GAP…theory…or…fact?

[FreeGrace]

You site "was" in Gen 1:2 should be translated "became" and give 4 examples of why it should be.

Why not change your 4 other examples from "became" to agree with "was" in Gen 1:2?

Did you look at those other verses I gave? And, if Moses meant "was" as in condition at original creation (v.1), then there is a huge contradiction with Isaiah, who stated that the earth was not created tohuw.

Either one of them was wrong or there is a time gap.

I'd rather accept that the earth became something else than to have a contradiction in Scripture. But I guess some people's comfort level is different than mine.

 

[FreeGrace]

. . . to you, as you ignore the full phrase including "but forming it to be inhabited."

Absolutely not! I've ignored nothing here. That phrase indicates all that God did from v.2b on. You continue to ignore the contradiction your view creates if hayah means "was".

He created the earth empty of men, but on the 3rd day brought the land forth, afterwards making and creating man on the 6th day to inhabit the land.

But Isaiah wrote that God did not create the earth empty of men. So which is it? It does not matter how one translates "tohuw". If v.2 of Gen 1 describes the condition of the earth at original creation, it WAS empty. But Isaiah wrote that He did NOT create the earth empty.

Isa 45:18-19 is set in contrast to Gen 1:1-2:
- Gen 1:1-2 and empty earth [its created state] and subsequent inhabiting [in the Garden of Eden]
with
- Isa 45:18-19 an inhabited 'Promised Land' [its created state] and subsequent emptying of it into captivity [in Babylon & Medo-Persia]

Nice try. No cigar.

Why is it set in contrast? The Lord:
is the Creator of heaven an earth, the creator of man and the nations who appoints their rise and fall.
raised up Babylon and Persia to take Israel captive, He will redeem Israel returning them to inhabit the Promised Land.
reveals the Messianic Age within Isaiah, largely ch's 40-66, and specifically ch's 42, 49, 52-53, 59, 63.
reveals also that it is His will that the nations and peoples, all inhabitants of the earth, know Him through His Messiah.

- - -

All very nice and good. And totally ignores the huge contradiction between Moses and Isaiah if there is no time gap and v.2 describes the condition of the earth AT original creation; empty. Isaiah wrote that God did not create the earth empty.

That is called a contradiction.

 

[Sinthesis]

Correct. Let's just stick with the fact that both Moses and Isaiah used the same word in reference to the creation account.

Isaiah wrote that God did not create the earth tohuw. If the word "was" really means that, then there is a contradiction. But, since the word "hayah" has been translated as "became" in 4 other verses, that avoids the contradiction.

Very simple. For those who are concerned about contradictions in Scripture. I don't tolerate them.

The fact is this supposed contradiction only arises when the verses are taken out of context. It has been demonstrated that within the context of Gen 1 and Isa 45 the words of the verses are qualified so that there is no contradiction in meaning. Understanding the full meaning of the verses in their context resolves the assumed contradiction and removes the excuse to reinterpret words to support a preconceived belief in a gap. For this reason some will simply not accept the solution in favor of their own private interpretation.

 

[gr8grace3]

The statement you are referring to is called narrative interjection, "And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." Time, or a gap in time, is not the reason why this type of statement is made.

There are 1,000's of chrono-logical gaps in Scripture, and scores of narrative interjections - none of which ask the reader to assume events before creation.

I believe you are 100% correct that it is a narrative interjection. But in the interjection it reveals a GAP none the less.

And 1 of those thousands is Genesis 1:1 into vs 2.

The writer structures the events in a clear way for the reader, so the reader can see the different stages of the events. Then the reader can organize the events into meaningful segments. And It may reveal a GAP between events,like you said though, it may not be to reveal the GAP itself. But it can reveal a GAP.

Genesis 1:1~~In the beginning God created(positive) the heavens and the earth.......An event, a positive one. 1 John 1:5


The narrative interjection: We go from a positive event right into at least 3 negative events,possibly 4 with the "deep"

Genesis 1:2~~The earth was formless(negative) and void(negative,Jer 4:23-26), and darkness(negative,Exodus 10:21) was over the surface of the deep(negative? Abyss,), and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.....Events, at least 3 of the events are negative,coming right off of a positive narrative.

