Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What does the BIBLE say?

It very clearly says 

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.

Punctuation and verses were added later.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Of course the meaning of "tohu wabohu" is the SAME in Gen 1:2 as in Jer 4 and Isa 34:11

Unfortunately for you, real experts say otherwise.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 Of course it is the same meaning.  It is the same word.

You lack of understanding is legendary.  Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon lists the following meanings of the noun, tohu: “formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness”. As far as the spectrum of its meaning goes, Tohu Wabohu is concerned with “Creation, reconstruction” (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:7; Isa. 45:19; Jer. 4:23), “rescuing, salvation” (Deut. 32:10; Isa. 45:19), “injustice of men and justice from God” (Isa. 29:21; 34:11), “chaos, confusion, lack of order” (Isa. 24:10; 34:11; 41:29; 49:9), “idolatry” (Isa. 44:9), “wrong ways, not profitable” (Job 6:18; 12:24), “work” (Isa. 49:4), and “power of God” (Isa. 40:17, 23).

You see, words can have more than one definition.  The word "run" has 645 distinctive meanings.  It's the same word.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Mary WAS the wife of Joseph.

Mary BECAME the wife of Joseph.

No difference.  

Epic fail.  Was is a past tense verb.  Became is an action verb.  Given your lack of understanding of the English language, I'm surprised you pretend to know the Hebrew language.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Are you not aware that "re" means again?

Not in this context, apparently.  want to try and read it again? "Replenish in 1:28 simply means "fill." It gives no indication that there had been prior inhabitants on the earth."  different languages use words differently.  Learn a language and you may see that.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

"formless" is a fantasy.  Not a state of existence.

How poorly educated you are.  You should sue your school system.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Moses wrote Genesis around 1400 BC.  Jer and Isa wrote about 700 and 600 BC.  

Gap theory was concocted in 1814.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've focused solely on what the ACTUAL HEBREW SAYS.

Not true.  You focus on a faulty minority interpretation that is skewed by a desire to accommodate an ancient earth.  The most recently published Bible confirms the interpretation "without form and void."  Your claim is absolutely dishonest, as actual Hebrew experts have published. 

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And there are a lot of LIARS out there

Very true.  They are here pushing new aged heresies that conflict with the plain teaching of the Bible.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God created the earth that is SURROUNDED by air.

That's not what omnipresent means.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What part of the planet is air not found?

In solid rocks, in the sea, in solidly formed ice, in  the trunks of trees.  If you had air bubbles in your bloodstream it could kill you.  There is no air in bowling balls.  If there's air in your car's brake lines you may not make it to work tomorrow.  Omnipresent means present in all places at all times.  Air is not.
 

 

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You think objects can be formless, which would mean don't have 3 dimensions, yet you can't come up with any examples.

That's a flat out lie.  I've given you many examples.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You claim that I don't understand either Hebrew or English but you can't prove it.

You prove it with every post.  Your claims are sophomoric and redundant.  You say things that make no sense whatever.  Your knowledge of the world around you or even the English language is noticeably limited.  Your entire heretical claim is based on two Hebrew words you don't understand and a gap theory you didn't even know was being presented as a theory.  You talk about the "real Hebrew," but you don't speak the language and don't understand Hebrew hermeneutics.  That doesn't stop you from lame attacks upon those who do, however.

In the immortal words of Tom Petty, "It don't make no difference to me, 'cause you believe what you want to believe."  The light of reason does not shine in your word, apparently.

ולכן אעזוב את הפיאסקו הזה.

 

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

What does the BIBLE say?

It very clearly says 

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.

Not at all.  God created a 3 dimensional universe, so the earth HAS 3 dimensions.  And that, my friend, means that God created the earth WITH FORM.  From the source you quoted from, form has 3 dimensions.

So this FACT forces (or should) you to reconsider the lame KJV and all the copycat versions.  God did not create the earth "without form" because that is not possible.  In fact, that is insane, and God doesn't create insane things.  He creates GOOD things.  As all of Genesis 1 says.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Punctuation and verses were added later.

Irrelevant.  Makes no difference.  It's what Moses wrote that is from the Holy Spirit; not what men "thought" Moses meant.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Unfortunately for you, real experts say otherwise.

As I've pointed out many times, experts in EVERY field disagree with other experts from that same field.  All you've done is pick and choose which experts you choose to quote.  So what.  Proves nothing.  I HAVE proved what Moses meant from what Jeremiah and Isaiah wrote about coming DISASTER to the land.  That is precisely WHY Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 in describing what what was coming to the land.

