Evidence for God from Science

Well there are different names of G-d that are used in the Bible. The highest one is Yud, Hey, Vuv, Hey (Yahovah) which is supposed to be unpronounceable. Usually when I refer to the G-dhead I put the dash in. But you will notice that when I write “Jesus“, it is fully spelled out. This is because the New Testament scriptures teach us to “use” the name of Jesus which is Yeshua, a slightly different version, this word means “savior“.

We have the Father (Abba), the Son (Ben), and the Holy Spirit (Ruach). The Father is the G-dhead, the Son is Jesus whom came in the human flesh to talk face to face with us, therefore His name is to be used for this very purpose, the Holy Spirit is another form that both the G-dhead and Jesus works through man, and is noted as just that - the Holy Spirit.

All I am doing is showing respect to the G-dhead which includes the Exodus 20:7 commandment.

If that makes any sense to you? And yes, it is the Jewish way, and this is the way that Jesus also understood it, and respected it. I further explain this in my book.

Incidentally, and most Jews don't know this, but the Trinity can be found in the first 3 Hebrew letters of Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew letters Bet, Resh, Aleph. B is for Ben (Son), R is for Ruach (Spirit), and the A is for Abba (Father). Its all in my book!

I really doubt this, but I'm wondering if you can give any proof that the early Christians (the apostles and their disciples) wrote out God like you are here. Can you show any early manuscripts that show this? I really doubt it. I think if that were the case, translators would have kept it that way.

Would you please stop pushing your book? We know already. That's spamming. If you want to put a link to it in your signature bar, that might be ok (the other mods can pipe in if they want). But getting people to read the bible first should be our first priority, in my view.

Anita,

I was wondering is you have ever heard of Richard Rives. He wrote a book called Too Long in the Sun. If you have, I was wondering if you agree of disagree with his teachings.

Thanks again

really doubt this, but I'm wondering if you can give any proof that the early Christians (the apostles and their disciples) wrote out God like you are here. Can you show any early manuscripts that show this? I really doubt it. I think if that were the case, translators would have kept it that way.

Cslewislover, well of course not, they did not write it in the English version of G-d, but they wrote it in the Hebrew as I had said in my earlier post, which was Y,H,V,H (Yud, Hey, Vuv, Hey). However if you want to delve even deeper into the Y,H,V,H that is written in the Torah, it is not actually the correct name of G-d either. This was a substitute name also, and you will find Y,H,V,H is all of the Hebrew Old Testament approximately 7,000 times. However scholars really don't know the proper pronunciation. The Jews stopped pronouncing this name around 200 A.D. so that they would not break the commandment of Exodus 20:7. Today many Rabbis use the name “Adonai” (even Hashem) instead of Y,H,V,H.

However, I will let you in on a little secret here… The correct name of G-d (which is supposed to be unpronounceable) is “I am that I am” which means translated into Hebrew is eh'yeh asher eh'yeh, or EHYH.

This can be found in Exodus 3:14-15 - G-d said to Moses, eh'yeh asher eh'yeh. This means, I am that I am. Exodus 3:14-15 - And G-d said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And G-d said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord G-d of your fathers, the G-d of Abraham, the G-d of Isaac, and the G-d of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Hebrew version: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... =0#conc/14
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... =0#conc/15

Would you please stop pushing your book? We know already. That's spamming. If you want to put a link to it in your signature bar, that might be ok (the other mods can pipe in if they want). But getting people to read the bible first should be our first priority, in my view.

Would you prefer I say, “quoted from my book“? I'm just specifying my sources here. I cannot make/force you or anyone to buy my book. I am merely just sharing information that is in my book, and look; you don't even have to buy it. Tell me what author would do that?

Taking the Lord's name in vain is far deeper than simply how you write His name. It strikes at the core of how we view God, the significance we place upon Him.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... e_in_vain/

How do you define the sin of taking the Lord's name in vain?

