The Creation Took SIX LITERAL DAYS - Discuss

[LewisWildermuth]

Check these out:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:1 בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃

The number of the letters X the product of the letters
The number of words X the product of the words

= 3.1416 X 1017 the value of Pi to four decimal places.

Also,

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:1 ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

The number of the letters X the product of the letters
The number of the words X the product of the words

= 2.7183 X 1065, the value of e - rather curious isn't it?

See more of this finding by Dr. Chuck Missler at:

http://www.khouse.org/

Other Sources:

http://www.netrover.com/~numbers/prophetic_calendar-bible-codes-Leson2b2b.htm

http://members.khouse.org/khouse/members/article.html?mv_arg=482

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/

Neat, do all literalists resort to witchcraft, numerology and other froms of paganistic secret knowlege to prove the Bible (which says all of these things are bad BTW) is ment to be read literaly?

I find it ironic to see some try.

 

[Buck72]

Neat, do all literalists resort to witchcraft, numerology and other froms of paganistic secret knowlege to prove the Bible (which says all of these things are bad BTW) is ment to be read literaly?

I find it ironic to see some try.

Huh?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Huh?

The making of Pi by counting the number of letters and or words in your example is called numerology, a very old form of pagan witchcraft involving the "magic" of numbers and words, it was very popular even among the early jews and was one of the magics denounced by the Bible.

The Bible code is a form of pagan secret knowlege too.

So in effect you are trying to use witchcraft to support your view of the Bible... It's funny in a sad way.

 

[Buck72]

The making of Pi by counting the number of letters and or words in your example is called numerology, a very old form of pagan witchcraft involving the "magic" of numbers and words, it was very popular even among the early jews and was one of the magics denounced by the Bible.

The Bible code is a form of pagan secret knowlege too.

So in effect you are trying to use witchcraft to support your view of the Bible... It's funny in a sad way.

No, the only sad thing here is the level of slander some evolutionists seem to have for creationists. How does adding up letters become "witchcraft"? Mathmatical formulas were created by God as His modus operandi that give Him GLORY!

His word is filled with reflections of His "signiature" all through the original text. Notwithstanding the message of the text, the space between the letters is even proved significant.

I fail to see the hint of malfeasance here.

 

[Sinai]

Sinai, we are speaking the same language on two differnt channels, thus not hearing each other for some reason. I agree that the creation and the word are in explicit harmony, God created all of the matter, physical laws that govern matter and the word which communicates His message to His creation, and details of that creation event. Where have I suggested that science is contradictory to God?

Thank you, Buck. I will be quite happy to note that at least one young earth creationist claims he does not think there is a conflict between modern scientific findings and the ancient biblical scriptures.

I have yet, I repeat for the 50th time, to have a theo-evo reply with scripture to defend their beliefs.

I somehow suspect that you may have to wait as long for that to occur as I have had to wait for a YEC to defend a 6000-year old universe with scriptures in the threads I have started for that purpose. With the exception of the account of Jacob's helping his herd evolve in a particular fashion, the Bible seems to be largely silent on the topic of evolution.

And if you check the postings I have made, you may note that I have never taken a particular stand regarding evolution. Since the Bible is largely silent on the topic, I really don't particularly care whether God used evolution in his creative process or not. I have seen rather strong scientific evidence in favor of evolution occurring, but have also seen rather strong scientific evidence against evolution via either random chance or natural selection being able to account for all the diversity of life on our planet--especially within the time lines indicated by the fossil records. Thus, I have chosen to sit out those debates....

The truth DOES give God the greater glory - ABSOLUTELY!

Thank you for agreeing on that point.

But why carve out the six-day creation...from the Bible in exchange for new, supplementary material and argue that it is more true than the word?

I don't carve out the six-yom creation. But I do have problems with a 144-hour creation (measured looking back in time against the creative process, at least)....because the six-day creation is merely an English translation of the original Hebrew. And I am not arguing against that translation. You may choose to believe it is the most correct translation and meaning for yom if you wish to do so. My argument is with those who insist that such a translation is the only possible translation of the Hebrew--despite overwhelming evidence (both scientific and biblical) to the contrary.

 

[Buck72]

יום

yôm

yome

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.


This is taken from Genseis 1:5

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I don't carve out the six-yom creation. But I do have problems with a 144-hour creation (measured looking back in time against the creative process, at least)....because the six-day creation is merely an English translation of the original Hebrew. And I am not arguing against that translation. You may choose to believe it is the most correct translation and meaning for yom if you wish to do so. My argument is with those who insist that such a translation is the only possible translation of the Hebrew--despite overwhelming evidence (both scientific and biblical) to the contrary.

