Christians CAN believe in evolution... if they understand neither

[BeyondET]

23 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What you claim about what I believe is wrong.  There is no such thing as "2 life forms coming togethger to create a human with a soul".

It's called a sperm and a egg, which are living. And bond to form the humanbody thus where the soul resides. If you think those two living forms don't come together your delusional.

Edited August 4, 2024 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

Since we HAVE the Hebrew words, we CAN see how they are used throughout the OT.

In hermeneutics, the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts, there is the law of first mention.  The law of first mention is a guideline that some people use for studying Scripture.

Well, obviously Jeremiah NEVER heard of that "law".  btw, could you please cite a source that speaks of this "law"?

I thought everyone knows that words are determined IN context.  Since there is NO context for Gen 1:2, we look to the 2 passages where there IS context for "tohu wabohu", and we see that the 2 words describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.

Take the word "trunk".  The word has a very wide semantic range, such as:

1.  snout of an elephant  2.  back end of an automobile  3.  storage box  4.  stem of a tree

Each of these meaning is totally different from each other.  The only way to determine what is being referenced is to have context.

However, the words "tohu wabohu" only occur 3 times total in the OT.  The first time has NO CONTEXT.  So we HAVE TO go to the other 2 contexts.

BOTH of the contexts use "tohu wabohu" for the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.

This is not arguable, but FACT.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

The law of first mention says that, to understand a particular word or doctrine, we must find the first place in Scripture that word or doctrine is revealed and study that passage.

Those who do that FAIL to understand anything because there is no context with which to orient to the words.  Further, the English translators failed miserably by using a fantasy word "formless" which is impossible.  All objects in our 3 dimensional universe have a 3 dimensional form.  So let's look at how just "tohu" was translated throughout the OT:

Gen 1:2 - was formless

Isa 45:18 - it a waste place,

Isa 45:19 - Me in a waste place

1 Sam 12:21 - for they [are] vain.

Job 26:7 - empty space

Isa 24:10 - of chaos

Isa 34:11 - of desolation

Isa 44:9 - of them futile,

Isa 59:4 - in confusion

Jer 4:23 - waste/wasteland

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

The reasoning is that the Bible’s first mention of a concept is the simplest and clearest presentation;

This notion fails because there is no context for what "tohu wabohu" is describing.  That's WHY we must go to the ONLY OTHER 2 places: Jer 4 and Isa 34, which do have a clear context, which is the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

doctrines are then more fully developed on that foundation.

Very shaky "foundation" if one uses Gen 1:2, since there is no context.  And Jeremiah must have been very shaky as well to quote from Gen 1:2 when he was describing the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land in Jer 4.  So that proves your theory incorrect.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

So, to fully understand an important and complex theological concept, Bible students are advised to start with its “first mention.

Only works when there is a clear context.  And Jeremiah refutes such a claim.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

The subsequent use of any word or phrase quoting the first use cannot change the original definition of that first use.

Please go tell poor Jeremiah what an idiot he was to use "tohu wabohu" from Gen 1:2 when he was describing the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The first use must always be considered in its own context.

Right!!  And that would be Jer 4:23 where Jeremiah CORRECTLY used "tohu wabohu" for describing the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land by an invading army that was a destroyer of nations.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  This means that any subsequent mentions defers in meaning to the original.

Then that would mean Jeremiah was an idiot for using "tohu wabohu",which would be nonsense.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  In other words, your misinterpretation of the Hebrew words is entirely invalid since you are using subsequent use to re-define the first use.  Your argument, then, is invalid.

Your entire thought process is faulty since there is NO CONTEXT in Gen 1:1 or 2.  That's the problem that isn't getting through to your understanding.

Try your "law" on the word "trunk" and see how hilarious it becomes.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Why would God give details of a fantasy not concocted until the 19th century?

Your repeated highly biased questions definitely reduce your credibility.  Since God gave NO DETAILS about the HOW or WHY the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND, your question doesn't even have any basis for being asked.

Here's the thing:  God obviously didn't want humans to know about whatever happend that resulted in the earth BECOMING AN UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You can't get around the fact that prior to verse two there was no light, no sun, no dry land and no source of heat.

I've never tried to "go around" anything.  It seems you misunderstand a whole lot.

I've already pointed out that the "whole creation groans in birth pains", which you associate with man's sin.  But since NO human knows anything about what happened after v.1 and before the earth BECAME AN UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND, it should be obvious that more than just earth was involved in the destruction of earth.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Saying that God didn't provide the answers is a cop out when you are professing something diametrically opposite of what God's word clearly states.

It's your reliance on a very faulty translation that what's keeping you from understanding what happened.  How can it be a cop out when there is NO CONTEXT for the words "tohu wabohu" which are only used elsewhere to describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land??  And...you have no answer.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Perhaps because you have no logical answer, that what you are claiming is contrary to the Bible and to the teaching of the church from its beginning, and your argument is entirely based on a 19th century attempt to justify long ages with the creation.

What isn't "logical" is any object in the universe that is "without form".  It is your view that is illogical on its face.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Scientists can't prove any such thing.

That is just an opinion.  Of course they can.  But it seems you seem to think they have just made up a boatload of years for some philosophical reason, huh.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Since when are God's miracles subject to scientific review? 

I would guess never.  What kind of question is this?

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Can science validate the resurrection of the dead, which happens ten times in the Bible?  Can science explain Jesus walking on water, or Elijah ascending to Heaven in a firey chariot?  How does science explain Joshua halting the sun in the sky for a day, or Moses parting the Red Sea by holding out a staff?  Did science convince you that Jesus died for your sins and then rose from the grave?

Kinda getting off the rails here.  Gen 1:1 is very clear.  And Psa 33:6 and 9 explains HOW God created the heavens and earth.  Real simple.  We don't need science to validate anything.  Reality is reality.  No validation necessary.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

From 1814, Thomas Chalmers popularized gap creationism   source

How dare I post a historical fact in the light of your desire to appeal to the old earth crowd.

That isn't very perceptive if you are being serious here.  How do I appeal to anyone?  I appeal to the Word of God, when you appeal to the majority of English translations, which aren't even logical, given their use of "formless" nonsense.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

There was no restoration because there was no previous existence.  There wasn't any earth to be found on the earth or any life form of any kind until day three.

I don't know how many times I have to correct your error about some "previous existence".

Let's consider the state of a human who then gets hit by a car and suffers major damage to much of his body.  

After surgeries, healing, etc, and recovered, do you view his pre-accident life as a "previous life"?  Well, do you?

You'd better say no.  There is only 1 life.  A life before all the damage, and the SAME life after recovery.  Can you understand this?

[FreeGrace]

19 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

FreeGrace said:

What you claim about what I believe is wrong.  There is no such thing as "2 life forms coming togethger to create a human with a soul".

It's called a sperm and a egg, which are living.

Maybe you nodded off or something.  I have been talking about Gen 2:7 and God creating Adam.  God didn't use sperm and eggs for him.

19 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

And bond to form the humanbody thus where the soul resides. If you think those two living forms don't come together your delusional.

I was never talking about sperm and eggs.  Please pay closer attention.  What is your view of WHEN the soul resides in the body?  Thanks.

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, obviously Jeremiah NEVER heard of that "law".  btw, could you please cite a source that speaks of this "law"?

one two

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 Since there is NO context for Gen 1:2,

Sure there is.  It's Genesis 1:1-31.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Then that would mean Jeremiah was an idiot for using "tohu wabohu",which would be nonsense.

Jeremiah wasn't the one who made up ruin / reconstruction theory.  He believed in the Scriptures as written.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 But it seems you seem to think they have just made up a boatload of years for some philosophical reason,

No, they made up the idea of millions of years to come up with a natural explanation for creation, since science does not include a supernatural explanation.  If a supernatural God created the world by supernatural means, science would never have the correct answer.  Thus, you either believe in the science of man or the word of God.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And Psa 33:6 and 9 explains HOW God created the heavens and earth.

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.  This says nothing about instantaneous creation, a six day creation, or a billion year creation.  It makes no mention whatever of time.  GENESIS explains how God created the heavens and earth.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Let's consider the state of a human who then gets hit by a car and suffers major damage to much of his body.

Hit by what?  Nothing else existed.  There was no land.  There was no light.  There was no life of any kind.  There were no other stars.  Stars were created on day four.  Not only do you have to have a make believe planet that was destroyed, you have a make believe universe you claim was destroyed.  All of this is based on the fact that Jeremiah quoted Moses for effect.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

Well, obviously Jeremiah NEVER heard of that "law".  btw, could you please cite a source that speaks of this "law"?

one two

So what?  Those are man-made laws, not God's laws.  God defines biblical words according to His own will.  And He clearly defined how to use "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4 and Isa 34, which is about TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.

Otherwise, Jeremiah wouldn't have quoted from Gen 1:2 in Jer 4 when he was warning of the coming TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.  That would have been idiotic.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Sure there is.  It's Genesis 1:1-31.

Another opinion.  Jeremiah refutes that man-made "law" about first mention.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Jeremiah wasn't the one who made up ruin / reconstruction theory.  He believed in the Scriptures as written.

He sure did!!  He understand precisely what Moses was describing in Gen 1:2, which is the ONLY REASON he quoted from that verse.  Easy-peasy.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, they made up the idea of millions of years to come up with a natural explanation for creation, since science does not include a supernatural explanation.

I'm going with Jeremiah, who obviously understood what Moses meant.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If a supernatural God created the world by supernatural means, science would never have the correct answer.  Thus, you either believe in the science of man or the word of God.

And I'm not interested in science.  I am interested in what the Bible actually SAYS, and Jeremiah proved what Moses meant in Gen 1:2 by quoting the verse in describing the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.  This says nothing about instantaneous creation, a six day creation, or a billion year creation.  It makes no mention whatever of time.  GENESIS explains how God created the heavens and earth.

Hit by what?  Nothing else existed.  There was no land.  There was no light.  There was no life of any kind.  There were no other stars.  Stars were created on day four. 

Just your opinions, and the opinions of too many believers who have sided with English translations rather than simply paying attention to how "tohu wabohu" was used in the only other 2 texts, both of which describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.

If your favored man-made "law" was correct, then both Jeremiah and Isaiah goofed way up to use "tohu wabohu" for total destruction if if if Moses used it to describe a process of creation.  That should be obvious.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Not only do you have to have a make believe planet that was destroyed, you have a make believe universe you claim was destroyed.  All of this is based on the fact that Jeremiah quoted Moses for effect.

There is nothing make believe, except thinking that "tohu wabohu" can be used for creation in Gen 1:2 yet used for total destruction in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  That's delusional and defies your man-made "law" of first mention.

Without Jer 4 and Isa 34, we'd have NO WAY of understanding what Moses was describing in Gen 1:2, even though it is clear from the other words that the earth became ___________ (fill in the blank).  Or "something else" from original creation.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Those are man-made laws, not God's laws.

This is the way we interpret Bible text, since much of it is cryptic, and earlier text are quoted by subsequent texts frequently.  The Bible affirms the Bible by revelations and predictions coming true.  Genesis is reference in the New Testament alone 103 times, 60 of which refer to the first 11 chapters.  Genesis is referenced hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament.  It's how the Bible is written.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

He understand precisely what Moses was describing in Gen 1:2,

Wrong, as I have shown you many times.  Learn more here.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

 I am interested in what the Bible actually SAYS

No, you're interested in a 19th century revision that attempts to justify creation with and ancient earth.  It fails, of course, because by setting its timetable between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 it places existence before dry land, light, heat, a surrounding universe or any life of any kind.  The earth couldn't have been hit with meteors then because meteors didn't exist before day four.  Dinosaurs couldn't walk the earth because there was no dry land.  Gap theory fails every test and cannot be possible using any critical analysis.  It is supported neither by science nor by the Scriptures.

The story of the Gap Theory is a cautionary tale for believers. Science is great. It is a wonderful way God gave us to study His work, power, and creativity. But we can't be too quick to accept man's interpretation of God's work, especially when it means rejecting or reinterpreting Scripture.  source

The above source demonstrates the origin and impossibility of the man made ruin/reconstruction claim.  You aren't professing some amazing new, recently discovered truth.  You are repeating an old lie, long since disproved.

There are many arguments against the gap or ruin-restoration theory, but I will give three. First, the details of the Hebrew words and grammar in Genesis 1:2 do not support the gap theory. (A) The noun tōhû here does not mean “ruin” or “desolation” in the sense of necessarily implying the ruin of an original pristine state. (B) There is little basis for rendering the verb hāyâ in Genesis 1:2 “became” (Pember) or “had become” (Custance). (C) Pember’s absolute distinction between bārā and ʿāśâ is not sustainable on lexical grounds. Both verbs are used in the Old Testament to denote creation in the absolute sense.

Second, because the gap theory wants to take the six days of creation literally, it necessarily places Genesis 1:1–2 outside of the creation week. But the immediate context and subsequent scriptural allusions to Genesis 1 make clear that the initial creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) marks the starting point of the creation week. This is clear from the context, when we come to the concluding statement: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” (Gen. 2:1). Subsequent scriptural allusions to Genesis 1 are just as emphatic, for example, the statement in the Decalogue that “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exod. 20:11; cf. 31:17). Because the gap theory wants to take the six days of “re-creation” as literal days, while making room for long geological eras prior to verse 3, the theory requires that the creation week begin at verse 3 rather than at verse 1. Yet Scripture itself views the first verse of Genesis 1 as narrating the beginning of the creation week.

Third, there is no biblical evidence that God created plants and animals in an original creation, which was then destroyed under God’s judgment prior to Adam’s fall. The gap theory’s appeal to Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is tenuous at best. To begin with, biblical scholars are not sure that these passages are in fact referring to Satan’s fall. At a surface level, they seem to be about the fall of human kings (the kings of Babylon and Tyre). But even if these passages have a second-order reference to Satan’s fall, does his being cast down from heaven look back to an event in the primeval past or forward to Satan’s defeat by Christ and his ultimate punishment (Rev. 12:9; 20:10)? And is the image of Satan being cast to earth to be taken literally and physically, like the massive meteor that scientists think caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Furthermore, there is nothing in those passages about an original creation of plants and animals, or about Satan being cast down to the earth and causing geological catastrophe, mass extinctions, death, chaos, and ruin as indicated in the fossil record. These additional details of the theory have to be manufactured by imagination and speculation.  source

[NConly]

This appears to describe how God started Creating earth rather than it becoming a waste land. Seems this would show Gen 1:2 is not wrong or mistranslated.V 5 and 6 is very clear imo

Psa 104

3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.

[BeyondET]

16 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Maybe you nodded off or something.  I have been talking about Gen 2:7 and God creating Adam.  God didn't use sperm and eggs for him.

I was never talking about sperm and eggs.  Please pay closer attention.  What is your view of WHEN the soul resides in the body?  Thanks.

This isn't about Adam, it's souls today. You mentioned the egg attaching to the wall is when in your opinion a soul is implanted. You definitely wasn't talking about Gen 2:7 but now you are, you are so full of it.

I am paying attention to you squirming with your answers. Diverting back to Adam is pathetic.

Edited August 5, 2024 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

Those are man-made laws, not God's laws.

This is the way we interpret Bible text, since much of it is cryptic, and earlier text are quoted by subsequent texts frequently.

This just keeps missing the whole point.  We don't need man-made "laws" to interpret the Bible.  I've already explained the Bible defines itself.  Since there is no detail or context for Gen 1:2, we only need to see the detail/context in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 to understand how "tohu wabohu" was used.

And it is very clear that both authors used "tohu wabohu" to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land, and this isn't debatable.  It's stone cold fact.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The Bible affirms the Bible by revelations and predictions coming true.

Irrelevant.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Genesis is reference in the New Testament alone 103 times, 60 of which refer to the first 11 chapters.  Genesis is referenced hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament.  It's how the Bible is written.

More irrelevancy.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Wrong, as I have shown you many times.  Learn more here.

Just more irrelevancy.  Here is the title of that weblink:

What does it mean in Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23 when they refer to the earth as void?

