re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

quote:

---

Oh well ok then

---

It's been explained itt that the op does not contradict the biblical account. Did you catch on to that?

quote:

---

If we can't know what was meant by "day" in that context, we don't know what is meant by the word in any context.

---

Thanks for proving my point. Maybe if you knew the Biblical definition of yom, then this wouldnt be so hard for you

quote:

---

yome; from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term)

---

Yom means HOT. A day is described as Hot because of the sun. Form the moment the heat of the day begins, until the next such cycle. Yom

What was the very first thing God said? Let there be light. From this came heat - Yom, not a 24 hour cycle. You have NO CLUE AT ALL, as to how long that heat of that first day was timed. The explosion, the traveling through space, the cooling, the gravitational pull - Yom

So quit limiting the power of the creator. Its a very disturbing look for you. His first 'yom' of creation was the producing the inferno that became the universe. It was not determined by a 24-hour day. Stop saying it is. Its embarassing

Yom 2, God created Heaven

On Yom 3, not until then, he created the Earth. So not only did you not have a sun yet, you didnt even have an Earth for which the sun produced heat to even determine the 24-hour a day

Yom 4, then you get your 24-hour days, not until. And only on Earth. Not in the Heavens. Which was formed 2 yoms ago

People are discussing the days of creation as if the writer of Genesis was there, taking notes, The writer of Genesis, like everyone else in the ancient world, understood the world in terms of a 24 hour day so that is the framework he used when he wrote his book. He understood night and day, 24 hour time periods, so he chose to describe God's creation in that framework.

Do I believe that the writer of Genesis intended "yom" to mean a 24 hour day? Yes, absolutely.

Do I believe that God created the universe in 6, 24 hour days? Absolutely not.

quote:

---

The writer of Genesis, like everyone else in the ancient world, understood the world in terms of a 24 hour day

---

Sigh. It's like people don't read.

Jesus and his people are ones who told us that yom does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period. How can you say for sure that they meant that when they retold the creation story? You can't.

quote:

---

Do I believe that the writer of Genesis intended "yom" to mean a 24 hour day? Yes, absolutely.

Do I believe that God created the universe in 6, 24 hour days? Absolutely not

---

Now this is a excellent observation. As I said, the possibility for OEC was ALWAYS in the creation account, even if it was unrealized by people until later. But that does not make OEC "novel" and YEC the default position, like YEC people usually presume.

quote:

---

1. You are acting from the presumption that YEC is the central, literal truth and that everything else is peripheral that has to be "proven" in order to knock YEC out of the catbird seat. That is not the case. Just like the exodus, end times, etc, there are multiple POSSIBILITIES, of which YEC is just one.

---

I have supported my view of YEC from the text, itself, both from the grammatical and lexical structure of Genesis 1, as well as from the interpretations of Moses, Jesus, and Paul. You have not rebutted anything I've said so far. You have only given an alternative opinion without any support.

quote:

---

2. The people you say interpreted yom as a 24 hour period are the ones who told us yom doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. Thus, it is misleading to say they thought of creation as based on 24 hour time periods.

---

Show me where in the Scriptures that yom can mean anything you want it to mean whenever it is used, rather than having a particular meaning based on its grammatical and lexical usage within its context. I gave specific examples of passages from the Bible where the clear meaning of the word yom can be understood from the context, and yet you seem to think that context doesn't matter at all.

quote:

---

3. YEC is not literal and OEC metaphorical. If it turns out that the age of the earth is old, then OEC would be literal and YEC would be metaphorical. They are different perspectives on the word yom. "Beginning" doesn't necessarily mean a certain 24 hour period. 7 day week can be typology, a representation.

---

More "could-be's". You are not supporting your view. You are only saying that the age of the Earth could be old, therefore I'm wrong to say that it is young. I'm using the text to show my work, though, and you are not. If you want to debate, you need to support your position and attempt to refute mine.

quote:

---

4. OEC is not novel and created out of modern science. OEC was ALWAYS in the semantic range of the words, even if it was unrealized by people. The disciples thought genea meant that the 2nd coming would be within their lifetimes. When that didn't happen, dispensationalism was a popular view. Now, dispensationalism has fallen out of favor

---

You keep talking about the semantic range as if the entire range is valid in every single instance the word is used. I provided multiple passages where the range is limited by the context exactly to show you how the range is limited by its context. You don't seem to grasp that, or you are ignoring it on purpose.

quote:

---

Thanks for proving my point. Maybe if you knew the Biblical definition of yom, then this wouldnt be so hard for you

---

You don't even have to know Hebrew or Greek to know how the word is translated. There's a reason why the word yom is translated as "day" instead of "heat" or "hot". I think you have a misunderstanding here.

quote:

---

Yom means HOT. A day is described as Hot because of the sun. Form the moment the heat of the day begins, until the next such cycle. Yom

What was the very first thing God said? Let there be light. From this came heat - Yom, not a 24 hour cycle. You have NO CLUE AT ALL, as to how long that heat of that first day was timed. The explosion, the traveling through space, the cooling, the gravitational pull - Yom

---

I think you are confused.

