I'll just address this, as we're going round and round.
No, words are not the same in every context.
Yes, obviously. Not sure why you don't think I know that.
The statement of formless and void is followed by 3 days of forming and 3 days of filling the void.
The problem is your inaccurate definition of "tohu wabohu". I've given you the meaning from a lexicon. Unfilled" and "unformed" isn't included. Why do you keep ignoring the lexicon's meaning?
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain:—confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:—emptiness, void.
Now, please don't keep using "unfilled and unformed". Moses was talking about a desolation, a worthless thing, an undistinguishable ruin. Which means the earth BECAME that after being created in v.1.
What you're doing is ignoring that for the sake of a theological system that allows you to preserve the modern concept of deep time. You're then taking those words from a future context and trying to force their meaning into the original use of the word.
I'm not at all, but you just won't be convinced. I have no care for "deep time". but I care deeply about the Words of God. And your definition of "tohu wabohu" isn't accurate or even close.
This is part of the lure of attempting to harmonize Genesis with modern naturalistic theories.
I have no interest in harmonizing Scriture with any scientific theories. My interest is in understanding what God's Word SAYS. Which is, God created earth (v.1) and it became a desolate undistinguishable ruin (v.2). And Moses gave no details (which would be a context), but context isn't required anyway.
Gen 1 is a general summary of creation and restoration. Or even just creation. The details are given in ch 2.
I have no idea what that means. Of corse there is context. It's just that the context contradicts your theory, so you've ignored it and tried to replace it with another context, post creation.
There is no context (ie: what occurred that led to the earth becoming a desolute indistinguishable ruin). If Moses had included the details of that, no one would have any problem of understanding 'hayah' as "became". However, that doesn't negate Moses' meaning anyway, since a research of the English word "became" found about 80 occurrences, all related to the word "hayah", and 3 other times in the exact same form as found in v.2 for "became". There is no reason NOT to understand "hayah" in v.1 as "became".
Where does it say this? My Bible does't? In my bible, the firmament called heaven was created on day 2, and that stars were set in it.
v.1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
"heavens"
shâmayim shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve):—air, X astrologer, heaven (-s).
My Bible does DOES say heavens in v.1. Maybe you need a different translation.
Bongo! This is what's driving you, not the text. This is my whole point.
Do you deny that light travels at a certain speed? Is that not a valid point, and why not if not? Please explain. It is quite obvious from the simple fact that the light we see in the night sky comes from stars very far away. It's all been measured. Do you reject scientific measurements in order to preserve your young earth view?
Soteriologically, the gap theory preserves the doctrine of death before sin, by moving the sin to Satan millions of years ago.
I don't understand your resistance here, because I don't agree with that erroneous doctrine. Sin absolutely did come first, and from Satan. You even admitted that Satan sinned before Adam. So obviously sin before death.
in fact, I'll go you one further: no death until sin.
Hermeneutically, though, the gap theory does major damage.
So far, you haven't shown how, much less proven it. Please do.
I've never known theory to add more to bizarre concepts to scripture and to do more violence to the plain reading of the text.
First, I do not claim to even present a theory as to what occurred so that earth became a desolate undistinguishable ruin. I only know that it did, and I've proven that from the plain meanings of the words, which you haven't accepted.
I do have an idea as to what may have happened, but that doesn't drive anything. It seems YEC just won't accept the facts (not hypotheses or theories) from science and the plain meaning of Hebrew words.
Probably more than any other theory, (and I know it well, due to the fact that I once believed in it, and defended it) it mangles the plain exegetical reading, adding a whole new world to the Bible that never exited.
That simply isn't true. You are the one mangling the Hebrew with your "unformed and unfilled" mistranslations.
Which is more damaging? I would say eisagesis is the more damaging as it undermines the very straightforward reading of the Word of God, upon with all christian doctrine is found. With the Gap Theory, just about anything goes. That's a dangerous precedent.
First, what is damaging is ignoring the real meanings of the original language words, as you've done. Seems you just don't want to deal with them.
I haven't committed eisegesis because all I've done is tell you what the Hebrew and Greek words actually mean.
What do you mean by "anything goes" with the gap theory. Maybe that's true for those who push a specific "theory" to explain the time gap, but I haven't. I've strictly stayed with the actual meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words, which you haven't done.
This is a great case and point. Now the greek word here for framed is katartizo. Here are a couple of definitions.
Mounce Greek Dictionary: to adjust thoroughly; to knit together, unite completely, 1 Cor. 1:10; to frame, Heb. 11:3; to prepare, provide, Mt. 21:16; Heb. 10:5; to qualify fully, to complete in character, Lk. 6:40; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 5:10; perf. pass.
Louw & Nida: to cause to happen by means of some arrangement — ‘to produce, to arrange for, to cause to happen.’ e˙k sto/matoß nhpi÷wn kai« qhlazo/ntwn kathrti÷sw ai•non ‘I will produce praise from the mouths of children and infants’ Mt 21:16. to create, with the implication of putting into proper condition — ‘to create, to make. ‘by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God’ or ‘… God created the world by the words he spoke’ He 11:3.
Ha! Even Mounce got it right! "to adjust thoroughly". That certainly fits the concept of a restoration. God had to adjust thoroughly the earth that had become a desolate undistinguishable ruin.
Here is the definition from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
katartizō
1) to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete
1a)
to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair
1a1) to complete
1b) to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange,
adjust
1b1) to fit or frame for one’s self, prepare
1c) ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be
The major translations render ‘katartizo’ as “prepared, formed, or framed”. That is unfortunate, because the word has a significantly different meaning. It is
found 13 times in the NT.
Matt 4:21 and Mark 1:19 used for
“mending their nets”
Matt 21:16 used for “perfecting praise out of the mouths of babes”
Luke 6:40 used for “every disciple is not above his master, but one that is perfect shall be like his master” {ethical use}
Rom 9:22 used for “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”
1 Cor 1:10 used for “perfectly joined” {ethical use}
2 Cor 13:11 used for “be perfect” {ethical use}
Gal 6:1 used for “restore such a one with gentleness” {RESTORE!!!}
1 Thess 3:10 used for “might perfect that which is lacking in your faith” {ethical use}
Heb 10:5 used for “a body you have prepared Me”
Heb 11:3 used for “worlds were prepared” {restored}
Heb 13:21 used for “make you perfect” {ethical use}
1 Pet 5:10 used for “make you perfect” {ethical use}
We see the ethical use of ‘katartizo’ in 7 of the 13 uses. But used non-ethically, we see that the word means to “mend, fix, adjust, repair, restore”. Heb 11:3 tells us that the “worlds were restored/repaired/adjusted/fixed/mended” by God. The word cannot refer to original creation. Therefore, Heb 11:3 provides strong support for a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
Now in some context this could refer to a restoration, but where is your context in hebrew? It's not there. Your context is the gap theory.
I've already explained that. You come to Gen 1:2 with a very faulty understanding of "tohu wabohu". Because of that, you are blinded to what Moses was saying.
No, it's what you would call old based on your presuppositions. My presuppositions are God's Word. It's the only ones I fully trust.
You mean God is unable to instantly create aged wine? I sure wouldn't but any kind of limit on His power.
I'll take that as a sign of frustration and that we're probably to the end of what we can accomplish in this thread on this subject. I doubt we'll come to an agree this time around. I only ask you keep an open mind.
Actually, I'm not frustrated at all. I have enjoyed the exchange. I'm only pointing out that you are confused. And your understanding of what the Hebrew words mean is in error. Significantly.
Consider this fact:
“tohu” (without form: translation in v.2) used in Deut 32:10, Job 12:24 and Ps 107:40, translated “waste and wilderness”.
