So I heard that a "Day" is actually translated "period [of time]"

If that's the case then the earth might not have been created several thousands of years ago...
And when does the days/periods mentioned in the beginning (i'm talking about the bible) parallel with when God tells that one guy that one of God's days is like a 1000 of mans' years.(w8 ... here comes my unneeded introductory for myself)
I get answers... most of the time. and until you answer is disproven, i stick with it. But I'll keep asking and presenting facts that people will have arguments on.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

If that's the case then the earth might not have been created several thousands of years ago...

---

The Earth absolutely wasn't created several thousands of years ago, regardless of what the bible says.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If you are talking about Genesis... the term they are discussing is the term 'Yom'. Depending on context, it can show different periods of time. However, if you look at how it is used in context with Genesis, it is obvious that it means 24 hour periods. That being said, the book of Genesis , when examined in hebrew is definitely allegory, and not literal.

ramoss & keysle: I agree that the Gen. 1:1 thru 4:26 creation accounts are allegorical in content. I disagree, however, that the Hebrew term ”Yom’ employed in the Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 creation narrative “means 24 hour periods.” According to the context of that narrative God does not create the sun and moon “to give light upon the earth” (Gen. 1:15 & 17) “for seasons, days and years” (Gen. 1:14) until the “fourth” ”Yom’ (day/time) of creation. This strongly suggests that the ”times of creation’ do not denote “24 hour periods.”I look forward to your thoughts.AM

You are assuming that the author of Genesis tied day time to the sun. However the day/night cycle is set up earlier, in Genesis 1:3-5. There is nothing that implies that the duration of this cycle was anything other than 24 hours.

PaulK wrote: Your are suggesting that the author of Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 did not tie a 24 hour day on earth (where he himself lived) to the sun? The author of Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 does tie a ”Yom’ to the sun in Gen. 1:14. “Light Day and the darkness... Night” described in Gen. 1:5 do not refer to the sun or the moon, or even the earth. An earth-cycle of 24 hours is not even implied here.AM

quote:

---

Your are suggesting that the author of Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 did not tie a 24 hour day on earth (where he himself lived) to the sun?

---

Since he has day and night existing before the sun (1:5) it seems quite clear that he did not hold that day was dependent on the sun.

quote:

---

The author of Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 does tie a ”Yom’ to the sun in Gen. 1:14.

---

He ties the newly created sun to the previously existing day.

quote:

---

“Light Day and the darkness... Night” described in Gen. 1:5 do not refer to the sun or the moon, or even the earth. An earth-cycle of 24 hours is not even implied here.

---

It doesn't need to refer to the earth, because Genesis 1 is geocentric. And why would it need to refer to the sun and the moon ? My position is simple. That when Genesis 1 talks about a light called day being separated from a darkness called night it means exactly that - referring to the day/night cycle. What do you think Genesis 1:3-5 mean ?

PaulK: The author describes “light” as being referred to as “day” (i.e. daylight), and “darkness” as being referred to as “night” (night is dark). If anything the author is employing the Hebrew terms “day” and “night” as metaphorical (that is, “universal”) terms so that his earth-bound audience might grasp the idea that the darkness of the universe came before all else. Gen. 1:2 clearly states that “darkness covered the face of the deep”; “the heavens” do not yet exist. I am not certain how you come up with this particular interpretation.The author describes God being in the process of creating the heavens and the earth. The ”Title Verse” of this particular creation account is Gen. 1:1; it describes to the audience what the narrative as a whole is going to convey: there are six times/days of creation then detailed by the author (conclusion being Gen. 2:1), as well as the seventh time/day which refers to God’s time/day of rest. According to my dictionary, the term “geocentric” is defined, “relating to or measured from the earth’s center. Having or relating to the earth as a center.” In Gen. 1:5 “the earth” as a planet does not yet exist in the universe. “The earth” does not emerge from the “waters” (this is a metaphorical term) until the dome of the sky, the seas, and the dry land are brought into being (Gen. 1:8 thru 10). “When Genesis 1 talks about a light called day being separated from a darkness called night” the author is speaking metaphorically (i.e. universally). Since “the earth” does not emerge until “the seas” and “dry land” are created; the author cannot be alluding to a geocentric cycle of 24 hours. Gen. 1:2 certainly appears to be describing the ”pre-heavens and earth expanse’ as “the deep.” Within this “deep” expanse there is originally only formless and void raw materials that God will use to create “the heavens and the earth and all the host of beings that exist within and/or upon them. Gen. 2:1 clearly describes the conclusion of God’s creative process. Gen. 1:2 describes God’s “spirit” as being separate from the “deep expanse” and as not being either “light” or “dark”. Yet God’s “spirit” possesses the ability to not only “hover” upon the “dark-deep” and create motion, but is also capable of creating a sudden and dramatic contrast of “light” within the “dark-deep.” Light and dark are eternal contrasts and do not need to ”literally’ be “separated.” I surmise that the author is describing the creation of what we today call “the universe” in the passages he wrote (Gen. 1:3 thru 5) thousands of years ago.AM

The word used in Genesis can mean an idefinite period of time in exactly the same way the word 'day' can in English.i.e. In my father's day...It is not used in such a way in Genesis.