Well that's a quote from the Ten Commandments: "Don't take the name of the Lord your God in vain." The idea of vanity (and I think the Hebrew carries this connotation) is "don't empty the name."

So it doesn't just refer to a certain tone of voice or a certain use of the word. It's dealing with God and speaking of God in a way that empties him of his significance.

This includes both throw-away words—like "God!" or "Jesus!"—as well as speaking about him in trifling and flippant ways. Not just swear ways but cheap ways, low and insignificant ways that just treat him like a commodity. And when you hear them you sense that there is no weight to that sentence, no corresponding emotion to that statement. It seems to have just been gutted.

God, Christ, the cross, the things he is and the things he did are great, and they're weighty. And there's a certain corresponding demeanor of worship that should be there.

So I think taking the Lord's name in vain is more than "O my God!" or "Jesus Christ!" It is that plus more.

The positive way to look at it is to revere God, love God, delight in God, know God, fill up God with all that he is. And then out of the abundance of the heart the mouth will speak.

I think it is far better to take the commandments and not focus so much on the negative—that is "don't lie, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't kill"—but rather focus on where those come from, and put the emphasis there. And here, "don't take his name in vain" would mean that you take his name in vain because he is empty to you. Your mind doesn't feel the weight and fullness of his glory.

So that's the key: vain is empty. Don't empty God of his weight and his glory. Fill it up rather than emptying it.

Writing His name a certain way does not ensure that we are adhering ultimately to LOving the Lord with all your heart and not taking His name in vain. With all of His commandments there is a legalistic way to view it. When Christ came and laid down the two most important commandments, He established "Love the Lord you God with all of your heart" which reflects our view of Him and our use of His name.

Author Anita Meyer wrote:

Would you please stop pushing your book? We know already. That's spamming. If you want to put a link to it in your signature bar, that might be ok (the other mods can pipe in if they want). But getting people to read the bible first should be our first priority, in my view.

Would you prefer I say, “quoted from my book“? I'm just specifying my sources here. I cannot make/force you or anyone to buy my book. I am merely just sharing information that is in my book, and look; you don't even have to buy it. Tell me what author would do that?

A lot of authors don't do that. BW here is an author, and there may be others, but they don't push their own work like that. As I said, you can put a link in your signature, but you don't need to mention it in every post. I'd rather have the original sources, and if I wanted to take a look at your book, I would.

I meant early documents from the early church. If they wrote God in such a way, I think the translators would know. Perhaps I'll look into this further, just out of curiosity as to which word/name they used for God, but I doubt if the apostles and disciples kept up the Jewish custom. I doubt if Christian translators would change a fundamental view of God (Christian view, from Christ) in that way. And you're not letting anyone in on any little secrets here about the names of God . . . they can be found in the bible itself and all kinds of Christian reference.

Anita,

I was wondering is you have ever heard of Richard Rives. He wrote a book called Too Long in the Sun. If you have, I was wondering if you agree of disagree with his teachings.

Thanks again

Hello Sinnerbybirth, No I havent read Richard Rives book, but I did check him out on the Internet. It sounds interesting and I will have to read this book and add it to my collection, all knowledge on the subject is good!

However, I did get a general idea about what the book is about from his website and listened to several videos. So as to your question if I agree of disagree with his teachings, I absolutely do agree with him. What he is trying to put forth is that the Christians/Church have paganized the holidays such as Easter and Christmas. This of course is true, the dates are all wrong, even the day of rest which is not Sunday, but supposed to Saturday! What has been stripped here is the Jewish understanding of the holidays. Christmas and Easter is supposed to be properly celebrated on the Jewish Passover which falls in March. I could go on and on here, all the way on up till the end time “Rapture” or if you prefer, the “catching away”. This is clearly described for us by Jesus starting with the parable of the fig tree which buds in March, and rolling into the month of September which correlates with the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah, which is known as the harvest and the “gathering of the fruit“.

(This is Easter which falls in the Spring/March) Matthew 24:32 - Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.

(This is the Jewish Passover/Christmas, which also falls in March/Spring) Numbers 9:1-4 - The Lord spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, "Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover at the appointed time. Celebrate it at the appointed time, at twilight on the fourteenth day of this month, in accordance with all its rules and regulations." So Moses told the Israelites to celebrate the Passover.

(This is Rosh Hashanah which falls in September) Exodus 23:16 - And the feast of harvest, the first fruits of thy labors, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labors out of the field.

I meant early documents from the early church. If they wrote God in such a way, I think the translators would know. Perhaps I'll look into this further, just out of curiosity as to which word/name they used for God, but I doubt if the apostles and disciples kept up the Jewish custom. I doubt if Christian translators would change a fundamental view of God (Christian view, from Christ) in that way. And you're not letting anyone in on any little secrets here about the names of God . . . they can be found in the bible itself and all kinds of Christian reference.

Cslewislover, I don't think the early Church focused on this. They were more interested in (of course) Jesus, and it seems that most tradition was lost or fell by the wayside. So no, I don't think the early Church adhered to specifications regarding the writing of G-d's name simply because it was translated and written in Greek and not Hebrew.

Back in Old Testament times, whenever the Jewish scribes had to write the name of G-d as Y,H,V,H they would change the pen and continue with another pen. The Jewish scribes also changed their clothing before they would write the name of G-d. In fact so holy was the name that in Deuteronomy 6:4 the name occurs twice they had two changes of cloths and four pens. This is the way they were taught at Mount Sinai. Not only were they careful on writing the name of G-d, they were also meticulous on the Hebrew letters themselves. The letters could not be touching each other and they had to be in particular places along with proper sizing. If a letter was accidentally omitted it would render the whole script unacceptable. Of course there were reasons for this, including the new Hebrew block letter style that popped onto the scene at this particular time in history. The ancient Jewish scribes had to replicate the Hebrew letters exactly as they were given to Moses on Mount Sinai (on the stone tablets) from the finger of G-d Himself.

What I had discovered about the Hebrew letters is amazing and you can find it here if you're interested to know:

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthp ... nation.pdf

Now when Jesus came onto the scene in the New Testament the Apostle Paul tells us:

Philippians 2:9-11 - Therefore G-d exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of G-d the Father.

Jesus was a Rabbi, He would have adhered to the teaching of not taking the G-dhead's name in vain. He always referred to Him as Father (Abba). In fact even at His deathbed on the cross He cried Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani which means: My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me (Eli is short for Elijah or Eloheim). Matthew 27:46 - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.

Even Jesus being the Son was respectful of the Fathers name.

I will repost again, since ou haven't replied

zoegirl wrote:Taking the Lord's name in vain is far deeper than simply how you write His name. It strikes at the core of how we view God, the significance we place upon Him.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... e_in_vain/

How do you define the sin of taking the Lord's name in vain?

Well that's a quote from the Ten Commandments: "Don't take the name of the Lord your God in vain." The idea of vanity (and I think the Hebrew carries this connotation) is "don't empty the name."

So it doesn't just refer to a certain tone of voice or a certain use of the word. It's dealing with God and speaking of God in a way that empties him of his significance.

This includes both throw-away words—like "God!" or "Jesus!"—as well as speaking about him in trifling and flippant ways. Not just swear ways but cheap ways, low and insignificant ways that just treat him like a commodity. And when you hear them you sense that there is no weight to that sentence, no corresponding emotion to that statement. It seems to have just been gutted.

God, Christ, the cross, the things he is and the things he did are great, and they're weighty. And there's a certain corresponding demeanor of worship that should be there.

So I think taking the Lord's name in vain is more than "O my God!" or "Jesus Christ!" It is that plus more.

The positive way to look at it is to revere God, love God, delight in God, know God, fill up God with all that he is. And then out of the abundance of the heart the mouth will speak.

