Rev 16:18 suggests an Old Earth??

[RdJ]

 

-

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12 by RdJ

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And you still haven't proven that the condition of "formlessness" even exists.

It's not my fault you can't understand a simple English word.  I've given both definitions and descriptions.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It is obvious to reasonable people that the destruction was great enough to shift things around.

Destruction of what?  A planet in total darkness covered with water?  The reason the planet was without form and void is because God has JUST BEGUN creating things.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You're just going by your assumptions.  

Actually, I'm going by the Bible.  Try reading it.  Here is an assumption for you.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.  2And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So if the "restoration" began on the first day and there was no dry land until the third day, what exactly was being restored?  You have no answer for this, because Gap theory has no basis in reality.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Explain why the NASB translates...

Because it's a lousy modern translation that most Christians reject.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How many times have I told you that God gave no details.

What's that quacking noise?  Is that a duck?  Shame on God for not giving us details on something that didn't happen.  Give it time.  Some new Bible translation will fill in the blanks.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Assumptions.

Actually, if you actually read the first chapter of Genesis, you will see that, indeed, dry land didn't appear until verse 9.  How could the earth have "become a wasteland?"  Your claim makes no sense whatever.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why don't you see how Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 are translated by the 32 translations on biblehub?

Why don't you?  In fact, 86% disagree with you and NONE of them say the earth became a wasteland.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There are no answers.  

Because your claim has no truth.  No truth; no answers.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So what claim do you think a 5 y/o sees differently?

A five year old can see that verse 2 comes before verse 9, and that if there was no land and no living thing prior to the third day, there was nothing to be restored.  Perhaps you should get a five year old to read the first chapter of Genesis to you so you can understand when God said in Exodus 20:11 that in six days He created the heavens and the earth, and all living things, that He wasn't kidding.

What was this earth like prior to the destruction?  There was nothing living, and no dry land.  There was light but no sun, so it may or may not have been either too hot or cold to support life.  God never said where the light was, or how big it was.  There were no stars visible.  Who lived there?  Aquaman?  The fishing had to be lousy because fish didn't come until day five.

Here is the problem all of you false teachers have.  You haven't thought out the heresies you spew enough for them to convince anyone.  Evolution isn't any better, though they are better salesmen.  They have convinced people that increasing complexity via benevolent mutations is the driving force of the universe, despite never having been validated.

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It's not my fault you can't understand a simple English word.  I've given both definitions and descriptions.

Destruction of what?  A planet in total darkness covered with water?  The reason the planet was without form and void is because God has JUST BEGUN creating things.

Actually, I'm going by the Bible.  Try reading it.  Here is an assumption for you.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.  2And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So if the "restoration" began on the first day and there was no dry land until the third day, what exactly was being restored?  You have no answer for this, because Gap theory has no basis in reality.

Because it's a lousy modern translation that most Christians reject.

What's that quacking noise?  Is that a duck?  Shame on God for not giving us details on something that didn't happen.  Give it time.  Some new Bible translation will fill in the blanks.

Actually, if you actually read the first chapter of Genesis, you will see that, indeed, dry land didn't appear until verse 9.  How could the earth have "become a wasteland?"  Your claim makes no sense whatever.

Why don't you?  In fact, 86% disagree with you and NONE of them say the earth became a wasteland.

Because your claim has no truth.  No truth; no answers.

A five year old can see that verse 2 comes before verse 9, and that if there was no land and no living thing prior to the third day, there was nothing to be restored.  Perhaps you should get a five year old to read the first chapter of Genesis to you so you can understand when God said in Exodus 20:11 that in six days He created the heavens and the earth, and all living things, that He wasn't kidding.

What was this earth like prior to the destruction?  There was nothing living, and no dry land.  There was light but no sun, so it may or may not have been either too hot or cold to support life.  God never said where the light was, or how big it was.  There were no stars visible.  Who lived there?  Aquaman?  The fishing had to be lousy because fish didn't come until day five.

