This is in reference to Genesis from the Bible, where it speaks of creating the world in 6 days.

I think one of the strongest reasons to suggest that when a day is spoken in the creation use of day, is that it actually describes the days as day and night, a 24 hour period.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

It describes the first day as morning evening, day and night. That's just not suggestive at all to be a longer period of time.

But further, it goes on. After each day of creation, it speaks of this time period of morning and evening passing, and another day.

Genesis 1:8
8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


Genesis 1:13
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Genesis 1:19
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis 1:23
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

How many mornings and evenings are in an age? Could be hundreds, thousands, more? But in a 24 hour period, there is only one of each.

In Exodus 20:11 we see,
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I'd agree that the words as used mean 24 hour periods as opposed to other lengths of time.  However, that's the way metaphors work.  The question (in my mind, at least) isn't if "days" was mistranslated, and actually should be "long periods of time," but rather whether the days were meant to be taken literally or metaphoricly.

If I say "he has a heart of gold," the word gold actually means the metal, but intent of what I'm saying is something else.  Mistranslation of a word is a separate issue from whether it was intended to be taken literally, or as a metaphor.

Another example is Jesus saying "this is my blood, this is my body."  Did he mean it litterally, as in the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood (as catholics believe) or is it a metaphor?  Clearly Jesus really said flesh and blood, but what he actually meant is the question.

Here's my rebuttal:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html

This is based on the Hebrew meaning and usage of a metaphoric "day."  To sum up, a "day" is an "age."
This message was last edited by the GM at 16:50, Mon 18 Sept 2006.

Day, can mean age, but there are other just a credible scholars that say day means day espically in the context of the passage.

And using that important passage in Exodus, it redoubles the day = day account.  God didn't want his people to work for 6 ages and rest on the 7th.

This one verse really sticks out as indicating a symbolic, rather than literal, account of Creation.  The separation of light and dark, as described here, only makes sense if you do not understand where light actually comes from in the universe.  Sure, it could refer to a literal process of God balling up all the light into stars which then radiate it everywhere else, but then he wouldn't just call it "day" like the next verse says.  The way it's written suggests a story created by humans to explain their world, the same as every other ancient culture.  The specific people who came up with the story may have believed it was given to them by God, but it's still just symbolic; we've known for quite some time now that there is no literal separation of light and dark in the manner suggested in Genesis.

This is where the once a day Sabbath mirrors the symbolic seventh day of rest.

Bump.  This is similar to a discussion rising in the other thread about the beginning of Genesis.

That's a really neat page.  I'm going to be spending some time going over its claims.

You'll find that I like to go back to the original Hebrew usage and colloquial usages before stating anything about the meaning of the Old Testament.

The same is true of people living hundreds of years.  While possible, I suppose, colloquially they'd use those terminologies like we'd say "not in a million years", and some argue that there is transposition so that it's not really saying what it's translated as saying.

Saw this today, and figured it might generate some conversation.  It's Pat Robertson telling people that the world is more than 6000 years old, and that Bishop Usher "wasn't inspired by the Lord" when he came up with that number.  He says that dinosaurs existed "before the time of the bible" and that christians should try to "cover it up" and "make like the whole thing happened in 6000 years."  When even Pat Robertson is speaking against young earth creationism, is it a sign that view is dying out?

Just noticed one this thread and i would like to put my opinions in here and ask a few questions.

First YES creationism is dying out and i refuse to believe otherwise it.

The Seven Days have to be Metaphorical. After all how can you use time to create something if time itself didn't exist at that point. The first sun rise and set could easily have taken more than 24 hours after all it does on other plannets so whats to say that god would obey our earthly laws.

but that brings up the point of how could you take one day to create the universe if the concept of a day didn't exist before you created it.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:55, Wed 28 Nov 2012.

I used to think it was metaphorical but now I believe it was literal.

There are more kinds of creationism than young-earth creationism, PushBar.

I have met people who believe the earth is 6000 years old. I'm not one of them, but I would still classify myself as a creationist, since I believe God created the universe.

I would just like to clarrify that the Belief that god created mankind isn't what i have a problem with. Its the belief that everything written in the bible is literally the truth and to go against it is to destroy your soul.

People Who belive that god creted the universe i have no problem with that is your belief

People who Openly go against all scientific aregumetns and logic because thats what a book written 2000 years ago says differently i do have an issue with.

