Genesis 2:17 - evidence for day-age ...

[DannyM]

"... but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Genesis 2:17

"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." 2 Peter 3:8

"For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4

Man has become mortal. He is now subject to both physical and spiritual death. ... for in the DAY that you eat from it you will surely die. Is this evidence for the literal yom of a long period of time? Adam did not die in that 24 hour yom; he lived a nine-hundred thirty years. Is Genesis 2:17 evidence for the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis one- that is, that each "day" is actually a long period of time during which God created life?

[Kurieuo]

I find us being able to enter God's "seventh day" of rest from creation as one of the strongest Scriptural evidences for inferring long periods of time for each creation day. (Hebrews 4:1-11)

[Jac3510]

Question:

Before Psalms, 2 Peter, or Hebrews were written--that is, when Moses handed the first edition of Genesis to its intended audience, how would they have known what the word yom meant?

I appreciate Danny's use of Gen 2:17. At least it is in the same document we're talking about. I would agree it is evidence for the day-age view in that, at minimum, you can argue that the word yom can in some contexts mean an undefined period of time, an era. If in 2:17, perhaps so, too, in chapter one.

[Kurieuo]

Question:

Before Psalms, 2 Peter, or Hebrews were written--that is, when Moses handed the first edition of Genesis to its intended audience, how would they have known what the word yom meant?

I'd think they would have understood their own language and styles employed?

[Gman]

Dayage? Yes there is evidence. He posts here all the time...

[DannyM]

Dayage? Yes there is evidence. He posts here all the time...

I'd call that a proof ...

[Jac3510]

Question:

Before Psalms, 2 Peter, or Hebrews were written--that is, when Moses handed the first edition of Genesis to its intended audience, how would they have known what the word yom meant?

I'd think they would have understood their own language and styles employed?

The Exodus generation? Certainly. So then why do you appeal to Heb 7 as the strongest Scriptural evidence? Are you saying that the Exodus generation didn't have the strongest Scriptural evidence for their own position?

My point is simple: if the Jews could have understood the passage in its own context, so should we. To argue that the basis for interpreting a particular verse a particular way comes from a later passage is to make the one under consideration unintelligible to the original audience, and thus, not revelation after all, which has massive ramifications for our own understanding of Scripture today.

[Kurieuo]

Question:

Before Psalms, 2 Peter, or Hebrews were written--that is, when Moses handed the first edition of Genesis to its intended audience, how would they have known what the word yom meant?

I'd think they would have understood their own language and styles employed?

The Exodus generation? Certainly. So then why do you appeal to Heb 7 as the strongest Scriptural evidence? Are you saying that the Exodus generation didn't have the strongest Scriptural evidence for their own position?

Are you saying that some books in Scripture are more inspired/inerrant than others? Do you not believe that God was ultimate author? Did God intend Scripture just for the Exodus generation, or all generations for teaching and correction? I find it interesting you place such a high priority on one generation. Still, they could have very easily have understood the creation days as not being 24 hours days. I'm not sure why you would think it so difficult for them to comprehend. This is all that is required for a fuller Day-Age interpretation like that of Hugh Ross.