Arguments AGAINST day age theory...

[liger]

How do the day-agers answer these problems (aka FACTS) that contrast the day-age theory?...

The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

The first reference to "day" in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (NASV, see Genesis One).

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no Biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The "days" in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words "evening and morning." This phrase is used with "day" 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day.

The problem, though, is that only the first day is numbered...the rest are given places...second, third, etc. So, let's say you're right...it only holds for day one. If even then. Assuming, of course, that whenever yom is associated with a number, yom is taken, always, to mean a 24 hour period.

[Canuckster1127]

How do the day-agers answer these problems (aka FACTS) that contrast the day-age theory?...

The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

The first reference to "day" in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (NASV, see Genesis One).

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no Biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The "days" in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words "evening and morning." This phrase is used with "day" 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

1. The meaning of yom is not "always clear" when read in context. If it were, in this particular issue it would not be an issue. This argument is circular.

2. Your use of the word day is wrong even from a YEC context. In this instance, at the very best yom is used to illustrate only the light portion of a day, not a 24 hour day. This in fact is an argument that demonstrates even Young Earth Creationists interpret the word yom in at least 2 different contexts within the same passage. It's actually a stronger argument against your position than it is for it.

3. This is a common argument and a wrong one. Zechariah 14:7-9 is an example of an ordinal used with yom in the context f a period of more than 24 hours in Scripture. Further there are multiple examples outside scripture that demonstrate that this argument fails as simply untrue. It begs the question, if YEC is such a slam dunk, why is there a need to manufacture statements such as this which are inaccurate? Repeating an argument many times does not make it any more true. I hope most who parrot this are doing so from honestly not knowing better. Hebrew speaker and scholars know better than this.

4. Your closing statements are interesting but not conclusive and certainly not absolute. They are opinion or the application of such. Yom is used throughout Scripture and you are correct that in the majority of cases it is a 24 hour day. Each use relies on its own context independent of any external reasons that you choose to apply.

Here's a question for you. On what basis were there 24 hour days on days 1 -3 given that the sun was not created until day 4? What basis within the text do you have to arrive at your conclusion exegetically instead of applying your desire outcome onto the text?

Thanks for asking the questions. This is certainly an area for discussion and challenge among believers. I do find it amazing that some many find this so simple. Either you're whistling in the dark or I question how honestly you're being with yourself as to the issues present. That's just my take on it, but I've been wrestling with this for over 30 years and while I have come to a pretty strong conclusion on my part on the side of OEC after a long period of almost fanatical YEC support in my earlier years, this is anything but a slam dunk on either side.

Welcome to the site by the way and keep interacting!

[liger]

How do the day-agers answer these problems (aka FACTS) that contrast the day-age theory?...

The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

The first reference to "day" in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (NASV, see Genesis One).

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no Biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The "days" in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words "evening and morning." This phrase is used with "day" 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

1. The meaning of yom is not "always clear" when read in context. If it were, in this particular issue it would not be an issue. This argument is circular.

2. Your use of the word day is wrong even from a YEC context. In this instance, at the very best yom is used to illustrate only the light portion of a day, not a 24 hour day. This in fact is an argument that demonstrates even Young Earth Creationists interpret the word yom in at least 2 different contexts within the same passage. It's actually a stronger argument against your position than it is for it.

3. This is a common argument and a wrong one. Zechariah 14:7-9 is an example of an ordinal used with yom in the context f a period of more than 24 hours in Scripture. Further there are multiple examples outside scripture that demonstrate that this argument fails as simply untrue. It begs the question, if YEC is such a slam dunk, why is there a need to manufacture statements such as this which are inaccurate? Repeating an argument many times does not make it any more true. I hope most who parrot this are doing so from honestly not knowing better. Hebrew speaker and scholars know better than this.

4. Your closing statements are interesting but not conclusive and certainly not absolute. They are opinion or the application of such. Yom is used throughout Scripture and you are correct that in the majority of cases it is a 24 hour day. Each use relies on its own context independent of any external reasons that you choose to apply.

Here's a question for you. On what basis were there 24 hour days on days 1 -3 given that the sun was not created until day 4? What basis within the text do you have to arrive at your conclusion exegetically instead of applying your desire outcome onto the text?

Thanks for asking the questions. This is certainly an area for discussion and challenge among believers. I do find it amazing that some many find this so simple. Either you're whistling in the dark or I question how honestly you're being with yourself as to the issues present. That's just my take on it, but I've been wrestling with this for over 30 years and while I have come to a pretty strong conclusion on my part on the side of OEC after a long period of almost fanatical YEC support in my earlier years, this is anything but a slam dunk on either side.

