Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis

[a-seeker]

 

What spiritual significance would there be in knowing that the world is that old?

 

It's not an issue of spiritual significance.  The issue is authority.  Does science have the authority to interpret and/or modify the claims of Scripture? 

 

 

I don't think the point of Genesis was to tell us the age of the earth.

 

I don't think that is the point of Genesis 1, either.   It is an important issue because, again, it goes to the Bible's authority.

 

 

If he did, it would've been useless to the mindset of an ancient Hebrew.  It would've totally confused him: an irrelevant detail.  God didn't write Genesis to settle this debate.  So, in a sense, I agree.  If it were absolutely essential to ours and man's salvation that everyone know the earth was billions of years old, He would've said so.  Absolutely....it wasn't essential, so God didn't say it.  Doesn't mean it's not true.

 

That completely confuses the issue, though.  No one said it is essential to anyone's salvation to know how old the earth is.  The point is that there are people who demand something of the Hebrew language that isn't there, namely that "yom" in Genesis is being used to refer to long epochs of time, which the context simply doesn't support.

 

No.  I gave an argument above which acknowledged that Yom meant a day.  I said it was absolutely essential that yom mean a day for my argument to hold water.

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

What spiritual significance would there be in knowing that the world is that old?

 

It's not an issue of spiritual significance.  The issue is authority.  Does science have the authority to interpret and/or modify the claims of Scripture? 

 

 

I don't think the point of Genesis was to tell us the age of the earth.

 

I don't think that is the point of Genesis 1, either.   It is an important issue because, again, it goes to the Bible's authority.

 

 

If he did, it would've been useless to the mindset of an ancient Hebrew.  It would've totally confused him: an irrelevant detail.  God didn't write Genesis to settle this debate.  So, in a sense, I agree.  If it were absolutely essential to ours and man's salvation that everyone know the earth was billions of years old, He would've said so.  Absolutely....it wasn't essential, so God didn't say it.  Doesn't mean it's not true.

 

That completely confuses the issue, though.  No one said it is essential to anyone's salvation to know how old the earth is.  The point is that there are people who demand something of the Hebrew language that isn't there, namely that "yom" in Genesis is being used to refer to long epochs of time, which the context simply doesn't support.

 

No.  I gave an argument above which acknowledged that Yom meant a day.  I said it was absolutely essential that yom mean a day for my argument to hold water.

 

clb

 

I understand that.  I am simply explaining the nature of the debate in general.  I was not assigning anything to you in particular.

[Spock]

My point was that if God wanted to fit 15 billion years into 6 days and wanted us to believe that 6 days was actually a 15 billion year span of time, He was perfectly capable communicating that in the book of Genesis, but He didn't do it.

 

Sorry, but I really do have the nagging need to point this out. The concept of the word "billion" didn't actually exist back then. (Yes, I'm being nit-picky, but still....)

That is true.  But the point is that if God wanted to communicate to us that the "days" of creation were long epochs of time, there are better and more precise ways in Hebrew that would have been better than "yom."

Such as ......

What should God have said other than yom to show longer epochs.

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

What spiritual significance would there be in knowing that the world is that old?

 

It's not an issue of spiritual significance.  The issue is authority.  Does science have the authority to interpret and/or modify the claims of Scripture? 

 

 

I don't think the point of Genesis was to tell us the age of the earth.

 

I don't think that is the point of Genesis 1, either.   It is an important issue because, again, it goes to the Bible's authority.

 

 

If he did, it would've been useless to the mindset of an ancient Hebrew.  It would've totally confused him: an irrelevant detail.  God didn't write Genesis to settle this debate.  So, in a sense, I agree.  If it were absolutely essential to ours and man's salvation that everyone know the earth was billions of years old, He would've said so.  Absolutely....it wasn't essential, so God didn't say it.  Doesn't mean it's not true.

 

That completely confuses the issue, though.  No one said it is essential to anyone's salvation to know how old the earth is.  The point is that there are people who demand something of the Hebrew language that isn't there, namely that "yom" in Genesis is being used to refer to long epochs of time, which the context simply doesn't support.

 

No.  I gave an argument above which acknowledged that Yom meant a day.  I said it was absolutely essential that yom mean a day for my argument to hold water.

 

clb

 

I understand that.  I am simply explaining the nature of the debate in general.  I was not assigning anything to you in particular.

 

Okay...?

 

Thanks for that.  I have to admit that I am not sure where to go from there for that was the most non-aggressive, non-dogmatic statement I've ever read from you.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

My point was that if God wanted to fit 15 billion years into 6 days and wanted us to believe that 6 days was actually a 15 billion year span of time, He was perfectly capable communicating that in the book of Genesis, but He didn't do it.

 

Sorry, but I really do have the nagging need to point this out. The concept of the word "billion" didn't actually exist back then. (Yes, I'm being nit-picky, but still....)

That is true.  But the point is that if God wanted to communicate to us that the "days" of creation were long epochs of time, there are better and more precise ways in Hebrew that would have been better than "yom."

Such as ......

What should God have said other than yom to show longer epochs.

 

Yes, exactly!! Well, to a point.  Whenever we assume mastership in a language and say "So and so could never have meant that!"  We are claiming to know what "so and so would've said if he or she did mean that."  To know that something is NOT there, is to claim to know what it would look like if it were.

 

But in fact, my thesis is that Moses did intend a 6 24/hr period.  But that was only to reference another 6 24/hr duration.  Not to scientifically describe the creation event.  Moses had theological concerns and told the creation story in light of those.  The question of how old the earth is did not concern him.

