Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

still irrelevantAnd I quote, "and it was the EVENING and the MORNING of the first day"infact, every single day is "and that was the EVENING and the MORNING of the".first evening, then morning.That's my reasoning. yes, it's multiple days because it's talking about the whole age. I thought both I and the dictionary itself was quite clear - "in Grandpa's day" means "during Grandpa's life". it is often plural but does not have to be. yes, I noticed - you did notice where the dictionary says "often plural" didn't you? Did you see where it said it had to be? No? oh, that's funny, because you sound like you did... hey, you're the one stating that it's so simple a ten-year-old boy figured it out, not me. You're the one saying it makes sense. If even you don't think it makes any sense, then this entire thread is worthless. Unless you believe the world is flat, or that we do not need the sun for light, then either part of the world was dark and part of the world was light for a very, very long time (either we have a tidally-locked planet or it doesn't rotate on it's own axis at all until god wound up the spring), which using your sort of naive literalist reading doesn't tally with the bible...or there is no possibility of there being more than (about) 12 hours of daylight.If you're going to start talking about the massive acid-trip that is revelation, I think you'll need another thread. Suffice to say, for ignorant goatherders some 4000 years ago it might not have been obvious that the sun shining was what made it light. pot, kettle, black.well done for not seeing the irony. so, there were two separate acts of creation - the initial creation and then the *recreation* (or additional specific creation) of adam, even and eden, yes or no? actually no, God was warned to put a stop to them before they ate of the tree of eternal life because if they did THAT, they would be as gods, this was why they were thrown out of Eden. Not so much because they ate of the tree of good and evil but because of what they would have become had they had the fruit of the tree of immortality. yes, god lied if you think a day is a standard earth day in that verse. The man you are talking about was Adam, and he died at something close to a thousand years old, something like a thousand years after he was chucked out of the garden.Or are you telling me Adam died there and then?I know some people call it "spiritual death" (because they are as needy as you are for it to make literal perfect sense) but I think that's a cop-out. well no, not if there were two acts of creation - the first being the week-long entire-universe stint, the second being some-time during the "age of creation" wherein were created god's own people, descendants of Adam and Eve, the pair who disobeyed him and didn't die (immediately) but were thrown out of the garden of Eden incase they ate of the fruit of the tree of immortality and became like gods (paraphrasing the bible here). so I'm right? There was the creation of everything, taking a week, and then this recreation which took a day?This actually can logically follow your insistence that a day is always a light-and-dark period, but you have some horribly convoluted explanation as to why that can't be so.I'm suggesting there are two choices1) two acts of creation (days CAN be always day-days, but don't need to be, I don't know which)
2) one act of creation, but the second genesis is therefore "an age"-day and is just a retelling of the first that isn't supposed to be literal (it simplifies the subject to "god created everything else FOR man, who then did this") but this limitation on the length of an age is entirely artificial and dictated by you. It does not logically follow. An age is, by definition, not bound to be a specific length.You seem to somehow be suggesting that genesis 2 actually happened on day-1 (more or less) of genesis 1 - that doesn't fit, because the order of creation is wrong, wrong, wrong. You expect the English scholars to be colloquial in their use of English, but you expect your mythical Hebrew scholars NOT to be colloquial in their use of Hebrew?Even when writing the translation from pre-Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic or earlier)?That's ludicrous.Edited by greyseal, : fixed a rogue quoteEdited by greyseal, : I think that's all of it!