Welcome to the site by the way and keep interacting!

1. No offense but that's a really week argument, for this reason:

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

(The above is TRUE, not false. See the following...)

2. First off it's not my wording. This was from an article on answersingenesis.org (my apologies for not referencing them earlier). Anyhow, I'm not clear how you can consider it NOT to be an actual day based on the following:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Couldn't be more clear. There was evening. And there was morning. This is your typical day in the creation account, and a day as we know it now.

3. Zechariah 14:7-9 doesn't apply to this argument. "Day" there is just referring to a point in the future (once again, clearly and obviously).

Please provide evidence as to where this statement is not true (referring to the BIBLE, not outside of the Bible):

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

Again Zechariah doesn't apply at all. They said "one day" not in the numerical sense of one day, but one day as "at some point in the future."

4. That IS the argument (but once again, not my own). And it's conclusive (true) from what I've found. Obviously I haven't looked up all 359 instances (a huge number to support this argument by the way), but my findings so far have shown it to be absolutely correct.

Therefore, there are huge weaknesses in the day / age theory. The scripture sure would seem to be literal, and is GREATLY supported by the evidence above.

[Canuckster1127]

1. No offense but that's a really week argument, for this reason:

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

(The above is TRUE, not false. See the following...)

2. First off it's not my wording. This was from an article on answersingenesis.org (my apologies for not referencing them earlier). Anyhow, I'm not clear how you can consider it NOT to be an actual day based on the following:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Couldn't be more clear. There was evening. And there was morning. This is your typical day in the creation account, and a day as we know it now.

3. Zechariah 14:7-9 doesn't apply to this argument. "Day" there is just referring to a point in the future (once again, clearly and obviously).

Please provide evidence as to where this statement is not true (referring to the BIBLE, not outside of the Bible):

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

Again Zechariah doesn't apply at all. They said "one day" not in the numerical sense of one day, but one day as "at some point in the future."

4. That IS the argument (but once again, not my own). And it's conclusive (true) from what I've found. Obviously I haven't looked up all 359 instances (a huge number to support this argument by the way), but my findings so far have shown it to be absolutely correct.

Therefore, there are huge weaknesses in the day / age theory. The scripture sure would seem to be literal, and is GREATLY supported by the evidence above.

Chuckle. No offense. But you would really do a lot better to stop with the sweeping generalizations, the appeals to authority, and the use of caps to try and emphasize your points. They add drama, perhaps but hardly add to the validity of your arguments.

1. You made the statement to the effect that the translation of the word "yom" is always clear from the immediate context of the passage. All I need to do to refute that statement is show one instance where it is not. That is the passage in question itself. Respected Biblical Scholars have disagreed on the use of Yom in this context since the dawn of Christendom. I see your appeal to authority and call.

2. I would suggest you go back and read the many threads that address the issue of how the "day and night" formula doesn't necessarily equate to a 24 hour day. The genesis passage contains elements very similar to a psalm and as such use parallelism, which is a common literary device in Hebrew poetry. I believe that has something to do with it. There is no "rule" that says the use of this formula always equates to a 24 hour day. Internal to the text are several questions raised that need to be answered and frankly, you've been asked a few and it seems you are purposely ignoring them. How do you support a literal 24 hour day when the sun was not created to day 4? How do you explain all that was accomplished on day 6 in 24 hours? The genesis passage leaves open the 7th day not indicating an end to it in the same way as the other days. Is the 7th day over? If not, why would you claim 24 hour days prior and make the 7th day an exception? Do you have answers?

3. Zachariah is the point. Yom is used with an ordinal. Yom there clearly is not a 24 hour day. Your appeal to some "rule" in Hebrew is shown to be false and therefore your conclusion suspect. You made a claim. I showed you where it does not hold true. Then you in effect claim your statement is true ... it just doesn't apply to a passage where it isn't true. Huh?

4. You seem to have a great affection for the words and concepts of "absolutely, true, facts, etc." which is fine. However, you seem to be so impressed with your own arguments and understandings that you are having trouble seeing that YEC is not in fact a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.

You claimed in your first post that you were interested in understanding how an OEC position can be held. Yet, this is rapidly degenerating into a barrage of cut and paste's from a site that we here are all very familiar with and have seen multiple times. You cut and pasted at first without giving attribution (glad you corrected that later.) It seems to me that you might not be all that interested in understanding anything. You might want to present the position of another site that you find convincing and you might have already concluded that any position opposing your conclusion must mean that people holding it don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

That's fine. I'm glad you find it convincing. I used to. Over time however, education, wisdom and experience have led me to see that the arguments presented thus far are not conclusive and there is room for believers of differing persuasions on this to interact and disagree, all based on a literal interpretation of the passages involved.

Just a suggestion. Why not try what you said you wanted to do at the outset. Why not try to understand the other position? It doesn't mean you have to accept it or agree with it. Just try to understand why it is there.

In order to truly debate a question, it is a general rule that you should be able to define the opposing position to their satisfaction.

Instead of cutting and pasting from other sites, why not look at the material and begin to wrestle with it some on your own. If this is going to be a cut and paste fest it really won't accomplish much. Most here are familiar with the arguments on both sides.

[liger]

The chuckling is ok. That's what people often do in light of their own misunderstandings.

Let me respectfully correct you...

Once again, these are not MY arguments. I obtained "my arguments" (as you call them) from AnswersInGenesis.Org, as I already mentioned. I was interested to hear answers from OEC's.

And the very reason I ended up here was because of my quest to learn more about both sides (you're suggesting I'm one sided, which is totally false). I feel my research has been quite balanced so far. There are just certain things (on both sides) I cannot get past, and as such am seeking answers to them. I will address my problems with young earth in another thread. One problem at a time. =)

As far as sweeping generalizations, I've stated Biblical facts as best I know them to be. Please go back and read the facts as I've presented them. I simply wanted various responses. I'm not here to prove anybody wrong, so please don't take this as a personal attack or debate. I'm truly seeking answers.

Now, if you consider the points I've made to be "sweeping generalizations" and that's your best response, I accept that as your answer (though it doesn't answer my questions, and I personally don't see them as sweeping generalizations).

Here's another one for you: Read Exodus 20:11, and I'd be very interested to hear how you, or a Hebrew expert (for example), can consider the "days" represented in that verse to be anything other than literal days. How does Exodus 20:11 fit into the old earth theory (specifically)?

I appreciate your replies, but again keep in mind I'm not hear to debate any particular side. I'm really, truly, not. Right now I'm bouncing back and forth between both views, and researching both.

>3. Zachariah is the point. Yom is used with an ordinal. Yom there clearly >is not a 24 hour day. Your appeal to some "rule" in Hebrew is shown to >be false and therefore your conclusion suspect. You made a claim. I >showed you where it does not hold true. Then you in effect claim your >statement is true ... it just doesn't apply to a passage where it isn't true. >Huh?

In regard to the above, you missed the point of the "arguments" I posted, which are representing (supported with biblical facts) that "yom" as used in various *contexts* are consistent throughout the Bible. For example, when yom is used to represent a literal day, there is ALWAYS a numerical reference by it (try to find an exception?). So, I was saying that the "one" in the Zechariah vs. is not a valid numerical reference (I though this was obvious, sorry) and therefore doesn't refute the argument posted. So the "problem" is, the references in Genesis used alongside Yom *are* literal numercial references - Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc. So, you're looking at yom as it is used in certain contexts throughout the bible. The *only* place it is not contextually consistent is in Genesis 1. This was my point. If you're saying that only one exception is needed to disrupt the consistency, that to me is a weak rebuttal (no offense).

[Canuckster1127]

The chuckling is ok. That's what people often do in light of their own misunderstandings.

Let me respectfully correct you...

Once again, these are not MY arguments. I obtained "my arguments" (as you call them) from AnswersInGenesis.Org, as I already mentioned. I was interested to hear answers from OEC's.

And the very reason I ended up here was because of my quest to learn more about both sides (you're suggesting I'm one sided, which is totally false). I feel my research has been quite balanced so far. There are just certain things (on both sides) I cannot get past, and as such am seeking answers to them. I will address my problems with young earth in another thread. One problem at a time. =)

As far as sweeping generalizations, I've stated Biblical facts as best I know them to be. Please go back and read the facts as I've presented them. I simply wanted various responses. I'm not here to prove anybody wrong, so please don't take this as a personal attack or debate. I'm truly seeking answers.

Now, if you consider the points I've made to be "sweeping generalizations" and that's your best response, I accept that as your answer (though it doesn't answer my questions, and I personally don't see them as sweeping generalizations).

Here's another one for you: Read Exodus 20:11, and I'd be very interested to hear how you, or a Hebrew expert (for example), can consider the "days" represented in that verse to be anything other than literal days. How does Exodus 20:11 fit into the old earth theory (specifically)?

I appreciate your replies, but again keep in mind I'm not hear to debate any particular side. I'm really, truly, not. Right now I'm bouncing back and forth between both views, and researching both.