 

clb

[Shar]

We have been through the discussion of the word "yom".  Even someone without any study in Hebrew, could go to the Strong's Concordance and read that:

 

"yom" (yowm) can literally mean a day, from sundown to sunrise, "or fig. (in space of time defined by an associated term) [often used as an adverb]:-age, required season, forever, process of time, etc." 

 

You may think "olam" is a better word, but it was not used, nor was it required to show a period of time.   Scholars and translators, tested and recognized as experts in Hebrew, agree that there are two basic views here to creation.  (1) a literal 24 hour day, or  (2) an indefinite period of time, even millions of years. 

 

This will not be settled here.  We have to understand, there are believers who can legitimately believe and support either view.

[Spock]

My point was that if God wanted to fit 15 billion years into 6 days and wanted us to believe that 6 days was actually a 15 billion year span of time, He was perfectly capable communicating that in the book of Genesis, but He didn't do it.

 

Sorry, but I really do have the nagging need to point this out. The concept of the word "billion" didn't actually exist back then. (Yes, I'm being nit-picky, but still....)

That is true.  But the point is that if God wanted to communicate to us that the "days" of creation were long epochs of time, there are better and more precise ways in Hebrew that would have been better than "yom."

Such as ......

What should God have said other than yom to show longer epochs.

Yes, exactly!! Well, to a point.  Whenever we assume mastership in a language and say "So and so could never have meant that!"  We are claiming to know what "so and so would've said if he or she did mean that."  To know that something is NOT there, is to claim to know what it would look like if it were.

 

But in fact, my thesis is that Moses did intend a 6 24/hr period.  But that was only to reference another 6 24/hr duration.  Not to scientifically describe the creation event.  Moses had theological concerns and told the creation story in light of those.  The question of how old the earth is did not concern him.

 

clb

Absolutely correct Conner, in my estimation. (By the way Shiloh, Fyi, I did give you a pat on the back for a post you made in the Star Trek thread.)

[Shar]

 

You cannot take a quote Dr. Schroeder used from someone else who may have practiced a considerably different form of Kabbalah and make it to what we understand about Kabbalah today, which is definitely occultic.  Back centuries ago it did not take this form.

 

You are wrong. The Kaballah was always occultic.  

 

Besides they are referencing certain points of Hebrew to support a point that was made. 

 

They are referencing Hebrew from a mystical and not a textual perspective  They are adding mystical interpretations and presenting this mystical meaning as if it is the meaning of the text.

 

When we read more about the science of starlight and time we can see that the six day 24-hour creation and the billions of years of age to the universe can both be true.  This is the essence of Hebrew block logic.

 

That is not the essence of Herew block logic at all  If God were trying to fit 15 billion years into six days, He would have said so, but He didn't. 

 

One of the aspects of Hebrew block logic is duality.  You can have both.  For example, election and free-will.  Christian churches have divided themselves on this doctrine and swear one over the other.  Not so, in Judaism.  It can be both!

[nebula]

 

 

My point was that if God wanted to fit 15 billion years into 6 days and wanted us to believe that 6 days was actually a 15 billion year span of time, He was perfectly capable communicating that in the book of Genesis, but He didn't do it.

 

Sorry, but I really do have the nagging need to point this out. The concept of the word "billion" didn't actually exist back then. (Yes, I'm being nit-picky, but still....)

 

That is true.  But the point is that if God wanted to communicate to us that the "days" of creation were long epochs of time, there are better and more precise ways in Hebrew that would have been better than "yom."

 

 

Well, I will still contend that God's interests in the Creation account was not a modern scientific discourse on the age of the universe or the planet Earth.

 

If He wanted to teach us science, it would have been presented scientifically, but it wasn't. It's written in parallelism and is meant to point us to Jesus.

 

I fail to see Jesus presented in the age debate.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

My point was that if God wanted to fit 15 billion years into 6 days and wanted us to believe that 6 days was actually a 15 billion year span of time, He was perfectly capable communicating that in the book of Genesis, but He didn't do it.

 

Sorry, but I really do have the nagging need to point this out. The concept of the word "billion" didn't actually exist back then. (Yes, I'm being nit-picky, but still....)

That is true.  But the point is that if God wanted to communicate to us that the "days" of creation were long epochs of time, there are better and more precise ways in Hebrew that would have been better than "yom."

Such as ......

What should God have said other than yom to show longer epochs.

 

He could have used the word "olam" which refers to "the most distant  or ancient  time" in various contexts.  The word at its most narrow definition refers to the distant horizon.   It would actually be the ideal word to use and would have been less confusing than trying to take a word like yom and try to make it mean what it was never meant to mean and is never used to mean long epochs of time anywhere else in the Bible.

 

In addition, the word olam is a noun and so the plural olamim could have been employed easily with ordinal numbers to refer to long ages of time in numberical succession.  Those kinds of references would have easily communicated the kind  of old earth that people are trying to advocate for today.

 

God, at the very least, could have used the plural, "yomim" but He didn't.   He used a masculine noun, "yom." in a singular form accompanied by ordinal numbers that is the least efficient way of communicating .long epochs of time particularly in a historical narrative.

 

Another idea is the use of "olam vaed."  In English it reads, "forever and ever."   But in the Hebraic mind, it means, "to the most distant horizon and again."   The word "olam" doesn't mean "time without end," necessarily to the Hebrew mind. It means a long duration of time.   Coupled with vaed, it means to the most distant place and then to the most distant place, again, so on.  

 

So there better ways in Hebrew to communicate long epochs of time than the word "yom."