Mature Universe Theory

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

 "But the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland" explains everything.

It would if the text said that

The Hebrew text DOES say that.  Or Jeremiah would NOT have quoted from Gen 1:2 when he was warning about and describing the total destruction of the land in Jeremiah 4.  And Isaiah also used the words of Moses (tohu wabohu) when he was warning about and describing the total destruction of the land in Isa 34:11.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

but not even your modern corrupted translations include the word “became.”

I've already PROVEN that the same verb form in Gen 1:2 IS translated as "became" in a number of other OT verses.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 Since insignificant things like light, heat, dry land, and any living thing had not been created yet, how something could have existed prior baffles the imagination.

What really baffless the imagination is the stubborn refusal to simply accept what the Hebrew words are saying, when seen how they ARE translated in other texts.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Someone should have told God.

Be my guest.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 He said he CREATED the Heaven and earth in six days.  Maybe you can get Him to print a retraction.

No, He restored earth in 6 days.  So man could survive on it.

I think the retraction should come from you.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

There is no evidence that anything in the universe needs to be "mature" in order to make things.

Please cite for us how the following things are formed: oil, coal, iron, copper, gold, diamonds, quartz, rubies or zircon.

Oil from decay, diamonds from high pressure.  I didn't look up the others, and I don't care.  Because none of this is relevant.

What the truth is, God creates by speaking things into existence, out of nothing.  And something(s) wrecked the earth and God restored it for man.  A real simple concept, not difficult at all to understand.  

The Hebrew is clear.  The English translation of the Septuagint understands what "tohu wabohu" describes:  chaos.  Which is what total destruction of the land looks like.

You still have no evidence for your fav translations.

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The Hebrew text DOES say that.

Disproved too many times for comment.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've already PROVEN

You've proven only that you persist in being wrong despite all evidence to the contrary.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What really baffless the imagination is...

Is that you continue to claim nonsense when clearly there was no possible way anything inhabited the planet prior to the creation of light in verse three.  You can't come up with any explanation how ANYTHING could have existed given the "without form and void" condition of the planet between verses 1 and 2.  You say "God didn't tell us," but you deny what God DID tell us; that He created the heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Oil from decay, diamonds from high pressure.  I didn't look up the others, and I don't care.  Because none of this is relevant.

Take a science class.  These things require time and pressure.  Scientists claim that the measured ages of diamonds range from a whopping 3.5 billion years old to a mere 90 million years old.  How, then, is a billion year old diamond present in a 6,000 year old planet if the planet wasn't made that way?

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And something(s) wrecked the earth and God restored it for man

What wrecked the earth?  There was nothing else in existence.  There were no stars, no meteors, no planets, no universe; nothing but a formless earth, completely covered by water.  Gap theory is rejected by both science and religion.  It's just a way to try and claim long ages and make it fit... if you don't actually read the Bible. 

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

The Hebrew text DOES say that.

Disproved too many times for comment.

What an amazing display of denial!

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You've proven only that you persist in being wrong despite all evidence to the contrary.

All the evidence is found in the literal Hebrew, which you reject over the majority of English translations.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Is that you continue to claim nonsense when clearly there was no possible way anything inhabited the planet prior to the creation of light in verse three.

It is only those who have eyes to see will see.  You don't apparently want to see.  You're comfortable with the inaccurate English translations.

And, by accepting them, you create a contradiction between Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 AND you make Jeremiah look to be a fool for quoting from Gen 1:2 when he was warning about and describing the coming total destruction of the land in Jer 4:23.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You can't come up with any explanation how ANYTHING could have existed given the "without form and void" condition of the planet between verses 1 and 2.

How many times must you be reminded that God didn't give any details.  If you are frustrated about that, tell Him about it.  I didn't write Genesis.  And Moses only wrote what He was inspired to write.  So give your problems to God.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You say "God didn't tell us," but you deny what God DID tell us; that He created the heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

I've reminded you about Prov 20:11 too many times for you to have any excuse for not listening.  That verse isn't about creation, but the restoration.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Take a science class.  These things require time and pressure.  Scientists claim that the measured ages of diamonds range from a whopping 3.5 billion years old to a mere 90 million years old.  How, then, is a billion year old diamond present in a 6,000 year old planet if the planet wasn't made that way?

Maybe you just don't want to see what you are really admitting.  Since all those things DO take time, they HAD PLENTY OF TIME to do all that between Gen 1:1 and 2.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What wrecked the earth?

Ask God.  I'm sure He'll tell you in eternity.  But not before.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There was nothing else in existence.