>3. Zachariah is the point. Yom is used with an ordinal. Yom there clearly >is not a 24 hour day. Your appeal to some "rule" in Hebrew is shown to >be false and therefore your conclusion suspect. You made a claim. I >showed you where it does not hold true. Then you in effect claim your >statement is true ... it just doesn't apply to a passage where it isn't true. >Huh?

In regard to the above, you missed the point of the "arguments" I posted, which are representing (supported with biblical facts) that "yom" as used in various *contexts* are consistent throughout the Bible. For example, when yom is used to represent a literal day, there is ALWAYS a numerical reference by it (try to find an exception?). So, I was saying that the "one" in the Zechariah vs. is not a valid numerical reference (I though this was obvious, sorry) and therefore doesn't refute the argument posted. So the "problem" is, the references in Genesis used alongside Yom *are* literal numercial references - Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc. So, you're looking at yom as it is used in certain contexts throughout the bible. The *only* place it is not contextually consistent is in Genesis 1. This was my point. If you're saying that only one exception is needed to disrupt the consistency, that to me is a weak rebuttal (no offense).

OK. Fair enough.

With regard to your questions.

The Hebrew of the Old Testament is not a language unique from Hebrew of common usage.

Constructing an argument from only the use of Hebrew in the Old Testament ignores some very important elements to consider and be aware of. Several of these would be:

1. The time frame of the Writing of the Old Testament spans about 1200 years. Do you believe that Hebrew grammar, syntax, vocabulary, cultural idioms etc were constant and that the use or non-use of a particular combination of words in the Old Testament would be comparable say from Job, probably the oldest text in terms of time written, to Malachi or any of the minor prophets?

2. If the points above are relevant then what should exegesis in this instance seek to use in studying these issues? Are there any other variables? Maybe the human author? Organic inspiration is the basic understanding of the means of inspiration God used when the Holy Spirit filled and moved through the authors of Scripture. There are very discernable differences in style, sophistication of the language, vocabulary etc. Even passages of similar times would have very unique elements relative to the human author too. Right?

3. No one here in this thread has suggested that extra biblical sources be consulted, but frankly, in terms of understanding common use of language and understanding of the original audience, it not unreasonable. Hebrew is Hebrew. The quality of inspiration in the OT is the message, not the language itself.

That's probably enough for here.

I'm not a Hebrew Scholar. I do have a background in Biblical Literature however. Move to Greek and then I can give you more than you'd ever want to know.

Making broad sweeping statements and claiming "rules" for theuse of Hebrew over this span is frankly a very weak argument.

In fact, it's not the responsibility of the person refuting these claims to prove their point. It is the responsibility of the person making the claim in the affirmative. You can claim it is weak all you want. It's not my responsibility to address every instance of your claimed "rule." All I have to do is show you that it doesn't hold in all cases. If it doesn't hold in all cases then it is hardly a rule and it certainly doesn't override the context of the passage in question.

Appeals to other passages are relevent but they are corallary arguments and as such always subordinant to the actual passage in question.

There you go. Let's hear you interact with the individual points above and not make a general statement. You might find it challenges you to think through the validity of what you're appealing to here as an argument.

[Canuckster1127]

For example, when yom is used to represent a literal day, there is ALWAYS a numerical reference by it (try to find an exception?).

Are you serious? You think every use of yom as a literal day has a numerical reference by it?

This is why I am chuckling and badgering you a little on this.

Just so you see that this refutation is from a YEC site itself, here's what the real claim is.

"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1: Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day [i.e. a 24-hour period].

http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

This is the source of your misunderstanding. This is the argument that is refuted by Zechariah.

If YEC is such a strong position, why the overstatement of facts?

Your original claim in your first post claims that yom when used with an ordinal it always refers to a 24 hour day.

Zechariah uses yom. Zechariah uses an ordinal. Zechariah clearly is refering to a period of time over 24 hours. The point as presented is refuted. Claims of absolute rules had better be well defended. It's your job to prove your claim. All I have to do is show one instance of it not holding true and it's back to the drawing board for you. Do you see this? Why the need to appeal to an absolute rule? If the position not strong enough to stand on its own? Is there something wrong with toning down the claim and stating, in effect "Hey, I know there;s room for disagreement but I think this is a pretty strong argument."

If you want to be accurate then say, outside of Genesis, when yom is used with an ordinal there is only one instance that is not a 24 hour day. That would be a reasonable argument. Almost as strong. More importantly, accurate.

My response to that argument is that it is certainly a powerful argument but it does not trump the context of the passage in Genesi itself. There is strong internal evidence to suggest something other than 24 hour days.

