Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis

[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.

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."

 

Going by what you say "olam" means, it would not have worked at all to show 6 stages of creation.  Olam (olamim)1 and Olam(olamim) 2 and Olam 3 would make no sense at all.   You cant have a succession of "most distant times".

I see now that there are 3 parties communicating.

 

Those that think Yom means a literal 24 hour period (Shiloh and clb)

 

those that think it might mean an epoch (all others)

 

and those that think it means a 24 hour period, but also think that this was used as a literary device to make a connection with the culture around it (clb.  anyone else??)

 

clb

4. What Dr. Schroeder said- it could be both, depending on what perspective you are looking from. (Remember time is slower as we move further away toward the beginning)

 

Hey spock,

 

I know only a smattering of quantum physics.  But as one enamored with logic, on some level it cannot be both.  The actual creation of the world either saw only 6 (or rather 5) descents and ascents of the sun, or it saw a billion.

 

I love physics, I love how it messes with our categories and assumptions: but as far as I can tell, physics changes the perspective of the viewer.  Thus if I were traveling at the speed of light from one end of a room to another, I might say it took me 3 seconds.....but to you, it would be a flash.  That is how I understand the physicists.  But no one would argue that I traveled back and forth for a thousand times, while others saw me travel only once.

 

In the same way, either the sun descended and ascended as Genesis tells it, or it didn't.

 

I hold that, in reality, it didn't.  The Bible tells it as if it did for theological, and far more important, reasons.

 

As you know brother, I have always, always enjoyed your posts.  So I hope you don't take this offensive.

 

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.

 

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."  

 

 

Going by what you say "olam" means, it would not have worked at all to show 6 stages of creation.  Olam (olamim)1 and Olam(olamim) 2 and Olam 3 would make no sense at all.   You cant have a succession of "most distant times". 

 

It would have worked just fine. 

 

Olam echad, Olam sheini, Olam sh'lishi, and so on.  It works perfectly in Hebrew and would easily speak to ages of long duration.   Exodus 20:11 could have read, "for in six ages (Ki shi-sheet olamim) the Lord made the heavens and earth.

 

I notice you only respond to critiques of the Yom argument.  You haven't acknowledged mine which admits that Yom means 24 hours??

 

clb

[nebula]

 

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.

Because the age debate isn't about presenting Jesus.  It is an issue about the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of science to interpret or modify the biblical text.  

 

For my part, I am not claiming that the Bible is trying to teach science.  The problem is that the Hebraic grammatical structure of the text of Genesis 1 simply doesn't allow for yom to mean anything other than a literal day.

 

"Because the age debate isn't about presenting Jesus."

 

But is not presenting Jesus the whole point of Scripture? Are we not to read Scripture first and foremost to know God?

 

37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

Witness of the Scripture

39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life ; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 "I do not receive glory from men ; (John 5)

 

 

"It is an issue about the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of science to interpret or modify the biblical text."

 

When Paul preached in the Areopagus in Athens (Acts  17), was he concerned with debating the authority of the Greek religion or Greek philosophies vs. the authority of the Scriptures or the Gospel?

[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.

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."

 

Going by what you say "olam" means, it would not have worked at all to show 6 stages of creation.  Olam (olamim)1 and Olam(olamim) 2 and Olam 3 would make no sense at all.   You cant have a succession of "most distant times".

I see now that there are 3 parties communicating.

 

Those that think Yom means a literal 24 hour period (Shiloh and clb)

 

those that think it might mean an epoch (all others)

 

and those that think it means a 24 hour period, but also think that this was used as a literary device to make a connection with the culture around it (clb.  anyone else??)

 

clb

4. What Dr. Schroeder said- it could be both, depending on what perspective you are looking from. (Remember time is slower as we move further away toward the beginning)

Hey spock,

 

I know only a smattering of quantum physics.  But as one enamored with logic, on some level it cannot be both.  The actual creation of the world either saw only 6 (or rather 5) descents and ascents of the sun, or it saw a billion.

 

I love physics, I love how it messes with our categories and assumptions: but as far as I can tell, physics changes the perspective of the viewer.  Thus if I were traveling at the speed of light from one end of a room to another, I might say it took me 3 seconds.....but to you, it would be a flash.  That is how I understand the physicists.  But no one would argue that I traveled back and forth for a thousand times, while others saw me travel only once.

 

In the same way, either the sun descended and ascended as Genesis tells it, or it didn't.

 

I hold that, in reality, it didn't.  The Bible tells it as if it did for theological, and far more important, reasons.

 

As you know brother, I have always, always enjoyed your posts.  So I hope you don't take this offensive.

 

clb

Why would I take offense to this post?

Like you I'm no expert. I was merely stating what Dr. Schroeder, MIT Summa cum laude physicist, said. Lol

[nebula]

 

Okay...

