[_ Old Earth _] How God did it,... I'm all ears....

[Sparkey]

Pardon me for saying but this wouldn't be a "healthy debate" if everybody agreed so....

One of the things that I consider as I read about Noah and his sons is that God needed for at least one man to hear him in order to judge the world. If that was not the case, how might He respond to the accusation, "You didn't warn!" or, "You may have warned, but it was in a manner that was too high above me, too high above the reach of any man..."

But I see this thought (as I review the thread) as a possible side-track. No answer is needed.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

In observing the fact that the basis of this discussion has deteriorated somewhat from its original topic (and taking into account that I've played more than a small role in said deterioration, to which I apologise), I move that we either conclude here or reopen the discussion in a topic specific thread?

 

[Sparkey]

In observing the fact that the basis of this discussion has deteriorated somewhat from its original topic (and taking into account that I've played more than a small role in said deterioration, to which I apologise), I move that we either conclude here or reopen the discussion in a topic specific thread?

Probably one of the wisest things I've heard today. As a moderator I can copy large blocks of posts into a new thread fairly easily. But what shall we call (title) our new thread? And should it be properly placed in a different forum?


In our defense, the "I'm all ears..." portion of the title does give grace to listening to all who respond here, and he OP has not complained... still, I think you're right and that it's good to respect the thread in this manner. But then again, and upon review... (also if memory serves) this thread itself was broken off of another thread that had meandered (like an old man river). To me this is a pleasant thing, perhaps the best thing to do is to wait for cupid dave to return and let us know what he'd like.

I typically don't see "need" until it is pointed to.

 

[cupid dave]

To me this is a pleasant thing, perhaps the best thing to do is to wait for cupid dave to return and let us know what he'd like.

I typically don't see "need" until it is pointed to.

Hi,...

I don't se the need to do anything at all, since we 4 people posting here are only go out of bounds because some things stated open a door into issues that are vaguely holding some back from agrrement of one thing or another.

The easiest way back onto topic is a post that speaks to the OP.

I will present one right now.

 

[cupid dave]

Why does it has to be 6 days?

anybody that knows anything knows time is not a "thing".
It actually is not clear what time is at all.
Time is achange in states.
From condition A to condition B, if you will. If it happensregular enough, we use that as a "tick".

second. What is this"god never changes" notion. Is it particle based? It works if we use"natural law" based. God never changes because the laws we see seem not to change. They are the same now as they were 1*10^9 years ago. Yes, in this sense, the bible fits perfectly.

or, if we say "god is understandable and works inpredictable ways". Yes again, in that sense he never changes. In this light,the bible fits perfectly again.

this stuff is child's play. Why do we make it so dern confusing?

Your point is well taken, in that the word coosen for "day" actually means duration to be understod in context with its usuage.

Once the ancient context seem to be 24 hour durations because the cultural/educational paradigm those people "enjoyed" eliminated any reference to the actual length of the historical geological record that would in our times prove out toi be a better, scientifically supported context for using "yowm."

In any event, using the Hebrew word yowm in the context of what science has described as the seven historical durations experienced by the cosmic evolution is now very appropriate.
More tna appropriate, the identification of the seven durations as scientifically supported revelation confirms what Genesis says rather than holding other interpretations up to ridicule.

 

[Adam]

Using the Hebrew in its proper context and rules of syntax limits the word to a 24 hour day.

 

[Sparkey]

Using the Hebrew in its proper context and rules of syntax limits the word to a 24 hour day.

Almost true. You are correct when you mention "proper context and syntax limits" because there is no example of a period greater than 24 hours where the Hebrew term "yowm" is used with cardinal and ordinal numbers like we see in the Genesis account(s). Still, the term may be used in a more specific sense to mean an approximate 12 hour period as when it is used in conjunction with the word for night, as in "the evening and the morning day one," meaning an approximate 24 hour period vs. "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Both of these proper uses may be found in Gen 1:5. This example includes "yowm" as an approximate 12 hour period as well as the more traditional concept of an approximate 24 hour period.