Here is the problem all of you false teachers have.  You haven't thought out the heresies you spew enough for them to convince anyone.  Evolution isn't any better, though they are better salesmen.  They have convinced people that increasing complexity via benevolent mutations is the driving force of the universe, despite never having been validated.

I think you are just wasting your time.  I've already proven what Gen 1:2 actually communicates, and that you can't handle it, because of your extreme bias.

Only you can change that.  You keep asking silly questions about what may have happened in what you consider a theoretical time gap.  I'm done with that.  Since you seem unable to grasp or come to grips with the FACT that God left out ALL details, no one knows what happened in that REAL time gap.

So, go find some other YECers and fellowship with them.

[enoob57]

Genesis 1:1a (KJV)
[Ge 1:1a] In the beginning 

But they say there was another beginning(?)

reminds me of this

Genesis 3:4 (KJV)

[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

 

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Genesis 1:1a (KJV)
[Ge 1:1a] In the beginning 

But they say there was another beginning(?)

Interesting question.  I had heard a long time ago a pastor who had 5 years of Hebrew in seminary explain 'beginning' as "a beginning that wasn't a beginning".

iow, Eternity past is never ending.  Somewhere along the line God created the universe.  So v.1 isn't speaking about the VERY beginning since God is eternal and has no beginning.  But everything He creates DOES have a beginning.

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

reminds me of this

Genesis 3:4 (KJV)

[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

In the Hebrew, God told Adam, "in the DAY that you eat of it, DYING, you shall die".

The double "death" isn't found in any English translation that I know of, but is easily confirmed by an internet search.

Both A & E did die that day, but not physically.  The only other kind of death that they could experience was spiritual death, which is separation from God.

And we know that physical death is a process; thus the word "dying".  So Adam's age actually begins when he died spiritually.  We cannot calculate his age from creation since he lived an undetermined amount of time before he began the slow process of  physical death.

So, satan, being the very crafty fellow that he is, was technically correct when he told Eve she wouldn't die "on that day".  He was only referring to physical death.  But Eve was clueless and deceived and ate the fruit, and died "on that day" spiritually.

[RdJ]

There is proof of an ice age and a lower sealevel in Australia. So they say that the tales from these people are from 20.000 years ago. So that is after the tower of Babel, after the flood. It cannot be from before the flood. They estimate it's 20.000 years old and people who believe GAP just listen to their ages and think it's scientific and say oh the foal in the ice is 40.000 years old or whatever with liquid blood in it. So then these people in Australia lived there that long ago? No. Their dating is off.

You don't have to read Genesis 1:2 in this or that translation. Reminds me of 2 Dutch women on a Dutch reformed site. They believed GAP and that the earth was hollow. Now GAP sounded intelligent so nobody bothered them about that, but they seriously believed we live in a hollow earth with the sun moon and stars inside and an atheist said: but look at these pictures from Nasa! And I said: Look at the sea shore! No the devil was bending the light, so it looked like a sphere. Look Jesus was inside the earth! Nope. They had some text and their pastor had taught em that the earth was hollow. Come on now. Skip looking at that text. Look at the evidence! Evolutionists say the same thing to YEC: Look at the proof! That is not proof. They made that up by skipping the flood and assuming it was always like it is now and then hey surprise the flood doesnt fit in. Of course it doesnt. They left it out. 

Edited April 13 by RdJ

[enoob57]

2 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Interesting question.  I had heard a long time ago a pastor who had 5 years of Hebrew in seminary explain 'beginning' as "a beginning that wasn't a beginning".

iow, Eternity past is never ending.  Somewhere along the line God created the universe.  So v.1 isn't speaking about the VERY beginning since God is eternal and has no beginning.  But everything He creates DOES have a beginning.

'The beginning' and the Bible speaks of no other...
The Scripture references only one beginning ... please show where another is?

 

3 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

In the Hebrew, God told Adam, "in the DAY that you eat of it, DYING, you shall die".

The double "death" isn't found in any English translation that I know of, but is easily confirmed by an internet search.

Both A & E did die that day, but not physically.  The only other kind of death that they could experience was spiritual death, which is separation from God.

