OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Guest shiloh357]

Well I will make it easy on you....give us the verse that clearly states without speculation that the days of Gen 1 were 24

hour days.

Genesis 1:3-31.   The original text clearly indicates a succession of  six 24 hour days.   Ex. 20:11 &  Ex. 31:17.  In all of those passages, the usage of  yom speaks to 24 hour days. That is exactly how the original audience in Exodus would have understood the word "yomim."

[LookingForAnswers]

Pure speculation, you have no way of knowingnfor sure what the original audience would have understood.

[Spock]

Well I will make it easy on you....give us the verse that clearly states without speculation that the days of Gen 1 were 24

hour days.

Genesis 1:3-31. The original text clearly indicates a succession of six 24 hour days. Ex. 20:11 & Ex. 31:17. In all of those passages, the usage of yom speaks to 24 hour days. That is exactly how the original audience in Exodus would have understood the word "yomim."

Yom word study here (an alternative to shilohs study)

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Well I will make it easy on you....give us the verse that clearly states without speculation that the days of Gen 1 were 24

hour days.

Genesis 1:3-31. The original text clearly indicates a succession of six 24 hour days. Ex. 20:11 & Ex. 31:17. In all of those passages, the usage of yom speaks to 24 hour days. That is exactly how the original audience in Exodus would have understood the word "yomim."

Yom word study here (an alternative to shilohs study)

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

 

Yeah, let's look at this alternative.   People who don't know Hebrew but think they know Hebrew are entertaining.  They're so cute when the try...

 

The Hebrew word for “day” is the word “Yom.”  Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. 

 

Young earth creationists don't make that argument and never have.  For my part I have never made that argument.  No one has ever said that yom can only ever refer to 24 hour days.   So from the outset of this article, the author is rooting the rest of what he has to say in a false premise.

 

Essentially he is trying refute an argument that wasn't ever raised.  I'm embarrassed for him.

 

Young earth creationists say that whenever Yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number (1st, 2nd, 1,2, etc) that it always represents a 24 hour day.  However, this is not true.  In Zechariah 14:7-9, the "one day" refers to a period of time when the Lord shall be king over the earth. 

 

 

The word "echad" used in Zechariah 14:7 in connection with yom is not being used as either a ordinal or cardinal number.   The word as it is used in THAT verse means, "special" or "unique."   Echad, often translated as "one" has some 18 different usages and many of them are not numerical in nature. The Hebrew word echad is a word that has engendered no small contention among both Jewish and Christian scholars.  It can be, depending on context a cardinal or ordinal number, it can mean first, single, alone, once, unique, or it can in some cases, refer to a unity.

 

The word "day" is obviously referring to a paricular point in time, not a 24 hour solar day.   So this example really falls short of what the author of the article thought that it would lend to his argument.

 

Now the author also alludes to these two verses as well:

 

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

(Hos 6:2)

 

So the LORD cut off from Israel head and tail, palm branch and reed in one day—

(Isa 9:14)

 

So when looking Hosea and Isaiah, why can't this serve as evidence that the days in Genesis are not 24 hour days?   Well, because   Hos. 6:2 and Isa. 9:14 are prophecies.  They are a different genre than Genesis 1 and that makes a difference in terms of the rules of hermeneutics.  The way you handle a prophecy is not the same way you handle a historical narrative, a parable, a proverb, a psalm, or a poem.   There are different literary types in the Bible and there are specific rules that govern each.

 

 

In Daniel 9 we see references to 49 week and 62 weeks where each week represents 7 years and each day presumably represents one year.   But that is prophecy.  You cannot apply the exegesis of prophecy and the rules that govern it and apply those rules to a historical narrative.  So it doesn't really matter if "yom" is used in a figurative way elsewhere in the Bible.  You

 

 

In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day".  Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day?  First, let's look at what evening and morning are not.  They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset.  According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation.  However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days.  Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings. 

    We are left with only one option.  The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets.  Scripture itself sets this pattern for us.  Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6.  Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period.

 

 

That argument could be made if we didn't have biblical corroboration from Ex. 20:11 and 31:17 to tell us what morning and evening meant in chapter 1.   The question is this.  When these Hebrew people are standing there at Sinai and they hear for the first time in Ex. 20: 11, that in six days, God created the heavens and earth, what would they have understood that to mean?   Would their minds have gone to the notion that "days" must have meant eons or long epochs of time?  Same holds true for Ex. 31:17.     How would the ancient Hebrews have understood the use of "day" in that passage??    They would have understood them as ordinary days. 

 

Evening and Morning are being used as modifers for the word, "day."  The question is still this:   What would this have meant to the original audience?   Why would God miscommunicate?   If God simply meant to set off the beginning and ending of a creative event, there were and are ways in Hebrew to say that.    If God mean for "days" to mean long periods of time, there were ways in Hebrew to say exactly that.   God could have denoted the begining and the end with words like "rishon and akcharone"  He could have used a number of different words to communate the beginning and end of long periods of "olamim," but he didn't.   These Hebrews were not stupid illiterate people.   They were not cavemen.     There really is no reason to try and force a figurative meaning on words that are clearly meant to be understood by the original audience in a literal way.

