Opposing views of "yom"

Dysert

I'd point you to the creationist work done by Russell Humphreys ("Starlight and Time", 1994) and John Hartnett ("Starlight, Time and the New Physics", ?2006), among others. You should be able to find summaries if you google or go to the FAQs on a creationist website like Answers in Genesis.

In brief, they use the theory of relativity and the observations that underpin the Big Bang Theory, but change the assumption that the universe is unbounded (Big Bang) to thinking that it in fact has a boundary. They find that, if such an assumption is used with all those observations and the theory of relativity, then as the world was being created time would have flowed at different rates in different parts of the universe. If the earth were located near the centre of the universe (near being, I think, somewhere within about a million light years of it), then it is possible for only a day to have gone by on earth on Day 4 while billions of years was going past in the universe.

Hope that helps,
Roonwit

That is arguing in a circle.

How so?

dysert said:

Regarding science's claim that there are stars billions of light years away, do you think that's true? Or do you think they're close and that the scientific measurements are all wrong? Or do you think something else?

Click to expand...

Let's approach this logically.
It is impossible to create the universe in 6 days.
It is impossible to create stars millions of light years away and see their light instantly.
It is impossible to create a universe from nothingness under any and all circumstances.
Natural forces cannot do the impossible. Only supernatural forces can subvert natural law.
God is supernatural.
If God doesn't exist in any form, then there is no supernatural and nothing exists; not the universe, not any form of life, and not us.
We exist. The universe exists. Therefore, if God exists, then God is the only logical Creator.
One impossibility is not more compelling than the next. It is no more impossible for the Lord to create the universe in six days than for the Lord to create it in six trillion years.
Science can disprove none of the above. Science is the study of the physical world. It cannot explain the origination of anything, nor prove or disprove the existence of God.
Everything listed in the first chapter of Genesis is created in its maturity including the universe itself. Man is created cognitive, self-reliant and in his adult state; able to converse instantly. No billions of years needed. God spoke, it happened.
The word of the Lord is absolute truth.

Roonwit said:

How so?

Click to expand...

You say that bayom means in the day and that b'yom means when. Thus the use of bayom in Gen 2:2 proves your point that b'yom (2:4) can't be the genitive construct meaning the creation's day or in the day of creation. Then you say that the use of the idea that Gen 2:2 can only mean in the seventh day (seven's day) proves the word must be bayom. No, that is arguing in a circle. b'yom does have that possessive meaning. It can be extended to mean when, but both Gen 2:2 and 2:4 are best translated in that Genitive construct that is so typical of semitic languages.

KWCrazy said:

A simple reading of the text indicates that God created the universe in six days. A deeper, more intense study of the Word reveals that God created the universe in six days.

Click to expand...

Among the believers that accept that Gen 1:2-2:3 refers to a literal seven day week as we also see in Ex 20:11 there is some debate as to whether God created all the universe or just our solar system and all life on this planet in that 7 day period.

In any case - both views do not support evolution.

Non-believers call that a "hyper-literal" translation of Genesis, meaning that we are not disregarding the things they reject. The Scriptures could not be more clear, as the reference to Exodus 20:11 already demonstrated.

Click to expand...

True - but it should be pointed out that the Hebrew professors of all world class universities apparently agree with those Christians who are being called "hyper-literal" by T.E's ... when they say that none of them take the bending/wrenching of the text done by T.E.'s seriously.


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 said:

You say that bayom means in the day and that b'yom means when. Thus the use of bayom in Gen 2:2 proves your point that b'yom (2:4) can't be the genitive construct meaning the creation's day or in the day of creation. Then you say that the use of the idea that Gen 2:2 can only mean in the seventh day (seven's day) proves the word must be bayom. No, that is arguing in a circle. b'yom does have that possessive meaning. It can be extended to mean when, but both Gen 2:2 and 2:4 are best translated in that Genitive construct that is so typical of semitic languages.

Click to expand...

I didn't fully understand what you are complaining about, but I wasn't trying to prove anything with 2:2. It was put forward as a counter example to my claim that all the uses of b'yom in the OT refer to indefinite periods of time. I simply observed that it is not a counter example because the word there is bayom not b'yom.

