Did God say it, or did you say it?

I will continue this discussion as far as 'literal day' in Genesis goes. You obviously have to study the original language that the text was written. Now, even non-believers would agree that the original text was written in Hebrew. So, what word was used for the word "day" in the context of the first chapter of Genesis?The word used is YOM. The Bible generally employs the word 'day' to signify either a twenty-four hour solar day, or the daylight portion of those hours.Now, if you want to say that the Bible isn't the Word of God...fine, throw this argument right out the window. But if it is the Word of God, or for the Christian who was wondering the same question, rest assure, the word used is YOM in Hebrew, signifying a literal 24 hour solar day.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This is a valid question. I believe the answer is no, God is not confined to being literal but one has to study when this is and when this is not. It takes more then just picking up the Bible and reading it.Some just quick examples of the Bible not being literal would be say, Song of Solomon or parts of Psalms written in poetry form. Parts of Daniel and most of Revelation are clearly apocalyptic, or highly symbolic, writings. But again, this takes studying Hebrew and Hebrew writings, or reading the books of those that have done this and can explain it for you.Genesis chapters 1-11 has been called poetry by some scholars who try and discredit the literal 6 day creation. So be it. But when compared with other Hebrew poetry (not from the Bible), the first 11 chapters of Genesis clearly are not poetry. It's written much more, if not identical to other historical Hebrew writings that have been discovered. Again, whether you believe it's the Word of God is up to the individual but I'm talking about writing styles and the words that were used in Hebrew....the more one understands historical context, language, ect, the better you will be able to defend a position (or in my case, act like you know what you are talking about).Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Herectic,I'm confused by your post when you say: I take this to mean that you believe the literal Genesis day, but yet don't believe Genesis at all??? Am I wrong on this?Either way, you are correct in that the term YOM and the Genesis account of creation did basically set up the 24 hour day for the Jews. Terms such as "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" don't lend much wiggle room to interpretation.It seems to me that most arguments for non literal days, even those put forth by evangelicals, such as Augustine, only came about to try and make "science" fit the Genesis account.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Since Genesis doesn't come out and say, "BTW guys, the word "day" used in these verses means a literal 24 hour solar day" we have to take more then one thing into account when determining if it means this or not.For starters, without getting all intellectual, I think one has to really stretch the words and read into it what's not there to get that day means more then a literal day. There's no indication, whatsoever that day means thousands or millions of years in this context.Now, take the "totality of the circumstances" into account, in other words, take all the facts into consideration that are given. As we've discussed, the word YOM is used. The Bible generally employs this word to signify either a twenty-four hour solar day, or the daylight portion of those hours. When modified by a number or ordinal (as "Day One" or "Day Two") its universal Scripture usage means a normal solar day. Sometimes (as you have pointed out) 'day' is used to indicate a general period of time not precisely defined (as in Job 7:6, 'My days are vanity....' or Psalm 90:9, 'Our days are passed away in Thy wrath....). But in such cases, 'day' still means a finite succession of normal days: not, by any stretch of the exegetical imagination, vast ages. 'Day' (yom) can occasionally be used of a portion of the year, such as wheat harvest (Gen 30:14), but here again, nothing other then a few weeks limited duration of normal solar days can be intended: not thousand or millions of years."Other" evidences that can be added to this are as follows: In Genesis 'God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.' As though in anticipation of future misunderstanding, God carefully defined His terms. The very first time He used the word yom, He defined it as the 'light', to distinguish it from the 'darkness' called 'night'. After separating the day and night, God had completed His first day's work. 'The evening and the morning were the first day'. This same formula is used at the conclusion of each of the six days; so it's obvious (to me and others), that the duration used on the first day was the same for the others....there was an established cyclical succession of days and nights----periods of light and darkness. Such a cycle of light-darkness clearly means that the earth was rotating on it's axis and that there was a source of light on one side of the earth corresponding to the sun, even though the sun was not yet made (Gen 1:16).In the first chapter of Gen, the ending of each day's work is noted by the statement, 'And the evening and the morning were the first, (or second, or third.....) day.' Thus, each day had distinct boundaries and was one in a series of days, both of which criteria are never present in the Old Testament writings unless literal days are intended.This topic indirectly comes up again in the Ten Commandments given in Exodus chapter 20 verse 11. "Rember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. For in SIX DAYS the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day....." Here comes the crucial point of all this that science can't explain and that brings an earthly human application to the 6 literal day creation:After God's creative work, followed by rest, it forms a pattern for a wholesome life for his Image bearer....mankind. The example was given. Obviously, for those who believe in God, he could have made everything in a split second, or over a time span of millions of years. But likely, a major reason to do it the way He chose to do it, was to set an earthly application to work.I feel that less point is less of a stretch then reading the Gap Theory or the Framework Hypothesis into these verses. There's just no evidence for anything other then a literal day.Footnote: my source in this post is the book, "Creation and Change" by Douglas F. Kelly, professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.(I'm not as smart as this post may or may not make me appear)

No, I don't think either way it destroys one's faith. Many great Christians in history have not followed the literal day creation (C.S. Lewis, Augustine, ect).For me, and I hope this doesn't turn the topic upside down (but it will), the literal 24 hour day reading fits my view of a young earth.We all come to the table with presuppositions, even atheists. I come to the table with a presupposition (really it's a starting point for a worldview) that is based on the Word of God. I believe the Flood of Noah destroyed everything and can explain much of geology and the fossil record (I know, this is for another debate but it brings me to my point). My point is yes, you can believe that the earth is millions of years old and still be a Christian. Who am I to judge the human heart??? But I think if one believes that they are coming from a point of view that is trying to make science fit into the Bible when I just don't see the need to do that.

