Mature Universe Theory

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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.

This fails as an example.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 Aloha means hello and goodbye.  These are called contronyms. 

So now, your challenge is to prove that "tohu wabohu" is a contronym.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 They include bolt, bound, cleave, buckle, clip, custom, dust, fast, finished…..

So what?  If you can't prove that "tohu wabohu" is a contronym, you still fail.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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

I don't deal with "what if...".  I deal with "what IS".

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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

And why would that be?  Or is this just another very snarky comment?

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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

So you were there, huh?  Your words "as does all over matter" gave you away.

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

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

He didn't say that, as I've pointed out over and over.  When God creates, He does so out of nothing.  ex nihilo.  He speaks whole things into existence.  Psa 33:6,9

Creation out of nothing, which is Gen 1:1 is 'bara'.

The verse you keep abusing, Ex 20:11, doesn't say 'bara'.  It says 'asah', which means to make, not create by speaking it into existence.

Those who have ears, will hear.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Mozart's Starling said:

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.

Laughing is good for the soul, some say.  Sol laugh away.

Maybe you can explain WHY Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 when He was warning about and describing the total destruction of the land in Jer 4.  He used the SAME WORDS Moses did in Gen 1:2, "tohu wabohu".  And he wasn't describing a "formless earth".

Gen 1:1 is a description of God's original creation of earth, and BOTH Jeremiah and Isaiah used those same 2 words found in v.2 in warning about and describing the coming total destruction of the land.

I'll get the popcorn.

[RV_Wizard]

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Aloha means hello and goodbye.  These are called contronyms.  They include bolt, bound, cleave, buckle, clip, custom, dust, fast, finished…..

So now, your challenge is to prove that "tohu wabohu" is a contronym.

CHEATER!!!!  You said, "Here is the catch:  Words do not have polar opposite meanings.  Or please provide an example."  I not only provided the example, I showed that these words have their own category.  Now you move the goal posts.  Admit it.  I was right, you were wrong.  As usual.

 

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

He didn't say that, as I've pointed out over and over.

Let's see.  Exodus 20:11 "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."

We can all see that once again, I am right and you are wrong.  It's not a matter of translation.  You flat reject God's word as written.  You prefer your 20th century heresy.  There was no restoration.  There was no gap.  God created everything in six days, period.  That is quite simply God's word.

[Tristen]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

20 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.

K.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

So now, your challenge is to prove that "tohu wabohu" is a contronym.

CHEATER!!!!  You said, "Here is the catch:  Words do not have polar opposite meanings.  Or please provide an example."  I not only provided the example, I showed that these words have their own category.  Now you move the goal posts.  Admit it.  I was right, you were wrong.  As usual.

And you don't even understand the word "cheater".  When I challenged you that "tohu wabohu" cannot mean 2 opposite things, like a total destruction in one text and God's original creation in another, which is the ONLY WAY you can get around the FACT that Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 when he was warning about and describing the total destruction of the land in Jeremiah 4.

So you come up with totally irrelevant words.  As if I was claiming that no words have opposite meanings.  Why would I care about those other words?  The challenge was to prove YOUR theory that "tohu wabohu" DOES describe BOTH God's original creation in Gen 1:2 AND in Jeremiah 4, which is about total destruction.

So I had to make it so very clear that you couldn't miss the challenge.

Until you can prove that "tohu wabohu" CAN describe God's original creation and also describe the total destruction of the land, your views STILL lose.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said:

He didn't say that, as I've pointed out over and over.

Let's see.

Why would you actually bother, since you have been keeping your eyes tightly shut the whole time we've been in discussion??  And why do you only quote a tiny bit of what I post?  I fully explained AGAIN that the verse has "asah" rather than "bara", which is the creation of Genesis 1?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Exodus 20:11 "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."

We can all see that once again, I am right and you are wrong.

Just look at the big red word in the verse.  That word in Hebrew is "asah".  The word for 'create' in Gen 1:1 is "bara".  The difference is that "bara" is creation out of nothing, which is "ex nihilo".  Not so with "asah".

This has been explained to you so many times you have no excuse for your continued refusal to open your eyes to the FACTS.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It's not a matter of translation.  You flat reject God's word as written. 

You need to open your eyes.  And see the FACTS.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You prefer your 20th century heresy.  There was no restoration.  There was no gap.  God created everything in six days, period.  That is quite simply God's word.

What's the heresy?  You're the one stuck on English translations and rejecting the Hebrew words.  In FACT, your whole theory is based on English translations, regardless of in what century.  That's just blowing smoke.

But since your blurry "focus" is on a particular century, let's examine what was written about 300 BC.  Is that far enough back from the 20th century for you?

The Septuagint was written around 300 BC and is a Greek translation from the Hebrew OT.  

Brenton Septuagint Version

But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

That is how the Greeks translated "tohu"; unsightly.  That certainly is what a totally destroyed land would look like.

But, God's original creation?  Are you serious?

So you can quit ranting about the 20th century.  Even back in 300 BC, the scholars who spoke both the Greek and Hebrew DID understand what Moses wrote and what he meant.  

But I'm not that interested in your refusal of the FACTS.  From Romans 1:

20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21-23  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

This is God's response to such people:

24 - Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

26a - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

So, because of your refusal to see the FACTS, I am giving you over to your own theories, none of which you can prove.

