bible-truths.com/forums
=> Off Topic Discussions => Topic started by: lilitalienboi16 on January 15, 2015, 06:38:37 PM
-
I want to see this so badly!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2skx69TxLXk
I'd love to learn more about the evidence out there, even though I believe regardless of whether we can find it or not, it will still be awesome to see what men have found of this history!
God bless,
Alex
-
Thanks for this find Alex.
Looks like a 90 minute film, so I'll have to watch tomorrow.
Regards, Indiana bob
-
I got my ticket for Monday at 7pm! I'm excited. I invited Moises too, God willing He can come!
-
Let us know how it is. Looks interesting.
-
Let us know how it is. Looks interesting.
Will do :)
-
Well I have to tell you all, it was AMAZING and I HIGHLY recommend it! I'm definitely buying it when it comes out on DVD because its a keeper. Its put together so well.
Anyone who says the Exodus and Moses just didn't happen, or there is no evidence of Joshua's conquest, or even Joseph who was sold by his brothers is fiction, is either biast against the bible, doesn't know all the evidence, a flat out liar, or all of the above! This documentary just brings everything out there together very well and the problem with current Egyptian chronology in an easy to understand fashion for us non Egyptian/archaeological experts.
-
Ey Alex.
I just saw video, it looks very interesting, I wish I had been able to go.
Things are going well, also I have been doing some writing... I will call you soon.
-
Ah, wish I could have been there to go with you!
I haven't been to a movie theater in five years. 8)
-
Yes that would be awesome to see, but I am also glad for this...Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29 ESV) Is this coming out in the movie theatres ? I will go see it myself.
-
Its back this thursday due to popular demand in select theatres nation wide!
http://www.breathecast.com/articles/film-proving-the-exodus-actually-happened-coming-back-to-theaters-nationwide-by-popular-demand-video-24041/
If you missed it, now is your time! I really recommend it!
-
Well I have to tell you all, it was AMAZING and I HIGHLY recommend it! I'm definitely buying it when it comes out on DVD because its a keeper. Its put together so well.
Anyone who says the Exodus and Moses just didn't happen, or there is no evidence of Joshua's conquest, or even Joseph who was sold by his brothers is fiction, is either biast against the bible, doesn't know all the evidence, a flat out liar, or all of the above! This documentary just brings everything out there together very well and the problem with current Egyptian chronology in an easy to understand fashion for us non Egyptian/archaeological experts.
Let's all go and see this film and process the evidence.
Next year we should look for the new movie that presents the evidence for the Global Flood of Noah. That's the miracle that I would like to see illustrated from the copious evidence found all over this earth.
John 20:29 (KJ21) |
29 Jesus said unto him, “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”
Juan 20:29 (LBLA) |
29 Jesús le dijo*: ¿Porque me has visto has creído? Dichosos los que no vieron, y sin embargo creyeron.
-
No Global Flood.
If the whole world were covered with water, where did the water runoff to?
The ideas of a global flood, six literal twenty-four hour days of creation, the universe is only about 6,000 years old, there is eternal punishment of the wicked in hell, etc, etc.-----such false teachings give the Scriptures a bad name and discredits and defames God.
-
No Global Flood.
If the whole world were covered with water, where did the water runoff to?
The ideas of a global flood, six literal twenty-four hour days of creation, the universe is only about 6,000 years old, there is eternal punishment of the wicked in hell, etc, etc.-----such false teachings give the Scriptures a bad name and discredits and defames God.
Agreed John!
-
No Global Flood.
If the whole world were covered with water, where did the water runoff to?
The ideas of a global flood, six literal twenty-four hour days of creation, the universe is only about 6,000 years old, there is eternal punishment of the wicked in hell, etc, etc.-----such false teachings give the Scriptures a bad name and discredits and defames God.
Dear friends who know better than me. Doubting Thomases in my never to be humble opinion.
JUst my view of course. (smile)
(?) 1. If the whole world were covered with water where did the water run off to? To the oceans, where else...
If God can remove water from the mile wide, ten mile long Red Sea crossing, a wall of water 1000 feet high on both sides so that Moses could cross over, what is the big deal with submerging the earth in water?
Didn't God create the water in the first place? Or did it come from a comet crashing into the planet?
One is just as physically, naturally impossible as the other. But God is not natural. Otherwise we would not be here, none of us. This God who places us here is not limited. So why do we limit God sometimes?
Do we think it is more difficult to flood the earth than it is to resurrect a long dead person and give them a new set of identical molecules/atoms/memories? I do not! Especially when it shall be done billions of times over.
And if there is NO Resurrection we are just kidding ourselves.
(?) 2. not saying how old the Universe is. The point is ONLY about when Adam was created, about 4000 BC.
(?) 3. We agree about the "burning hell myth" but the Bible doesn't teach that, right?
AND dead people from the past have not gone to heaven either, right? Again not in scripture.
(?) 4. [FALSE teachings?] The story of Noah's flood and the Red sea crossing are in O.T. scripture in plain language, not hidden or kept from mankind to be discovered later when apostle Paul revealed them.
(?) 5. No person can defame God and God does not need us to defend God. Some religions do teach that humans need to defend their God with brutal reactions, our Father God does not. Correct?
I do not know of my own experience or knowledge HOW the earth was flooded, but I see the evidence of great canyons and sea shells on ALL the earth's mountain tops and ocean depths equal to mountain heights and I can calculate that there is presently enough water on the earth to submerge a smooth surfaced earth 2 or 3 miles deep.
It seems reasonable and logical that the God who put this earth in orbit around the sun and put the moon in orbit around the earth and has kept it there for at least several thousand years, moderating the tides and giving us light at night time could just as easily raise the existing mountains to their present level at the same time God abated the flood of waters. The same logic would apply to pock marks in the wet muddy surface caused by falling missiles during the first few years after the flood abated. All of that mud and clay took time to dry out and for seeds to become trees, especially since it rained again but more gently.
The fact that we don't have an explanation from Scripture does not prove that it did not happen.
I'm keeping an open mind and trusting that God would not put obvious errors in His Scripture.
p.s. I'm really, really critical of carbon 14 and radio isotope dating that assume steady state conditions during the past millions of years. Now that is a real fairy tale. (smile)
Kindly offered, Indiana Bob
-
?4..."plain language" tells us the whole land was covered. Theological assumption tells us "the whole earth" as we understand the earth--the whole planet.
I'll not pick apart every question except to remind us that we are at bible-truths.com. Ray did a study on this. It's part of the Nashville '08 conference. And some didn't like that one because it was "too scientific". What's a man to do? Teach science? Debate science?
Please...not here, gentlemen.
-
Surely the "wording" of scripture in Genesis regarding the flood of Noah is a sticky wicket.
No matter how many times I read it or attempt to micro-analyize it, I still can't escape the (programmed?) influence that it means what it appears to plainly say...