Is it beyond comprehension that gods lessons were tought to those that couldn;t handle complex concepts as esy and so they were dumbed down, explained in a way that people at the time could understand.

No one can understnd gods plan right. But over time we have become smarter so like any textbook it will become outdated.

Maybe god was the big bang? may be Edam And eave was the story of Sea cretures taking their first steps on land.

Generally I have found that Young Earth Creationists defend their stance by stating that God only makes it "look" like the earth is old.  As if making God out to be a big fat liar is a good way to work around the issue ;)

In reply to PushBarToOpen (msg # 11):

Moderator Post:

Insulting other beliefs or followers of those beliefs is contrary to our forum's constitution. Please edit the offending post to bring it in line with forum rules. If the post isn't updated in 24-hours, it may be modified or deleted by a moderator to bring it in line.

If there are any issues, please contact us in a private thread so we can discuss.

Thank you.

From the perspective of the ancient Israelites and authors of the Old Testament, we have to look at their culture.  Their culture and language was very metaphorical in nature.

For example, we might say, "I've said that a million times..."  Fast forward thousands of years, and will people think we were being literal?  A day can mean "age" and people often used high numbers related to people's age, in fact, to indicate their righteousness.  So those hundreds of years they lived are also most likely metaphorical in nature.

I have never seen any value to a Young Earth philosophy other than trying to fit ancient words into a preformed idea that one refuses to give up, even though it is not really relevant to spiritual matters.

I think it's fair to mention that arguing that the bible is stating that the earth was literally created in six 24 hour days is counter-productive.  We have factual evidence to the contrary.

At least if you propose that it's metaphorical (6 "god days" or each day being many million years), there is a chance that it can actually be true.

What sort of factual evidence? Do you have a witness? a video? Perhaps we've seen another planet formed over millions of years?

Many of those who hold to a young earth (and perhaps literal days) belief tend to believe that what we see on earth is merely a result of God making it look that way on purpose (or essentially making it LOOK like the earth is old, but it's really not)

It seems completely at odds with believing in a God that is honest and true, and yet there are those who seem to live with both of those beliefs as a part of their belief structure.

Yeah, that's why I don't even consider that possibility.  Making the earth "seem" to be 4.5 billion years old when it's not would be counter-productive and blatant deception.  If you want people to believe in something, you don't manipulate and falsify the evidence to indicate the opposite of something you've said.  That makes it even less likely for someone to believe.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:16, Mon 21 Jan 2013.

Devising new scientific methods depends on a degree 'reasonableness', relying on other scientific beliefs as a baseline. If you expect the answer to be '4 billion years', you are going to automatically toss out any answer which suggests six thousand years. The result is a self-reinforcing, common 'answer' to the question, based on a mix of science and personal bias.

There certainly is some of that in science. I have an interest in bronze age low chronology, and some reputable scientists who accept the established chronology only publish carbon dating results which agree with the established chronology. (Yes, the pro-low-chronology side has a lot of crackpots in it, so it has even more bias issues. But I still believe that low chronology has merit, despite the reputations of its proponents.)

I think, though, that a counterpoint to katisara is that the scientific establishment didn't go into it original with a preconceived notion of 4 billion years. That number was derived from evidence that contradicted their intuitions that the Earth was younger than that, and the 4 billion year figure had to undergo skepticism before it was accepted.

It's possible that time telescopes as we go backwards, that cycles we see (such as the precession of the pole or the flip of the Earth's magnetic field or even the rates of radioactive decay) do not have constant periods but have been getting longer and longer as time goes on. This seems unlikely to me, since these various long time scale processes are in sync with each other, and if their rates were all changing, the idea of them all lengthening at the same rate to stay in sync seems very farfetched. So I have to assume that these cycles are indeed period, and the Earth is as old as these cycles tell us it is.

I think you're overstating things here.  You make it sound like science only ever gets the answer its expecting, and tosses out anything that disagrees with the accepted answer.  You make it sound like the answer that science comes up with is no more valid than any man-on-the-street's opinion.  Having worked in science (I'm no longer doing research, but it wasn't too long ago that I was), I can tell you that scientists don't delight in getting the accepted answer, but rather in showing that the accepted answer is wrong.  That's what makes you a big name in science: overturning the accepted view.  Coming up with results that are consistent with the accepted view helps your career a bit, but if that's all you ever do, you'll just be one of the rank and file, so it's not what people working in science are aiming for.

