Evidence for God from Science

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:But once again, Jeremiah cannot be talking about a future destruction, because Israel NEVER BECAME WITHOUT FORM! It never was flooded by water!

The comparison is the desolation of the land. Jeremiah was suggesting the land would return to chaos.

Chaos before God formed the land.

Chaos after.

You're reading too much into it, to make it fit your Gap theology.

Anyone following this thread just has to read Jeremiah 4 for themselves, to see that it's talking about a vision of the future.

But the earth was never without form after.

Desolation before.

Desolation after.

Anything more, is reading into the text.

It wasn't to say that Jeremiah's vision meant that the earth would literally return to the way it was before God formed the land.

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:But once again, Jeremiah cannot be talking about a future destruction, because Israel NEVER BECAME WITHOUT FORM! It never was flooded by water!

The comparison is the desolation of the land. Jeremiah was suggesting the land would return to chaos.

Chaos before God formed the land.

Chaos after.

You're reading too much into it, to make it fit your Gap theology.

Anyone following this thread just has to read Jeremiah 4 for themselves, to see that it's talking about a vision of the future.

But the earth was never without form after.

Desolation before.

Desolation after.

Anything more, is reading into the text.

It wasn't to say that Jeremiah's vision meant that the earth would literally return to the way it was before God formed the land.

Anything more is reading into the text? The TEXT SAYS WITHOUT FORM! Not just desolation, WITHOUT FORM (watery mess)! To IGNORE that is to take away from the text.

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:But once again, Jeremiah cannot be talking about a future destruction, because Israel NEVER BECAME WITHOUT FORM! It never was flooded by water!

The comparison is the desolation of the land. Jeremiah was suggesting the land would return to chaos.

Chaos before God formed the land.

Chaos after.

You're reading too much into it, to make it fit your Gap theology.

Anyone following this thread just has to read Jeremiah 4 for themselves, to see that it's talking about a vision of the future.

But the earth was never without form after.

Desolation before.

Desolation after.

Anything more, is reading into the text.

It wasn't to say that Jeremiah's vision meant that the earth would literally return to the way it was before God formed the land.

Anything more is reading into the text? The TEXT SAYS WITHOUT FORM! Not just desolation, WITHOUT FORM (watery mess)! To IGNORE that is to take away from the text.

tohuw and bohuw . See the meanings?

Yes, I see the meanings, but the meaning of a word isn't limited to how its defined in a dictionary, but how its used in literature. Tohuw (without form) in Genesis 1:2 clearly means a watery mess. Tohuw in Jeremiah 4 also means a watery mess (mainly because of strong similarities between that verse and Genesis 1:2).

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Yes, I see the meanings, but the meaning of a word isn't limited to how its defined in a dictionary, but how its used in literature. Tohuw (without form) in Genesis 1:2 clearly means a watery mess. Tohuw in Jeremiah 4 also means a watery mess (mainly because of strong similarities between that verse and Genesis 1:2).

Ok. I haven't studied Hebrew, so please help me out. Show me one Hebrew lexicon, that says tohuw means watery mess.

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Yes, I see the meanings, but the meaning of a word isn't limited to how its defined in a dictionary, but how its used in literature. Tohuw (without form) in Genesis 1:2 clearly means a watery mess. Tohuw in Jeremiah 4 also means a watery mess (mainly because of strong similarities between that verse and Genesis 1:2).

Ok. I haven't studied Hebrew, so please help me out. Show me one Hebrew lexicon, that says tohuw means watery mess.

Here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons ... tohuw.html
One of the definitions of tohuw is "formlessness (of primeval earth)". That's basically what it means in Genesis 1:2. To be formless means to have no form. In what way was the "primeval earth" without form? By being a lump of water in the verse. Since tohuw can mean the state of formlessness found in "primeval earth" (aka, watery mess), tohuw can mean a watery mess. In fact, the very fact that it has no solid form or structure to it implies there is no land on the surface. Water is on the surface.

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Yes, I see the meanings, but the meaning of a word isn't limited to how its defined in a dictionary, but how its used in literature. Tohuw (without form) in Genesis 1:2 clearly means a watery mess. Tohuw in Jeremiah 4 also means a watery mess (mainly because of strong similarities between that verse and Genesis 1:2).

Ok. I haven't studied Hebrew, so please help me out. Show me one Hebrew lexicon, that says tohuw means watery mess.

Here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons ... tohuw.html
One of the definitions of tohuw is "formlessness (of primeval earth)". That's basically what it means in Genesis 1:2. To be formless means to have no form. In what way was the "primeval earth" without form? By being a lump of water in the verse. Since tohuw can mean the state of formlessness found in "primeval earth" (aka, watery mess), tohuw can mean a watery mess. In fact, the very fact that it has no solid form or structure to it implies there is no land on the surface. Water is on the surface.

Again,
Show me one Hebrew lexicon that show tohuw means watery mess. I didn't ask for the real meanings, with your own meaning added, so it fits your theology.

You're really grasping at straws now. Seeing how you make up your own meanings of words, so they fit your gap theology, I hope people can see through this.

Rick, I know you don't need my input on this and that you see what J4J is doing (I don't see what he is doing, literally speaking . . .the foe list is an amazing thing! ), but I saw your comment about the lexical definition and I thought you might appreciate something better than Strong's. This entry is from Holladay's Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, which is a pretty respected work:

• w. art. only in 1 Sam 12:21, Isa 29:21, 40:23, Job 6:18: wasteland Deut 32:10, solitude or emptiness Gen 1:2; qiryat-tohu deserted city Is 24:10; emptiness = nothingness, nonentity 1 Sam 12:21; empty plea (in court) Isa 29:21; adv. in vain Isa 45:19

(Italics and bold original) For what it is worth, the LXX uses Greek words that mean "unseen" and "not properly prepared" for tohu and bohu respectively.

