Mature Universe Theory

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

As if He is incapable of speaking whole objects into existence by merely speaking them into existence.

What God is capable of and what Genesis records that God actually did are different notions.

I don't do "notions".  I do FACTS.  We know that God created the universe.  And we know that God speaks whole things into existence per Psa 33:6,9.  So there is NO reason for the "notion" that God created the universe in stages, just for the excuse that "tohu wabohu" described the earth during one of those "stages".

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The seven day week has no other model than the creation week.

One of your "notions".  Of course it explains a restoration.  Simply because of what "tohu wabohu" means by checking the other 2 occurrences and the clear context there.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Months are determined by the moon's cycles.  Years are determined by our orbit around the sun.  By creating as He did, He gave us the six days of labor and the hallowed day of rest.

It is obvious that God did create during the restoration.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As opposed to "senseless," which describes the notion that there was a previous existence before the creation of light, dry land or the universe around us.

It is puzzling that the earth could not have been created perfectly, and then been destroyed beyond habitation, and then restored again.  What's so hard about that?  Oh yeah;  you demand a young earth.  For no legitimate reason.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 I tend to reject things that didn't happen.

Again, you're just blaming God for not letting you in on something He decided you had NO RIGHT to know.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 There is no text that includes the word became.

This statement demonstrates your inability to comprehend.  Gen 1:2 includes "hā·yə·ṯāh" which is translated as "was" in all the translations listed on biblehub.com.  This same form of the verb occurs 111 times throughout the OT.  

Gen 3:20 has this same form in 'she was the mother of all'.  And everyone knows that no female is born a mother.  ALL mothers BECOME one.  

Gen 29:17 uses this same form in 'Rachel was beautiful of form'. And everyone knows that Rachel BECAME beautiful in form, since she wasn't born the way being described in that verse.

Gen 36:12 uses this same form in 'Timna was a concubine'.  And everyone knows that no woman is born a concubine, but she BECAME one.

Gen 47:26 uses this form and is translated as BECOME.

Ex 9:24 has the same form and is translated as 'since it (Egypt) had BECOME a nation'.

Here are just some of the verses where ha ye tah is translated as "was" but the context clearly shows "became" is the meaning.

Josh 14:14, 1 Sam 10:12, 2 Sam 14:27, 1 Kings 2:15, 18:46 2 Kings 8:18.

There are many more examples on biblehub.com.  This proves that the verb form in Gen 1:2 is legitimately translated as "became" in a number of other verses.  The only difference is that Gen 1:2 doesn't give a clear context for WHY the earth became something else.

That's pretty flimsy as a defense for your notion.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There is no possibility of an existence previous to the creation of light in verse three, or the formation of land in verse nine.

Oh, "no possibility", huh.  And what are your credentials?

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Scriptures were complete about 95 AD.  Your favored heresy came from the 17th century.

I continue to be amazed at your absurd claims.  My view comes straight from the Bible itself.  Moses wrote about 1400 BC, Jeremiah about 600 BC and Isaiah about700 BC.  It is your own favored English translation, written about 1100 AD that is the "modern version".  Not mine.  I have gone to the source, the actual Scripture.  And Jeremiah and Isaiah used the same 2 Hebrew words to describe total destruction of the land that Moses used in v.2, which proves that Moses was not describing creation in that verse.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It is an incredibly stupid, poorly thought out heresy. 

All heresies are.  Everyone knows that.  But why can't you just accept what Moses wrote, which was quoted by Jeremiah and Isaiah for total destruction of the land?

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It would have been smarter to place the mythical gap between the completion of the world and the formation of Adam.

Well, that is exactly what Moses did.  v.1 is the completion of the world, and v.2 finds the earth had become an uninhabitable wasteland.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  At least then it wouldn't have to account for the lack of anything; even dry land.  It would just have to contend with the fact that sin and death came from the fall of man.  Of course, the evolution crowd refuse to believe that teaching as well.

You're just not in a teaching mood.  But, facts are facts.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

FreeGrace said:

So you think Adam and Eve made stuff up?  Really?

They didn't teach 6 days of creation like you think.

I don't think that at all.  I think you have confused me with another confused poster who thinks creation took 6 days.