As hakootoko points out, science didn't expect '4 billion years' to be the answer.  When Hutton came up with the idea of (and presented the evidence for) deep time, scientists all expected a few thousand years to be the answer.  It was the evidence that led them to the new answer, not their personal biases.  And that evidence has been strengthened by look at many different areas, and they all come to more or less the same answer.

Are there some specific examples you're thinking of when you say that scientists 'toss out' answers that suggest 6 thousand years?  If so, perhaps we should discuss those, rather than the more general question of whether science is just opinion largely disconnected from facts.  I think we won't get much beyond "Is not!" "is too!" unless we talk about specific examples.

*sigh*

The bible actually lists two creation stories in genesis, which while not exactly contradictory, they do differ on details.  Now, my supposition is that they were two separate oral traditions, which were merged together to form the first part of genesis.

More to the point, the two stories only truly contradict each other if you take them both literally.  The seven day account makes it clear man was made last, while the Adam and Eve myth says Adam came before everything else.  This isn't a serious problem if you think of the seven days as a metaphor.

Does anyone here actually believe in the young earth theory, or we all arguing the same side of the equation?

I totally don't, but I guess I could argue it if I'd had enough to drink.

I guess no one talking at the moment (certainly not me). So, if I can hijack this thread...

At what point do people think the OT transitions from myth to a history of the hebrew people? The OT contains a number of different things: myth, history with a religious narrative, law, and parable. If we all agree that the biblical account of creation is not historical, then we should each have an idea of where it becomes historical.

Personally, I put this before the time when the Hebrews moved to Egypt. I have read of historians (not writing "religious history") comparing the story of Joseph in Egypt to actual conditions in Egypt to determine its plausibility. The mythical and supernatural elements in Joseph are few, which makes it a good candidate for having a historical basis.

Abraham has too many mythical attributes around him, similar to how other ethnic progenitors, for me to consider him historical. He lacks sufficient interaction with other documented peoples to determine a historical context for him.

So my answer to my own question would be "somewhere between Abraham and Joseph."

Their language is very metaphorical in general, particularly back then.  I do not think there is a point when you can say it becomes "historical" per se.

That's like saying, "When is it that someone says 'I told you a million times' and means it literally?  After 1920? After 2000?  Never?"  It's an exaggeration built into our language.

At one point the Old Testament talks about a battle, but it is believed that the battle was a cautionary tale made up as the Israelites traveled and they came across an old battleground.  I want to say it was Oe or some strange place like that.  Then Jesus had parables, which we don't take as literal.

To answer your question, I think it's on a case by case basis.  I do think the genealogy part of it is literal but not in the father-son sort of way, but rather "descended from" sort of way, so even that is not totally literal.  So if John begat Sam, it doesn't mean John is Sam's father, it means that Sam is a descendant of John (though they could be father son).  This truncated genealogy then omits minor or insignificant figures (maybe even unrighteous ones) from the family history.

waves
Hello friends new and old here!
braces paws
*** here goes a proverbial wrench into the works .... ***


widens one eye
... And the widely variable rotational speed of this Earth over the recent millenniums can NOT be totally ignored here.
smiles.
Only 6 of our Earth days?!  Whould NOT that leave out fun things here like:

Neaderthals?
Ice Age?
Dinosaurs?

--------

shifts weight
I perceive much knowledge and history has been lost in translation over millenniums past!  Where myth becomes history looks nearly as broad (NOT less than a millennium) to me.
smiles
I understand, After Jesus Christ comes soon, we will know abundantly about this Earth's construction, inhabitants and history.
revelatory aside
including from those who lived that history!

 |\,/|
< * * >
  \_/
   -

This message was last edited by the player at 05:08, Sat 02 Mar 2013.

Well, there's actually a reasonable explanation. And if literal, are still non contradictory.

Genesis 1 describes the 7 days of creation.
Genesis 2 describes what happened in greater detail on day 6.

It's non contradictory.

these shouldn't be real issues with a literal 6 day creation.

Dinosaurs can still be created in the first 6 days.

Neanderthals are already reclassed as homo sapien, so could have been created that way.

Ice age shouldn't be a problem, since it wouldn't need to be created during creation, but could happen any time after it.

*sigh*  Look again.  I suggest you read the bible before commenting, its less embarassing.

One account says Adam was made first (the second story) while the first says Adam came last.  What you say is still wrong, even if the second account was just an expansion of the sixth day (it's not, btw).

