Biblical History is shown in Genesis Creation Story

[dana b]

How many people has realized that the Genesis six days of creation also point out the way that history would go? The Bible says that God declared the end from the very beginning. The very beginning is the first chapter of Genesis. Each day of creation has a main focus point or so called element or lifeform. These six day of Genesis creation tell us how God created the world in six days, and also how mankind developed following God's pattern over 6000 years.(a day=a thousand years 2Pet.3;8)

 

[dana b]

 

[cupid dave]

I like that you realize the seven :days" were not 24 hours.

Bible readers have long missed the fact that the 24 hour day was created by making the sun the Solar Time keeper during the evenys of the 5th "day."

I would encourage you to go even further and see the amazing correspondence with Science wherein the age of the Earth is measured over seven long durations called Eras, each one a fixed space of time recorded in different layers of Rock, one layer on top of the next.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I like that you realize the seven :days" were not 24 hours.

You "realize" this, huh???

<---Horse laugh




And this is priceless:

Bible readers have long missed the fact that the 24 hour day was created by making the sun the Solar Time keeper during the evenys of the 5th "day."

Buy you books and buy you books ...

The Hebrew word yowm in the first chapter of Genesis can only be translated as a literal day. Period. Sheez.

And this?

.

Great Googly-Moogly, what nonsense.

 

[Huram Abi]

Yowm can be translated to mean a period greater than a day. However, in the 7 day account, each "day" is marked by a literal evening and then a morning, so we are limited to understanding yowm within the confines of a 24 hour period in the creation instance.


And, yes, The graphic is completely wrong and doesn't distinguish between eras and eons.

It's like saying April, May, June, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday are all the days of the week.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Yowm can be translated to mean a period greater than a day. However, in the 7 day account, each "day" is marked by a literal evening and then a morning, so we are limited to understanding yowm within the confines of a 24 hour period in the creation instance.


And, yes, The graphic is completely wrong and doesn't distinguish between eras and eons.

It's like saying April, May, June, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday are all the days of the week.

Absolutely right, when yowm is modified by a cardinal or specific number (as it is in Genesis) it can be nothing but a 24-hour day.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Absolutely right, when yowm is modified by a cardinal or specific number (as it is in Genesis) it can be nothing but a 24-hour day.

I agree that yom refers to a day when listed here, although I don't believe that it's possible to view that day as anything other than a symbolic day and still keep the topic within the range of the scientifically possible. Still, I think that this argument is a weak one. We don't have very many examples of Hebrew writing, and Genesis is (I believe) the only example of yom being used with a cardinal number before it. You can't build a rule based on one disputed example. Although I believe that the ancient Hebrews intended the days to be taken as "literal" in the sense that they were literally days embedded within a heavily symbolic story, I don't think that they would have hesitated to use a set of non-24 hour yoms with cardinal numbers.

Also, this should probably be moved to origins theology.

 

[dana b]

Do these following Biblical verses have any influence in what a "day" may mean in the Bible? Some of them are written in original Hebrew script.

If you disregard them then that would seem strange. In order to justify an argument that a day in Genesis is only to be regarded as a litteral "24" hour day, you would make non understandable and obsolete the following Biblical quotes.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Do these following Biblical verses have any influence in what a "day" may mean in the Bible? Some of them are written in original Hebrew script.

If you disregard them then that would seem strange. In order to justify an argument that a day in Genesis is only to be regarded as a litteral "24" hour day, you would make non understandable and obsolete the following Biblical quotes.

Those quotes seem to have more to do with the idea that God is outside of our normal concept of time than with what the days in Genesis were. I would agree that you can't view those portions of the first book of the Bible as being literal and still take the Bible seriously as a book detailing truth, but I do think that it is more of an allegory than a book of poetry (ie., the days are literal, but the story itself is not; instead, it's meant to convey the truth of the creation and of our first parents and their sin in a way which the authors would have understood as being non-literal).

 

[gasman64]

Yowm has always meant 'age'. Never as a literal day. On the 3rd yowm, God commanded the earth to bring forth the grass and trees. he didn't make them. He commanded the earth to bring them forth. Modern science says that process was 1.5 billion years. And yowm is not a word in itself. It is undefined until you define it. For instance, the yowm of King David was the period that he was king which was 39 years. The book of kings is actually the "book of kingdoms" The Jews saw the kingdom as the reign of the king and not the land itself. They saw time differently and defined it differently.
That nonsense translation of 'a literal day' has caused more trouble than it is worth. Straight out of that 'dispensationalism' rubbish. Looking for patterns that don't exist.

 

[Huram Abi]

Sorry. That's wrong. These days are marked by an evening and a following morning. Given that each "yowm" is bracketed by an evening and morning, it can only be meant in this instance to mean a literal day.

The context doesn't come from the word "day." It comes from "evening and morning."

 

[gasman64]

Sorry. That's wrong. These days are marked by an evening and a following morning. Given that each "yowm" is bracketed by an evening and morning, it can only be meant in this instance to mean a literal day.

