If the universe is thousands of years old...

[Myk101]

You've veering into other debates and other topics. On the topic of this thread (universe age), after I've given you an explanation, can you still say that the Bible is wrong? Not creating light, or man, or anything else, just universe age.

 

[tanzanos]

You've veering into other debates and other topics. On the topic of this thread (universe age), after I've given you an explanation, can you still say that the Bible is wrong? Not creating light, or man, or anything else, just universe age.

Yes the Bible is wrong! 7 days is wrong and it does not mention when or how long ago the universe was created. You can hypothesise all you want, but it all boils down to what is written in the Bible; and what is written is not plausible, or logical.

 

[Myk101]

Yes the Bible is wrong! 7 days is wrong and it does not mention when or how long ago the universe was created. You can hypothesise all you want, but it all boils down to what is written in the Bible; and what is written is not plausible, or logical.

Like I said, and you seemed to understand just fine, just because the exact age of the universe is not given, does it make it wrong? It's left up to us to determine what the age is. We're not talking evolution, or Big Bang. Just age of the universe based on starlight from great distances.

 

[tanzanos]

Like I said, and you seemed to understand just fine, just because the exact age of the universe is not given, does it make it wrong? It's left up to us to determine what the age is. We're not talking evolution, or Big Bang. Just age of the universe based on starlight from great distances.

Not only is the Bible wrong on the date but it is wrong on the HOW. Why are you so desperately trying to give scientific credence to a non scientific book?
Unless you understand how science works you will never be able to grasp the mistake you are making. If you wish to philosophise then I will be glad to oblige.

 

[Myk101]

Not only is the Bible wrong on the date

How can anything be WRONG about something it has not specified?

but it is wrong on the HOW.

This is a different topic, the Big bang, not the age of the universe

Why are you so desperately trying to give scientific credence to a non scientific book?

This book, though not a science book, is different than any other book. Everything else about the book gives credence to it. There is strong reason to believe it's special. So that's why I look at it and see what it has to say about the universe and life in general. If the prophecies it made came true, why should I not at least listen to what it has to say about other topics?

Unless you understand how science works you will never be able to grasp the mistake you are making.

I left science alone, I did not change it's claims.

If you wish to philosophise then I will be glad to oblige.

what do you mean?



All I'm trying to pint out to you is that the will to hold the Bible wrong in ANY respect is so strong that even if I said "OK, Biblically the universe can be billions of years old" (agreeing with standard cosmology) you will still say that the Bible is wrong about the age of the universe. (Which you did pretty clearly) I agreed with cosmology on the age of the universe, the Bible does not give a definite time to it's age. It's open to cosmology to fill in the blank. But it does say that the universe was made and that the earth was uninhabited by any living organisms until 6,000 years ago - these are different topics of debate (the "HOW" you referred to, Big bang and evolution). On this topic, though, having only one question in mind, that is, the age of the universe, can the Bible be reconciled with cosmology?
I left cosmology intact when it speaks of the universe age, so my arguments were not scientific in nature. I took the Bible and showed you that billions of years can fit in the Biblical framework. Remember, I'm just talking one topic at a time, not everything at once. I understand that evolution and Big Bang contradict the Bible, but that's NOT what we're talking about. It's kinda hard to stick to one topic when there is a lot of other predetermined ideas.

So even if we talked about the other topics, we'd have the same problem - the Bible is always considered WRONG regardless of what it says. Regardless of scientific observation and it's interpretation, regardless of the fact that many thing we hold as true are still "theories" in the basic sense of the word, regardless of any "evidence" there might be showing the Bible to be accurate on other topics, it will still be held FALSE as a whole by non-believers - and that's not because of evidence or any other observation, but because there is an intent to eliminate GOD out of life. A desire to explain everything without a God. This intent is what we are responsible for. Realize this - all observations CAN point to God. All evidences CAN say that it's God's hand. But that's an option that man will not accept, blaming that it's not scientific to take God into account. However, God, Big Bang and evolution to a greater degree than species (like genos or family) are all UNOBSERVABLE claims - they are all deductions from available observations, they are all unfalsifiable (God because it's God, Big bang and evolution because they are theories in the making, being updated to include new evidence as it's discovered, so that anything can be explained by them). But that's where the interpretation comes in. Except some people claim that God is observable and there is an apparent "supernatural". The spiritual realm is ignored because it can't be tested, the same way we can't test the Big bang to the full extent. We can come up with "predictions" about the effects of such possible events, but not the real deal. There is a degree of faith involved even in Big bang or evolution.
We choose what to put or faith in. What gives more credence? You will easily say that Big bang and evolution have more "evidence", but you fail to see that the same evidence can be used for creation also, and that creation theory accounts for everything better than the "unfinished theories". It boils down to your desire - can you imagine yourself worshiping the Lord? Probably not - it would be the worst thing ever, you'd look like all the rest of the herd led by the money-hungry pastors. There isn't even an option of you thinking about it. It's repulsive to you. But that's your will, your desire.

geese, I sure did get off the subject. Sometimes it's hard to stop. But at least you get my whole message, my bigger picture.