How so Cain? Where does it say that Adam was created first in genesis 2?

This is a fairly well recognized point by the people who are educated in history and jewish culture. This isn't something new or unheard of. So I question why you feel they are wrong about this?

All right, I'll humor you.  Here's the KJV version of the bible, with the relevent parts highlighted:


So, we see that the beasts and certain plants were formed after Adam was made.  Except that just before, we see this:



Now, this isn't a contradiction if you don't take the seven day account literally.  Then, it's just a metaphor.  Most of the bible scholars you allude to resolve this contradiction thusly.  But that pretty much proves the six day story is just that: a story, an allegory.

If you look at both sections of scripture, you'll notice that in Genesis 1, it has a chronological order of creation.

In the 2nd chapter of Genesis, you'll note it isn't the creation of all things, no mention of the stars, planets or even fish are spoken of. More so, you'll note starting in verse 5, that the word for plants is actually different than the word used for plants in Genesis 1. I am quoting from Amplified, as it makes it more clear that the type of plants that the scholards and historians consider the correct use. It refers to the plants of the field. Crop land, farm land.

You'll see many references to the garden of Eden having plants that are good to eat, and need to be worked by man. (no man to till the land) Simply put, the type of farmland plants in the Garden of Eden were pointed out that they were waiting to grow for man to come and work them.

Note, that animals being formed in the garden of Eden does not mean they were created only on that day. It makes no mention of the fish for example. Considering that the creation is not a complete creation, (Example, no mention of Earth, stars, heavens, day, night, or fish, it would not be considered a conflict to the previous account from chapter 1. )

And considering that Chapter 2 naturally follows chapter 1, it seems reasonable that the author did not forget what happened on days 1-5, but focused on the events in the Garden of Eden with man.

And you're still contradicting yourself.  Your "logic" is badly twisted and attempting to justify a conclusion you've already drawn.  If you simply said "it's a metaphor", then the contradiction erases itself.

Just going by the what the historian and cultural experts say about the original language. It's not really my research, but people far more educated then me, or you.

But in the end, if you're just saying there's a contradiction, okay. There's no real evidence you're presenting that I need to counter. If you're countering the use of original language and meaning, what word are you suggesting is wrong?

Well, for one, I'm clearly more educated on the bible than you are, and I've shown the contradiction.  If we accept the seven days as a metaphor, then there's nothing wrong, it's just different parts of the same story.  It's only when someone tries to take both as the literal truth that you have to worry about minor contradictions.

And clearly more humble too.  ;)
I have to admit the image of you stamping your foot when you posted this did made me snicker a little.



 Because you feel a metaphor explanation could work, then no one should look at literal reading explanations?

That's not a compelling argument to ignore explanations for a literal reading.

No, the fact that a literal reading creates a contradiction (but an allegorical one does not) is pretty compelling.

Tell me, do you believe everything in the bible is literally true?

To clarify, you're only stating there's a contradiction. The experts say there isn't one, and show why it's not.

No, it's not all literally true.

Yes, and the answer is because it's a metaphor.

Then why is it so hard to accept that the seven day account might not be literally true?

You forgot the little semi colon bracket. Without it, it's harder to tell when you mean to be funny. ;)


Because the book of genesis is written as history, and it even says that this is the account of history when it comes to the creation.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 44):

And history can never be told as a metaphor...?

That's not a particularly good reason to assume it's a metaphor because you've seen history in that way. I've seen history explained as literal history, so now you should consider Genesis as literal because history can be told as literal.


The reason why literal makes sense, is because if you look at Genesis, much of it is written as literal. It describes passing of time by days, describing how long a day is, locations, names of people and places, routes of travel, describing markers within those locations, etc.

So at this point, since historians state that a literal read does not make it a contradiction, are you just saying that it should be read as a metaphor because you thought there was a contradiction?

Was there other reasons to consider it a metaphor based on the way it's written? For example, when Jesus spoke of parables, he said it was a parable, or compared it to something else that gave hints it wasn't a literal event. What clues are you using from the scripture that says metaphor and not literal?

Well, when you consider the Hebrew word for history is pretty much tied into their word for "story" or "Oral tradition", then yes, it's safe to assume that they might be speaking in metaphor.

Sorry, are you talking about something in Genesis that should be translated differently or just the jewish language?

If language, are you saying anytime it says history, it should be a metaphor and not literal?

