Mature Universe Theory

[RV_Wizard]

On 10/27/2024 at 7:58 PM, FreeGrace said:

 But it's obvious that God put the Sun, moon etc in place during the restoration, so it would seem there was disruption in the heavens as well.  

Your delusion runs deep.  Are you sure you don't want to just write your own Bible, since you have a problem with the one we have?  God was under no obligation to tell us anything about the creation.  He did, however.  He explained it all to us.  If there was a previous existence that was somehow destroyed, wouldn't He had said so?  If this destruction wiped out even the land masses on the earth, how would the fossil record be intact?  Why would the entire universe be destroyed; and if it all was, why was the earth spared?  Gap theory is a 17th century heresy created so that so-called religious people could hang out with the old earth proponents.  It's false doctrine.  It's heresy.  It's a lie.

The argument that Genesis 1:2 can be translated “the earth became formless and void” overlooks a critical distinction in the use of the verb hayâ in the Hebrew text. In the beginning of verse 2, hayâ appears without the Hebrew preposition le. Only the combination of hayâ + le would be translated “became,” rather than “was.” An example of this combination is found in Genesis 2:7, appropriately translated, “man became a living being.”

To claim that the Hebrew verb bara (“create”) used in Genesis 1:1 refers to a brand new creation whereas the verbs asah and hayâ used in Genesis 1:3-27 (the verses describing the six creation days) refer only to reconstruction, not creation, loses sight of the fact that bara appears in both Genesis 1:21 and 1:27. The claim also is inconsistent with the lexical definitions for asah and hayâ which in no way demand, or even imply, reconstruction.

To defend their translation of Genesis 1:2 as “the earth became formless and void,” gap proponents claim that the phrase tohû wabohû carries a negative or pejorative connotation wherever it appears in the Bible. On this basis, they substitute “deformed” for “formless” and “uninhabitable” for “empty.” Justification for such substitutions is difficult to sustain.

In Hebrew tohû and bohû obviously are meant to be alliterative synonyms, each complementing the meaning of the other. Thus, both words convey the idea of formlessness and emptiness. The second term, bohû, occurs only three times in the Old Testament: Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11, and Jeremiah 4:23. In each instance, it refers to something’s being empty, whether not yet filled or unfillable.

The crux of gap theorists’ argument rests on the first term, tohû. They assert that Genesis 1:2 must be translated as “the earth became formless and empty” (sometime after its creation) because Isaiah 45:18 says, “[God] did not create the earth tohû.” Unless God built a new creation on the wreckage of the ruined one, these verses, they argue, represent a contradiction. However, the second part of Isaiah 45:18 gives clarification, removing the contradiction. It says that God “formed [the earth] to be inhabited,” implying that the tohû of the earth was merely a starting place, not God’s ultimate intent. He had a plan, worked out in advance (see Proverbs 8:22-31, Ephesians 2:10, 2 Timothy 1:9), to transform and prepare the earth for human habitation. As theologian Ronald Youngblood points out, “The word tohû in Genesis 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God’s creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses.”  source

As I have proved time and time again, you are promoting a modern day heresy based on an interpretation that was deliberately distorted.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

 But it's obvious that God put the Sun, moon etc in place during the restoration, so it would seem there was disruption in the heavens as well. 

Your delusion runs deep.

I am not deluded.  My view is based on the FACTS of what the Hebrew means.  It is your view that is quite deluded.  Here's a list:

1.  delusion that the earth was created "formless"

2.  delusion that "tohu" describes God's creative act

3.  delusion that Genesis 1 is all about creation

4.  delusion that God didn't restore the earth for man's use

delusion that the majority English translations got v.2 right.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Are you sure you don't want to just write your own Bible, since you have a problem with the one we have?

How funny.  It's the majority English translations that you believe, while I believe what the Hebrew actually says, proven by showing you how those words are used elsewhere in the OT.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  God was under no obligation to tell us anything about the creation.

