Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So I heard that a "Day" is actually translated "period [of time]"
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 31 of 50 (488613)
11-13-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
11-13-2008 3:27 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
PaulK:
So it seems that not only are you back to your assumption that the author of Genesis 1 had a view of the universe in agreement with modern science (despite a complete lack of any evidence to support your assumption) you assume that I believe it too !
I am not assuming anything of the sort. I shared an exegetical hypothesis; one that you disagree with. Fine.
It appears as though I am having way too much difficulty sharing anything with you. Above, you even misunderstood my quotes from professor Sarna: Neither he or I suggest that the first day began with the term “evening” employed at the conclusion of Gen. 1:5.
You must be Right because you say so.
I do indeed suggest that the author of Gen. 1 had a view of the universe unlike any other author of his time. That is the foundation of my exegetical hypothesis. I hypothesize that the sublime aspects of his (and our) mortal reality inspired the author of Gen. 1 thru 2:3.
I do not mind that you disagree. If we can share in a debate as opposed to an argument I would be happy to continue our discussion so that we both could make our points of view clear to one another.
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2008 3:27 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2008 4:29 PM autumnman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 50 (488618)
11-13-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by autumnman
11-13-2008 4:05 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
I am not assuming anything of the sort. I shared an exegetical hypothesis; one that you disagree with. Fine.
On the contrary. You actually claimed that I should revise my idea that the "separation" of light and darkness likely too less than 12 hours because of the speed of light. That is not simply proposing a hypothesis - indeed to do so would require you to state the hypothesis which you did not do.
quote:
It appears as though I am having way too much difficulty sharing anything with you.
Largely because you keep expecting me to share your assumptions.
quote:
Above, you even misunderstood my quotes from professor Sarna: Neither he or I suggest that the first day began with the term “evening” employed at the conclusion of Gen. 1:5.
I am not sure what you are referring to. You are the one who asserted that the Genesis text described a say as "evening to morning". I certainly never said that evening to morning constituted a day. I only stated that evening was the start of the day to Jews - which your Professor agreed to.
quote:
You must be Right because you say so.
That more describes your attitude.
quote:
I do indeed suggest that the author of Gen. 1 had a view of the universe unlike any other author of his time. That is the foundation of my exegetical hypothesis. I hypothesize that the sublime aspects of his (and our) mortal reality inspired the author of Gen. 1 thru 2:3.
And you expect others to accept it as fact because you say so. I've asked for evidence, and you've provided none.
quote:
I do not mind that you disagree.
That is not my impression. You seem to mind very much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by autumnman, posted 11-13-2008 4:05 PM autumnman has not replied

  
Keysle
Junior Member (Idle past 4486 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 11-02-2008


Message 33 of 50 (488653)
11-14-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
11-11-2008 3:16 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
Since he has day and night existing before the sun (1:5) it seems quite clear that he did not hold that day was dependent on the sun.
More support is 2 Timothy 3:16
basically it says all scripture is inspired by God.
So to put our perspective of what a day is (better yet a period) compared next to God's or a god's, is out of the question.
quote:
And the “evening” mentioned at the conclusion of Gen. 1:5 signifies “the end of the period of light, when divine creativity was suspended” (Sarna, JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8), as opposed to what you state above: “That evening marks the start of the first day.”
you bring up an interesting point. You know huge greek zodiac thing of animals? (i'm absolutely horrible with names like these) ... Anyway it describes periods of enlightment and darkness over periods of thousands of years. I also believe the some mayan calander agrees with the greek zodiac... (wow... i'll get the names later..in school now) Interesting point though
Edited by Keysle, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2008 3:16 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2008 1:23 PM Keysle has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 34 of 50 (488657)
11-14-2008 12:32 PM