I reply to your posts in the event that there are the "silent readers" who don't post but are looking for answers.

God gives people over to their own devices when their negative volition reaches a point of "no return".  You may be getting rather close to that.

[RV_Wizard]

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

So you come up with totally irrelevant words.  As if I was claiming that no words have opposite meanings.

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

Why would I claim you said that when you actually posted that?  Seriously, you don't need anyone else.  You can defeat yourself 

53 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2

That was explained to you and sourced by a researched explanation of why Jeremiah quoted Genesis.  When you understand how quotes and references work, then you can study contronyms.  

56 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Until you can prove that "tohu wabohu" CAN describe God's original creation and also describe the total destruction of the land,

You are the only person I  know of who has a problem with this.  You build a complete heresy and rejection of the creation based on two words you don't understand mistranslated from a corrupted text out of Egypt that no serious authority uses.

41 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

why do you only quote a tiny bit of what I post?

It's called responding to points.  It avoids re-posting large blocks of text that people have just read.  You don't need to post the entire Tale of Two Cities to reference  "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair."

44 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 I fully explained AGAIN that the verse has "asah" rather than "bara"

Again, you argue a language you don't understand based on translations that authorities don't trust.  God spoke the world into existence and then FORMED all things from the elements He created.  So He both created and formed the world over six days.  He explained all that in His number one bestselling book.  You should read it.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2

That was explained to you and sourced by a researched explanation of why Jeremiah quoted Genesis.  When you understand how quotes and references work, then you can study contronyms. 

Said the confused one.  Your challenge is to prove that "tohu wabohu" is a contronym.  Which you KNOW you can't do.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

Until you can prove that "tohu wabohu" CAN describe God's original creation and also describe the total destruction of the land,

You are the only person I  know of who has a problem with this.

The problem lies directly in your lap.  You brought up contronyms, so prove that the words "tohu wabohu" can in 1 verse (Gen 1:2) God's creative activity while in the ONLY OTHER 2 verses (Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11) can describe total destruction of the land.  Maybe you will come to your senses and realize that you can't do that.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

 You build a complete heresy and rejection of the creation based on two words you don't understand mistranslated from a corrupted text out of Egypt that no serious authority uses.

There is no heresy.  There is only the meaning of "tohu wabohu", which is quite evident in Jer 43 and Isa 34, which you have rejected.  You brought up contronyms, but you can't prove that the words are one.

And since you bring up "mistranslations", that really takes the cake.  You only accept the majority of English translations of Gen 1:2 which obviously isn't even a real thing.

The earth was NEVER "formless".  When God spoke the earth into existence, it was a solid sphere.  In FACT, no object in this universe can be "formless".  Or prove otherwise, which you KNOW you cannot.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

It's called responding to points.  It avoids re-posting large blocks of text that people have just read.  You don't need to post the entire Tale of Two Cities to reference  "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair."

Seems you really love irrelevancy.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Again, you argue a language you don't understand based on translations that authorities don't trust.

I know you don't trust what Jeremiah or even Isaiah wrote, since they used "tohu wabohu" to describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land; the SAME TWO WORDS Moses used in Gen 1:2.

So you seem to believe that "tohu wabohu" can be used in polar opposite states of being, but you just can't prove it.  Sure.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

 God spoke the world into existence and then FORMED all things from the elements He created.

He didn't need to form "elements" AFTER He spoke the earth into existence.  You've got it all backward.  When He spoke the earth into existence, the earth was complete with all its elements.  We know that from Gen 2:7, when God formed Adam from the "dust of the ground".  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

So He both created and formed the world over six days.  He explained all that in His number one bestselling book.  You should read it.

"tohu wabohu" refutes your theory soundly.  The earth became tohu wabohu.  The Bible teaches that man is able to believe or refuse to believe.

So you are accountable for your own choices.  

Because the earth became tohu wabohu, God had to restore it for man's use.  It had become uninhabitable (wabohu).

And Heb 11:3 makes REFERENCE to the restoration by the word "katartizo".  Look it up for yourself.  That word is used for disciples "MENDING their nets", and RESTORING others.  Gal 6:1, 1 Peter 5:10.

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

FreeGrace said:

  On 10/23/2024 at 8:28 AM,  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.

K.

Because he kept saying it was a waste of time on this discussion, I let him know he didn't need to.

But, in that same post, I also gave him many challenges:

"Can you prove that my FACTS are irrelevant?

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

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

Please explain yourself.    (my “flawed application of logic)

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

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

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.

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

Are you aware that Hebrew scholars disagree among themselves?

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?

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

So, this is the usual response to my specific challenges to those who criticize my comments, or claim I'm wrong.  They bow out.  

So, I'm not surprised.  Just disappointed that I didn't get the courtesy of knowing the details of all that I have been accused of.

I think the biggest issue of all was his statement that:  "interpretation of ancient texts is complex enough to drive different conclusions".  

If that is so, then it is impossible for anyone to come up with a correct understanding.

So I reject that idea.  

And, most of my view is based on how specific Hebrew words (forget the translation) are used in various contexts, and show contradiction with the majority English translation of Gen 1:2.