Again, you are absolutely correct when you say that there are limits and I know of several Hebrew scholars who might be brought into this conversation to back you up on your assertion.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

 

[Adam]

Thanks for pointing that out.

The point is that there are limits set which render the word as being specific, rather than some some vague, undefined, or broad sense of time.

 

[cupid dave]

Almost true. You are correct when you mention "proper context and syntax limits" because there is no example of a period greater than 24 hours where the Hebrew term "yowm" is used

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

Yowm defined as 24 hours, the first Earth day, was used way later, in Genesis 1:14, after the initial series of some other "day," right from "in the beginning."


Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:


The whole description of the 4th day would be redundant indeed, if God was merely re-creating the Solar clock to reign over time on Earth and heaven as had already previously been inferred according to you fundamentalists.

It seems rational to understand day 4 as the appearance of the circadian connection between earth time and those "first sprouts on Earth" that had appeared in day 3.
If one accepts your idea of the seven "days" being 24 hours, day 4 makes no sense and is redundant, indeed.

We need also examine the "hint" that the seven days were unusual, in that they began in the evening and ended in the morning.
That is not the way one normally refers to a common earth day.
The suggest seems strong that we re-examine why this day is so described, and relate it to the seven analogous Historic geological events science points out, all of which parallel Genesis in that regard.

 

[Sparkey]

previously been inferred according to you fundamentalists.

You might be interested that given my full view, many fundamentalists would not include me in their group. I do believe in the Word of God as stated in the original language and true and free from error, and that might suffice for a classification as "fundamentalist" to you, but not to all. Believe me. I don't fit. I doubt that you would agree to any specific term that I ascribed to you especially if it could be used in a derogatory manner, even though that was not my intent.

We need also examine the "hint" that the seven days were unusual, in that they began in the evening and ended in the morning.
That is not the way one normally refers to a common earth day.

It is for some. There are many people who have the rich heritage that includes this understanding. Many.

The suggest seems strong that we re-examine why this day is so described

You've lost me. Is it because "we" are being spoken of by you and I have no voice in the matter? Could be, it may be, it might even be likely that's where you lost me... no wait... one more quote and that is precisely where:

relate it to the seven analogous Historic geological events science points out, all of which parallel Genesis in that regard.

Yep, that's "we" part ways. I would remind you though that we were never walking together in this. Two can not walk together unless first they are agreed. Here's the simple of it. Let's say that you and I met on the street and you wanted to go to the park just west of our current location. I wanted to get something to drink and said, "You look thirsty, care to accompany me toward the east just a bit and I'll buy you a pop (or if we're on the East Coast already, a soda?)? We pause, consider our ways and depart company. Did we ever walk together? Sadly, no.

 

[cupid dave]

I do believe in the Word of God as stated in the original language and true and free from error, and that might suffice for a classification as "fundamentalist" to you,
o.

I believe " the Word of God as stated in the original language and true and free from error"....

What fundamentalists say the word of god means as they explain Genesis is different from what I say the word of god means as I read Genesis.

We differ on the way yowm, i.e. "day," is understood in the context of Genesis.
I see seven long durations of time separated by a curtain falling as if "evening," and rising upon the next geological era as "morning."

I understand that God MADE the sun, moon, and stars the time keepers on Earth which regulates the circadian rythms on our planet, but was not available In the beginning as a clock.
I understand that days, seasons, years did not exist as concepts until Gen 1:14.

I believe these words and see the corrspndence with science.
You believe these words but do not see the correspondence with facts.

 

[Barbarian]

Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1

What Sarfati thinks is not important...what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

 

[Arch Angle]

agreed barb,

I said it a hundred times. List what you have. Draw a conclusion from thatlist. I call it evidence driven conclusion, not conclusion driven evidence.

I am hoping the young earth story gets so twisted it snaps like a wire thatis all twisted up. We are seeing thistwist get more convoluted with the likes of this toe ligament thing.

 

[cupid dave]

Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1

What Sarfati thinks is not important...what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

Yes, your link supports the argument that one can understand yom to mean an "Age" or an "unspecified duration of time:"

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)

from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger
​

Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.

So the issue is choice.
Those who have chosen to oppose the correspondence with the Geological Time Clock and ignore that the 24 hour day, seasons, and years did not appear In the beginning will insist the context implies 24 hour units.
But the wise who shall understand"that science and facts are powerful supports for Genesis when yom is recognized as corrsponding with the seven durations that are historically recorded in the rocks.

BOTH will claim they are following the words that god wrote in Genesis.

 

[stovebolts]

agreed barb,

I said it a hundred times. List what you have. Draw a conclusion from thatlist. I call it evidence driven conclusion, not conclusion driven evidence.

I am hoping the young earth story gets so twisted it snaps like a wire thatis all twisted up. We are seeing thistwist get more convoluted with the likes of this toe ligament thing.

When you hope for the "young earth story" to get so twisted that it snaps, then you've closed your mind to any other possibilities other than your own agenda. This view will distort every post you read and will cause you to read into posts "things" that aren't there. I'd caution you against such an approach.

I've mentioned this earlier in other threads, but there isn't a scholar in the Hebrew language that interprets day in Genesis 1 as anything other than a literal day. Why then is it that it is only Evangelical Christians who try to interpret it differently? I'd like your opinion on this if you care to share it.

Thanks.

 

[Adam]

Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.


So the issue is choice.
.

No, that is not the case. There are rules of Hebrew that point to a specific meaning. When deliniated, such as "on the first...second....third...." the word is specifically intended as a human day. There is no "choosing definitions" so that you can change intention in a failed effort to support your agenda.

 

[Arch Angle]

what if we aint literal Adam?

I mean I see what you are saying, but if I am taking the bible as metaphorical,what's the problem with meaning of a day?

like "That is one bad ride"

how would you take that literally? using the rules of grammar?

 

[Sparkey]

What fundamentalists say the word of god means as they explain Genesis is different from what I say the word of god means as I read Genesis.

By that definition, almost everybody is a fundamentalist, right?

 

[Adam]

what if we aint literal Adam?

I mean I see what you are saying, but if I am taking the bible as metaphorical,what's the problem with meaning of a day?

like "That is one bad ride"

how would you take that literally? using the rules of grammar?

Because the Hebrew style of writing found in the bible is supposed to lend to an interpretation system called "Pardes."

In it, the plain meaning is true, as well as the metaphorical meaning.

 

[Sparkey]

Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1

What Sarfati thinks is not important...what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

Okay, but quoting your source, the learned Greg Neyman who wrote the article, "Old Earth Creation Science, Word Study: Yom," published © 2007, Old Earth Ministries on 16 March 2005,

Word Usage in the Old Testament

As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days...it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.

Yom in the Creation Account​

Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.​

• Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
• Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
• Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.

[emphasis and formatting mine]
See for yourself at http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

If you want to suggest something other than this, you may wish to suggest it to Greg so that he could alter his article so that it agreed with your allegation, right? To me, this would be much easier than trying to convince God to re-write the Bible for us.

But then, even as I write this to you another thought occurs to me. Perhaps my old eyes have read this wrong? Maybe Leyman was quoting one of those foolish people who believe differently than you? Maybe I am misrepresenting him? Sheesh, it's happened before. Let's double check. I'll go back and read it again, and will invite you to do the same so that we both may return and correct my error, well, if it is an error that is, shall we?


Okay. I've checked myself. This is exactly what he said. When I double checked myself for integrity of HIS message I found my error. I omitted his "fourth" (imagined?) use of the word Yom in the creation account. Here's his argument:

The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day". Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years.

So we see that after having quoted the Bible and giving very exact (and I believe, correct) rendering for the meaning, including the 12 hours in a day-time period, 12 hours in a nightime period, and 24 hours when the two are combined, as well as a statement that 7 of these 24 hour periods are called a (wait for it, no surprise coming here) a WEEK! (ta-da!) he goes on to conclude that this week somehow adds to "either millions or billions" of years. But I did not read any Hebrew word for "months," let alone years, let alone millions of years, let alone billion of years. Whose agenda is being "preached" here again? What is the criticism of the Young Earth guy, once more? Oh, yes... I remember:

We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.