First of time is still a questionmark in mainstream science. We can see that the notion to measure time by motion, as it is practiced in mainstream science is weak, in the sense that it is counterintuitive.To measure time by motion basically means that if the handles on the clock do not move, then no time passes. Certainly motion is a practical notion of time, because the earth moves round the sun reliably enough, but still, this does not correspond with the notion of time in our deeper experience.So we might search for other notions of time, which correspond more with our common knowledge of time. So the question is by what common knowledge do we discard the motion notion of time as insufficient?It seems our common knowledge says time passes regardless if something stands still or not. When one can observe something standing still, it stands still one moment to the next, time passes.My exegesis of the knowledge says, that the moments are decisions.So that gives a better notion of time, time as a sequence of decisions. The notion of time as it is used in history, like the decisive events in a nations history, the history of a nation as a sequence of decisions. Time may pass if there is no motion, but may time pass if there is no change at all, in any way at all? I think the answer is no, for every decision introduces new information into the universe, so at the least there must be a change in information for time to pass.Now let's see about the buildup of information in the universe. It is so that science can look very far into the past, very close to the beginning of the universe. That means that information now, was much created at the beginning of the universe. So much of everything what we see now, was decided to be the way it is, very close to the beginning of the universe. If that were not true, then we could not see very close to the beginning of the universe. So we get several big decisions near the start of the universe, which pretty much determine everything.So now what is left is to do exegesis on the bible and find out what a day means, in the sense of the notion of time as a sequence of decisions. It could still all be 100 percent accurate, if it is read literally, in respect to the deeper common notion of time.

Hi Keysle,Welcome to KvC. If people could read and understand English I don't think there would be a problem with the thousand year day because it does not exist.Peter says: God is eternal and is therefore not limited to time as we are.This verse does not say: One day is a thousand years with the Lord.Nor does it say: A thousand years is one day with the Lord.It does say: One day is "AS" a thousand years with the Lord.It also says: A thousand years is "AS" one day with the Lord.Because God is eternal He has no yesterday and no tomorrow.God only has a great big "NOW".So any comparison to this verse to determine the length of a day is futile.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."

Syamsu wrote: I honestly do not comprehend what you are trying to convey.AM

quote:

---

The author describes “light” as being referred to as “day” (i.e. daylight), and “darkness” as being referred to as “night” (night is dark). If anything the author is employing the Hebrew terms “day” and “night” as metaphorical (that is, “universal”) terms so that his earth-bound audience might grasp the idea that the darkness of the universe came before all else. Gen. 1:2 clearly states that “darkness covered the face of the deep”; “the heavens” do not yet exist.

---

Yes, Genesis 1:2 states that darkness covered the primordial ocean, but how does that lead to your conclusion that "day" and "night" are simply metaphors ? Especially since the next place they are referred to is Genesis 1:14-18 where they clearly do refer to literal day and night ? Not to mention the fact that Genesis 1:8 refers to an "evening and a "morning" - which also implies that we are talking about a literal day.

quote:

---

I am not certain how you come up with this particular interpretation

---

Because "day" is already created as I have pointed out. Because the text does not mention the day as something new. Because the sun is described as simply ruling the day, not as its source as you seem to read it. In short considering only the text because it is a natural reading provided you set aside the assumption that the sun is the source of daylight - an assumption that the author of Genesis does not share.

quote:

---

The author describes God being in the process of creating the heavens and the earth. The ”Title Verse” of this particular creation account is Gen. 1:1; it describes to the audience what the narrative as a whole is going to convey: there are six times/days of creation then detailed by the author (conclusion being Gen. 2:1), as well as the seventh time/day which refers to God’s time/day of rest.

---

And the relevance of this is ?

quote:

---

According to my dictionary, the term “geocentric” is defined, “relating to or measured from the earth’s center. Having or relating to the earth as a center.” In Gen. 1:5 “the earth” as a planet does not yet exist in the universe.

---

The reason why it is not described as existing is because the author of Genesis 1 does not have that concept. To him, what we would regard as the planet Earth is a large central part of the universe where the stars are mere lights in the sky.

quote:

---

“The earth” does not emerge from the “waters” (this is a metaphorical term) until the dome of the sky, the seas, and the dry land are brought into being (Gen. 1:8 thru 10).

---

The emerging of dry land from the primordial ocean is a common one in Middle Eastern creation myths. To say that it refers to the creation of the planet is to assume that the author of Genesis 1 is referring to actual events as we understand them - however there is no sensible basis for that assumption. There is nothing in the text to indicate that - rather the opposite.

quote:

---

“When Genesis 1 talks about a light called day being separated from a darkness called night” the author is speaking metaphorically (i.e. universally). Since “the earth” does not emerge until “the seas” and “dry land” are created; the author cannot be alluding to a geocentric cycle of 24 hours.

---

This is a product of your assumptions and has no foundation in the text itself.It seems that you start with the assumption that it refers to the actual history of our universe and read all the items that conflict with that assumption as metaphors. Your assertion that the text implies that the days are not 24 hour periods is an example of this.
The actual text in no way implies that the days of creation are not 24 hour periods - if anything it implies that they are.

No one does. There are threads and threads where Syamsu attempts to insert his beliefs about 'decision point' into any discussion.I'm finding this one quite interesting so please, ignore Syamsu and continue on topic.