Here's a quote from a respected commentary:

“The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculiar phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted; and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version 'unsightly and unfurnished.' Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used, that the world, which had formerly been a scene of material beauty and order, was by some great convulsion plunged into a state of chaos or widespread disorder and desolation. Hence, some eminent critics, who take this view, render the clause thus: 'But (or afterward) the earth became waste and desolate.' This translation is declared by Kurtz to be inadmissible, as being contrary to the rules of grammatical construction; but Dr. McCaul has shown that the verb haayªtaah 'was,' is, in some twenty places, in this chapter, used as equivalent to 'became,' and that elsewhere it has the same signification without a following Lª - (preposition) (Isa 64:5,9). That the earth was not originally desolate seems also to be implied in Isa 45:18 “

(Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc.)

See?  Experts disagree.  So what.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You lack of understanding is legendary.

No, it's your stubbornness that is legendary.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon lists the following meanings of the noun, tohu: “formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness”.

And anyone who tries to force any of these meanings into God's creation needs a full medical and mental checkup.

Maybe you just didn't notice, but BDB includes "unreality" along with "formlessness", which is exactly what I've been pointing out.  Formlessness is unreality.  Not real.  Is that what you think God creates?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 As far as the spectrum of its meaning goes, Tohu Wabohu is concerned with “Creation, reconstruction” (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:7; Isa. 45:19; Jer. 4:23), “rescuing, salvation”

And this is where DBD goes completely off the rails.  After giving various meanings, they claim that tohu wabohu "is concerned with creation, reconstruction" and even quote Jer 4:23!!  What trash!  Pure nonsense!  Jeremiah was warning about the coming DISASTER to the land of Israel by a beseiging army that destroyed nations.  That is why he quoted from Gen 1:2.  The earth BECAME a total disaster, and unfit for human life.  This is so simple, but you just keep digging in to defend your erroneous understanding.

btw, tohu wabohu occurs only 3 times in the OT:  Gen 1:2, Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  Job 26:7 and Isa 45:19 only have tohu alone.  In Job translated as "empty space" and in Isa  'in vain'.

Isa 45:19
Berean Study Bible
I have not spoken in secret, from a place in a land of darkness. I did not say to the descendants of Jacob, ‘Seek Me in a wasteland.’ I, the LORD, speak the truth; I say what is right.

New American Standard Bible 
"I have not spoken in secret, In some dark land; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek Me in a waste place'; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, Declaring things that are upright

Holman Christian Standard Bible
I have not spoken in secret, somewhere in a land of darkness. I did not say to the descendants of Jacob: Seek Me in a wasteland. I, Yahweh, speak truthfully; I say what is right." 

International Standard Version
I didn't speak in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I didn't say to Jacob's descendants, 'Seek me in chaos.' I, the LORD, speak truth, declaring what is right.

So they didn't even get the number of verses with both words correct.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You see, words can have more than one definition. 

Of course everyone understands that.  But a single word CANNOT have contradictory meanings, as you fantasize.

Tohu is about destruction, and NEVER about construction, as proven in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, the ONLY OTHEFR 2 occcurrence of tohu wabohu in the Bible.  Yet, you somehow mystically and magically insist that tohu wabohu does describe creation in Gen 1:2.  Because YOU want it to.  That's the only reason.

I let the Bible define itself.  Not the BDB, not Strong's, not any person.  The Bible does a very good job all by itself.

I'm sure God always knew there would be "well intentioned" people who would totally misunderstand Gen 1:2, so He had Jeremiah and Isaiah use the 2 words to DEMONSTRATE what they DESCRIBE clearly.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Epic fail.  Was is a past tense verb.  Became is an action verb.

You still don't know or understand what you are talking about.

Mary WAS the wife of Joseph.

Mary BECAME the wife of Joseph.
I don't expect you to comment on this example of WHEN the verb of existence in Gen 1:2 can be translated either way.  And biblehub gives all the verses where that exact form occur.  Many are translated as "was" but, like the example above, also mean "became".

So you have no point.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Given your lack of understanding of the English language, I'm surprised you pretend to know the Hebrew language.

Just more petty snotty snipes because you have no point.  So you go low and commit ad hominem.  This approach totally discredits everything you say.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Not in this context, apparently.  want to try and read it again? "Replenish in 1:28 simply means "fill." It gives no indication that there had been prior inhabitants on the earth."  different languages use words differently.  Learn a language and you may see that.