Since you weren't there, you're just whistling through your teeth.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There were no stars, no meteors, no planets, no universe; nothing but a formless earth, completely covered by water.

One more time, science boy.  There is no such thing as a formless earth.  The earth is a sphere, which is a 3 dimensional circle.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Gap theory is rejected by both science and religion.  It's just a way to try and claim long ages and make it fit... if you don't actually read the Bible. 

I've given no theory at all.  Just the FACTS about what the Hebrews really mean, as proven by the way those words are translated elsewhere in the Bible.

[Tristen]

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why would it be "reasonable"?  Why would a universe need to be mature?  For what purpose?  Does the universe produce things that require maturity, like humans, animals, fish, birds, bugs, etc?

Do rocks make pebbles?  Or does crushing rocks make pebbles?  Doesn't take any "maturity" on the part of rocks to become pebbles if crushed.

God created man and woman fully mature so that they could function as such.  Doing the work God had for them, and making babies.

There is no evidence that anything in the universe needs to be "mature" in order to make things.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to think of a "mature universe"

So, you remember way back on Friday (Oct 19th) when you said, "The problem for the YEC is that they cannot describe the supposed difference between an immature and mature earth." (www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/306885-mature-universe-theory/?do=findComment&comment=3814475)

And on Sunday (21st) when I responded, "In the context of the discussion, a "mature" universe is one where light from distant stars can be viewed from earth" (www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/306885-mature-universe-theory/?do=findComment&comment=3814587)

 

 

 

And now here we find you acting like I never wrote that - and merely repeating the same tired old (irrelevant) argument you've made on various posts throughout this thread.

Seems like a familiar pattern.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How is that relevant, when it was written 17 months ago in another thread?

It was an extensive discussion dealing with exactly the same points you are raising in this thread - and demonstrating a pre-existing example of my claimed pattern that you ignore opposing arguments in favor of simply repeating your own position.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

While you addressed my argument, you didn't refute anything of the FACTS that I presented

Sure - for the most part it is your "argument" that is the problem.

That is, the issue is mainly with how you are misusing and misinterpreting "the FACTS" - i.e. employing poor hermeneutical practices. That is, your conclusions are based on a poor application of interpretation logic - which I demonstrated throughout the conversation (in the other thread).

- which you consistently ignored - in favor of repeating the same, refuted points throughout the discussion without any indication that you had considered my position.

Though ironically, I did categorically debunk your "FACT" claim that 'hayetha' (Hb.) is translated "became" (instead of "was") "70%" of the time it is used in the Old Testament. Through the conversation, you revised your "FACT" claim down to "59%". However, I demonstrated unequivocally (i.e. verse-by-verse) that it is only 14%. 

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I actually DO address the "opposing arguments" by showing them the FACTS.

Which is the same as not addressing the argument - i.e. when the argument is actually about your flawed application of logic.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I repeat FACTS.  Ask any teacher;  learning is through repetition.

When the challenge to your position is about how you are interpreting the "FACTS", then merely repeating the "FACTS" has no teaching merit whatsoever. You are simply ignoring the challenge and restating irrelevant information for no good reason. You are ignoring (failing to rationally engage with) the very aspect of the debate you are being challenged on.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Oh, I do hear them.  I refute their claims from the English translation with FACTS from the Hebrew words.  Hopefully, you are listening.

No. I stopped taking you seriously on this issue shortly before the end of that conversation (in the other thread). When it becomes apparent that the other person in the conversation has no interest in your part of the discussion, then why should you respect anything they have to say? Now you "ask any teacher" how effective your teaching will be if you lose the respect of your students.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just not sure you realize how you are coming across. It's like you are saying, "I'm correct - and since I'm correct, I don't have to deal with any challenges. I will ignore all opposing arguments and continue to repeat myself until everyone agrees with me".

Who has the time to waste on someone who is so thoroughly closed to hearing any perspective other than their own?

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God's truth is God's Word, in the Hebrew, not any lame English translation.

I addressed "the Hebrew" in the other thread. It made no difference to how you responded. You still ignored my arguments and carried on repeating yourself.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 I have proved that certain words in Gen 1:2 are translated by English translators differently elsewhere in the Bible.  And the key to the verse is how "tohu wabohu" is translated in the only other 2 contexts in the Bible.  Tells us everything we need to know about what they describe.  And it isn't creation.

I have addressed all the same points in the other thread. I'm not going to waste time on all that again - because I already know where it ends.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, you are entitled to your opinion about what you think my responses are.

