Created in the Image of God

[Indentured Servant]

  On 2/27/2025 at 11:55 AM, 70x7 said:

speculate about biblical topics.

Expand  

Why speculate? 

Scripture tells us precisely what the "Image of God" is. It goes so far as to say, "this is the image of God..."

Edited March 12 by Indentured Servant
Punctuation

[FreeGrace]

  On 3/12/2025 at 10:57 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

  FreeGrace said:

This does NOT effect any theology or doctrine.  It is simply a fact.  It does not support evolution because in the restoration, God was still creating life on the earth, plus man.

It's not a fact simply because you say so according to your interpretation of Hebrew syntax.

Expand  

What I have presented are ONLY FACTS.  When did I even mention "syntax"??  I have shown that the most scholarly translation of Gen 1:2 comes from the Septuagint, and that's a fact.  Those translators were totally fluent in both Hebrew and Koine Greek.  And since then, the Koine Greek died as a language and no one is fluent in it.  

And it translates v.2 as:  BUT the earth was UNSIGHTLY.

So, if you want to argue that describes how God creates, that is your business.  But I KNOW how God creates, from Psa 33:6 and 9.  He speaks complete things into existence.  The translators of the Septuagint clearly knew something that the 15th century and later translators obviously didn't.

  On 3/12/2025 at 10:57 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

  As I've stated, there are Hebrew scholars who argue against the gap theory because those that support it are misinterpreting the paleo Hebrew text and sentence structure.

Expand  

Why don't you take some notes and teach me what I have wrong then?  All I've dealt with are WORDS, and how they were used elsewhere in the OT.  Which is how language scholars LEARN what words mean.

  On 3/12/2025 at 10:57 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

Expand  

Of course the "gap theory" is unbiblical. ALL "theories" are unbiblical.

And I haven't mentioned ANY theory at all.

All I've focused on are WORDS, and HOW they are used elsewhere in the OT.  And it seems to bug quite a lot of people, for no apparent reason.

So all of your argument is false because I haven't done any of what you are accusing me of.  

Does Heiser deal with "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4 and Isa 34?  Does he acknowledge how the Septuagint translates v.2?  These are important questions.

Does he acknowledge the obvious contradiction between the English translations of Gen 1:2 with ISA 45:18

Please get back to me AFTER you get these answers.  Thanks.

[FreeGrace]

  On 3/12/2025 at 11:34 PM, Marilyn C said:

If as you say the earth `BECAME` an uninhabitable wasteland then you would have had to have Jesus redeem that. Whereas Jesus only came once and died once. 

Expand  

Sorry, but I don't follow your claim.  Why would Jesus have to "redeem that"?  He died for humans, not planets, etc.  Not even angels.

Human history begins with Adam.  Whatever occurred to the earth before Adam is irrelevant to human history.  Some theorize the wreckage deals with fallen angels.  But I don't deal with theories.  I am only interested in WORDS and HOW they are used elsewhere in the OT in order to properly understand Gen 1:2.

And the Septuagint gives us much help.  Written by scholars who were fluent in both Hebrew and Koine Greek, unlike every translator from the 15th century and after.

Here is their translation of v.2a:  BUT the earth was UNSIGHTLY...

I don't know about you, but for me, I reject that God creates that sloppily.  I know from Psa 33: 6 and 9 that He speaks complete things into existence, not in stages, or by processes.  And we see that in v.3:  And God said, "Light, BE!"  and light was.  So that's how God creates.  So when He created "the heavens and earth" He simply told them to exist, and they did, fully complete.

I want to emphasize that I reject as much as Ken Ham does.  While evolution demands a very old earth, a very old earth doesn't demand or require evolution.

God simply restored (katartizo - Heb 11:3) things, for man's use.

[FreeGrace]

  On 3/12/2025 at 10:57 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

Here is Dr. Michael Heiser explaining why the gap theory isn't biblical. 

 

Expand  

I have reviewed the video and taken notes.  What he argues against isn't my view and he makes a number of mistakes.

First, he asserts that ALL views of creation "must account for all evil and death in the world that God made".  This is just an opinion, because of the FACT that God left out all detail.  He doesn't get to demand of God what God has not given us.

He begins with human death in Gen 3 and refers to Rom 5:12.  Fine, but since God gave no details for understanding "tohu wabohu", God doesn't account for whatever death occurred before God made man.

He admits the Bible is silent about when Satan rebelled.  However, we KNOW that he did.  And where else can we place the rebellion?

He acknowledges the millions of years of "geologic columns".

He calls the gap "theory" (which I have NOT addressed) "reading between the lines.  Bogus.  My view comes from the wording of v.2.