Regarding the rendering of words, I am content to assume that the Massoretes knew better than any modern scholar how to point the text. Regarding the genetive construct in 2:4, I don't know, I just observed that my interlinear marks these with a dash and the word in 2:4 is not so marked. I don't know whether those dashes are part of the Massoretic Text or not.

Besides that, this whole discussion of b'yom was an aside. We all agree that words' meanings are determined by context, and the context of Gen 1 demands an understanding of literal days. That is still the case even if we were to decide that 2:4 is using yom in a non-literal sense.

So I really don't understand what this whole argument is about. The question is, what does day mean in Gen 1? The answer is, it means ordinary days. We can have a different discussion about whether the passage wss intended as historical account, but there really is no discussion as to what kind of days it is talking about, any more than we could argue about whether the parable of the lost sheep was in fact about cows.

Roonwit

Roonwit said:

I didn't fully understand what you are complaining about, but I wasn't trying to prove anything with 2:2. It was put forward as a counter example to my claim that all the uses of b'yom in the OT refer to indefinite periods of time. I simply observed that it is not a counter example because the word there is bayom not b'yom.

Regarding the rendering of words, I am content to assume that the Massoretes knew better than any modern scholar how to point the text. Regarding the genetive construct in 2:4, I don't know, I just observed that my interlinear marks these with a dash and the word in 2:4 is not so marked. I don't know whether those dashes are part of the Massoretic Text or not.

Besides that, this whole discussion of b'yom was an aside. We all agree that words' meanings are determined by context, and the context of Gen 1 demands an understanding of literal days. That is still the case even if we were to decide that 2:4 is using yom in a non-literal sense.

So I really don't understand what this whole argument is about. The question is, what does day mean in Gen 1? The answer is, it means ordinary days. We can have a different discussion about whether the passage wss intended as historical account, but there really is no discussion as to what kind of days it is talking about, any more than we could argue about whether the parable of the lost sheep was in fact about cows.

Roonwit

Click to expand...

First,the creation was seven days, so you can't ignore the seventh. If the seventh day was not 24 hours, then the rest were not. We can't limit the argument to just Ch 1 because the seventh day was in Ch 2. Ex 20:11

Second, arguing in a circle is a classic, but wrong method of proving your point. From Wikipedia circular reasoning: "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float" sounds stupid, but "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won't sink in water" might pass. There is no evidence introduced to prove the idea. You did that with B'yom

Third, you are using the "I don't have to think because someone else interpreted it right." It doesn't matter if is was Calvin, Luther, the Pope, or the Masoretic Jews of 900 AD. All interpreted the Bible. The Bible never says Calvin's or anyone else's interpretation was inspired by God. All scripture is inspired by God.

Fourth, Look up vowel points. Those dashes are the vowel points. Before 900 AD, there were no vowel points added to the Hebrew text. This is one reason why you occasionally see a difference between the Hebrew and other ancient translations. Usually in Semitic languages, adding in a vowel only changes the form of the word, say from a noun to a verb. Mostly the word is obvious by context, but not always. When two choices are equally possible, you must consider both.

Therefore, your argument about yom is a decent argument, but you can't dismiss Gen 2:2,4. You must consider the possibility that the days were not 24 hours.

dysert said:

Caveat: I'm not making an implied statement here - this is an honest inquiry of those who accept that 'yom' means a 24-hour period of time...

Regarding science's claim that there are stars billions of light years away, do you think that's true? Or do you think they're close and that the scientific measurements are all wrong? Or do you think something else?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Hi dysert,

I'd like to offer an explanation because what is denied here is the power of God and what is possible for Him.

I believe that there are stars billions of light years away. That isn't what this discussion is about. The question is: Can God cause light to work outside of what we know as its known properties? Let me offer an example that I think fairly well shows the issue that is being discussed.

In the account of Isreal's exodus from Egypt we are told that the Eyptians pinned them against the sea and, according to the Isrealite's cries, they knew that they were doomed to destruction in the desert because there was no escape for them from the approaching Egyptians.

