Shar

Yes I agree seeing how it was from that same perspective that they crucified the Lord... Whoa. I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying. Please explain.

I see Spock has posted the website I was going to reference regarding a Hebrew understanding of an old Earth as part of my promised response to Shiloh for the Biblical and scientific support to an OE . It is on the thread that Shiloh started regarding "A Hebrew Scholar affirms YEC". Shiloh should enjoy reading this because the Hebrew physicist from MIT, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, approaches the age of the Earth from a true Torah perspective and references a number of Hebrew words and phrases to support the OE position. This is very interesting reading and shows how science and the Bible can agree. You will see how the Earth can be created in the 6 day 24-hour period and still have an earth that is billions of years old. For Shiloh, he evens shows how the Hebrew word "Olam", with the few changes I previously referenced, can be used for the word for "day" and be a longer period of time. Dr. Schroder is brillant. I was amazed how science actually validates the creation account, when viewed from a Jewish, Torah perspective.

You are wrong, Shar. Olam is a masculine noun in Hebrew, not an adjective. You obviously don't know Hebrew very well. I speak and read it and I am well qualified to discuss the language. So far you are batting zero. You were wrong about both the meaning of the word "olam" and you are wrong about its gender. Why is not having a sun a problem for an all-knowing God to calculate a 24-hour day? You have to remember that there was evening and morning, which qualifies the word "day." That indicates that day and night were occurring even if the sun didn't exist. How did God create the plant life prior to the sun when we know that the sun is the catalyst for photosynthesis? The answer is that God sustained the plant life Himself. God himself was the light needed for both day and night and for plant life prior to the creation of the sun. So it really isn't a problem. Not so. Biblical scholars disagree over much of what is black and white in the Bible. Biblical scholars are even divided over the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Many scholars don't believe that the Exodus or the crossing of the Red Sea are real historical events. If you assume that scholars are only divided over gray areas, you are sadly mistaken The verse you supplied in Ge. 3:22 for "olam", meaning forever, is not used as a noun. It is frequently used as an adjective, meaning always, continually, eternal. If you want to use it as a noun, an example would be "ha'olam" the Universe. I may be batting zero with you, but you denoting yourself qualified in Hebrew is really questionable to me. A evening and a morning cannot exist without the Sun. Remember, G-d said he set these in the sky to mark the seasons, days and years. From His own mouth, you need the Sun to mark a day. Light existed before the Sun and that is how the vegetation germinated. Ge.1:3. I did not say scholars are only divided over gray matters. I stated that if the creation account was so black and white, there would not be such differences in the account. Room for discussion. Now, Shiloh. I have been nothing but professional in my presentation of information to you. I have always tried to be respectful to all. However, you come across not only to me, but to many others, who have confronted you on this forum as sometimes rude and arrogant. I ask you to consider your brothers and sisters in the L-rd with more respect and do all we can to keep the peace. We do not want to cause strife. Let's discuss without passion that becomes inflammatory. I want you to know. I do enjoy your input on this forum.

This has already bene acknowledged. The problem is not about what the yom can mean. The issue is what it means in Genesis 1. We cannot arbitrarily assign meanings to a word in a given context. The question is how the author used the word, "yom" in Genesis 1 and what the author wants us to understand about that passage. Yes, but that is a prophetic use of the word. The millennial reign of Jesus which you refer to is known as "the day of the Lord." But that is not really the same type of usage that we see in Genesis 1. We cannot mix contexts and interpret the usage of a word in one context by how the same word is used elsewhere. That is not how interpretation works. I would love to see those verses. So far I have asked more than one person, more than once for those verses and so far, noone has been able or willing to provide them. This isn't a diversity issue. There is a right and wrong answer to this question. So far, the OEC folks have made claims that their view is biblical but have provided nothing to that effect for review. Job teaches that we can't know how God did it. but that is not in dispute. We will have to ATD (agree to disagree) on some aspects of the interpretation regarding the Hebrew. You referenced "olam" should be used in Ge. if referring to an old earth. This word cannot be used for that. It is an adjective. However, "yom" can be used in Ge. 1. because it can be mean what I have stated in previous posts. If I go with the YE and believe in a literal 24 hour period for initial creation, I would have to ask how a day could be marked in 24 hours without the sun. The sun is supposedly not created until the 4th day. However, in the OE with the Ge. account taking G-d's efforts as a restoration from the result of chaos and judgment, then the sun already existed, time was marked and a 24 hour period existed. The "let it be" would be "to bring forth into existence", not to make. Interesting that the word "created" is not used for verses 2-20. However, it is used for the creation of the earth, animals and man. I will be glad to provide you the many verses that indicate there was a social system here on Earth before man and indications of an OE. However, it will take me some time to gather all the references. I promise I will post them, hopefully by this Sunday. I would not presume that I have all knowledge and that this is definitely a right or wrong issue. If it was intended to be black and white, there would not be such differences of opinions amongst believers and biblical scholars. I believe how G-d did it is in the dispute. Was the initial creation of earth literally in a 24 hour period? Is the earth literally less than 10,000 years old?