And we know that physical death is a process; thus the word "dying".  So Adam's age actually begins when he died spiritually.  We cannot calculate his age from creation since he lived an undetermined amount of time before he began the slow process of  physical death.

So, satan, being the very crafty fellow that he is, was technically correct when he told Eve she wouldn't die "on that day".  He was only referring to physical death.  But Eve was clueless and deceived and ate the fruit, and died "on that day" spiritually.

I prefer God's Word ... 

[FreeGrace]

53 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

'The beginning' and the Bible speaks of no other...
The Scripture references only one beginning ... please show where another is?

I guess my explanation wasn't clear.  God already existed before He created the 'heavens and earth', so the "beginning" in Gen 1:1 wasn't the first creation.  No doubt angels were created before the universe.

53 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

 

I prefer God's Word ... 

Well, what I see here is an interlinear, which is someone's translation of what the Hebrew says.

As I said, it's easy to confirm on the internet that there are 2 deaths in God's warning.

What death do you think God was referring to, if you only accept 'death' in the singular?

[enoob57]

3 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I guess my explanation wasn't clear.  God already existed before He created the 'heavens and earth', so the "beginning" in Gen 1:1 wasn't the first creation.  No doubt angels were created before the universe.

The Bible states:

[2:1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Clearly the heavens and the earth were created first then what goes in them= all the host of them thus angels were created after heaven and earth for the angels are host of heaven... and at least by day four as Job testifies

Job 38:7 (KJV)

[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

3 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What death do you think God was referring to, if you only accept 'death' in the singular?

The s/Spiritual essence of God left man... This is why one must be born again 

John 3:3 (KJV)

[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 4:24 (KJV)

[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 3:5-7 (KJV)

[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

 

[RdJ]

https://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/

 

Is it Theologically Sound?

The gap theory is also unsound theologically. The God of Creation is an omnipotent and omniscient God, and is also a God of grace, mercy, and love. The very concept of the geological ages, on the other hand, implies a wasteful and cruel "god," and therefore probably no god at all.

The supposed geologic ages are identified in terms of the fossils found in the earth's sedimentary rocks, and there are multiplied billions of them there. But fossils speak of death—even violent death. The preservation of dead animals requires rapid burial if they are to last very long. There are many regions, for example, where there are millions of fossil fish preserved in the rocks. There are dinosaur fossil beds on every continent, as well as great beds of fossil marine invertebrates practically everywhere. These may indeed speak of cataclysmic death and burial, but not a cataclysm operating slowly over billions of years, as the geological ages imply. If the gap theory were valid, it would mean that God had instituted an ages-long system of suffering and death over the world, before there were ever any men and women to place in dominion over that world, and then suddenly destroy it in a violent cataclysm. Why would an omnipotent, merciful God do such a wasteful and cruel thing as that?

They cannot blame Satan, either. According to the gap theory, Satan's fall took place at the end of the geological ages, followed by the great pre-Adamic cataclysm on the earth. Thus the geological ages, with their eons of cruelty and waste, took place even before Satan's sin. God Himself would be solely responsible for the whole debacle, if it really happened.

But is the Gap Theory Biblical?

 

This groaning creation has indeed experienced one global cataclysm—one not inferred from vague hints in out-of-context quotes, but rather one described in great detail in Genesis 6-9 and referred to often and unambiguously in later passages—namely, the worldwide Flood in the days of Noah. Most of the vast fossil graveyards in the earth's crust can best be explained as one of the results of the Flood.

This awesome spectacle of destruction and death was not part of God's "very good" creation. There was no death in the world until sin was in the world (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:21; etc.). In fact, death itself is "the wages of sin" (Romans 6:23). Our future deliverance from sin and death has been purchased by the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, who is "the propitiation for our sins and ... also for the sins of the whole world" (John 2:2).

But if "death reigned" not "from Adam to Moses," as the Bible says (Romans 5:14), but had already reigned for billions of years before Adam, then death is not the wages of sin but instead was part of God's creative purpose. How then could the death of Christ put away sin? The gap theory thus undermines the very gospel of our salvation, as well as the holy character of God.

 

Edited April 13 by RdJ