I think it is far better to take the commandments and not focus so much on the negative—that is "don't lie, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't kill"—but rather focus on where those come from, and put the emphasis there. And here, "don't take his name in vain" would mean that you take his name in vain because he is empty to you. Your mind doesn't feel the weight and fullness of his glory.

So that's the key: vain is empty. Don't empty God of his weight and his glory. Fill it up rather than emptying it.

Writing His name a certain way does not ensure that we are adhering ultimately to LOving the Lord with all your heart and not taking His name in vain. With all of His commandments there is a legalistic way to view it. When Christ came and laid down the two most important commandments, He established "Love the Lord you God with all of your heart" which reflects our view of Him and our use of His name.

Meyer,

Correct, both Adam and Eve were fully formed and aged.

NO! They were fully formed, but brand new. They would have had no indication of having aged. No worn teeth, liverspots, etc. Size does not indicate age. They would have had no cell damage, would they? Nothing that could be tested to indicate age would have indicated anything other than new.

The text tells us that God formed them and at least most animals this way.

The Bible says that the earth was created "In the beginning," but needed to go through a process just to get to Genesis 1:2. You have not responded to this.

Also, in Gen. 1:2 the earth is still not finished.

Day three, you have not answered the language indicating natural growth.

Also, on day three plate techtonics is use to form the dry land. Ps. 104:6-8:
6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains.
7 At Thy rebuke they fled; At the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away.
8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which Thou didst establish for them.
This refers back to day three. The earth started covered by water and then God commanded the dry land to appear.

Day 6 - chapter 2, a rain storm occured, a garden grew, etc.

why would G-d have to wait for a garden to grow? This is why your analogy is contradicting.

Ask God, He said it (Genesis 2:9).

Day four - the light from the stars was supdose to shine on the earth, but most stars are much further away than 6,000 light years. In your view the light had to get to earth in one day.

Although I dissagree about their view on plants, here is an Answers In Genesis response (by their astronomer) to appearance of age and light:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... nce-of-age

The fact that you believe in appearance of age is admitting that things really do look old. Why did God need to make it all look (AND MEASURE) so old?

The RATE team from the Institute of Creation Research (young-earth) did an (about) 8 year study on radiometric decay. They found that indeed there is evidence of hundreds of thousands of years worth of decay. The evidence is everywhere in God's revelation in creation. The Bible says that creation is a reliable revelation, so unless God lied in one of His two revelations, you have a problem.

All the Yom's used in the Bible are singular. It is used exactly 2301 times throughout the Old Testament and in every instance it is always used in a singular way.

I'll assume you misspoke, because yom in the plural (yamim) is used many times starting in Genesis 1:14.

It is a six and 1 analogy. This is also used for the farming of the land, work it six years and rest it one. Same goes for slaves. The were released in the seventh year.

In foresight He knew the evolutionists would try and ruin the reputation of it.

I hope you know I'm no evolutionist.

If you reread Genesis you will notice that it repeats and reaffirms each day over and over again.

Of coures, He was going to make the analogy with man's work. Where are the articles (ha)? You have not answered any of the language problems that I've brought up, yet your the one into language?

I hope you know I'm no evolutionist.

The Bible says that the earth was created "In the beginning," but needed to go through a process just to get to Genesis 1:2. You have not responded to this.

Dayage, If I could get a little clarification here since you claim to be "no evolutionist" while you also say that the Earth needed to go through a "process". To me you are indicating the word “process” as meaning a long period of time as in “evolution”.

I need clarification before I can respond properly?

All the Yom's used in the Bible are singular. It is used exactly 2301 times throughout the Old Testament and in every instance it is always used in a singular way.

I'll assume you misspoke, because yom in the plural (yamim) is used many times starting in Genesis 1:14.

