There you go again. Is it any wonder why you're called a liar when you continue to lie? Allow me to briefly demonstrate how Watchman_2's teachings can have Biblical credibility.
Look carefully at the following two verses;
Gen 1:2 And the earth was [H1961] 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 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became [H1961] a living soul.
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
You can clearly see how the same Hebrew word (haw-yaw') is rendered in English using two different words; was and became
There is therefore a certain Biblical basis in allowing Gen 1:2 to read as follows;
Gen 1:2 And the earth became [H1961] 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.
If the earth became the way it was described in Gen 1:2, what was it's state beforehand?
The burden is actually on you to prove, using scripture, how the Hebrew haw-yaw' cannot be the English became in Gen 1:2, so as to support your claim of a zero Biblical basis for Watchman_2's Biblical teaching concerning the age of time before Gen 1:2.
Good luck with that.
What, do you mean people come in twos? I cannot understand how people claiming to be Christian can be so cruel, angry and mean.
As far as your basing a complete doctrine on two words...'was' and 'became'....well, that kind of speaks for itself. Oh, you can "allow" something "could" be true. And its actually on me to prove it couldn't be? The very fact that it doesn't say it is all the majority of Christians need. I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on there, it's all very weak evidence.
Plus, I am aware that this word (
hayah) is extremely common, occurring over 1,000 times in the book of Genesis alone, where it is given over 100 different translations in the NASB version. Since biblical Hebrew is a very small language (containing less than 9,000 words), many Hebrew words have multiple meanings. Therefore, the proper translation must be determined from the context in which the word is found.
The word
hayah is used 18 times in the first 20 verses of Genesis 1 and it would not make sense, I'm told, to translate it "had become" in any of the other 17 verses. Therefore, there is no reason from the context of Genesis 1:1 or 1:2 to translate
hayah in Genesis 1:2 as "had become."
And all that is only for the possibility that the earth was there before Adam, it does absolutely nothing to support the idea that Satan and his fallen angels ruled said earth until God booted Satan off and gave the fallen 'a new chance with wiped memories". The Bible does tell us that the angels that fell with Satan will have no chance of redemption...at all. Why would He say that if He had already given them that chance? Doesn't stand up.
Plus, theologically, I find it difficult to support the concept that Satan has the power to destroy and corrupt all of God’s creation. I’m sure that if he really had that kind of power, he would have used it again to destroy the world or at least prevent the Messiah from living. Nowhere in the Bible is that kind of power attributed to Satan, since his primary method of operation is through lies and deceit.
Look, I have no desire to fight with you, just as I have no desire to be verbally abused by you...I went through that all with Watchman. All I'm saying is that I cannot find Biblical evidence to agree with you, or even entertain the idea that your hypothesis has merit. There is just nothing. I really don't care if you want to create this epic story of Satan before God created Adam...I just don't appreciate being torn down and called a liar just because I disagree with you. Man, that is not loving.