Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Your whole affirmation/assertion/claim seems to rest on the word "day" in Gen. 2:4. Why not just call it a "period of time" and throw the rest of your convoluted mess out the window?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

He also called the evening and the morning, the whole 24-hour period, a day - two different meanings of yom in one verse. It says nothing of the kind. "Light period" is not hinted at in any way. Since Genesis 1:5 uses the word yom in two different ways, you can't arbitrarily pick one of them - or either of them, necessarily - for the meaning in Genesis 2:4.So no, there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that there was an "extended period of light".

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

That's a non sequitur. You've given no reason why the word yom in Genesis 2:4 has anything to do with a "light period". The word yom can refer to the light part of a day or a whole 24-hour day or an indeterminate period of time. You've given no reason to prefer one over the others.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

What part of God calling the evening and the morning yom do you not understand?What basis do you have for choosing one meaning of yom over the other in the same verse? What basis do you have for linking either one of those meanings with the yom in Genesis 2:4?Edited by ringo, : Spellint.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Of course, that is not what is recorded in the text. The word yom as used in Genesis 2:4 defines a time period, not specifically "a day". It could be in the sense of "grandpa's day" which lasted for decades.I'm asking you how and why you concluded that the "day" in Genesis 2:4 has anything to do with a "light period" or a "light and dark period". Why did you choose (yes you did) that particular definition of yom over "period of time"? Are you suggesting that plants, animals and man were creating during the Big Bang?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

No, you would not. When grandpa said "in my day", he meant in his heyday, in the days and years when he was at his prime. It's hard to believe that you could have lived for long in an English-speaking country without understanding that figure of speech. The only one here who's confused about usage, both English and Hebrew, is you. Here's an example of yom referring to more than one light/dark period:

quote:

---

Gen 4:3 And in process of time (yom) it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

---

and another:

quote:

---

Gen 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age (yom); and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

---

and another:

quote:

---

Gen 24:1 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age (yom): and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things.

---

It's pretty clear that the word yom was often used to refer to more than one light/dark "day".I ask again: Why do you insist on using the specific definition of yom over the more general definition? That's what I asked you.During that "light period", there were no atoms, much less dust or man.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

There isn't one definition of yom in Genesis 1:5. There are two. There is also a more indefinite period of time defined as yom in the examples I gave. I keep asking you why you choose one definition over the others but you don't seem to have a coherent answer. Non sequitur. There was night.(Your argument is circular if you use your conclusion to support your definition of yom.) It certainly does. The word yom in Genesis 18:11 refers to many days, may 'light periods". If you can show us that the plural is used in my examples but not in Genesis 2:4, then do that. If you can do it, you should have done it right off the bat to answer my question: Why did you choose one definition of yom over the others? The answer would have been: Because it's singular in the Hebrew, not plural. I can see why you want to ignore the question because your whole argument depends on the answer and you don't appear to have one. Ignoring refutations is what we call hand-waving. Nobody else is either. I'm only talking about your misuse of the Bible. There isn't only one definition for yom, there are several. But you can't make your point stick without understanding the meaning of day. As far as I know, the vast majority of that radiation was in the invisible part of the spectrum so calling it "light" is misleading. Associating it with the creation story in Genesis is downright ludicrous.I am definitely suggesting that there was no man around at the time.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Back in the day (over a twenty-year period), I used to work at the church too.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

To anybody with a smattering of knowledge of the English language, the meaning is clear: At some time in the past and for a period of time covering twenty years, I periodically did some work at the church.Yes, it does leave unanswered questions. Language often does that. That's why we have questions.All languages have figures of speech that can't be taken literally. If you made a heavy-duty umbrella for when it rains cats and dogs, you'd look just as silly as you do in this thread.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Actually, I wanted you to show that the word yom is singular in Genesis 1:5 and also in Genesis 2:4, as opposed to plural in the other examples. (And could you make your Hebrew font a little bigger? The way you're doing it, the distinctions are hard to see.) No. I have three different instances of the word yom (twice in Genesis 1:5 and once in Genesis 2:4) that are translated as "day" in the KJV. It may be that it is singular in all three instances and plural in the other examples but you haven't shown that clearly yet. It's the "definitions of the modifications" that we're talking about. If there's a modification in Genesis 2:4 that makes it singular, show us. That isn't a definition. God called the light day. He didn't define a day as a light period. Is there a distinction between "on the day" and "in the day"? There is in English. "On the day" usually refers to one 24-hour day but "in the day" means more like "during the time period". I will assert that only an idiot would think there was a man around shortly after the Big Bang.Edited by ringo, : Capitalized "Bang" (OCD moment).