See how readily you become dismissive of challenging views? Rather than think through and engage with what I wrote, you belittle what I wrote as dismissible "opinion".

I have now given several examples of you repeating this pattern (in this and other threads). Therefore my "opinion" is rationally supported by the evidence.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

And by this logic, you elevate yourself beyond correction. You have predetermined (i.e. before hearing arguments) that your position is the "clear", unequivocal teaching of "scripture". 

Words certainly can be clear.  If the general deal is that words can't be clear, then let's all just go home.  Then, nothing is relevant if nothing is clear.

The reason debates like this exist is because interpretation of ancient texts is complex enough to drive different conclusions. Those of us seeking God's truth want to hear and scrutinize what others have to say - and to subject our own conclusions to the scrutiny of others.

Your approach to this debate indicates (though you have said as much) that you have pre-decided that your conclusion is the only valid conclusion (i.e. God's conclusion) - and therefore opposing conclusion deserve no consideration or respect.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I wish you would stop with your opinions here

Again, you show yourself to be dismissive of challenging claims.

I have supported my "opinions" with patterns demonstrated from your own responses.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have given FACTS about what the Hebrew words mean in other texts.  And that the earth could never be "formless" since the earth is 3 dimensional, just as every other object in the universe.

And again, you follow a dismissal of my position with an empty (and contextually irrelevant) restatement of your position.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

You therefore gloss over the arguments of others - and proceed to repeat your position.

No, I refute them with FACTS.  Or prove me wrong.  That they aren't FACTS.

So by "no", what you really mean is 'yes'. That is, after deciding that the opposing challenge to your logic is not worth considering, you respond by simply repeating your own position (as if the challenge itself never existed).

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

But you will refuse to hear what anyone else has to say

If that were true, then please explain WHY I actually address their view by refuting it with FACTS

Sure - I'll "explain" that.

If the challenge to your position is mainly criticizing how you interpret the "FACTS" (rather than the "FACTS" themselves), then simply repeating the "FACTS" does not address the challenge whatsoever.

 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

- because you are already self-assured that your position is God's position.

I am assured of God's Word.  Period.  Your seeminly passive aggressive opinion is evident.

You have a disputed interpretation of God's Word. However, you are so sure that you are right, that you refuse to fairly consider opposing opinions - characterizing your assurance of your own position as being "assured of God's Word" (as though you can't be wrong in your interpretation - and thereby rendering all other interpretations to be automatically invalid - since your interpretation is "God's Word").

 

23 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

You are not really interested in a polite conversation or debate on the issue (which is the purpose of such a forum).

This is one of the most outlandish comments you could make about my posts.  I repeatedly engage with those of opposing views and share what the Bible SAYS.

I'm merely trying to show you how you are coming across when you don't deal with the arguments presented to you, but simply repeat your position - characterizing your position as "what the Bible SAYS" - as though everyone who disagrees with you has no respect for "what the Bible SAYS" - and should therefore be ignored.

 

23 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, this is nothing more than your opinion.  You have no idea what I "want".  So I'll tell you clearly.  I want to share the truth.  Which is what I've done.

Right.

You only "want to share", but you seemingly have little interest in hearing and considering what others have to offer if they disagree with you.

 

23 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

btw, I'm not the only one in the universe who believes what I believe.  They too understand what the Hebrew means.

You therefore think it is impossible for those who "understand what the Hebrew means" to disagree with you?

How do you not hear the presumption and arrogance in such a statement?

 

23 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have NOT given opinion about anything.  I have proven that certain words in Gen 1:2 have been translated elsewhere differently and DO support this rendering of 1:2 - BUT the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND.

What the earth could NEVER be is formless.  When God spoke the earth into existence, it was a sphere.  That is form.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yet again, you revert to repeating previously provided arguments.

Repetition is the essence of learning.  It is hoped that at some point, it will click.

You can repeat your position as much as you want - no one is going to respect what you have to say so long as you refuse to properly respect their part in the conversation.

 

23 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

btw, I recall that you do believe there is a time gap between v.1 and 2.  So why all your pushback against my explanation of the time gap?

I'm not actually engaging you on that topic. We've already had that conversation in great detail in the other thread. In that thread, my "pushback" was against your flawed hermeneutics (I never really cared that you subscribe to a "time gap between v.1 and 2").

In this thread, I am trying to open your eyes to how you have constructed bias filters that impede your capacity to give fair consideration (and relevant responses) to the arguments of those who disagree with you.

