Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[FreeGrace]

19 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

It is time for those who believe the Bible and in the goodness and wisdom of God to abandon the gap theory once and for all (as well as the day-age theory, which is even worse)

I agree about the "day-age theory", which is glaringly a theory, and every old earth view that doesn't singly focus on the Hebrew of Gen 1:2 is obviously missing the point and the FACTS.

19 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

and simply believe what God has said.

That's the irony here.  I've been SHOWING you the facts but you just keep refusing to believe the facts.  What The Holy Spirit influenced Moses to write in Gen 1:2 is the SAME MEANING as the Holy Spirit influenced Jeremiah and Isaiah to write in Jer 4:23 and isa 34:11.  The 2 words do NOT mean opposite things in Gen 1:2 vs Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  That is totally illogical and unreasonable.

19 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The gap theory has no scientific merit,

Again, I've given NO theory, only what the Hebrew says, by showing how the words are rendered elsewhere in the OT.  I don't need scientific merit.  Science claims the earth is very old anyway, so your claim is aburd.

19 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

requires a very forced Biblical exegesis

No, it was easy peasy.  I just looked up where the Hebrew words are used elsewhere and showed you how they are translated.  Nothing forced.

What IS forced is the claim that "formless" is real and exists as a state.  Pure poppycock.

19 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

and leads to a God-dishonoring theology.God-dishonoring.  

Actually, it adheres to what God SAID, which you don't believe.  Talk about hypocricy.  You'd rather believe what translators who didn't have the benefit of a living language wrote.

19 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

It does not work, either Biblically or scientifically.  source

What works is truth.  I've shown you truth but you hate it, obviously.  You'd rather hold on to a very poor translation that uses a non-existent word for "tohu".  If it wasn't so pitiful, it'd be hilarious.

19 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Please stop trying to pollute the minds of Christians with your heresy.  

Truth never pollutes.  Truth informs.  But you impervious to truth, it seems.

I'm sure I won't have the opportunity, but I'd sure love to see your face when you get to eternity and learn the truth.

[Diaste]

@RV_Wizard @FreeGrace

You all are goona get this one locked too.

The claim is absurd, pitiful, hilarious, impervious, heresy, etc.

Don't direct that at the person. 

[Diaste]

21 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Proponents of the Gap Theory claim that Genesis 1:1 represents a planet thrown into chaos and in need of restoration, which begins with Genesis 1:2.  However, light was created in Genesis 1:3, so whatever existed before, without form and void by most interpretations, was in total darkness with no source of light or heat.

It's not until Genesis 1:9 that dry land appears of the earth.  So previously, the earth was cloaked in water and darkness, and the frozen nothingness of space.  Plant life comes in verse 11, also on the third day.  Previous to this, the earth was uninhabitable.  How could it have "become a wasteland" when given the previous state it could never have been anything else?

The sun, moon and stars were created on day four, meaning they didn't exist before.  The stars were for seasons and signs, and for navigation, meaning they could be seen from earth.  It is entirely possible that there were already other worlds and galaxies not visible to man and not of value for seasons and signs.  Such things are never discussed in the Bible, neither hinted at nor downplayed.

In Exodus 20:11, God personally affirms that the heavens and the earth were created in six days.  From Adam onward, we have a bloodline of generations to Abraham, then to Noah, then to David, then to Jesus.  Thus, God reveals to us the age of the earth.  God, of course, is eternal and existed forever before the creation.  He has angels to serve Him which do not age.  Time itself is a construct of our existence here.  One day time itself will be destroyed and we will all spend eternity somewhere.

You can read into the Bible anything you want, and find fractions of verses to support nearly any claim.  Wisdom lies not in seeking ways to validate your beliefs, but in studying the word of God and believing what it reveals.

I don't see a gap of eons either. But I do see missing time in the narrative of Adam and Eve's time in the garden. 

[Diaste]

18 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

Since man appeared on day 6 of the Earth's existence, Revelation 16:18 certainly does not suggest an old Earth. Also supposed Gap theory of Genesis 1:2 was invented in the 1800s in an attempt to mesh evolution with biblical creation. The Gap theory is a blasphemous compromise and corruption attempting to elevate man's wisdom to the same level as God's. The Earth is very young, and the science easily supports that.

I don't disagree. And if there were a 'gap' in time it isn't between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, and applying Rev 16:18 to some manufactured gap is equally fanciful. "Since men were on the earth" doesn't necessitate a time before men were on the earth, it's more like an idiom that tells us how long, no one has ever witnessed one, biggest one ever, or some such. 