OK, fine.  Again, so what?  Why won't you just accept what "tohu wabohu" describes, as proven from Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11?  Oh, right.  You are a pick and choose kind of guy.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How poorly educated you are.  You should sue your school system.

And you should watch your mouth.  Such petty and snotty snipes do not give you any credibility at all.  But that's all that one can do when they have NO defense.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Gap theory was concocted in 1814.

I don't recall that Chalmers gave any theory regarding the why, what or when of the earth becoming an uninhabitable wasteland.  Doesn't matter.  We have enough information to understand what Moses wrote and what he described.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You focus on a faulty minority interpretation that is skewed by a desire to accommodate an ancient earth.

I am only "accommodating" what the Hebrew means, by seeing how the 2 words were used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  The context in both texts clearly shows that tohu wabohu describes an uninhabitable wasteland.  The precise reason God restored the earth.  So man could inhabit the earth.  Such a simple concept.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The most recently published Bible confirms the interpretation "without form and void."

Hardly.  "confirm"?  Really?  No, they just copied what had already been written, probably to push their young earth agenda.  No real scholarship there.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your claim is absolutely dishonest, as actual Hebrew experts have published.

Your claim is worse than dishonest, since I just quoted a commentary that supports a time gap in Genesis 1.  Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Very true.  They are here pushing new aged heresies that conflict with the plain teaching of the Bible.

And the "plain teaching" is false teaching nonetheless.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's not what omnipresent means.

What would you know about that?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In solid rocks, in the sea, in solidly formed ice, in  the trunks of trees.

Aren't you aware that rocks are totally surrounded by air?  As to the sea, how do you think the fish survive?  They extract O2 from the water.  What is air?  80% O2.  As for ice, that's just solid water, and we know that there is O2 in water.  As 

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If you had air bubbles in your bloodstream it could kill you.  There is no air in bowling balls.  If there's air in your car's brake lines you may not make it to work tomorrow.  Omnipresent means present in all places at all times.  Air is not.
 

 

That's a flat out lie.  I've given you many examples.

You prove it with every post.  Your claims are sophomoric and redundant.  You say things that make no sense whatever.  Your knowledge of the world around you or even the English language is noticeably limited.  Your entire heretical claim is based on two Hebrew words you don't understand and a gap theory you didn't even know was being presented as a theory.  You talk about the "real Hebrew," but you don't speak the language and don't understand Hebrew hermeneutics.  That doesn't stop you from lame attacks upon those who do, however.

In the immortal words of Tom Petty, "It don't make no difference to me, 'cause you believe what you want to believe."  The light of reason does not shine in your word, apparently.

ולכן אעזוב את הפיאסקו הזה.

 

 

[FreeGrace]

Unfortunately, my computer burped during my response and created the post.  I went back to edit but timed out and lost all comments.

So here's what didn't get into my reply.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If you had air bubbles in your bloodstream it could kill you.

If you had NO O2 in your body, you would be DEAD.  I thought everyone knew that.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There is no air in bowling balls.

I'm getting the sense that maybe there is no air in your head.  So you can correct anyone who may call you "air-headed".  lol

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If there's air in your car's brake lines you may not make it to work tomorrow.  Omnipresent means present in all places at all times.  Air is not.

This is just pathetic.  Obviously you have no idea what omnipresent means.  From your own words.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's a flat out lie.  I've given you many examples.

And every example is a fail.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You prove it with every post.  Your claims are sophomoric and redundant.

Just more petty snipes.  How sad.  But you don't have any evidence to support your claims.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You say things that make no sense whatever.

Well, that's not my issue.  I am clear enough.  Maybe you might want to find an air pump and pump some into your head.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your knowledge of the world around you or even the English language is noticeably limited.

Just more dishonest petty bunk.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Your entire heretical claim is based on two Hebrew words you don't understand and a gap theory you didn't even know was being presented as a theory

This really shows how little air there is in your own head.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You talk about the "real Hebrew," but you don't speak the language and don't understand Hebrew hermeneutics.

I've never claimed otherwise.  I HAVE, otoh, shown from Jer 4 and Isa 34 how "tohu wabohu" was used to describe the total destruction of the land, which oddly, you just won't accept.  And you claim that I have "little understanding" of things.  Yeah, right.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  That doesn't stop you from lame attacks upon those who do, however.

