Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis

[nebula]

 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.

 

Agreed.

[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."

 

 

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.

[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."

 

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.

Hi nebula,

You are like a rock star to me here. I can't tell you how many of your posts I've read that have blessed me one way or another. I've been dying to meet you.

Here's what I think- I think the primary motivation for YEC is to thwart evolution.

[Guest shiloh357]

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." 

Strongs is an inefficient tool on its own.  The Hebrew and Greek dictionaries it offers are exhaustive and not analytical.  It gives you every possible meaning of a given word as it is used in Scripture, but it doesn't provide you with an understanding of the contexts in which those various meanings occur.  

 

You can't simply pick the meaning that seems best to you and plug that into the Bible.  Furthermore, word usage is more important than word meaning.  Words are often used in ways that are not in keeping with the dictionary or lexical defintion of a word.

 

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. 

 

But it cannot mean both at the same time in a given passage.  It has to mean one or the other.  This an historical narrative.  it is not a prophetic text, nor does it employ "yom" in a figurative sense. The grammatical structure of the text simply doesn't allow us to plug in the meaning we want the word to have.  Usage and context rule how we are to read the text.

[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."

 

 

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.

 

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

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

 

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". 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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!

 

But we are not talking about Judaism, here.  For one thing you cannot compare this to the debate of free will and election.   Both concepts are in the Bible.   However the Bible has no dual functioning paradox between 6 days of creation vs. 15 billion years of creation.  The Bible doesn't make a case for both.   So there is no way you can use block logic scripturally like that.  The Bible simply says that the earth was created in six days.  It doesn't make room for a dual view.

[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

Edited January 14, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[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)

[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."  

 

 

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.