These are the questions from the passage itself that have to be asnswered.

1. How can there be 24 hour days on days 1-3 without the sun?
2. How can there be a 24 hour day on day 6 with everything attributed to that day?
3. How can there be a 24 hour day on day 7 when it doesn't follow the same pattern as the previous 6?

If you allow for any exception on any day, how do you arbitrarily decide which ones to exclude and which ones to keep? Aren't you then reading into the passage your cultural scientific use of the word "day" in English and not "yom" in Hebrew. Could there possibly be a reason to prefer your understanding over what a Hebrew person in 1200 - 1400 BC would have understood? Why should your understanding, cultural understanding and present day scientific context take precedcent over the original audience?

Those are the answers you need to answer if you're going to hold up YEC as definitively true.

You've been asked several times, and not just by me.

Do you have any answers?

[liger]

For example, when yom is used to represent a literal day, there is ALWAYS a numerical reference by it (try to find an exception?).

Are you serious? You think every use of yom as a literal day has a numerical reference by it?

This is why I am chuckling and badgering you a little on this.

Just so you see that this refutation is from a YEC site itself, here's what the real claim is.

"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1: Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day [i.e. a 24-hour period].

http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

This is the source of your misunderstanding. This is the argument that is refuted by Zechariah.

If YEC is such a strong position, why the overstatement of facts?

Your original claim in your first post claims that yom when used with an ordinal it always refers to a 24 hour day.

Zechariah uses yom. Zechariah uses an ordinal. Zechariah clearly is refering to a period of time over 24 hours. The point as presented is refuted. Claims of absolute rules had better be well defended. It's your job to prove your claim. All I have to do is show one instance of it not holding true and it's back to the drawing board for you. Do you see this? Why the need to appeal to an absolute rule? If the position not strong enough to stand on its own? Is there something wrong with toning down the claim and stating, in effect "Hey, I know there;s room for disagreement but I think this is a pretty strong argument."

If you want to be accurate then say, outside of Genesis, when yom is used with an ordinal there is only one instance that is not a 24 hour day. That would be a reasonable argument. Almost as strong. More importantly, accurate.

My response to that argument is that it is certainly a powerful argument but it does not trump the context of the passage in Genesi itself. There is strong internal evidence to suggest something other than 24 hour days.

These are the questions from the passage itself that have to be asnswered.

1. How can there be 24 hour days on days 1-3 without the sun?
2. How can there be a 24 hour day on day 6 with everything attributed to that day?
3. How can there be a 24 hour day on day 7 when it doesn't follow the same pattern as the previous 6?

If you allow for any exception on any day, how do you arbitrarily decide which ones to exclude and which ones to keep? Aren't you then reading into the passage your cultural scientific use of the word "day" in English and not "yom" in Hebrew. Could there possibly be a reason to prefer your understanding over what a Hebrew person in 1200 - 1400 BC would have understood? Why should your understanding, cultural understanding and present day scientific context take precedcent over the original audience?

Those are the answers you need to answer if you're going to hold up YEC as definitively true.

You've been asked several times, and not just by me.

Do you have any answers?

Well actually, THIS is the YEC claim that I was referring to (not the one you posted):

[When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.]

This is much more specific, and is not refuted by the Zechariah vs you mention (for the reasons I explained). But I'll explain again with an example sentence:

"One day, I'm going to be in heaven with Jesus."

In that sentence, the word "one" is NOT used as the "number 1." See what I mean? It's used in a totally different context.

If it were used in the NUMERICAL (or "ordinal") manner (that the YEC point is referring to), it would read something like this:

"On day ONE, I'm going to be in heaven with Jesus." It's a *totally* different meaning here. "One day" as used in the first sentence just
refers to "some point in the future" and could actually be phrased exactly as such. The SECOND sentence *does* use "one" as a number.

The YEC reference that *I* cited above is referring to actual numerical references, such as Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, in Genesis 1. And they are saying that everywhere in the Bible, where yom is used along with a numerical reference, day is considered a literal day.

...If you're saying Genesis 1 is an exception to this, then it would appear to be the ONLY exception, and as such, there'd be no strong argument that would support Genesis 1 *not* referring to literal days / 24 hour periods.

You still haven't refuted the YEC claim that I cited above (for the reasons I've again explained here as clearly as I possibly can).

If you still don't understand the actual argument by YEC (and if your next post reflects this) I won't bother to reply. Again, no offense intended. It just doesn't seem you're grasping the actual point based on your replies (and chuckling).

