Opposing views of "yom"

[dysert]

I never did check my Hebrew interlinear for b'yom, but I'll take everyone's word for it that it's there. That being said, I think there's way too much emphasis being placed on a preposition. I know from my (little) study of Greek that prepositions can do all kinds of things to the rest of the phrase. There's a lot of eggs being placed in the preposition basket.

 

[Roonwit]

Do you understand the Hebrew grammar of construct state? The first noun in a construct pair never takes the article, but is always definite if the second noun has the article. b'yom is construct "in the day of something."

You may be right on this, I wondered about this after I posted. But in my interlinear, the construct state is usually marked with a dash, and this one isn't... In any case, I'm not putting a huge amount of weight on that point. My greater case is that context determines meaning, and there is no reason to suggest that Genesis 2:4 needs to be made a literal day, and no reason that Genesis 1 needs to be made non-literal days. It is also true that every use of b'yom refers to indefinite time periods, while the yom in Genesis 1 is just yom. Introducing Genesis 2:4 into the discussion of Genesis 1 is just a red herring.

Dysert - why would you put weight on an English translation, but say that the specifics of the Hebrew are unimportant?

Roonwit

 

[dysert]

Dysert - why would you put weight on an English translation, but say that the specifics of the Hebrew are unimportant?

Roonwit

I don't think I'm putting more weight on the English translation than the Hebrew. What gave you that impression? I think the Hebrew (or LXX) should be our primary source.

 

[Roonwit]

I don't think I'm putting more weight on the English translation than the Hebrew. What gave you that impression? I think the Hebrew (or LXX) should be our primary source.

Sorry, maybe I was mixing you up with someone else... I just remembered arguing with someone who was insisting on the English translation "in the day", and drawing implications from that that were unwarranted, and I had in mind it was you.

Roonwit

 

[BobRyan]

The following text is not original with me, but I'm not citing the source because I don't want *it* to distract from the point of the thread. I think it's important that we hash out what's right or wrong with the following points so that we can rightly divide the word of truth and not impose interpretations on the Bible that aren't warranted...


What does everyone think of these two points of view?

"Six DAYS shall you labor...for in Six DAYS the Lord made..." Ex 20:8-11 I have confirmed this with a number of Hebrew scholars - it is real days.

Same author, same context, same audience, same word - same meaning.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

 

[greentwiga]

Do you understand the Hebrew grammar of construct state? The first noun in a construct pair never takes the article, but is always definite if the second noun has the article. b'yom is construct "in the day of something."

Thanks.

I was looking at Gen 2:2. The seventh day. It uses b'yom seventh twice. To translate it "when seventh" would make no sense. In the seventh day (In the day seven) or on the seventh day (on the day seven, on seven's day) do make sense. Thus Genesis 2:4 "In the day they were created" is the literal translation. If b'yom is an indefinite when, then the seventh day is not a 24 hour day, but an indefinite time, which makes total hash of the seven days of creation. Thank you for the note on Hebrew genitive construction.

 

[Roonwit]

Thanks.

I was looking at Gen 2:2. The seventh day. It uses b'yom seventh twice. To translate it "when seventh" would make no sense. In the seventh day (In the day seven) or on the seventh day (on the day seven, on seven's day) do make sense. Thus Genesis 2:4 "In the day they were created" is the literal translation. If b'yom is an indefinite when, then the seventh day is not a 24 hour day, but an indefinite time, which makes total hash of the seven days of creation. Thank you for the note on Hebrew genitive construction.

2:2 uses bayom not b'yom.

Roonwit

 

[greentwiga]

You realize that the vowel points were added in 900 AD and are not part of the inspired text?

 

[Roonwit]

You realize that the vowel points were added in 900 AD and are not part of the inspired text?

I'm going to grant that the Massoretes were probably better placed than any of us to work out what the correct points were. (Was it really 900AD? I thought it was earlier than that.) Anyway, as has been pointed out, reading that verse as b'yom would not make sense, while bayom does.

Roonwit

 

[SkyWriting]

Adam's immortality was apparently something that was renewed by eating the tree of life, not because time had not begun. What you say means that God's creation didn't really happen, or take effect, until the fall. When God said 'very good' he was talking about a highly simplified and temporary condition, in your view, and real life in all its wonder and complexity only came about because of sin. I think that has worse theological implications than there being animal death before human sin (it probably wasn't before Satan's sin). Romans 5 only talks about human death. I recognize it doesn't seem as perfect to have animal death as part of the original creation, and that kept me from accepting an old earth for some time, but that is a value judgment we can leave to God. He said it was very good, not perfect, and I believe the natural world is still very good. Besides, Satan may have played a role in marring it even before man came on the scene. A perfect Eden would not have had the serpent in it, for instance.

Creation was well before the fall of man.

"Very Good" means that man did not die.

God has no special place for animals. We eat them and do not mourn.

The "natural" world has it's own god, Satan.

Satan's temptation was part of God's plan for salvation.

You can't keep people in a prison and expect them to love you.

Love must be by choice and Satan gave men the choice. It is a very good plan.

 

[Roonwit]

Hi SkyWriting

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to this thread. There are other live threads where it might be, but this one is really about the meaning of 'yom'.

Roonwit

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi SkyWriting

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to this thread. There are other live threads where it might be, but this one is really about the meaning of 'yom'.

Roonwit

Right. It means NEITHER 24 hours nor a million years span of time.

It refers to a process that had no "time" attached to it.

"Time" is measured by the decay of atoms or sand increasing entropy by falling from the top of a glass to a lower one.

"Time" did not start until Adam sinned, so "yom" is not defined by time in this usage.

Happy to help.

 

[Roonwit]

A 'process' must, I think have time attached. I disagree that time only started when Adam sinned. If it is true to say that Adam was created before Eve, for example, there must be time.

Since God created the sun, moon and stars on day 4 in order to mark the passage of time - seasons, etc - there must have been time before the Fall.

Roonwit

 

[SkyWriting]

A 'process' must, I think have time attached. I disagree that time only started when Adam sinned. If it is true to say that Adam was created before Eve, for example, there must be time.

Since God created the sun, moon and stars on day 4 in order to mark the passage of time - seasons, etc - there must have been time before the Fall.

Roonwit

Something like time. More like "order" or "lack of chaos."
But not detrimental time as we know it sucking the life from our
bones and causing all to whither to dust.

 

[Roonwit]

I think you mean 'decay' rather than 'time'. I agree that something must have changed at the Fall, that means that we now tend to decay away rather than be preserved in our created state. But exactly what that was and how it works, I am loathe to speculate too much.

Roonwit

 

[SkyWriting]

I think you mean 'decay' rather than 'time'. I agree that something must have changed at the Fall, that means that we now tend to decay away rather than be preserved in our created state. But exactly what that was and how it works, I am loathe to speculate too much.

Roonwit

Exactly! my point. Brilliant.

We need to stop speculating on how time and decay progressed (yom)
before the fall because we don't got the info needed.

 

[Roonwit]

I think we get the information that the earth was rotating so that we got days as we have now. It doesn't seem that that changed.

Roonwit

 

[SkyWriting]

I think we get the information that the earth was rotating so that we got days as we have now. It doesn't seem that that changed.

Roonwit

I have NO idea if that has changed or not. How would I know?

◄ Joshua 10:13 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

 

[Roonwit]

Well, we would know because God created days with evening and morning, and separated the light from darkness to give day and night, and put the sun in the sky to govern the day and the moon to govern the night and the stars to mark out seasons. We would know because God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh, as Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 both tell us.

Roonwit