However, God gave Moses some instructions and then we are told that a strong wind blew through the night, the waters were divided and the Israelites walked right across the bed of the sea that was now completely dry ground with a wall of water on their right hand and on their left. In Exodus 14:29 this claim of a wall of water being on their right hand and on their left is repeated. The song of Moses and Miriam tells us that they sang about how the waters 'stood firm' like a wall and that the deep waters of the sea 'congealed'.

Now, friend, that's impossible! Water cannot stand like a wall. The natural property of water is that it will always seek level. Now, many say that it was the great wind that held the water back. Well, I've seen a number of hurricanes and tornadoes in my life and I have never witnessed even the strongest of these to 'divide' a body of water. Further, even if we allow that such a powerful wind was the cause of the water standing, then how are people with their household goods going to walk through it?

So, for me anyway, I'm not denying what I can obviously see and measure. What I am denying is that which I cannot obviously see and measure. I am willing to believe that when God says, "Water! Stand aside! Be like a wall on either side of this pathway that I am making through you for my beloved people to pass from harm to safety. Let me show them just who their God is! Let me give them an example of my power and might to do that which is impossible to them.

I can measure the speed of light today, but I can't make any claims as to the speed of light 1,000, 2,000 or 6,000 years ago. What I can do is believe that the speed of light is always constant and then I can assume that 1,000, 2,000 or 6,000 years ago it operated the same as I can measure it today. But I can't 'prove' it without that basic assumption that the speed of light has always and forever and at all times in history followed the 'constant' that I know today.

However, once I 'assume' that the basic physical properties of matter have always, at all times of history, held constant, then I must immediately deny the truth of the exodus of Israel out of Egypt. Because I know, based on my 'assumed' belief, that water cannot stand as a wall on two sides of an object by its own power.

But, I believe that God can make water stand as a wall. I believe that God can raise fully and wholly dead people to life. I believe that God can make a young woman pregnant who has never had sperm introduced into her womb. I believe that God can make light fill the universe from one end to the other with just the same power that He does all these other things and merely by His command that it be so - and it is so.

Without God; water always seeks level. Without God; a woman can only become pregnant when sperm impregnates her egg. Without God; dead people lay dead in their graves forever and ever and ever. Without God; light travels at the speed of 186,000 MPS. However, when God directs things to happen, all the wisdom and knowledge of man can do is stand in awe of His power and majesty.

So, the question to be answered here is this: Can God make light operate outside of the known 'constant' limitations that man recognizes as its physical properties? If it is agreed that He can, then the question is: Did He?

If the account of the creation is true in its account of all the measurements of time that God gave in His accounting to us, then, my answer is that He most surely must have.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

greentwiga said:

First,the creation was seven days, so you can't ignore the seventh. If the seventh day was not 24 hours, then the rest were not. We can't limit the argument to just Ch 1 because the seventh day was in Ch 2. Ex 20:11

Second, arguing in a circle is a classic, but wrong method of proving your point. From Wikipedia circular reasoning: "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float" sounds stupid, but "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won't sink in water" might pass. There is no evidence introduced to prove the idea. You did that with B'yom

Third, you are using the "I don't have to think because someone else interpreted it right." It doesn't matter if is was Calvin, Luther, the Pope, or the Masoretic Jews of 900 AD. All interpreted the Bible. The Bible never says Calvin's or anyone else's interpretation was inspired by God. All scripture is inspired by God.

Fourth, Look up vowel points. Those dashes are the vowel points. Before 900 AD, there were no vowel points added to the Hebrew text. This is one reason why you occasionally see a difference between the Hebrew and other ancient translations. Usually in Semitic languages, adding in a vowel only changes the form of the word, say from a noun to a verb. Mostly the word is obvious by context, but not always. When two choices are equally possible, you must consider both.

Therefore, your argument about yom is a decent argument, but you can't dismiss Gen 2:2,4. You must consider the possibility that the days were not 24 hours.

Click to expand...

First, I agree.

Second, I don't think I was doing that. You'll have to be more specific in what you think I was arguing because I don't think I was arguing was you seem to think I was arguing.

Third, what I said was that the Massoretes were better placed to point the Hebrew correctly than any modern scholar. They were closer in time to the original, fluent in Hebrew and knew their scriptures by heart. If the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship pointed to a Massoretic error, particularly if this could be backed up with reference to the LXX or Samaritan text, then I am willing to allow that they may have made a mistake. But I think the burden of proof is on the non-Massoretes. And anyway, nobody has produced any evidence of a mistake in either 2:2 or 2:4.