Hi ringo, Every noun in Hebrew has a gender, either masculine or feminine;
The Hebrew noun is inflected for number and state,If there is no inflection the masculine noun is singular.Singular Day = יןםThis form always means one light period or one light period combined with one dark period.Pual 2 Days = יןמיםThis form always means 2 complete light periods combined with 2 complete dark periods (2 24 hour periods not 3 or more)Plural Days = ימיםThis form always means 3 or more 24 hour periods composed of a light period and a dark period.For some reason the html codes will not reproduce the Vav as it is supposed to be with a small curve at the top going left. It puts a straight line instead.Several Hebrew words have an irregular Stem Change. Some Hebrew nouns will alter their actual (consonantal) stem when they add their plural endings. יןם is one of those nouns.The Hebrew word ביןם is the word used in Genesis 2:4 and translated "in the day" has the prefix ב Which adds in, or on to the subject. Thus the translation "in the day". This is refering to a specific day. The specific day that God created the Heaven and the Earth.This day or period of time is coupled with the darkness found in Genesis 1:2 that ends with the morning of day two.God declares the period in which the Heaven and Earth was created and the history of that day listed in Genesis 2:5 through the generations of Cain in Genesis 4:24. took place before the darkness in Genesis 1:2. A Hebrew noun is always singular, unless it has an inflection that makes it plural, or pual. Then why did Webster give the same definition? The prefix on the Hebrew word day in Genesis 2:4 specifies the events to have taken place in a specific singular day.Does anything require that light period that came to an end at the evening found in Genesis 1:2 to be a certain period of duration? No.God defines day as a light period. Genesis 1:5.God also defines day as a light period followed by a dark period that ends with the following light period. Genesis 1:5Thus He said the evening which was the end of the light period and the morning which was the end of the dark period was the first day.There is no way to determine how long that light period was nor is there any way to determine how long that dark period was.We do know all the following days recorded in the first chapter of Genesis was singular and could only be one light period and dark period combined as recorded by using the phrase the evening of a light period and the morning following the dark period.Since those light and dark periods was controlled by the rotation of the earth, whatever the period of time that took was a day. I assume close to 24 hours, as that is what it is now. If that assertion was true we would not be here. When compared to eternity it was a very short time in the past to the Big Bang.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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

Hi greyseal, We are talking about a Biblical day in Genesis 2:4.God calls a light period a day.God also calls a light period combined with a dark period as a day.So how is God irrelevant when you are talking about His book? Then please produce the Hebrew words or English for that matter that says "of the". Everyone of those verses says the the morning ended the day numbered.That means your reasoning is flawed. Then it is not refering to the Hebrew word יןם translated day in any of the above verses or Genesis 1:1 or Genesis 2:4 as they are all a single day. Then it would not be refering to one single day in the life of Grandpa would it?Wouldn't it be refering to the multiple day that Grandpa lived in? Definition #1, 2, 3, and 4 would require that definition 5 be refering to more than one day.But that definition has nothing to do with the definition of the Hebrew word יןם translated day in Genesis chapter 1 or 2. If that is all you think of God's word why are you in a thread discussing what the Bible says? There was 3 specific acts of creation. Those are the only creation events in Genesis.Creation being where nothing existed and God caused it to begin to exist.But yes I am talking about two different events. Read the title of the thread.There is a story that took place in the period called the day that the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.This story ended with the evening found at Genesis 1:2.There is a story that begins at Genesis 1:2 and ends at Genesis 2:3. In this story the fish is prepared for Jonah in verse 21 and mankind was created in the image/likeness of GodAll vegetation was called from the seed in the ground.
All creatures except man was called forth after their kind.So yes that has been my argument for some 208 posts in this thread. Is English your first language?

quote:

---

the man is become as one of us

---

What part of this statement do you not understand.It plainly says that man at that moment was as one of us.It also plainly states that man was chased from the garden so he could not eat of the tree of life in live in that condition for eternity. According to Paul God can not lie.Since God did not lie the man died the same day he ate the fruit.Now I have nowhere said the day the Heaven and the Earth was created in was a standard earth day.In fact I have said it was a light period (day according to God) that lasted for an undetermined duration from the beginning until the evening started that we find at Genesis 1:2.And no the man created in Genesis 1:27 was never in the garden if you think so then show me how he could be when that story ended prior to Genesis 1:2.Now the man created in Genesis 1:27 has his generations listed in Genesis chapter 5. Well no I don't expect the English scholars to be colloquial in their use of English. I expect the lay people to do that. I expect scholars to be precise. Story tellers can use any form they desire.Aramaic and Chaldee as well as Biblical Hebrew is what I studied in College.And yes I expect the original writers to be exact.Now the people that have been copying the texts for over 3300 years have not been quite so literal.That is the reason Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead His children in all truth.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ringo, Then I assume you have a degree in Biblical Hebrew. Why don't you start a class and explain why the prefix on יןם does not point specifically to the day stated.I spent several hours going through my books to get the information I gave you concerning יןם as used in Genesis chapter 1 and in Genesis 2:4 if you want to refute it please do. I am through looking.Now I don't care if you translate it in or on the day. You can not make it any thing other than a single day as ביןם is singular and refers to one single day. That single light period could last for billions of years or more. It lasted from the beginning until the evening found at Genesis 1:2. Does 1a and 1b cover a period of light? Can you put those many singular days in one single day? We know that is the case since the first day was declared.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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