Nor how the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  I wonder why you just can't accept both sides of the equation?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  He did, however.  He explained it all to us.

What He didn't explain is how or why the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  The reason is real simple.  It all occurred before He created and put man on the earth.  So what happened doesn't involve man, nor is relevant to man's existence.

And you still haven't explained what damage the restoration has on any of God's Word.   You just don't like a very old earth.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If there was a previous existence that was somehow destroyed, wouldn't He had said so?

Your opinion has no relevance to what God did give us.  You keep harping on your personal opinion that God WOULD HAVE told us everything.  Really?  Where did you get such a silly idea?  Read what I posted above.  God is under NO obligation to tell us anything that He doesn't want to tell us.

But two human authors, under the influence of the Holy Spirit gave us very clear understanding of how "tohu wabohu" is used.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If this destruction wiped out even the land masses on the earth, how would the fossil record be intact?

Where did this "land mass wipe out" come from?  No one said anything about that.  The earth wasn't eliminated, as it seems you may opine.  It was made unsuitable for man's existence, which is why God restored the earth (it's surface).

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Why would the entire universe be destroyed; and if it all was, why was the earth spared?

Go ask God to tell you.  In fact, while you are at it, why don't you demand that He tell you all the details that He didn't give to Moses?

How funny.  I've used the actual Hebrew text, from 700 BC, 600 BC and the Septuagint, from 300 BC, and you STILL claim the restoration is a "new" theory.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It's false doctrine.  It's heresy.  It's a lie.

You are free to your own opinions.  So what?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The argument that Genesis 1:2 can be translated “the earth became formless and void” overlooks a critical distinction in the use of the verb hayâ in the Hebrew text. In the beginning of verse 2, hayâ appears without the Hebrew preposition le. Only the combination of hayâ + le would be translated “became,” rather than “was.” An example of this combination is found in Genesis 2:7, appropriately translated, “man became a living being.”

Rather than just one example, please verify this so-called rule about how to translate hayah.  There are a number of translations of the exact same verb form as in v.2 as "became" or "become" throughout the OT.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

To claim that the Hebrew verb bara (“create”) used in Genesis 1:1 refers to a brand new creation whereas the verbs asah and hayâ used in Genesis 1:3-27 (the verses describing the six creation days) refer only to reconstruction, not creation, loses sight of the fact that bara appears in both Genesis 1:21 and 1:27.

I'm glad you finally noticed this FACT.  When God created Adam, He created Adam's soul out of nothing, and made his body (asah) from existing materials.

v.26 - Then God said, “Let us make (asah) mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
v.27 - So God created (bara) mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God's creation is out of nothing.  What God makes is from existing materials.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The claim also is inconsistent with the lexical definitions for asah and hayâ which in no way demand, or even imply, reconstruction.

I never said anything like that.  Your view is so biased you are apparently not even paying attention to anything I post.

So, please pay close attention here.  The verb isn't about "reconstruction" anyway, so that's just a red herring.  And neither is 'asah'.  It simply means to make something from existing materials, such as man's physical body, being formed out of the dust of the ground.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

To defend their translation of Genesis 1:2 as “the earth became formless and void,” gap proponents claim that the phrase tohû wabohû carries a negative or pejorative connotation wherever it appears in the Bible.

This is just laughable.  The 2 words only occur 2 more times in the OT.  And in both texts, the words describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.  "wherever it appears in the Bible" my eye.  I've repeatedly pointed out they occur ONLY twice more.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

On this basis, they substitute “deformed” for “formless” and “uninhabitable” for “empty.” Justification for such substitutions is difficult to sustain.

Actually, justification for a "formless" earth and all of Genesis 1 being God's original creation is what is IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In Hebrew tohû and bohû obviously are meant to be alliterative synonyms, each complementing the meaning of the other.

Just read Jer 4 and Isaiah 34 since you are STILL unsure of what the 2 Hebrew words mean and how they are used.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Thus, both words convey the idea of formlessness and emptiness.

