Have you seen the 2008 Nashville conference, Oatmeal? It looks like you've seen just the couple of videos you've referenced.
The conference videos are on the youtube channel and the audios and transcripts are on the forum. All your questions should be answered in there.
Thank you for your suggestion Loc, although I think it is obvious that my questions, at least in general, stood as valid questions without there being a requirement for further video viewing.
Following your suggestion, I went through the video "Nashville Conference 2008 - Day 1 - Video 1 of 2" and the first session of the video "Nashville Conference 2008 - Day 1 - Video 2 of 2", making notes as I went.
Going through Scriptures that Ray uses in the two videos to support the day-age view, I have further warranted and relevant, and I think crucial, questions.
Each day in Genesis chapter 1 is a 'yom' singular, and it is that definition that we are discussing: a 'yom' singular.
The Scriptures that Ray refers to are:
From the first video (46.42):
Ray's comment: "In virtually all the places where you read, you know all of Jacob's years were so many, it's 'days'. The Hebrew is 'days' were so many years."
Genesis 47:8 And Pharaoh said to Jacob, How many are the days of the years of your life?
Ray's comment: "Right there you can see time after time after time it's used to mean a longer period of time than 24-hours."
The word 'days' here is in the plural (please check that for me) so to say, using this Scripture, that the singular 'yom/day' can therefore mean a period of time longer than 24-hours, and that it can mean years, and eons, is reading words that are not there, isn't it? The expression is 'the days of the years', a number of 'yom' singulars adding together to be the days and to be the years. How can that mean that a single day on its own, a 'yom' singular, can be given a definition of 'a period of time longer than 24 hours', of 'years' and of 'eons'? Such a claim does not make sense to me. It's more than one 'yom/day' that makes up the days and the years, not one 'yom/day' on its own, and so one 'yom/day' cannot be defined as 'days', 'year', or 'years'. The days were the years in the sense that the days added up to the years, but not in the sense that a day can be defined as a year. Further explanation would therefore be appreciated.
Next Scripture:
From the second video (33:23 until the end of that session):
Rays comment: "Day is used to represent the word 'time' 67 times in the Old Testament. It just means 'time'."
Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Other translations:
Genesis 4:3 (YLT) And it cometh to pass at the end of days…
Gen 4:3 (CLV) And coming is it, at the end of days…
So what if some translations use 'in process of time', with the 'yom's being translated as 'time'? Does that have any real and true relevance or reinforcement to Ray's hypothesis? Some translations use the word 'days' in their translation, and as Ray comments: "If you say 'in the process of days' it came to pass, well you would understand it, you see. But 'time' fits better." Essentially, 'in process of days' does make sense in the English. How can an alternative translation, such as 'time', work backwards and change the meaning of, or give another meaning to, the original Hebrew word 'yom's, plural, from which the translation originated? How can the preference or choice of a translator, in translating a Hebrew phrase in a certain place or in certain places in a certain way, then permanently change the meaning of a Hebrew word (a plural) in that phrase, and how can that change then be extended further and applied to the singular of that word so that the singular means a length of time, or eons? Is such an argument truly logical and does it have any sense?
Ray's next reference is Deuteronomy 10:10:
Deuteronomy 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first
time, forty days and forty nights…
Deuteronomy 10:10 CLV As for me, I stayed on the mountain as on the first
days, forty days and forty nights…
And again, the word 'days' (plural) could be used in a translation of this Scripture, as it is in the CLV, instead of 'time'. Does and can the fact that 'time' is used in some translations change the meaning of the word 'yom's, plural, into 'time'? And does a translator's choice to use the word 'time' in a translation instead of 'days' (plural) then allow the word 'yom', singular, to be changed into 'time' and then into 'eons'? Again, is there really any true logic in such an argument?
The next part is not recorded in the written transcript, and comes immediately after Ray saying "Deuteronomy 10:10" (from 34:17, second video):
Ray's comment: "It speaks about the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel, and it was forty years. Not in the Hebrew. It was forty 'yoms'. Forty 'yoms'. The same word used for 'day'."
1 Kings 11:42 and
2 Chronicles 9:30. In both Scriptures the Hebrew says forty 'shanah', 'shanah' meaning 'years' - the Hebrew does not say forty 'yom's. Ray is incorrect in this assertion.
1 Kings 11:42 CLV And the days that Solomon has reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [are] forty years,
Again, days (plural) can obviously be years but by what stretch of logic does that mean therefore that a yom/day (singular) can be years, and by what further stretch of logic does that mean that a yom/day (singular) can be an eon or eons?
Perhaps Ray is again referring to the fact that in 1 Kings 11:42 some translations use the word 'time' instead of 'days'. Again, as previously questioned, how can there be any relevance in the translators' choice to use the word 'time' in regard to supporting his hypothesis? Can a choice by a translator alter the meaning of the word 'yom's, plural in the Hebrew, and then by further extension alter the meaning of the word 'yom', singular, and then by further extension alter the meaning of the word 'yom', singular into a more extensive meaning?
Next Scripture: Ray speaking: "And where it talks about forever, or for the eon, many times, Isaiah 30 verse 8, and so on, its 'yom', 'day'. 'Day' can be used many ways."
Isaiah 30:8 KJV Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Isaiah 30:8 YLT No, go in, write it on a tablet with them, And on a book engrave it, And it is for a latter day, for a witness unto the age,
Is this Scripture saying that a day is an eon, or is it saying, as translated in the YLT, that in a day to come the writing will become a witness for an eon? Does this Scripture provide Ray a true justification for saying that a yom/day can be an eon? If so, please explain to me in logical steps the justification, in plain English.
1 Kings 1:1 KJV Now king David was old and stricken in years ['days' in the Hebrew]; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
If the Hebrew culture prefers to use 'days' in such a context, and the Western culture prefers to use 'years', of what relevance is the choice of a translator in translating 'yom', plural, as 'years' instead of 'days'? Please explain to me how such a translation can alter the meaning of 'yom', singular, in the Hebrew to mean a year, years, or an eon?
Next Scripture: Genesis 41:1 KJV And it came to pass at the end of two full years…
Ray's comment: "And after the end of two yoms, years. The word is yoms."
The Hebrew word for 'years' and the Hebrew word for 'days' are
both used in this Scripture, the Hebrew word for 'days' immediately following the word for 'years'. The word 'yom's does
not appear on its own as is seemingly misrepresented by Ray. The YLT translates as: "at the end of two years of days" and the CLV translates as: "at the end of two years to a day". How does this Scripture allow 'yom', singular to have the definition of 'years'? There appears to be no grounds in this Scripture on which to rest Ray's hypothesis.
Next Scripture:
Amos 4:4 KJV Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years:
Ray's comment: "Your tithes after three yoms. But it's definitely speaking about three years, not days, not 24-hours cycles. But after three years you bring in this other tithe, you see."
Most or many translations translate this as days, not years. The CLV uses exclamations marks, as if there is sarcasm being used:
Amos 4:4 Come to Bethel and transgress! At Gilgal increase the transgression! And bring your sacrifices for the morning, and your tithes for three days!"
So what does this Scripture say? Does it say what it says, or does it say what Ray says it says? And what happened to reading all the words?
Ray's comment: "Numerous times in the Old Testament yom is translated age. Stricken in age, old age, the whole age of Jacob. Its yom, the yom of Jacob. Its used to mean the word 'ago', or 'always', or 'season', they dwelt in the wilderness a long season, a long 'yom'."
'Stricken in age' has already discussed above in reference to 1 Kings 1:1 and King David:
Genesis 24:1 KJV And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age...
Genesis 24:1 CLV And Abraham is old, come to days…
It can be argued that 'well stricken in age' is easier to understand in the English, but what effect has that on the meaning of 'yom's (days) and 'yom' (day) in the Hebrew? A translator may translate a word in a way that he wishes, but can that have any effect on the actual meaning of the word? Is it good scholarship to appeal to the way a word has been translated, then to take that translated word out of the context of that translation, and then to say that that Hebrew word can have that meaning, and then to say that the singular of that word can have that meaning, and then to say that the singular of that word can go further in that meaning? Is such an argument truly logical and does it have any sense?
'Old age': I looked up the expression: 'old age' in the KJV and I found no reference to 'yom's or 'yom' as part of that expression in any of 15 matches found.
'The whole age of Jacob': Genesis 47:28: This is a 'days of the years of' expression as in Genesis 47:8, and this expression has already been discussed.
Joshua 24:7 KJV …and ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season.
Joshua 24:7 CLV …and you dwell in a wilderness many days.
Again, 'season' is the choice of a translator and that choice cannot be worked backwards in order to give that meaning to the word 'yom's and then worked further backwards to give that meaning to the word 'yom'.
Ray comment: "This word is used all kinds of ways that never ever insinuates 24 hours. In Chronicles it's translated to the word 'chronicles' 27 times in the Old Testament. It's translated 'continually' or 'continuance' or 'ever' or 'evermore,' that's King James talk."
'Chronicles' is a combination of two words: 'dabar' and 'yom's. How is it valid to strip one of the words, a yom plural, out of this two-word combination and then to say that the singular of that stripped out word has the same meaning as the two-word combination?
In respect to an eon, that has been discussed in relation to Isaiah 30:8.
Ray's comment: "So yom is not for a 24-hour period. It stands for time in general, days, weeks, months, years, eons, ages."
Ray's comment: "…So when He says, 'and the evening and the morning were day one', that could be millions or billions of years. There is no time limit set on that whatsoever. None."
Please show me using the above Scriptures accurately how Ray has truthfully shown this. As I have explained in depth I am not able to see how Ray came to the conclusion that these Scriptures are in support of his Genesis day-age hypothesis. Your help and the help of the forum to explain to me the validity of Ray's conclusion would therefore be most appreciated.
Thanks
Oatmeal
Author
Topic: This looks SO awesome! I want to see it! (Read 18636 times)