Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did God say it, or did you say it?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 16 of 127 (548087)
02-25-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by greyseal
02-25-2010 9:55 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
quote:
I haven't ascertained the truth of that (I neither speak nor read Hebrew) - what I have seen so far is one quote purportedly from one person who claims to be a scholar, who wrote a book or two about hebrew and the bible, and he says that YOM can mean any length of time in addition to the standard "24 hours" and "daylight part of the day" meanings - and there is potentially supporting evidence.
It would be an argument from authority to call you wrong, and I'd only have your word for it that you're able to translate from (ancient) Hebrew into English and/or are more correct that said author...
Why don't you just look it up yourself and resolve the issue to your own satisfaction?
The standard Hebrew lexicon is by Brown, Driver, Briggs, and Gesenius. You can find it in your local library, and an abridged version is available online in a few places. Here is "yom":
http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=l...
Yowm Meaning in Bible - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard
The unabridged version has much more information, but I can't find an online version. For even more information on Hebrew words from a conservative Evangelical perspective, you can check TWOT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament). You'll need to go to a library to find it.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by greyseal, posted 02-25-2010 9:55 AM greyseal has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 17 of 127 (548133)
02-25-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Meldinoor
02-24-2010 6:36 PM


Is God confined to being literal? IOW, could not the passages describing the creation event both be the word of God, and not be literal?
This is a valid question. I believe the answer is no, God is not confined to being literal but one has to study when this is and when this is not. It takes more then just picking up the Bible and reading it.
Some just quick examples of the Bible not being literal would be say, Song of Solomon or parts of Psalms written in poetry form. Parts of Daniel and most of Revelation are clearly apocalyptic, or highly symbolic, writings. But again, this takes studying Hebrew and Hebrew writings, or reading the books of those that have done this and can explain it for you.
Genesis chapters 1-11 has been called poetry by some scholars who try and discredit the literal 6 day creation. So be it. But when compared with other Hebrew poetry (not from the Bible), the first 11 chapters of Genesis clearly are not poetry. It's written much more, if not identical to other historical Hebrew writings that have been discovered. Again, whether you believe it's the Word of God is up to the individual but I'm talking about writing styles and the words that were used in Hebrew....the more one understands historical context, language, ect, the better you will be able to defend a position (or in my case, act like you know what you are talking about).
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Meldinoor, posted 02-24-2010 6:36 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 127 (548134)
02-25-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by greyseal
02-25-2010 9:55 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
I haven't ascertained the truth of that (I neither speak nor read Hebrew) - what I have seen so far is one quote purportedly from one person who claims to be a scholar, who wrote a book or two about hebrew and the bible, and he says that YOM can mean any length of time in addition to the standard "24 hours" and "daylight part of the day" meanings - and there is potentially supporting evidence.
i just wanted to point out that Yom is found througout the hebrew scriptures and we see it used in many varied instances and contexts....i'll give you some examples of how YOM is used to show that it can mean a longer period of time then a 24hour day.
Isaiah 1:1 "The vision of Isaiah the son of A′moz that he visioned concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the DAYS (YOM) of Uz‧zi′ah, Jo′tham, A′haz [and] Hez‧e‧ki′ah, kings of Judah:
these days would amount to many more then 24hours because it is the whole lifetime of these people mentioned
Genesis 2:4: This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY (YOM) that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
here the entire creation of both the universe and the earth are called a day, this shows that Yom can be used for the whole period of time in which an extradorinary event took place
Genesis 1:4 "After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5And God began calling the light DAY (YOM)"
here we see Yom is in reference to the light that is seen in the sky
Numbers 14:34 By the number of the DAYS (YOM) that YOU spied out the land, forty days, a day (YOM) for a year, a day for a year, YOU will answer for YOUR errors forty years"
in this verse we see that a YOM is equal to an entire year

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by greyseal, posted 02-25-2010 9:55 AM greyseal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by hERICtic, posted 02-27-2010 6:15 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 19 of 127 (548136)
02-25-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by killinghurts
02-25-2010 1:11 AM