It went from positive to negative and we have events that clearly show us this. This reveals a GAP to us. Something happened in the events to make it go from positive to negative. Something happened between vs 1 and 2.

 

[FreeGrace]

The fact is this supposed contradiction only arises when the verses are taken out of context.

Wrong.

It has been demonstrated that within the context of Gen 1 and Isa 45 the words of the verses are qualified so that there is no contradiction in meaning.

Wrong again. There is no "qualification" on the words. There are direct statements of the condition of the earth.

Understanding the full meaning of the verses in their context resolves the assumed contradiction and removes the excuse to reinterpret words to support a preconceived belief in a gap. For this reason some will simply not accept the solution in favor of their own private interpretation.

There is no private interpretation. If hayah means "was" in Gen 1:2, which then describes the condition of the earth at original creation, then Gen 1:2 contradicts Isa 45:18. That is a simple and plain fact.

Opinions do not change the facts.

Either God created the earth tohuw, or He didn't. If He didn't create the earth tohuw, as Isaiah very plainly said, then Gen 1:2 must read, "but, the earth became tohuw". Period.

 

[Gregg]

I believe you are 100% correct that it is a narrative interjection. But in the interjection it reveals a GAP none the less.

And 1 of those thousands is Genesis 1:1 into vs 2.

The writer structures the events in a clear way for the reader, so the reader can see the different stages of the events. Then the reader can organize the events into meaningful segments. And It may reveal a GAP between events,like you said though, it may not be to reveal the GAP itself. But it can reveal a GAP.

Genesis 1:1~~In the beginning God created(positive) the heavens and the earth.......An event, a positive one. 1 John 1:5


The narrative interjection: We go from a positive event right into at least 3 negative events,possibly 4 with the "deep"

Genesis 1:2~~The earth was formless(negative) and void(negative,Jer 4:23-26), and darkness(negative,Exodus 10:21) was over the surface of the deep(negative? Abyss,), and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.....Events, at least 3 of the events are negative,coming right off of a positive narrative.

It went from positive to negative and we have events that clearly show us this. This reveals a GAP to us. Something happened in the events to make it go from positive to negative. Something happened between vs 1 and 2.

Isa 45:18 - the earth was not created empty, but had water over it.

 

[Butch5]

You've changed the issue. It was about lexicons, not teachings. Lexicons are definitions of words from the Hebrew and Greek. It's the Calvinists and Arminians who teach.

No, the point is that the "experts and scholars" disagree many times.

Never said that it did. But how else are you going to understand what a Hebrew or Greek word means, if you haven't studied the language enough to be fluent in it?

I didn't say we just disregard them, however, they are not the final word. The way a word is used in Scripture is the best way to determine what it means.

This is all irrelevant, but go ahead and humor me, why is it that these words "cannot" mean what the lexicon says they mean? What do you know that the translators apparently didn't?

How is it irrelevant? You're saying we have to go to lexicons to know what words mean and I showed two words for which the lexicons give the wrong definition. They can't mean eternal because they are used of events that came to an end. The word Olam is used quite a bit if things that pertain to the Law of Moses, they are translated as lasting forever, however, Jesus and Paul both said that the Law came to an end. In the Septuagint the "aion" is used in place of Olam.

What makes the LXX right? The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew. How is that so different and superior to the translations into other languages than Hebrew? Do you see the inconsistency of your view here?

The fact that Jesus and the apostles quoted from it for one. Many of the NT quotes of the OT don't match in the Masoretic text yet they do match the Septuagint. This shows that it was the Septuagint is what they used. If Jesus or Paul quote a passage from the OT in the NT I'm assuming their quote is correct, since many times it doesn't match the Masoretic text but does match the Septuagint, I have to conclude that the Septuagint is correct and the Masorectic text is incorrect.

The Septuagint was copied from a Hebrew text that existed before the Masoretic text that exists today.

I guess there's no point in further debate. You have your opinion, and I have what the Word says. Day 1 was the creation of light, which God called good.

The creation days of Gen 1 always begins with "and God said…".

Yes, they do. As I said, verse three begins the explanation of verse one.