Renewed Discussion of 'Yom' = day or time
Try Again
I am going to attempt to share one more time my exegetical hypothesis regarding the First Creation Narrative of Genesis and see if a constructive discussion and/or debate can be inspired.
I am not married to my exegetical hypothesis; meaning, I do not believe my hypothesis to be completely correct, I do not believe that I have all the answers, nor do I mind being shown that I am in error. I will, however, debate the subjects of the discussion from the point of view established by my personal exegetical hypothesis. A debate of this kind is dependent upon differing points of view.
The foundation of my hypothesis regarding the composition of the First Creation Narrative of Genesis is that the ancient author of this Text composed the Text’s content from an enlightened state of consciousness, and not from only an external observation of the mortal world that existed at that time. I would compare the inspired genius of this ancient author to that of Leonardo Da Vinci’s ability to sketch a flying machine in the 15th & 16th centuries CE.
This thread focuses on “day/periods mentioned in the beginning.” In my opinion, Gen. 1:2 thru 5 set the stage for the discussion. I will first pose six fundamental questions regarding these verses, and as we begin examining these questions I will insert into the discussions my personal exegetical hypothesis. If someone else thinks there’s a better way to proceed, feel free to express your idea(s).
What does the author mean in Gen. 1:2 when he writes, “and the earth was formless and void”?
What is “the deep” and the “water” the author describes in Gen. 1:2?
The author writes in Gen. 1:3, “Then God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.” What is this “light” that the author is describing?
In Gen. 1:4 the author states that, “God separated the light from the darkness.” Since “light” by design is “separated” from “darkness”, what might the author be alluding to?
In Gen. 1:5 the author describes God calling, “light Day and the darkness he called Night”. Since the “earth” most likely remains “formless and void” and the “sun and moon” have not yet been brought into being, what kind of “Day” and “Night” is the author describing here?
Then Gen. 1:5 concludes, “And there was evening and morning, the first day.” According Professor Sarna, “evening ... morning ... terms inappropriate before the creation of the sun on the fourth day” (JPS, Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8).
AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 11-14-2008 3:14 PM autumnman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 50 (488659)
11-14-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Keysle
11-14-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
More support is 2 Timothy 3:16
basically it says all scripture is inspired by God.
No, it is not support. Aside from the question of why we should share the assumptions of an anonymous 2nd Century Christian in interpreting Genesis it quite clearly does not point to any specific interpretation.
For instance, YEC will use the same verse for declaring his reading - opposed to modern science - to be the truth. And he would be more justified in doing so than you are- you should look more carefully at what 2 Timothy 3:16 actually says:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Yet, the position you are trying to support is that the only way to understand Genesis 1 - so far as it refers to the history of the universe - is to already know that history and read it into the text. So from that position the text itself is less than useful. Of course to the YEC it is useful, since the YEC position owes more to the actual text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Keysle, posted 11-14-2008 11:02 AM Keysle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Keysle, posted 11-14-2008 7:13 PM PaulK has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 36 of 50 (488667)
11-14-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by autumnman
11-14-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Six fundamental questions.
Hi autumnman,
Concerning your questions I am not a mind reader and unable to determine what the author may or may not have meant. But the words used have specific meanings.
autumnman writes:
What does the author mean in Gen. 1:2 when he writes, “and the earth was formless and void”?
Formless is not used. "Without form is used".
Hebrew was translated "without form".
The definition of is:
1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
a) formlessness
b) that which is empty
c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
d) place of chaos
e) vanity
and void
Hebrew ‘ is translated "void".
The definition of ‘ is:
1) emptiness, void, waste
autumnman writes:
What is “the deep” and the “water” the author describes in Gen. 1:2?
Hebrew is translated "the deep".
The definition of is:
1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea
a) deep (of subterranean waters)
b) deep, sea, abysses (of sea)
c) primeval ocean, deep
d) deep, depth (of river)
autumnman writes:
The author writes in Gen. 1:3, “Then God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.” What is this “light” that the author is describing?
Hebrew is translated "let there be".
The definition of is:
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen,
Hebrew is translated "light".
The definition of is:
1) light
a) light of day
autumnman writes:
In Gen. 1:4 the author states that, “God separated the light from the darkness.” Since “light” by design is “separated” from “darkness”, what might the author be alluding to?
Genesis 1:4 says God "divided" the light from the darkness.
Hebrew ‘— is translated "divided".
The definition of ‘— is:
1) to divide, separate
a) (Hiphil)
1) to divide, separate, sever
2) to separate, set apart
3) to make a distinction, difference
4) to divide into parts
autumnman writes:
In Gen. 1:5 the author describes God calling, “light Day and the darkness he called Night”. Since the “earth” most likely remains “formless and void” and the “sun and moon” have not yet been brought into being, what kind of “Day” and “Night” is the author describing here?
Light is defined above.
Hebrew is translated "day".
The definition of is:
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) time, period (general)
Hebrew is translated "darkness".
The definition is:
1) darkness, obscurity
a) dark,
This darkness He called "night".
Hebrew —— is translated "night".
The definition of —— is:
1) night
a) night (as opposed to day)
Hebrew ‘ is translated "and the evening".
The definition of ‘ is:
1) evening, night, sunset
a) evening, sunset
Hebrew ‘ is translated "and the morning".
The definition of ‘ is:
1) morning, break of day
a) morning
1) of end of night
2) of coming of daylight
b) morrow, next day, next morning
Hebrew is translated "were the first day".
The definition of is:
1) one
a) one (number)
b) each, every
c) a certain
Comments:
The first day ended at first light according to Gen. 1:5.
The sun and moon have nothing to do with light and darkness.
Light is mearly an absence of darkness, makes no difference what the source is.
autumnman writes:
Then Gen. 1:5 concludes, “And there was evening and morning, the first day.” According Professor Sarna, “evening ... morning ... terms inappropriate before the creation of the sun on the fourth day” (JPS, Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8).
Professor Sarna has his opinion and others have a different opinion.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by autumnman, posted 11-14-2008 12:32 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by autumnman, posted 11-14-2008 5:11 PM ICANT has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 37 of 50 (488670)
11-14-2008 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
11-14-2008 3:14 PM


