Darwin's Beagle

I need help with Hebrew. I am arguing with a fundy on another bulletin board concerning the meaning of the word "day" in the Genesis creation account.

He has posted a link to a website that promotes Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross' defense that "day" in Genesis actually means "age".

The part I need help with is the assertion that Moses had no better way to indicate a long undefined period of time than to use "day". Here is a quote from the website:

Is there any Hebrew scholar out there who knows if this is true or not?

In one sense it doesn't matter. Even if it were true Moses could have used a phrase like "many thousands of years ago" which would have been less confusing.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

Jack the Bodiless

Well, I don't know Hebrew, but I can see a rather obvious problem with the "day-age" view: Genesis mentions "evenings and mornings" between the days.

It's as if the author is telling us "to clear up any confusion, I'm talking about actual days here, with an evening at the end and a morning before the next one".

spin

Take Jack's comment of the evening and morning as a good indication of the problem. Genesis 1 was written amongst other things as the institution of the sabbath day of rest, for as God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh, so should humans do the same. Anything short of real days renders the aim of institutionalisation of the sabbath useless.

At the same time, we must look at olam, for though it is usually translated into English as "(for) ever" (and similar) especially for the future, it can be translated into Greek as aiwn or into Latin as saeculum, which are finite, though long, periods of time. (Check Ps 119:52, or Ps143:3, for an example of olam not used with the future, which cannot be translated as "for ever", etc. Eccl 1:10 has olam in the plural for past ages, "in ages which were before us".) And the Hebrew word yom, "day", is translated into Greek as hmera and into Latin as dies, ie both Greek and Latin are day.

Again, creation doesn't commence anywhere except God creating light, for without light you cannot have days, so the first day starts with the light being turned on.


spin

Adora

Isn't the Jewish "day" midday to midday? Like their Sabbath is friday midday to saturday midday?

Darwin's Beagle

My argument was:

(1) The context of Genesis Chapter 1 makes it clear that the author meant a 24 hour day.

My reasoning was exactly as you have suggested, using the terms "evening" and "morning" in conjunction with the term "day" strongly implies a 24-hour time period.

I also find that the seventh day being a rest day, makes no sense if one is going to allow for an unspecified time period in for a day.

(2) If one allows a metaphorical interpretation for any and all parts of the Genesis Chapter 1 account, it may solve the scientific problems, but it does not restore the integrity of the bible. The reason it doesn't is because in that case the bible is written in a misleading manner. It DID mislead people in the past and it CONTINUES to mislead people today.

(3) If the bible can be wrong or misleading in one part, then it can be wrong or misleading in other parts as well. Once one accepts this, then the multiple other errors become obvious and the bible becomes pretty much useless as to determining what YHWH's message to humanity may have been. Thus, YHWH has no intelligible message for us.

The website that I tried to post, (I tried the link and it didn't work, I'll try again at the end of this post) actually had a defense, albeit poor. It said that it is possible to use "evening" and "morning" in conjunction with the word "day" in a metaphorical manner. For instance, suppose I am talking about the "day" of my grandfather, then the "morning" would be his youth and the "evening" would be his old-age. Merely because it is possible doesn't mean that it was. There is of course no indication from the context of Genesis Chapter 1 that there was such a metaphorical intent.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

the website's URL I tried to link to is: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html

Doctor X

You can also attack this:

Moses did not write the texts.

--J.D.

Darwin's Beagle

Thanks,

I did that too. One of the apologetic arguments for a longer-than-24-hour-day interpretation is that too much took place on day 6. The justification for this assertion is that in Genesis Chapter 1 version God creates man and woman, but in Genesis Chapter 2 it isn't until after Adam names all the animals that Eve is made.

I pointed out that these are two mutually inconsistent stories. The Genesis Chapter 1 story is from a P source and God is always referred to as "Elohim". Genesis Chapter 2 is from a J source and God is referred to "YHWH". This explanation avoids a problem by claiming the problem as evidence for the person's proposiition.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

spin

The Pharisaic view is from sunset to sunset, but not the oldest view in Hebrew literature. Even Genesis 1 shows that it is morning (ie daybreak) to morning. Each day begins with God doing something, obviously not at night for people don't work at night, they sleep, and when God does his stuff there is evening and morning (sleepy time time), and another day is completed.


spin

spin

If the person is so confused by the need for inerrancy, then throwing in Moses not writing the stuff will only put the shutters down and you'll get stonewalling. Stick to showing the problems in the interpretation of the text and why people are making such interpretations (ie the conflict between their beliefs and the real world).


spin