Mature Universe Theory

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

That is the core issue.  Can the 2 words together be used to describe creation AND destruction?

Actually, the core question is whether a prophet, to illustrate a completely barren landscape, would quote scripture referencing a time before the creation of life

No, that isn't the core question.  This is just an attempt to punk and avoid the obvious problem.  Isaiah used the same two words to describe total destruction of the land as well.  How does "completely barren landscape" describe total destruction?  It doesn't.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

and whether because of that reference we should create an entirely new doctrine which conflicts with everything the Bible teaches about creation.

Except you STILL haven't proven this claim.  There is no new doctrine.  Earth age has never been a "doctrine".  Just a point of fact.  Changes nothing in the Bible.

Fact:  The YEC notion of Gen 1:1,2 is - "God created (bara) the earth and the earth was tohu".

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

Literal Hebrew of Gen 1:2, "but the earth became tohu".

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

 The Bible warned us about false doctrine in the latter days.  Ruin/Reconstruction was originated in the 1700’s.

The FACT of ruin before God created man is clear from how both Jeremiah and Isaiah used the same words as Moses for total destruction of the land.  

Jeremiah wrote about 600 BC and Isaiah wrote about 700 BC.  Moses wrote Genesis about 1400 BC.  When was the KJV written?

My sources ARE the original.  Your source came from copies of copies about 2800 years later than my sources.

tohu wabohu cannot ever describe God's creative activity.  

[FreeGrace]

48 minutes ago, NConly said:

FreeGrace said:

I look at HOW words are used in texts.  Do you really believe that the words "tohu wabohu" can describe both God's creative act AND at the same time be used to describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land?

That is the core issue.  Can the 2 words together be used to describe creation AND destruction?

Well before creation there was nothing after creation it became something. In the case of the Earth it became an unlivable place covered in water.

Exactly.  God created the earth in v.1, and v.2 says "but the earth BECAME an uninhabitable wasteland".

48 minutes ago, NConly said:

I think earth when created from nothing into something was without form and covered with water NOT became TOTAL DESTRUCTION as you seem to translate it.

I understand "tohu wabohu" the SAME WA3 dY as both Jeremiah and Isaiah when they were warning of and describing the coming total destruction of the land.

I've gone round and round with RV about "formless".  The universe is 3 dimensional.  Form always refers to 3 dimensions while shape refers to 2 dimensions.

God cannot create a formless earth.  That doesn't exist.  The earth is a planet, and by definition planets are spherical, a 3 dimensional object.

The only way "formless" is used legitimately is when an object is compared to other objects of similar category but are missing some features.  

But as a created object, the earth could NOT be "formless".  If Moses was comparing the creation of the earth to some other planet, and the earth was missing some features common to other planets, then one could use "formless".

48 minutes ago, NConly said:

By Michael L. Drake

Formless and Void: Really?

" Now the earth was formless and void ..." Thus Genesis 1:2.

Please plug tohu wabohu into Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and see how much sense that makes.  Both texts are describing total destruction of the land.

Would an invading army that destroys nations lead the land "formless and void"?  That doesn't even make sense.

48 minutes ago, NConly said:

What does it mean to be “formless and void”? Two Hebrew words are used: tohu and bohu, linked in Hebrew as tohu wabohu. Despite the confidence with which bohu is translated (after all, the translators have to put some word in the space!), nobody can be certain as to the exact meaning of bohu.

Actually, they can.  bohu means "empty" or "void".  There is no issue with how translators rendered it in Gen 1:2.  The problem is with tohu.  Here are all the verses where tohu occurs in the OT:

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.

48 minutes ago, NConly said:

It occurs three times in the Bible,[Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23] always in the tohu wabohu link, and never in any other known literature. The second and third occurrences clearly refer back to Genesis 1.

And both texts are about describing the coming total destruction of the land.

One way translators figure out what words mean is to study where they occur in other texts to see the context.

Since there is no clear context in Genesis 1, we MUST consider both Jer 4 and Isa 34 to understand how the words are used and what they describe.

48 minutes ago, NConly said:

In none of those three places is it defined.

Context HAS defined them.  The authors are describing the coming total destruction of the land.

48 minutes ago, NConly said:

But the way it is linked to tohu, and the obvious rhythm and rhyme of tohu wabohu, serve unmistakably to reinforce the “tohu-ness” of tohu – whatever that might be. Whether it has a similar or nuanced meaning to tohu, or whether it is simply a nonce word coined to rhyme with the tohu and to reinforce it [cf Robert Alter] we cannot be certain. But its impact is clear enough in Hebrew and in translation the concept of tohu should be reinforced either by meaning, rhyme or both. Robert Alter translates it “welter and waste,” which has the desired rhythm and its assonance comes close to rhyme, but not much more clarity of meaning!

The meaning in both Jer 4 and Isa 34 is very clear.  They were warning of coming total destruction of the land.  That is how tohu wabohu is used.

When the land is totally destroyed, it becomes empty or void (of people).

[NConly]

24 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Exactly.  God created the earth in v.1, and v.2 says "but the earth BECAME an uninhabitable wasteland".

I understand "tohu wabohu" the SAME WA3 dY as both Jeremiah and Isaiah when they were warning of and describing the coming total destruction of the land.

I've gone round and round with RV about "formless".  The universe is 3 dimensional.  Form always refers to 3 dimensions while shape refers to 2 dimensions.

God cannot create a formless earth.  That doesn't exist.  The earth is a planet, and by definition planets are spherical, a 3 dimensional object.