I'm not bothered by the translation 'void' for "wabohu".  It means empty, void, uninhabited (able).  No problem.  The whole issue is what "tohu" means.  Certainly in both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 (and why didn't the source even bother with that text?) when an invading army that destroys nations is done, the land is empty or void.

Obviously.  Seems you just won't deal with "tohu" even though I shared all the verses that have "tohu" in them in my previous post.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, you're interested in a 19th century revision that attempts to justify creation with and ancient earth.

Why do you keep defaulting to your fantasy "19th century revision" nonsense?  I have shown FROM SCRIPTURE that in the only 2 texts that have "tohu wabohu" they describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.  That's all I need to know.  It has nothing to do with the 19th century.  Again, Moses wrote in about 1500 BC and Jeremiah wrote around 600 BC and Isaiah wrote in about 700 BC.

So you can forget about the 19th century.  I go to the source, unlike yourself.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It fails, of course, because by setting its timetable between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 it places existence before dry land, light, heat, a surrounding universe or any life of any kind.

Only those who totally ignore Gen 1:2 claim that.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The earth couldn't have been hit with meteors then because meteors didn't exist before day four.

Who cares about meteors?  When did I ever mention them?  This is just grabbing at more straws.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Dinosaurs couldn't walk the earth because there was no dry land.

Neither of us were there when Gen 1:1 occurred.  So you can save your breath about what was or wasn't there.  Neither of us has any clue.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Gap theory fails every test and cannot be possible using any critical analysis.  It is supported neither by science nor by the Scriptures.

That is clearly delusional.  Jeremiah used Gen 1:2 in his description of the coming disaster that would result in the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.  How anyone can ignore that glaring fact is beyond reason.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The story of the Gap Theory is a cautionary tale for believers. Science is great. It is a wonderful way God gave us to study His work, power, and creativity. But we can't be too quick to accept man's interpretation of God's work, especially when it means rejecting or reinterpreting Scripture.  source

Just opinions by opinionated people.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The above source demonstrates the origin and impossibility of the man made ruin/reconstruction claim.

There you go again, just adding junk that I never ever said.  I SAID v.2 indicates that the earth became an UNINABITABLE WASTELAND.  Why would anyone think that God would create Adam and place him on such an earth?  Ridiculous.  I never said anything about the WHY or HOW the earth became that way.  Why do you miss all of my points?  Please pay attention and actually read my posts.  All these mistakes are no excuse.

I never said "man-made" ruin/reconstruction.  How ridiculous.  It's obvious from all of Gen 1 that God restored the earth.  Certainly not man.  And NO ONE knows how the earth became a ruin.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You aren't professing some amazing new, recently discovered truth.  You are repeating an old lie, long since disproved.

Then Jeremiah was just a fool for quoting from Gen 1:2 when he warned of the coming disaster of TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.  You just can't get around that fact.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There are many arguments against the gap or ruin-restoration theory, but I will give three. First, the details of the Hebrew words and grammar in Genesis 1:2 do not support the gap theory.

Flat out lie.  Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 when describing the total destruction of the land, as did Isaiah in ch 34.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

(A) The noun tōhû here does not mean “ruin” or “desolation” in the sense of necessarily implying the ruin of an original pristine state.

Another lie.  I shared all 10 verses that have "tohu" and with the exception of the very unreal "formless" nonsense, all uses were are about ruin, desolation, or wasteland.  But it seems facts don't really matter to you.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

(B) There is little basis for rendering the verb hāyâ in Genesis 1:2 “became” (Pember) or “had become” (Custance).

I don't care about the biased opinions of others.  The EXACT SAME verb form as in v.2 IS IS IS translated as "became/become" a number of times in the OT.  So that shows just how ignorant Custance was.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

(C) Pember’s absolute distinction between bārā and ʿāśâ is not sustainable on lexical grounds. Both verbs are used in the Old Testament to denote creation in the absolute sense.

Another fabrication.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Second, because the gap theory wants to take the six days of creation literally, it necessarily places Genesis 1:1–2 outside of the creation week.

As I have repeatedly reminded you, I'm NOT talking about any theory, and I certainly REJECT "6 days of creation" as literal.  They are 6 days of restoration.  Please stop wasting my time about what others believe/claim/etc.  But I guess you can't deal with my posts.  So you default to what I reject as well.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

But the immediate context and subsequent scriptural allusions to Genesis 1 make clear that the initial creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) marks the starting point of the creation week. This is clear from the context, when we come to the concluding statement: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” (Gen. 2:1).

You've got to be kidding!!  "were finished" could just as easily refer to restoration.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

\Subsequent scriptural allusions to Genesis 1 are just as emphatic, for example, the statement in the Decalogue that “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exod. 20:11; cf. 31:17).

Only because you won't acknowledge that bara and asah are different words with different meanings.  It is only 'bara' that is associated with the phrase "ex nihilo" which means 'out of nothing', which in regard to original creation.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Because the gap theory wants to take the six days of “re-creation” as literal days, while making room for long geological eras prior to verse 3, the theory requires that the creation week begin at verse 3 rather than at verse 1. Yet Scripture itself views the first verse of Genesis 1 as narrating the beginning of the creation week.

Still wasting my time with all this 'gap theory' nonsense.  I've NEVER said anhything about "re-creation".  I have only said "restoration".  Why do you keep missing what I say and seem to rather make up the junk that I haven't said?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Third, there is no biblical evidence that God created plants and animals in an original creation, which was then destroyed under God’s judgment prior to Adam’s fall.

This point is irrelevant.  We simply have NO details of original creation.  However, scholars view the text regarding the king of Tyre in Ezek 28 as referring to Satan himself.  The king was a very evil man.  And some of the text cannot refer to a human at all.

Ezek 28:12-14

12 “‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.  

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:  carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.  Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;  you walked among the fiery stones.

And then we get to v.15:  You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

So, from this, we KNOW that Satan, before he sinned, was "in Eden, the garden of God" and that he was a "guardian cherub".

And only Adam and Eve were 'created'.  Everyone else, including king of Tyre, were born, not created.  Details are important.  Please don't miss them.

All angels are created.  None are born.  

So we KNOW that the garden of Eden existed before Satan fell and he was there.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The gap theory’s appeal to Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is tenuous at best.

That is a silly opinion.  I've just given you Ezek 28.  Why did you mention Isa 14, which is about Satan's rebellion?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

To begin with, biblical scholars are not sure that these passages are in fact referring to Satan’s fall.

Like everything else, scholars aren't in lock step.  So what?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Furthermore, there is nothing in those passages about an original creation of plants and animals, or about Satan being cast down to the earth and causing geological catastrophe, mass extinctions, death, chaos, and ruin as indicated in the fossil record. These additional details of the theory have to be manufactured by imagination and speculation.  source

Opinion only.  Means NOTHING in comparison to what the Bible SAYS and how the Bible defines itself.  

Seems you're about to run completely out of straws.  And still, all you have are just English translations that don't even know the word "formless" isn't even real.  It's only legitimately used in a comparative way.

iow, you got nothing other than opinions from lots of people.  Good luck with that.

Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 for the obvious reason that he fully understood what Moses was describing in Gen 1:2 and was warning of the same disaster to the land.

If your lame man-made "law" about 'first mention' were actually true, then Jeremiah was very confused or demented.  But he was neither.  He was guided by the Holy Spirit, just as Moses was.  

There is NO REASON for "tohu wabohu" to refer to creation in Gen 1:2 when the only 2 other texts use the words to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.

Your 'law' has been refuted by reality.

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, NConly said:

This appears to describe how God started Creating earth rather than it becoming a waste land. Seems this would show Gen 1:2 is not wrong or mistranslated.V 5 and 6 is very clear imo

If it is "very clear", then please explain why Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 when he was describing the coming disaster in which TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land was about to occur?

How can "tohu wabohu" refer to a creative act in Gen 1:2 but TOTAL DESTRUCTION in both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11?  That doesn't make sense.

So, it should be "real clear" that "tohu wabohu" means the same thing where ever it is found in the OT.  We just don't have any details for Gen 1:2.