Please show me Biblical evidence to the contrary.

(long pause)

There isn't any.

 

[Ark Guy]

Hey Buck, did you ever notice that the theo-evos always seem to use the extreme interpretation of a word rather than the normal use of a word to twist evolutiuon into the bible?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hey Buck, did you ever notice that the theo-evos always seem to use the extreme interpretation of a word rather than the normal use of a word to twist evolutiuon into the bible?

[British slang for the round parts of the male genitalia I'll be in trouble if I actually use].

As far as I'm concerned, the days are literal. The narrative is figurative, not the elements within in.

 

[Ark Guy]

Don't you find it rather funny how the NT authors presented the creation and the flood as an actual literal historical event....and you come along and declare it figurative.

 

[Buck72]

Hey Buck, did you ever notice that the theo-evos always seem to use the extreme interpretation of a word rather than the normal use of a word to twist evolutiuon into the bible?

Yes, I have seen that quite a bit. "Six Days" where I come from means "six days".

Some part around here "Six Days" means....well, science has 'proven' the earth to be 'billions of years old', the Bible must not really mean "six days" since 'billions of years' is what God really meant.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Don't you find it rather funny how the NT authors presented the creation and the flood as an actual literal historical event....and you come along and declare it figurative.

[More rugby-ball shaped rude bits]

The NT authors at no point declare whether the account is literal or not. They use it theologically exactly the same way I might.

The figurative nature of the narrative is clear from the narrative itself - it is internally contradictory when taken literally and contains a number of symbolic items - the fruits of the trees, the talking snake, the names of the man and the woman.

 

[Vance]

Y'all want a literal reading of Genesis, one not tied to your English translations?

English translation: "morning and evening, the first day"

What the Hebrew actually says: "continuing on and on, the first period of time."

THAT is the what the Hebrew says. It is amazing that entire theological position has developed around how these Hebrew phrases can be translated into modern languages.

 

[Sinai]

Buck, I was a bit surprised--and disappointed--by your post. You started out with references to the Hebrew word yom that indicated that your post would give a good analysis and study of the word and context in which it is used in the first chapter of Genesis.

Next you quoted this portion of my post:

I don't carve out the six-yom creation. But I do have problems with a 144-hour creation (measured looking back in time against the creative process, at least)....because the six-day creation is merely an English translation of the original Hebrew. And I am not arguing against that translation. You may choose to believe it is the most correct translation and meaning for yom if you wish to do so. My argument is with those who insist that such a translation is the only possible translation of the Hebrew--despite overwhelming evidence (both scientific and biblical) to the contrary.

But then you concluded your post with the following:

Please show me Biblical evidence to the contrary.

(long pause)

There isn't any.

Your concluding statement makes it appear that you may have failed to read your own post regarding the meanings of yom. Yes, yom can--and often does--mean a 24-hour day. But it can also mean a shorter period of time (as the daylight hours or that period of time when sunlight is striking a particular portion of the earth) or a longer period of time (season, generation, age, era, or undefined period of time).

Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs, who is probably one of the most respected theologians and Bible scholars of the past century, stated:
“The fact is that the Bible does not say dogmatically how long the creative period lasted. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom), like the English word, may mean any number of things: twenty-four hours, a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time. Since the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of Genesis 1, it must be concluded that he did not spell out this detail. Had he said “a twenty-four hour day” or “indefinite period of time” that would settle it. But since he did not do so, the time element is not a vital point in faith.”

Another reason Jewish theologians have historically viewed the creative process set out in the first chapter of Genesis as being of an uncertain period of time is the context argues against a normal 24-hour day. The sun is not made (or the sun did not become visible from the earth) until the fourth yom, and it is not certain that the earth had been made until the third yom. Thus, several yoms had passed before sunlight from our sun could have struck our planet.

You may choose to believe that the most correct translation and meaning for yom in the first chapter of Genesis is a 24-hour period of time. That is your right, since that is one of the correct translations for yom. Again, I am not arguing against that translation. As I said earler, my argument is with those who insist that such a translation is the only possible translation of the Hebrew.

 

[Vance]

I think the important thing about the quote from Hobbs is that the time element can not be vital to faith. And this is why I oppose YEC'ism which insists on conflating these issues to matters vital to faith.