 

[Radiata]

Now would be a good time to bring up the fossil record. Evolution is the process of something changing into another over an extended amount of time. When time progresses, the organism in question will slowly, over subsequent generations, change very slowly. If this is true, then we should be able to see many different “transition fossils” These fossils take the form of an organism in the halfway stage between two species. There is no such fossil ever found (Gish 17). Teachings about Evolutionavoid discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man Evolution is without foundation. Even Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution talks about the fossil record. He says: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (Darwin 413) He was talking about the missing transitional fossils as the links of his chain.​

In 1997, in Alaska, there was discovered a tyrannosaurus rex bone so large, it needed to be cut in half for the helicopter to take it away. When it was broken open, there were living blood cells, as well as organic tissue contained within it. The problem for evolutionists is that they have pledged to the world that the earth is several millions of years old. However, bones are biodegradable. They will turn to powder in a matter of a few thousand years if not fossilized. This provides proof that dinosaurs have existed until recently instead of millions of years ago like the evolutionists say. “It is inconceivable such things could be preserved for (in this case) "70 million years"… This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.”(AIG) But there are other things to think about when it comes to the age of the earth as well.​

As mentioned earlier, Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process takes millions of years. Time periods that last only a few thousand years, does not leave time for any significant change to take place in any organism. You can use the Bible to an extent for scientific evidence when you view the bible primarily as a historical document. The genealogy from Adam to Jesus is traced throughout the entire Bible and spans roughly 4,000 years. Add 2,000 years to today and you get 6,000 years. The idea of a 6,000-year-old Earth becomes more plausible when you consider that there is no accurate history of humanity older than about 5,000 years. The oldest written documents only date back to 3500 B.C., which makes a good deal of sense when you consider the Earth to be only 6,000 years old. Historical data rarely falters because it is based on actual accounts that people took, and when there are no historical documents older than even 7,000 years, it is no far statement to say that we have been here shorter than that. I mean, if we have been on this planet for millions of years, and written documentation only exists for a mere .1% of that existence, it does not make much sense.(Denton, 45) So, when you understand that the earth is not millions of years old, it is not hard to say that Evolution, which is claiming to take millions of years, cannot happen.

 

[Myk101]

Radiata;

I hope you did some research on these specific topics from multiple sources, including evolutionist websites like talkorigins. From my short existence on this forum, I've noticed that there are some guys that really seem to have a lot of facts together and who are well prepared... They research the articles of AIG and the like, so it would only be fitting for us to research their sources before even posting and trying to debate with anyone

 

[tanzanos]

Now would be a good time to bring up the fossil record. Evolution is the process of something changing into another over an extended amount of time. When time progresses, the organism in question will slowly, over subsequent generations, change very slowly. If this is true, then we should be able to see many different “transition fossils” These fossils take the form of an organism in the halfway stage between two species. There is no such fossil ever found (Gish 17). Teachings about Evolutionavoid discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man Evolution is without foundation. Even Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution talks about the fossil record. He says: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (Darwin 413) He was talking about the missing transitional fossils as the links of his chain.
In 1997, in Alaska, there was discovered a tyrannosaurus rex bone so large, it needed to be cut in half for the helicopter to take it away. When it was broken open, there were living blood cells, as well as organic tissue contained within it. The problem for evolutionists is that they have pledged to the world that the earth is several millions of years old. However, bones are biodegradable. They will turn to powder in a matter of a few thousand years if not fossilized. This provides proof that dinosaurs have existed until recently instead of millions of years ago like the evolutionists say. “It is inconceivable such things could be preserved for (in this case) "70 million years"… This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.”(AIG) But there are other things to think about when it comes to the age of the earth as well.​