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How many times must you be reminded that God didn't give any details.

Interesting, isn’t it that God doesn’t give details of things that didn’t happen?  There is no mention of the Great Pumpkin, and how he rises from the pumpkin patch to bring candy to deserving children.  That story has as much credibility as yours.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've given no theory at all.  Just the FACTS about what the Hebrews really mean, as proven by the way those words are translated elsewhere in the Bible.

Context is about how words are used where they are used, not how they may be used later in a different context.  As the rest of us understand, there are very few words with only one meaning.  The rest of the words can have many meanings in different contexts.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There is no such thing as a formless earth.

Please explain to us the three dimensional measurements of a cloud, a gas release, smoke, fog, or any other formless entity.  Please differentiate for us the three states of matter, and why they really do not exist.

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

So, you remember way back on Friday (Oct 19th) when you said, "The problem for the YEC is that they cannot describe the supposed difference between an immature and mature earth." (www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/306885-mature-universe-theory/?do=findComment&comment=3814475)

And on Sunday (21st) when I responded, "In the context of the discussion, a "mature" universe is one where light from distant stars can be viewed from earth" (www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/306885-mature-universe-theory/?do=findComment&comment=3814587)

Why would seeing light from a distant star mean the universe is "mature"?  That's simply a matter of the distance of the star to earth.  Has nothing to do with "maturity".  The universe doesn't mature.  Yes, it ages, from the moment of its creation onward.  

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

And now here we find you acting like I never wrote that - and merely repeating the same tired old (irrelevant) argument you've made on various posts throughout this thread.

Can you prove that my FACTS are irrelevant?

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

It was an extensive discussion dealing with exactly the same points you are raising in this thread - and demonstrating a pre-existing example of my claimed pattern that you ignore opposing arguments in favor of simply repeating your own position.

Repetition is for learning facts.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Sure - for the most part it is your "argument" that is the problem.

Then please prove that claim.   How is it a problem?  You'll have to prove that my facts are not facts.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

That is, the issue is mainly with how you are misusing and misinterpreting "the FACTS" - i.e. employing poor hermeneutical practices. That is, your conclusions are based on a poor application of interpretation logic - which I demonstrated throughout the conversation (in the other thread).

Please explain specifically my so-called "poor hermeneutical practices".

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Though ironically, I did categorically debunk your "FACT" claim that 'hayetha' (Hb.) is translated "became" (instead of "was") "70%" of the time it is used in the Old Testament.

I never said 70%.  It was specifically 59.5%.  And I explained how I got that number from bible hub.com.  The point (FACT) remains that the exact SAME verb form translated "was" in Gen 1:2 IS IS IS translated as "became" in a number of verses throughout the OT.  And I proved that in a number of verses that are translated as "was" are equivalent to "became".

Example:

Mary WAS the wife of Joseph.

Mary BECAME the wife of Joseph.

Exactly the same.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Through the conversation, you revised your "FACT" claim down to "59%".

Maybe there was a typo, but from biblehub.com I counted 66 verses that the website showed "became".  That is 59..5% of the 111.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

However, I demonstrated unequivocally (i.e. verse-by-verse) that it is only 14%.  

FACT remains that the SAME exact verb form in Gen 1:2 IS IS IS translated as "became" in other verses.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Which is the same as not addressing the argument - i.e. when the argument is actually about your flawed application of logic.

Please explain yourself.  

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

When the challenge to your position is about how you are interpreting the "FACTS", then merely repeating the "FACTS" has no teaching merit whatsoever.

Opinion.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

You are simply ignoring the challenge and restating irrelevant information for no good reason. You are ignoring (failing to rationally engage with) the very aspect of the debate you are being challenged on.

More opinions, imho.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I stopped taking you seriously on this issue shortly before the end of that conversation (in the other thread). When it becomes apparent that the other person in the conversation has no interest in your part of the discussion, then why should you respect anything they have to say? Now you "ask any teacher" how effective your teaching will be if you lose the respect of your students.

Please deal with the FACTS that I have presented by proving them to not be facts.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not attacking you, I'm just not sure you realize how you are coming across. It's like you are saying, "I'm correct - and since I'm correct, I don't have to deal with any challenges. I will ignore all opposing arguments and continue to repeat myself until everyone agrees with me".

No, it's NOT like I am saying anything close to that.  I've never said, much less insinuated that "I'm correct".  I have given FACTS, which no one YET has refuted or proven wrong.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Who has the time to waste on someone who is so thoroughly closed to hearing any perspective other than their own?