Then he attributes the gap to Satan "corrupting creation so God had to destroy it".  Totally bogus.  We DON'T KNOW WHO OR WHAT OR WHY the earth became a wasteland.  Those who think God "had to destroy the earth" are speculating.

Then he unflinchingly accepts the translation of "without form" as legit, when NO object is without form.  Everything is 3 dimensional, and therefore HAS form.  So he didn't do his homework on that point.  Whatever "tohu" means cannot be "without form".  Very lousy translation.

He notes the verb in 'gap theory' should be 'became' and addresses the "linear approach".  I wonder how many scholars agree with him, since it's hard to find scholars in mass agreement on anything.  

Then he deals with the "waw consecutive" and claimed v.1-2 includes a "set of conditions present for God's announcement in v.3".  However, there is no "announcement" in v.3.   So he's confused.

He claims "no linear sequence" means no chronology of events.  Another opinion, in my opinion.

Then he notes a "reverse waw consecutive", and mentions it is a "waw disjunctive" but failed to explain.  And didn't note how the Septuagint rendered it, which is the Greek "de" which means "but".  So it is a conjunctive of contrast with the first verse!!!

Then he claims this "reverse waw consecutive" rules out the verb meaning "became".  Another opinion?  Since the waw is translated as 'but' in the Septuagint, and it translates "tohu" as "unsightly", should be a clue as to what's going on.  But Heiser seems clueless on that FACT.

Then he makes another error by saying "linear sequence" means "one thing becoming another".  How wrong could he be?  The earth didn't change into something other.  The earth is the earth.  Seems he isn't aware of the FACT that "tohu wabohu" is a description of CONDITION of something.  The earth didn't change into something else.  It remained the earth.  It simply became unable to support human life.  Duh.

Then he lists several "lethal problems" with gap.

1.  judgment of Satan between v.1 and 2.  Should be pretty clear from what the Bible does say that it was before God created Adam, since evil Satan didn't show up until A & E were created.  Where else would you like to place Satan's fall?  What else makes sense?

2.  "tohu" suggests judgment, which is false.  I've never said that and the word is merely a description of condition, REGARDLESS of how the condition occurred.  So just more opinion.

And then he admits "tohu" means 'wasteland'!!!!!  His noe then brought up Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and admits the context in both are about judgment.  But, so what?  The point of "tohu wabohu" isn't directly about judgment, but the CONDITION of the land after armies storm through.  So "judgment" isn't a part of "tohu wabohu".  The words are descriptive of CONDITION.

He admits "tohu wabohu" describes the RESULT of judgment, but that doesn't mean the words are about judgment.  So he appears rather confused on that point.  

Then he claims we "can't import the meaning of "tohu wabohu" into Gen 1:2 because there is no context for it".  Amazingly naive.

In all 3 verses, "tohu wabohu" is used as a description of earth/land.  Period.  judgment has no bearing on the meaning of the words.  He wrongly thinks that gap thinks that God destroyed the earth.  Nonsense.  Satan and his fallen horde could have, but that is speculation, and I don't speculate.  So I leave all that out.  All I know is that "tohu wabohu" describes an uninhabitable wasteland, which he actually acknowledged, but then insisted that meaning couldn't be "imported into Gen 1:2".  Nonsense.  Of course it WAS.  Otherwise, Jeremiah was quoting from Gen 1:2 as a description of creation in a context where he was warning Israel of coming disaster and the total destruction of the land!!!!!!!

How does creation and total destruction go together?  Never.

3.  'darkness' in v.2 doesn't necessarily mean or refer to evil.  Who says it does?  Kind of a irrelevant comment.  A very deep ice pack would obviously leave the surface of earth dark, since light doesn't penetrate deep layers of ice.  

So, there it is.  An easy refutation of Heiser's ideas.  

Here is what he can't refute:

1.  tohu wabohu means what it means in all 3 verses.  It can NEVER mean "without form" or "formless".  Reality dictates otherwise.

2.  v.2 begins with a waw disjunctive, comparable to being a conjunction of contrast with v.1, and the Septuagint translated it that way by using "but".

3.  The verb in that exact same form as in v.2 IS translated as "became" in a number of verses throughout the OT.

4.  The English translation of v.1-2 contradicts Isa 45:18, which specifically says "God did not create (bara) the earth TOHU".

Either He did or He didn't.  Isaiah says He didn't.  But all the English translations say He did.  I guess you get to take your pick.

I go with Isaiah and the true meaning of "tohu", which removes any contradiction.