So when it speaks of Abraham in Genesis and his wife, servants, travels, and actions, those are metaphors?

It's like the "history" of George Washington and the cherry tree.  The terms used refer to oral traditions and stories, not necessarily literal histories.  At any event, you're reading far too much into one word.  The fact remains, there's a contradiction in the tales that can be easily resolved if you accept the six day account as a metaphor.

I understand you're saying there's a contradiction. But you can say there's also a big rhino eating mountains, under the sea.

Saying there's one doesn't mean there is though.

I proved there's a contradiction.  You haven't proven anything, as is typical for you.

Did not! Did not!

Oh wait. Cain did you double stamp it?

Man, it's tough to win an argument when you trump me every time by just saying you did prove it.

Could you teach me that technique of debate? Like, what do I have to do to pull that one out of my hat? I'll try practicing.

Here's my attempt.

Cain, I proved there wasn't. You haven't proven anything, as is typical for you.

Hey....It does make it quite easy to win debates now. (Triple stamp it!)

As usual, when your arguments are destroyed, you resort to ad hominem.

I'll just declare victory now.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:22, Sun 29 Dec 2013.

So what else were you going to do to humiliate me further? Use ALL CAPS to declare it proven? ;) <- see, semi colon bracket to let you know when there's a joke. ;)

I don't have to humiliate you.  You do a fine job of doing that to yourself.

MODERATOR POST:

Grandmaster Cain, post #53 violates the forum constitution. Do not make direct attacks against other members. Please remove or modify it within the next twenty four hours or it will be removed for you.

Grandmaster Cain and Trust in the Lord, I can see that this conversation is getting very hot. If either of you do not feel you can be civil, please take a break from the thread until you can be.

Thank you.

I haven't read much of the latest argument, but here is my two cents:

The "six days" in the original Hebrew means something more like "periods of time," not actual days; it has just been translated that way.  So six "eras" is just as accurate.  The Hebrew use a "figurative day" in their speech, as much of the language is figurative.  The same is true of people living long lifespans.  The most exact translation of what is called "day" in English is "a space of time defined by an associated term"

The term is "yowm," and it has many meanings, including:  day, days, some time, life, at the same day, at present, and a few others, one of which I find particularly interesting:  "a period of light which is not darkness."  The ancient Hebrews did not define it by hours or "days," but by "natural phenomena," which is why a "period of time" or "era" is just as accurate a translation.

Couple that with Peter and Psalms:

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday"
when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

"... that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day."

Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8.  (There, also, a thousand years is used figuratively, like we might use a "million.")

Many linguists state that the word "yowm" is the root word that developed into the word "Aeon" in Greek, indicating that the ancients thought of it more as an "eon" than a "day."

Someone took the most accurate translation into English and it turns out something like this, which seems the most accurate to me:

"Then said God,
Let be light and was light.
And saw God the light that good (it was)
and separated God between the light and the darkness.
And called God the light Day. and the darkness He called Night;
and was the mixing and was the breaking forth time one."


The "mixing" comes from 'ereb and "breaking forth" from boqer, which indicates transverse threads of cloth or mingling or mixing of things, which is commonly translated as "evening" and "morning" because it is when things become blurry until they are made unblurry by the day.  An alternate translation that is also is accurate, is "from chaos/disorder to order..."

So "the mixing and breaking forth" or "chaos/disorder to order" then occurs in the first "time period/era/eon" (yowm).

The only problem with that concept is that in genesis it literally describes a day as being day and night, a literal 24 hour period in Genesis chapter 1.

I do understand that the word was used for more than one meaning, however, the reason for a 24 hour meaning is because it describes it in use in Genesis 1 as 24 hour days.

Wait, you're saying Genesis actually says the day was 24 hours long?  I think that'd be a pretty strong piece of evidence in your favor if it were true.  Can you point to the verse that says the "days" in question were 24 hours long?  Or are you assuming that because it involved a "day and a night" that it had to be 24 hours long?

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heavens. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis1:31 And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good (suitable, pleasant) and He approved it completely. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

So the argument is that the word day could have another meaning. But morning, and evening do not have another meaning. They are day and night. Unless the argument is being presented that morning, and evening were longer than 24 hours back then, the evidence suggests that a 24 hour day is the more reasonable of the responses.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 61):

Ah, gotcha.  While I tend to agree with you that a 24 hour day is the most reasonable reading of the intending meaning, that's a big step from saying it says days meant 24 hours.  It'd be a pretty open-and-shut case if it said "24 hour days," but if the debate is over whether the days are metaphorical or not, I don't think it's all that convincing to say that it had to be 24 hour days since they had "mornings" and "evenings".  Again, I stress that I tend to agree with you that the people who wrote this actually believed this all happened in 6, literal,  24-hour days (though obviously we disagree on whether they were correct in believing that).