That makes absolutely no sense in either context of Jer 4 or Isa 34.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The second term, bohû, occurs only three times in the Old Testament: Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11, and Jeremiah 4:23. In each instance, it refers to something’s being empty, whether not yet filled or unfillable.

Nope.  In Jer 4 and Isa 34, both texts describe total destruction.  I guess you've just not bothered to read either one.  Shame on you.  Afraid of FACTS?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The crux of gap theorists’ argument rests on the first term, tohû.

Would you please stop worrying about anyone else's ideas?  The FACTS include BOTH words, as they appear in Gen 1:2 AND Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

They assert that Genesis 1:2 must be translated as “the earth became formless and empty” (sometime after its creation) because Isaiah 45:18 says, “[God] did not create the earth tohû.” Unless God built a new creation on the wreckage of the ruined one, these verses, they argue, represent a contradiction.

Forget those "others", ok?  Let's just deal with what I have shown.

YEC Gen 1:2 - God created (bara) the earth tohu

Isa 45:18  God DID NOT create (bara) the earth tohu

Now, please explain how that is NOT a contradiction.

Actual Hebrew:  God created (bara) the earth, but the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.

Isa 45:18 - God did not create (bara) the earth a wasteland.  See NASB

See?  The contradiction disappears (poof).

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

However, the second part of Isaiah 45:18 gives clarification, removing the contradiction.

There is no contradiction anyway.  The earth was obviously created for inhabitation.  But we just don't know precisely for whom.

We do know that Ezek 28:

12b - This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13a - You were in Eden, the garden of God;

This passage describes the fallen angel Satan.  The Bible notes that he was in Eden, God's Garden even when he was "perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty".

So we know that angels did visit the garden, where God placed Adam.

Another FACT that you need to deal with (accept).  No theories here.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 source

Doesn't matter what the opinions of others is.  I have shown you FACTS.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As I have proved time and time again, you are promoting a modern day heresy based on an interpretation that was deliberately distorted.

You've only proved that you prefer the majority English translations rather than the original Hebrew meaning, which I've proven by showing how those words are used elsewhere in Scripture.  FACT

[RV_Wizard]

Seriously, you need to get over your tofu waffles.

[BeyondET]

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This is a rather desperate attempt to defend what is indefensible.  I question your view of how God creates.  This "dead leaf mantis" isn't even close to being relevant to God creating the earth looking unsightly, as the Septuagint records.  

Rather, since "tohu wabohu" is used to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land in the only 2 other occurrences in the OT, it should be obvious that it means the same thing in Gen 1:2.  Which is why Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2.  He knew what Moses was describing and it FIT PERFECTLY in the context of Jer 4.

It's Death and Destruction close. The opposite of death is life and the opposite of struction is destruction.

[BeyondET]

15 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

That would be your opinion.  There are no facts to support your opinion.  Especially not Psa 33:6,9.

God speaks, and poof!!  Things appear.  

You're adding to what the Bible doesn't say.  That is a form of eisegesis.  If you have evidence for God commanding something to appear, and there is a delay, please share.

He delayed the afternoon, indeed there are facts in the bible that support.

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

My view is based on the FACTS of what the Hebrew means

Not in the least.  It's based on what YOU CLAIM the Hebrew means.  As you have been shown many times, only a few modern translations come close to what you claim to be the true meaning.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It's the majority English translations that you believe

It's strange that you think making up new definitions should have precedence over the long accepted definitions.  By that standard anything can mean anything.  

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What He didn't explain is how or why the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  

God doesn't make a practice of explaining things that didn't happen.  Why don't YOU explain how a planet with no light, heat or even dry land ever was anything BUT a wasteland.  No, you don't get to duck this.  Was there a universe?  How did it get destroyed?  How did water cover the entire earth?  Name the force great enough to destroy God's new world.  What took away the sun?  Why did nobody know this "truth" for 57 centuries?  Why are YOU the authority on the Hebrew language when CENTURIES of Hebrew scholars got it wrong?

I will state again.  Gap theory is the dumbest heresy I've ever heard of.

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Where did this "land mass wipe out" come from?  No one said anything about that.  The earth wasn't eliminated, as it seems you may opine.

There is this book you should read called the Bible.  It states that God brought forth dry land on the third day, verse nine.  You claim the "restoration" began with verse two.  So for two days and seven verses, there was no land.  You keep ignoring this.  Answer this now.  If you can't, we'll know that even you don't believe what you post.  

12 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 I've used the actual Hebrew text,

No, you've posted your favored interpretation.  You're not posting in Hebrew, and you don't speak it.  Others who DO speak it have already corrected your errors.  Now answer the questions posed to you or admit your claims make no sense.

 

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

  FreeGrace said:

This is a rather desperate attempt to defend what is indefensible.  I question your view of how God creates.  This "dead leaf mantis" isn't even close to being relevant to God creating the earth looking unsightly, as the Septuagint records.  

Rather, since "tohu wabohu" is used to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land in the only 2 other occurrences in the OT, it should be obvious that it means the same thing in Gen 1:2.  Which is why Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2.  He knew what Moses was describing and it FIT PERFECTLY in the context of Jer 4.

It's Death and Destruction close. The opposite of death is life and the opposite of struction is destruction.

Seems your self awareness could use some work.  Nothing you posted in response to my post is relevant to what I posted.  In fact, it doesn't even make sense.  

What are you trying to say?  I realize you are just ignoring the glaring facts, because they refute your view.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

  FreeGrace said:

That would be your opinion.  There are no facts to support your opinion.  Especially not Psa 33:6,9.

God speaks, and poof!!  Things appear.  

You're adding to what the Bible doesn't say.  That is a form of eisegesis.  If you have evidence for God commanding something to appear, and there is a delay, please share.

He delayed the afternoon, indeed there are facts in the bible that support.

More confused words.  How does "he delayed the afternoon" relate to what I posted, and if God did, why can't you just cite it or quote it from the Bible.

All your responses are extremely vague and prove nothing.  I claim "there are facts in the Bible that support" and I PROVE that by quoting the verses with the Hebrew words.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

My view is based on the FACTS of what the Hebrew means

Not in the least.

Said the denier.  Of course they are.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It's based on what YOU CLAIM the Hebrew means.  As you have been shown many times, only a few modern translations come close to what you claim to be the true meaning.

Again, just denying the FACTS.  I have shown that Jeremiah and Isaiah used the same 2 Hebrew words in Gen 1:2 to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land, and you just ignore that as if irrelevant.  But it is how we understand what words mean.  So you can quit talking about "modern translations" since I use actual biblical sources, like Jeremiah and Isaiah, written back in 700-600 BC and the Septuagint, which translated the Hebrew into Greek, around 300 BC.  So my sources are biblical and way older than your modern English translations.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It's strange that you think making up new definitions should have precedence over the long accepted definitions.  By that standard anything can mean anything.

I've made up nothing.  But you are in denial.  I've shown how English translators have handled both "tohu" and "bohu" and "tohu wabohu" and you just sweep them aside.

tohu -

Gen 1:2 - formless

1 Sam 12:21 - futile things NASB ISB, useless NIV, worthless Christian Standard Bible

Job 26:7 - desolation literal standard version, waste place Aramaic Bible in Plan English

Isa 34:11 -  chaos NIV Berean Standard Bible, confusion ESV KJV ASV, desolation NASB,

Isa 45:18 - waste place NASB Christian Standard Bible ASV ERV JPS Tanakh, chaos ISV NRSV

Isa 45:19 - wasteland NASB Berean Standard Bible Christian Standard Bible, chaos ISV

Isa 59:4 - confusion (empty words) NASB Legacy Standard Bible, worthless words Christian Standard Bible

Jer 4:23 - formless ISV, waste ASV ERV JPS Tank NAB NET NRSV New Heart English Bible World English Bible Youngs Literal Translation, chaos Aramaic Bible in Plain English

Nothing that is observed can be “formless”.  So Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23 are in error.  The other places where tohu is found are shown in various translations.