 

[Gregg]

Did you look at those other verses I gave? And, if Moses meant "was" as in condition at original creation (v.1), then there is a huge contradiction with Isaiah, who stated that the earth was not created tohuw.

Either one of them was wrong or there is a time gap.

We agree that Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 do not contradict one another.

- - -

No Valid Gap Theory

- every verb and action in Gen chapter 1 is a primary and direct result of our sovereign Creator. To interject an action by a third party between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 [such as Satan trashing the earth] runs counter to the whole of the creation account; it interjects an element that does not belong in the narrative.

- hayah is first translated as "became" in Gen 2:7, "man became a living soul." The spelling of hayah in Gen 2:7 is [יהי] and is different than in Isa 45:18 [היתה].

1. This means that hayah is spelled at least 2 different ways where different contexts call for the same translation, "became."
2. The reverse holds true for hayah as spelled identically in Gen 1:2 [היתה] and Isa 45:18 [היתה] in that context calls for differing translations, either "was" or "became."

- of the 110 times hayah appears in this form [היתה] the KJV translates "was" 54-55 times and "became" 5-7 times; therefore the argument over translating "was" vs "became" in Gen 1:2 is unsubstantiated and invalid.​

- Gen 1:2 begins with "and" directly connecting it to Gen 1:1; in essence stating 'In the beginning God created . . . the earth . . . being without form and empty' (LITV).

- not recognizing the qualifying phrase "but forming it to be inhabited" in Isa 45:18.

- ignoring context of Isa. ch 45: The LORD is telling Cyrus that He is the Creator of men and nations, appointing their rise and fall. As God spread out the heavens, so He spreads men out upon the face of the earth, because His will was for man to fill the earth and subdue it. The LORD raised up Persia under Cyrus to hold Israel captive away from the Promised Land. As a result, Israel was a waste place, an uninhabited land different from what God created Israel for. The land of Israel was empty of an active priesthood, no king ruling from Jerusalem, no children playing in the streets, or businessmen at the city gates, etc. But the LORD did not create Israel to be empty, and He was preparing to bring Israel back into the Promised Land after. Persia's destruction was to follow soon after.

- regarding Gen 1:2 you see that hayah "was" should be trans. 'became' in that you selected 4 other verse translating hayah as 'became', when in reality hayah is used about 3500 times +-, of which about 110 instances are written in the form just as in Gen 1:2. Why you single out only 5, who knows?

- An interpreter can not rely fully on the Masoretic vowel pointing to determine verb tense because that system was completed long after the OT canon was complete. The Masorites admit using a form of the Hebrew Scripture that was damaged and incomplete, and is since confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Scrolls that were older and differing from the Masorite copies. Whether or not Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 are effected, I am not sure. Either way, vowel pointing is the equivalent of an interpretation and not the raw Hebrew text. The vowel pointing system is not recognized as Canon inspired by the Holy Spirit. This makes the five examples of hayah that you chose among 110-111 to be an unreliable point in your argument.

- Isa 45:18 does not mention both tohu and bohu, but only "without form" [tohu]. This indicates that the subject matter at hand differs between Isa 45:18 and Gen 1:2. It is an incomplete picture of Gen 1:2, not portraying the creation event(s) in a similar fashion as Gen 1:2, and therefore should not be used to shed light upon the meaning of Gen 1:2.

- Gen 1:2 also describes the earth as having two surfaces:

1. "the face of the deep" [the ocean floor - the earth itself, then covered in water] upon which was darkness.
2. "the face of the waters" [the ocean surface - the water itself] upon which the Holy Spirit brooded/hovered.​

and yet Isa 45:18 only addresses one of those two surfaces: the surface of the land. This also indicates that the subject matter at hand differs between Isa 45:18 and Gen 1:2. Likewise, it is an incomplete picture of Gen 1:2, not being a full portrayal of the creation event(s) in Gen 1:2, and should not be used to interpret the meaning of Gen 1:2.​

- In all reality, as Gen chapter 1 is a fuller version of creation, it should be used to understand and interpret Isa 45:18; not the other way around as is in the OP of this thread.

- Isaiah portrays the surface of dry land appearing in this way in Isa 45:18 [to the exclusion of the water and its surface as in Gen 1:2], Isaiah said "He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand."

1. He created the earth (Isa 45:12)
2. He formed it [yatsar]: to squeeze into shape, mold into a form. Isa 45:18
3. He makes it [asah]: to make, accomplish, complete. Isa 45:18
4. He makes it stand [kun]: to set upright, establish in an upright position. Isa 45:18

And then Isaiah adds a statement relative only to the preceding description of dry land - Isaiah says that the LORD did not create the surface of the earth to remain [supplied by context] a waste place "but forming it to be inhabited." As the land of Israel is now vacated, empty, uninhabited - so will be Cyrus' Persia because of his harsh treatment of Israel while they were under his supervision in captivity.
​

- the Gap Theory is just that, an extra-biblical theory with no direct or indirect Biblical reference.

- ice covering the earth between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 is also extra-biblical, no where described or insinuated.

- angels and their behavior did not influence God's reason for creating man; rather because of His love for His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[FreeGrace]

Isa 45:18 - the earth was not created empty, but had water over it.

Of course. Isaish said that the earth was not created tohuw. But the YEC view believes that Moses wrote that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and earth, and the earth was (at that time) tohuw".

If hayah means "was", then it is describing the earth at original creation. Which contradicts Isaiah. Plainly.

 

[FreeGrace]

No, the point is that the "experts and scholars" disagree many times.

Of course they do. Which is why this discussion isn't about what the word tohuw means. Moses and Isaiah used it in reference to the creation story. And if there is no time gap, there is a contradiction between what they wrote.

I didn't say we just disregard them, however, they are not the final word. The way a word is used in Scripture is the best way to determine what it means.

One must understand the semantic range of the meaning of the word before it can determined the exact meaning in context.

How is it irrelevant? You're saying we have to go to lexicons to know what words mean and I showed two words for which the lexicons give the wrong definition.

Which lexicons give the "wrong definition"? What is your source for this supposed information?

They can't mean eternal because they are used of events that came to an end. The word Olam is used quite a bit if things that pertain to the Law of Moses, they are translated as lasting forever, however, Jesus and Paul both said that the Law came to an end. In the Septuagint the "aion" is used in place of Olam.

Have you burned your lexicons yet.

The fact that Jesus and the apostles quoted from it for one. Many of the NT quotes of the OT don't match in the Masoretic text yet they do match the Septuagint. This shows that it was the Septuagint is what they used. If Jesus or Paul quote a passage from the OT in the NT I'm assuming their quote is correct, since many times it doesn't match the Masoretic text but does match the Septuagint, I have to conclude that the Septuagint is correct and the Masorectic text is incorrect.

There are many texts, not just the Masoretic one.

Yes, they do. As I said, verse three begins the explanation of verse one.

If one notices, each day of creation begins with "and God said…". Day 1 was the creation of light. v.3 There is no grammatical evidence of your opinion.

v.1 is a statement of original creation, timing unknown.
v.2 is a statement about a change in planet earth, and its restoration.
v.3 begins the creation week.

 

[FreeGrace]

We agree that Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 do not contradict one another.

No, we don't agree. You believe there is no time gap, which makes v.2 be a description of the earth at original creation, being tohuw. Isaish said that God did not create the earth tohuw. That is a contradiction.

No Valid Gap Theory

- every verb and action in Gen chapter 1 is a primary and direct result of our sovereign Creator. To interject an action by a third party between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 [such as Satan trashing the earth] runs counter to the whole of the creation account; it interjects an element that does not belong in the narrative.

- hayah is first translated as "became" in Gen 2:7, "man became a living soul." The spelling of hayah in Gen 2:7 is [יהי] and is different than in Isa 45:18 [היתה].

1. This means that hayah is spelled at least 2 different ways where different contexts call for the same translation, "became."
2. The reverse holds true for hayah as spelled identically in Gen 1:2 [היתה] and Isa 45:18 [היתה] in that context calls for differing translations, either "was" or "became."