 

One important rule of hermeneutics is that a word or phrase in the Bible cannot mean now, what it didn't mean back then. 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Well I will make it easy on you....give us the verse that clearly states without speculation that the days of Gen 1 were 24

hour days.

Genesis 1:3-31. The original text clearly indicates a succession of six 24 hour days. Ex. 20:11 & Ex. 31:17. In all of those passages, the usage of yom speaks to 24 hour days. That is exactly how the original audience in Exodus would have understood the word "yomim."

Yom word study here (an alternative to shilohs study)

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

 

 

Spock over 700 posts!!  Congrats

 

If you subtract the ones with one sentence and a link...it's about 30-40, give or take 2 or 3?

 

[Spock]

Well I will make it easy on you....give us the verse that clearly states without speculation that the days of Gen 1 were 24

hour days.

Genesis 1:3-31. The original text clearly indicates a succession of six 24 hour days. Ex. 20:11 & Ex. 31:17. In all of those passages, the usage of yom speaks to 24 hour days. That is exactly how the original audience in Exodus would have understood the word "yomim."

Yom word study here (an alternative to shilohs study)http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

Spock over 700 posts!! Congrats

If you subtract the ones with one sentence and a link...it's about 30-40, give or take 2 or 3?

I'm getting tired of arguing with you guys saying the same things over and over in these science threads. No one really listens so why waste my time typing all this stuff? I'm not retired like you. My time is limited here, except on snow days like today.

[Organic Medicine]

I have known for many years that Indian civilisation was the most Advanced known on earth ,and that Christ had appeared there

about 10,000years ago ,and created an Advanced civilisation here on earth,which spread around the world .

If you read well enough, you will find out about it throughl the internet ; God either created All of creation ,or He did not,and

if He did He created why are people afraid to look at what He created .

Why could I not talk about to christians? Because they did not want to know,None of the churches would listen,because there is a lie

at the centre of fundamental christian teaching which  is of the devil ,and it is around the age of God's creation , and His purpose.

 

It is freeing and it is quite wonderful,when understand,and I have lived for so many years  t has been a horrible experience,and I

am glad that the news of archaelogical finds are coming out ,because maybe the truth will come out now.

[Guest shiloh357]

I have known for many years that Indian civilisation was the most Advanced known on earth ,and that Christ had appeared there

about 10,000years ago ,and created an Advanced civilisation here on earth,which spread around the world .

 

Yeah, that kind of false teaching is cause for alarm. 

Why could I not talk about to christians? Because they did not want to know,None of the churches would listen,because there is a lie

at the centre of fundamental christian teaching which  is of the devil ,and it is around the age of God's creation , and His purpose.

 

The reason Christians didn't receive that is because it isn't true.  Jesus was not in India 10,000 years ago.

[Steve_S]

Several posts were removed from this thread due to a ToS violation and several references to it. I'm not going to lock it, but please be mindful of your own words during discussions such as this, as they can get quite heated quite quickly.

[Shar]

 

Now, Shiloh, we have provided over 150 translation experts. 

 

Yes, and they said that "hayata"  COULD mean "became."  I agreed with them that it could.   I never disagreed with them on that.   But at the end, when they put in the final translation, they did not translate the word "became" they translated it "was" because that was the correct word.   Again, what  a word CAN mean doesn't mean we can plug that meaning into any passage we like.  We have to go by how the word is used and even the NIV translators chose the correct word in their translation.  They chose "was" not "became."   So again, not even your 150 experts support your claim that "became" is the correct word for Gen. 1:2.   Furthermore, they didn't translated "khoshek" as destruction, they translated it as "darkenss."

 

 

The only thing you replied to that was that there was a possible homosexual on the translation committee and you wanted to invalidate the whole NIV translation. 

 

Nope that was the only thing I said.  I also pointed out that the NIV is not word-for-word translation.  It is a thought-for-thought dynamic equivilance translation.

 

Give me some real scriptures that you can point too to refute others arguments that disagree with you.  Just please be kind to them and do not attack personally.  It lends to a better and more believable stance.

 

I don't pit the Bible against itself.  I don't use the Bible to refute the Bible.  I use the Scriptures others provide and I refute their interpretative methodology.

 

 

So, then you are saying you are your own authority, instead of using the Scriptures to support the position.  Often other scripture will enlighten or support points of scripture for the matter at hand.  For example, when Jesus said "to search the scriptures, it will testify of me", he solely spoke of the O.T.  Specifically, the O.T does not mention him by saying "Jesus this or Jesus that".  However, you can certainly pick out pieces of scripture all throughout the O.T. that reference aspects of his nature, life, death, birth, resurrection, kingship, healing, etc. Those scriptures can be strung together to show the Messiah.  It simply takes digging for them.  We can become in error if we let ourselves depend heavily on criticism to interpretations without true scriptural support too.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Shar