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

You're still just asserting that it refers to a specific day. The translation "in the day" doesn't. It refers to an indefinite period of time. "On the day" would refer to a specific day but the translators chose "in". If you disagree with the translators, you're going to need something specific in the Hebrew text to show where they went wrong. He gave all three definitions:

quote:

---

1 a : the time of light between one night and the next
1 b : daylight

​

5: a specified time or period : age often used in plural

---

You haven't shown that. As Webster states, in English the singular word "day" can be used to signify an indeterminate period of time, one "age" consisting of many singular days. We know that on earth the sum of the light and dark periods is 24 hours.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Of course you can. The idiom "in the day" means an indefinite period of time comprised of more than one individual say. If the translators meant to convey the idea of a single day, they could/would have said "on the day" but they didn't. Hebrew scholars seem to be in agreement that it was not a single day. Since you're the sole holdout, it's your job to show where everybody else is wrong and you are right. Yup. Just use the phrase "in the day". It means an indefinite time period consisting of several individual days.As I said in Message 468, my first post in this thread, your whole crackpot idea is based on your lack of understanding of English. It's rather comical, actually.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Of course it makes a difference. The translators meant to convey what the Hebrew text says. If you disagree with the translators, it's up to you to show where they went wrong. Why does every translator and every Jewish reader of the Hebrew text get it wrong and only you get it right? Or he would have used the phrase "in the day", which means an indefinite period of time. That's what he did.Every translator and Hebrew reader understands that. Why don't you? Uh uh uh.... That's ringo and every translator and every rabbi who reads Hebrew. We all understand what the context plainly shows, that the word yom/day refers to the entire time period during which creation takes place. Why don't you?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Since you're the one making a positive claim, it's up to you to back it up. But sure, here's a comment from Answers in Genesis:

quote:

---

Some of the Rabbis did debate about Genesis 2:4, which says, ‘This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.’ However, in this case, ym is prefixed by the preposition be, so beym, and was just an idiom for ‘when’. The days in Genesis 1 had no preposition, and had the phrase ‘evening and morning’ and a number, which are always indicators of ordinary days everywhere else in the Old Testament. None of the rabbis tried to juggle this ‘day’ (in Genesis 2:4) to suit pagan philosophy (the Greek philosophers held to a long-ages understanding). Instead, most of them correctly took ‘day’ here to mean ‘at the time when’ creation took place.

---

It's one of the few things AiG ever got right. Yeah, they do. See above. Yup. See above. It was the first hit on my Google search.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

That's exactly the point. I'm biased against AiG and I can still use them as a reference. It's like hiring Robert Todd Lincoln to defend John Wilkes Booth. No. He gives references, e.g.:

quote:

---

Translation and commentary by Klotowitz R.M., Overviews by Scherman, R.N., Bereishis, Genesis: A new translation with a commentary anthologised from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources, vol.1 (a); Art Scroll Tanach Series, Mesorah Publications Ltd., p. 113, 1977.

---

A prefix used as a preposition, yes. No. Your reference gives two examples, Bereishit (in the beginning) and u'vayom (and on the day). My refererence gives the example, beym (in the day). R.M. Klotowitz and R.N. Scherman say it does mean "when". Your problem is that you usually misunderstand what you quote. In this case, you haven't even quoted anybody who agrees with you. No, I Googled "genesis 2:4 rabbis day" (without the quotes), which is what we're talking about. First hit (though I don't know if Google produces the same results for everybody). So your case is built on failure to find any counter-evidence in one Google search? When I did find counter-evidence in one Google search? You might gain some credibility if you worked a little harder at falsifying your own hypothesis.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi