Define literal vs non-literal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know YOM is Hebrew. It means "day". I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I explained this already, but I'm assuming you missed it. I was using ONE English translation. In that translation, every time a number was before YOM, it refered to a 24 hour day. You pointed out a number follows YOM, does not precede it, IN MOST CASES. So I did what you mentioned. The result is the exact same. When a number is used with YOM, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour period. Regardless if its precedes it or comes after it.I also have brought this up a few times. If science tomorrow states the earth was created in 6 days, you and Peg would jump all over it. You'd abandon your stance that it refers to billions of years in a second. If I mentioned 200 years ago that it refers to billions of years, you'd argue tooth and nail it does not, that the Bible is quite clear. Christians argue that it means billions of years bc the evidence is too overwhelming. It has nothing to do with the actual scripture. The context of the story states its 24 hours, per day.Evening and morning, day one. How much more clear can one get? Exodus, states 6 days.There are words for long periods of time, not once were they used.You want to believe god is not the author of confusion. So when one reads Exodus, does it mean 24 hours, a week, a month, a year, a thousand years, a few thousands, a million, a billion? Gets confusing doesn't it?Not if it means a week. There isnt any indication the author of Genesis and Exodus meant anything other than a 24 hour period. Nothing.There isnt any evidence in scripture to support that belief. None.

quote:

---

Im not going to explain it again, if you want to know the explaination for why it refers to an unspecified length of time, read back.

---

That's not what I asked you.I said: But I am curious how you view that unspecified length of time you claim yom refers to.Do you understand that the fist use of yom in Genesis 1:5 is just a name?
I've been assuming that you view the second use of yom in Genesis 1:5 as several rotations of the planet instead of one. Is that correct? If that is correct, then you are ignoring the writers use of evening and morning for your own purposes.I know why you are saying it, but I'm curious how you imagine that it manifested itself in your interpretation.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the crux of my entire argument is that when evening AND mornig are used, its always a 24 hour day. Nowhere does this verse state "morning". I am comparing what Genesis states (evening and morning) to where that terminology is used elsewhere in scripture.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is ANOTHER strawman. You quote me, in which I state when "evening and morning" are used it always means a 24 hour period. Then you change it as if I said "evening, morning and day" are used together. You then uses scripture thats states "eveningS and morningS". Of course its plural and means long periods of time! Sheesh!There are many verses where "evening and morning" are used, ALL refer to a 24 hour period. Here are a few examples, in order:Exodus 16:8
Moses also said, "You will know that it was the LORD when he gives you meat to eat in the evening and all the bread you want in the morning, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we? You are not grumbling against us, but against the LORD."
Exodus 16:7-9 (in Context) Exodus 16 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 16:13
That evening quail came and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp.
Exodus 16:12-14 (in Context) Exodus 16 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 18:13
The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.
Exodus 18:12-14 (in Context) Exodus 18 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 18:14
When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?"
Exodus 18:13-15 (in Context) Exodus 18 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 27:21
In the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain that is in front of the Testimony, Aaron and his sons are to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning. This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come.
Exodus 27:20-21 (in Context) Exodus 27 (Whole Chapter)There are many, many more. Each refers to a 24 hour period.

quote:

---

Zech 14:7 does not refer to a long period of time. Second, it does not contain "evening or morning". You're making a strawman here.

---

It contains "yom echad" ("one day") and DOES contain the word "evening." It is very clearly not a "normal day."

quote:

---

About time you got to this one! But you're misunderstanding it. Its an idiom alright, but the the days represents a 24 hour period for each. If "day" meant a long period of time, it would contradict the prophecy.

---

Again, I never said that "day" meant "a long period of time." (I suspect you're following some sort of crib sheet for YECs to argue against the Day-Age view.) Day is figurative/metaphorical here, as part of an idiom.

quote:

---

In other words, a comparison is being made between how long gods anger was to be/restorie Israel and a "day". The prophecy collapses if if "day" meant anything other than a 24 hour day.

