All in a day's work

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
22
✟13,840.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Hebrew for "day"

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yome" (Strong's 03117). It can mean a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of it (day as distinct from the night).

Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word "yome" is never used to refer to a long period of time, as in thousands or millions of years.

In Hebrew, should the word "yome" be used in an indefinite sense, it will be clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning is not intended.

First-time use not symbolic

Some people say that the word "day" in Genesis is used symbolically.

This is impossible as a word cannot be symbolic the first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically if it first has a literal meaning.

For example, we are told that Jesus is the "bread of life". We know what this means because we understand the literal meaning of "bread", and are able to apply it symbolically to Jesus. The word "bread" cannot be used in this sense unless it first has a literal meaning.

Likewise, the word "day" cannot be used symbolically the first time it appears in Genesis, as this is where God introduced the word "day" and defined it as He created it.

Some might argue that this point is flawed because Job is an earlier book, in the sense that Job lived before the time of Moses. But this is to imply that the Holy Spirit was outdated when He inspired Moses to write Genesis, and that He made a mistake when He put Genesis as the first book of the Bible.

The Bible itself defines "day"

Many Christians forget that the Holy Spirit himself has defined the word "day" the first time it appears in the Bible. A basic rule of thumb in Bible study is to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

* Genesis 1:5
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

The first time the word "day" is used, it is defined as "the light" to distinguish it from "the darkness" called "night".

The phrase, "and there was evening, and there was morning", is used for each of the other five days of creation. This shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (periods of light and periods of darkness).

(the Jews start their day from 6 pm to the next day 6 pm)

Incidentally, those who argue that the word "day" in the above verse means millions of years must answer the question, "What is a night?"

Daylight without the sun?

But how could there be day and night when the sun was not created yet, until day four?

The word for "light" in Genesis 1:3 means the "substance" of light that was created. Then, on day four in Genesis 1:14-19, we are told of the creation of the sun, which was to be the source of light henceforth.

The sun was created to rule the day that already existed. The day merely had a new light source.

Perhaps God deliberately left the creation of the sun to the fourth day to show that He is the light, the source of life and the sustainer of life, because He knew that man would one day worship the sun as the source of life.


Problems with taking "day" to mean millions of years:

Our seven-day week

Exodus 20:9 tells us that we are to work for six days and rest for one. This is why we have a seven-day week.

* Exodus 20:9
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

The reason for this is found in verse 11:

* Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent, whatever is used as the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1 must also be used here.

So, if we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, then we should do the same for Exodus 20:11, which would make nonsense of our seven-day week. We don't work for six million years and then rest for 1 million years!

What are "years" and "seasons" then?

* Genesis 1:14
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

If the word "day" here is not to be taken literally, then, to be consistent in our interpretation, neither should the words "seasons", "days" and "years". What do they mean then?

Likewise, we are told in Genesis 1:26-31 that God made Adam on the sixth day. We know that Adam lived through the rest of the sixth day and through the seventh day. Genesis 5:5 says that he died when he was 930 years old.

If we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, how do we understand Adam's lifespan of "930 years"? What is a "year"? Or, for that matter, a "night", a "week", a "month"?

Covenant with day and night

* Jeremiah 33:25,26
25 This is what the Lord says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth,
26 then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.' "

God's "covenant with day and night" began in Genesis 1. There is no clear origin and definition for day and night in the Bible other than Genesis 1. Therefore, this must be where the covenant began.

However, this covenant would make no sense and be on shaky ground if "day" is not taken literally in Genesis 1. And, again, what would "night" mean?

A day as a thousand years?

* 2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

* Psalm 90:4
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

The two verses are used by many to teach that the days in Genesis must each be a thousand years long.

But the verses are not saying that God defines a "day" as "a thousand years". That would contradict His original definition in Genesis 1:5. Also, note that the word "like" is used.

In both cases, the truth being presented is that God is neither limited by natural processes nor by time. The Creator of time is not bound by time.

Also, neither verse refers to the days of creation in Genesis. In 2 Peter 3, the context is Christ's second coming. In Psalm 90, the context is Israel's rebellion in the wilderness and the mortality of man.

The verses also indicate that God, not bounded by time, can do in a very short time what men or nature would require a very long time to accomplish, if they could succeed at all.

Interestingly, evolutionists say that the chance, random processes of nature required millions of years to produce living things and man. Many Christians have accepted this by saying that God took millions of years to create, which is the very opposite of what 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 are saying.

Bloodshed and death

When Adam and Eve sinned, they tried to cover their sins with fig leaves -- a works religion (and a reason why Jesus cursed the fig tree in Matthew 21:19).

God had to clothe them with animal skin, instead, which meant that an animal was killed -- a blood sacrifice, for without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).

So, according to the Bible, blood was shed only after man sinned. There were no killings before that. Also, man and animals were originally instructed to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29,30). Man was only allowed to kill and eat animals after the flood (Genesis 9:3).

Evolution, however, teaches that there was bloodshed and death ("survival of the fittest") for millions of years before man existed.