As far as your 3 points, the OEC theories by the author of this very site says that the sun WAS created on day one (he considers it to be part of the "heavens" - this is an important part of the day / age theory).

As for the other points, those are speculation. For example, God could have easily made the plants and vegetation grow very rapidly, in an actual 24 hour period (vs. "letting" them grow). Just as he created Adam as "man" rather than a baby boy.

P.S. I almost forgot, what about Exodus 20:11 ??

[Canuckster1127]

For example, when yom is used to represent a literal day, there is ALWAYS a numerical reference by it (try to find an exception?).

Are you serious? You think every use of yom as a literal day has a numerical reference by it?

This is why I am chuckling and badgering you a little on this.

Just so you see that this refutation is from a YEC site itself, here's what the real claim is.

"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1: Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day [i.e. a 24-hour period].

http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

This is the source of your misunderstanding. This is the argument that is refuted by Zechariah.

If YEC is such a strong position, why the overstatement of facts?

Your original claim in your first post claims that yom when used with an ordinal it always refers to a 24 hour day.

Zechariah uses yom. Zechariah uses an ordinal. Zechariah clearly is refering to a period of time over 24 hours. The point as presented is refuted. Claims of absolute rules had better be well defended. It's your job to prove your claim. All I have to do is show one instance of it not holding true and it's back to the drawing board for you. Do you see this? Why the need to appeal to an absolute rule? If the position not strong enough to stand on its own? Is there something wrong with toning down the claim and stating, in effect "Hey, I know there;s room for disagreement but I think this is a pretty strong argument."

If you want to be accurate then say, outside of Genesis, when yom is used with an ordinal there is only one instance that is not a 24 hour day. That would be a reasonable argument. Almost as strong. More importantly, accurate.

My response to that argument is that it is certainly a powerful argument but it does not trump the context of the passage in Genesi itself. There is strong internal evidence to suggest something other than 24 hour days.

These are the questions from the passage itself that have to be asnswered.

1. How can there be 24 hour days on days 1-3 without the sun?
2. How can there be a 24 hour day on day 6 with everything attributed to that day?
3. How can there be a 24 hour day on day 7 when it doesn't follow the same pattern as the previous 6?

If you allow for any exception on any day, how do you arbitrarily decide which ones to exclude and which ones to keep? Aren't you then reading into the passage your cultural scientific use of the word "day" in English and not "yom" in Hebrew. Could there possibly be a reason to prefer your understanding over what a Hebrew person in 1200 - 1400 BC would have understood? Why should your understanding, cultural understanding and present day scientific context take precedcent over the original audience?

Those are the answers you need to answer if you're going to hold up YEC as definitively true.

You've been asked several times, and not just by me.

Do you have any answers?

Well actually, THIS is the YEC claim that I was referring to (not the one you posted):

[When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.]

This is much more specific, and is not refuted by the Zechariah vs you mention (for the reasons I explained). But I'll explain again with an example sentence:

"One day, I'm going to be in heaven with Jesus."

In that sentence, the word "one" is NOT used as the "number 1." See what I mean? It's used in a totally different context.

If it were used in the NUMERICAL (or "ordinal") manner (that the YEC point is referring to), it would read something like this:

"On day ONE, I'm going to be in heaven with Jesus." It's a *totally* different meaning here. "One day" as used in the first sentence just
refers to "some point in the future" and could actually be phrased exactly as such. The SECOND sentence *does* use "one" as a number.

The YEC reference that *I* cited above is referring to actual numerical references, such as Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, in Genesis 1. And they are saying that everywhere in the Bible, where yom is used along with a numerical reference, day is considered a literal day.

...If you're saying Genesis 1 is an exception to this, then it would appear to be the ONLY exception, and as such, there'd be no strong argument that would support Genesis 1 *not* referring to literal days / 24 hour periods.

You still haven't refuted the YEC claim that I cited above (for the reasons I've again explained here as clearly as I possibly can).

If you still don't understand the actual argument by YEC (and if your next post reflects this) I won't bother to reply. Again, no offense intended. It just doesn't seem you're grasping the actual point based on your replies (and chuckling).

As far as your 3 points, the OEC theories by the author of this very site says that the sun WAS created on day one (he considers it to be part of the "heavens" - this is an important part of the day / age theory).

As for the other points, those are speculation. For example, God could have easily made the plants and vegetation grow very rapidly, in an actual 24 hour period (vs. "letting" them grow). Just as he created Adam as "man" rather than a baby boy.

P.S. I almost forgot, what about Exodus 20:11 ??

Liger, you're only just touching the tip of the iceberg on day 6. Plant growth is only one of many, many issues.