Genesis 1:5 is the first verse that uses the word "day", and it is used twice. The Hebrew word for "day" is "yom", and "yom" simply means "day". In the Septuagint, the word used is "hemera", which means "day" or an age or period of time. It doesn't mean "hot".

The word "hot" is actually "hom" and looks a little similar to "yom", but they are different words. You can see this in verses like Genesis 8:22, that says "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat (hom), summer and winter, day (yom) and night, shall not cease.” In the Greek Septuagint, the word for "heat" in that verse is "kauma", which is different than the Greek word for "day" ("hemera")

So again, I think you are confused about this.

quote:

---

So quit limiting the power of the creator. Its a very disturbing look for you.

---

Sorry to say this, but I think it's actually you are taking on a disturbing look by adamantly criticizing me when you are so woefully mistaken about the meaning of the words used.

I'm also not limiting the power of the creator by believing what He revealed in Scripture.

quote:

---

His first 'yom' of creation was the producing the inferno that became the universe. It was not determined by a 24-hour day. Stop saying it is. Its embarassing

---

Again, the word is "day", not "hot".

quote:

---

Yom 2, God created Heaven

On Yom 3, not until then, he created the Earth. So not only did you not have a sun yet, you didnt even have an Earth for which the sun produced heat to even determine the 24-hour a day

---

This is just an expansion on your misunderstanding of the language. The word used consistently is "yom", which is why it's translated as "day" in English translations. It doesn't have to do with heat at all.

quote:

---

Yom 4, then you get your 24-hour days, not until. And only on Earth. Not in the Heavens. Which was formed 2 yoms ago

---

Again, the same word (yom) is used for each day. You are arbitrarily changing its meaning from one day to the next due to the Sun having been created when the word doesn't mean "hot" like you claim.

quote:

---

Jesus and his people are ones who told us that yom does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period. How can you say for sure that they meant that when they retold the creation story? You can't.

---

Can you provide an example where the context seems to limit the word yom to a standard Earth-day, but Jesus and His people interpreted it differently?

quote:

---

Dude, just take the "L"

---

I think that's a bit premature.

quote:

---

Only in English translations is yom limited to the term 'day'. Other verified translations:

quote:

---

Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness)
A general term for time (as in "days of our life")
A year (in the plural use, as in "a lot of days")
A time period of unspecified length
A long, but finite, span of time

---

---

While day does mean a period of daylight, as in the day-time (when the sun is visible in the sky from the observer), the definition always depends on the context.

Specifically, chapter 1 of Genesis uses different words for "day" (yom) and "light" (or). Verse 5 has both included, differentiating between the light and the period of time called "day". Verses 14-19 then go on to explain that God gave the sun and moon to have normative differentiation between day and night from our perspective on Earth.

quote:

---

yom in Genesis specifically refers to a period of light (as contrasted to darkness), because as you have admitted, the first yom started when the creator said "Let there be light". You dont measure that by what happens on Earth. Especially when there was no Earth, or a sun at that moment

It was a period of light, that had never existed before. Word for word from the Bible.

---

I already showed the difference between the words "light" and "day" in the text.

More importantly is how the word "day" is used more broadly in the chapter. For instance, the phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day" is used 6 times, once for each "day" of creation. It was used to describe the "days" before the sun was created and the "days" after the sun was created; there is no differentiation in language, and the implication is that there's no difference in what the meaning is. In other words, the consistency in the language indicates that the 6th day is parallel to the 1st day, in terms of its description as a day. Nothing in the language, itself, indicates a different meaning of what a day is between these verses.

You also called out how light was described from God's perspective rather than from those on Earth, especially since no people were alive on Earth, and there was no formed Earth and sun in the first place. I have to remind you that the text was given to people who were living on an existing Earth and saw the existing sun, and who understood the difference between the 7 days of the week. God--through Moses--was describing the creation in words that would have needed to be understood by the audience. There was no different meaning for "day" prior to the sun being created, especially given the parallel already given between the 1st day through the 6th day (morning, evening, x day).

quote:

---

Stop trying to twist Gods words. It wont work out well for you

quote:

---

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God

---

---

Who is twisting words? I've shown the receipts for everything I've said, giving what I hope has been clear explanation of everything I'm claiming about the text. I'm using the Greek and Hebrew to show what words and definitions are in play and calling out the context of the immediate passage as well as the context of the rest of Scripture to show how the words are used and limited by their contexts.