Given how tohu wabohu is translated in the 2 other texts in the OT, it is obvious that it was not translated correctly in Gen 1:2.

Tohu wabohu

Gen 1:2 - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  Majority of English translations

Jer 4:23 - I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.  American Standard Version most English translations have “formless and void”

Isa 34:11 -The desert owl and screech owl will possess it, and the great owl and raven will dwell in it. The LORD will stretch out over Edom a measuring line of chaos and a plumb line of destruction.   Berean Standard Bible

However, both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 describe the total destruction of the land.  In Jer, it was from a beseiging army that was a “destroyer of nations”.  In Isa, the destruction came from God.

So the “standard translation of Gen 1:2 cannot be correct.  The 2 Hebrew words mean the same thing in all 3 verses.  The context of Jer and Isa prove that “tohu wabohu” describe destruction of land.

Further, the Hebrew “tohu” NEVER means “formless” or “without form”, since there is no such thing.  All objects possess form, whether regular or irregular.  And there is nothing in Genesis 1 that describes God giving form to the earth.  The earth was created out of nothing by God’s speech.

Psa 33:6 - By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.   ESV

Psa 33:9 - For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.   ESV

So you have no excuse for your denials.  The evidence is overwhelming.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  God doesn't make a practice of explaining things that didn't happen.

This is just so tired.  And God doesn't have to explain ANYTHING He doesn't want to, either.  Ever thought of that?

Since whatever happened between v.1 and 2 was way before Adam came along, it is more than obvious that none of it is relevant to human history.  Can that fact sink in?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Why don't YOU explain how a planet with no light, heat or even dry land ever was anything BUT a wasteland.

I've already explained but your eyes and ears remain tightly closed.  Your refusal to accept "became" prevents any reason from entering in.  This means you are not teachable.  iow, chosen not to be teachable.  Denying facts.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  No, you don't get to duck this.  Was there a universe?  How did it get destroyed? 

How many times are you going to ask these ridiculous question.  Of course I haven't ducked anything, as anyone who has followed this thread knows full well.  Such a statement only embarrasses you more and more.

Was there a universe?  Gen 1:1 SAYS there was.  As to how it got destroyed, there is no way to say it more clearly than this:  God didn't tell us.  Now, if that doesn't satisfy you, obviously nothing will.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How did water cover the entire earth?  Name the force great enough to destroy God's new world.  What took away the sun?  Why did nobody know this "truth" for 57 centuries?

What is all this crazy talk about 57 centuries?  Moses wrote Gen 1 between 1,450 - 1400 BC.  Then, Isaiah wrote about 700 BC and Jeremiah about 600 BC.  Both Jeremiah and Isaiah used the same two Hebrew words found in Gen 1:2, words that describe the state of things.  Both Jeremiah and Isaiah used those words to describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.  Didja hear that?  The same words Moses wrote in Gen 1:2, and you want others to believe the delusion that you believe;  that Moses was describing God's creative skill while Jer and Isa were describing total destruction.

There is no excuse for such delusion.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Why are YOU the authority on the Hebrew language when CENTURIES of Hebrew scholars got it wrong?

Actually, no Hebrew scholar got it wrong.  It's rather odd that you insinuate that I have said that.  You are quite wrong on that.  It appears you are just making up a lot of "stuff" since you have no evidence to defend your delusions.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I will state again.  Gap theory is the dumbest heresy I've ever heard of.

I couldn't care less what your delusional opinion is.  I add 'delusional' because I have shown you the FACTS, the evidence and you merely sweep them out of the way, and yet you have no facts to support your theory.

Most people have simply accepted what they have been taught, just like I have.  So they have an excuse, in their ignorance of facts.

But once facts are given, all excuses cease.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There is this book you should read called the Bible. 

And I sure don't need sarcasm from a denier of the facts.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It states that God brought forth dry land on the third day, verse nine.