Just an FYI.

Rick, words are defined by the way they are used in literature. In the Hebrew literature of Genesis 1:2, tohuw is used to describe a water filled earth with no land (no form). Thus, it can mean a watery mess. It's that simple.

Here's another thing: The Geneva Bible: "And the earth was [a]without form and void, and [c]darkness was upon the [d]deep, and the Spirit of God [e]moved upon the [f]waters." Here's a footnote from the translators (who knew Hebrew) [a]: "As a rude lump and without any creature in it: FOR THE WATERS COVERED ALL."

"the earth was without form and void—or in "confusion and emptiness," as the words are rendered in Isa 34:11. This globe, at some undescribed period, having been convulsed and broken up, was A DARK AND WATERY WASTE for ages perhaps, till out of this chaotic state, the present fabric of the world was made to arise." (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary).

"And the earth was without form, and void,.... It was not in the form it now is, otherwise it must have a form, as all matter has; it was A FLUID MATTER, the WATERY parts were not separated from the earthy ones; it was not put into the form of a terraqueous globe it is now, the sea apart, and the earth by itself, but were mixed and blended together;" (John Gill).

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:

RickD wrote:

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Yes, I see the meanings, but the meaning of a word isn't limited to how its defined in a dictionary, but how its used in literature. Tohuw (without form) in Genesis 1:2 clearly means a watery mess. Tohuw in Jeremiah 4 also means a watery mess (mainly because of strong similarities between that verse and Genesis 1:2).

Ok. I haven't studied Hebrew, so please help me out. Show me one Hebrew lexicon, that says tohuw means watery mess.

Here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons ... tohuw.html
One of the definitions of tohuw is "formlessness (of primeval earth)". That's basically what it means in Genesis 1:2. To be formless means to have no form. In what way was the "primeval earth" without form? By being a lump of water in the verse. Since tohuw can mean the state of formlessness found in "primeval earth" (aka, watery mess), tohuw can mean a watery mess. In fact, the very fact that it has no solid form or structure to it implies there is no land on the surface. Water is on the surface.

Again,
Show me one Hebrew lexicon that show tohuw means watery mess. I didn't ask for the real meanings, with your own meaning added, so it fits your theology.

You're really grasping at straws now. Seeing how you make up your own meanings of words, so they fit your gap theology, I hope people can see through this.

Even not knowing any Heb, his " means water" translations looked fishy.

Nothing wrong with having imagination, or enjoying fantasy but our gappers
dont seem able to tell when they've gone careening off the track.

I'm going to to explain why I believe Jeremiah 4:23-28 is looking back to Genesis 1:2 and is not a future prophecy and has not happened since Genesis 1:2. First off I believe there are other prophecies that look back in time instead of forward like Isaiah 14:12-17 because it tells us what Lucifer did when he rebelled he made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities. If you disagree? Then when were angels created in Genesis 1? Because there are no angels created in Genesis 1:3-31 and yet we know Lucifer is an angel who rebelled against God with a third of the angels. Genesis 1:3-5 already suggests that angels already existed and Lucifer and a third of the angels already had rebelled and had already been created. I see no other way to fix this problem than to realize Isaiah 14:13-17 is a look back in time instead of forward. This is also what Jeremiah 4:23-28 is a prophecy that looks back in time instead of forward.

If you disagree then how can you make Jeremiah 4:23-28 be a future prophecy or something that has already happened? There is never a time in the future when the earth becomes without form and void and there is no man when this happens. As bad as the tribulation is there is never a time when the earth becomes without form and void and there is no man. Man survives the tribulation and repopulates the earth after Jesus returns and sets up his earthly kingdom. So I see no way this can be a future prophecy,not has it been fulfilled since Genesis 1:2 even if we include Noah's flood( don't look Audie) so this must be a prophecy looking back in time instead of forward andwe have physical evidence on and in this earth to back these prophecies up. We have hominids that confirm the world perished and there was no man,now hominids are not man,but they are similar enough to be called man.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I'm going to to explain why I believe Jeremiah 4:23-28 is looking back to Genesis 1:2 and is not a future prophecy and has not happened since Genesis 1:2. First off I believe there are other prophecies that look back in time instead of forward like Isaiah 14:12-17 because it tells us what Lucifer did when he rebelled he made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities. If you disagree? Then when were angels created in Genesis 1? Because there are no angels created in Genesis 1:3-31 and yet we know Lucifer is an angel who rebelled against God with a third of the angels. Genesis 1:3-5 already suggests that angels already existed and Lucifer and a third of the angels already had rebelled and had already been created. I see no other way to fix this problem than to realize Isaiah 14:13-17 is a look back in time instead of forward. This is also what Jeremiah 4:23-28 is a prophecy that looks back in time instead of forward.

If you disagree then how can you make Jeremiah 4:23-28 be a future prophecy or something that has already happened? There is never a time in the future when the earth becomes without form and void and there is no man when this happens. As bad as the tribulation is there is never a time when the earth becomes without form and void and there is no man. Man survives the tribulation and repopulates the earth after Jesus returns and sets up his earthly kingdom. So I see no way this can be a future prophecy,not has it been fulfilled since Genesis 1:2 even if we include Noah's flood( don't look Audie) so this must be a prophecy looking back in time instead of forward andwe have physical evidence on and in this earth to back these prophecies up. We have hominids that confirm the world perished and there was no man,now hominids are not man,but they are similar enough to be called man.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LzXf1TKQ