Re: Literal
Hi killinghurts,
killinghurts writes:
Hi ICANT, this thread is not so much about whether the 6 day theory is true or false, more about what methods are used to "interpret" what God actually meant when the passage was written.
And you think I did not present the methods the Bible is interpeted.
I quoted what God said.
You gave an opinion of what God said.
killinghurts writes:
I could just as readily say "Genesis 1:1 all happened instantaneously at the click of God's fingers ", therefore justifying the 6 day theory as a literal interpretation.
That is exactly the way the Bible is interpeted.
Some believe what God said.
Most disagree and suppose that is not what God really meant. Then they give their idea of what He meant.
killinghurts writes:
But would I be correct? How do I know that my belief is correct?
You could start by entering a class of Biblical Hebrew which is a dead language. Spend four years studying it and learning it. If you were really serious you could study for 6 years then practice it for about 40 years.
Then you would not have to ask anyone or doubt your conclusions.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by killinghurts, posted 02-25-2010 1:11 AM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2010 4:32 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 20 of 127 (548137)
02-25-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by greyseal
02-25-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Re:Literal
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
Nice idea, but I don't see the proof of that - is it not possible that genesis 1:1 is merely the opener explaining genesis 1:2 and onwards? meaning that god created "the heavens and the earth" but that it took 6 "days" to do it to completion?
What existed at Genesis 1:2?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by greyseal, posted 02-25-2010 9:57 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by greyseal, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM ICANT has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 21 of 127 (548179)
02-26-2010 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
02-25-2010 6:54 PM


Re: Re:Literal
Hi ICANT,
greyseal writes:
Nice idea, but I don't see the proof of that - is it not possible that genesis 1:1 is merely the opener explaining genesis 1:2 and onwards? meaning that god created "the heavens and the earth" but that it took 6 "days" to do it to completion?
What existed at Genesis 1:2?
quote:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The earth was "without form, and void" - it's fair to say it didn't exist, it wasn't "formed".
However, the "deep" existed, and the spirit of god did (is there a difference between the spirit of god, and god?).
Cheers,
Greyseal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 02-25-2010 6:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 02-26-2010 3:36 AM greyseal has not replied
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 9:37 AM greyseal has replied
 Message 25 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 9:41 AM greyseal has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(1)
Message 22 of 127 (548191)
02-26-2010 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by greyseal
02-26-2010 1:51 AM


Re: Re:Literal
greyseal writes:
The earth was "without form, and void" - it's fair to say it didn't exist, it wasn't "formed".
However, the "deep" existed
an earth without form does not mean 'non existing'
especially considering the watery deep was existing in the same verse. If the watery deep was covering the entire earth as is likely the case, then its quite accurate to say the 'earth' was without form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by greyseal, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM greyseal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 02-26-2010 3:44 AM Peg has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 23 of 127 (548196)
02-26-2010 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
02-26-2010 3:36 AM


Re: Re:Literal
Peg writes:
an earth without form does not mean 'non existing'
especially considering the watery deep was existing in the same verse. If the watery deep was covering the entire earth as is likely the case, then its quite accurate to say the 'earth' was without form.
I sure am glad science does not use such loose definitions, otherwise we would have 30,000 different infallible tomes and 30,000 different cures for cholera.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 02-26-2010 3:36 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 24 of 127 (548223)
02-26-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by greyseal
02-26-2010 1:51 AM


Re:Literal
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
The earth was "without form, and void" - it's fair to say it didn't exist, it wasn't "formed".
Help me to understand how:
The earth
was without form and void
If it did not exist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by greyseal, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by greyseal, posted 03-02-2010 4:09 AM ICANT has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 25 of 127 (548224)
02-26-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by greyseal
02-26-2010 1:51 AM


Re: Re:Literal
quote:
The earth was "without form, and void" - it's fair to say it didn't exist, it wasn't "formed".
"Without form and void" can also be translated "empty and desolate"
This is different from non-existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by greyseal, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by greyseal, posted 03-02-2010 4:18 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 127 (548436)
02-27-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ICANT
02-25-2010 6:48 PM


