Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[FreeGrace]

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

 

FreeGrace said:

 Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 because the words 'tohu wabohu' describe destruction and not construction.

Proven false many times.  The meaning of any word is partially determined by context.

"partially"??  The only reason both Jeremiah and Isaiah quoted from Gen 1:2 is because they were describing what Moses wrote in Gen 1:2.  And it couldn't have been construction.

The Bible defines itself.  Two out of three contexts are clearly about destruction, and the first one (Gen 1:2) has no context preceding.  Not hard to figure out.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There are very few words with only one meaning.  God stated when He carved the Ten Commandments that He created everything in six days.  You can believe Him or not.  If you write otherwise, it's heresy.

Been over that many times.  "created" isn't the word used in Ex 20:11.  It is made, not created.  Ex nihilo means to create out of nothing.  Bara is the word for creation in Gen 1:1.  Asah is the word for 'made', as in out of existing materials.

Context does determine the meaning of words, and Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 prove that Gen 1:2 is about God having to restore a wrecked earth.

We'll have the details in eternity.  In the meantime, believe the context.

[Still Alive]

On 4/8/2024 at 5:39 AM, Diaste said:

Rev 16:18 - And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake such as there had never been since man was on the earth, so great was that earthquake.   English Standard Version

Genesis 1 is the account of original creation, why didn't John just say "since the creation of the earth", since Genesis 1:1 begins with original creation.  

Does v.2ff is actually describe a restoration of an earth that "BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND", as the Hebrew words are translated elsewhere in Scripture?  This supports an undetermined time gap between 1:1 and 1:2.

Does verse gives support to an earth very much older than Adam?

Well, it agrees with a miriad of scientific discoveries. Science convinced us the earth is a globe orbiting the sun, and as far as I'm concerned, it convinced ME the earth is more than 6,000 years old. 

However, I've said for a while that I believe that the "age of man" is, in fact, roughly 6,000 years old. Who knows how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. it's like saying "Johnny was born. Then Johnny went to college and then Johnny graduated from college. Before the first day and night the bible discusses, who knows how much time passed. 

I see the surface of the earth as a canvas. Someone put a painting on it, whitewashed it, put another painting over it, whitewashed it, and did it again and again. And archeologists peel back one painting to find evidence of the painting before. e.g. Neanderthols, various dinosaurs, etc. Each an artifact of an earlier painting. 

And there may be many more to come after this one gets whitewashed.

[FreeGrace]

On 7/14/2024 at 2:29 PM, Still Alive said:

Well, it agrees with a miriad of scientific discoveries. Science convinced us the earth is a globe orbiting the sun, and as far as I'm concerned, it convinced ME the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

On 7/14/2024 at 2:29 PM, Still Alive said:

However, I've said for a while that I believe that the "age of man" is, in fact, roughly 6,000 years old.

On 7/14/2024 at 2:29 PM, Still Alive said:

Who knows how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. it's like saying "Johnny was born. Then Johnny went to college and then Johnny graduated from college. Before the first day and night the bible discusses, who knows how much time passed. 

I see the surface of the earth as a canvas. Someone put a painting on it, whitewashed it, put another painting over it, whitewashed it, and did it again and again. And archeologists peel back one painting to find evidence of the painting before. e.g. Neanderthols, various dinosaurs, etc. Each an artifact of an earlier painting. 

And there may be many more to come after this one gets whitewashed.

We sure don't know how much time passed between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.  However, we do what the "6 days" of Genesis 1 are about.

The key words in v.2 are "tohu wabohu", which is translated as "without form and void".  We know that is wrong simply by the fact that the entire universe is 3 dimensional.  One of the posters who argues for the earth being only 6 days older than Adam's appearance provided a source that noted that "shape" is 2 dimensional and "form" is 3 dimensional.  iow, every object in the universe has 3 dimensions, so that means the earth was never "formless".  That word can be legitimately used only when in comparing an object that lacks the typical form/shape of other like objects.  

Given that, how do we know what "tohu wabohu" means.  Well, those 2 words occur together in only 2 more verses:

Jer 4:23 - I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; (tohu wabohu) and to the heavens, and they had no light.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The desert owl and the screech owl will possess it, and the great owl and the raven will dwell there. The LORD will stretch out a measuring line and a plumb line over her for her destruction and chaos. (tohu wabohu).

We know that Gen 1:2 has no context, other than original creation.  But, both of these verses have a very clear context, and both passages have the SAME kind of context, which is the total descruction of the land.  

One must ask WHY would Jeremiah quote from Gen 1:2 if Gen 1:2 is describing the creation of the earth??  Esp since he was describing the total destruction of the land by the coming of a besieging army that destroys nations.

