GAP…theory…or…fact?

[Gregg]

I believe God Created man to prove something to the Angels.
We are witnesses to Satan and His Fallen angles, as well as to mankind.

I have asked you serious questions and for your opinion.
We were created to resolve the Angelic conflict.
Eph 3:9-10 is your purpose in this life and why you were created.
Now, tell me as A brother in Christ were I am wrong and God did not create us for this purpose please.

gr8grace3,

Serious questions, perhaps; but not serious statements [beliefs]. You believe man was created 'to prove something to the Angels' and 'to resolve the Angelic conflict' - and you support this with an imaginary Gap Theory. Those beliefs are born of an unsubstantiated theory, and a misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

If you were to believe that man was created for the LORD Jesus Christ, then we may have something in common.

Do you worship or adore or pray to the angels?



.

 

[Gregg]

I've stayed with exactly what Scripture SAYS.

Rather, you have stayed with what you think the Scripture says.

And I've proven that "was" has been translated "became" in 4 other verses,

I think we could find many paraphrases and supposed translations that do not represent the original text or intended interpretation.

A translation in itself is not a proof for a theory.

This seems to satisfy you, as you've proven much to yourself, but not to me; not from your first point forward.

And no one has refuted any of that.

Rather, no one has refuted to your satisfaction. Its been shown, but you will not accept it.

I've asked gr8grace3, and I'll ask you as well,

Do you worship or adore or pray to angels?

 

[Deborah13]

Gladly.

Gen 1:1-2
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void (tohu wabohu); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Isa 45:18
18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (tohu wabohu), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Moses wrote that God created the…earth and the earth was tohuwabohu.

Isaiah wrote that God did NOT create it tohuwabohu.

I do not know how to make it more simple than that. Both used the same words in reference to creation. If v.2 was translated correctly, then there is a contradiction. Period.


I haven't proven a theory. I've proven that tohu wabohu is translated as a waste place in Isa 45:18 (NASB). But even that doesn't really matter.

What matter is that both authors used those same 2 words in reference to creation. And if v.2 was translated correctly (and the earth was…), then there is a contradiction. Because Isaiah wrote that God did NOT create it tohuwabohu.

Regardless of what meaning you want to put on tohuwabohu, they both used those 2 words in reference to creation, and they are saying contradictory things, if v.2 was translated as we find it: "and the earth was…".

The ONLY way there is NO contradiction is if v.2 says "but the earth became…".


Why do I need to find a "flaunt" Jewish person? And why do they have to know the Messiah? Are you suggesting that those who aren't fluent in Hebrew can't read the Hebrew? Or not capable of proper translation? That seems odd.

That seems odd to you? A believer in the Messiah has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, their eyes are not blinded to the revelation of the prophecies in the OT. When they look at the language they are much more likely to see things like the 'vav' as not just a tent nail of the physical tabernacle but the nail of the cross and the tabernacle built on Christ.

The problem with the Jews is that they rejected Jesus as their Messiah. They fully understood the OT, but rejected Him as their Messiah. But this is irrelevant to the contradiction that YEC have in their rejection of the proper way to translate v.2.
I've proven that "was" HAS BEEN translated as "became" in 4 other places, so there is no reason to reject that fact.

And was translated other ways as well.

Plus, if you don't accept that fact, then you have a glaring contradiction.

There is no contradiction in the language.
YLT
Isa 45:18 For thus said Jehovah, Creator of heaven, He is God, Former of earth, and its Maker, He established it--not empty He prepared it, For inhabiting He formed it: `I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