---

No. The days are figurative here. Do you really know Hebrew better than all of the (conservative) translators and commentators that I listed?

quote:

---

PS 18:2 The LORD is my rock... This is an idiom. God is not really a "rock', but unless you're using the terminlogy of what a rock really is, the verse makes no sense.

---

This seems strained. You admit that it is an idiom, and that the word is not used in a literal sense. But you want to retain some sort of literal meaning for the word in an obviously figurative usage??But even so, if you apply your logic of Ps 18:2 to the "days" in Genesis 1, you're consistent with what I've been saying. The "days" could be figurative, undefined, indeterminate periods, but are invoking the imagery of a "normal day."

quote:

---

Bottom line, "day" still means 24 hours.

---

Maybe in your mind. You seem to be WAY too committed to an ad-hoc, poorly defined "rule" of Hebrew that appears in no major Hebrew language textbook.

quote:

---

I guess you ignored their points. Not one of those examples follows what I, or that ICR has stated. You're creating strawmen. Dan states the plural, not singular. Hos is an idiom and Zech doesnt even use evening and morning.

---

Well, let's see. Here is the ICR statement: Hosea 6:2 has "day" in the singular with "third", an ordinal. This fits the ICR statement's first option perfectly, an "ordinal connected with yom". Yet it is an idiom with a figurative meaning. If you insist that "day" in Hos 6:2 is 24 hours, then the prophecy had to be fulfilled within 72 hours. This is not the case.Note that the ICR statement's second option "the phrase 'evening and morning' connected with yom" is useless, since this does not occur outside of Genesis 1. The closest is Dan 8:26, where the phrase appears in the plural, with days in the plural, also, and with a figurative sense: Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I explained this already, but I'm assuming you missed it. I was using ONE English translation. In that translation, every time a number was before YOM, it refered to a 24 hour day. You pointed out a number follows YOM, does not precede it, IN MOST CASES. So I did what you mentioned. The result is the exact same. When a number is used with YOM, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour period. Regardless if its precedes it or comes after it.

---

No, you missed MY point. Your English translation does not use "yom." It uses "day." When one talks about an English translation they should say "number before DAY." When one talks about a Hebrew translation they should say "number after YOM." When you speak of a "number before YOM" your use of "YOM" implies that you are speaking of the Hebrew. If you are referring to English, it would be much clearer if you used the word "day."

quote:

---

I also have brought this up a few times. If science tomorrow states the earth was created in 6 days, you and Peg would jump all over it. You'd abandon your stance that it refers to billions of years in a second. If I mentioned 200 years ago that it refers to billions of years, you'd argue tooth and nail it does not, that the Bible is quite clear. Christians argue that it means billions of years bc the evidence is too overwhelming. It has nothing to do with the actual scripture. The context of the story states its 24 hours, per day.

---

Don't confuse my position with Peg's. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not arguing for long periods of time or a day-age view in this thread! (Please re-read that sentence until you understand it.) I am NOT trying to force Genesis 1 to be consistent with modern science. I am trying to interpret Genesis 1 in its own literary-historical-cultural context, on its own, with no reference to modern science. My approach is very similar to PurpleDawn's in this respect.

quote:

---

There isnt any indication the author of Genesis and Exodus meant anything other than a 24 hour period. Nothing.

​

There isnt any evidence in scripture to support that belief. None.

---

There are many, many conservative Evangelical Hebrew and Old Testament scholars who say otherwise. I guess you know better than all of them.

quote:

---

This is ANOTHER strawman. You quote me, in which I state when "evening and morning" are used it always means a 24 hour period. Then you change it as if I said "evening, morning and day" are used together. You then uses scripture thats states "eveningS and morningS". Of course its plural and means long periods of time! Sheesh!

---

Sorry--Not a strawman, but a miscommunication. I thought you were still speaking of your ad-hoc rule that involved "day" with "evening" and "morning." (The rule that you first mentioned as "day" with "evening/morning" and then changed to "day" with "evening" AND "morning.")

quote:

---

I'm concerned with the aspect of grammar, not necessarily his claims. He showed that there is a difference in the Hebrew words. We have the word "day", but when I put an "s" at the end, that makes it plural. If I add "in the" in front of day, that also changes the meaning.

---

The Hebrew preposition "b" and article "ha" contract to "ba" ("in the"). When this is prefixed to "day" it doesn't really change the meaning of "day", but the phrase can become an idiom for "when".Here are the first few occurrances of this construction: As seen above, many of the occurrances of "in the day" are best translated idiomatically as "when". But this is not true in all cases.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zech 14:7 does not refer to a long period of time. Second, it does not contain "evening or morning". You're making a strawman here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure if I'm not explaing myself correctly (possible) or you're just not understanding.It matters not if it contains "evening". I said when "evening and morning' are used. Yes, it does say "one day", but it refers to a day in the future.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About time you got to this one! But you're misunderstanding it. Its an idiom alright, but the the days represents a 24 hour period for each. If "day" meant a long period of time, it would contradict the prophecy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok...you lost me. I have the stance that the day in Genesis refers to a 24 hour day. You're stance, is that its not a 24 hour day. Unless I have mixed up your argument and Pegs (who states its a million or billion), I thought your stance regarding the "day" in Genesis is also the same. Our entire debate so far, as far as I can tell, is based upon the Genesis account of what a "day" is.I have stated that anytime a day is used with "evening" or "morning" it refers to 24 hours. You pointed out the above scripture shows that I was incorrect. I'm not. Its an idiom, still refering to a 24 hour day.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, a comparison is being made between how long gods anger was to be/restorie Israel and a "day". The prophecy collapses if if "day" meant anything other than a 24 hour day.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They're agreeing with me! Its an idiom! In other words, yes, its figurative, BUT its comparing the short amount of time of the prophecy to a solar day. If the days in question were long periods of time, it would contradict the scripture.Here, from the information you gave:NET translator's note writes:tn Heb after two days (so KJV, NIV, NRSV). The expression after two days is an idiom meaning after a short time (see, e.g., Judg 11:4; BDB 399 s.v. MOwy 5.a).tn Heb on the third day (so NASB, NIV, NRSV), which parallels after two days and means in a little while. The 2—3 sequence is an example of graded numerical parallelism (Prov 30:15—16, 18—19, 21—23, 24—28, 29—31). This expresses the unrepentant overconfidence of Israel that the LORD’s discipline of Israel would be relatively short and that he would restore them quickly.Notice numerical parallelsim? Its comparing a solar day to the prophecy.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS 18:2 The LORD is my rock... This is an idiom. God is not really a "rock', but unless you're using the terminlogy of what a rock really is, the verse makes no sense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're not understanding what an idiom is.3 days, prophecy. The prophecy is not a 3 day prophecy, so its not literally 3 days. BUT.....you have to understand, its comparing the prophecy to 3 solar days. By understanding that its an idiom, it shows that the prophecy is to be a short amount of time.The lord is my rock. Lord compared to a rock. The lord is not actually a stone, but by understanding what a stone is, it explains what the lord is.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom line, "day" still means 24 hours.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not commited to any rule. In fact, PD has explained in detail to Peg regarding the Hebrew. I simply pointed out, using context, Genesis refers to 24 hours. I also pointed out, by example that anytime "evening" and "morning" are used in scripture it refers to 24 hours. I also pointed out anytime "day" is used with a number, it refers to 24 hours. I also pointed out there are words for long periods of time, none are used in Genesis or Exodus regarding the creation. You have yet to give a single example that contradicts this. Yes, you can find sites that show the Hebrew COULD have meant long periods of time, just as I have sites that show it could NOT have meant long periods of time. We can go back and forth on this topic. But just bc it "can" mean a long period of time, does not mean it should be read that way. Hence why I focused more on the context of how the words is used.After all this debate, my points stand.