Isaiah didn't quote from Gen 1:2 but still used the same two words to describe total destruction of the land.

So, all we know from this is that God created a perfect world, something occurred that created a total destruction, and so God restored it for man's use, in 6 days.

[Still Alive]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

We sure don't know how much time passed between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.  However, we do what the "6 days" of Genesis 1 are about.

The key words in v.2 are "tohu wabohu", which is translated as "without form and void".  We know that is wrong simply by the fact that the entire universe is 3 dimensional.  One of the posters who argues for the earth being only 6 days older than Adam's appearance provided a source that noted that "shape" is 2 dimensional and "form" is 3 dimensional.  iow, every object in the universe has 3 dimensions, so that means the earth was never "formless".  That word can be legitimately used only when in comparing an object that lacks the typical form/shape of other like objects.  

Given that, how do we know what "tohu wabohu" means.  Well, those 2 words occur together in only 2 more verses:

Jer 4:23 - I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; (tohu wabohu) and to the heavens, and they had no light.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The desert owl and the screech owl will possess it, and the great owl and the raven will dwell there. The LORD will stretch out a measuring line and a plumb line over her for her destruction and chaos. (tohu wabohu).

We know that Gen 1:2 has no context, other than original creation.  But, both of these verses have a very clear context, and both passages have the SAME kind of context, which is the total descruction of the land.  

One must ask WHY would Jeremiah quote from Gen 1:2 if Gen 1:2 is describing the creation of the earth??  Esp since he was describing the total destruction of the land by the coming of a besieging army that destroys nations.

Isaiah didn't quote from Gen 1:2 but still used the same two words to describe total destruction of the land.

So, all we know from this is that God created a perfect world, something occurred that created a total destruction, and so God restored it for man's use, in 6 days.

Just to add something I think is important: The total destruction of the land was about the SURFACE of the earth. Not the earth itself. 

Another fun question I like to ask people is, when in Genesis it says, "in the beginning", "the beginning of what?" That sort of ties into what I was suggesting in my post. 

More and more I see the bible and our relationship with God as something that started in a tiny corner of the universe a few thousand years ago. And the bible is all about the planet we occupy. And there may be infinite planets where the same scenario has, is, or will be playing out. But "as far as we're concerned", this is it. Earth. It's what he created us to take care of and have a relationship with Him. And it will be restored. 

BTW, I'm not saying Yahweh is just the God of earth. I believe he IS God - of everything, as far as we are concerned. Anything claimed beyond that is mere speculation, as are my thoughts and comments about stuff outside of earth.

Edited July 16, 2024 by Still Alive

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

Just to add something I think is important: The total destruction of the land was about the SURFACE of the earth. Not the earth itself. 

Good point!

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

Another fun question I like to ask people is, when in Genesis it says, "in the beginning", "the beginning of what?" That sort of ties into what I was suggesting in my post.

Another good point!  I heard a pastor once who majored in Hebrew in seminary (Dallas) who said that "in the beginning" means "in the beginning which wasn't a beginning", or something like that.  iow, Since God is eternal, with no beginning or ending, "in the beginning" in Gen 1:1 is making the point that the "heavens and earth" had a specific beginning, but God existed eternally.

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

More and more I see the bible and our relationship with God as something that started in a tiny corner of the universe a few thousand years ago. And the bible is all about the planet we occupy. And there may be infinite planets where the same scenario has, is, or will be playing out. But "as far as we're concerned", this is it. Earth. It's what he created us to take care of and have a relationship with Him. And it will be restored.

Amen!

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

BTW, I'm not saying Yahweh is just the God of earth. I believe he IS God - of everything, as far as we are concerned. Anything claimed beyond that is mere speculation, as are my thoughts and comments about stuff outside of earth.

So true! Thanks.

[RV_Wizard]

On 7/16/2024 at 1:53 PM, Still Alive said:

Just to add something I think is important: The total destruction of the land was about the SURFACE of the earth. Not the earth itself. 

Don't think I'm bring critical because I'm not.  Certainly keep posting because this is some of the funniest stuff I've read lately. Ruin Reconstruction Theory is an ancient religion dating all the way back to 1814.  That's about 5,800 years after the Adam walked the earth and over 1,700 years after Timothy wrote the following:  "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; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."  - 1 Timothy 6, V 3-5

Your heresy... or theory to you... presupposes a gap between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.  Here are some questions for you.

Light did not exist prior to Genesis 3, which is AFTER Genesis 2.  How was there any light, heat, or life prior to the creation of light?  There was no dry land on the earth prior to verse 9.  What was life like on a planet with no land?  There was no vegetation prior to verse 11.  How did life exist on Waterworld before grasses, herbs and trees?  The sun, moon and stars didn't come about until verse 14, meaning there was no solar system and no visible universe around  us.  How did a floating, isolated waterword in absolute darkness ever have life?  With no universe there were no asteroids.  What destroyed it?  How could a flood destroy a world which had never seen dry land?