Re: Six fundamental questions.
ICANT:
Thanks for the exhaustive reply to my above questions.
From my own personal perspective I am going to select certain definitions from those that you provided and construct my own personal context of the verses in question. I do not expect anyone to necessarily agree with my selections or the context I construct. In fact I welcome differing selections that will compose a different context. Then we can discuss our perspectives.
Gen. 1:2 states, “So the earth was formless and void...” I would translate the phrase: So the earth was unreal and empty.
Gen. 1:2 goes on to say, “...and darkness covered the face of the deep,” I would translate the phrase: and darkness was upon the surface of the abyss,
Gen. 1:2 concludes, “and a wind of God swept over the face of the waters.” I would translate the phrase: and the spirit of God hovered upon the surface of the waters.
Commentary by AM: I perceive Gen. 1:2 describing “the earth” as not yet being in existence; but that the raw materials that will eventually become “planet earth” are present within the “dark abyss”. The “dark abyss” of “the waters” to which the author is alluding is the infinite reaches of space that existed prior to “the heavens and the earth” being created. The author’s application of terms that are analogous to an “earthly sea” are used to describe his vision due to the fact that they are the only terms that could appropriately depict what he saw in his mind. The opening act of creation is when the spirit of the divine hovered upon the “dark abyss” of “the celestial “waters.”
Gen. 1:3 reads, “Then God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.”
Commentary by AM: I perceive the author conveying in Gen. 1:3 the sudden and dramatic eruption of “light” occurring within the “dark abyss” of celestial “waters.” In my opinion, this “light” is the first “light” that exploded in the abyss and began the creation of “the heavens.” The sun and the moon and stars that can be seen from earth have not yet come into existence (that is, they have not yet been created).
Gen. 1:4b then states, “...and God separated the light from the darkness...”
Commentary by AM: The term “separated” can also be rendered, “divided.” However, both renditions present a rather interesting concept; since “light”, by its very nature, is “separated/divided” from “darkness.” So what could the author be saying in this clause? I surmise that the author’s vision presented him with a mental picture of this new born “light” penetrating the “dark abyss” in a manner that appeared as though a “separation process” was occurring.
Gen. 1:5 begins, “So God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night...”
Commentary by AM: To me it appears as though the author is defining the “new born celestial light” and the “ancient celestial darkness” with earthly terms that are again analogous to the spectacle of his vision. The first “light” is analogous to “daylight”, and the ancient “darkness” is analogous to “night time”. At this point within the narrative, however, the earth is still unreal and empty, and the sun, moon, and stars have not yet come into existence.
Gen. 1:5 concludes, “...And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”
Commentary by AM: It is my opinion that at this point in the creation process there is no actual aspect of time; thus the terms “evening and morning” are employed perhaps because they describe the ending of one earth-day and the beginning of another; but an actual, 24-hour day is not depicted. A 24-hour earth-day would be described as either evening to evening or morning to morning. To me, the manner in which the author describes a “day of divine creation” - “evening and morning” - the author is trying to tell his audience that his vision relates to a “time of divine creation” which could be less than a moment or more than many thousands of years.
I look forward to discussing other interpretations and points of view.
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 11-14-2008 3:14 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 11-14-2008 6:12 PM autumnman has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 38 of 50 (488671)
11-14-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by autumnman
11-14-2008 5:11 PM


Re: Six fundamental questions.
Hi autumnman,
Thanks for your comentary.
autumnman writes:
From my own personal perspective...
I perceive
I perceive the author
It is my opinion that at this point
To me it appears as though the author
I hope you can see my problem with the above statements. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and everyone has one.
I gave no opinions and only gave 2 comments.
I gave the Hebrew words the author used and the definition of that word according to the Analytical Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon.
Now if you have some different Hebrew words and definitions roll them out and put them on the table.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by autumnman, posted 11-14-2008 5:11 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by autumnman, posted 11-14-2008 8:26 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Keysle
Junior Member (Idle past 4486 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 11-02-2008