Clearly there are gaps in the narrative, which give rise to many questions, questions unanswerable till we meet in glory; but that also doesn't give license to mere speculation out of boredom or some lack. 

I do think there is a gap in the Garden narrative, however. One we can see and is can be argued successfully. 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

@RV_Wizard @FreeGrace

You all are goona get this one locked too.

The claim is absurd, pitiful, hilarious, impervious, heresy, etc.

Don't direct that at the person. 

Thanks for the reminder to be clear that such words are directed at the view, claim, ideas.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

@RV_Wizard @FreeGrace

You all are goona get this one locked too.

The claim is absurd, pitiful, hilarious, impervious, heresy, etc.

Don't direct that at the person. 

No, I'm done with him.  I've seen the same posts so many time I could easily re-create them.  He ignores everything that disproves his opinion and pretends he alone has the correct interpretation.  He doesn't even acknowledge that he is making the same claims others did 100 years ago.  Those claims were readily disproved as well.  The truth lies in the plain teaching of the Bible, not in the twisting of words or phrases to try to exact what you want them to say.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

I don't see a gap of eons either. But I do see missing time in the narrative of Adam and Eve's time in the garden. 

We don't know how long they were in the Garden of Eden, but all of Adam's days are recorded.  We know how long he lived, how old he was when his named children were born, and the subsequent genealogy.  We know that Cain and Able were at least old enough to make sacrifices to God, and that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.  There is no mention of children when Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden, and nothing saying there weren't children.  God said the He would multiply her pain in childbirth, so she obviously had a clue what it was like; either her own or from seeing animals give birth.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

 And if there were a 'gap' in time it isn't between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, and applying Rev 16:18 to some manufactured gap is equally fanciful. "Since men were on the earth" doesn't necessitate a time before men were on the earth, it's more like an idiom that tells us how long, no one has ever witnessed one, biggest one ever, or some such. 

The key to understanding v.2 is found in 2 Hebrew words, "tohu wabohu", translated by most English translations, "formless and void".  Since there is nothing between the mention of creation in v.1 and v.2 it is easy to think that v.2 is simply a continuation from v.1.

However, the 2 words occur together 3 times in the OT, and the other 2 times context is included, which gives us an understanding of how the descriptive words are used and meant.  Just because there is no context for the words in Gen 1:2 doesn't give license to think it means something different than in the other 2 verses where they occur and where there is clear context.

They are found in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  In both texts, there is warning of disaster coming to the land.  

Jer 4-

v.5-6 is about an imminent invasion:  5Declare in Judah and proclaim in Jerusalem, and say: “Blow the trumpet in the land; Cry, ‘Gather together,’ And say, Assemble yourselves, And let us go into the fortified cities.’  Set up the standard toward Zion.  Take refuge! Do not delay!  For I will bring disaster from the north, And great destruction.”

v.7 - The lion has come up from his thicket, And the destroyer of nations is on his way.  He has gone forth from his place To make your land desolate.  Your cities will be laid waste, Without inhabitant.   This is what is coming.  Elsewhere in the OT "tohu" is translated as "desolate" and "waste/wasteland".  "bohu" does mean empty, uninhabited, and when joined with "tohu" means uninhabitable.  However the 2 key words occur in v.23, where Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 in describing the land.

v.20 - Destruction upon destruction is cried, For the whole land is plundered.  Suddenly my tents are plundered, And my curtains in a moment.  This is what is expected to come.

v.23 - I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void; And the heavens, they had no light.

Given all that precedes, it seems clear that Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 because Moses described what the earth had become and it is what would be coming to Israel.  There is no other reason for Jeremiah to have quoted from Gen 1:2 if that verse was about creation.

How would that fit into the narrative of Jer 4?  They were expecting total destruction.

Isa 34:11 is similar.  The context is laid out in the first 2 verses:

1 Come near, O nations, to listen; pay attention, O peoples.  Let the earth hear, and all that fills it, the world and all that springs from it.
2 The LORD is angry with all the nations and furious with all their armies.  He will devote them to destruction; He will give them over to slaughter.

v.5 - When My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens, then it will come down upon Edom, upon the people I have devoted to destruction.  The focus is on Edom, who were evil towards the Jews.

11 - The desert owl and screech owl will possess it, and the great owl and raven will dwell in it.  The LORD will stretch out over Edom
a measuring line of chaos and a plumb line of destruction.

So, here we see God's judgment on Edom in "tohu wabohu" as 'chaos and destruction'.

So, from 2 texts we have clear context of how "tohu wabohu" are used.  So we know that Moses meant the same thing in Gen 1:2 about what the earth became;  tohu wabohu.  

Further, Isa 45:18 says that God did not create the earth tohu.  

New American Standard Bible
For this is what the LORD says, He who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it as a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited): “I am the LORD, and there is no one else.

Moses wrote Genesis about 1400 BC.  Jeremiah wrote about 600 BC and Isaiah wrote about 700 BC.  There is no evidence that "tohu wabohu" changed meaning between 1400 and 700 BC.

It means the same thing in all 3 texts.  2 of which we have th details.

[FJK]

41 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

We don't know how long they were in the Garden of Eden, but all of Adam's days are recorded.  We know how long he lived, how old he was when his named children were born, and the subsequent genealogy.  We know that Cain and Able were at least old enough to make sacrifices to God, and that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.  There is no mention of children when Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden, and nothing saying there weren't children.  God said the He would multiply her pain in childbirth, so she obviously had a clue what it was like; either her own or from seeing animals give birth.

To clarify for consideration, are those days of Adam that are recorded including his time in the garden or are they counted from the time of his expulsion from it?

(this cold lead to several different chains of thought)

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

No.  To clarify, I provide NO theory at all.  What I share is based solely on the 2 Hebrew words in Gen 1:2, "tohu wabohu", which have been very poorly translated in English by most of the versions.  Those 2 words occur together in only 2 other passages, Jer 4:23 and isa 34:11.  In both passages, the context is a warning about the coming disaster and total destruction of land.

So, there is no way the 2 words can mean "formless and void" in Gen 1:2.  In fact, no object is formless.  Every object has form.

If you research the 2 Hebrew words and understand the contexts they occur in, it will become clear.

v.2 should be "but the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland".  That certainly does indicate the original creation was destroyed, and the 6 days of Genesis 1 is a restoration.

There is no way "tohu wabohu" can be used for original creation.  Please read Jer 4 and Isa 34.

I've not said there was a "previous creation".  There is only 1 creation, which became a wasteland.  That is what "tohu wabohu" means, as seen in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.

No, the meaning of "tohu" is consistent throughout its other 9 uses.  Here they are:

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.

If words mean things, (and they do), then YES they do mean the same thing.

In fact, Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 to describe what was coming.  This isn't difficult to see.

That's not what Gen 1:1 says.  It says "in the beginning, God created the heavens and EARTH".  He did not create a ball of dirt.  That would be a theory for sure.  I don't deal in theories.  I deal only in what the Hebrew says and means, as shown by all the other uses in the OT.  That is how we understand what words mean when translating.

Well, that makes no sense.  Why would God create "waste" at creation?  He's much better than that.  And the use of "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4 and Isa 34 are warning about coming DESTRUCTION to the land.  And Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 because Moses WAS describing a wasteland, not original creation.

I keep reminding everyone that I have NOT mentioned ANY theory.  Only what the original Hebrew means and how the words are used elsewhere.

Darwin was an idiot.  I believe Gen 1:1 is original and good creation.  But the earth BECAME a wasteland.  That is not hard to  understand, even though God did not give us any details.  Doesn't matter because "tohu wabohu" is enough evidence.

btw, the verb "was" in Gen 1:2 is a verb of existence, to be or become.  And the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb as in 1:2 is translated as "became/become" elseswhere in the OT.  Easy to check it out for yourself on biblehub.com.

You said:

"New Testament clearly says there was no death before Adam. How could millions of years of death and decay exist on a very good Earth before Adam corrupted the Earth? "

Hasn't it occurred to you that 'no death' only refers to human death on a restored earth?  What we do not know is what was on the earth at original creation and HOW and WHY it became a wasteland.

We have no idea what was on earth before it became a wasteland.

 Instead of logic, which asks questions that aren't answered in Scripture, simply research the Hebrew words and how they are used elsewhere in the OT.

Words mean things.  And not opposite things.  We cannot "second guess" why "tohu wabohu" means totally opposite things between Gen 1:2 and 4:23/Isa 34:11.

In fact, there is no logical reason to think that the 2 words mean different things in Gen 1:2 than in the other 2 passages.

You have written for too much for me to properly respond. So I will simply say this. I will do some research to find out if it's possible that what you have said is correct. I'm sure you would agree that I shouldn't simply take someone's word for it. I cannot say if my mind will be changed my view, as there are still unanswered questions that would need to be resolved. However when reading the Bible one must be willing to accept correction if it's demonstrated that one's beliefs are wrong, no matter how long someone has held to those firm beliefs. Truth as far more important than tradition. I thank you for your lengthy post and I will reread it and give your points for their consideration. God bless.