As mentioned earlier, Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process takes millions of years. Time periods that last only a few thousand years, does not leave time for any significant change to take place in any organism. You can use the Bible to an extent for scientific evidence when you view the bible primarily as a historical document. The genealogy from Adam to Jesus is traced throughout the entire Bible and spans roughly 4,000 years. Add 2,000 years to today and you get 6,000 years. The idea of a 6,000-year-old Earth becomes more plausible when you consider that there is no accurate history of humanity older than about 5,000 years. The oldest written documents only date back to 3500 B.C., which makes a good deal of sense when you consider the Earth to be only 6,000 years old. Historical data rarely falters because it is based on actual accounts that people took, and when there are no historical documents older than even 7,000 years, it is no far statement to say that we have been here shorter than that. I mean, if we have been on this planet for millions of years, and written documentation only exists for a mere .1% of that existence, it does not make much sense.(Denton, 45) So, when you understand that the earth is not millions of years old, it is not hard to say that Evolution, which is claiming to take millions of years, cannot happen.

Nice try!
Ok! Now rewrite your post only this time use empirical facts. Your whole post is as scientific as saying that cartoon physics are fact.
Have you any idea on the following subjects?: Geology, Paleontology, Biology, Chemistry? What you quote is as scientific as saying that Creationism is Science.
If what you say is true then EVERYTHING concerning technology including the internet cannot be possible. You have to understand that ALL science fields obey the same laws. You refute those laws and reality cannot exist.
Your post reminds me or Roger Rabbit the movie; only in this world we cannot go to toonland.

 

[Myk101]

Tanzanos;

Any replies to my previous post? Radiata's claims are off-topic, fit for a general forum. Let's carry on without getting sidetracked. I'm sure Radiata will start a new thread on the other forum.

 

[tanzanos]

Tanzanos;

Any replies to my previous post? Radiata's claims are off-topic, fit for a general forum. Let's carry on without getting sidetracked. I'm sure Radiata will start a new thread on the other forum.

You say that you live science alone yet you insist the Bible is not wrong. OK! Not wrong based on what or which benchmark? Philosophical or Scientific?

 

[Myk101]

You say that you live science alone yet you insist the Bible is not wrong.

yes, on this particular topic. You still haven't told me how can someone be wrong about something he has not specified (regardless of "why" or "how")

OK! Not wrong based on what or which benchmark? Philosophical or Scientific?

Huh? The age is not specified, so please tell me what "non-specification" would fall under - philosophical or scientific?




Which benchmark is this based on? Philosophical or mathematical? Why and/or why not?

PS: Someone is going to win the lottery. What I say is absolutely true. No one can prove me wrong. Why? Well lets put it this way:

1: I said " someone is going to win the lottery".

2: I did not say WHEN
3: I did not say WHERE

So I will always be right!

 

[tanzanos]

yes, on this particular topic. You still haven't told me how can someone be wrong about something he has not specified (regardless of "why" or "how")

The same goes for how can someone be right about something he has not specified?

Huh? The age is not specified, so please tell me what "non-specification" would fall under - philosophical or scientific?

OK! lets start from the beginning: exactly what is it that you say is correct and specifically on what subject. Then we will take it from there.

Which benchmark is this based on? Philosophical or mathematical? Why and/or why not?

Philosophical is when one lacks empirical evidence and offers an explanation based on pure logic or abstract thought!
The Bible offers no empirical evidence thus it is considered heresay and should fall under the category of philosophical.

The world is overrun by hypocrites and pharisees!
Blessed is he who walks the path of erudition; for he shall see the light of the Big Bang!

 

[Myk101]

The same goes for how can someone be right about something he has not specified?

Good point. So you can't say necessarily say that the Bible is either true or false on this regard, correct?

OK! lets start from the beginning: exactly what is it that you say is correct and specifically on what subject. Then we will take it from there.

I'm saying that the existence of starlight from "millions of light years away" does not necessarily prove the Bible wrong, nor does it prove the Bible correct. But the problem comes in when atheists use it as proof that the Bible is wrong.

Philosophical is when one lacks empirical evidence and offers an explanation based on pure logic or abstract thought!
The Bible offers no empirical evidence thus it is considered heresay and should fall under the category of philosophical.

The world is overrun by hypocrites and pharisees!
Blessed is he who walks the path of erudition; for he shall see the light of the Big Bang!

So what is your conclusion based on? Philosophical or mathematical?

 

[tanzanos]

Good point. So you can't say necessarily say that the Bible is either true or false on this regard, correct?

Scientigically the Bible is wrong as far as Genesis is concerned. Genesis is not about starlight it is about creation as a whole; and as such we judge it by applying the same laws used to judge scientific claims.

I'm saying that the existence of starlight from "millions of light years away" does not necessarily prove the Bible wrong, nor does it prove the Bible correct. But the problem comes in when atheists use it as proof that the Bible is wrong.