I did not say god was irrelevant, I said that asking how long the days in genesis 1 were was irrelevant. And it still is. also still irrelevant. - evening is first, morning is after, ergo a day (when talking about light+dark) is evening->morning where it's "of the" or "were the". I guess some bibles change were to of, or of to were. That word is still yom and it can still mean an age, in the same way that day can mean an age. As before, as I have said, as the dictionary says, as the hebrew dictionaries say, the word yom which you are very heartily spelling out for me can mean an indeterminate amount of time equal to what we would call in English an age.It is the same word.It is correctly translatable as day when it means daylight, 24 hours or "age".

quote:

---

in Grandpa's day

​

in my day

​

in the days of my youth

​

in the good old days

---

In all of the above the word "day" means "age". They would be translated into hebrew as "yom". Please provide proof they would not. I'm not sure why you discount the grasses and the beasts, but let's not go there. and I quote

quote:

---

and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

---

Did you just stop reading after the words "to know good and evil"? You shouldn't have. But the man who ate the fruit was Adam, and he lived to be around a thousand years old... That doesn't follow. What makes an aramaic scholar more of a scholar than an english scholar?You seem to be one of these "jewish roots" type person who generally venerates antiquity far above it's station.

Hi ringo, It makes no difference what the translators meant to convey.The only thing that matters is what is written in the Hebrew text.If the author had wanted to convey the idea of a long period of days they would have used the Hebrew word ימים which means a plural of days instead of יןם which means a single day. But the Bible was not written in English.It was written in Hebrew and the Hebrew controls what its words mean, not what ringo wants it to say and mean.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi greyseal, I was not asking how long the days in Genesis was.I asked did God say a period of light was day?I also asked did God say a period of light combined with a period of darkness was the first day?You said that was irrelevant. That means you were saying what God said was irrelevant making God irrelevant.So then do you care to answer the questions? What does evening bring to a close?How many hours can you get from evening until morning?The phrase "and the evening and the morning were the first day" means that the close of one light period which became evening followed by a dark period that came to a close at the beginning of the next light period was the first day. English usage of the word day can not control how the Hebrew language presents a day, or an age.In Hebrew the word יןם is a single day anywhere it is used in the Bible.This is the only form used in Genesis chapter one and two that is translated day.In Genesis 2:4 it has a prefix that points to a specific singular day according to the Hebrew text.It can be used of the light period and it can be used of the evening and morning which includes a light period and a dark period.The Hebrew word ימים is used for a multiple of evenings and mornings. I know you keep pointing out what you believe.The problem what you believe is not supported by the Hebrew text.The Hebrew text has a word that I have pointed out to you that means a single day. That is the word used in Genesis chapter one and two. The only variation of the word is found in Genesis 2:4 where the Bet prefix is used to point to a specific day.Now if you disagree with the Hebrew then refute it. The Hebrew word יןם
can be used for the light period we call day and it can be used for the light period and dark period that we call day.And no it can not be use to mean a plural of days which would be necessary for an age or a period of days.The Hebrew word ימים would be used to desiginate an age or a period of days.Had the writer of the Bible wanted to specify an age he would have used the Hebrew word חלד which means, 1) age, duration of life, the world.Had the writer of the Bible wanted to specify a period he would have used the Hebrew word דיר which means, 1) period, age, generation (period of time). You the Hebrew expert now.No they do not mean age they mean a multiple of days. If you want them to represent an age you would use the Hebrew word חלד which means, 1) age, duration of life, the world.ORThe Hebrew word דיר which means, 1) period, age, generation (period of time).I will put it in English as you don't know the Hebrew.in Grandpa's day would be in the days of Grandpa. Ref. Gen. 14:1.in my day would be in my daysin the days of my youth in the good old days All the words days would be the Hebrew word ימים