No I didn't misspeak maybe you just misunderstood me? Anyhow, Yom is the singular and Yamin is the plural. These two words are clearly defined as days, but Yom for day, and Yamin for day's so that we can see they are distinctly two different words and that the Genesis days of creations are all using the singular Yom to indicate “single“ 24 hour days.

The fact that you believe in appearance of age is admitting that things really do look old. Why did God need to make it all look (AND MEASURE) so old?

I agree with AIG (Answers in Genesis).

Again, I need some kind of clarification here, its seems like we are attempting to say the same thing, but your replies to me are in question? You say Adam was not aged in the respect that he had no worn teeth, liver spots, or cell damage. You say that there is nothing there that could be tested to indicate age or anything new. And I agree with you here, however I am also saying that according to scripture Adam was created in a single day and was a fully formed mature man, therefore he had the appearance of age in that he was not a infant or even a child. He was mature enough to know that he needed a helpmate - Eve. This indicates that he was a mature man.

So with this, I am suggesting that if Adam had the appearance of age, so would the other things that G-d had created which includes single 24 hour days. The question remains, that today in science we do not know/have a starting point to calculate from. This may be why astronomers calculate the Universe and light is very old as it has the “appearance” of age. Of course the Universe would appear old if indeed G-d created it in the same fashion that He created Adam which already had the appearance of age. I do not believe that the Universe is really as old as science claims because of this "ex nihilo" G-d aged factor. Without a starting point science is essentially in the dark.

The only deception here is not fully believing the Bible - that Genesis is describing single 24 hours days! The Theory of Evolution demoralized us into thinking that we slowly evolved from some kind of creature. Thus this eliminates the aspect of G-d's influence in our creation. This country (including the world) is in serious trouble, as the scientific community advances religion is fading down the tube, and the “theory of evolution” is becoming more and more a threat!

In this new era people cannot fathom this perception because of all the scientific brainwashing, that has only served to put blinders over the eyes.

People laugh at the idea when I say that evolution is a dangerous idea, which BTW the theory of evolution has still never been proven! They comment and say that I'm uneducated and amateurish if I truly believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old when science has proven otherwise! FYI, science has not proven this!

We might as well kiss goodbye to any moralism left in this country including the world if this is truly the path one wants to take.

Lets take a real good look at what breaks down moralism… We can thank Charles Darwin for this. Charles Darwin was an agnostic. He lived his life believing in natural selection. He married his cousin and reared children with weak immunity symptoms. We can clearly see here that Darwin's denial of G-d had exposed his children to hereditary sickness. We can also clearly see that the spirit behind Darwin leads to many sinful things… racism, low tolerance towards other beliefs, customs, immorality, homosexuality, elitism. One can also say it legitimized Nazism and the Holocaust.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a product of Darwinism! One of America's most infamous serial killers who cannibalized more than 17 boys before being captured, gave a last interview with Dateline NBC nine months before his death, and he said the following about why he acted as he did:

“If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing….” (Dateline NBC, The Final Interview, Nov. 29, 1994).

It is clear to see what darkness is behind this claptrap. No dont confuse it with G-d's deception, but satan.

Writing His name a certain way does not ensure that we are adhering ultimately to LOving the Lord with all your heart and not taking His name in vain. With all of His commandments there is a legalistic way to view it. When Christ came and laid down the two most important commandments, He established "Love the Lord you God with all of your heart" which reflects our view of Him and our use of His name.

Hello Zoegirl, I agree to a certain extent. I am aware of what the New Testament declares:

Philippians 2:9-11 - Therefore G-d exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of G-d the Father.

I know that the love and respect for G-d comes from the heart, however there is an old saying that I like to use... What G-d is in theory, man must first realize through practice.

Meyer,

Dayage, If I could get a little clarification here since you claim to be "no evolutionist" while you also say that the Earth needed to go through a "process". To me you are indicating the word “process” as meaning a long period of time as in “evolution”.