Peg, I've agreed with you that YOM can be used in other ways but it's generally used for a day or shorter length of time, such as the example of the wheat harvest.Can you give any example where the Bible uses the word YOM to refer to thousands or millions of years? Just one? It's much more of a stretch to believe that the Bible is referring to vast ages in Gen 1 + then to believe that it means a literal day.In fact I can pull up well over 50 New Testament scriptures written by apostles who believed in the literal Word of God in the Old Testament and not once will you find a Gap Theory or some other Enlightenment Age theory to explain creation and science. No in the New Testament believed in anything other then a literal day. For me, it's the LACK of evidence in support of this view that sways me from it.As far as the Jews not dividing the day up into 24 hours until a certain time period is irrelevant to the discussion. A Christian believes that God created time, not the Jews, or whoever...the Jews could have called a 'day' 36 hours, or 12 hours for all I care. But it doesn't change the fact that there was still only so much 'time' in a day...that being the same amount of 'time' there is now in a day. How they counted it is completely irrelevant. But they did start with darkness and light.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Gen 1:5 - he also named the night which would be the other 12 hours (but your point is proven with the word YOM in that context)Gen 2:4 - not sure what version you are using that verse for but the NIV isn't even close to that translationIsaiah 1:1 - clearly the Bible clarifies in this case what 'days' refers to. It's not left up for interpretation. Days refers to the kings lifetimes.2 Peter - ditto, the Bible clarifies what is meant in this caseThe last two verses prove what I tried saying a couple of posts ago. Unless it's actually clarified in Scripture, YOM is a day, nothing more, nothing less. The Bible does a tremendous job in clarifying when this doesn't apply.

killinghurts and peg.....Peg, I understand what you are saying about the word YOM, I really do. But I am just of the understanding that it's a stretch to think that in the historical writings of Genesis, it means anything other then the literal day. Again, any other time in the Bible, it clarifies if it means something else. The New Testament writers understood this. You gave two examples where it was clarified what YOM meant. I understand this.Please show me an example where YOM is used to mean a million years in the Bible......Killinghurts, one, I won't claim someone is not a Christian if they don't believe in the 6 day creation or if they are not a YEC. Two, Genesis was read literally throughout history as a literal 6 day creation up until about the Age of Enlightenment. I'm sure there were some abstract theories before the AoE but really nothing took hold until that period came along. You surely can't find one New Testament writer that mentions that the creation was thousands or millions of years and they could have chosen to use a word in Greek that indicated such but they didn't. So, again, for me, its the totality of the circumstances. I just see a complete LACK of Biblical evidence that these days were anything other then well....a day. If the only evidence we have is what Peg is proposing, that the word YOM, can mean more then a literal day, and that means that the creation days were millions of years old, well, it won't convince me. Just my opinion.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Christians don't believe this though greyseal. We believe that the Bible was written by men, inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted them to write.2 Peter 1:21 says:
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men (Moses in this case) spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.You are correct that no original manuscripts have been found. Probably never will be. Would it change your mind if they were found? Probably not. But, the Jewish transcribers were meticulous in their translations. I'm not going to go into all the detail here.Also, you do know that many of our ancient classic books that have been found have never had an original found with them either yet college professors consider them completely historically accurate. In fact, the Bible has the MOST manuscripts that have been found backing it up. More then anything from Homer for example.

Nor does the Bible imply that it took billions of years for creation, so why assume that it was?

Peg,So you've spent this whole time telling all of us that YOM can mean other periods of time other then a literal day, which I didn't disagree with you on, yet you now want to claim without any proof that with CERTAINTY it means millions of years????? When it CAN mean a literal day also?

greyseal,all good points. I don't know why people have to take God out of God in the creation story as if God is limited by science? I mentioned what you said in another post...if God can raise a person (his Son) from the dead in three days (which science surely can't explain or do) then why couldn't he have created the cosmos (I use that term to mean everything) in a way that still fits into the scientific realm? Is God that limited? Really?Again, in my other post in another thread, it's why I understand the atheist much better then I can understand a theistic evolutionist. The atheist simply says, there is no God....fine. The theistic evolutionist says there is a God, but puts him in a little box to fit their "scientific" needs.

[qs=Peg]Well i would have hoped that reason and logic would let the evidence decide...the evidence is an old earth. Therefore the Yom in this case must stand for a very long time.[/quote]Reason and logic don't explain the virgin birth, which you've stated you believed in. I'm with greyseal on this one and probably don't agree with him on much but I can't see how one can believe that just because the earth and science tell us things are old, doesn't mean that it wasn't created that way. You use the analogy of the 9 month virgin birth yet you would have to agree that Adam didn't go through that...he was created full grown, not as an infant. Why could an all powerful God not create stars billions of years away with light already showing to earth??? Is that so hard to believe? Really?