Fourth, since it was already noted by someone else that the non-specific reading of day in 2:2 makes no sense but the specific reading does, I simply affirmed that. The seventh day is an ordinary day. Even if you insist on reading 2:4 as 'in the day' (which I think is a bad translation), this should be regarded as a non-specific use of 'day'. The non-specific use in 2:4 has no bearing at all on the specificity or otherwise of 'day' in Gen 1 (in which I was subconsciously including 2:1-2:3, by the way, but I appreciate that may not have been clear).

Conclusion: why oh why are we still having a discussion about 2:4, which is clearly irrelevant to the discussion?

Roonwit

Roonwit said:

First, I agree.

Second, I don't think I was doing that. You'll have to be more specific in what you think I was arguing because I don't think I was arguing was you seem to think I was arguing.

Third, what I said was that the Massoretes were better placed to point the Hebrew correctly than any modern scholar. They were closer in time to the original, fluent in Hebrew and knew their scriptures by heart. If the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship pointed to a Massoretic error, particularly if this could be backed up with reference to the LXX or Samaritan text, then I am willing to allow that they may have made a mistake. But I think the burden of proof is on the non-Massoretes. And anyway, nobody has produced any evidence of a mistake in either 2:2 or 2:4.

Fourth, since it was already noted by someone else that the non-specific reading of day in 2:2 makes no sense but the specific reading does, I simply affirmed that. The seventh day is an ordinary day. Even if you insist on reading 2:4 as 'in the day' (which I think is a bad translation), this should be regarded as a non-specific use of 'day'. The non-specific use in 2:4 has no bearing at all on the specificity or otherwise of 'day' in Gen 1 (in which I was subconsciously including 2:1-2:3, by the way, but I appreciate that may not have been clear).

Conclusion: why oh why are we still having a discussion about 2:4, which is clearly irrelevant to the discussion?

Roonwit

Click to expand...

I tried to show you that you argued that Bayom meant on the seventh day. and then argued that on the seventh day meant the word was bayom.

As for Gen 2:4, b'yom could mean "on that day." In fact the septuagint (translated in 100 BC) uses on the day, not when.

And finally in Gen 2:4, when it says that this is the generations, and then says on the day that God made the heavens and earth. It the goes on to discuss Adam and Eve, then the day of creation of Heavens and earth was not a 24 hour day. If the day they were created is not a 24 hour day, then the rest of the days in Gen 1 are not 24 hour days.

greentwiga said:

I tried to show you that you argued that Bayom meant on the seventh day. and then argued that on the seventh day meant the word was bayom.

Click to expand...

No, I made no argument about the seventh day. Someone else said that the use of b'yom in 2:2 proved false my claim that all the uses of b'yom in the OT were non-specific references. I looked at the text and observed that in 2:2 it is bayom not b'yom, therefore not a counter example as was claimed.

As for Gen 2:4, b'yom could mean "on that day." In fact the septuagint (translated in 100 BC) uses on the day, not when.

Click to expand...

But that doesn't make sense of the text. Also, I wonder how it would have been understood in Greek.

And finally in Gen 2:4, when it says that this is the generations, and then says on the day that God made the heavens and earth. It the goes on to discuss Adam and Eve, then the day of creation of Heavens and earth was not a 24 hour day. If the day they were created is not a 24 hour day, then the rest of the days in Gen 1 are not 24 hour days.

Click to expand...

By comparing with the other toledoth statements through Genesis, I would understand 2:4a as the conclusion of Gen 1. It gives the account of creation in six days, seventh day of rest, and then signs off "this is the account of creation". 2:4b begins the account of Adam, which concludes in 5:1. Gen 2 focuses in on the creation of man on day 6.

Roonwit

Roonwit said:

No, I made no argument about the seventh day. Someone else said that the use of b'yom in 2:2 proved false my claim that all the uses of b'yom in the OT were non-specific references. I looked at the text and observed that in 2:2 it is bayom not b'yom, therefore not a counter example as was claimed.