The context doesn't come from the word "day." It comes from "evening and morning."

Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

Here we see a 'day' being summer & winter which isn't a 24hr period. The symbolism of morning and night are between order, light, birth, progress and the night is the end of that process. It does not signify a 24 hr period of time.
It is simply describing that at the beginning of that age or purpose. God had already created the heavens and the earth but he created (asah) as they are now.
Each yowm was a process with a beginning (day) and an end (evening or night) That is the symbology.
The pattern is of symbolism, not literalism.


Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, who concludes that "Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the twenty-four-hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed."

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Yowm has always meant 'age'. Never as a literal day. On the 3rd yowm, God commanded the earth to bring forth the grass and trees. he didn't make them. He commanded the earth to bring them forth. Modern science says that process was 1.5 billion years. And yowm is not a word in itself. It is undefined until you define it. For instance, the yowm of King David was the period that he was king which was 39 years. The book of kings is actually the "book of kingdoms" The Jews saw the kingdom as the reign of the king and not the land itself. They saw time differently and defined it differently.
That nonsense translation of 'a literal day' has caused more trouble than it is worth. Straight out of that 'dispensationalism' rubbish. Looking for patterns that don't exist.

Yom can mean either a literal day or an age, in the same way that we use the term "day" (ie., we can say "back in his day", which is clearly not a literal day). I don't follow the day-age interpretation of Genesis because it feels unnatural to translate yom as an age in context. I would agree, though, that it's fairly obvious that the Book of Genesis is speaking symbolically. Many of the most ancient Biblical commentators, like Origen and St. Augustine, appear to have seen the earliest part of Genesis as being non-
literal.

EDIT: I do believe that the days are symbolic; just that "day" is meant to be a literal day used as a symbol for a longer period of time.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I agree that yom refers to a day when listed here, although I don't believe that it's possible to view that day as anything other than a symbolic day and still keep the topic within the range of the scientifically possible.

You apparently believe that despite the fact that such an interpretation is impossible. My sympathies.

 

[gasman64]

Yom can mean either a literal day or an age, in the same way that we use the term "day" (ie., we can say "back in his day", which is clearly not a literal day). I don't follow the day-age interpretation of Genesis because it feels unnatural to translate yom as an age in context. I would agree, though, that it's fairly obvious that the Book of Genesis is speaking symbolically. Many of the most ancient Biblical commentators, like Origen and St. Augustine, appear to have seen the earliest part of Genesis as being non-literal.

Did you look at my next post or did you just go off half-cocked?

 

[Huram Abi]

Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

Here we see a 'day' being summer & winter which isn't a 24hr period. The symbolism of morning and night are between order, light, birth, progress and the night is the end of that process. It does not signify a 24 hr period of time.
It is simply describing that at the beginning of that age or purpose. God had already created the heavens and the earth but he created (asah) as they are now.
Each yowm was a process with a beginning (day) and an end (evening or night) That is the symbology.
The pattern is of symbolism, not literalism.


Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, who concludes that "Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the twenty-four-hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed."

I don't care about the appeal to authority. Gleason Archer's opinion holds no weight here. Neither does Zachariah, unless he can shed light on the specifics of the Genesis account.

Rather, though, he is talking about an entirely seperate (and irrelevant) subject.

 

[gasman64]

I don't care about the appeal to authority. Gleason Archer's opinion holds no weight here. Neither does Zachariah, unless he can shed light on the specifics of the Genesis account.

Rather, though, he is talking about an entirely seperate (and irrelevant) subject.

You are quite within your rights to remain intransigent and unteachable. Ignorance is a choice. A poor one but yours just the same.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

.

 

[dana b]

When there are numerous ways to look at something it is usually the way that makes sense that is the appropriate way that it really is. If you use politically correct "bible critizism" then your critisizm will sometimes find ways of tempering God's creation to look as if it is all disjointed and haphazard. But that is the devil's job, to discourage Bible belief.

God made the world and wrote the Bible to make sense to thoughtful men. He also left it for us to see and choose either the sensible way of seeing it or a nonesensical way which loosers would choose as thier way of dismissing it's real contents. To understand the Bible and thereby gain a positive effect people need to follow it's patterns and not jump off the path and follow every oddity there that they can find. What are you trying to accomplish by reading it?

 

[gasman64]

When there are numerous ways to look at something it is usually the way that makes sense that is the appropriate way that it really is. If you use politically correct "bible critizism" then your critisizm will sometimes find ways of tempering God's creation to look as if it is all disjointed and haphazard. But that is the devil's job, to discourage Bible belief.

God made the world and wrote the Bible to make sense to thoughtful men. He also left it for us to see and choose either the sensible way of seeing it or a nonesensical way which loosers would choose as thier way of dismissing it's real contents. To understand the Bible and thereby gain a positive effect people need to follow it's patterns and not jump off the path and follow every oddity there that they can find. What are you trying to accomplish by reading it?[/QUOTE

Are you telling us off? Anyone in particular? lol