- This topic has 899 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
David,
“the evening and the morning were the nth day”, where n is an integer between 0 and 8.
Why would you write about evenings and mornings if you mean 'epoch'?
Quote Science tells us that those things took eons of time.
And the C16th English translation of Genesis uses the word day, singular. It does not say eon, or epoch or age or period or even days. It only says day. Neither does science say that things were created by a sentient supernatural being, no matter how you want to twist temporal descriptions.Quote Guess what? Although it doesn't say much and isn't specific, it in no way contradicts science. As it turns out, it only contradicts what you wanted to believe.
What did I ‘want’ to believe that contradicts Genesis, in your opinion?Stuart
Quote “the evening and the morning were the nth day”, where n is an integer between 0 and 8. “a first day…a second day….a third day…This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, IN THE DAY THAT JEHOVAH GOD MADE EARTH AND HEAVEN.” (GEN 1:3-2:4)
This should give us a clue that these days are not 24 hour days.
24 x 7 does not equal 24.
You could say 24 x7 is shown to equal 24 because all these days are also called one day.
Or, you could be reasonable and see that it is using a much broader usage of that word and a metaphor.
“The metaphor ‘old age is the evening of life’, for instance, relies on the relation between a set of terms describing day and another set describing age.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/metaphorSimilarly, the metaphor in referring to the beginning of these periods of time and the endings of these periods are understood just as one understands evenings and mornings.
Quote And the C16th English translation of Genesis uses the word day, singular. It does not say eon, or epoch or age or period or even days. Yes, it uses the word 'day.' And one definition of day is 'an influencial period of time.'
Which would seem to agree with science.
Quote What did I ‘want’ to believe that contradicts Genesis, in your opinion?
For starters, that there is only one definition of the word “day” and that all other definitions don't exist.On this matter I agree with you Stu. Evening and morning are redundant terms if epochs are meant. Moreover, in every other instance in the OT scriptures where the Hebrew word 'yom' is used in conjunction with a number (as it is in Genesis 1) it refers to a literal solar day. The text means to convey the Elohim made the Universe in 6 literal days.
Well maybe it means one 24 hour day then Is 1:18:
“IN THE DAY THAT JEHOVAH GOD MADE EARTH AND HEAVEN.” (GEN 1:3-2:4)
Quote (david @ Mar. 30 2008,09:15) Well maybe it means one 24 hour day then Is 1:18: “IN THE DAY THAT JEHOVAH GOD MADE EARTH AND HEAVEN.” (GEN 1:3-2:4)
Well yes, I suppose the concept of epoch may well be intended in Gen 2:4, albeit a very small one! There was, afterall, an overall 'timeframe' for the creation event – 6 solar days. However there is no number used in conjunction with yom in this verse David, it shouldn't be understood to override what is recorded in Genesis chapter 1 which is a more detailed, expanded version of the creation account.Quote Moreover, in every other instance in the OT scriptures where the Hebrew word 'yom' is used in conjunction with a number (as it is in Genesis 1) it refers to a literal solar day. “After TWO DAYS will he revive us: in the THIRD DAY he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.” –Hosea 6:2
Quote here was, afterall, an overall 'timeframe' for the creation event – 6 solar days. However there is no number used in conjunction with yom in this verse David, it shouldn't be understood to override what is recorded in Genesis chapter 1 which is a more detailed, expanded version of the creation account. So my point is that in chapter 2, we find that word “day” used to encompass all six days. First, we see on day 1 this, on day 2 that, etc,
Then, we find this sentence:
“IN THE DAY THAT JEHOVAH GOD MADE EARTH AND HEAVEN.” (GEN 1:3-2:4)All the “days” called one day. This should signal to us that first, at the very least, this word can be and is used in the genesis account to portray a period of time that is not 24 hours.
24+24+24 etc does not and never has equaled 24.
These are general non specific periods of time. If you want to know how long they are, ask a scientist or someone who studies light. The Bible only gives the very vague word: “day.”
I think the genesis account just shows us the order that things appeared in or would be seen from a human observer on earth.
I don't think God created things in a way to deceive us, or make the universe look much older than it is.
GENESIS 49:27
““Benjamin will keep on tearing like a wolf. In the morning he will eat the animal seized and at evening he will divide spoil.””In the Bible, even in genesis, “evening” and “morning” do not have to mean
“the beginning (and end) of a 24 hour day.” They can mean the beginning (and end) of some period of time.Like a wolf that eats in the morning the animal seized, the tribe of Benjamin provided the first king over Israel, in the morning of the kingdom of Israel. This king was Saul the son of Kish, and he was a fierce fighter against the Philistines. (1 Sam. 9:15-17) Moreover, like a wolf that at evening divides the spoil from its hunt, so in the evening of the nation of Israel the tribe of Benjamin provided Queen Esther and Prime Minister Mordecai for the Persian Empire in the days of King Ahasuerus. These two Benjaminites were used to bring about the destruction of the last of the enemy Amalekites who tried to have all the Israelites destroyed throughout the empire.—Esther 2:5-7.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 30 2008,09:27) Quote (david @ Mar. 30 2008,09:15) Well maybe it means one 24 hour day then Is 1:18: “IN THE DAY THAT JEHOVAH GOD MADE EARTH AND HEAVEN.” (GEN 1:3-2:4)
Well yes, I suppose the concept of epoch may well be intended in Gen 2:4, albeit a very small one! There was, afterall, an overall 'timeframe' for the creation event – 6 solar days. However there is no number used in conjunction with yom in this verse David, it shouldn't be understood to override what is recorded in Genesis chapter 1 which is a more detailed, expanded version of the creation account.
Yes, I can't see how else you could read it. If you take the rest of the verse along with it it lends a sense of summary; of totalling:Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
David and the dictionary are right, it definitely should say 'days' but Gen 1:x is clear with the mornings and evenings, and this use of the singular here does not actually contradict six literal 24 hour days.
Stuart
The word 'yom' can, as is, also used to disignate a sequence of days, an epoch. This concept is carried through to the NT where we see the term the “day of the Lord”. The context in the passages it's used in makes it plain that this day is actually several days in duration. So although the singular “day” is recorded in Gen 2:4, it refers to (as you righty observed) a totalling of the individual days previously anotated. Again, this verse does not invalidate what is recorded in the preceding chapter. The day of creation is comprised of six individual, literal days in sequence.
Hi,
If four witnesses at a scene of an accident were asked what had happened you will hear remarkably different versions of the truth. Depending on the closeness to the incident, the attention of the observers and their specific interests in the event, and the other many factors involved you would never see such similarities as seen in the gospels.And they were recorded many years later!
Picky people fuss about specific small variations but the miracle of God that gave them to us in the first place is often forgotten.
Well, GJohn does not agree in too many places with the synoptics (whole different scenes in most of it). Matthew and Luke were based on Mark, which was probably “complete” but would not win as many converts since the neither the virgin birth nor resurrection was mentioned. Pagans love virgin birth and death-rebirth in their deities.
There is a “rapture” thread in the believer's section.
What I find strangely ironic is that the same people who say the trinity is not in scripture fails to mention that the rapture isn't either.
Quote (kejonn @ April 02 2008,13:18) Well, GJohn does not agree in too many places with the synoptics (whole different scenes in most of it). Matthew and Luke were based on Mark, which was probably “complete” but would not win as many converts since the neither the virgin birth nor resurrection was mentioned. Pagans love virgin birth and death-rebirth in their deities.
Hi KJ,
Do you have any proof of copying?
Different versions bring out different aspects adding to the beauty.Here's a book for ya to peruse: The Synoptic Problem
From http://earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
- It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.
From http://earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
- Why would Luke have waited twenty years or more from his arrival in Rome with Paul to his composition of Luke-Acts? The explanation could be very simple: after twenty years, Luke had received a copy of Mark's Gospel and decided to write his own version of the story, putting things in order (over against the “many” who have written before him) based on his own investigations, in response to the prompting of his patron, most excellent Theophilus. See the prologue–it doesn't say, “Whew! I just got to Rome and Paul might be killed soon, so let me tell the story of how it all began when I'm still busy making it happen!” Rather, it says, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Perhaps Luke took a visit to the holy land to do more investigation of the subject and interview these servants of the word. In any case, the author of Luke in the prologue indicates that he wrote his great work at a time that was (1) at the prompting of Theophilus, likely his patron and (2) when “many” had already written accounts, which Luke would like to set in order and (3) after carefully investigating everything as handed down by the servants of the word. This fits best a time after which Luke had settled down to do teaching of his own, not when he was waiting on the results of the trial of his mentor Paul.
Luke was a Gentile and would not have been an eye-witness to Jesus' life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