There is a huge difference between biological evolution and believing things like stars, raindrops, clouds, snowflakes, galaxies, etc. form by the laws of physics which God put in place. By the way, are you saying that the earth was not formless, void and dark, or that God did not tell Job how the earth got that way? It was a process according to God's Word.

No I didn't misspeak maybe you just misunderstood me? Anyhow, Yom is the singular and Yamin is the plural. These two words are clearly defined as days, but Yom for day, and Yamin for day's so that we can see they are distinctly two different words and that the Genesis days of creations are all using the singular Yom to indicate “single“ 24 hour days.

Yes, now I see what you were getting at.

Zechariah 14:7 also uses (echad) to mean a unity. Here it uses yom echad (one day) as in Gen. 1:5 to refer to many days, an age. Often an argument against this being a long period of time is made using the first seven verses. It is true that this day begins with the Lord coming at a point in time, but this is just the start of the day.

Zechariah 14:1-21 (NKJV)
1 Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
2 For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then the LORD will go forth And fight against those nations, As He fights in the day of battle.
4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south.
5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley, For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal. Yes, you shall flee As you fled from the earthquake In the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Thus the LORD my God will come, And all the saints with You.
6 It shall come to pass in that day That there will be no light; The lights will diminish.
7 It shall be ONE DAY Which is known to the LORD -- Neither day nor night. But at evening time it shall happen That it will be light.

Many Young Earth creationists stop at this point and argue that this is a normal 24-hour day. Of course, the description of this day does not end here. As we read on, it is clear that “one day” means a long period of time. It covers the entire reign of Christ on this earth.
8 And in that day it shall be That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, Half of them toward the eastern sea And half of them toward the western sea; In both summer and winter it shall occur.
9 And the LORD shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be -- "The LORD is one," And His name one.
10 All the land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be raised up and inhabited in her place from Benjamin's Gate to the place of the First Gate and the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananeel to the king's winepresses.
11 The people shall dwell in it; And no longer shall there be utter destruction, But Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.
13 It shall come to pass in that day That a great panic from the LORD will be among them. Everyone will seize the hand of his neighbor, And raise his hand against his neighbor's hand;
14 Judah also will fight at Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the surrounding nations Shall be gathered together: Gold, silver, and apparel in great abundance.
15 Such also shall be the plague On the horse and the mule, On the camel and the donkey, And on all the cattle that will be in those camps. So shall this plague be.
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain.
18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
20 In that day "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

This is how I believe “one day” is to be understood in Genesis 1:5. It was one age in the preparation of earth for man.

Here is another place where we find numbered yom being long periods of time. Hosea 6:2 is a prophetic call to repentance by Hosea himself and is another place that numbered days may be long periods of time. Here yom is in the dual form, not plural. This is because it speaks of two individual days.
“He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day that we may live before Him.”

Interpreting Hosea 6:2 should also be done in light of Hosea 3:4-5, where Hosea taught that they would be in this desolate state for "many days." In fact verse five indicates that their condition would remain until "the last days." That these days may be long periods has been taught by both Jews and Christians.

In the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 97a, Rabbi Abaye said that each day in Hosea 6:2 was 1000 Years. Abaye died about 339 A.D.
“Rabbi Kattina said: 'Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.' Abaye said: 'it will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.'”

John Calvin also felt that this referred to long time periods:
“What did they understand by two days? Even their long affliction; as though they said, 'Though the Lord may not deliver us from our miseries the first day, but defer longer our redemption, our hope ought not yet to fail; for God can raise up dead bodies from their graves no less than restore life in a moment.' When Daniel meant to show that the affliction of the people would be long, he says,
'After a time, times, and half time,' (Daniel 7:25.)
That mode of speaking is different, but then as to sense it is the same. He says, 'after a time,' that is, after a year; that would be tolerable: but it follows, 'and times,' that is, many years: God afterwards shortens that period, and brings redemption at a time when least expected …. They therefore said, After two days God will revive us; and thus they confirmed themselves in the hope of salvation, though it did not immediately appear: though they long remained in darkness, and the exile was long which they had to endure, they yet did not cease to hope: 'Well, let the two days pass, and the Lord will revive us.'”