I'm more likely to avoid such discussions these days, since I've had them enough times to know that its not a question of evidence for people.  Everyone interprets this book so that it matches with their beliefs about 2 things:  the perfectness of the bible, and the findings of the sciences regarding deep time.  There's 3 basic positions that tend to show up:

1.  Those who believe the bible is God's perfect word, and cannot be wrong, and that the world is young.  They tend to take the 24 hour days literally (because that fits their other views)
2.  Those who believe the bible is God's word, but also believe the findings of science.  These tend to take the "days as a metaphor" point of view, because that's the only way to really square those two beliefs.
3.  Those who believe the bible isn't a work of God, and believe the findings of science.  These people seem more indifferent about the metaphor or literal interpretation of "days", since they don't think it's true either way.

Interestingly, if one is in the first camp, and is arguing with folks in the 2nd camp, there is the danger of convincing them that you're right about the days being literal, but that causing them to switch to the 3rd camp, rather than the first.  If they're convinced that science has shown that the earth is much older than 6k years, and you then also convince them that Genesis was intended literally, they only conclusion they can reach is that the bible isn't actually the infallible word of God.  Put another way, if you tell them they have to pick either the findings of science, or the literal interpretation of Genesis, they might just go with the findings of science.  That seems like the correct thing, in my view, but I assume it'd be a rather pyrrhic victory for someone in camp 1.

That is incorrect.  It does not even say "day and night" in Hebrew, as my post above demonstrates.  To engage in a debate with me, you'll need to be more specific with references and the definitions of the ancient Hebrew used, not the English "translations."

Actually, yes they do have another meaning.  This is what my post points out very clearly in looking at the ancient Hebrew.  The literal translation is:

"the mixing and was the breaking forth time one"

It is not "morning or night" or even "day;" that is just how it was translated for King James and has stuck with the translations.

The Hebrew words and their actual definitions are:
yowm = a time period (not necessarily a day but is instead the root of the word "eon")
ereb = mixing (typically translated as "night" because it is when things are mingled, obscured and unclear -- i.e., chaos)
boker = breaking forth (which is typically translated as morning because that is when things are made unblurry)

So the literal translation means something like this:  "The chaos/blurriness and the subsequent breaking clear and formation was the first eon."  (Not literally: "The evening and the morning were the first day." which is the typical figurative translation.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:34, Fri 03 Jan 2014.

Actually, that would be incorrect. You are maintaining the word Yome, which is meant for day, and also other meanings such as age.

But I also referenced evening, and morning
‛ereb
eh'-reb
From H6150; dusk: -  + day, even (-ing, tide), night.

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

Which do not have multiple meanings, and are repeated multiple times in Genesis 1 which supports a 24 hour day.

Those actually do have multiple meanings, and they were used figuratively quite often in that age.  I don't know how else to say it but to say that you are simply mistaken.

Similarly, for example, we might say "It dawned on me..."  That doesn't mean that the sun suddenly rose over my head, but that I understood something.  The Hebrew is not too dissimilar from that type of usage.

So far, I think I'm finding TitL's view more convincing here.  While it's possible that it was meant to be taken as a metaphor, I can't really see any reason why one should take it that way.  I don't think anyone even really questioned that it was to be taken literally until Hutton introduced the idea of deep time.  The only real reason I can see to take it as a metaphor is so that you can simultaneous accept it as "true" in some sense, and accept the findings of science as true.  This seems to put me and TitL in the unusual position of agreeing on this one, since I'm okay with saying that Genesis is wrong, and he's okay with saying the scientists are wrong.  Neither of us feel the need to be able to say "they're both true!"

No, Tycho, those words were not used as only "night" and "day."  I think you are believing what he is saying without independent research.  Those same words are used throughout the Old Testament to mean many things that are not "night" or "day."

So if it means what TiTl says, the Old Testament itself would not make sense in many areas where the same words are used but are translated differently in English.