Please don't keep wasting your time then by replying to me.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I addressed "the Hebrew" in the other thread. It made no difference to how you responded. You still ignored my arguments and carried on repeating yourself.

They must not have convinced.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I have addressed all the same points in the other thread. I'm not going to waste time on all that again - because I already know where it ends.

Please don't.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

See how readily you become dismissive of challenging views? Rather than think through and engage with what I wrote, you belittle what I wrote as dismissible "opinion".

Not dismissive.  I challenge them.  And provide facts.  I know for a fact that people don't always like or appreciate facts.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I have now given several examples of you repeating this pattern (in this and other threads). Therefore my "opinion" is rationally supported by the evidence.

You mention "evidence" but haven't given any.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

The reason debates like this exist is because interpretation of ancient texts is complex enough to drive different conclusions.

If it's all that complex, then no one can legitimately come to any conclusion about what the Bible means.  I don't agree with your opinion here.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Those of us seeking God's truth want to hear and scrutinize what others have to say - and to subject our own conclusions to the scrutiny of others.

That's what I do.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Your approach to this debate indicates (though you have said as much) that you have pre-decided that your conclusion is the only valid conclusion (i.e. God's conclusion) - and therefore opposing conclusion deserve no consideration or respect.

Facts are facts.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Again, you show yourself to be dismissive of challenging claims.

I will dismiss what isn't logical or reasonable.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

And again, you follow a dismissal of my position with an empty (and contextually irrelevant) restatement of your position.

In my earlier post, I asked about your view of a time gap, which I recall you believe exists.  But you haven't explained yourself yet.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

So by "no", what you really mean is 'yes'. That is, after deciding that the opposing challenge to your logic is not worth considering, you respond by simply repeating your own position (as if the challenge itself never existed).

I repeat facts.  That's all.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

You have a disputed interpretation of God's Word.

I don't.  Others do.  But when I compare the YEC version of Gen 1:1,2 with Isa 45:18 and just keep "tohu" in, there is an obvious contradiction.  This doesn't even involve "interpretation".

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

However, you are so sure that you are right, that you refuse to fairly consider opposing opinions

Well, this is a good one.  I am sure of FACTS, so when "opposing opinions" are given, why should I give them a "fair consideration"?

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

- characterizing your assurance of your own position as being "assured of God's Word" (as though you can't be wrong in your interpretation - and thereby rendering all other interpretations to be automatically invalid - since your interpretation is "God's Word").

These aren't "interpretations", they are acknowledging HOW the words "tohu wabohu" are translated elsewhere.  That is a straightforward fact.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm merely trying to show you how you are coming across when you don't deal with the arguments presented to you, but simply repeat your position -

Again, I disagree with your assessment.  I deal with opinions by giving facts.  Maybe you just don't see that.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

characterizing your position as "what the Bible SAYS" - as though everyone who disagrees with you has no respect for "what the Bible SAYS" - and should therefore be ignored.

I am doing just what the Bereans did with Paul's preaching, per Acts 17:11.  When I say what the Bible says, how can I be wrong?  Oh right.  Your view is that figuring out what the Bible says:  "interpretation of ancient texts is complex enough to drive different conclusions".  Again, if that were so true, no one can really understand the Bible then.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

You only "want to share", but you seemingly have little interest in hearing and considering what others have to offer if they disagree with you.

When the FACTS refute opinions, of course interest wanes.

All one needs to do is prove that what I call facts aren't.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

You therefore think it is impossible for those who "understand what the Hebrew means" to disagree with you?

Did I say that, or is that another opinion about what you presume I am thinking?

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

How do you not hear the presumption and arrogance in such a statement?

Are you aware that Hebrew scholars disagree among themselves?

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

You can repeat your position as much as you want - no one is going to respect what you have to say so long as you refuse to properly respect their part in the conversation.

All that is needed is to prove that my facts aren't.

Are you aware that I don't want to be WRONG any more than you do?

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not actually engaging you on that topic. We've already had that conversation in great detail in the other thread. In that thread, my "pushback" was against your flawed hermeneutics (I never really cared that you subscribe to a "time gap between v.1 and 2").

Then, did I misread what I thought you posted about believing there is a time gap?

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

In this thread, I am trying to open your eyes to how you have constructed bias filters that impede your capacity to give fair consideration (and relevant responses) to the arguments of those who disagree with you.

Please show me specific examples of "bias filters".  Thanks.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

How many times must you be reminded that God didn't give any details.