which is the plural form of yowm. But you did not answer the question, Is English your first language? No I stoped at the end of the declaration God made. "Behold the man is become as one of us, The man in past tense had become as God.Man had come to know good and evil by disobeying God.Therefore he could not be allowed to partake of the tree of life and live in disobedience for ever. The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 did not have a name, and he is the man who ate the fruit.The mankind created male and female in Genesis 1:27 did not have names.We are told that Adam is a transliteration of the Hebrew word אדמ which means man or mankind which would be determined as man unless the plural was used, then it would be mankind.But the transliteration would be adm so we have been sold a pack of lies as the name Adam is the product of the translators. It just makes him/her an Aramaic, Scholar. They are called Hebraist today.The English Scholar is an English Scholar and would know nothing about the Aramaic language.The Bible was written in Aramaic, Chaldee and Hebrew and if you don't know the languages you have to take what someone else tells you it says.An English scholar is great. My sister is one. She gives me a fit the way I butcher English. Well I am 1/4 scottish, 1/4 Irish throw in a little German, a little french, a little dutch, a little American indian from the Apache and Cherokee tribes and I don't know what else and that is my roots.Now when it comes to the OT Bible we are discussing it was written about 3300 years ago by Moses in a language that has not been spoken for about 2800 years. I think that leads to antiquity.We can not make the words written by Moses agree with what we want it to say. It says what Moses wrote. Man has changed what Moses wrote to suit themselves and are changing it all the time.Satan's followers or people being used by him has corrupted God's message to mankind. That is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead His chrildren in all truth. To everybody else the Bible is foolishness.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You're not understanding. The entire question of how long a "day" is is not relevant. The question is, can alternate VALID meanings of the word yom/day be used or must we stick to (out of the five plus) the first two for every occurence?You say no because...well I don't know why. I think it's because it doesn't agree with your pet theory. Apparently words in the bible will only ever have their primary meaning because screw you they do that's why...I don't get it. you're still thinking like a westerner. try again. The english word day has multiple meanings.The hebrew word yom has multiple meanings.Usage of the word in one way does not negate it's use in another way, in either hebrew or english. sez you.The word yom has multiple, valid meanings. The bible does not specify which, so we have to read it in context. It just so happens that we are disagreeing not over the word, but the context (which changes the meaning).I still haven't seen proof that the alternative context presented to you is invalid, and I have suggested reasons it could be. I'm not 4000 years old, I do not claim special knowledge, but I notice you do. Just because you wouldn't use yom does not mean it couldn't be used. You really want me to google up all the places in the bible where yom is used to denote something other than a morning to a morning or a sunset to a sunset, or a light-period?You can pretend they don't exist, you can believe they don't exist, but you would be wrong.You keep going back to the English dictionary even, and you refuse to read it.I quoted the actual Mirriam-Webster dictionary where it states "In Grandpa's day" as an example of day (singular) in use as "age" and you still refuse to believe that it could be more than one day-day. I am sorry, you are wrong and it is right there in black and white.If you want me to link-spam the many learned people who have studied the bible in hebrew and can state quite unequivocably that yom can mean many things (from a light period, to an entire 24 hour day, to a year, to an indeterminate length of time, to a year, to an age) and that it is used as such then I can. Just say the word.They may be talking bull, I don't know, but it starts to be an argument from whoever can pull the most letters after their name at that point though. If you're going to say you're the only hebrew scholar in the world who actually knows hebrew you're going to have a tough time. oh, so you're going to try that one? You do know that hebrew spelling is...rather flexible, right? It's the same trick that the bible-code morons pulled, "fiddle the spellings until we got the answer we wanted", inputting spellings which were valid but hadn't actually been used... Yes, you stopped reading before he said "and now we'd better do THIS before he does THAT".Don't.It wasn't put there as page filler, now, was it?If you read it carefully and understand what it's saying, it means that Adam and Eve now know good from evil - they are no longer innocent beasts - which up until then had been something that only god and his angels could do...however they weren't quite gods. They were *like* gods, but they were not immortal - this would only happen when they ate from the tree of life (immortality), which they would do if god didn't do something.so yes, they transgressed and needed to be kicked out of the garden because of it, but the issue was what they would become if they were also immortal.If it wasn't, there would be no need for "and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the tree of life...", would there?