OK, so you aren't aware that I've never attacked anything here.  I have pointed out errors, but that's not an attack.  Well, it is, but only to very hyper-sensitive subjective people.  

All true attacks have come from YOU.  And they ARE lame.  All of them.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In the immortal words of Tom Petty, "It don't make no difference to me, 'cause you believe what you want to believe."  The light of reason does not shine in your word, apparently.

ולכן אעזוב את הפיאסקו הזה.

And he was talking to you.

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 God created a 3 dimensional universe, so the earth HAS 3 dimensions.  And that, my friend, means that God created the earth WITH FORM.

Sez you.  And since you're wrong about everything else, it's logical to presume that you're wrong about this, too.  Personally, I believe the earth started out as a gas cloud before it became a water mass, but that's my personal belief.  Regardless, God Himself said that He created the heaven, the sea and the earth, and everything that is in them.  Thus we know that "without form and void" was only a temporary state.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 God did not create the earth "without form" because that is not possible.

While I disagree with the timeline, "The Sun and the planets formed together, 4.6 billion years ago, from a cloud of gas and dust called the solar nebula."  (source)  Not only is it possible, it is the scientific explanation.  Once again, the things you claim make no sense.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

All you've done is pick and choose which experts you choose to quote.  So what.

Pot, meet Mr, Kettle.  All of your "sources" are modern, which validates that gap theory is a modern day heresy.  Even today, 86% of the sources disagree with you.  That's because you're wrong.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Here's a quote from a respected commentary:

Respected by whom?  I don't afford respect to heretics.  You DID notice that it was from 1997, right?  Modern heresy.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Maybe you just didn't notice, but BDB includes "unreality" along with "formlessness", which is exactly what I've been pointing out.

The context rules it out.  Maybe you didn't know it, but when a word has more than one definition, the context helps interpret the meaning.  You have a head on your neck.  A boat has a head (toilet).  Does that mean you have a toilet on your neck?  Again, you should sue your high school for malpractice.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But a single word CANNOT have contradictory meanings, as you fantasize.

  The term is called a contronym.  Do you need a good attorney to sue your high school?

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 So you go low and commit ad hominem.

Ad hominem is an adjective, not a predicate noun.

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

No, they just copied what had already been written, probably to push their young earth agenda.

Since you made that statement as if it were fact, you just committed libel.  They could sue you for that.

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What would you know about that?

I DO know the English language.  It's the language with which I speak, read and write.  Maybe you should take a few classes.

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Aren't you aware that rocks are totally surrounded by air?

Surrounded and permeated are different things, are they not?

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 As to the sea, how do you think the fish survive?  They extract O2 from the water.

It may come as a shock to you, but oxygen and air are not the same things.  Fish use gills to take oxygen from water, which is just over 33% oxygen.  We do the same thing with lungs, though our air contains only about 20% oxygen.

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If you had NO O2 in your body, you would be DEAD.  I thought everyone knew that.

Again, oxygen is a minority element in the air we breathe.  It's 78% nitrogen, less than 1% Argon and about 0.04% Carbon Dioxide.  Oxygen and air are NOT synonyms.

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Obviously you have no idea what omnipresent means.  From your own words.

Obviously, one of us is wrong.  Care to guess which it is?  OMNIPRESENT-
adjective: present in all places at all times.

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And you claim that I have "little understanding" of things.  Yeah, right.

I think you've demonstrated that far more than I've claimed it.

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, so you aren't aware that I've never attacked anything here.  Maybe you might want to find an air pump and pump some into your head.

From the person who thinks air is omnipresent.

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

 God created a 3 dimensional universe, so the earth HAS 3 dimensions.  And that, my friend, means that God created the earth WITH FORM.

Sez you.

Uh, no.  Sez the source that YOU quoted.  Prove my statement wrong, since you think so.  Give examples of anything in the universe or earth that is LESS than 3 dimensions.  This should be good.  I'll make some popcorn!

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  And since you're wrong about everything else, it's logical to presume that you're wrong about this, too.

And that's all you have;  presumptions.  Which are all wrong.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Personally, I believe the earth started out as a gas cloud before it became a water mass, but that's my personal belief.

Let's just call it what is really is;  a THEORY.  No proof, no evidence, no nothing.  That's why I make a point to leave out all theory regarding the time gap, which is proven from the very words of Gen 1:2.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Regardless, God Himself said that He created the heaven, the sea and the earth, and everything that is in them.  Thus we know that "without form and void" was only a temporary state.