Like I said the Bible is judged by what it says and not by what it does not say!

So what is your conclusion based on? Philosophical or mathematical?

If we are to discuss the Bible and Judge Genesis then we will have to agree if what we want is scientific recognition of Genesis or philosophical recognition

 

[Myk101]

Scientigically the Bible is wrong as far as Genesis is concerned. Genesis is not about starlight it is about creation as a whole; and as such we judge it by applying the same laws used to judge scientific claims.

I can easily see how taking Genesis as a whole is wrong in your opinion. However, the question of this particular topic was that of starlight and age of universe, not how or when.

Like I said the Bible is judged by what it says and not by what it does not say!

So why were you trying to tell me the Bible is still wrong on the age of the universe when it did not even specify it?

If we are to discuss the Bible and Judge Genesis then we will have to agree if what we want is scientific recognition of Genesis or philosophical recognition

The Bible is a different book. It claims a lot of things and many claims are correct and viable. All I'm doing is taking other claims made by the Bible and testing them in light of OBSERVABLE evidence, not hypothesis or UNOBSERVABLE theories. Does what we observe fit the Biblical account? Observable and measurable evidence gives more credence to a theory, not vice-versa. Regardless, the Bible not only gets philosophical recognition, but also historical and archaeological, and, in my opinion, scientific also. But it's my opinion, until further notice.

 

[tanzanos]

I can easily see how taking Genesis as a whole is wrong in your opinion. However, the question of this particular topic was that of starlight and age of universe, not how or when.

Since the Bible does not say when; it is meaningless to argue whether observable evidence is in accord with Genesis on the age of the universe.

So why were you trying to tell me the Bible is still wrong on the age of the universe when it did not even specify it?

Exactly. What is the point? To prove that since the Bible does not mention the when that it is right? OK let's say it is (for arguments sake) so? Genesis cannot pass even lax scientific scrutiny.

The Bible is a different book. It claims a lot of things and many claims are correct and viable. All I'm doing is taking other claims made by the Bible and testing them in light of OBSERVABLE evidence, not hypothesis or UNOBSERVABLE theories. Does what we observe fit the Biblical account? Observable and measurable evidence gives more credence to a theory, not vice-versa. Regardless, the Bible not only gets philosophical recognition, but also historical and archaeological, and, in my opinion, scientific also. But it's my opinion, until further notice.

In science just because you see something does not prove it is so unless you can use empirical evidence to explain what you saw. The Bible is a book based on many people's accounts. As such it is full of facts entwined with myths. It has no value to Science apart from academic interest. It is full of contradictions and flaws. It should only be a tool for faith.

 

[Myk101]

Since the Bible does not say when; it is meaningless to argue whether observable evidence is in accord with Genesis on the age of the universe.

Therefore it is meaningless to argue "because we see starlight from millions of years ago the Bible is wrong".

Exactly. What is the point? To prove that since the Bible does not mention the when that it is right? OK let's say it is (for arguments sake) so? Genesis cannot pass even lax scientific scrutiny.

No, the point is not to prove the Bible right, but to silence the argument that it's wrong. That would conclude the debate on this topic, this thread. We may start another one debating the Big Bang or evolution, but this one is laid to rest, for now.

In science just because you see something does not prove it is so unless you can use empirical evidence to explain what you saw.

Like gravity, magnetism, electricity, action and reaction, etc. All these are observable evidences, unlike evolution to a higher degree and the Big bang.

The Bible is a book based on many people's accounts. As such it is full of facts entwined with myths. It has no value to Science apart from academic interest. It is full of contradictions and flaws. It should only be a tool for faith.

It seems to me that this is your opinion, just like I gave mine. Good to know

 

[harpcat]

There is a differentiation I have not noticed here. One is the Hebrew Text as written as far as we are concerned. What dies it say. After that you are dealing with translations....

It says 6 Yoms in creation.. The Hebrew word for Daylight hours, a 24 hour period, a generation, and an epoch (undefinable period of time save by the events that mark it as an Epoch...)

Within the text we have the definitve that God made... but not clear in how long in human or scientific terms... therefore it is not relegated to a scientific discussion at all. IT doesn' say that he placed so many genes into them, and x or y chromosomes for men and women....

It is not a science book...

Is it true.. I believe with all my heart it is,

14 Billion years and a big universe do not negate it in the least.

 

[MichaelFischer]

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. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.
First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.
Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.




Yom in the Creation Account

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

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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.