If I can be honest here, I believe when religious people totally disregard science because they THINK the Bible says something (when it doesn't) then all of Christianity suffers as a witness for Christ. I'm sure your intentions are noble, to defend God and his written word, but he doesn't need our defense to be made up. It does not go against any verse in the Bible to believe as scientists say- Earth is billions of years old. There are even many devout believers who are scientists who have written books on this subject agreeing with the science- our solar system is old. Now from Gods perspective, 4.5 billion years is like a second, I'm sure. Now man made in Gods image is another issue. Yes, that has been pretty recently, but those are two different issues to discuss. Trust me brother, don't fret if our planet is old. It all makes sense. I am a Christian and maybe even a conservative Christian (depending on who is on my left and who on my right). But I am in total agreement with you. It does not rattle my faith one bit to think that the earth is very, very old. The more I study Genesis (not just read and memorize, but study: i.e. look into the Hebrew, look into the culture etc. etc.) the more I am convinced that its author (and yes, AUTHOR) cared nothing, not one bit, about entering a debate that would not arise for another 3,000 years. He had other fish to fry. Put another way, if we could conjure up like Samuel the author of Moses, and present to him our debate, would he say, "Ah yes, apologies for any obscurities, let me pencil in this footnote: "Oh, by the way, I meant 6 literal 24/hr days." Or rather, would he hold his weary head and lament, "Goodness! is THAT what you guys are arguing about? You've missed the entire point!!" I suspect the latter. The question for me is this: do most 6-day creationists deny the Old Earth theory espoused by scientists simply because a detailed exegesis (study) of Genesis has led them to believe that it was 6 days? If so, then this is purely an exegetical debate. Or do at least some (certainly not all) do it for a much more subtle, and perhaps even unconscious reason--namely, the scary thought that, if this isn't literal, well then, is that? And what about that?! Eventually this train of thought will reach the heart of the gospel, Jesus Christ's death and resurrection--and at this we recoil in horror. No, we say, it is safer (i.e. easier on my nerves) to stop that train of thinking from ever taking off, by simply asserting that the Genesis account is literal. This is a method of reasoning which I cannot employ: and I don't need to. There is no logical step to be made from the symbolic account of Genesis to the literal/historical account of the resurrection. Nor does taking the 6 days symbolically (or thematically) require me to take the act of creation itself symbolically (i.e. God did not actually create the world). There are many verses throughout the Bible that can support an Old Earth. The Hebrew word for Day, "Yom" can mean time, year, age, always, evermore, etc. Hebrew is not a diverse language and duplicates are common, based on slight differences. There can be duplicate meanings to certain words. For instance, in Ze 14:9 talks about a day (an age) in time when Christ will rule. Many believers in Christ believe in an Old Earth and can support it with many verses throughout the Bible. And, again, there are many believers who do not believe in an Old Earth and can support it with many verses. As G-d said to Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Tell me if you know." Nobody really can swear they truly know, completely. Just nice to know why each believes what they do and respect them for their opinions. I love diversity!

No, that is wrong. "Olam" has several different meanings depending on context (Universe, world, forever, eternity and is often used to denate very long periods of time. The word "Melekh" is the word for king. Melekh haolam is a phrase that is often rendered as "King of the universe." What we are interested in is how itis used in Genesis 1. Hebrew is a language with only about 8,700 words and so many of the words play double duty, triple duty and so on. The Hebrew word "echad" has over 18 different possible usages. So we are interested not in how yom is used everywhere else. The focus of this thread is the use of yom in Genesis 1. There is no evidence that this is a recreation and the Hebrew grammar will not allow for this to be a recreation in Genesis 1. Please give verses in the Bible that show "olam" used as you have indicated. Yes, it means universe, but I used the prayer as an example. I can see where the way I stated it could be confusing. I need examples of verses from you, however. Thanks

"Face value" is not literal interpretation. Face value is a very wooden approach to the text. For example... when Jesus said, "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off." The face value approach doesn't take into account the metaphorical nature of that comment. A face value approach would understand Jesus to be advocating self-mutilation. The literal interpretation is that we need to "cut off" anything in our lives (habits, thoughts, associations) that is hindering our walk with God. That is not correct. The word "yom" is NEVER used to mean long periods of time in terms of millions of years in an historical narrative anywhere in the Bible. The word yom in connection with ordinal numbers in Genesis are always literal 24 hour days in historical narratives in the Bible. There may be other genres like prophecy where it is used to refer to longer periods of times, but Genesis 1 is an historical narrative, not a prophecy. There is not ONE figurative device used in the text of Genesis 1. So treating "yom" as a long period of time isn't interpetation, at all. It amounts to reading into the text what you want it to mean. If God wanted us to understand a each creative unit in Genesis 1 to refer to a long epoch of time comprised of millions of years, he would have likely used the word "olam" instead of "yom." The word "olam" refers to long periods of time. It literally means the most distant time. Yom is NEVER used to convey anything but a literal day in an historical narrative genres. Actually, Olam means "King of the Universe; such as, "Baruch ata, ADONAI Eloheinu, Malekh ha'Olam", meaning "Blessed art thou, O L-rd, our G-d, King of the Universe" However, " yom" can mean more than a 24 hour period, depending on how it is used. Literally, a day, sunset to sunrise or figuratively, a space of time, age, required season, perpetually, old, etc. Really depends on how it is being used. Not always as a 24 hour period. I believe in these passages it refers to the 24 hour period, but only as a recreation as a result of chaos and rebellion, not as the initial creation.

I like the New International Version Study Bible. It has good references and notes. Particularly good for a person new to reading the Bible. It was put together by a panel of over 100 Bible scholars from all across the world and without any particular dominational bias. Its translation goes down to the original manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. No translation is absolutely perfect, but this team of scholars formed committees where it was necessary for the greatest majority in each committee to agree to the translation of each passage. It then had to pass through several committees of exacting standards before a final agreement. Hope this helps.