 

nothing that you have said contradicts my point.  I have stressed again and again that Moses presented the creation account in terms of 6 literal days to recall his audience to the 6/7 day temple festival (of pagan cultures) for theological reasons.  I have agreed with you; yom means 6 days.  In fact, had God added a footnote, or anything in Hebrew, to lead the audience to see "Day" as meaning more than what they understood to be a "day", then my theory would be in ruins.

 

But it still stands for me, that we can reconcile the theological significance of Genesis with the scientific discoveries of the earth.

 

clb

 

 

For the record, I understand what you are saying.

 

When one compares the Genesis 1 account with the concurrent creation stories presented in other religions at the time,it paints a whole different picture than when you try to compare Genesis 1 with an account developed several millenia after Genesis 1 was written (the modern scientific one).

[a-seeker]

 

 

Okay...

 

nothing that you have said contradicts my point.  I have stressed again and again that Moses presented the creation account in terms of 6 literal days to recall his audience to the 6/7 day temple festival (of pagan cultures) for theological reasons.  I have agreed with you; yom means 6 days.  In fact, had God added a footnote, or anything in Hebrew, to lead the audience to see "Day" as meaning more than what they understood to be a "day", then my theory would be in ruins.

 

But it still stands for me, that we can reconcile the theological significance of Genesis with the scientific discoveries of the earth.

 

clb

 

 

For the record, I understand what you are saying.

 

When one compares the Genesis 1 account with the concurrent creation stories presented in other religions at the time,it paints a whole different picture than when you try to compare Genesis 1 with an account developed several millenia after Genesis 1 was written (the modern scientific one).

 

Appreciated...

 

Wait, this forum and its design to string quotes together gets me confused.   I thought I was arguing with Shiloh.  Have I been sending arguments to you?  If so, I apologize.  Or are you merely saying you understand my point in a debate with Shiloh.

 

Man, all the strings of quotes in a reply is dizzying.

 

clb

Edited January 14, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[a-seeker]

 

 

Okay...

 

nothing that you have said contradicts my point.  I have stressed again and again that Moses presented the creation account in terms of 6 literal days to recall his audience to the 6/7 day temple festival (of pagan cultures) for theological reasons.  I have agreed with you; yom means 6 days.  In fact, had God added a footnote, or anything in Hebrew, to lead the audience to see "Day" as meaning more than what they understood to be a "day", then my theory would be in ruins.

 

But it still stands for me, that we can reconcile the theological significance of Genesis with the scientific discoveries of the earth.

 

clb

 

 

For the record, I understand what you are saying.

 

When one compares the Genesis 1 account with the concurrent creation stories presented in other religions at the time,it paints a whole different picture than when you try to compare Genesis 1 with an account developed several millenia after Genesis 1 was written (the modern scientific one).

 

Either way, we are on the same page.

 

clb

[nebula]

 

Appreciated...

 

Wait, this forum and its design to string quotes together gets me confused.   I thought I was arguing with Shiloh.  Have I been sending arguments to you?  If so, I apologize.  Or are you merely saying you understand my point in a debate with Shiloh.

 

Man, all the strings of quotes in a reply is dizzying.

 

clb

 

 

Nope. I was just commenting on what you wrote. I was thinking that people were misunderstanding what you were saying, so I made a comment on it.

[a-seeker]

 

 

Appreciated...

 

Wait, this forum and its design to string quotes together gets me confused.   I thought I was arguing with Shiloh.  Have I been sending arguments to you?  If so, I apologize.  Or are you merely saying you understand my point in a debate with Shiloh.

 

Man, all the strings of quotes in a reply is dizzying.

 

clb

 

 

Nope. I was just commenting on what you wrote. I was thinking that people were misunderstanding what you were saying, so I made a comment on it.

 

then thanks again..........

 

 

Any idea how to make it clearer?  One of the reasons I joined this forum was to sharpen my written communication skills....

 

you seem to get it.

 

clb

[nebula]

 

 

 

Appreciated...

 

Wait, this forum and its design to string quotes together gets me confused.   I thought I was arguing with Shiloh.  Have I been sending arguments to you?  If so, I apologize.  Or are you merely saying you understand my point in a debate with Shiloh.

 

Man, all the strings of quotes in a reply is dizzying.

 

clb

 

 

Nope. I was just commenting on what you wrote. I was thinking that people were misunderstanding what you were saying, so I made a comment on it.

 

then thanks again..........

 

 

Any idea how to make it clearer?  One of the reasons I joined this forum was to sharpen my written communication skills....

 

you seem to get it.

 

clb

 

 

Sometimes you have to expand your thinking - that is, explain the details.

 

I get it because I've been exposed to this concept before; most people have not.

 

But if someone has never seen the concurrent creation stories from the surrounding nations at the time Genesis was penned, how could they understand?