I would not bother attempting to convince a flat-earther or geocentrist that their literal interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. Their false belief on this point will not effect their salvation. But if they began presenting these beliefs to our youth and to the general public as the only proper reading of Scripture and that a failure to believe these ideas is to fail to believe Scripture, then I have a duty to stand up and say "that is wrong, a belief that the earth is spherical and that it revolves around the sun is NOT inconsistent with Scripture."

I oppose YEC'ism for the same reasons. Not to convince YEC's that they are wrong, but to convince them to avoid teaching it dogmatically since it can only damage Christianity.

 

[Buck72]

Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs, who is probably one of the most respected theologians and Bible scholars of the past century, stated:
“The fact is that the Bible does not say dogmatically how long the creative period lasted. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom), like the English word, may mean any number of things: twenty-four hours, a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time. Since the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of Genesis 1, it must be concluded that he did not spell out this detail.

Brothers, how much time must I devote to this? In all things we have CONTEXT. The context is what support the definition of the words.

Again, may I define "yom":


יום

yôm

yome

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

Agreed! It does have many definitions and could POSSIBLY mean "period of time".

But the context does not support that possibility:

Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

After over 100 posts we're back to post #1 again. Let's break it down:

Gen 1:5 ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשׁך קרא לילה ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום אחד׃

Gen 1:5 God430 called7121 the light216 day3117, and the darkness2822 He called7121 night3915. And there was evening6153 and there was morning1242, one259 day3117.

Day = YOM


Night = LAYIL

לילה ליל ליל
layil lêyl layelâh

lah'-yil, lale, lah'-yel-aw

From the same as H3883; properly a twist (away of the light), that is, night; figuratively adversity: - ([mid-]) night (season).

Evening = EREB
ערב

‛ereb

eh'-reb

From H6150; dusk: - + day, even (-ing, tide), night.

Morning = BOQER
בּקר

bôqer

bo'-ker

From H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: - (+) day, early, morning, morrow.


One = ECHAD
אחד

'echâd

ekh-awd'

A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

So we are left with our basis for ONE DAY (ECHAD YOM) as defined by EVENING, MORNING, (EREB, BOQER); ONE DAY.

Why is that so difficult?

Had he said “a twenty-four hour day” or “indefinite period of time” that would settle it. But since he did not do so, the time element is not a vital point in faith.”

Sorry to break up your quotes, but I must answer this;

The vital point of faith is to believe the Word. If the word doesn't mean what it says it means then what foundation do we have?

Another reason Jewish theologians have historically viewed the creative process set out in the first chapter of Genesis as being of an uncertain period of time is the context argues against a normal 24-hour day. The sun is not made (or the sun did not become visible from the earth) until the fourth yom, and it is not certain that the earth had been made until the third yom. Thus, several yoms had passed before sunlight from our sun could have struck our planet.

Now I love the Jews, very much. I am a BIG fan of Israel and pray that our Jewish brothers will all come to know that Jesus is the Messiah. He is the same God that spoke to Moses from the burning bush at Sinai. Those Jews that have come to discover His Kingship THROUGH the TORAH make the best Christians! (Although they not only retain their Judaic roots, they fulfill them by means of understanding and demonstrating the traditions and customs that point to Christ!


Now Jewish theologians...I may have to point out it was Jewish theologians that had Christ crucified. They obviously blew it on the day of their visitation. It wasn't the common people that murdered Christ, it was the religious leaders. Consequently I may have to doubt any strong conviction they come to about the Word since they obviously missed the entire point - The WORD of God points to Christ from Gen 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

You may choose to believe that the most correct translation and meaning for yom in the first chapter of Genesis is a 24-hour period of time. That is your right, since that is one of the correct translations for yom. Again, I am not arguing against that translation. As I said earler, my argument is with those who insist that such a translation is the only possible translation of the Hebrew.

I hope I've addressed this. If you disagree, that is your freedom to do so. But please, especially you Vance, understand that dogma is a great thing if you are correct (God's word is always correct) and a horribly BAD thing if incorrect (as I've contested that evolution is incorrect).

The Bible does not need explaining. It does this fine by itself.

 

[Vance]

Buck said:

"I hope I've addressed this. If you disagree, that is your freedom to do so. But please, especially you Vance, understand that dogma is a great thing if you are correct (God's word is always correct) and a horribly BAD thing if incorrect (as I've contested that evolution is incorrect)."

Well, no, I believe you are still missing the point on "morning and evening" since this is a phrase which means more than just the sum of the two words. See here, at Argument 3:

http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR3.HTM#Argument%203

And this does not even address the very real possibility that "day" and "morning and evening" are symbolic or poetic language which, if true, tosses all this analysis out the window and just sits back and basks in the glory of God's immense creation event without getting into specifics.