Interesting, isn’t it that God doesn’t give details of things that didn’t happen?

Well, that would be your own opinion, shared by many others.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Context is about how words are used where they are used, not how they may be used later in a different context.

Exactly!  Since the translation of "tohu" has an obvious negative connotation, why doesn't that have any effect on you?

Again, here are some facts about how "tohu" is translated in various verses:

Tohu occurs 10 times in the OT

Genesis 1:2
NAS: The earth was formless and void,

1 Samuel 12:21
NAS: futile things which

Job 26:7
NAS: over empty space And hangs

Isaiah 24:10
NAS: The city of chaos is broken down;
KJV: The city of confusion is broken down:

Isaiah 34:11 Describes the total destruction of the land
NAS: it the line of desolation And the plumb line
KJV: upon it the line of confusion, and the stones

Isaiah 44:9
NAS: are all of them futile, and their precious things
KJV: a graven image [are] all of them vanity; and their delectable things

Isaiah 45:18   Directly contradicts Gen 1:2 usual translation
NAS: it [and] did not create it a waste place, [but] formed
KJV: it, he created it not in vain, he formed

Isaiah 45:19
NAS: Seek Me in a waste place; I, the LORD,
KJV: Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD

Isaiah 59:4
NAS: They trust in confusion and speak
KJV: they trust in vanity, and speak

Jeremiah 4:23   Describes the total destruction of the land by an invading army
NAS: and behold, [it was] formless and void;
KJV: the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void;

chaos, desolation, futile, waste place (3), confusion, formless (2).  But Jer 4:23 cannot be ‘formless’ since it describes the total destruction of land by a besieging army that destroys nations (from context).  So should be 4 x for “wasteland/place”.  None of these words can be applied to original perfect creation of the earth.  ALL of these translations describe very negative conditions.

Are these opinions or FACTS?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 As the rest of us understand, there are very few words with only one meaning.  The rest of the words can have many meanings in different contexts.

Here is the catch:  Words do not have polar opposite meanings.  Or please provide an example.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Please explain to us the three dimensional measurements of a cloud, a gas release, smoke, fog, or any other formless entity.

I have been clear that I'm speaking about OBJECTS.  Are any of these things objects?

And your question is still bogus, because what you note aren't stable?  So why are you comparing these things with "earth"?  Do you believe the earth isn't stable?  Or wasn't?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 Please differentiate for us the three states of matter, and why they really do not exist.

What doesn't exist is a formless earth.  That is impossible.  And you haven't provided a reasonable argument for how it is possible.

The problem is that you claim that God's creation is in steps, or processes, but you can't prove it.  I know from Psa 33:6 and 9 that God speaks things into existence, and there is no evidence that it is a 2-step, etc process.  

He creates instantaneously and completely.  

[RV_Wizard]

18 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Words do not have polar opposite meanings.  Or please provide an example

When you hit a home run you can walk the bases, not run.  Aloha means hello and goodbye.  These are called contronyms.  They include bolt, bound, cleave, buckle, clip, custom, dust, fast, finished…..

25 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I have been clear that I'm speaking about OBJECTS.  Are any of these things objects?

If the earth began in a gaseous state, it would be formless, wouldn’t it?

26 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 Do you believe the earth isn't stable?  Or wasn't?

You if all people shouldn’t ask me about unstable.

27 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 

What doesn't exist is a formless earth.

Not any longer.  It went from gaseous to liquid and then to solid, as does all other matter.

29 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

He creates instantaneously and completely.  

So was He kidding when He said six days of creation in Exodus 20:11, or are you just wrong?

[Mozart's Starling]

On 10/21/2024 at 9:25 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Definitions of formless adjective having no physical form
“belief in a world filled with... formless but often malevolent beings”
synonyms:
unbodied
having no body
adjective having no definite form or distinct shape
“an aggregate of formless particles”
synonyms: amorphous, shapeless
unformed

Something formless either has no definite shape, like fog or smoke, or lacks structure, like a formless movie that doesn't seem to have much of a plot.  source

This has been explained to you many times.  Your inability to comprehend something has no bearing on 

It baffles me how someone can struggle so hard with the concept of something being formless. So much so that they invent a wild theory to boot lol. Imo mature state is really the only conclusion you can reach if science's evidence isn't cooked or outright lies. So personally I think that the "mature universe" theory makes the most sense. I don't buy some of the nonsense I've seen about "days"meaning whatever people want it to mean to match up with science either.

Edited October 23, 2024 by Mozart's Starling