- of the 110 times hayah appears in this form [היתה] the KJV translates "was" 54-55 times and "became" 5-7 times; therefore the argument over translating "was" vs "became" in Gen 1:2 is unsubstantiated and invalid.​

- Gen 1:2 begins with "and" directly connecting it to Gen 1:1; in essence stating 'In the beginning God created . . . the earth . . . being without form and empty' (LITV).

- not recognizing the qualifying phrase "but forming it to be inhabited" in Isa 45:18.

- ignoring context of Isa. ch 45: The LORD is telling Cyrus that He is the Creator of men and nations, appointing their rise and fall. As God spread out the heavens, so He spreads men out upon the face of the earth, because His will was for man to fill the earth and subdue it. The LORD raised up Persia under Cyrus to hold Israel captive away from the Promised Land. As a result, Israel was a waste place, an uninhabited land different from what God created Israel for. The land of Israel was empty of an active priesthood, no king ruling from Jerusalem, no children playing in the streets, or businessmen at the city gates, etc. But the LORD did not create Israel to be empty, and He was preparing to bring Israel back into the Promised Land after. Persia's destruction was to follow soon after.

- regarding Gen 1:2 you see that hayah "was" should be trans. 'became' in that you selected 4 other verse translating hayah as 'became', when in reality hayah is used about 3500 times +-, of which about 110 instances are written in the form just as in Gen 1:2. Why you single out only 5, who knows?

- An interpreter can not rely fully on the Masoretic vowel pointing to determine verb tense because that system was completed long after the OT canon was complete. The Masorites admit using a form of the Hebrew Scripture that was damaged and incomplete, and is since confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Scrolls that were older and differing from the Masorite copies. Whether or not Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 are effected, I am not sure. Either way, vowel pointing is the equivalent of an interpretation and not the raw Hebrew text. The vowel pointing system is not recognized as Canon inspired by the Holy Spirit. This makes the five examples of hayah that you chose among 110-111 to be an unreliable point in your argument.

- Isa 45:18 does not mention both tohu and bohu, but only "without form" [tohu]. This indicates that the subject matter at hand differs between Isa 45:18 and Gen 1:2. It is an incomplete picture of Gen 1:2, not portraying the creation event(s) in a similar fashion as Gen 1:2, and therefore should not be used to shed light upon the meaning of Gen 1:2.

- Gen 1:2 also describes the earth as having two surfaces:

1. "the face of the deep" [the ocean floor - the earth itself, then covered in water] upon which was darkness.
2. "the face of the waters" [the ocean surface - the water itself] upon which the Holy Spirit brooded/hovered.​

and yet Isa 45:18 only addresses one of those two surfaces: the surface of the land. This also indicates that the subject matter at hand differs between Isa 45:18 and Gen 1:2. Likewise, it is an incomplete picture of Gen 1:2, not being a full portrayal of the creation event(s) in Gen 1:2, and should not be used to interpret the meaning of Gen 1:2.​

- In all reality, as Gen chapter 1 is a fuller version of creation, it should be used to understand and interpret Isa 45:18; not the other way around as is in the OP of this thread.

- Isaiah portrays the surface of dry land appearing in this way in Isa 45:18 [to the exclusion of the water and its surface as in Gen 1:2], Isaiah said "He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand."

1. He created the earth (Isa 45:12)
2. He formed it [yatsar]: to squeeze into shape, mold into a form. Isa 45:18
3. He makes it [asah]: to make, accomplish, complete. Isa 45:18
4. He makes it stand [kun]: to set upright, establish in an upright position. Isa 45:18

And then Isaiah adds a statement relative only to the preceding description of dry land - Isaiah says that the LORD did not create the surface of the earth to remain [supplied by context] a waste place "but forming it to be inhabited." As the land of Israel is now vacated, empty, uninhabited - so will be Cyrus' Persia because of his harsh treatment of Israel while they were under his supervision in captivity.
​

- the Gap Theory is just that, an extra-biblical theory with no direct or indirect Biblical reference.

- ice covering the earth between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 is also extra-biblical, no where described or insinuated.

- angels and their behavior did not influence God's reason for creating man; rather because of His love for His Son Jesus Christ.

Nice cut and paste. What cite should get credit for this?