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. To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses.
Moses Other Uses of Yom

Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.

1. Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
2. Genesis 43:9 "...then let me bear the blame for ever." Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
3. Genesis 44:32 "...then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever." Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
4. Deuteronomy 4:40 "...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever." Here Yom represents a physical lifetime
5. Deuteronomy 10:10, "Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,..." Here, Yom is a "time" equal to forty days.
6. Deuteronomy 18:5 "...to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever." Again, Yom is translated as eternity
7. Deuteronomy 19:9 "...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways..." Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways

As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.

Common Young Earth Arguments


To get around the obvious conclusion that Yom in Genesis 1 can mean millions of years, young earth theorists have come up with several arguments, none of which is supported by common Hebrew grammatical rules according to Hebrew experts (such as Dr. Walter Kaiser). These rules were created by Hebrew language experts who are young earth creationists to begin with, thus their viewpoint is obviously biased. They have a specific agenda they are trying to prove, and thus cannot be objective.

Ordinals/Cardinals

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. In other places, some say that Isaiah and Hosea have numbers with the word day which are figurative (External Link).
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.

Evening/Morning Construction

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.
Young earth advocates counter that traditionally, church fathers have always held that sunrise and sunsets do not constitute a day, and they accepted the sun creation on Day Four with no hint of the first three days being anything other than 24-hour days. For instance, Sarfati in Refuting Compromise mentions Luther and Calvin (page 84-86). However, Luther and Calvin did not have the means of modern science at their disposal. At the time, geocentricity was still accepted! Don't fall into the trap of following the teachings of our church fathers. For more, read Church Fathers.

Literal/Figurative Argument

This argument says that you cannot use a word figuratively until after you have used it literally (see this Answers in Genesis article). The author gives two examples, which appear to be correct and follow this rule. However, is this rule valid? I see no reason to suppose that it is. You have to be careful with young earth claims about biblical interpretation methods. Again, they will invent rules that support their cause, when there is no basis for their rule in Hebrew.
In this case, it makes no difference which order the word Yom appears in, i.e. literal before figurative or vice versa. Yes, these are the first words of the Bible, but they are not the first words of mankind. All the time from Adam to Moses, men were speaking in their own languages, thus the literal interpretation via spoken language would already have been established. There was no need to suppose a literal/figurative structure.

If God's Creation Was Billions of Years Old...


If God's creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain...God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know.
When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"
When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation...of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break...they didn't have calculators like we do!
One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.
The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.

Conclusion


With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda.
Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God's concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines

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

 

[MichaelFischer]

<B><B>

Hebrew Dictionaries


Let&#8217;s start with the possible meanings of Yom;


The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)

"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."​

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​

As you can see, 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.

Other Uses of Yom


Day is not the only translation for the word Yom. Here are some other uses.

Time

It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.
In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?

Year

Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.

Age

Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." These range from sentences like "stricken in age," meaning old age (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2), and other times it says "old age" (Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7). Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime. In Zechariah 8:4, it says old men and women will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, "each with cane in hand because of his age."

Ago

One time Yom is translated "ago." 1 Samuel 9:20 says "As for the donkeys you lost three days ago, ..."

Always

Four times yom is translated as "always," in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7. Always here can be interpreted as a lifetime...for instance, we are to keep the commandments of the Lord always (Deut. 5:29).

Season

Three times yom is translated "season." In Genesis 40:4, "...and they continued a season in ward." Again, in Joshua 24:7, "dwelt in the wilderness a long season," and in 2 Chronicles 15:3, "...a long season Israel hath been...". In each case yom represents a multi-month period.

Chronicles

When used in conjunction with the word dâbâr, yom is translated "chronicles" (27 times).

Continually

When used in conjunction with kôwl, yom is translated as "continually" (11 times). Once, in Psalm 139:16, it is translated continuance (without the kôwl).

Ever

Ever is used to represent a long period of time, such as in Deuteronomy 19:9, "to walk ever in his ways." Nineteen times Yom is translated "ever." The old testament uses "for ever" instead of the word forever. In sixteen cases of use of the word ever, for is placed before it, indicating a infinite period of time. I will not list them all (consult Strong's Concordance for a full listing) but here is an example. In Psalm 23:6, it says "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." Here Yom is translated as the final word of this verse, ever. Thus, Yom in this verse, and 16 others, represents eternity.

Evermore

In one instance, when yom is used in conjunction with kôwl, Yom is translated "evermore." Deuteronomy 28:29, "...and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore;" thus representing either a lifetime or eternity.

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.

</B></B>http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm