of translations you like is as dishonest as other posters taking fragments of a verse out of context and pretending they mean something totally different.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What God declared "very good" in Gen 1:31 refers to the restored earth.

Nope.  That's heresy.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And since you can't defend the use of "formless" and I have proved,

You've proved you have no comprehension what "without form" means.  That's it.  All the rest of us understand it.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And you're hardly a Hebrew expert.

The article was written by a Hebrew expert, not I.  Hence the source.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Do you really think that just making a claim means it is true??

That's all you've done.  Repeatedly.  And repeatedly.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Once again, I've thoroughly refuted your ENTIRE post.

Nope.  You've repeated the same bunk you've said over and over, while I've posted multiple experts proving everything you have posted is wrong.  In fact, I even posted Genesis 1:2 from a modern Bible I would never read just to prove to you that even today, nearly all translations disagree with the things you are claiming.  Someone sold you a big fat lie, and that has become the great love of your life.

 

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, RdJ said:

Yes but they assume also angels and it doesnt say that

Who in the heck claims angels were made when the earth was?  God is infinite, and His angels serve Him.  Angles could just as easily have been here 10 billion years as ten thousand.  God was infinite before He created the world, and He is infinite after.

12 hours ago, RdJ said:

Plus the darkness is weird and sounds very much to me like he already fell and God threw him on earth maybe then (Job 38 and Genesis, darkness, abyss, evil) and then God said let there be Light and seperated it, only called the light good, not the darkness,

I don't think the darkness was Satan, I believe it was the uncreated universe.  I believe light was a physical light; either the sun or something like it. 

In the book of Job, Satan still has access to God and Heaven, even after tempting Eve, and after rebelling against God.  It's like God was keeping him in check but allowing him enough free reign to absolutely earn the eternal damnation awaiting Him.  So Satan is on the outs with God, but the final confrontation with Michael and the angels comes during the tribulation.  For now Satan is a nemesis, but He will soon be put away forever.

That is my opinion based on what I have read.  Only the Scriptures themselves are without fail.

[RdJ]

6 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Who in the heck claims angels were made when the earth was? 

Ken Ham:

The Bible says God created all things—including things invisible—and principalities and powers. So angels aren’t eternal like God. They were created by him.

But when?

Well, the book of Job describes the angels celebrating when God laid the foundations of the earth. That was either on day one, when God created the earth, or day three, when God created the dry land.

We can’t know for sure which day angels were created on. But it’s likely it was on day one—and definitely before day four. What we do know for sure is that God made all things in six days

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.listennotes.com/podcasts/answers-with-ken-ham/when-were-the-angels-created-Q2t1m9bNydY/amp/

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

3 hours ago, RdJ said:

Ken Ham:

The reverend Billy Graham was one of the greatest and most influential evangelist in my lifetime.  I still listen to his sermons from time to time.  He actually wrote a book about Angels and talked extensively about them.  He knew the Bible cold and led millions to the Lord.  Yet, there were things that he said I absolutely disagree with.  There were issues he refused to take up, possibly because of the controversy.  He wanted to appeal to the masses, so on issues like evolution or the atrocities upon children the Catholic church covered up, he was silent.

So, like Graham, Ham has the right to be wrong.  In this instance he is assuredly wrong.  In the beginning applies to our beginning.  Heaven was always God's home, and the angels are His servants.  Are they eternal?  If it suits God, then yes.  If not, then they are finite.  We know that Satan is an eternal being and he was an angel.  Because humans are fallible, you have to test the things they say against the absolute truth of the Scriptures.  We can be wrong.  That's why we should post quotes from the Bible in full context, to avoid the risk of teaching falsely.