Sure.  3rd day of the restoration, a fact that just won't sink in.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You claim the "restoration" began with verse two.  So for two days and seven verses, there was no land.  You keep ignoring this.  Answer this now.  If you can't, we'll know that even you don't believe what you post.

How can a restoration begin without first noting the problem?  Why do you ignore that glaring fact?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  No, you've posted your favored interpretation.

I've proven through comparison how Jeremiah and Isaiah used the 2 Hebrew words that Moses used in Gen 1:2, which is the way to understand how people used and understood what the words mean.  Which you keep ignoring/denying/rejecting.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You're not posting in Hebrew, and you don't speak it.  Others who DO speak it have already corrected your errors.  Now answer the questions posed to you or admit your claims make no sense.

How absurd.  I never claimed to know Hebrew.  But I do know how to read Hebrew lexicons.  Just as you are able to do that.  Though you have no interest in the original language, and prefer your own very modern English translations.

And I've repeatedly answered all your absurd questions over and over.

You are without excuses.

[RV_Wizard]

8 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 I have shown that Jeremiah and Isaiah used the same 2 Hebrew words

Your inability to grasp the concept of quoting Scripture by a prophet of God does not constitute a valid argument.  Christ also quoted Scripture when He said In the beginning God created them man and woman.  After a restoration is not in the beginning, is it?  

12 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 So you can quit talking about "modern translations" since I use actual biblical sources, like Jeremiah and Isaiah, written back in 700-600 BC and the Septuagint,

Your heresy dates back to the 1700's.  No further.  Misquoting an ancient text is not the same as following established doctrine.  I can quote Horace "carpe diem" and claim it means "Shove a fish up my nose" all day, but that doesn't change what Horace meant.

16 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I've shown how English translators

You forgot the word "modern."  Nobody translated it that way until they were confronted with old earth teaching.

17 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

1 Sam 12:21 - futile things NASB ISB,

The NASB was written in 1971 and the ISB in 2011, NEITHER of which use the Antioch, Syria scrolls, and both of which came AFTER ruin/ reconstruction theory came about in the 17th century.  You REFUSE to grasp that knowledge.

21 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Since whatever happened between v.1 and 2 was way before Adam came along, it is more than obvious that none of it is relevant to human history.

Since whatever happened between v.1 and 2 hadn't been revised until the mid 1700's, gap theory is a modern heresy and you are preaching false doctrine.

24 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I've already explained but your eyes and ears remain tightly closed.

That's a straight up falsehood.  You NEVER explained the existence of the world without a surrounding universe, or how the entire universe could be wiped out and the earth flooded so God had to start over.

25 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

How many times are you going to ask these ridiculous question.

Every post until you admit you're wrong or you answer the question.

26 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Was there a universe?  Gen 1:1 SAYS there was.  

No.  Genesis 1:14 is when the stars were created.  Genesis 1:1 is a statement of creation which is then detailed.

28 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What is all this crazy talk about 57 centuries?

5,00 BC + 17 centuries AD = 57.  Adam knew of his creation, as would have his descendants.  Moses just wrote it down.

29 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Actually, no Hebrew scholar got it wrong.

So different people have different interpretations of the same word and neither is wrong?  How liberal of you.  Do they all get participation trophies?

30 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Sure.  3rd day of the restoration,

What flooded the earth?

What force destroyed God's creation?

What authority is greater than God's?  You duck like a duck.  Do you quack?

31 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

How can a restoration begin without first noting the problem?

How can a restoration begin with no prior existence?  

32 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I've proven through comparison how Jeremiah and Isaiah used the 2 Hebrew word

Exodus 19:4, God speaking to Moses.  "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself."  Please show us where these giant eagles came from, and why the Israelites were flown out of Egypt rather than walk across the Red Sea.  You quote much and understand little.

36 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I've repeatedly answered all your absurd questions

No.  You never demonstrated how the earth existed with no sun, no light, no heat, no stars, and no dry land.