Evolution is at least well thought out nonsense.  Gap Theory is nothing more than trying to fit in with the old earth crowd.  It's like seeing the class geek in a football jersey on Friday.  It really makes no sense whatever.

Edited July 18, 2024 by RV_Wizard

[FreeGrace]

25 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Don't think I'm bring critical because I'm not.

OK.

25 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Certainly keep posting because this is some of the funniest stuff I've read lately.

Laughter is good for the soul.  :)

25 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Ruin Reconstruction Theory is an ancient religion dating all the way back to 1814.

Rather, Moses wrote about it around 1400-1450 BC.  Rather clearly, in fact.  Gen 1:2

And when Jeremiah wrote chapter 4, which was describing what was going to occur by a "beseiging army" that was a "destroyer of nations", he was moved by what Moses wrote in Gen 1:2 and used the very same words to describe what was coming:  total destruction of the land.  

And there is no doubt Isaiah also understood what Moses wrote when he wrote Isa 34:11, which was ALSO about the total destruction of the land.

So there are 2 biblical authors inspired by the Holy Spirit who used the very same words that Moses did in Gen 1:2 to describe total destruction of the land.

So it's no theory.  It's fact.

25 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your heresy... or theory to you... presupposes a gap between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. 

People can call anything whatever they want.  But to call what Moses wrote and both Jeremiah and Isaiah borrowed to describe total destruction of the land a "heresy" is pretty far out.

There is simply no way "tohu wabohu" can be used to describe creation in any sense.

25 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Here are some questions for you.

Light did not exist prior to Genesis 3, which is AFTER Genesis 2.  How was there any light, heat, or life prior to the creation of light?  There was no dry land on the earth prior to verse 9.  What was life like on a planet with no land?  There was no vegetation prior to verse 11.  How did life exist on Waterworld before grasses, herbs and trees?  The sun, moon and stars didn't come about until verse 14, meaning there was no solar system and no visible universe around  us.  How did a floating, isolated waterword in absolute darkness ever have life?  With no universe there were no asteroids.  What destroyed it?  How could a flood destroy a world which had never seen dry land?

Irrelevant questions.  God didn't give ALL the details in how or when the earth became an "uninhabitable wasteland", or 'tohu wabohu', but Moses SAID it did after it was created and both Jeremiah and Isaiah borrowed those same words to describe total destruction of the land.

25 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Evolution is at least well thought out nonsense.

Since no one has an excuse (Rom 1:20) for not recognizing God as Creator, no, evolution is NOT "well thought out".  To say so is what is nonsense.

25 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Gap Theory is nothing more than trying to fit in with the old earth crowd. 

This is just a very tired and false claim.  The "old earth crowd" consists primarily of atheists who deny that God exists.

Here's the fact:  evolution requires an old earth, but an old earth doesn't need evolution in any sense.

[Still Alive]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Don't think I'm bring critical because I'm not.  Certainly keep posting because this is some of the funniest stuff I've read lately. Ruin Reconstruction Theory is an ancient religion dating all the way back to 1814.  That's about 5,800 years after the Adam walked the earth and over 1,700 years after Timothy wrote the following:  "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; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."  - 1 Timothy 6, V 3-5

Your heresy... or theory to you... presupposes a gap between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.  Here are some questions for you.

Light did not exist prior to Genesis 3, which is AFTER Genesis 2.  How was there any light, heat, or life prior to the creation of light?  There was no dry land on the earth prior to verse 9.  What was life like on a planet with no land?  There was no vegetation prior to verse 11.  How did life exist on Waterworld before grasses, herbs and trees?  The sun, moon and stars didn't come about until verse 14, meaning there was no solar system and no visible universe around  us.  How did a floating, isolated waterword in absolute darkness ever have life?  With no universe there were no asteroids.  What destroyed it?  How could a flood destroy a world which had never seen dry land?

Evolution is at least well thought out nonsense.  Gap Theory is nothing more than trying to fit in with the old earth crowd.  It's like seeing the class geek in a football jersey on Friday.  It really makes no sense whatever.

Backhanded insults notwithstanding, I agree with your post. It's good to ask those questions. They are questions I asked and found "possible" answers. 

I think of the earth being without form and void, and covered with waters as the equivalent of an old car that has been salvaged from a field somewhere, rust holes filled, body pounded out to correct shape, sanded and primed. And now it's ready for "new creation". i.e. paint color, trim options, etc. 

So, we are talking about the primed and prepped surface, but what happened before that? At some point it was rolling off the factory floor. and it may have been wrecked, restored, sold to a high school kid much later, customized, etc. 