Isaiah does not say it was NEVER 'tohu'. He says God is the Creator, Former, Maker, Establisher. That God did NOT prepare it (formed, made, and established) it 'tohu' but TO BE inhabited. All three steps are included in this preparing.
That does not contradict the fact that at one point it was 'tohu'.
Adam Clarke
"The earth was without form and void - The original term תהו tohu and בהו bohu, which we translate without form and void, are of uncertain etymology; but in this place, and wherever else they are used, they convey the idea of confusion and disorder. From these terms it is probable that the ancient Syrians and Egyptians borrowed their gods, Theuth and Bau, and the Greeks their Chaos. God seems at first to have created the elementary principles of all things; and this formed the grand mass of matter, which in this state must be without arrangement, or any distinction of parts: a vast collection of indescribably confused materials, of nameless entities strangely mixed; and wonderfully well expressed by an ancient heathen poet: -...."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/genesis/1.htm
"He formed it to be inhabited "For he formed it to be inhabited" - An ancient MS. has כי ki before לשבת lashebeth; and so the ancient Versions."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/isaiah/45.htm

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
"18. (See on [812]Isa 45:12).
not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited—Therefore, Judah, lying waste during the Babylonish captivity, shall be peopled again by the exiles. The Jews, from this passage, infer that, after the resurrection, the earth shall be inhabited, for there can be no reason why the earth should then exist in vain any more than now (2Pe 3:13)."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/isaiah/45.htm

 

[Deborah13]

Gladly.

Gen 1:1-2
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void (tohu wabohu); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Isa 45:18
18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (tohu wabohu), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Moses wrote that God created the…earth and the earth was tohuwabohu.

Isaiah wrote that God did NOT create it tohuwabohu.

I do not know how to make it more simple than that. Both used the same words in reference to creation. If v.2 was translated correctly, then there is a contradiction. Period.


I haven't proven a theory. I've proven that tohu wabohu is translated as a waste place in Isa 45:18 (NASB). But even that doesn't really matter.

What matter is that both authors used those same 2 words in reference to creation. And if v.2 was translated correctly (and the earth was…), then there is a contradiction. Because Isaiah wrote that God did NOT create it tohuwabohu.

Regardless of what meaning you want to put on tohuwabohu, they both used those 2 words in reference to creation, and they are saying contradictory things, if v.2 was translated as we find it: "and the earth was…".

The ONLY way there is NO contradiction is if v.2 says "but the earth became…".


Why do I need to find a "flaunt" Jewish person? And why do they have to know the Messiah? Are you suggesting that those who aren't fluent in Hebrew can't read the Hebrew? Or not capable of proper translation? That seems odd.

The problem with the Jews is that they rejected Jesus as their Messiah. They fully understood the OT, but rejected Him as their Messiah. But this is irrelevant to the contradiction that YEC have in their rejection of the proper way to translate v.2.

I've proven that "was" HAS BEEN translated as "became" in 4 other places, so there is no reason to reject that fact.

Plus, if you don't accept that fact, then you have a glaring contradiction.

I just had a couple of thoughts.
At the moment of conception there is life but the body that will contain that life is not fully formed or developed. It is cells, stem cells, that are intended to develop into a completed body for that soul to inhabit.
I see the earth's creation in a similar way. That when the earth was tohu the materials were not yet fully developed and arranged. And therefore, was not yet inhabitable to sustain life.

 

[gr8grace3]

gr8grace3,

Serious questions, perhaps; but not serious statements [beliefs]. You believe man was created 'to prove something to the Angels' and 'to resolve the Angelic conflict' - and you support this with an imaginary Gap Theory. Those beliefs are born of an unsubstantiated theory, and a misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

If you were to believe that man was created for the LORD Jesus Christ, then we may have something in common.

Do you worship or adore or pray to the angels?



.

We were Created for the Lord Jesus Christ. We are His witnesses for Him In the Angelic Conflict. We witness His Grace,mercy,Justice,righteousness,fairness through Our personal relationship with Him. Say we witness Christ to someone and That person gets saved. His grace,mercy,justice and so on is revealed. We study and teach His word, His Attributes are revealed. We PROVE to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places That He is perfectly Just and righteous,Full of mercy and Grace by saving us. And to continue to walk in His ways, we have the privilege to further reveal all that He is.

And I did not support this with the GAP FACT. I supported this with scripture, which you have ignored.

Eph 3:9-10 NASB~~9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

We are to reveal the multifaceted wisdom of God to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Eph 6:12 NASB~~For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

The Gap FACT just shows us where this conflict began.

Thanks for asking your last question brother. It reveals a lot.

 

[FreeGrace]

Rather, you have stayed with what you think the Scripture says.

Let's test that out. Gen 1:1,2 -
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void (tohu wabohu); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

OK, look at the underlined words: In the beginning God created the earth. And the earth was tohu wabohu.

Now, let's look at Isa 45:18 -
18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (tohu wabohu), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

OK, look at the underlined words: the LORD that created the heavens (reference to Gen 1:1), He created it NOT tohu wabohu.

Don't you see the obvious contradiction. KJV claims that God created the earth tohu wabohu, while Isaiah clearly claimed that He did NOT create it tohu wabohu.

So, regardless of what those 2 words mean, both authors used both words in reference to creation. And they contradict each other.

The ONLY solution is to accept v.2 as this: But, the earth BECAME tohu wabohu. Which I've demonstrated is totally legitimate. And in fact, it is DEMANDED in order to avoid the obvious contradiction.

A translation in itself is not a proof for a theory.

OK, solve the contradiction by using your translation of Gen 1:2.

This seems to satisfy you, as you've proven much to yourself, but not to me; not from your first point forward.

I have proven that your translation creates an obvious contradiction, regardless of how you want tohu wabohu to mean.

Rather, no one has refuted to your satisfaction. Its been shown, but you will not accept it.

At this point, it isn't about refutation. It's about how you can defend the obvious contradiction from your translation.

I've asked gr8grace3, and I'll ask you as well,

Do you worship or adore or pray to angels?

A rather stupid question, imho, and I'm sure from an intelligent believer. The obvious answer is absolutely NOT.

But, the real question here is begged by your question. Seems you've taken liberties to make some pretty off the wall judgments about me and gr8grace3, rather than just dealing with our points and questions.

I would like you to address the contradiction that your translation creates. Or demonstrate how it isn't one. Which I don't see as possible. With your translation, Moses and Isaiah are saying totally opposite things about how God created the earth.

 

[FreeGrace]

That seems odd to you? A believer in the Messiah has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, their eyes are not blinded to the revelation of the prophecies in the OT. When they look at the language they are much more likely to see things like the 'vav' as not just a tent nail of the physical tabernacle but the nail of the cross and the tabernacle built on Christ.

No, you've totally misunderstand my "seems odd" comment. I was referring to understanding the Hebrew language. It doesn't take the indwelling Holy Spirit to understand the language. It does take spiritual "eyes" to see the Messiah, though. But that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

I've finally realized that whatever the translation is, doesn't matter one whit. With your translation, Moses and Isaiah are saying the exact opposite thing, as I've just shown to Gregg.

There is no contradiction in the language.

Post #346 clearly demonstrates a contradiction between what Moses wrote, according to the translation you prefer, with what Isaiah wrote in Isa 45:18.

YLT

Isa 45:18 For thus said Jehovah, Creator of heaven, He is God, Former of earth, and its Maker, He established it--not empty He prepared it, For inhabiting He formed it: `I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

I couldn't care less how YLT translates this verse. We KNOW that "empty" is nonsense; the Hebrew words are tohu wabohu. Same 2 words that Moses used in Gen 1:2. And they are saying the exact opposite thing.

Isaiah does not say it was NEVER 'tohu'. He says God is the Creator, Former, Maker, Establisher. That God did NOT prepare it (formed, made, and established) it 'tohu' but TO BE inhabited. All three steps are included in this preparing.
That does not contradict the fact that at one point it was 'tohu'.

Yes, it does.

Well, I need to make a huge correction. I've been saying that Isaiah used both words found in Gen 1:2, but I was wrong. He only used tohuw. However, it's the same word, so my point stands. Unless v.2 says "but the earth became tohuw", there is a contradiction.

Adam Clarke

"The earth was without form and void - The original term תהו tohu and בהו bohu, which we translate without form and void, are of uncertain etymology; but in this place, and wherever else they are used, they convey the idea of confusion and disorder. From these terms it is probable that the ancient Syrians and Egyptians borrowed their gods, Theuth and Bau, and the Greeks their Chaos. God seems at first to have created the elementary principles of all things; and this formed the grand mass of matter, which in this state must be without arrangement, or any distinction of parts: a vast collection of indescribably confused materials, of nameless entities strangely mixed; and wonderfully well expressed by an ancient heathen poet: -...."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/genesis/1.htm
"He formed it to be inhabited "For he formed it to be inhabited" - An ancient MS. has כי ki before לשבת lashebeth; and so the ancient Versions."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/isaiah/45.htm

Or, the earth BECAME confused and in disorder. Which is supported by Mark 10:6, as I've shown.

The translation that you prefer for Gen 1:2 is still a contradiction with isa 45:18. It BECAME "empty", or whatever word you prefer for "tohuw".

 

[Butch5]

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Gen 1:1,2 KJV

The concept that there is a time gap between v.1 and 2 is called the GAP theory. And there are a number of websites that disagree with that. However, the ones I've checked haven't acknowledged all that is involved in the concept. For example, AIG seems to treat anyone who believes that the earth is much older than Adam as an evolutionist up front. There is one link on the "gap theory" written by Henry Morris in 1987 on the AIG site. However, his critique seems to miss the whole argument, pluse he makes some simple mistakes in a few of his statements.

My position is that the earth is quite a lot older than Adam, which I believe can be discerned from Scripture, which I shall share. And, I accept the account of Genesis 1 as literal. Now, from AIG's perspective, how can that be?? My objective is to take 1 point at a time, allowing for any questions, or discussion, or debate.

First Point: please note the underlined words in v.2 above. The discussion will consider what these words mean, and how they are used in the rest of Scripture. Plus, I will demonstrate from the NT several verses that provide indication that something occurred between v.1 and 2 in Genesis 1.

The first word underlined is "was". It is the Hebrew word "hayah"; meaning, to exist, i.e., to be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary).

The word is spelled a number of different ways in the Hebrew lexicon, and the word is translated a number of different ways in the OT. The word occurs some 3560 times. Here are the different ways it's found:
become, became, came to pass, came, was, were, shall be, will be, were even. Morris claimed in his article on the AIG site that the Hebrew word can only be "become" when context requires it. Since there is only 1 verse "in context" with v.2, that seems hardly a fair claim. We need to see what the whole counsel of God says regarding creation and Genesis 1. That would be proper context, not just what precedes v.2 in Genesis 1. And I will provide verses from both the OT and NT that do require that "hayah" in Gen 1:2 be rendered "became". Also, keep in mind that Moses, the author of Genesis, didn't write "was". He used the Hebrew word, which can be rendered in several different ways. We will determine his meaning from comparing the word with other verses, plus examining some NT verses.

The exact spelling form of "hayah" as found in v.2 occurs 4 more times in the OT, ALL of which are translated "become". These are: Gen 47:26, Ex 9:24, 1 Sam 10:12 and Joshua 14:14. In fact, the word is translated as "become" or "became" about 56 times in the OT, but I have focused only on the 5 verses where the spelling in the lexicon is exactly the same as Gen 1:2, which is: "haayataah", with the "a" following the "y" as a superscript.

My point here is that it is legitimate to understand Gen 1:2 as saying "and the earth became…" For reasons to follow. My point here is to demonstrate that the earth became something different than the original creation in v.1.

Questions, comments, etc?

I think Moses put and end to the Gap theory.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exo 20:9-11 KJV)

The context here is literal days.

 

[Deborah13]

No, you've totally misunderstand my "seems odd" comment. I was referring to understanding the Hebrew language. It doesn't take the indwelling Holy Spirit to understand the language. It does take spiritual "eyes" to see the Messiah, though. But that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

I've finally realized that whatever the translation is, doesn't matter one whit. With your translation, Moses and Isaiah are saying the exact opposite thing, as I've just shown to Gregg.


Post #346 clearly demonstrates a contradiction between what Moses wrote, according to the translation you prefer, with what Isaiah wrote in Isa 45:18.


I couldn't care less how YLT translates this verse. We KNOW that "empty" is nonsense; the Hebrew words are tohu wabohu. Same 2 words that Moses used in Gen 1:2. And they are saying the exact opposite thing.


Yes, it does.

Well, I need to make a huge correction. I've been saying that Isaiah used both words found in Gen 1:2, but I was wrong. He only used tohuw. However, it's the same word, so my point stands. Unless v.2 says "but the earth became tohuw", there is a contradiction.


Or, the earth BECAME confused and in disorder. Which is supported by Mark 10:6, as I've shown.

The translation that you prefer for Gen 1:2 is still a contradiction with isa 45:18. It BECAME "empty", or whatever word you prefer for "tohuw".

And it is totally amazing to me that a person who does Not speak, read, or write Hebrew will consistently argue against the men who did and do.
If you can't see the spiritual nuances of the Hebrew language and it's understanding your not alone.

 

[FreeGrace]

I just had a couple of thoughts.
At the moment of conception there is life but the body that will contain that life is not fully formed or developed. It is cells, stem cells, that are intended to develop into a completed body for that soul to inhabit.
I see the earth's creation in a similar way. That when the earth was tohu the materials were not yet fully developed and arranged. And therefore, was not yet inhabitable to sustain life.

This still doesn't solve the conflict with your preferred translation of Gen 1:2. v.1 establishes the fact that God created the heavens and earth. V.2 describes what He created, according to your translation. "and the earth WAS tohuw."

Yet, Isaiah wrote that God didn't create the earth tohuw.

So, what is it? The word is translated empty, void, etc. So what? Both authors used the same word. One says, according to YEC, that God created the earth tohuw, while Isaiah says He didn't create it tohuw.

The ONLY avoidance of contradiction is to accept the legitimate translation of v.2 thusly: but, the earth BECAME tohuw.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think Moses put and end to the Gap theory.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exo 20:9-11 KJV)

The context here is literal days.

I suggest the use of a lexicon before posting what Scripture says. v.11 is speaking about asah (made), NOT barah (created). That passage is referring to the 6 literal days AFTER v.2, when the earth BECAME tohu wabohu.

 

[FreeGrace]

And it is totally amazing to me that a person who does Not speak, read, or write Hebrew will consistently argue against the men who did and do.[]/QUOTE]
There's no agreement there, either. So, what's your point again?

If you can't see the spiritual nuances of the Hebrew language and it's understanding your not alone.

There is no "spiritual nuances" of the Hebrew language. It was a gutteral language, and not at all specific, as the Greek was, with all its inflection.

Both authors used the same word in reference to creation, yet one said that God created the earth tohuw while the other said He did not create it tohuw.

Which author do you believe? Probably Moses, given your stance against any time gap.

 

[Gregg]

(Isa 45:18 LITV) "For so says Jehovah, Creator of the heavens; He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand, not creating it empty, but forming it to be inhabited. 'I am Jehovah, and there is none else.' "

The LORD did not create the earth to leave it empty, but after creating it He then formed it to be inhabitable.

That is straightforward and uncomplicated; no hidden time gap, no angels trashing the earth, no ice barriers to keep the angels out, no hovering over the water to melt the ice afterwards, nothing that insinuates the reason God created man is to prove something to angels.

 

[Butch5]

I suggest the use of a lexicon before posting what Scripture says. v.11 is speaking about asah (made), NOT barah (created). That passage is referring to the 6 literal days AFTER v.2, when the earth BECAME tohu wabohu.

Why would you suggest the use of a lexicon? Surely you're not suggesting they're inspired are you? If you want to get that accurate why are you using the Masoretic text?

But either way, Moses includes day one in the 7 days so there can't be any gap between the days. In six days God created the heavens and the earth, verse one of Genesis says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". (Gen 1:1 KJV)

 

[gr8grace3]

.[/QUOTE]

I suggest the use of a lexicon before posting what Scripture says. v.11 is speaking about asah (made), NOT barah (created). That passage is referring to the 6 literal days AFTER v.2, when the earth BECAME tohu wabohu.

FreeGrace, I know this is simple, but it demonstrates this time GAP between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. And All here will agree that there is a time Gap in this verse, that is structured the same way as Gen 1:1-2.

Gen 1:1-2~~[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was(became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 4:2~~And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Same grammatical sentence structure. And there is a Gap. Was Abel born a keeper of the Sheep or was there some time between his birth and becoming a keeper of the sheep?

If the earth was created void and empty, Abel was born as a keeper of the sheep.

 

[gr8grace3]

Genesis 1:2~~The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Psalm 104:29-30~~
29Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

30Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

 

[Deborah13]

This still doesn't solve the conflict with your preferred translation of Gen 1:2. v.1 establishes the fact that God created the heavens and earth. V.2 describes what He created, according to your translation. "and the earth WAS tohuw."

Gee, it's didn't know we had one among us that has the gift of special knowledge. I didn't know I had a preferred translation.
Actually if I could say I have a preferred translation, that translation does NOT say WAS, it says ' hath existed'.

Yet, Isaiah wrote that God didn't create the earth tohuw.

So, what is it? The word is translated empty, void, etc. So what? Both authors used the same word. One says, according to YEC, that God created the earth tohuw, while Isaiah says He didn't create it tohuw.

The ONLY avoidance of contradiction is to accept the legitimate translation of v.2 thusly: but, the earth BECAME tohuw.

Obviously, we read that scripture differently. Oh well.

 

[gr8grace3]

Another tid bit.

Matt 25:41~~Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

This had to happen BEFORE the fall of Man. Other wise, Man would have been included in the above verse.

Another contradiction on the YEC argument. If everything "was Good" if It was a literal six day creation account. This is obviously not good.

 

[Brother Mike]

(Isa 45:18 LITV) "For so says Jehovah, Creator of the heavens; He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand, not creating it empty, but forming it to be inhabited. 'I am Jehovah, and there is none else.' "

The LORD did not create the earth to leave it empty, but after creating it He then formed it to be inhabitable.

That is straightforward and uncomplicated; no hidden time gap, no angels trashing the earth, no ice barriers to keep the angels out, no hovering over the water to melt the ice afterwards, nothing that insinuates the reason God created man is to prove something to angels.

It take a whole lot of different translations and changing wording to make it complicated.

 

[FreeGrace]

(Isa 45:18 LITV) "For so says Jehovah, Creator of the heavens; He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand, not creating it empty, but forming it to be inhabited. 'I am Jehovah, and there is none else.' "

The LORD did not create the earth to leave it empty, but after creating it He then formed it to be inhabitable.

Even if you want to translate tohuw as "empty", Isaiah wrote that God didn't create it empty. But Moses wrote that He did, if you leave out a time gap.

There is nothing in Isa about "not leaving it empty". That's just eisegesis. Isaiah wrote this: per LITV: "not creating it empty". Yet, Moses the opposite; that God created it empty, if there is no time gap.

The only way to avoid contradiction is to accept v.2 as: but, the earth BECAME empty. Problem solved.

That is straightforward and uncomplicated; no hidden time gap, no angels trashing the earth, no ice barriers to keep the angels out, no hovering over the water to melt the ice afterwards, nothing that insinuates the reason God created man is to prove something to angels.

Nothing is hidden. I've shown that the exact form of the word "hayah" in Gen 1:2 was translated BECAME in 4 other places. And if you stay with "was", as in original creation, then you have also created a contradiction.