> Off Topic Discussions
This looks SO awesome! I want to see it!
John from Kentucky:
--- Quote from: Oatmeal on February 27, 2015, 06:34:54 PM ---
--- Quote from: Loc on February 06, 2015, 01:01:11 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
To quote a beloved former member named Longhorn, "My head just exploded!" ???
lilitalienboi16:
--- Quote from: Oatmeal on February 27, 2015, 06:34:54 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Oatmeal,
Those seven day's [yom] are referred to as a single day [yom] in Genesis 2:4.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:4 TheseH428 are the generationsH8435 of the heavensH8064 and of the earthH776 when they were created,H1254 in the dayH3117 that the LORDH3068 GodH430 madeH6213 the earthH776 and the heavens, H8064
Here is the word in those verses you were referring to:
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:5 And GodH430 calledH7121 the lightH216 Day,H3117 and the darknessH2822 he calledH7121 Night.H3915 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the firstH259 day.H3117
We find this same word used for all the day's of creation. The second, the third, the fourth etc...
H3117 in strong's is defined as:
יוֹם
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
Its the same exact word. How are you going to tell me now that yom means a literal 24 hour period instead of an undefined amount of time? Its the hebrew equivilent of the greek Aion.
If seven day's can be one day, same word, that SINGULAR YOM you mentioned, then DAY clearly does not mean a literal 24 hour period but rather an undefined amount of time that begins and ends.
God be with you,
Alex
indianabob:
Friend Alex,
Thanks for the information;
So then if a "yom" is defined as a period of time with a beginning and an end; why does it have to be millions of years? Why not one year?
Why do we have to limit God with statements such as "it couldn't have transpired that quickly" (not quoting anyone)
Do we imagine that God "had to" place the inner core of the earth in space, whether in orbit or not, and then form outer core, the "mantle" the upper mantle and later add the volcanic crust layer and subsequently add the water to a once boiling layer after allowing it to cool for millions of years or solar orbits?
Why not place the whole material planet in space and then energize it to heat it?
If God can make a star by willing it to be so, why not create the earth in a similar manner?
That is not scientifically possible? Why?
If God did it that way it would be deceptive of God since the evidence we can examine does not support that theory? Why does God have to perform His miracles in a manner that we understand and approve of?
Do we really believe that God had to build the Moon out of accumulating space debris from other exploded planets or stars? Or did God place the moon just where it was needed to be a second light for the earth and to create tides to keep the earth's surface flexing during every rotation.
Just seems to me that our natural inclination is to limit our God beyond what is necessary.
Kindly offered, I-Bob
Joel:
Good thoughts Bob,
I can agree with much of what you are saying.
Joel
wat:
It has nothing to do with limiting God or God "having" to do it that way. That's just the way He did it. He could have done it any way, but He did it this way for a reason. I don't pretend to know exactly why He did it this way, but I think one reason is that it's a symbol. It takes a long time to form a planet, or build a mountain, or move a continent, just like it takes a long time to perfect a human into His image. It doesn't happen instantly.
Yes, it would be deceptive of God if all evidence points to things happening a certain way, but it actually happened a much different way. It makes God to be a liar. It's not that He has to perform His miracles in a manner that we understand and approve of, but He made the universe, science, and the laws of physics, as well as humans with brains that can figure stuff out.
If I look at layers of volcanic rocks and see that they're lying at a 50 degree angle, but other layers on top of them are lying flat, did God create it this way or did it form another way? Lava doesn't lie at 50 degrees, it lies flat, like any other liquid. It must have cooled flat, then some force uplifted it to 50 degrees, then later more rocks were deposited on top while lying flat.
A man whose answer for everything is "God did it" cheapens himself and cheapens God. If anyone's limiting God, it would be people like that, or like some of the ancients, who invented all kinds of fanciful stories to explain things.
Any god can "pop" the universe into existence instantly, but the true God did it in a much more grand way. It "made itself" in a manner of saying. Of course God created the universe and was behind it all, but it happened through natural processes according to the physics that He made.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version