It comes back to this question: When the bible says "in the beginning", we need to ask ourselves, "The beginning of what?" I finally came to the conclusion that it "probably" is talking about the beginning of this story. The story of the beginning of the age of man on earth. And to take it a step forward, Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew 24, etc. Is talking about the next age. And how many ages will there be after that.

Which begs the question, how many ages passed before the age of man?

Keep in mind this is ALL speculation on things the bible is intentionally vague on. Which means it falls into the category of "useless arguments". The most interesting thing I find is that nothing I've said, as far as I can find, contradicts what the bible actually says. However, it DOES contradict many folks' beloved interpretations of what the bible says.

Just a thought in this area: when the "windows of heaven" were opened during the great flood, I always thought it meant "the window opened and the rain water flowed in". But why couldn't it mean, "for the first time in history, the cloud cover opened to reveal the sky we see today both during the day and on a clear night? 

Most of what I say about this stuff is not to convince someone what I'm saying is correct. It's to get young people to think about what the bible actually says, and how people have chosen to interpret it - and then that interpretation becomes "the absolute truth", when, in fact, there are other equally plausible interpretations, some of which fit the rest of scripture as well as the overall personality of God as presented in both the bible as well as the lives of his followers.

 

i.e. I'm trying to make people think rather than just parrot what they learned from an adult when they were in VBS - that adult also simply parroting what they learned in VBS, etc.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

I think of the earth being without form and void, and covered with waters as the equivalent of an old car that has been salvaged from a field somewhere, rust holes filled, body pounded out to correct shape, sanded and primed. And now it's ready for "new creation". i.e. paint color, trim options, etc.

But, in the only two other texts where "tohu wabohu" or "formless and void" occur together are Jer 4:23 and isa 34:11.  Both texts use these 2 Hebrew words to describe the total destruction of the land.

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

So, we are talking about the primed and prepped surface, but what happened before that? At some point it was rolling off the factory floor. and it may have been wrecked, restored, sold to a high school kid much later, customized, etc.for hw 

Using Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 as our only guide with context for how the 2 words are used, Gen 1:2 should have been translated thus:

But, the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland...

If "tohu wabohu" wased used by Moses to describe any part of the process of creation, why would Jeremiah quote directly from Gen 1:2 in describing the coming destruction of the land?

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

It comes back to this question: When the bible says "in the beginning", we need to ask ourselves, "The beginning of what?" I finally came to the conclusion that it "probably" is talking about the beginning of this story. The story of the beginning of the age of man on earth. And to take it a step forward, Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew 24, etc. Is talking about the next age. And how many ages will there be after that.

I heard a pastor with 5 years of seminary Hebrew explain that it meant:  a beginning that is not the beginning.  So your conclusion is right on!

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

Which begs the question, how many ages passed before the age of man?

God simply left out all details about that.  All we know is that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  The LXX begins v.2 with "but" rather than the typical "and", showing a contrast.  And the Hebrew verb for existence can be and is translated as "became/become" elsewhere in the OT.

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

i.e. I'm trying to make people think rather than just parrot what they learned from an adult when they were in VBS - that adult also simply parroting what they learned in VBS, etc.

For sure.

[Still Alive]

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

But, in the only two other texts where "tohu wabohu" or "formless and void" occur together are Jer 4:23 and isa 34:11.  Both texts use these 2 Hebrew words to describe the total destruction of the land.

Using Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 as our only guide with context for how the 2 words are used, Gen 1:2 should have been translated thus:

But, the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland...

If "tohu wabohu" wased used by Moses to describe any part of the process of creation, why would Jeremiah quote directly from Gen 1:2 in describing the coming destruction of the land?

I heard a pastor with 5 years of seminary Hebrew explain that it meant:  a beginning that is not the beginning.  So your conclusion is right on!

God simply left out all details about that.  All we know is that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  The LXX begins v.2 with "but" rather than the typical "and", showing a contrast.  And the Hebrew verb for existence can be and is translated as "became/become" elsewhere in the OT.

For sure.

It frustrates me when God leaves out details, and then people try to fill them in, and suddenly what they filled in becomes "a hill to die on". I don't get it. 

BTW, good post. It was further enlightening for me.

I confess that many of my "odd" theories are designed just like scientific theories. That is, I make the postulation, and then I test it. i.e. I make a claim based on what scripture does seem to support, then I dig deep into scripture to see if there is anything that contradicts it, and often throw it out there for folks like you who are motivated to test it. And when it passes the test, I hold onto it more strongly. 

But I'm always willing to understand that there may be a piece of evidence in the bible that destroys it. Using the scientific method to test theories regarding bible interpretation is very rewarding.