Message 39 of 50 (488678)
11-14-2008 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
11-14-2008 1:23 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More support is 2 Timothy 3:16
basically it says all scripture is inspired by God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it is not support. Aside from the question of why we should share the assumptions of an anonymous 2nd Century Christian in interpreting Genesis it quite clearly does not point to any specific interpretation.
Let me better clarify.
It is support in the fact that because the author experiences evening and morning as a human on earth. We know the earth wasn't created in 144 hours. So for him to use such terms as evening and morning he'd have to have a higher perspective, especially since this is describing the creation of our planet. To say the scriptures are inspired by God does support the facts that you should be able to teach with it, set matter straight and so forth,, but it also is saying that is on a higher level of understanding.
The bible would have to be inspired by God anyway because how would the man who wrote it describe times before him?
So we agree that the earth wasn't created in 144 hours?
Next step is shuffelling out what the auther is saying about creation?
(I said 'shuffeling' because it's one of those words where you can say it, and by definition it doesn't make sense but by sound it makes perfect sense [i do random comments like this])
Edited by Keysle, : does any body disagree with no-144hrs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2008 1:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2008 3:02 AM Keysle has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 40 of 50 (488688)
11-14-2008 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
11-14-2008 6:12 PM


Re: Six fundamental questions.
ICANT:
I translated the Hebrew Text.
Then, I interpreted the English translation.
And finally, I commented on the my personal interpretation.
How is it that you cannot engage in some kind of discussion?
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 11-14-2008 6:12 PM ICANT has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 50 (488704)
11-15-2008 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Keysle
11-14-2008 7:13 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
It is support in the fact that because the author experiences evening and morning as a human on earth.
2 Timothy 3:16 does not say anything about that.
quote:
We know the earth wasn't created in 144 hours.
A YEC would disagree and would quote 2 Timothy 3:16 in "support" of THAT claim. See the problem ?
quote:
So for him to use such terms as evening and morning he'd have to have a higher perspective, especially since this is describing the creation of our planet.
I disagree with that. You are making a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion.
quote:
To say the scriptures are inspired by God does support the facts that you should be able to teach with it, set matter straight and so forth,, but it also is saying that is on a higher level of understanding.
That is NOT in 2 Timothy 3:16.
quote:
The bible would have to be inspired by God anyway because how would the man who wrote it describe times before him?
The same way the creators of other creation myths did.
quote:
So we agree that the earth wasn't created in 144 hours?
Of course I do. That doesn't mean that that isn't what 1 Genesis says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Keysle, posted 11-14-2008 7:13 PM Keysle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Keysle, posted 11-16-2008 8:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
Keysle
Junior Member (Idle past 4486 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 11-02-2008


Message 42 of 50 (488759)
11-16-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
11-15-2008 3:02 AM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
Never mind, The way it says it I can't argue that is to God's understanding. So I guess it's back to debating whether Yom is more than 24 hours.
Someone argued that the statements of evening and morning, were implying evening and morning as we experience here on planet and earth, which would further imply a YOM would be 24 hours.
Good. Something for me to do research on.
There are questions to be asked. I don't know all of them, so I converse with others about the bible to extract them, study them, and then have them answered.
Edited by Keysle, : No reason given.

Homosexuality is the best way to be fit to survive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2008 3:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2008 1:39 AM Keysle has not replied
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 11-22-2008 6:00 AM Keysle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 50 (488763)
11-17-2008 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Keysle
11-16-2008 8:36 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
Think about it this way. If God has inspired Genesis 1 to 2:3 to tach us about the history of the universe as we understand it, then you wouldn't have to try to force the account to match your knowledge. You were literally taking the position that you could do better than God.
Inspiration is a vague word, and 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say that all scripture is literally true or that all of it is valuable for the literal reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Keysle, posted 11-16-2008 8:36 PM Keysle has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 44 of 50 (489043)
11-22-2008 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ramoss
11-03-2008 9:23 AM


"Depending on context, it can show different periods of time. However, if you look at how it is used in context with Genesis, it is obvious that it means 24 hour periods."
Why is it obvious that its in 24hour periods???
Also, if on one of those 'days' God caused the vegetation/trees/grasses to grow, i'd imagine that it would take a lot longer then a 24hr period for the whole earth to be covered in vegetation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 11-03-2008 9:23 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 45 of 50 (489044)
11-22-2008 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Keysle
11-16-2008 8:36 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
"Someone argued that the statements of evening and morning, were implying evening and morning as we experience here on planet and earth, which would further imply a YOM would be 24 hours."
you make a good point, from an observer on earth, a 24hr period is the rising and setting of the sun... but there were no earthly observers witnessing the creation...
the only ones witnessing it would have been from a heavenly vantage point... so a 'Day' could have been as 'Yohm' suggests... a period of time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Keysle, posted 11-16-2008 8:36 PM Keysle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by killinghurts, posted 12-08-2008 11:10 PM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024