Re: Literal
That is exactly the way the Bible is interpeted.
Some believe what God said.
Most disagree and suppose that is not what God really meant. Then they give their idea of what He meant.
It's not a matter of believing what God said, it's a matter of trying to understand how or what Moses (or whomever the author was) was trying to convey.
I assume you agree that the bible often uses allegory and imagery to convey a point that was never intended to be literal.
Or should we expect you to start telling mountains to the throw themselves in to the oceans based on Jesus' instructions?
Besides we don't know if God said anything. Just because someone claims to be speaking on behalf of God, I assume you don't always believe that lest you think suicide bombers are spot on.
Taking the authority of the bible on account of itself is obviously circular, so these are valid questions.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 02-25-2010 6:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2010 5:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 27 of 127 (548454)
02-27-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
02-25-2010 6:37 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Peg writes:
i just wanted to point out that Yom is found througout the hebrew scriptures and we see it used in many varied instances and contexts....i'll give you some examples of how YOM is used to show that it can mean a longer period of time then a 24hour day.
Isaiah 1:1 "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz that he visioned concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the DAYS (YOM) of UzEziah, Jotham, Ahaz [and] HezEeEkiah, kings of Judah:
these days would amount to many more then 24hours because it is the whole lifetime of these people mentioned
Genesis 2:4: This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY (YOM) that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
here the entire creation of both the universe and the earth are called a day, this shows that Yom can be used for the whole period of time in which an extradorinary event took place
Genesis 1:4 "After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light DAY (YOM)"
here we see Yom is in reference to the light that is seen in the sky
Numbers 14:34 By the number of the DAYS (YOM) that YOU spied out the land, forty days, a day (YOM) for a year, a day for a year, YOU will answer for YOUR errors forty years"
in this verse we see that a YOM is equal to an entire year
But in every instance, using context, you can see what each "day" refers to time wise. Notice it stats "the day", not "a day" when refering to long periods of time.
Since science has overwhelming evidence the earth was not created in 6 days, its only quite recent that Genesis refers to long periods of time.
Do you really think "first day", "second day", "evening and morning" does not refer to a description of a 24 hour period? In fact, its due to Genesis that the Jews based their day starting at evening.
Can you give an example where "a day" refers to more than 24 hours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 02-25-2010 6:37 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Flyer75, posted 02-27-2010 9:25 PM hERICtic has not replied
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 02-28-2010 12:07 AM hERICtic has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 28 of 127 (548491)
02-27-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by hERICtic
02-27-2010 6:15 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Herectic,
I'm confused by your post when you say:
heRICtic writes:
But in every instance, using context, you can see what each "day" refers to time wise. Notice it stats "the day", not "a day" when refering to long periods of time.
Since science has overwhelming evidence the earth was not created in 6 days, its only quite recent that Genesis refers to long periods of time.
Do you really think "first day", "second day", "evening and morning" does not refer to a description of a 24 hour period? In fact, its due to Genesis that the Jews based their day starting at evening.
I take this to mean that you believe the literal Genesis day, but yet don't believe Genesis at all??? Am I wrong on this?
Either way, you are correct in that the term YOM and the Genesis account of creation did basically set up the 24 hour day for the Jews. Terms such as "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" don't lend much wiggle room to interpretation.
It seems to me that most arguments for non literal days, even those put forth by evangelicals, such as Augustine, only came about to try and make "science" fit the Genesis account.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by hERICtic, posted 02-27-2010 6:15 PM hERICtic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 02-28-2010 12:09 AM Flyer75 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 29 of 127 (548534)
02-28-2010 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by hERICtic
02-27-2010 6:15 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
hERICtic writes:
Can you give an example where "a day" refers to more than 24 hours?
2 Peter 3: 8"However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by hERICtic, posted 02-27-2010 6:15 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by hERICtic, posted 02-28-2010 8:52 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 30 of 127 (548535)
02-28-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Flyer75
02-27-2010 9:25 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Flyer75 writes:
Either way, you are correct in that the term YOM and the Genesis account of creation did basically set up the 24 hour day for the Jews. Terms such as "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" don't lend much wiggle room to interpretation.
i think you need to redo your math on that one
from evening to morning is 12 hours, not 24.
24 hours would be from evening to evening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Flyer75, posted 02-27-2010 9:25 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by hooah212002, posted 02-28-2010 12:45 AM Peg has replied
 Message 33 by Flyer75, posted 02-28-2010 9:33 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024