Also, there is a ton of evidence suggesting that the ancient Hebrews used exaggerations and figurative language.  That's why people lived hundreds of years:  because it was part of their figurative "long life."

I think your error here is that you are merely taking the time period between a few centuries A.D. to the 1700s.  You are not looking at the ancient Hebrew or Israelites, but rather at the Catholic/Protestant interpretations that persisted for about 1500 years.  That has no bearing on what was written thousands of years B.C., on their culture, or on whether their language was figurative.  Even the Torah was not written until the 5th Century.

Here is another link showing how the Ancient Israelites did not mean it as more than a figurative understanding of the creation by God and our place in creation:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...lieve_about_creation

Oh, I'm not saying that it could only be interpreted literally.  As I mentioned before, it looks to me like it could be metaphorical, I just don't see any evidence to suggest that it was, other than the findings of science disagreeing with it.

Yes, the ancient Hebrews used exaggerations and figurative language, but that doesn't mean we should assume absolutely everything they wrote down was intended to be read as a metaphor.

You are correct that I was thinking of the christian interpretations of Genesis, rather than the ancient Hebrew interpretation.  But I guess that's because we have records telling us that before Hutton Christians all took it literally, but don't have records (at least that I know of, if we do they should clearly be brought up) that indicate how the ancient Hebrew's interpreted it.

I guess for me, I'd need to be shown some reason that it was meant to be taken metaphorically, and so far none has been given.  All that suggested is that it could be metaphorical.  It's like if you say "hey, I'm going to the store to get some milk."  You could be speaking metaphorically, but I'm going to assume you mean it literally until I get some other clue telling me otherwise.  Someone saying "Oh, but Heath often exaggerates and uses metaphors" wouldn't really sway me much, though I might well accept that you do use them.

Ok, here's the thing.  If it were literal, the two creation accounts would contradict themselves.  If the six day myth is indeed a metaphor, then the contradiction resolves itself.  That, plus the language used according to Heath (who does read ancient Hebrew, as opposed to Titl, who googled modern Hebrew) is sufficient to lend credence to the metaphor model.

No, as I pointed out from historians, it's not a conflict, since the second account is a close up on day 6 in the garden of eden.


And note, Heath didn't actually show those words had multiple meanings, he just denied that the hebrew words only had one meaning.

I used a hebrew english dictionary, and showed it's translation of just one word.

I'll show you.

H3117
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.

H6153
ערב
‛ereb
eh'-reb
From H6150; dusk: -  + day, even (-ing, tide), night.

H1242
בּקר
bôqer
bo'-ker
From H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: -  (+) day, early, morning, morrow

As you see, yome does have multiple uses, but adding the other details of morning and evening, which have only one meaning brings everything together for clarification.

So, I understand you think Heath countered my argument, but he only denied it, and made a claim that evening and morning have other meanings. But that's not true. (Nor did he support his claim by showing the many meanings of morning and evening.)

Dybbuk, is this something you feel qualified to weigh in on? I notice we have two English-speaking Christians talking about Hebrew Jewish writings.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 73):

They all have multiple meanings.  You just have truncated or looked up a general dictionary definition.  For example, 'ereb also has another definition that means "foreigners" or "strangers."  The term was used to demonstrate things that were separate, apart, confused or chaos.  Your "yohm" definition actually seems to concur with me.

You see, the ancients used common references to apply to larger events that were hard to comprehend.  So day and night were used commonly for any division of time or era because that was the easy way to visualize it.  This actually conforms to what Tycho is saying about Hutton -- they knew there were longer divisions of time but characterized them by imagery the commonplace person could understand, which is how these sayings come to being, particularly if they are not specific spans of time (like number of years or days).

I should also point out that, if it were literal, things would not exist in proper order.  The earth and water would exist before light existed.  And God didn't create the stars and the sun, the night and the day, until the Fourth Day, after he created the earth, the waters, the firmament, and plant life.

And isn't it strange that he creates the "day" and "night" after three days had already passed?  (I.e., "day" and "night" were not created until the Fourth Day!)

So we need to look at some internal consistency of the language.  I just don't see how that can be read literally.

That's actually your problem.  You're using a modern Hebrew dictionary to attempt to disprove someone who can read in ancient Hebrew.  At any event, you still haven't resolved the contradiction I've sent you (Other than to repeatedly say "Nuh-Uh!") within the literal framework.  Your point-- that the second creation story is an expansion-- only works if the first story is metaphorical, and proves my point.