 

Edited March 13 by FreeGrace

[FriendofJonathan]

  On 3/13/2025 at 11:06 AM, FreeGrace said:

What I have presented are ONLY FACTS.  When did I even mention "syntax"??  I have shown that the most scholarly translation of Gen 1:2 comes from the Septuagint, and that's a fact.  Those translators were totally fluent in both Hebrew and Koine Greek.  And since then, the Koine Greek died as a language and no one is fluent in it.  

And it translates v.2 as:  BUT the earth was UNSIGHTLY.

So, if you want to argue that describes how God creates, that is your business.  But I KNOW how God creates, from Psa 33:6 and 9.  He speaks complete things into existence.  The translators of the Septuagint clearly knew something that the 15th century and later translators obviously didn't.

Why don't you take some notes and teach me what I have wrong then?  All I've dealt with are WORDS, and how they were used elsewhere in the OT.  Which is how language scholars LEARN what words mean.

Of course the "gap theory" is unbiblical. ALL "theories" are unbiblical.

And I haven't mentioned ANY theory at all.

All I've focused on are WORDS, and HOW they are used elsewhere in the OT.  And it seems to bug quite a lot of people, for no apparent reason.

So all of your argument is false because I haven't done any of what you are accusing me of.  

Does Heiser deal with "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4 and Isa 34?  Does he acknowledge how the Septuagint translates v.2?  These are important questions.

Does he acknowledge the obvious contradiction between the English translations of Gen 1:2 with ISA 45:18

Please get back to me AFTER you get these answers.  Thanks.

Expand  

Did you watch the video of Dr. Michael Heiser,  wherein he explains that the Hebrew does not support a gap? 

[FreeGrace]

  On 3/13/2025 at 1:56 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

Did you watch the video of Dr. Michael Heiser,  wherein he explains that the Hebrew does not support a gap? 

Expand  

See above for my response.

[FriendofJonathan]

  On 3/13/2025 at 1:34 PM, FreeGrace said:

I have reviewed the video and taken notes.  What he argues against isn't my view and he makes a number of mistakes.

First, he asserts that ALL views of creation "must account for all evil and death in the world that God made".  This is just an opinion, because of the FACT that God left out all detail.  He doesn't get to demand of God what God has not given us.

He begins with human death in Gen 3 and refers to Rom 5:12.  Fine, but since God gave no details for understanding "tohu wabohu", God doesn't account for whatever death occurred before God made man.

He admits the Bible is silent about when Satan rebelled.  However, we KNOW that he did.  And where else can we place the rebellion?

He acknowledges the millions of years of "geologic columns".

He calls the gap "theory" (which I have NOT addressed) "reading between the lines.  Bogus.  My view comes from the wording of v.2.

Then he attributes the gap to Satan "corrupting creation so God had to destroy it".  Totally bogus.  We DON'T KNOW WHO OR WHAT OR WHY the earth became a wasteland.  Those who think God "had to destroy the earth" are speculating.

Then he unflinchingly accepts the translation of "without form" as legit, when NO object is without form.  Everything is 3 dimensional, and therefore HAS form.  So he didn't do his homework on that point.  Whatever "tohu" means cannot be "without form".  Very lousy translation.

He notes the verb in 'gap theory' should be 'became' and addresses the "linear approach".  I wonder how many scholars agree with him, since it's hard to find scholars in mass agreement on anything.  

Then he deals with the "waw consecutive" and claimed v.1-2 includes a "set of conditions present for God's announcement in v.3".  However, there is no "announcement" in v.3.   So he's confused.

He claims "no linear sequence" means no chronology of events.  Another opinion, in my opinion.

Then he notes a "reverse waw consecutive", and mentions it is a "waw disjunctive" but failed to explain.  And didn't note how the Septuagint rendered it, which is the Greek "de" which means "but".  So it is a conjunctive of contrast with the first verse!!!

Then he claims this "reverse waw consecutive" rules out the verb meaning "became".  Another opinion?  Since the waw is translated as 'but' in the Septuagint, and it translates "tohu" as "unsightly", should be a clue as to what's going on.  But Heiser seems clueless on that FACT.

Then he makes another error by saying "linear sequence" means "one thing becoming another".  How wrong could he be?  The earth didn't change into something other.  The earth is the earth.  Seems he isn't aware of the FACT that "tohu wabohu" is a description of CONDITION of something.  The earth didn't change into something else.  It remained the earth.  It simply became unable to support human life.  Duh.

Then he lists several "lethal problems" with gap.

1.  judgment of Satan between v.1 and 2.  Should be pretty clear from what the Bible does say that it was before God created Adam, since evil Satan didn't show up until A & E were created.  Where else would you like to place Satan's fall?  What else makes sense?