Just another presumption, and wrong.  I've proven that "without form and void" doesn't translate what "tohu wabohu" describe.  Jer 4 and Isa 34 clearly reveal what those 2 words DO describe; total destruction of land.

How anyone can presume the 2 words can describe conditions at creation AND the total destruction of land is way beyond me.  It's actually insane.  Absurd.  Weird.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

While I disagree with the timeline, "The Sun and the planets formed together, 4.6 billion years ago, from a cloud of gas and dust called the solar nebula."  (source)  Not only is it possible, it is the scientific explanation.  Once again, the things you claim make no sense.

Huh, I thought you were way DOWN with "science" since they only want people to believe that evolution is how everything got here.  But now you quote science.  Funny

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 All of your "sources" are modern, which validates that gap theory is a modern day heresy.

Poppycock.  Pure nonsense.  Even the LXX contradicts the KJV.  But go ahead and claim that the LXX in v.2 is about creation:  "but the earth was/became unsightly".

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Even today, 86% of the sources disagree with you.  That's because you're wrong.

You just love quoting the idiots.  Truth has NEVER been in the majority, but I guess you never knew that.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The context rules it out.

There is no "context" for Gen 1:2 as to HOW, WHY or by WHOM the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  

We DO, however, find the context for how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4 and Isa 34, which is to describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of land.

That anyone would claim that the 2 words can describe original creation by God AND total destruction of land is worse than weird.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Maybe you didn't know it, but when a word has more than one definition, the context helps interpret the meaning.

Here's the thing.  There are no details in Genesis 1, but there are in Jer 4 and Isa 34, which you'd just rather ignore.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You have a head on your neck.  A boat has a head (toilet).  Does that mean you have a toilet on your neck?  Again, you should sue your high school for malpractice.

I think you need some sleep.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The term is called a contronym.  Do you need a good attorney to sue your high school?

What a farce.  I noticed that the state of being in Jer 4 and Isa 34 weren't listed in that article on contronyms.

Also, maybe you failed to notice, but the entire list were VERBS.  Know what those are?  "tohu wabohu" aren't verbs, buddy, but a state of being, very UNLIKE a verb.

So, once again, your "examples" FAIL to support your presumptions.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Ad hominem is an adjective, not a predicate noun.

So quit using them just because you have no defense.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Since you made that statement as if it were fact, you just committed libel.  They could sue you for that.

So sue me.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I DO know the English language.  It's the language with which I speak, read and write.  Maybe you should take a few classes.

More ad hominem.  But that's all you have.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Surrounded and permeated are different things, are they not?

Please try harder to make a point.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It may come as a shock to you, but oxygen and air are not the same things.

It HAS come as a shock to you, but I addressed that in my repy.  You really should read what I post before you keep making such glaring errors as to what I have posted.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Fish use gills to take oxygen from water, which is just over 33% oxygen. 

Percentages are irrelevant.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Again, oxygen is a minority element in the air we breathe.  It's 78% nitrogen, less than 1% Argon and about 0.04% Carbon Dioxide.  Oxygen and air are NOT synonyms.

Basically, they are and everyone knows that.  But you are just desperate to prove something which isn't true.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Obviously, one of us is wrong.  Care to guess which it is?

I don't think anyone has to guess, given all your posts.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

From the person who thinks air is omnipresent.

Since air is found EVERYWHERE on earth, it is.  But you believe in a lot of unreal things.

Like, objects can have less than 3 dimensions.

Like, 2 words that describe a state of being in Jer 4 and Isa 34 (total destruction of land) can also describe the state of being when God created the earth.

Like, the obvious contradiction between KJV of Gen 1:1,2 and Isa 45:18 isn't.

Like, air air doesn't exist everywhere on earth and around earth.

There's a lot of learning you need.

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The term is called a contronym.  Do you need a good attorney to sue your high school?

Yes, let's delve a bit deeper into the matter of contronyms, shall we?  Since you thought it would help your cause.

Most of the examples in the article simply meant different actions.  Some of the words were either actions or a state of being.  

If you can show a state of being having contradictory meanings or descriptions would you have a point.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I DO know the English language.  It's the language with which I speak, read and write.  Maybe you should take a few classes.

And then you said that.  What a hoot!  You can't even see the difference between verbs and states of being, it seems.

So please don't tell me what you know.  All you've done so far is show the thread what you DO NOT KNOW.  And repeatedly.

[RdJ]

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Also, maybe you failed to notice, but the entire list were VERBS.  Know what those are?  "tohu wabohu" aren't verbs, buddy, but a state of being, very UNLIKE a verb.

State is an adverb.  Being is a verb.  Care to try again?

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There are no details in Genesis 1,

The first chapter of Genesis is all about the details.  Care to read it?  Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement.  One does not expect to find great details in such.  The details come later, as they do in Genesis 1.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I addressed that in my repy.

No you didn't.  You switched the topic of air to oxygen, which is also NOT omnipresent.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Since air is found EVERYWHERE on earth, it is.

I just proved you wrong on this.  Pay attention.  How much air is there in a lead bar?  How much air is on the oceans?  How much air is in your hydraulic brakes?

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Like, objects can have less than 3 dimensions.

An object has a specific difference in definition to liquids or gases.  Objects are solid.  The remarkable feature of gases is that they appear to have no structure at all. They have neither a definite size nor shape, whereas ordinary solids have both a definite size and a definite shape, and liquids have a definite size, or volume, even though they adapt their shape to that of the container in which they are placed. Gases will completely fill any closed container; their properties depend on the volume of a container but not on its shape.  source  

Gases are a prefect example of a formless substance.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 You can't even see the difference between verbs and states of being, it seems.

As I pointed out, "to be" is a verb.  In "states of being" it is used as a present participle.  In this case, states modifies the verb, making it an adverb.

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

Also, maybe you failed to notice, but the entire list were VERBS.  Know what those are?  "tohu wabohu" aren't verbs, buddy, but a state of being, very UNLIKE a verb.

State is an adverb.  Being is a verb.  Care to try again?

That would appy to yourself.  You are making no sense.  The examples of contronyms were VERBS, not state of being.  Maybe you just don't understand the difference.  So I'll tell you.  A verb is an ACTION.  A state of being is a condition.  Like confusion, which is your state of confusion.

So, now that you know, can you provide an example of a state of being, or condition, that has contrary meanings?

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The first chapter of Genesis is all about the details.  Care to read it?

Snarkiness and sarcasm are your primary characteristics.  But then, why not since you have no evidence for your views.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement.  One does not expect to find great details in such.  The details come later, as they do in Genesis 1.

Rather, from tohu wabohu, clearly something occurred that left the earth an uninhabitable wasteland, and all details are about th restoration.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I just proved you wrong on this.  Pay attention.  How much air is there in a lead bar?  How much air is on the oceans?  How much air is in your hydraulic brakes?

I'm beginning to wonder how much air is between your ears.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

An object has a specific difference in definition to liquids or gases.  Objects are solid.  The remarkable feature of gases is that they appear to have no structure at all. They have neither a definite size nor shape, whereas ordinary solids have both a definite size and a definite shape, and liquids have a definite size, or volume, even though they adapt their shape to that of the container in which they are placed. Gases will completely fill any closed container; their properties depend on the volume of a container but not on its shape.  source  

Gases are a prefect example of a formless substance.

Again, you have shown your continuing ignorance on the subject.  If a gas can be seen, one can see a "cloud" until it dissipates.  Everyone knows that clouds have FORMations.  So again you fail to grasp anything.

And the earth wasn't created as a gas.  So your point is irrelevant to creation.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As I pointed out, "to be" is a verb.  In "states of being" it is used as a present participle.  In this case, states modifies the verb, making it an adverb.

I suppose you have a point here, but it's anything but clear.

There are verbs, and conditions.  Yes, verbs can have contradictory usages.  So, show me a condition (state of being) that can have a contradictory usage.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

A verb is an ACTION.  A state of being is a condition.  Like confusion, which is your state of confusion.

Verb:  Noun.  A word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.  Better Call Saul.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Snarkiness and sarcasm are your primary characteristics.

Pointing out the foolishness of the foolish is among my finer qualities.  

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

clearly something occurred that left the earth an uninhabitable wasteland

Yes, it's so clear that for the first 57 centuries nobody noticed it.  It wasn't until geologists began to claim long ages that some people began to try and find a way to worm the heresy of an ancient earth into the text of Genesis.  EVERY source you list is modern; most from the 70's.  If that doesn't prove to you that ruin/reconstruction is a modern heresy, there's nothing anyone can say that will shine light into the darkness of your spirit.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Everyone knows that clouds have FORMations.

Clouds have shapes, not forms.  I understand that you cannot grasp the difference.  That doesn't change reality.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

And the earth wasn't created as a gas.

So you say.  Prove it.