8 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Neither earth became a wasteland.

Well, tell that to Moses, and Jeremiah and Isaiah who used the same 2 Hebrew words to describe total destruction of the land.

I'll bet you haven't even read Jer 4 or Isa 34.  

[RV_Wizard]

12 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

there is NO reason for the "notion" that God created the universe in stages,

So you reject the entirety of the first two chapters of Genesis because YOU say God doesn't create that way.  Where were you?  You must have been there if you contradict the word of God.  

14 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Of course it explains a restoration.

If God can't create over a six day period, how is it He could RESTORE over a six day period?  You are logically inconsistent.  And restore from  WHAT???  You NEVER answer that question.  If you can't show a world previous to some spurious reconstruction your argument is invalid.

17 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

It is puzzling that the earth could not have been created perfectly, and then been destroyed beyond habitation, and then restored again.  What's so hard about that?

There was no sun, no light, no source of heat, no moon. no stars, no atmosphere, no dry land and no living thing on the planet.  According to you, God made an entire universe and somehow even the stars got wiped out.  You claim this so you can talk about an ancient earth with the evolution crowd and pretend to have something in common.  Both are heresies, but evolution is the more logically consistent heresy.

Was and became are not synonyms.  You need to open a textbook.

 

[FreeGrace]

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

there is NO reason for the "notion" that God created the universe in stages,

So you reject the entirety of the first two chapters of Genesis because YOU say God doesn't create that way.  Where were you?  You must have been there if you contradict the word of God. 

This is rich.  You ask where I was and yet YOU keep claiming you know exactly how God creates.  Gimme a break.  You don't even accept the Hebrew words that ARE clearly understood in Jer 4 and Isa 34.  

I should have added to my post above; "except to defend a belief that the Bible clearly doesn't teach".

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

If God can't create over a six day period, how is it He could RESTORE over a six day period?

Why haven't you asked Him?  He chose not to give details, but the FACT that both Jeremiah and Isaiah used the SAME 2 words from Gen 1:2 to describe the total destruction of the land says VOLUMES.  But, are you listening?  No.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You are logically inconsistent.

You are quite illogical to say that.  My view is totally consistent with the Bible.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  And restore from  WHAT???  You NEVER answer that question.i

This is more illogic.  I have answered.  The Bible SAYS that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.

Why can't you understand that in order for God to create man and place him on the earth, the uninhabitable wasteland would have to be restored??

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  If you can't show a world previous to some spurious reconstruction your argument is invalid.

Says you.  Since God didn't give details, you have no right to claim anything other than what God said.  

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

There was no sun, no light, no source of heat, no moon. no stars, no atmosphere, no dry land and no living thing on the planet.

Exactly!  An uninhabitable wasteland that needed to be restored for man to survive on the earth.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

According to you, God made an entire universe and somehow even the stars got wiped out.

This is pitiful.  You are choking on the "somehow".  You need to give up your notions and just accept the way Jeremiah and Isaiah used "tohu wabohu", which is how Moses used them, obviously.

There is NO WAY "tohu wabohu" can describe some stage of creation AND describe total destruction of the land.  And you haven't proven it.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

You claim this so you can talk about an ancient earth with the evolution crowd and pretend to have something in common.

The only thing in common is the age.  So what?  Does that make an evolutionist?  Anyone who would think that isn't thinking.  They are just emoting.  No thoughts at all.  You can't even get on first base with evolutionists to prove to them that God exists and created everything.  

I AM ABLE to not only do that, but bring in the Gospel.  They don't listen to those who  believe the delusion that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

It is Adam who lived about 6,000 years ago.  After God restored the earth.

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Both are heresies, but evolution is the more logically consistent heresy.

More delusion.  Evolution cannot explain HOW matter came into existence.  But the Bible does easily.  But you couldn't get to first base with the evolutionists because of your delusional young earth.  They wouldn't accept anything you say.

I can agree with a very old earth and THEN go on to explain from the Bible how that is.  Shuts them up every time.  They have no answers.  

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Was and became are not synonyms.  You need to open a textbook.

Are you actually serious?  I just gave several examples of verses where the word "ha ye tah" is translated "was" but means "became".

Unless you actually believe that women are born mothers??  How does that work?

No, women BECOME mothers.  So "was" and "became/become" CAN BE synonymous, and the key to Gen 1:2 is still "tohu wabohu", which is clearly shown in Jer 4 and Isa 34 as to what they describe.

It seems you refuse to be taught the truth.

[FreeGrace]

From:  https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/83608/why-is-תֹהוּ-וָבֹהוּ-translated-to-empty-formless-and-void-rather-than-chaos-and

Title:  Why is תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ translated to empty/formless and void rather than chaos and unknown word?

The Hebrew words תֹהוּ and וָבֹהוּ are translated to empty/formless and void in Genesis 1, but that isn’t what they mean.

In my research, I have found that one of the two words is unknown, and the other means chaos or waste. Throughout my research, I have discovered that the reason seems to be that it is translated to empty and void in the greek translation (I can’t remember its technical name at the moment).

In Jeremiah 4, it describes the earth as chaos, yet—in the middle of that description—the above mentioned Hebrew shows to describe the earth, and is translated to empty/formless and void. It doesn’t make sense for it to be empty and void in English, and the Hebrew words don’t mean that, so I see no reason to translate it that way.

In Isaiah 34:11 (please read full chapter to get context) תֹ֖הוּ is translated to chaos (NIV), and the other word did not show. That is a more accurate translation.

This leads me to my questions. Why do we translate it to empty/formless and void, and does it appear that there is something I am missing about the Hebrew?

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I don't think that at all.  I think you have confused me with another confused poster who thinks creation took 6 days.

Well, tell that to Moses, and Jeremiah and Isaiah who used the same 2 Hebrew words to describe total destruction of the land.

I'll bet you haven't even read Jer 4 or Isa 34.  

No confusion you said creation, from Adam and Eve. Now I'll admit you didn't say in 6 days.

You would loose that bet.

Edited November 5, 2024 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

No confusion you said creation, from Adam and Eve. Now I'll admit you didn't say in 6 days.

When the Bible mentions "creation", it always is in reference to the appearance of man (Adam).  Except Gen 1:1, when God created the whole universe.  

The Greek word "ktisis" which is translated 'creation', means "from a state of disorder and wildness".  Which fits the restoration of the earth in Genesis 1.

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

You would loose that bet.

Bet me.

[RV_Wizard]

4 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 Except Gen 1:1, when God created the whole universe.  

A universe with no sun, moon or stars, because they came later.

[FreeGrace]

53 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

 Except Gen 1:1, when God created the whole universe.  

A universe with no sun, moon or stars, because they came later.

Were you there?  No, you were not there.  So why do you keep making up stuff?

btw, ever read Job 38?  God asks Job if he was present when He created the universe.

4 - “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?  Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 - Who determined its measurements—surely you know!  Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 - On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
7 - when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

So, where were you when God laid the foundation of the earth?

And note who celebrated God's creation in v.7:  the "morning stars".  That refers to the angels who witnessed His creation.

So, the question:  since Moses described the earth as "tohu" and that word is defined in Strong's as:

Strong's Concordance

tohu: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

Original Word: תֹּהוּ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: tohu
Phonetic Spelling: (to'-hoo)
Definition: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

 

NASB Translation
chaos (1), confusion (1), desolation (1), emptiness (1), empty space (1), formless (2), futile (2), futile things (1), meaningless (2), meaningless arguments (1), nothing (2), waste (3), waste place (2).

Given all this, can you look into a mirror and still claim that God's angels would shout for joy and sing together since "tohu" means the above words?

From the data above, it is proven that "tohu" is a very negative descriptive word.  

[RV_Wizard]

28 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 So why do you keep making up stuff?

Try reading the book.  All these came AFTER verse two.  If God said “Let the be light,” that means that there was not already light.  The same goes for everything else.  There was no universe and no dry land.  Not only does your claim not have a leg to stand on, it has no GROUND to stand on.  There WAS NO DRY LAND.

32 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

NASB Translation

NASB is corrupted.  It was published in 1971.  Q: which is closer to 500BC, 1611 or 1971.

38 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

God's angels would shout for joy and sing together

They did so at the completion of the real world, not your imaginary imperfect one that got wrecked by a different god.