2.  "tohu" suggests judgment, which is false.  I've never said that and the word is merely a description of condition, REGARDLESS of how the condition occurred.  So just more opinion.

And then he admits "tohu" means 'wasteland'!!!!!  His noe then brought up Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and admits the context in both are about judgment.  But, so what?  The point of "tohu wabohu" isn't directly about judgment, but the CONDITION of the land after armies storm through.  So "judgment" isn't a part of "tohu wabohu".  The words are descriptive of CONDITION.

He admits "tohu wabohu" describes the RESULT of judgment, but that doesn't mean the words are about judgment.  So he appears rather confused on that point.  

Then he claims we "can't import the meaning of "tohu wabohu" into Gen 1:2 because there is no context for it".  Amazingly naive.

In all 3 verses, "tohu wabohu" is used as a description of earth/land.  Period.  judgment has no bearing on the meaning of the words.  He wrongly thinks that gap thinks that God destroyed the earth.  Nonsense.  Satan and his fallen horde could have, but that is speculation, and I don't speculate.  So I leave all that out.  All I know is that "tohu wabohu" describes an uninhabitable wasteland, which he actually acknowledged, but then insisted that meaning couldn't be "imported into Gen 1:2".  Nonsense.  Of course it WAS.  Otherwise, Jeremiah was quoting from Gen 1:2 as a description of creation in a context where he was warning Israel of coming disaster and the total destruction of the land!!!!!!!

How does creation and total destruction go together?  Never.

3.  'darkness' in v.2 doesn't necessarily mean or refer to evil.  Who says it does?  Kind of a irrelevant comment.  A very deep ice pack would obviously leave the surface of earth dark, since light doesn't penetrate deep layers of ice.  

So, there it is.  An easy refutation of Heiser's ideas.  

Here is what he can't refute:

1.  tohu wabohu means what it means in all 3 verses.  It can NEVER mean "without form" or "formless".  Reality dictates otherwise.

2.  v.2 begins with a waw disjunctive, comparable to being a conjunction of contrast with v.1, and the Septuagint translated it that way by using "but".

3.  The verb in that exact same form as in v.2 IS translated as "became" in a number of verses throughout the OT.

4.  The English translation of v.1-2 contradicts Isa 45:18, which specifically says "God did not create (bara) the earth TOHU".

Either He did or He didn't.  Isaiah says He didn't.  But all the English translations say He did.  I guess you get to take your pick.

I go with Isaiah and the true meaning of "tohu", which removes any contradiction.

 

Expand  

I know Heiser's view is not your view; He is arguing against a view propounded by Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century which has been continually amended by gap proponents since. 

No doubt you watched Heiser with preconceived suppositions on the whether there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2.  

I watched Heiser refute the Gen. 1:1-2 gap at around the same I was being taught there was a Genesis 1:1-2 gap.  I did not stop at Heiser. I've listened to others pro and con re: gap, and am now confident that there is no gap.  You think otherwise.  Good for you. End of discussion for me, at this time. 

[FreeGrace]

  On 3/13/2025 at 2:53 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

I know Heiser's view is not your view; He is arguing against a view propounded by Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century which has been continually amended by gap proponents since.

Expand  

Then why even bring up his "arguments" since they aren't mine and don't even address mine.

  On 3/13/2025 at 2:53 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

No doubt you watched Heiser with preconceived suppositions on the whether there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2.

Expand  

Did you actually go through my comments?  I took his claims/points one by one and commented.  I argued against what HE SAID.  He made mistakes, which I pointed out.

  On 3/13/2025 at 2:53 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

I watched Heiser refute the Gen. 1:1-2 gap at around the same I was being taught there was a Genesis 1:1-2 gap.  I did not stop at Heiser. I've listened to others pro and con re: gap, and am now confident that there is no gap.  You think otherwise.  Good for you. End of discussion for me, at this time. 

Expand  

Nno problem.  But neither he nor you have refuted any of the FACTS I've presented from the text itself.  

[FriendofJonathan]

  On 3/13/2025 at 3:55 PM, FreeGrace said:

Then why even bring up his "arguments" since they aren't mine and don't even address mine.

Did you actually go through my comments?  I took his claims/points one by one and commented.  I argued against what HE SAID.  He made mistakes, which I pointed out.

Nno problem.  But neither he nor you have refuted any of the FACTS I've presented from the text itself.  

Expand  

Okay, doctor.  You tell it.  Thanks. 

[FreeGrace]

  On 3/13/2025 at 4:09 PM, FriendofJonathan said:

Okay, doctor.  You tell it.  Thanks. 

Expand  

I find it interesting when people are presented with FACTS and see what they do with them.  And sad.

  Quote

 

Expand