The YEC view creates a contradiction by its insistence that hayah means "was", and NOT "became", yet I've shown that that exact form of the word DOES occur 4 more times in the OT as "became", so there is no reason to reject that.

Plus, the ONLY way to avoid a contradiction is to understand hayah as "became" in v.2. There is no other way.

What seems very clear here is that there are those who have eyes that don't want to see.

Yet, no one has presented any rational reason to reject a time gap. In fact, it is irrational to defend the contradiction (or simply ignore or deny it).

If v.2 is a description of original creation from v.1, then THAT is a contradiction of Isa 45:18. Period.

What theology is threatened by a time gap? What doctrines fall apart?

I've had discussions with people from very liberal mainline denominations, and one of the first things they will attack when they realize that I'm an evangelical is the young earth idea. So when I show them that the earth isn't young at all, it really shuts them up. They have nothing left to attack, and I've demonstrated that science and the Bible aren't polar opposites, as most secularists and liberal mainline protestants think.

Science continues to prove the Scriptures correct as archeologists, etc continue to make discoveries.

Keep in mind that the old age of the earth was determined WAY before Darwin even came on the scene. In fact, before he was born. So science didn't have his idiotic theory in mind at all when they determined the age of the earth.

And no one yet has explained why God would create the earth 6,000 years ago with an "apparent" old age to it. Who was God trying to trick here? What was His point?

 

[Gregg]

Nice cut and paste. What cite should get credit for this?

You are referring to my post #388.

No cut and paste. No plagiarism. They are my thoughts and words.

Interesting comment! Why would you assume they were cut and pasted? I would like an answer to this.

Plus, the ONLY way to avoid a contradiction is to understand hayah as "became" in v.2. There is no other way. What seems very clear here is that there are those who have eyes that don't want to see.

Be careful to make such claims as 'the ONLY way', 'no other way', and 'who have eyes that don't see.'

(John 9:39 LITV) "And Jesus said, 'I came into this world for judgment, that the ones who do not see may see, and they who see may become blind.' "

And no one yet has explained why God would create the earth 6,000 years ago with an "apparent" old age to it. Who was God trying to trick here? What was His point?

(Pro 25:2 LITV) "The glory of God is to conceal a thing, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter."

(Isa 45:9) "Woe to him who fights with the One who formed him! A potsherd among the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to its former, 'What are you making?' Or does your work say, 'He has no hands?' "

 

[FreeGrace]

You are referring to my post #388.

No cut and paste. No plagiarism. They are my thoughts and words.

Interesting comment! Why would you assume they were cut and pasted? I would like an answer to this.

The length, plus it ignores my points. Since it came from you, why did you ignore my points?

Be careful to make such claims as 'the ONLY way', 'no other way', and 'who have eyes that don't see.'

There is no other way to understand Gen 1:2, unless one is comfortable with contradictions in Scripture.

(John 9:39 LITV) "And Jesus said, 'I came into this world for judgment, that the ones who do not see may see, and they who see may become blind.' "

And your point is?

(Pro 25:2 LITV) "The glory of God is to conceal a thing, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter."

And your point is?

(Isa 45:9) "Woe to him who fights with the One who formed him! A potsherd among the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to its former, 'What are you making?' Or does your work say, 'He has no hands?' "

And your point is?

Now, seems you are comfortable with the contradiction between Moses and Isaiah. Why? The YEC view creates the contradiction, yet no one seems to notice.

Why is there so much push back on an old earth? Who or what does it threaten?

 

[Gregg]

- ignoring context of Isa. ch 45: The LORD is telling Cyrus that He is the Creator of men and nations, appointing their rise and fall. As God spread out the heavens, so He spreads men out upon the face of the earth, because His will was for man to fill the earth and subdue it. [1] The LORD raised up Persia under Cyrus to hold Israel captive away from the Promised Land. As a result, Israel was a waste place, an uninhabited land different from what God created Israel for. The land of Israel was empty of an active priesthood, no king ruling from Jerusalem, no children playing in the streets, or businessmen at the city gates, etc. But the LORD did not create Israel to be empty, and He was preparing to bring Israel back into the Promised Land after. [2] Persia's destruction was to follow soon after.

It was graciously brought to my attention a couple of necessary corrections [ref: bolded above].

[1] Cyrus of Persia held Israel captive by default when he conquered the Babylonian empire. He began releasing portions of Israel about a year afterwards. The Lord raised up Cyrus to begin setting Israel free (Isa 44:28), as opposed to continuing their captivity.

[2] Persia's destruction did not follow soon after, but continued for more than 200 hundred years.

 

[Gregg]

Since it came from you, why did you ignore my points?

They have not been ignored, but have been refuted many times from many directions; post #388 being the most recent.

I simply do not recognize your points as being valid or having been substantiated, beginning with the OP.

 

[FreeGrace]

They have not been ignored, but have been refuted many times from many directions; post #388 being the most recent.

I think you've confused "refuted" with "rejected".

I simply do not recognize your points as being valid or having been substantiated, beginning with the OP.

Fine. As I do yours. But you've not refuted my points at all. Disagreement is not a refutation.

The YEC view creates a contradiction, whether the YEC see it or not.

Why is a young earth so important to you? I've shown that Gen 1:2 can easily be translated "but the earth became…", so what's up? Which resolves the contradiction.

Seems there's something that the YECers just aren't wanting to admit, or something.

 

[Gregg]

I've shown that Gen 1:2 can easily be translated "but the earth became…", so what's up?

Because something can easily be translated a certain way, does that make it the correct translation? No, it does not.

Because someone says 'It can easily be translated . . .', does that prove that it is actually easy to do so? No, it does not.

Because you [persistently continue to] say 'The YEC view creates a contradiction', does that mean a contradiction exists? No, it does not.

- - -

A young or old earth is not important to me. A Scriptural understanding of creation is important to me.

Seems there's something that the YECers just aren't wanting to admit, or something.

Are you offended that someone disagrees with you? Or with their audacity to disagree with you?



.

 

[FreeGrace]

Because something can easily be translated a certain way, does that make it the correct translation? No, it does not.

I guess you are comfortable with the contradiction your view creates, then. Oh, well.

Because someone says 'It can easily be translated . . .', does that prove that it is actually easy to do so? No, it does not.

OK, live with your contradiction. I sure won't.

Because you [persistently continue to] say 'The YEC view creates a contradiction', does that mean a contradiction exists? No, it does not.

I've proven it. I recall the phrase, "eyes that do not see". Isa 44:18 NASB

A young or old earth is not important to me. A Scriptural understanding of creation is important to me.

Then there should be no problem accepting an old earth.

Are you offended that someone disagrees with you? Or with their audacity to disagree with you?.

Not at all. I care not what anyone thinks of my view. I've proven the word for "was" in Gen 1:2 HAS BEEN translated as "became" in 4 other verses. That is FACT.

And if there is no time gap, then Gen 1:2 simply describes the condition of the earth at original creation, which "was tohuw". So, Gen 1:1,2 says (per YEC) that "God created the heavens and earth, and the earth WAS tohuw".

Yet, Isaiah wrote that God did NOT create the earth "tohuw".

I am amazed that one who claims to have no agenda here simply doesn't see that FACT.

 

[Deborah13]

Not at all. I care not what anyone thinks of my view. I've proven the word for "was" in Gen 1:2 HAS BEEN translated as "became" in 4 other verses. That is FACT.

So what, there are other verses where that word is NOT translated as 'became' and that is a FACT.

 

[Gregg]

I guess you are comfortable with the contradiction your view creates, then. Oh, well.


OK, live with your contradiction. I sure won't.


I've proven it. I recall the phrase, "eyes that do not see". Isa 44:18 NASB


Then there should be no problem accepting an old earth.


Not at all. I care not what anyone thinks of my view. I've proven the word for "was" in Gen 1:2 HAS BEEN translated as "became" in 4 other verses. That is FACT.

And if there is no time gap, then Gen 1:2 simply describes the condition of the earth at original creation, which "was tohuw". So, Gen 1:1,2 says (per YEC) that "God created the heavens and earth, and the earth WAS tohuw".

Yet, Isaiah wrote that God did NOT create the earth "tohuw".

I am amazed that one who claims to have no agenda here simply doesn't see that FACT.

Okay . . .