John Gill agreed with the above:
"…it is a long time Israel and Judah have been in captivity, and there may seem little hope of their restoration; but it will be a short time with the Lord, with whom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years: and this I take to be the sense of the words, that after the second Millennium, or the Lord's two days, and at the beginning of the third, will be the time of their conversion and restoration, reckoning from the last destruction of them by the Romans; for not till then were Israel and Judah wholly in a state of death…"

You have not replied to "In the beginning," Hebrews four, the third day, etc.

I agree with AIG (Answers in Genesis).

Then you do not believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age. You must then also believe that the light traveled millions and billions of light years to get to us. Now you must tell me how that happened, when the light itself says that it traveled that far, but at only 186,000 miles per second. You said you agreed and they said light could not be put already in the space between us and the stars, so how could it get here so fast yet tell us it took so long? Explain the information within the light.

So with this, I am suggesting that if Adam had the appearance of age, so would the other things that G-d had created which includes single 24 hour days.

The text says that Adam was created brand new. If we tested him, he would have tested brand new. Exactly what we would expect. The light from distant stars and galaxies tests old, but your Bible interpretation says that it should test new. The same thing goes for the rocks on earth. Even young-earth scientists agree that they test old. Tell me why.

The question remains, that today in science we do not know/have a starting point to calculate from.

What does that mean? Astronomy only sees the past and it is a direct witness to what took place. If the sun went dark right now, no one would know for another 8 minutes, because the light takes that long to get here. So, explain what you mean.

dayage wrote:Meyer,

Dayage, If I could get a little clarification here since you claim to be "no evolutionist" while you also say that the Earth needed to go through a "process". To me you are indicating the word “process” as meaning a long period of time as in “evolution”.

There is a huge difference between biological evolution and believing things like stars, raindrops, clouds, snowflakes, galaxies, etc. form by the laws of physics which God put in place. By the way, are you saying that the earth was not formless, void and dark, or that God did not tell Job how the earth got that way? It was a process according to God's Word.

No I didn't misspeak maybe you just misunderstood me? Anyhow, Yom is the singular and Yamin is the plural. These two words are clearly defined as days, but Yom for day, and Yamin for day's so that we can see they are distinctly two different words and that the Genesis days of creations are all using the singular Yom to indicate “single“ 24 hour days.

Yes, now I see what you were getting at.

Zechariah 14:7 also uses (echad) to mean a unity. Here it uses yom echad (one day) as in Gen. 1:5 to refer to many days, an age. Often an argument against this being a long period of time is made using the first seven verses. It is true that this day begins with the Lord coming at a point in time, but this is just the start of the day.

Zechariah 14:1-21 (NKJV)
1 Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
2 For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then the LORD will go forth And fight against those nations, As He fights in the day of battle.
4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south.
5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley, For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal. Yes, you shall flee As you fled from the earthquake In the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Thus the LORD my God will come, And all the saints with You.
6 It shall come to pass in that day That there will be no light; The lights will diminish.
7 It shall be ONE DAY Which is known to the LORD -- Neither day nor night. But at evening time it shall happen That it will be light.