And, yes, I agree that dogma is horribly bad if it is incorrect. Which is why I would NEVER, NEVER teach a belief in evolution as a religious dogma. But that equally means that YEC's should not teach "evolution = disbelief in Scripture" as religious dogma. They do this now all the time, and you are right: horribly dangerous if wrong. Why take that chance when it is not a salvation issue? Are you so confident that your interpretation is correct and other Christian's interpretation is flawed that you are willing to risk such a "horrible danger" to Christianity?

I know I am not.

 

[Buck72]

Vance, you are reaching my friend. Reaching WAY, WAY out there for an extreme possibility that isn't there to grasp.

God does not obfuscate the truth in His word. Every man has to reconcile before the LORD how he will deal with what has been given us (the Bible).

That is completely a private matter.

I feel that it is pretty blunt. So far as to say: "evening, morning, one day". This isn't figurative, it cannot be any more plain. Those that argue do so with a tissue paper-thin platform that will not support much more than pure, human speculation.

When God gave the Hebrews the Law through Moses He even refers back to His creation account as being six-literal days.

Exo 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

This thread is nearing the end of its life...we've about killed it. And I still see the six days here as plainly as ever.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Buck, again, the days are not figurative, IMO. The entire narrative is.

 

[Vance]

Buck said:

God does not obfuscate the truth in His word. Every man has to reconcile before the LORD how he will deal with what has been given us (the Bible).

That is completely a private matter.

Correct, and I feel entirely comfortable that my general approach to the Scripture, including being able to say that we can not be 100% sure whether something is to be taken literally, is entirely acceptable to God.

I feel that it is pretty blunt. So far as to say: "evening, morning, one day". This isn't figurative, it cannot be any more plain.

And are you so sure in your own human infallibility on this subject that you can make that statement with 100% assurety?

Those that argue do so with a tissue paper-thin platform that will not support much more than pure, human speculation.

And, so, you are saying that your interpretation that this Scripture must be read in its "plainest", most literal, sense is NOT based on a human belief, your own?

When God gave the Hebrews the Law through Moses He even refers back to His creation account as being six-literal days.

Exo 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

This does nothing to prove your point. God can easily use six extended "yoms" to stand as representatives for six 24-hour "yoms". What do you do with the Scripture which states that God also requires that farmer’s plant a field for six YEARS and then let it sit fallow for one, following the example of God’s creation? This clearly shows that God used His Creation "YOMS" as lessons for other "periods of time". If He can use it apply to years in one verse, He can use to apply to 24-hour days in another.

This thread is nearing the end of its life...we've about killed it. And I still see the six days here as plainly as ever.

Because you never had any intention of seeing anything else. The point is simple. There are at least four ways of reading Genesis 1, all of which are consistent with Scripture being wholly true and inerrant:

1. It means six 24-hour "periods of time";

2. It means six much longer "periods of time", but is still meant to be read literally;

3. The phrases "YOM" and "morning and evening" are poetic or symbolic, and not literal, but the story itself is still historical;

4. The word YOM does refer to 24 hour "periods of time", but the entire story is an allegory (but no less true).

Please note that the belief that the Creation story did not refer to 24 hour periods did not originate after evolution came along. As early as Augustine, Christian scholars have debated the point and a number of leading fathers (including Augustine himself) believed that the text almost assuredly did NOT refer to six 24 hour days. This does not mean you have to believe this, but don’t act as if this is not a long-standing point of debate over which Christians have differed for centuries.

 

[Sinai]

Again, may I define "yom":



יום

yôm


Agreed! It does have many definitions and could POSSIBLY mean "period of time".

Thank you. We are at least agreed on that point.

But the context does not support that possibility

That is your interpretation.

The key phrase in your interpreting "creation week" as being six consecutive 24-hour days seems to be (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:

1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and


3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

You argue that the context not only favors your interpretation, but requires that it be the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, I think that the context argues against a normal 24-hour day. The sun is not made (or the sun did not become visible from the earth) until the fourth yom, and it is not certain that the earth had been made until the third yom. Thus, several yoms had passed before sunlight from our sun could have struck our planet, which would indicate that the scriptures are telling us something other than your interpretation....

The vital point of faith is to believe the Word. If the word doesn't mean what it says it means then what foundation do we have?

Oh, I believe the Bible. I'm just not sure that your interpretation of the Bible is necessarily infallible. I fully support your right to interpret the scriptures for yourself and to determine for yourself the most likely meaning of any particular scripture. I reserve that same right for myself and others.