But that doesn't make sense of the text. Also, I wonder how it would have been understood in Greek.


By comparing with the other toledoth statements through Genesis, I would understand 2:4a as the conclusion of Gen 1. It gives the account of creation in six days, seventh day of rest, and then signs off "this is the account of creation". 2:4b begins the account of Adam, which concludes in 5:1. Gen 2 focuses in on the creation of man on day 6.

Roonwit

Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense of the text if you are forcing your interpretation on the text. I study the text and see where it takes me. When you take the Thulduth text (2:4) as the start of the next section, as it does elsewhere, then you realize, like the other passages, that it doesn't talk about the main character, but the descendants of the main character. If the day is not a 24 hour period, then the passage in Gen 2-3 happens exactly as stated, in SE Turkey. If it is 24 hour days, one generally says that the original rivers were elsewhere and these rivers were named after them. One generally has to say the originals were lost in the flood. I vastly prefer to stick with an interpretation that needs the fewest patches. Yom as a period of time does that. Yom as 24 hours causes too many problems with the rest of scriptures.

greentwiga said:

That doesn't make sense of the text if you are forcing your interpretation on the text. I study the text and see where it takes me. When you take the Thulduth text (2:4) as the start of the next section, as it does elsewhere, then you realize, like the other passages, that it doesn't talk about the main character, but the descendants of the main character.

Click to expand...

Let's not use Genesis 2 to distort Genesis 1. As it has been pointed out, with the verbiage used in Genesis one, with the triple redundancy of the numbered days; the word for day and the evening and morning, Genesis 1 absolutely positively describes a six day creation. The only reason for claiming otherwise is to try and marry the text with the concept of long ages that naturalists claim.

Genesis 2 begins with "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." This slams the door in the face of those who would claim that Genesis 2 is a second creation account. It's not. It begins the story of man on the new planet. However, it is NOT consecutive to Genesis 1. It speaks of the mist sprouting grass, which happens on day 3. In verse 7 it speaks of the creation of man, which happened on day 6. What is NOT told is the amount of time that elapsed between the creation of Adam and the fall. It was long enough for Adam to name all the animals but short enough that nothing worthy of mention happened. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, but Cain and Able came long before them so likely the fall came fairly soon after creation.

Greentwinga

I'm not ignoring your post, but I want to do a little reading before I come back on the toledoth statements, since it's a long time since I looked at it and I remember it was complicated. Besides, I don't think the toledoth statements are key to this thread, but were a side issue. I'll be back later...

Roonwit

greentwiga said:

. Yom as 24 hours causes too many problems with the rest of scriptures.

Click to expand...

No it fits perfectly with the rest of scripture "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE.." Ex 20:8-11. Nothing but a literal 7 day week works.

Even the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities agree that the text itself argues for literal 7 day week.

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.
================================

BobRyan said:

No it fits perfectly with the rest of scripture "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE.." Ex 20:8-11. Nothing but a literal 7 day week works.

Even the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities agree that the text itself argues for literal 7 day week.

Click to expand...

It does argue for us to use a literal week.
But time causes decay and morality.
Mortality did not begin until Adam's sin.
So the Creation week did not occur in "normal time."
It occurred in "immortal time" or time that did not pass.
This is why it cannot be stretched over millions of years either.
It still wouldn't work as a normal or natural process.

BobRyan said:

No it fits perfectly with the rest of scripture "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE.." Ex 20:8-11. Nothing but a literal 7 day week works.

Even the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities agree that the text itself argues for literal 7 day week.

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.
================================

Click to expand...

A. I don't care what leading Christian Scholars say. Neither do I care what leading Hebrew Professors say. I care what the Bible says. The traditional interpretation leaves a has of the story of Adam and Eve. Going to non 24 hour days brings out the accuracy of Gen 2-4.

Furthermore, having the days millions or billions of years long doesn't mean life arose on its own. You can still have God's creative energy making life out of non-life. Scientists show that there were things that were indistinguishable from modern humans, but at one point, something changed. It is called the great leap forward. God could have intervened at that point to make modern humans. I am not saying what happened but just pointing out that making the six/seven days of creation extremely long days does not invalidate God's miracles.