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

Sorry to jump in...but I will take you up on this challenge. Sort of. From my understanding, every single time yom is used with a number, it refers to a single day. Everytime "evening and morning" are used or some variation, it also refers to a single day.If you know of a verse that differs, I would love to know about it.Thanks.

Hi ringo, Why don't you present what some of those Scholars have said that disagrees with what I have said.I can't refute or agree with anything that has not been presented. But Hebrew has no such phrase in it.The Hebrew has these words:Day יןם Singular day transliterated yowm.Day ימים Plural days
transliterated ymymYear שנה This is a feminine noun plural only transliteration shaneh.Period דיר a masculine noun 1) period, generation, habitation, dwelling
a) period, age, generation (period of time) transliteration dowr. used in Job 8:8Age חלד a masculine noun meaning 1) age, duration of life, the world.
Translated age in Job 11:17That is what Hebrew has. Do you have any references to scholars that state that the phrase "in the day" means an indefinite period of time?I can't find any and I googled it. I do believe that the creation day was a very, very, very long duration of existence. I just believe it was a single light period as the Hebrew word ביןם
in Genesis 2:4 declares.Now if you could kindly put me in touch with some of those folks you know that believe ביןם is the entire time period during which creation takes place I would like to discuss it with them.I can't find any.I'll take that back I do know 39 who do.But I would welcome talk with any others that do.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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

Hi greyseal, The English word day can mean anything that is given to it and accepted by our English scholars. יןם yowm can only mean a light period or the combination of a light period and a dark period combination as defined by God in Genesis 1:5. It can never mean more than one as it is singular. ימים ymym can only mean two or more combinations of a light period and a dark period. It is plural and can never mean one. All languages have certain rules concerning the words of that language.If I am not mistaken even in English a word that is singular can not mean more that one.That would mean day which is singular can not be more than one day.Days which is plural is always more than one day and can never be one day.l I know one thing evening can't bring a dark period to an end. SourceDay, A light period.
Day, A light period and a dark period. Which is determined by the rotation of the planet in its relationship to the sun. God called a light period Day.
God called the combination of a light period and a dark period a day.Let me remind you if you did not read the OP of what the guidelines for this thread is in Message 1. This qualifies what the final authority will be and is set out in the beginning.God set out in the beginning what He was talking about when He declared a light period was a יןם
He further declared that a light period and a dark period was a יןםIt makes no difference what we decide to use and call יןם the fact remains the same יןם is composed of a light period or a light period followed by a dark period. Please present your sources that support such an assertion. If you google yom you will get 1 hit where yom is discussed by Greg Neyman an old earth creationist whose training is in geology. He requires long periods of time to get the age of the universe and earth. He also attended Liberty University.We just don't agree on how that time is accounted for.I believe there was a light period that lasted from the beginning to the evening we find at Genesis 1:2.The Heaven and the Earth was created in the Day the Lord created them. Genesis 2:4.When did that day end?The word יןם is singular and would therefore mean one day not a combination of days. Knock your self out.Then present your findings for acceptance or rebuttal. And what does Mirriam-Webster give as the definition of יןםThat is the one that counts. A Scholar will tell you we use year for the Hebrew word שנה .A Scholar will tell you we use age for the Hebrew word חלד.I have no idea what a Scholar would tell us would represent an indeterminate length of time unless it would be צד which means 1) perpetuity, for ever, continuing future. That would be my choice. I don't claim to be a Scholar. I am just a 45 year student of the language. No the spelling is not flexible.But prefixes and suffixes can be added to inflect the word.Example: יןם DayInflected ביןם In the Day.Inflected ימים Days. Where did the statement that " Behold, the man is become as one of us," tell us the man had become as God? I will agree until they ate the fruit they were perfect and without sin. Are you saying they did not know good?God is good and they walked and talked with Him in the garden until they were kicked out of the garden. When did they become like God?Are you telling me they would have died had they not eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? They had immortality before they ate the fruit as well as after they ate the fruit.The problem was the physical body was going to die.But had they eaten of the tree of life the body would not have died and they would have lived in that sinful body for eternity.God could not allow this so He kicked them out of His paradise.But He provided the tree of life so all mankind can be reunited to the relationship these two people had with God in the garden until they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."