The only way "formless" is used legitimately is when an object is compared to other objects of similar category but are missing some features.  

But as a created object, the earth could NOT be "formless".  If Moses was comparing the creation of the earth to some other planet, and the earth was missing some features common to other planets, then one could use "formless".

Please plug tohu wabohu into Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and see how much sense that makes.  Both texts are describing total destruction of the land.

Would an invading army that destroys nations lead the land "formless and void"?  That doesn't even make sense.

Actually, they can.  bohu means "empty" or "void".  There is no issue with how translators rendered it in Gen 1:2.  The problem is with tohu.  Here are all the verses where tohu occurs in the OT:

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.

And both texts are about describing the coming total destruction of the land.

One way translators figure out what words mean is to study where they occur in other texts to see the context.

Since there is no clear context in Genesis 1, we MUST consider both Jer 4 and Isa 34 to understand how the words are used and what they describe.

Context HAS defined them.  The authors are describing the coming total destruction of the land.

The meaning in both Jer 4 and Isa 34 is very clear.  They were warning of coming total destruction of the land.  That is how tohu wabohu is used.

When the land is totally destroyed, it becomes empty or void (of people).

Describe if you will the people that lived on earth before your total destruction in V2 please,thanks.

[FreeGrace]

39 minutes ago, NConly said:

Describe if you will the people that lived on earth before your total destruction in V2 please,thanks.

As I've said many times, God gave no details of earth before v.2.  And I didn't destroy the earth, so it's mine.  We don't know who or what.

I suppose we'll know in eternity.

One question:  how come ancient people understood "creation" as being "from a state of disorder and wildness"?  

The Greek word for “creation” is κτίσεως.  My lexicon refers this word to ‘ktisis’.  This Greek word is found under ‘κτίζω’.  Under this word we read:  “to reduce from a state of wildness and disorder”, from Bagster & Sons lexicon.

Mark 10:6 - But from the beginning of creation (κτίζω), ‘God made them male and female.’

κτίζω: 1 aorist ἔκτισα; perfect passive ἐκτισμαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκτίσθην; the Sept. chiefly for בָּרָא; properly, to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, others); hence to found, a city, colony, state, etc.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in a long dissertation of κτίζω, that “in the religion of many peoples chaos stands at the beginning of being and becoming”.

In a similar way, the account of creation from Adam and Eve was passed down among the generations.  So the common thread of “chaos” in so many different religions would have come from what Genesis 1:2 actually says in the original, not in how every English translation renders it.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, by Balz and Schneider Eds. makes notes that “the OT creation narratives are most intelligible within the framework of ancient Near Eastern views, each motif has parallels.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology & Exegesis, by Sylva, notes that κτίζω is used in the the Septuagint for the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra 5:17.  It further notes that the word group for κτίζω is used always of divine creation, with 1 exception, in 1 Pet 2:13.

Silva also connects κτίζω with the believer being a new creation.  This point is also noted in Kittel’s text.  This parallels the restoration of the earth in Gen 1 with regeneration of the believer.

btw, why do you think that I believe that there were people on the earth before it was destroyed?

 

[NConly]

 If one is using 2 verses with people living in them to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION How can that same one say it is EXACT meaning of another verse without living people in the verse.

[BeyondET]

7 hours ago, NConly said:

 If one is using 2 verses with people living in them to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION How can that same one say it is EXACT meaning of another verse without living people in the verse.

Total destruction without the night and day even being established, the idea is preposterous.

[BeyondET]

7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 

In a similar way, the account of creation from Adam and Eve was passed down among the generations.  So the common thread of “chaos” in so many different religions would have come from what Genesis 1:2 actually says in the original, not in how every English translation renders it.

Creation account pass down from Adam and Eve?, you grabbed that out of thin air.

At best it's a Jewish tradition that the creation account was generations old before Genesis was written.

Edited November 2, 2024 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

15 hours ago, NConly said:

 If one is using 2 verses with people living in them to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION How can that same one say it is EXACT meaning of another verse without living people in the verse.

Because we aren't talking about people.  The description of of land, not people.  And, we don't know about all the kinds of living things were on earth before it became a wasteland.  We do know that angels were on earth, from Ezek 28.  But nothing more than that.

The point is that both Jeremiah and Isaiah used "tohu wabohu" to describe total destruction of land.  So how could those 2 words be used by Moses to describe the creative activity of God??  That doesn't make sense.

I'm not wedded to any viewpoint.  When evidence is presented to me, which refutes or contradicts what I have been taught, I repent (change my mind) and go with the evidence.

Evidently, most believers just stubbornly stick with the traditions they have been taught.  That is most evident on forums.  In over 20 years, I've never seen any poster receive evidence and change their mind.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Total destruction without the night and day even being established, the idea is preposterous.

With closed eyes and ears, no light will ever get through.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

FreeGrace said:

In a similar way, the account of creation from Adam and Eve was passed down among the generations.  So the common thread of “chaos” in so many different religions would have come from what Genesis 1:2 actually says in the original, not in how every English translation renders it.

Creation account pass down from Adam and Eve?

Yeah, kind of a wild thought, huh.  But scholars who study such things are well aware of the fact that facts do get passed down from parents to children, etc.

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

you grabbed that out of thin air.

Open your eyes.  I cited several scholarly sources who said it.

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

At best it's a Jewish tradition that the creation account was generations old before Genesis was written.

No, at best, it's the truth.  But you are satisfied with your tradition, which is based on faulty translation.  It happens.