Many Young Earth creationists stop at this point and argue that this is a normal 24-hour day. Of course, the description of this day does not end here. As we read on, it is clear that “one day” means a long period of time. It covers the entire reign of Christ on this earth.
8 And in that day it shall be That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, Half of them toward the eastern sea And half of them toward the western sea; In both summer and winter it shall occur.
9 And the LORD shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be -- "The LORD is one," And His name one.
10 All the land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be raised up and inhabited in her place from Benjamin's Gate to the place of the First Gate and the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananeel to the king's winepresses.
11 The people shall dwell in it; And no longer shall there be utter destruction, But Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.
13 It shall come to pass in that day That a great panic from the LORD will be among them. Everyone will seize the hand of his neighbor, And raise his hand against his neighbor's hand;
14 Judah also will fight at Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the surrounding nations Shall be gathered together: Gold, silver, and apparel in great abundance.
15 Such also shall be the plague On the horse and the mule, On the camel and the donkey, And on all the cattle that will be in those camps. So shall this plague be.
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain.
18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
20 In that day "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

This is how I believe “one day” is to be understood in Genesis 1:5. It was one age in the preparation of earth for man.

Here is another place where we find numbered yom being long periods of time. Hosea 6:2 is a prophetic call to repentance by Hosea himself and is another place that numbered days may be long periods of time. Here yom is in the dual form, not plural. This is because it speaks of two individual days.
“He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day that we may live before Him.”

Interpreting Hosea 6:2 should also be done in light of Hosea 3:4-5, where Hosea taught that they would be in this desolate state for "many days." In fact verse five indicates that their condition would remain until "the last days." That these days may be long periods has been taught by both Jews and Christians.

In the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 97a, Rabbi Abaye said that each day in Hosea 6:2 was 1000 Years. Abaye died about 339 A.D.
“Rabbi Kattina said: 'Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.' Abaye said: 'it will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.'”

John Calvin also felt that this referred to long time periods:
“What did they understand by two days? Even their long affliction; as though they said, 'Though the Lord may not deliver us from our miseries the first day, but defer longer our redemption, our hope ought not yet to fail; for God can raise up dead bodies from their graves no less than restore life in a moment.' When Daniel meant to show that the affliction of the people would be long, he says,
'After a time, times, and half time,' (Daniel 7:25.)
That mode of speaking is different, but then as to sense it is the same. He says, 'after a time,' that is, after a year; that would be tolerable: but it follows, 'and times,' that is, many years: God afterwards shortens that period, and brings redemption at a time when least expected …. They therefore said, After two days God will revive us; and thus they confirmed themselves in the hope of salvation, though it did not immediately appear: though they long remained in darkness, and the exile was long which they had to endure, they yet did not cease to hope: 'Well, let the two days pass, and the Lord will revive us.'”

John Gill agreed with the above:
"…it is a long time Israel and Judah have been in captivity, and there may seem little hope of their restoration; but it will be a short time with the Lord, with whom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years: and this I take to be the sense of the words, that after the second Millennium, or the Lord's two days, and at the beginning of the third, will be the time of their conversion and restoration, reckoning from the last destruction of them by the Romans; for not till then were Israel and Judah wholly in a state of death…"

You have not replied to "In the beginning," Hebrews four, the third day, etc.

I agree with AIG (Answers in Genesis).

Then you do not believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age. You must then also believe that the light traveled millions and billions of light years to get to us. Now you must tell me how that happened, when the light itself says that it traveled that far, but at only 186,000 miles per second. You said you agreed and they said light could not be put already in the space between us and the stars, so how could it get here so fast yet tell us it took so long? Explain the information within the light.

So with this, I am suggesting that if Adam had the appearance of age, so would the other things that G-d had created which includes single 24 hour days.

The text says that Adam was created brand new. If we tested him, he would have tested brand new. Exactly what we would expect. The light from distant stars and galaxies tests old, but your Bible interpretation says that it should test new. The same thing goes for the rocks on earth. Even young-earth scientists agree that they test old. Tell me why.

The question remains, that today in science we do not know/have a starting point to calculate from.

What does that mean? Astronomy only sees the past and it is a direct witness to what took place. If the sun went dark right now, no one would know for another 8 minutes, because the light takes that long to get here. So, explain what you mean.

Lovely post Mr. dayage
-
-
-
-

Hugh Ross live NOW for 2 hours. Today Wednesday.
http://www.kbrt740.com/Listen-Live/3631690