ote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is ANOTHER strawman. You quote me, in which I state when "evening and morning" are used it always means a 24 hour period. Then you change it as if I said "evening, morning and day" are used together. You then uses scripture thats states "eveningS and morningS". Of course its plural and means long periods of time! Sheesh!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, gotcha. My bad at first. I tend to rush my posts due to limited time and I make quite a few mistakes. So my apologies for the initial confusion.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this already, but I'm assuming you missed it. I was using ONE English translation. In that translation, every time a number was before YOM, it refered to a 24 hour day. You pointed out a number follows YOM, does not precede it, IN MOST CASES. So I did what you mentioned. The result is the exact same. When a number is used with YOM, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour period. Regardless if its precedes it or comes after it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But "day" is "yom". Ok, gotcha.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also have brought this up a few times. If science tomorrow states the earth was created in 6 days, you and Peg would jump all over it. You'd abandon your stance that it refers to billions of years in a second. If I mentioned 200 years ago that it refers to billions of years, you'd argue tooth and nail it does not, that the Bible is quite clear. Christians argue that it means billions of years bc the evidence is too overwhelming. It has nothing to do with the actual scripture. The context of the story states its 24 hours, per day.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have not read all of PD's responses, but isn't her stance that the authors were using solar days in respect to a actual days? So what exactly is your opinion then? Does the author refers to a 24 hour day or longer? If its longer, arent we then having the same debate? If yes, then I still believe the only reason you're taking a stance against a literal day is due to what science has brought to the table.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There isnt any indication the author of Genesis and Exodus meant anything other than a 24 hour period. Nothing.
There isnt any evidence in scripture to support that belief. None.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I could easily take the stance that there are many scholars who say otherwise. I bet most of your scholars come from the 20th century though. I wonder why that is? Again, there isnt any defintive evidence if its a long period of time or an actual 24 hour day based upon the wording. But again, why not use a word that implies long periods of time if that is what is meant? Why use the terminology, which completely gives the impression of a solar day, evening and morning, day one?Out of curiosity, can you show me a few scholars, who are not Christians, who state that without a doubt, its not literal days?Since you obviously have more information at your disposal (I have a few sites) I decided to dig around. I found this:
The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.Professor Barr said,Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience There are many theologians (as opposed to Hebrew language experts) who insist on long days, for example................................There are many theologians (as opposed to Hebrew language experts) who insist on long days, for example.Six Days? - Honestly! - ChristianAnswers.NetEdited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm not sure if I'm not explaing myself correctly (possible) or you're just not understanding.

​

It matters not if it contains "evening". I said when "evening and morning' are used. Yes, it does say "one day", but it refers to a day in the future.

---

Again, if you only want to look at verses with "day" and the phrase "evening and morning," all in the singular, you have restricted yourself to Genesis 1. So this provides no help in interpreting Genesis 1.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, I never said that "day" meant "a long period of time." (I suspect you're following some sort of crib sheet for YECs to argue against the Day-Age view.) Day is figurative/metaphorical here, as part of an idiom.

---

Ok...you lost me. I have the stance that the day in Genesis refers to a 24 hour day. You're stance, is that its not a 24 hour day. Unless I have mixed up your argument and Pegs (who states its a million or billion), I thought your stance regarding the "day" in Genesis is also the same. Our entire debate so far, as far as I can tell, is based upon the Genesis account of what a "day" is.

---

Yes, you are probably mixing up my argument and Peg's. Please look back at my posts in this thread. You will see that I argue from the text (not from modern science) for indefinite/indeterminate lengths for the first three "Days." I argue against definiteness for these days, whether one insists on 24 hours or on a long period of time.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No. The days are figurative here. Do you really know Hebrew better than all of the (conservative) translators and commentators that I listed?

---

They're agreeing with me! Its an idiom! In other words, yes, its figurative, BUT its comparing the short amount of time of the prophecy to a solar day. If the days in question were long periods of time, it would contradict the scripture.

---

Then perhaps we are all in violent agreement on this point.

quote:

---

3 days, prophecy. The prophecy is not a 3 day prophecy, so its not literally 3 days. BUT.....you have to understand, its comparing the prophecy to 3 solar days. By understanding that its an idiom, it shows that the prophecy is to be a short amount of time.

​

The lord is my rock. Lord compared to a rock. The lord is not actually a stone, but by understanding what a stone is, it explains what the lord is.

---

On this we agree. Now apply this to Genesis 1. The first three days are not literal, 24-hour days but are of indefinite, indeterminate length. But they are compared and likened to a normal "day."

quote:

---

quote:

---

Don't confuse my position with Peg's. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not arguing for long periods of time or a day-age view in this thread! (Please re-read that sentence until you understand it.) I am NOT trying to force Genesis 1 to be consistent with modern science. I am trying to interpret Genesis 1 in its own literary-historical-cultural context, on its own, with no reference to modern science. My approach is very similar to PurpleDawn's in this respect.

---

​

I have not read all of PD's responses, but isn't her stance that the authors were using solar days in respect to a actual days? So what exactly is your opinion then? Does the author refers to a 24 hour day or longer? If its longer, arent we then having the same debate? If yes, then I still believe the only reason you're taking a stance against a literal day is due to what science has brought to the table.

---

Please look back at my posts to see my opinion. PD makes a good, reasoned case that the "days" in Gen 1 are all normal 24-hour "days." I can almost agree with them being "normal" days, but I'm uncomfortable with adding "24-hours"--this adds to the text. My main quibble is that one purpose of the light-bearers on Day 4 was to "indicate days" (Gen 1:14). Thus the text implies that the first 3 days were not well-indicated, so their length is not well-defined in the text. To insist that they are either 24-hour days or that they are long periods of time does violence to the text. Either one misses the textual implication that the days needed something to define their length, and that this was not provided until Day 4.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are many, many conservative Evangelical Hebrew and Old Testament scholars who say otherwise. I guess you know better than all of them.

---

I could easily take the stance that there are many scholars who say otherwise. I bet most of your scholars come from the 20th century though. I wonder why that is? Again, there isnt any defintive evidence if its a long period of time or an actual 24 hour day based upon the wording. But again, why not use a word that implies long periods of time if that is what is meant? Why use the terminology, which completely gives the impression of a solar day, evening and morning, day one?

---

Again, I'm not arguing for long periods of time. My disagreement with you is not so much your position on the meaning of "day" in Genesis, but your dogmatism about your position and your insistence on buttressing it with ad-hoc "rules" of Hebrew grammar. I disagree with these overly dogmatic statements of yours:

quote:

---

There isnt any indication the author of Genesis and Exodus meant anything other than a 24 hour period. Nothing.
There isnt any evidence in scripture to support that belief. None.

---

But to get back to your question (and more toward the thread topic): I mentioned "conservative Evangelical" scholars, so of course these are from the 20th and 21st century, by definition. But Augustine back in the fourth century interpreted the Genesis 1 account (and its days) as figurative and metaphorical rather than literal. A non-literal reading of Genesis 1 is not a new invention, as frequently alleged by YECs.

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, can you show me a few scholars, who are not Christians, who state that without a doubt, its not literal days?

---

Perhaps Nahum Sarna? He is one of the few non-Christian scholars that I've read. I can't find his excellent little book at the moment, but as I recall he views the account as a non-historical "story," much like PD does.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure if I'm not explaing myself correctly (possible) or you're just not understanding.
It matters not if it contains "evening". I said when "evening and morning' are used. Yes, it does say "one day", but it refers to a day in the future.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I really have no idea what you are refering to. I already stated, using Hebrew (which I used after you stated I should not use an English version)
states the exact same thing.If you have evidence to the contrary, please show me.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I never said that "day" meant "a long period of time." (I suspect you're following some sort of crib sheet for YECs to argue against the Day-Age view.) Day is figurative/metaphorical here, as part of an idiom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ok...you lost me. I have the stance that the day in Genesis refers to a 24 hour day. You're stance, is that its not a 24 hour day. Unless I have mixed up your argument and Pegs (who states its a million or billion), I thought your stance regarding the "day" in Genesis is also the same. Our entire debate so far, as far as I can tell, is based upon the Genesis account of what a "day" is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then I'm not mixing up anything. I am debating you on the lenght of those days. You're saying its not definitive, I'm taking the side that they are.Based upon the evidence you've thrown out, you have offered nothing to support your assertions.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. The days are figurative here. Do you really know Hebrew better than all of the (conservative) translators and commentators that I listed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------They're agreeing with me! Its an idiom! In other words, yes, its figurative, BUT its comparing the short amount of time of the prophecy to a solar day. If the days in question were long periods of time, it would contradict the scripture.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Uh oh, I think violence is prohibited here. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 days, prophecy. The prophecy is not a 3 day prophecy, so its not literally 3 days. BUT.....you have to understand, its comparing the prophecy to 3 solar days. By understanding that its an idiom, it shows that the prophecy is to be a short amount of time.
The lord is my rock. Lord compared to a rock. The lord is not actually a stone, but by understanding what a stone is, it explains what the lord is.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But its not an idiom in Genesis. Thats the point. I believe the textual implication is quite clear. A normal solar day. I use 24 hours, bc thats what a day is. Maybe it was slightly different 6 thousand years ago, but we are still refering to a solar day.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many, many conservative Evangelical Hebrew and Old Testament scholars who say otherwise. I guess you know better than all of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I could easily take the stance that there are many scholars who say otherwise. I bet most of your scholars come from the 20th century though. I wonder why that is? Again, there isnt any defintive evidence if its a long period of time or an actual 24 hour day based upon the wording. But again, why not use a word that implies long periods of time if that is what is meant? Why use the terminology, which completely gives the impression of a solar day, evening and morning, day one?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There isnt any indication the author of Genesis and Exodus meant anything other than a 24 hour period. Nothing.
There isnt any evidence in scripture to support that belief. None.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Its dogmatic only in the sense that its correct. I didnt suggest that EVERY person before the 20th century believed in a literal Genesis. But the majority most certainly did. Its only through modern times that Genesis now seems to indicate a non-literal interpretation. Why? The evidence is too vast to argue against science.Why did Augustine think otherwise?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiosity, can you show me a few scholars, who are not Christians, who state that without a doubt, its not literal days?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor Nahum Sarna, who was chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, referred to the days in Genesis as the same kind of days in the regulatory sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus (i.e. literal days, Lev. 7:15; 22:30).13 Creation Days and Orthodox Jewish Tradition | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

The Hebrew preposition "b" and article "ha" contract to "ba" ("in the"). When this is prefixed to "day" it doesn't really change the meaning of "day", but the phrase can become an idiom for "when".

---

Thanks for the lesson. Now I know that there are prefixes that indicate a figurative use of the word "yom."I realize the meaning of the base word doesn't change. Not my best choice of words.Thanks

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

I am debating you on the lenght of those days. You're saying its not definitive, I'm taking the side that they are.

---

hERICtic, I see no reason for you and I to continue our discussion of the length of the Genesis Days any further. I have already stated and re-stated my position numerous times. You have not grasped some of my points; if you really wish to understand them, you can go back and re-read them carefully. And if you really wish to understand the positions of others (Nahum Sarna, for example) you can read them directly rather than trusting the biased perspectives of YEC sites like AiG.My concern is to accurately handle the Word of Truth, to avoid adding to it or subtracting from it, to better understand it the way the original writer intended. Your concern seems to be somewhat different; you have already come to a dogmatic conclusion about the length of the Days of Genesis and with to argue and debate this.Repeatedly, no matter the topic, you YECs want to emphasize and argue the length of the Days of Genesis. This is not the main emphasis of Genesis 1, nor is it the topic of this thread. This thread is about methodology (hermeneutics), not about specific interpretations of specific passages. Let's get back to the topic of the thread.