Jesus, Luke and Paul took it literally

Many Christians believe that the creation account in Genesis is only symbolic -- sort of like a fairy tale or legend.

What is their authority for deciding what is literal and what is symbolic in the Bible? Are they making their decisions based on a popular man-made theory?

As Christians, we should let the Bible tell us whether the creation account in Genesis is symbolic or literal.

Perhaps the best proof that it is literal is the fact that Jesus himself took it literally:

* Matthew 19:4
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

* Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Jesus was quoting from Genesis 1:27. Can you imagine His listeners replying, "But Rabbi, that is not to be taken literally!"

Luke took the creation account in Genesis to be literal too.

* Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

How can a genealogy be a genealogy if it lists a man who didn't really exist?

And like Jesus and Luke, the apostle Paul took it literally too.

* Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

* 1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

* 1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

All these verses would be meaningless if Adam and Eve were not real first man and first woman.
 

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
Did the events depicted in the parable of the Good Samaritan really happen? If they didn't, and are only symbolic - does that make them untrue? The same goes for Genesis, and Adam & Eve. Those events did not actually have to happen, nor did Adam & Eve actually have to exist for there to be truth in the myth.
 
Upvote 0

Ray Cho

Ex Obscuris Lux
Mar 1, 2003
29
1
55
Visit site
✟15,154.00
Yesterday at 11:32 PM Andrew said this in Post #1

Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word "yome" is never used to refer to a long period of time, as in thousands or millions of years.



"Come, and let us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.  After two days (yom) will he revive us; in the third day (yom) he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."  Hosea 6:1-2 

     Most Bible scholars believe this passage refers to God restoring His relationship with Israel.  Whether or not this prophecy has been fulfilled yet is debatable, but if it has, it certainly took longer than three days.

     You have posted many legitimate scriptural challenges to an old earth and evolution, but many (if not all) of them have also been answered by other Christians in ways that fully maintain the Bible as the inerrant word of God.  Rather than spend all night reciting the words of other people, I would like to refer you to the following websites:

   www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html 

   www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

   www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/synop.htm


The problems you pose are serious, and they deserve equally serious answers.  I do not necessarily agree with everything contained within these websites, but I do believe, as someone who has studied and affirmed the truth of the Bible for over 25 years, that many of the points that are made therein are very legitimate and deserve serious consideration from those who seek to maintain the inerrancy of God's Word.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
22
✟13,840.00
Faith
Non-Denom
thanks for the responses but they are really not convincing and lack the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - ie very academic in nature.

the problem is that evolution is accepted by the world as fact. Christians who live in this world are then caught in a dilemma. If they want to pursue careers in science eg by a science teacher or a doctor, or just pass biology class, then they have to accept evolution as its part of the system.

at the same time they are Christians who have been brought up to believe that the Bible is true. So, in reconciliing the 2, they have no choice but to "modify" the meaning of verses in the Bible to fit into the secular belief of evolution. the opposite is just not possible in the world.

So i always find this principle at work with Christians who believe in evolution: science comes first and is more accurate. so from the perspectve of science, we go into the Bible and tell God and others what God actually meant. It is an outside-in thing when it shld be the other way round.

they claim to believe that God's Word is inerrant and true, yet always modify the meaning of simple clear cut verses to fit the theory of evolution. you seldom find them modifying the theory of evolution to fit with scripture. this is rather hypocritical and sad. :(

some even go so far as to say Jesus did not really know what he was talking about when he refered to Adam and Eve as literal first humans. IOW they are actually saying that today, they are smarter than when Jesus was around, beos they have had the benefit of Darwin's teachings. again, how sad and what an insult to the Lord. :(
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Andrew,

Creation science denies the evidence we find in the creation the bible is talking about. By their reading, God has lied to us either in the bible, or in creation.

Scientific evidence cannot be "modified" to fit scripture, to do so, would be to say that God has lied to us in the creation that the bible talks about. To do so would not be science. Science and its theories do not examine God.

I don't see Christians who accept mainstream science as modifying scripture, only interpreting them to fit what God shows us in his creation. The lessons of scripture and the revelation of God as creator is unaffected.

On its own, the bible versus may seem clear cut, but we need to apply them to the world as we know it. This world is old and many Christians have no problem interpreting the scriptures in this light.. For anyone to state that they have a corner on biblical interpretation and that if it is shown to be wrong, then the bible is wrong, is falling into a trap of having that interpretation defeated with falsification. This is what Creation Science has done. It places us in a place were we have to deny the simple clear cut evidence that is in creation.

I think this is the difference. It is not about putting science first, it is putting creation first and the interpretation of the bible must match that. Biblical interpretations can change (and have many times). Creation does not change so it is the absolute revelation of God.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
22
✟13,840.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Creation science denies the evidence we find in the creation the bible is talking about.

that is simply ignorance. Creation science accepts the same evidence that is lying out there in the fields, but understnds and interprets it from the perspective of the Word of God. And the 2 always fit well when you start with God's Word. Evolution on the other hand, accepts the same evidence out there, but interprets it from a secular, anti-God, anti-creation perspective. "Christian" evolutionists on the other hand, just try to stick themselves in the middle to satisfy both parties, but do it by compromising the truths of the Word of God.

Scientific evidence cannot be "modified" to fit scripture,

you dont seem to get it. No one is talking about modifying the evidence. A bone is a bone. Its how its interpreted. You dig up a skeleton of a bird-like creature. You interpret it as lizard-to-bird transition becos you are an evolutionist and you have to conform to the world which accepts evolution as fact and so you have to 'find' evidence. I interpret it as just another bird becos I simply believe God's word when he says things produce after their own kind. And guess what, it looks just like another bird. So start from the Bible but you start from the world.

Science and its theories do not examine God.

that's another big hypocrisy with Christian evolutionists and anti-God evolutionists. Its okay to spend billions on technology to find aliens who could have planted the first seed on earth billions of years ago or whatever. They can accept that some superior alien being cld have sparked off evolution but if you switch that "alien" word to "God" Ñ it becomes unacceptable.

On its own, the bible versus may seem clear cut, but we need to apply them to the world as we know it.

you mean as your anti-God, anti-Word evolutionist teachers know it. I see the beautiful mountains, lakes and trees, and i see the creator God. You see the same thing but see a big bang.

This world is old and many Christians have no problem interpreting the scriptures in this light.

perhaps you need to mix more with Christians who dont buy the evolution **** and attend a church that upholds the Bible as the Word of God.

This is what Creation Science has done. It places us in a place were we have to deny the simple clear cut evidence that is in creation.

That's funny, cos what creation science has done is simply show me that the Bible was right all along, and evolution is ****, given the same evidence out there.

If making sense is a sign that something isn't from God, we have a problem.

I think your signature says its all. btw: God does not believe in sceptics.
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
" If they want to pursue careers in science eg by a science teacher or a doctor, or just pass biology class, then they have to accept evolution as its part of the system."

Not true Andrew. I was aquainted with a very stubborn YEC in University (we both majored in Zoology). She never accepted evolutionary theory (nore was she expected to), and as far as I knew she passed all her courses with decent marks. Once could continue to be a YEC and become a doctor or biologist.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
22
✟13,840.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Not true Andrew. I was aquainted with a very stubborn YEC in University (we both majored in Zoology). She never accepted evolutionary theory (nore was she expected to), and as far as I knew she passed all her courses with decent marks. Once could continue to be a YEC and become a doctor or biologist.

well obviously she had no choice but to submit to the educational system. it's prob possible as she has done but you'd have to have 2 compartments in your brain, one for evolution one for the Bible -- iow, double-minded.

All that this does is helpÊmisleadÊsome people (like me) to believe that birds are descended from dinosaurs.

that's the dumbest theory I've ever heard -- that dinos turned into chirpy little birds. Really fits the scriptures "men professing themselves to be wise, become FOOLS!"

I really dislike your usage of lizard to describe dinosaurs.

do u think i really care?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
that's the dumbest theory I've ever heard -- that dinos turned into chirpy little birds. Really fits the scriptures "men professing themselves to be wise, become FOOLS!"
I noticed you seem to pick and chose you Bible verses, remember you aren't supposed to call your brothers fools.

Why does it sound dumb to you, do you understand the biology of dinosaurs/reptiles and birds? Obviously no if you make ignorant statements like that. Also, how do you know God did not allow dinosuars to evolve into birds, if he did and you call it dumb, aren't you calling God dumb?

In future maybe you shouldn't say anything unless you know what you're talking about.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
22
✟13,840.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I noticed you seem to pick and chose you Bible verses, remember you aren't supposed to call your brothers fools.

Oh please, I've not seen one shread of scripture proof posted by evolutionist Christians here. all they post are their scientific theories. This section feels more secular than Christian.

Also, how do you know God did not allow dinosuars to evolve into birds, if he did and you call it dumb, aren't you calling God dumb?

that's an even dumber statement, i dont know where to begin :(
 
Upvote 0

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Oh please, I've not seen one shread of scripture proof posted by evolutionist Christians here. all they post are their scientific theories. This section feels more secular than Christian.
Well i've never seen any scriptural proof of atoms either, and why would I, the Bible is spiritual not science.

that's an even dumber statement, i dont know where to begin
Then if it's so dumb why don't you explain the fossil record showing creatures with both reptile and bird features (Archaeopteryx), etc.
 
Upvote 0

Ray Cho

Ex Obscuris Lux
Mar 1, 2003
29
1
55
Visit site
✟15,154.00
7th March 2003 at 11:32 PM Andrew said this in Post #1

Hebrew for "day"

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yome" (Strong's 03117). It can mean a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of it (day as distinct from the night).

Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word "yome" is never used to refer to a long period of time, as in thousands or millions of years.



Andrew,

Going back to the the very first statement you made in this thread:

Please open your Bible and read: Gen 2:4, Gen 4:3, Josh 24:7, Hosea 6:2. All these verses use the word yom.

When you use the phrase "without exception," you'd better first make sure there are no exceptions.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.