And for the record, while I think you are completely misunderstanding the language and its usage in the text, I'm not accusing you of twisting God's words. I fully believe you are just mistaken. I would hope you would be as gracious to me in this matter.

quote:

---

God really fricked up the moon then. It’s only up through a full night ~1 day per month. Maybe if he had spent more than 6 days creating the earth, everything wouldnt be so fricked up and sloppy.

---

I'd be happy to explain the clear meaning to you if you'd like to have an actual conversation about it. Since it appears that you are merely trolling, I won't bother at this time.

You are just repeating yourself and arguing against strawman points. The conversation won't progress until you respond to the rebuttals. Just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh uhn" is not going to get anywhere.

quote:

---

It's precisely that you use "general revelation" to interpret Scripture here that I have a problem with

---

The OEC interpretation has ALWAYS been a possibility, as long as the YEC position. The fact that something came along later to support the OEC position does not change that fact

quote:

---

It's what I said from the beginning when I said that you were using other beliefs and presuppositions to guide your interpretation of the Scriptures in this case

---

Still wrong. It can be shown from scripture by itself and I have explained precisely how several times now. If you care to get over this hump, go back and read my posts where I explained it.

quote:

---

This is the epitome of eisegesis

---

I agree. You are shoehorning "24 hour periods" into the theological meaning of the text. It is a brute fact that the length of yom is not part of the meaning of the story.

quote:

---

For instance, "general revelation" could be used as a support to say that the dead do not rise, so therefore Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead

---

Apart from God's intervention, sure. But that's not what's being said here. What's being said is that the OEC interpretation is as old as the YEC interpretation and then something from general revelation came along and added substantiation to OEC. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

quote:

---

This is why you cannot support your position from the text, itself

---

I have done so numerous times and you are being obstinate about that.

quote:

---

There is no indication from the Scriptures that the events of the first few chapters of Genesis took hundreds of thousands or millions of years

---

Prove that Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period and that the week is not possibly representative of the creation account but literal. You can't because it's from them we learn that yom doesn't always mean 24 hours and you're not a mind reader

quote:

---

so you have to insert that belief based on a prior commitment from "general revelation"

---

This is a strawman

quote:

---

You have not rebutted anything I've said so far. You have only given an alternative opinion without any support.

---

OEC is a possible interpretation just like YEC. YEC is not the "default" position. YEC is not factual. It is a reasonable interpretation, but not factual

quote:

---

Show me where in the Scriptures

---

This has already been rebutted numerous times. There doesn't have to be an exact parallel elsewhere in scripture. Some things can be unique and that passage would be one of the most likely candidates.

quote:

---

that yom can mean anything you want it to mean whenever it is used

---

Strawman #1000

quote:

---

More "could-be's"

---

Just like YEC. YEC is not the default position

quote:

---

You are not supporting your view. You are only saying that the age of the Earth could be old, therefore I'm wrong to say that it is young. I'm using the text to show my work, though, and you are not. If you want to debate, you need to support your position and attempt to refute mine.

---

You didn't respond to the point. What if it turns out that the age of the earth is actually old?

quote:

---

You keep talking about the semantic range as if the entire range is valid in every single instance the word is used

---

That is POSSIBLE, yes.

quote:

---

I provided multiple passages where the range is limited by the context exactly to show you how the range is limited by its context.

---

That are NOT necessarily applicable to the creation account. More obstinance

3. You have yet to prove how the length of yom is critical to people's salvation, worship, praxis, etc. Do not appeal to biblical inerrancy. There are PLENTY of OEM advocates over the course of decades who are biblical scholars and are champions of biblical inerrancy - that every word of the Bible is trustworthy and accurate. That the translation process is reliable. OEM does not injure biblical inerrancy at all.

4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range is similar to other metaphorical passages (hyperbolic numbers, eschatology, wisdom literature) then you are either ignorant or being obstinate in order to avoid being pinned down on the interpretation of creation.

5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.

6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.

7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.

8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.

9. I get that you are averse to using something outside scripture to interpret scripture. The account can have metaphorical language. Since that's the case, there is absolutely no reason why we can't supplement the interpretation of special revelation with general revelation and that absolutely would not be a case of "throwing out the biblical rules of interpretation." You are operating from the presumption that yom means 24 hour period and anything else is later and contrived. There is no reason to start from that presumption. Given that's the case, OEC can be just as literal as YEC. If OEC refers to ages and that's actually the case, then OEC is more literal than YEC.


Here's the state of your position:
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week could be typology
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language
9. You can't prove that other instances of yom are necessarily definitive for the creation account