The answer that God "could" have done something, when the text itself does not directly support it, is the crux of Young Earth Creationism. YEC commits itself to a predetermined outcome and then makes every tortured argument it can to support how it "could" be true, right up to the point of being ridiculous.

God "could" have created us 5 minutes ago and given us installed memories to think we are very old. If I believe that does that mean I have more faith in God's power than you because you argue for an "older" creation of 24 hours?

I've gone back through your posts and I appeciate that your tone is improving and you are beginning to interact a little.

I've pretty much given you the equivilent of an introduction to hermeneutics and textual criticism and all there's been in return is cut and pastes, use of caps to try and make up in volume what is lacking in content and an appeal to "rules" that are simply thrown out there with no support.

You've got a slew of material you have not even acknowledged let alone interacted with.

I don't know you personally, don't know your agenda and frankly don't know your true motives, so all I can go by is your behavior.

When you're ready to interact and cease repeating the same point over and over again and show an ability or willingness to proceed, I'll be happy to continue. In the meantime, I'll wait for some indication that you really are here to interact. The evidence for me will be you interacting.

I know the OEC position with regard to the sun being created on the 4th day. Are you by your answer accepting the Gap theory and using it in the context of YEC? If so, then you have a whole new set of difficult questions to answer.

You have more than enough up here to work with and interact with. When you start interacting with it, then I'll concede you're here for that purpose.

So far your 2 strongest arguments are from outside Genesis and then trying to fit Geneis into that mold. How about addressing the internal issues within Genesis itself and starting with the very clear questions I have asked you several times?

You may even want to think about your answers.

[Canuckster1127]

Just as a follow-up. As I stated, my background is primarily in New Testament not Old Testament.

Here's further instances regarding the use of ordinals in the Old Testament.

I've conceded too much by only raising the passage in Zechariah. Here are some others.

So.

Is it a "rule" or is it only a rule when referring to 24 hour days? If that is the case then the onus is on you to demonstrate that these are 24 hour days within Genesis. To do that you need to interact with the questions regarding this related to day 4, day 6 and day 7. If you can't show that 24 hour days are supported and possible within the direct context of Genesis itself, then your appeal to other passages is meaningless.

Appealing to some supposed rule and then bringing it back to infer that it must be the same in Genesis ignores too much. It is circular. The construction logically in sylogistic form would be:

Major Premise: All uses of the hebrew word "yom" with an ordinal adjective in the Bible outside of Genesis are in the context of 24 hour days.

Minor Premise: Genesis uses "yom" with an ordinal adjective.

Synthesis: Therefore, Genesis' use of the word of "yom" should be seen as a 24 hour day.

As you can see below, the major premise is demonstrated to have exceptions, therefore it is not a "rule" and this argument cannot be seen as conclusive.

Here's what Rich Deem, the founder and organizer of this site cites with regard to this "rule."

Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13

In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul."14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.

A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered."15 The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years16 - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!

There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length.17 Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:

'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)

For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)

"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)

If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..."18 These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not always refer to 24-hour days.

Do you have a response directly addressing each of these points or should I presume that we'll see another repetition of the prior claims?

[Kurieuo]

Regardless of comparisons, there is no rule in Hebrew grammer which dictates that yom when used with a number must represent a 24-hour day. Further, to say this is so is circular reasoning, since we have one side (e.g., Day-Age) who believe there are valid reasons in Scripture to believe yom with a number in Genesis 1 does represent a period or age of time. Thus, to say there is nowhere in Scripture where yom when used with a number does not represent a 24-hour day (debatable in itself), is to presume to already to know that the cases found in Genesis 1 are not intended to represent a period of time. So instead of trying to "rig the rules", arguments for and against both positions should be presented to the one inquiring, and evaluated on their strengths and weaknesses.

Now not only is there is no rule in Hebrew grammer which dictates this can't be the case, the seventh day is infact never closed and Israel are and we are still told to enter into God's day of rest (Psalms 95:7-11; Hebrews 4:1-11). This means the seventh day is significantly longer than 24 hours.

Further regarding the ordinal/cardinal issue:

To get around the obvious conclusion that Yom in Genesis 1 can mean millions of years, young earth theorists have come up with several arguments, none of which is supported by common Hebrew grammatical rules according to Hebrew experts (such as Dr. Walter Kaiser). These rules were created by Hebrew language experts who are young earth creationists to begin with, thus their viewpoint is obviously biased. They have a specific agenda they are trying to prove, and thus cannot be objective.

Ordinals/Cardinals

Young earth creationists say that whenever Yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number (1st, 2nd, 1,2, etc) that it always represents a 24 hour day. However, this is not true. In Zechariah 14:7-9, the "one day" refers to a period of time when the Lord shall be king over the earth. In other places, some say that Isaiah and Hosea have numbers with the word day which are figurative (External Link).

Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1

What Sarfati thinks is not important...what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Kurieuo

[Canuckster1127]

I love Walt Kaiser. I was privileged to be able to sit under some of his teaching when I was a pastor in Ohio. My denomination brought him in to do some seminars on Old Testament Preaching. It was very rich!

[sandy_mcd]

1. How can there be 24 hour days on days 1-3 without the sun?
You've been asked several times, and not just by me.
Do you have any answers?

I have offered an explanation for this one before.
1) Genesis was written after day 3.
2) At the time Genesis was written, the concept of "day" was well-established.
3) So what is the problem with using a measurement of time which people can understand?

Or, since days did not exist without the sun, what unit of time or expression do you think should have been used?

[Canuckster1127]

1. How can there be 24 hour days on days 1-3 without the sun?
You've been asked several times, and not just by me.
Do you have any answers?

I have offered an explanation for this one before.
1) Genesis was written after day 3.
2) At the time Genesis was written, the concept of "day" was well-established.
3) So what is the problem with using a measurement of time which people can understand?

Or, since days did not exist without the sun, what unit of time or expression do you think should have been used?

I'm not arguing that there is no explanation.

I'm arguing that the YEC position does not properly account for this situation because of the following reasons which are not necessarily exhuastive:

1. YEC claims an absolute literal hermeneutic, often times outright claiming or at best inferring that anyone who disagrees with their rigid conclusions is not taking the text "literally." Therefore the onus is on them, not only to explain these seeming disconnects if they are going to superimpose 20th century scientific concepts upon an over 3,000 year old text, the onus is also upon them to explain how they can "tap dance" around these issues in one place and then not allow similar explanations in other areas of the same text.

2. Frankly, I don't believe the purpose of Genesis 1 & 2 is or ever was to give scientific explanations to the satisfaction of future western civilizations. Nor do I believe the culture, language and understanding of Moses and those receiving the original text was such that any of these elements entered into it, certainly not to the degree that a YEC position attempts to read into the text. Therefore YEC is not just bad science, which 95% of the Scientific community agrees with, it is also bad theology and hermeneutics.

3. The concept of "day" is irrelevent in the end to what we think it means in english. The issue is the understanding of the word "yom" which clearly could be and was understood in the 3 different contexts of Light portion of a day, 24 hour day or extended period of time. Thie issue is which concept ties in this context and then is that concept tied literally or figuratively.

In terms of the term day being used metaphorically, which I think is what you're inferring, I do think that is a possibility. The problem I have at that point is that you bring in a hermeneutic to that passage that when used here, then opens a pandora's box that calls into question any other passage and begs the question as to what standard you hold to as to when to take the Scriptures literally and when to allow for such metaphores.

The answer of course lies in the intent of the author and the best clue to that is the common understanding of the original audience. It's not easy to do however. But then easy or not is not the ultimate issue.

Does that help explain why I'm pushing the issue?

As for the last question, I think these are long periods of time. I think the sequence is perspectival to the surface of the earth and that the actual creation sequence would have had the sun before the earth. I don't have a problem with it. My point, is that if you're going to take a young earth position, then it is a question for you and that you better have a good explanation, expecially if you are going to use the type of rhetoric that began this thread infering FACTS (I love when people have to use caps to in effect yell out loud what they can't defend quietly) and overwhelming support for a particular position and then when faced with a rational conversation the volume either goes up or they cut and run.

Those are general observations. As I said earlier, I don't know Liger personally. He claimed to be here seeking answers or at least better understanding. That's great.

What I do know, is he cut and pasted a lot of material at first at least leaving it to others conclude it was his own, when if fact, which he allowed for later and I respect that, it was from a YEC web-site. Further, he accepted what that web-site said and faced with evidence to the contrary fell back to repeating and pasting other responses from web-sites.

I understand that. I suspect he is probably a high-school student or freshman beginning to deal with the issues. I know I was raised young earth and indoctined to parrot things rather than learning how to think and process material and that comes with time and maturity.

I could be completely wrong, but that is what it appeared like to me.

It took me a long time and a lot of intellectual spanking before I clued into what I think now, and frankly, I'm still a work in progress and will no doubt change modify and expand my thinking on some items I think important now in the future as well if God grants me more time.

So anyway. Probably more than anyone wanted to know, but that is where I am coming from.