But Ray's awesome study on the matter helped me greatly. I don't discount that God COULD have flooded the entire globe, but I certainly understand now how it is BETTER understood as non-literal as the "SIX TWENTY-FOUR HOUR days of Creation" I was taught in my Baptist church tent revival (a la Kent Hovind, Faux Scientist Extraordinaire). And yes, I read Henry Morris' tome--in it's entirety--20 yrs ago (and still own it). At the time I studied it, I swallowed it whole. Now, not so much.
To friend Indiana Bob (and others reading), don't get hung up on this. There is so MUCH factual evidence contradicting the Hovind/Morris/Whitcomb narrative, that IF their interpretation is indeed true, THEN the old time claim that "the Devil planted the fake skeletons of the dinosaurs to deceive mankind" is equally probable. And God is deliberately toying with us.
I've studied this subject enough to be nearly an expert. And I consider myself to have been outright deceived. Believe me when I say, all of us here have a pet subject or two of Ray's that we wink at... as doubting Thomases...But this ain't one of them. Or shouldn't be. Ray absolutely destroyed the pseudo-science on this one. And once you see it, like the hell doctrine, you will say, "how on earth did I ever see it otherwise?"
-
Hi
I very recently viewed the video Noah's Flood Was Not Global (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c) on the bible-truths.com Youtube site and note that near the end of the video Ray said or inferred that it was during the 6 days of Creation, not during the flood of Noah's time, that seashells ended up at the top of what is now Mt Everest.
Was it during the 6 days of Creation that the worldwide fossil record also was formed? By what process? Was it by animals etc being covered by volcanic debris? Can sedimentary rock come from a volcano (most fossils are found in sedimentary rock)? In bringing order out of chaos, was the Creation itself temporarily the cause of chaos in that millions of animals died catastrophically by the Creation process itself?
How could it be that seashells were in/on what was possibly the first bit of land to come out of the sea when it is chronologically mentioned in Genesis that the appearing of the dry (land), the naming of the dry, and the bringing forth of plant life on the dry, occurred before the bringing forth of sea life?
In the video (starting from 24.28) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=24m28s) Ray explains in detail how in the commandments' "6 days shall thou labour, but in the seventh day no work shall be done" (refer to Exodus 20:8-11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV)) the definition of day in the fourth commandment was not 24 hours: that mankind as a general rule worked during the day and always rested at night - they did not labour for 24 hours per day; and consequently the claim that a day in Genesis One is 24 hours is not a claim based on factuality. Why does not the same basis of argument speak against the claim that a day in Genesis 1 is a vast eon of time, as the definition of day in the fourth commandment, as well as not being 24 hours, was also not a vast eon of time, and not only did mankind not work for 24 hours per day, mankind did not work for a vast eon of time per day either, and consequently the claim that a day in Genesis 1 is a vast eon of time is not a claim based on factuality? Can there be two definitions/meanings of the word "day" in the same portion of Scripture, Exodus 20:8-11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV)? Ray asks, in the video Define The Days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mHu3Gisc4M#t=02m38s) (02:38), and in reference to Genesis 1:5 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A5&version=KJV): "Did God change his mind as to what the definition of a day was, halfway through a verse?" Answering that question in regard to Genesis 1:5, and a similar question may be asked of Exodus 20:8-11, Ray at first is saying "No", and then he says "Yes", of course not saying that God changed His mind, but that there can be two definitions/meanings of the word "day" in one verse, and in one portion of Scripture.
From 26:28 in the NFWNG video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=26m28s) to 33.54 Ray states a proof from Genesis 1:14 and a proof from Genesis 2:1 that prove that "days" (in Genesis 1) means "years". His logic does not make sense to me, so would someone please explain to me the rationality of what he said? If I built a watch, which when completed I was going to use for seasons, and for days, and years, the watch would be fully completed as soon as I finished constructing it, even though I was yet to use it for seasons, and for days, and years. Is Ray saying that these luminaries were used for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years until the end of the sixth day (or to the end of the fourth day?) (signs for who?), and in regard to the second proof, in his quoting from Genesis 2:1 to say that these signs, seasons, days, and years were finished, being inclusive in in God's finished work, are there going to be no more signs from these luminaries?
Part way through the above section, from 27:16.5 in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=27m16.5s), Ray expounds on the "and it was so" of Genesis. Ray says that that phrase, those words, those Hebrew letters, and even the little "pointies", are identical to that same phrase you find in other places in the Bible, and that he can show us others places where it takes even longer periods of time than the 4 generations mentioned in 2 Kings 15:12. This is where the software in my E-Sword falls down, obviously. Not counting the six times the phase appears in Genesis 1 (first day x 0, second day x 1, third day x 2, fourth day x 1, fifth day x 0, sixth day x 2 = 6), the software can only find one other example of the identical phrase, and that is the one that Ray mentions from 2 Kings 15:12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+15%3A12&version=KJV). I do notice that the "And so it came to pass" of 2 Kings 15:12 was written at the time that the event that it speaks of is fulfilled, not at any time before its fulfilment. Should the occurrences of this phrase in Genesis be treated any differently? Was each "and so it came to pass" phrase in Genesis fulfilled in the day in which it is declared, and at the time that it is spoken?
The final "and so it came to pass" of Genesis 1 appears in Genesis 1:30:
Genesis 1:29-30 KJV
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Were mankind and the animals able to eat from that point on?
Was the final "and so it came to pass" ("and it was so" - KJV) in regard to diet/food fulfilled a million years later, or even as much as 2 days later, or immediately after, or had it been fulfilled at (immediately before) that time (as in 2 Kings 15:12)? If it was fulfilled at (immediately before) that time, and as per exactly the same usage of the phrase in 2 Kings 15:12, whence comes the argument that the other "and so it came to pass"es mean a long time later, or any time later?
Also, if the fowls and the beasts and the creepy-crawlies were created millions of years earlier, were they happily waiting around for millions of years until the ordaining of their food supply in Genesis 1:30, or were those birds and beasts etc created in that same 12-hour day and during the previous 12-hour day?
Why does each day of Creation get a one only single evening and a one only single morning? What is the specific answer to that question?
Again, what is the definition of a day in Genesis 1:5?
These are just questions. Is it OK to ask questions directly related to a teaching on the bible-truths YouTube site? And that are suitable for explaining the difficulties one is having with the teaching?
I have previously tended to think that because of the worldwide fossil record the Flood was worldwide (parts of the Earth being uplifted at that time, and other parts dropping (as a result of all the fountains of the great deep being broken), explaining where the floodwaters went).
As Ray says, and as I can see, Psalm 104:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+104%3A9&version=KJV) puts a big NO on the Floodwaters covering the whole Earth. Does this definitely mean however that the "waters of Noah" (Isaiah 54:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+54%3A9&version=KJV)), and the rending of all the springs of the vast submerged chaos (from Genesis 7:11 CLV), etc, did not have a cataclysmic worldwide effect? For how long was Noah on the Ark?
In saying that science agrees with the Kabbalah, Ray is in agreement, at least in the area that he talks about in the video, with the teachings of the Kabbalah, and in the video he does give them respect in regard to their knowledge. Is it therefore ok to study the Kabbalah? Going the other way, is it possible instead that mainstream cosmological science (and evolution science from its inception), instead of being strictly based on observational, experimental and reason based science is now founded on a philosophical premise, and from that unscientific origin and root comes its agreement with the Kabbalah?
Oatmeal
-
Hi
I very recently viewed the video Noah's Flood Was Not Global (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c) on the bible-truths.com Youtube site and note that near the end of the video Ray said or inferred that it was during the 6 days of Creation, not during the flood of Noah's time, that seashells ended up at the top of what is now Mt Everest.
Was it during the 6 days of Creation that the worldwide fossil record also was formed? By what process? Was it by animals etc being covered by volcanic debris? Can sedimentary rock come from a volcano (most fossils are found in sedimentary rock)? In bringing order out of chaos, was the Creation itself temporarily the cause of chaos in that millions of animals died catastrophically by the Creation process itself?
How could it be that seashells were in/on what was possibly the first bit of land to come out of the sea when it is chronologically mentioned in Genesis that the appearing of the dry (land), the naming of the dry, and the bringing forth of plant life on the dry, occurred before the bringing forth of sea life?
In the video (starting from 24.28) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=24m28s) Ray explains in detail how in the commandments' "6 days shall thou labour, but in the seventh day no work shall be done" (refer to Exodus 20:8-11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV)) the definition of day in the fourth commandment was not 24 hours: that mankind as a general rule worked during the day and always rested at night - they did not labour for 24 hours per day; and consequently the claim that a day in Genesis One is 24 hours is not a claim based on factuality. Why does not the same basis of argument speak against the claim that a day in Genesis 1 is a vast eon of time, as the definition of day in the fourth commandment, as well as not being 24 hours, was also not a vast eon of time, and not only did mankind not work for 24 hours per day, mankind did not work for a vast eon of time per day either, and consequently the claim that a day in Genesis 1 is a vast eon of time is not a claim based on factuality? Can there be two definitions/meanings of the word "day" in the same portion of Scripture, Exodus 20:8-11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV)? Ray asks, in the video Define The Days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mHu3Gisc4M#t=02m38s) (02:38), and in reference to Genesis 1:5 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A5&version=KJV): "Did God change his mind as to what the definition of a day was, halfway through a verse?" Answering that question in regard to Genesis 1:5, and a similar question may be asked of Exodus 20:8-11, Ray at first is saying "No", and then he says "Yes", of course not saying that God changed His mind, but that there can be two definitions/meanings of the word "day" in one verse, and in one portion of Scripture.
From 26:28 in the NFWNG video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=26m28s) to 33.54 Ray states a proof from Genesis 1:14 and a proof from Genesis 2:1 that prove that "days" (in Genesis 1) means "years". His logic does not make sense to me, so would someone please explain to me the rationality of what he said? If I built a watch, which when completed I was going to use for seasons, and for days, and years, the watch would be fully completed as soon as I finished constructing it, even though I was yet to use it for seasons, and for days, and years. Is Ray saying that these luminaries were used for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years until the end of the sixth day (or to the end of the fourth day?) (signs for who?), and in regard to the second proof, in his quoting from Genesis 2:1 to say that these signs, seasons, days, and years were finished, being inclusive in in God's finished work, are there going to be no more signs from these luminaries?
Part way through the above section, from 27:16.5 in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=27m16.5s), Ray expounds on the "and it was so" of Genesis. Ray says that that phrase, those words, those Hebrew letters, and even the little "pointies", are identical to that same phrase you find in other places in the Bible, and that he can show us others places where it takes even longer periods of time than the 4 generations mentioned in 2 Kings 15:12. This is where the software in my E-Sword falls down, obviously. Not counting the six times the phase appears in Genesis 1 (first day x 0, second day x 1, third day x 2, fourth day x 1, fifth day x 0, sixth day x 2 = 6), the software can only find one other example of the identical phrase, and that is the one that Ray mentions from 2 Kings 15:12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+15%3A12&version=KJV). I do notice that the "And so it came to pass" of 2 Kings 15:12 was written at the time that the event that it speaks of is fulfilled, not at any time before its fulfilment. Should the occurrences of this phrase in Genesis be treated any differently? Was each "and so it came to pass" phrase in Genesis fulfilled in the day in which it is declared, and at the time that it is spoken?
The final "and so it came to pass" of Genesis 1 appears in Genesis 1:30:
Genesis 1:29-30 KJV
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Were mankind and the animals able to eat from that point on?
Was the final "and so it came to pass" ("and it was so" - KJV) in regard to diet/food fulfilled a million years later, or even as much as 2 days later, or immediately after, or had it been fulfilled at (immediately before) that time (as in 2 Kings 15:12)? If it was fulfilled at (immediately before) that time, and as per exactly the same usage of the phrase in 2 Kings 15:12, whence comes the argument that the other "and so it came to pass"es mean a long time later, or any time later?
Also, if the fowls and the beasts and the creepy-crawlies were created millions of years earlier, were they happily waiting around for millions of years until the ordaining of their food supply in Genesis 1:30, or were those birds and beasts etc created in that same 12-hour day and during the previous 12-hour day?
Why does each day of Creation get a one only single evening and a one only single morning? What is the specific answer to that question?
Again, what is the definition of a day in Genesis 1:5?
These are just questions. Is it OK to ask questions directly related to a teaching on the bible-truths YouTube site? And that are suitable for explaining the difficulties one is having with the teaching?
I have previously tended to think that because of the worldwide fossil record the Flood was worldwide (parts of the Earth being uplifted at that time, and other parts dropping (as a result of all the fountains of the great deep being broken), explaining where the floodwaters went).
As Ray says, and as I can see, Psalm 104:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+104%3A9&version=KJV) puts a big NO on the Floodwaters covering the whole Earth. Does this definitely mean however that the "waters of Noah" (Isaiah 54:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+54%3A9&version=KJV)), and the rending of all the springs of the vast submerged chaos (from Genesis 7:11 CLV), etc, did not have a cataclysmic worldwide effect? For how long was Noah on the Ark?
In saying that science agrees with the Kabbalah, Ray is in agreement, at least in the area that he talks about in the video, with the teachings of the Kabbalah, and in the video he does give them respect in regard to their knowledge. Is it therefore ok to study the Kabbalah? Going the other way, is it possible instead that mainstream cosmological science (and evolution science from its inception), instead of being strictly based on observational, experimental and reason based science is now founded on a philosophical premise, and from that unscientific origin and root comes its agreement with the Kabbalah?
Oatmeal
I perceive your mind is made up and have already formed conclusions.
However, I will show you from the Scriptures that the Hebrew word for day (yom) means a period of time and not necessarily a 24 hour period of time.
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Gen 2:4
The word "day" in this Scripture is the Hebrew word "yom". It refers to the previous six days (also yom) of creation. Thus one day can include six days thereby proving that "yom" does not exclusively mean a time period of 24 hours. Yom can mean an undefined period of time, even millions or billions of years.
But what I said will not convince you. Unless guided by the Spirit of God, you will be twisted around and around until you cannot think straight about the Scriptures.
Remember, the Scriptures are spiritual and can only be spiritually discerned.
As for the Kabbalah, it is a lie. Not Scripture. Madonna believes in it. Enough said.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+11%3A42&version=KJV) and 2 Chronicles 9:30 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+9%3A30&version=KJV). 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
-
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 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+11%3A42&version=KJV) and 2 Chronicles 9:30 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+9%3A30&version=KJV). 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
To quote a beloved former member named Longhorn, "My head just exploded!" ???
-
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.
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
-
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
-
Good thoughts Bob,
I can agree with much of what you are saying.
Joel
-
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.
-
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.
I think this is a very good point. It seems that God does not do things the easy way, well by our standards anyway, but everything is being done by a rather complicated process, with no end to the intricacy of it all. I think this just shows God's incredible brilliance to do things this way. Everything in creation is an ongoing process, so that we can marvel at the glorious unfolding of it all.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
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
Hello Bob,
I think Loc and Kat already covered what I could but I will put things into my own words.
You ask: "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)"
I certainly don't disagree with you that a yom could refer to one year or any other amount of time but the point I was making is that you cannot define a yom as a specific amount of time, such as a year or a literal twenty for hour day (As oatmeal was attempting to do), because it CAN represent ALL these differing lengths that you mentioned. Ray gave many examples in his study of just such varying duration's. Hence, the word itself never means just one specific length in time but rather an undefined period of time. Therefor the creation is not intended to be understood as having happened in seven 24 hour days but rather through undefined lengths in periods of time which are then each termed a day. In fact, I think it is more limiting to say that a yom absolutely means one specific duration in time rather than an undefined value. The duration's depending on the context. I absolutely believe this is how God intended the word to be understood.
You say: "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?"
Well Bob, I don't think science is wrong on what it understands about the natural world. It's certainly not understanding The Creator behind it all but that is by the wisdom and planning of God more than it is a complete lack of understanding of the natural world. We wouldn't have computers, cars, phones, sky scrappers, space stations, rockets, internet, etc... if science had no clue what it was talking about. This same science has measured and quantified the age of the universe and our planets. They've also devised the most probable explanation for how the planets, including ours, came into existence given all the data they can observe and measure. God certainly could have placed the earth in space as you say and then made the sun but its just not how God did it. Its' not that we are limiting Him or that it's impossible for Him to do so but He has a pattern and process for doing things and this is how he decided to do it. Very much like how it takes time for us to be conformed into His image, a process, it then makes very much sense to see that He created the universe and our planet through a process too. Very much like one of the fruits of the spirit is long suffering yet suffering long takes time. Its a process that unfolds. How much time do you think God suffered? We don't know but I have a feeling it's orders and magnitudes greater than how long we think we suffer when we go without something we really want.
You say: "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?"
My response to this is similar to what I stated above. God doesn't have to perform His miracles in a way that is convenient for us but that doesn't mean that He didn't. That doesn't mean that He is purposely trying to trick us. For those that have the spirit dwelling within, having their senses exercised to discern good and evil, we are not deceived. Our Father loves us and is revealing all things to us. In His time though.
You say: "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."
I don't believe God HAD to build the moon that way but I believe that He did.
God bless,
Alex
-
John and Alex, thank you for your urgent replies to my previous post. John posted within 30 minutes of my post, with his final edit following shortly after, and Alex's reply with final edit was completed within 80 minutes. How much time was given in reading, and more importantly in understanding, my post, which was written over a great period of time, and with much editing, care, thought, and deliberation?
I perceive your mind is made up and have already formed conclusions.
In your use of the word "perceive", John, are you saying that God has revealed my mind to you, and that if I argue with you then I am arguing with God? While that may be a quick way to win an argument, and only from your point of view, perhaps by such a statement you are telling us that it is you who has made up his mind. Have you taken the time to read and to understand my previous posts, or are you quickly shooting off replies with no intention of taking the time? If I am incorrect, and you are correct, how can you be of any help to me if you cannot bother to take the time to understand, and acknowledge that you have understood, my point of view, before shooting off a reply?
However, I will show you from the Scriptures that the Hebrew word for day (yom) means a period of time and not necessarily a 24 hour period of time.
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Gen 2:4
The word "day" in this Scripture is the Hebrew word "yom". It refers to the previous six days (also yom) of creation. Thus one day can include six days thereby proving that "yom" does not exclusively mean a time period of 24 hours. Yom can mean an undefined period of time, even millions or billions of years.
Those seven day's [yom] are referred to as a single day [yom] in Genesis 2:4.
…How are you going to tell me now that yom means a literal 24 hour period instead of an undefined amount of time?…
….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.
In my posts I have never said that a yom/day is a 24-hour period. Please do not refute what I have not said.
I am quite happy to stick with Genesis 1:5 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A5&version=KJV) and John 11:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11%3A9&version=KJV) in regard to the definition of a day. Are you saying that there are two different definitions of a 'day' in Genesis 1:5? Are you despising the words of Jesus (in John 11:9) in bringing forth your day-age hypothesis? If you are not despising the words of Jesus, how are you not doing so? And in regard to Exodus 20:8-11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV), is there two definitions/meanings of the word yom/day in that passage of Scripture, as is required by the day-age hypothesis?
In Ray's videos there is a lot of time spent, and time on more than one occasion, validly explaining that 'yom' is not a 24-hour period (Why is that emphasised so often?), and then there seems to be a bait and switch tactic used where instead of concluding that a day is a 12-hour period, which would be in line with what Jesus said in John 11:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11%3A9&version=KJV), and in line with Genesis 1:5 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A5&version=KJV), and in line with the could-not-be-24-hours explanations of Exodus 20:8-11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV), and I think in line with the clearly and unambiguously stated one only single evening and one only single morning for each day of Creation, one of which is included in Genesis 1:5, there is a leap in the other direction which concludes that 'yom' can mean eons and ages.
In my previous post I explained in detail, going through a number of Scriptures one by one, Scriptures referred to by Ray, how I could not see how Ray could come to the conclusion that those particular Scriptures were in support of his Genesis day-age hypothesis. You have not refuted any of the explanation and logic I gave as to why those Scriptures do not support the idea that a day can be longer than 12 hours, and that they thus in no way whatsoever support the day-age hypothesis. Of course a number of days can be a longer period of time, but not (I argued) one single day on its own.
Until the time you Scripturally and logically refute the explanations I gave, it can only be taken that you are fully in agreement with that explanation and logic and that you are fully in agreement that those Scriptures do not support the day-age hypothesis, and that those Scriptures do not support the idea that a yom/day singular without any further qualifying expression can be longer than 12 hours. If you disagree, then go through those Scriptures one by one validly refuting my explanation and logic. If you neglect or refuse to do so, then in that matter you lose your case.
You have both attempted to take refuge in Genesis 2:4, stating authoritatively that Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the previous six days of creation/seven days, with Alex using the word: "clearly" and John using the word "proving".
How is it clear?
Is it not possible that this verse is referring back to Genesis 1:1, which says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? How many days were involved in Genesis 1:1?
Genesis 2:4 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A4&version=KJV) has a similar construction to Genesis 5:1-2 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5%3A1-2&version=KJV), which (also) refers back to one single day. Both Scriptures mention a descent/generations/history that follows.
By what authority do you say that Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the six days of Creation? Is it by your own authority, did God tell you, did you read it somewhere, did you decide to believe someone who said so to you, does it fit in with what you think science says, or do you have a logical argument to present?
If you are able to argue logically, from the Scriptures, that Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the 6 days of Creation, and not just to Genesis 1:1, then please present that argument. You are otherwise using the "I say so" argument or perhaps it is the "God told me" argument. Please remember that the "I say so" argument does not prove anything (except to you), and if God told you, that fact is unable to be verified by others.
If you are going to say that Genesis 2:4 could not be referring back to Genesis 1:1 because 'day' was not defined until Genesis 1:5, please keep in mind that neither had 'heavens' and 'earth' been defined when those words were used in Genesis 1:1.
Alex, in your definition of 'day' you have not used Scripture (except Genesis 2:4, which use I have disputed), explaining how and where Scripture defines the meaning to 'day' that you say 'day' has. Are there no other Scriptures that you can use? Are you limited to one Scripture only? You have appealed to Strong's. There are enough Scriptures that use the word 'day' to prove your case, if your case does exist. If you can't prove your case from the Scriptures, then I guess you have no option but to appeal to Strong's.
It is also time that you used Scripture in your defence instead of what you think is science.
If Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the six days of Creation, then its context is denoting that the word 'day' in that verse only is not referring to a literal day. Can that non-literalness of the word 'day' be transferred to another passage of Scripture (although I admit that the other passage of Scripture is close by, and I admit it because my mind is not made up) where non-literalness is not evident in that other passage itself? And if Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the six days of Creation, how can you then expand that six days to billions of years without any other Scriptural authorisation whatsoever? Why not make it six half-seconds, or six trillion trillion years, or a banana flavoured icecream?
From where do you get billions of years?
It is from something from OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE that you get your billions of years.
I do not know if observational, experimental and reason based science backs up billions of years or not (how can I personally inspect an ice core).
I have raised certain questions, and I raised them with honesty and integrity, that in my mind bring into serious doubt the idea that Genesis itself backs up the billions of year's scenario.
Oatmeal
-
As for the Kabbalah, it is a lie. Not Scripture. Madonna believes in it. Enough said.
I am well aware that the Kabbalah is suspect, and I said as much in my (first) post. Ray said that Kabbalistic teaching teaches that the universe started the size of a mustard seed, in line with the Big Bang theory. It doesn’t seem to me at this stage that God stretching out the heavens has enough parallels with the Big Bang theory to make the two compatible. I have read that there are other parallels between Kabbalistic teaching and mainstream science. I cannot be more definitive on that. It is the leaning of Ray towards the Kabbalah that probably causes me the most distress.
I have a concern about Ray’s assertion that scientists are honest.
Following is a quote from George F. R. Ellis (cosmologist and mathematician)
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that. - W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55. This quote can be viewed on the Internet.
As can be seen from the above quote, it is an unscientific actuality that cosmological scientists are using a philosophical bias and basis in choosing their models of the universe. What has real observational, experimental, and reason based science got to do with philosophy, especially, as such is the case, the philosophy comes before and is foundational to the science? What philosophy are they subscribing to? Why are they subscribing to that philosophy? What happened to the search for the truth, no matter where the search may lead?
If their philosophy is incorrect, can and will their science be correct? Please consider if that question is important enough to answer, and if you think that it is, please answer it for yourself.
Here is another example:
Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!
- A Brief History of Time - From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Stephen W. Hawking, 1988, page 42 (I borrowed the book from my local library. It can now be viewed/downloaded via the Internet and I now have two copies (different versions) on my hard drive.)
In the above quote Stephen Hawking confesses that, observationally speaking, it appears to him that the earth is in the centre of the universe. He rejects what his eyes see and his otherwise reasoning thinking concludes on the grounds of MODESTY, which of course as we all know has far more scientific validity than observation, experiment and reason. He says also that the universe must look the same wherever in the universe you go because it must be that way. If you and I were standing on a hill and viewed concentric circles of trees around us, and I said that the view would be exactly the same as from the hill if we went among the trees, you would conclude that I was crazy. However when "scientists" come up with such inanities/imaginations it is supposed that they are talking sense.
Here is another series of quotes, taken from The Observational Approach to Cosmology by Edwin Hubble (from whom the Hubble space telescope is named after), from a PDF version downloaded from the Internet.
From page 40: Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
From page 40: But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs.
From page 46: Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position… [Next paragraph] There seems to be no other escape…
Honesty? Where is the honesty?
Do you think there is any possibility you are putting your faith into a philosophy, John, which has coatings of science and an appearance of science, and which is in agreement with the Kabbalah? On the one hand you say you reject the Kabbalah because it is not Scripture, but is there any possibility that on the other hand you are accepting its teachings blindly and wholeheartedly, and that you have swallowed the pill because of its coating?
Oatmeal
-
Why has such a strenuous effort been made to fit Genesis 1 with mainstream philosophical based science? (I am not claiming that there are no aspects and branches of mainstream science that are based on experiment, observation and reason, but that a philosophy is foundational in and governs that science).
For example, in agreeing with mainstream science, in the second 2008 Conference video, at about 9:40, Ray mentions background radiation noise and says that it is the echo left over from the Big Bang, and he also confirms that Kabbalistic teaching is in agreement with [mainstream] science, or looking at it the other way, that [mainstream] science is in agreement with Kabbalistic teachings.
In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered that the entire universe was saturated with a radiation which has become known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB provides strong evidence AGAINST, not for, the Big Bang Theory. The unique pattern of the microwave radiation, throughout the entire universe, points back to the Earth, as if the Earth is in the centre of the universe. THIS is in accord with the Genesis 1 account (but not with the mustard seed beginning Kabbalistic/mainstream-science big bang scenario). Genesis 1 tells us (if we are willing to read the words) that the Earth was created before the stars were made. I include some links:
https://medium.com/we-are-in-a-special-place/planck-satellite-confirms-wmap-findings-universe-is-not-copernican-26f88f17a732
A NewScientist article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327245.900-13-more-things-axis-of-evil.htm#.VOk5YCxdLTQ Note the reference to the 'Axis of Evil'.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
Not only is the CMB aligned to the earth, and/or to the solar system, but so are the spin axes of galaxies (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3793.pdf), and galaxies lie mainly on concentric spheres around the Earth (http://astro.uchicago.edu/cosmus/projects/sloanmovie/part5left_8kbs.mpeg), with the quasar distribution in the universe following the same pattern (http://laserstars.org/pdf/1976Ap&SS..43....3V.pdf - read the page numbered 8 to the end of (3)). In both the matter of galaxies and quasars there is a void in the centre where the Earth is positioned.
Will mainstream science acknowledge and go along with these facts, which facts run contrary to its philosophy, or will its philosophy remain paramount and such facts be ignored and/or "explained" away?
Is it possible that cosmology is not as complicated and un-understandable as mainstream cosmology makes it out to be? Could it be possible that it is mainstream cosmology's foundational philosophy, its foundational premise, which is causing the difficulties?
Why do members of this forum (should such be the case) suppose that scientists, and cosmological scientists, are too honest, too intelligent, too educated, too rational, too respected, and too published, to say in their hearts there is no God and to fully act on that philosophy? Does a typical university education prevent such a state of being, or is it more likely to contribute to it? Where does the idea come from that intelligence + education + "science" = rationality + honesty + fear of God?
Does "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" not apply at all to any professional mainstream group titled with the word "science" in this present day and age? Do fools (as per definition of fool in Psalm 14:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14%3A1&version=KJV) and in Romans 1:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A22&version=KJV)) no longer exist in our science halls of academia? Have our advanced education systems made them all an extinct species? It seems that the general opinion is that it is so. Perhaps it is time that we removed Romans 1:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A22&version=KJV) and Psalm 14:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14%3A1&version=KJV) from our Scriptures, as we are so educationally advanced there are no fools left. Perhaps the modern advance in science (real observational, experimental and reason based science, which of course does exist, as long as it does not go against its foundational premise, and which has resulted in "computers, cars, phones, skyscrapers, space stations, rockets, and the internet" (quoting from Alex)) has gone to our heads.
It is obvious that I do not agree with some of the science that Ray presented in the Conference, that it is in fact science. Some of the science I am not familiar enough with to comment (old-age earth sciences).
I hope however that I have it very obvious that SCIENTISTS ARE BIASED, and very STRONGLY biased, and FOOLISHLY biased.
And what sort of person would put their faith in a fool?
Here is another example of mainstream pseudo science:
Where did the idea of multiverses (that there are a multiple and an infinite number of universes in existence) come from? Was it from evidence? The idea did not come from scientific observation, and it did not come not from scientific experiment, and it did not come from reasonable reason based analysis of scientific evidence. Because it is now generally accepted that our universe is finely tuned, there must be, according to “science”, an infinite number of universes in existence because as there is no Creator (foundational premise), there must be an infinite number of universes, all of which happened by chance random processes, and we happen to be in a chance random universe suitable for existence of life and there are an infinite number of chance random universes that are not suitable for the existence life.
Is there any valid science involved in this argument? There is no valid science involved whatsoever. It’s an entirely philosophical argument. Putting it another way, it’s a fairy tale.
Evolution is also a fairy tale (I am not talking about the very limited process of natural selection), rooted in the same philosophical premise.
So, Alex, from this point on use Scripture in your defence instead of what you think is science.
Now PUTTING ASIDE ALL SCIENCE AND ALL PSEUDO SCIENCE, and looking at Genesis 1 and the Scriptures ALONE, does Genesis 1 itself back up the billions of years scenario? In my original post I raised certain questions, and I raised them with honesty and integrity, that in my mind bring into serious doubt the idea that Genesis backs up the billions of year's scenario. As this is a teaching that is found on Bible-Truths, I think that it is fair that my questions be fully and adequately addressed, and answered if possible and with complete openness and with full integrity.
I also looked at other Scriptures that Ray claims support the 'a day can be an eon' hypothesis, and I explained using those Scriptures why I think that claim is not based on factuality. If I got it wrong, then it should be no problem for someone to explain the error. If I got it right, then no refutation will be forthcoming.
Please do not use the excuse that Ray would have been able to answer my questions if he was still present. If the forum with logic, clarity and honesty does not understand the Genesis day-eon hypothesis enough to answer my questions then perhaps the forum should be honest enough to admit that it does not have sufficient basis on which to pass on the hypothesis as fact.
Oatmeal
-
Well Oatmeal, I am not limited to one scripture. I will bring more. I simply see that you are stubborn and set in your ways with no desire to change your mind. You are arguing for the sake of arguing with many words but little understanding.
I'm going to make a brief post to simply do away with the idea that a singular 'yom' refers to only twelve hours of time. Some very simple scriptures.
Deu 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time [H3117 YOM], forty days [H3117 YOM] and forty nights; and the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also, and the LORD would not destroy thee.
Moses refers to the forty days and forty nights spent on the mountain with God as a singular day. Yom. No plural, just singular. Forty days and nights became one yom.
1Ki 11:42 And the time [H3117 Yom] that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years.
Here King's solomon reign, all forty years, is referred to as a Yom. These are the Words of Jesus too Oatmeal.
This is clearly a period if time much longer than twelve hours but apparently I despise the Words of Jesus. Perhaps Oatmeal, it would be best to remember:
Psalm 119:160 The sum of Thy word is truth, And to the age is every judgment of Thy righteousness!
You seem to be ignoring the SUM of God's Word in deciding what the length of time a yom is. Perhaps it varies based on context?
Deu 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always [H3605 Kole] [H3117 Yom], that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
Strong's Definition of H3605
kole, kole
From H3634; properly the whole; hence all, any or every (in the singular only, but often in a plural sense): - (in) all (manner, [ye]), altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, [no-] thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever).
Total KJV occurrences: 5406
We need only fear the Lord God a whole twelve hours, the totality of that singular yom, and things will be well for us and our children for the rest of time! That doesn't sound so bad! I think I can manage twelve hours.
Here is that exact same construct of "whole, (in) all, altogether" etc..
Deu 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always [H3605 Kol] [H3117 Yom].
Do you really believe we are to Love God for only a whole twelve hours? Obey God only for the totality of a singular Yom, which according to you, is just twelve hours?
Perhaps my entire life is a Yom. Did you ever think of that?
Deu 19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day [H3117 Yom], to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever [H3605 Kol] [H3117 Yom] in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:
Maybe I should walk in God's ways all my life and not merely a whole twelve hours?
Exodus 20:8 Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days [ Singular Yom] may be long in the land.
Well look at that! Even though the hebrew uses a siingular yom with no modifiers, the kjv went ahead and made it plural. The reason is that my life, all my days, is a yom. "That thy yom may be long in the land." Definitely not 12 hours.
back to Genesis 2:4
ASV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
(CLV) These are the genealogical annals of the heavens and the earth, when they were created. In the day Yahweh Elohim made the earth and the heavens,
(ESV) These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
(GNB) And that is how the universe was created. When the LORD God made the universe,
(ISV) These are the records of how the heavens and the earth were created. On the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Notice the two words created [Bara] and made [Asah]. They are different for a reason. In the beginning at Genesis 1:1, God HAD ALREADY CREATED the necessary pieces to MAKE (Fashion, mold etc..) the heavens and the earth.
God explains the process of that making, the fashioning and molding, in the previous chapter where each period of time is then broken into seperate yom's. For example:
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Notice God associates "Let there be..." with the process of "making" something. Fashion, molding, etc... Look at when this all happens? During those six days.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
What does God say after all these days?
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
God just finished making everything. This is that generation, that DAY of making.
Genesis 2:4 In the day Yahweh Elohim made the earth and the heavens,
As ray stated, Genesis 1:1 as written in the hebrew denotes that the Heaven's and the earth had already been created at that point. They were not yet made though into what they are now. The pieces were brought into existence but the fashioning, the making , the process of that, had not yet occurred. This Genesis 2:4 is talking about that in the beginning and the process which occurs after it.
In Christ,
Alex
-
Actually Alex, Oatmeal is correct. The scriptures you mentioned, he already addressed in his previous post. Yom is used in the plural in those scriptures. Look it up in different translations, like the Concordant, or use a Hebrew interlinear. Yom is plural in those verses. Multiple yoms can be a long time, there's no argument about that. The question Oatmeal is raising is if a singular yom can be more than 12 hours.
-
Actually Alex, Oatmeal is correct. The scriptures you mentioned, he already addressed in his previous post. Yom is used in the plural in those scriptures. Look it up in different translations, like the Concordant, or use a Hebrew interlinear. Yom is plural in those verses. Multiple yoms can be a long time, there's no argument about that. The question Oatmeal is raising is if a singular yom can be more than 12 hours.
Hi Loc,
I must admit I am no longer following you. Can you explain? When I search these various passages, I get the same word each time with the same strong definition. Are you saying then that Genesis 2:4 is also plural and therefor is not applicable to the "singular" yom in question? How do you determine if its "singular?" Even the hebrew texts I've seen all use yom the same way with the same characters. As an example, I used this website to check hebrew with english side by side: http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/Deuteronomy/5.html
God bless,
Alex
-
The interlinear I use is this one.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
Here's Duet. 10.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/deu10.pdf
In this interlinear, the Hebrew is the same as the one you gave (http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/Deuteronomy/10.html). Although in mine, the words are flipped to read left to right, whereas Hebrew is read right to left, and your interlinear preserves this original order.
The word translated time is from the Hebrew יָּמִים which is yom in the plural.
While the word translated days as in forty days is יוֹם which is yom in the singular.
Interestingly, the Hebrew reads "forty day" and "forty night", while in English we would put an "s" on the end of "day" and "night."
Check some other translations of Deut 10:10.
Rotherham Deu 10:10 But, I, stayed in the mountain according to the former days, forty days and forty nights,—and Yahweh hearkened unto me at that time also, Yahweh was not willing a to destroy thee.
Young's Deu 10:10 `And I--I have stood in the mount, as the former days, forty days and forty nights, and Jehovah hearkeneth unto me also at that time; Jehovah hath not willed to destroy thee.
Concordant Deu 10:10 As for me, I stayed on the mountain as on the first days, forty days and forty nights, and Yahweh hearkened to me also at that time:Yahweh would not bring ruin on you.
As for Gen 2:4, yom is singular there. Though I'm not convinced that Oatmeal is correct in saying this is referring back to Gen. 1:1.
Edit: Look at the transliteration in the interlinears. qbible says "Yämiym" which is plural. scripture4all transliterates a bit differently, but it's the same thing, "imim." The singular is "yom" or "ium", depending on the transliteration.
-
Thank you loc for the clarification. I see what you're saying. So now can you explain to me why singular yom means 12 hours? Is the only proof of that being Jesus who asked if an entirely different word for day in greek had twelve hours in it? Can't we find new testament verses which use the word yom and its derivations in quoting the old testament to see how the apostles understood the word by inspiration of the holy spirit?
-
Aside from John 11:9, where Jesus said there are 12 hours in the day, there's Gen. 1:5, where God refers to the light as day. Oatmeal said he's happy to stick with these two scriptures to define the word day.
As for New Testament quotations of Old Testament verses using yom, I'll have to look into that. If the apostles used the Septuagint, perhaps we could look to that too, but keeping in mind that the Septuagint, like any other translation, wasn't inspired by God.
-
It is interesting that forty days is plural in english but yom, IUM, remains singular regardless of the amount attached to it. That would, in my opinion, make void the idea that a yom singular is twelve hours.
Also, there many scriptures that use singular yom to refer to the day of judgment and wrath. Are these only to take place over twelve hours?
Each one of the following examples matches in its usage of Genesis 2:4, singular Yom, b.IUM.
Psalm 110 1-7
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Thy people shall be willing in the day [Singular Yom] of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day [Singular yom, positive this time ;)] of his wrath.
He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
The day of wrath is twelve hours long? ??? The day of His power is only twelve hours long? ???
Ezekiel 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day [Singular YOm] of the Lord.
The day of the Lord lasts twelve hours?
Here singular Yom is translated as Time. There is only one day, twelve hours long, of harvest? Aren't there entire seasons which consist of many days for harvest?
Proverbs 25:13 As the cold of snow in the time [Singular Yom] of harvest, so is a faithful messenger to them that send him: for he refresheth the soul of his masters.
Here again is the singular yom translated time.
Proverbs 25:19 Confidence in an unfaithful man in time [Singular Yom] of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint.
Now someone might want to argue this next one and that's fine but did Isreal come out of Egypt in one day or did it take many days to finally come out of Egypt?
Isaiah 11:16 And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day [Singular Yom] that he came up out of the land of Egypt.
Jeremiah 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day [Singular Yom] that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jeremiah 11:4 Which I commanded your fathers in the day [Singular Yom] that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God:
Jeremiah 11:7 For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day [Singular Yom] that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice.
I mean many of these things didn't all happen on one literal twelve hour period refered to as a day of exodus. It happened over many years, in fact, to my understanding, while they were in the wilderness which last forty years. Yet its all a day.
Wasn't the covenent made in the wildnerness? Yet its part of that "day" God took them out of Egypt. Moses recieved the ten commandments which are the covenent on top of the mountains which he was there for forty days and nights. How can this all be one literal twelve hour day?
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [Singular Yom] that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
Is the day of great slaughter going to last twelve hours or is it much longer? Similar to a day of judgment?
Jeremiah 34:13 Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day [Singular Yom] that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying,
Isaiah 30:25 And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, rivers and streams of waters in the day [Singular Yom] of the great slaughter, when the towers fall.
The land didn't receive rain for twelve hours? Big deal!
Ezekiel 22:24 Son of man, say unto her, Thou art the land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day [Singular Yom] of indignation.
Zephaniah 2:3 Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day [Singular Yom] of the Lord's anger.
The day of the Lord's anger lasts twelve hours??? I don't know, I find all this hard to believe.
Here, I found the nail in the coffin to this twelve hour day discussion:
Isa 34:8 For a day [Singular Day] of vengeance is it for Yahweh, a year of repayments for the contention of Zion. (CLV)
Isa 34:8 For it is the day [Singular Day] of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. (KJV)
It is a singular day of vengeance for God and but a whole year of repayments for Zion? Singular Day = Year (365 x 12 hours) of repayments. How then can it be a literal twelve hour period?
Lastly, what about Genesis 2:17, the day you eat the fruit dying you will surely die. Adam didn't die that same day... he lived a long long time to come (900+ y ears total).
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [Singular Yom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
It uses the same form of Yom, B-ium, that is in Genesis 2:4. A singular yom.
I could keep going with this, searching these out but I have to get to work now.
I am not at all convinced that a Yom, even singular, is twelve hours always. I'm more convinced now after understanding what you were saying and searching it out that it most certainly denoates a variable amount of time. A period that begins and ends.
-
Leviticus 23:26-32 discusses the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), which is the tenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish calendar.
In that instance Yom refers to a 24 hour day because the day is kept "evening to evening" (sunset to sunset) just as the Jews keep the weekly Sabbath.
A concordance of biblical usage shows that Yom (Day) is used in Hebrew as a division of time, time, year, day (the daylight portion of a day), and day ( a 24 hour day including light and dark). Yom does not have one set meaning.
Looks like Ray the Roofer was right all along. Yom refers to various units of time. Some Scriptural teaching wannabes do not know what they are talking about, although they are deceived into thinking they are so intelligent.
The difference between the Scriptural teaching ability of Ray the Roofer and others is like the difference between lightning (Ray) and a lightning bug (others). Although it's not really Ray but the Spirit behind Ray.
-
Thank you Loc for your assistance. Yes, it is it is the singular yom that is used in Genesis 1 and it is the singular yom that we are discussing.
I did not say that Genesis 2:4 refers back to Genesis 1:1. I gave that as a possibility, and giving some pointers as to why it was possible.
There were some good finds by Alex, I am not unhappy to admit that. It is possible that "the 'day' of", followed by an expression, may be longer than 12 hours. In English there is an expression "saving up for a rainy day". Such expressions however do not alter the meaning of the word 'day' when the word 'day' is used on its own.
Perhaps Alex will be able to prove his hypothesis. That will be ok with me.
In regard to the post by John, "evening to evening" is a qualifying expression.
Putting the science part aside, in which I was very forward, I have asked specific and easy to understand questions in regard to specific aspects of Ray's teaching in regard to the day-age hypothesis, showing clearly why I could not see those aspects as taught as being truthfully accurate. Those questions in their entirety or in the main have not been answered nor has any genuine attempt been made to answer or to address those questions. Instead I have been viciously accused, unmercifully judged, and harshly sentenced by a member of this forum.
Oatmeal
-
Leviticus 23:26-32 discusses the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), which is the tenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish calendar.
In that instance Yom refers to a 24 hour day because the day is kept "evening to evening" (sunset to sunset) just as the Jews keep the weekly Sabbath.
A concordance of biblical usage shows that Yom (Day) is used in Hebrew as a division of time, time, year, day (the daylight portion of a day), and day ( a 24 hour day including light and dark). Yom does not have one set meaning.
Looks like Ray the Roofer was right all along. Yom refers to various units of time. Some Scriptural teaching wannabes do not know what they are talking about, although they are deceived into thinking they are so intelligent.
The difference between the Scriptural teaching ability of Ray the Roofer and others is like the difference between lightning (Ray) and a lightning bug (others). Although it's not really Ray but the Spirit behind Ray.
Good point too John. Here that singular Yom denotes a 24 hour period, from "even to even (Deut 23:32)."
I also found the greek equivalent in looking at how the Hebrew writer quotes psalm 95. He uses the greek word: Hemera (G2250). It's strong's definition is rather variable as well. In the same way that Yom is variable. This word is the word used in reference to Judgement Day (Hamera). I suppose one could argue that all the billions of people on the earth will be judged in twelve hours but seeing as how judgement has began on the house of God now and that lasts much longer than twelve hours, I'm thinking for most of humanity and especially those who despise the Lord, judgment day will be much much longer than twelve hours.
God bless,
Alex
-
Thank you Loc for your assistance. Yes, it is it is the singular yom that is used in Genesis 1 and it is the singular yom that we are discussing.
I did not say that Genesis 2:4 refers back to Genesis 1:1. I gave that as a possibility, and giving some pointers as to why it was possible.
There were some good finds by Alex, I am not unhappy to admit that. It is possible that "the 'day' of", followed by an expression, may be longer than 12 hours. In English there is an expression "saving up for a rainy day". Such expressions however do not alter the meaning of the word 'day' when the word 'day' is used on its own.
Perhaps Alex will be able to prove his hypothesis. That will be ok with me.
In regard to the post by John, "evening to evening" is a qualifying expression.
Putting the science part aside, in which I was very forward, I have asked specific and easy to understand questions in regard to specific aspects of Ray's teaching in regard to the day-age hypothesis, showing clearly why I could not see those aspects as taught as being truthfully accurate. Those questions in their entirety or in the main have not been answered nor has any genuine attempt been made to answer or to address those questions. Instead I have been viciously accused, unmercifully judged, and harshly sentenced by a member of this forum.
Oatmeal
Oatmeal don't play the Martyr. You accused me of despising the Words of Jesus because I did not agree with you. Do you know the accusations you threw at a brother in Christ?
I repent on my part for not having understood the intricacies of the hebrew language and in ignorance having tried to discuss the matter with you. That being said, I am no language expert. I learned something new today and for that I am grateful so thank you for driving this discussion deeper. Now I don't think you did a very good job of explaining where you were coming from when trying to dissect yom and its usage but you did make your point that you did not like how ray interpreted the word Yom. I got that part from it and so I did my best with what I understood and the tools I had.
Now that I have a better understanding of it I have returned to the matter once more and I am even more convinced, if that's possible, that yom, as it exists in absolute singularness, does not mean twelve hours. It CAN mean twelve hours but it doesn't hold that meaning as its definition. Its clear that it is a period of time that begins and ends though.
Sticking with just Genesis, Adam did not die in the day he ate of the tree, he died at the age of 900+. That alone should cause you to question your notion that day means only twelve hours.
You state: "he 'day' of", followed by an expression, may be longer than 12 hours."
How does adding the word "of" give the word "day" a GREATER meaning than it held previously? When does being OF something make it GREATER than that something? It might be all of that something but surely it does not become greater than the thing it is OF? So how can we go from twelve hours to now in regards to adam eating the fruit, or any of the other examples where we find this construct, to hundreds of years longer all because we added the "he --- of" as you phrased it?
In Christ,
Alex
-
The way I see it, a day can be 12 hours, 24 hours, one thousand years, or a more extended period of time.
The important thing is that God is referring in every instance I know about, to an event that has taken place, or is about to take place.
The event is to be the main point of focus.
Joel
-
Hi Alex
Just to make it clear, in my previous post it wasn't you I was accusing of viciously accusing me, etc.
In your accusation that I accused you of despising the words of Jesus, I plead guilty. I phrased the accusations in two questions, thinking that questions could not be an accusation. On reflection, they were. I should have instead phrased a question: "How do the words of Jesus in John 11:9 fit in with the day-age hypothesis?" I therefore humbly apologise. Let me say the words: "I'm sorry. Please forgive me".
This apology applies to all that took offence.
I will get back to you further.
Oatmeal
-
At least at this point in time I will not be contributing further to this thread. It is definitely not worth the work just to be right.
Oatmeal
-
Hi Oatmeal,
No hard feelings.
We will get there! All in God's time.
God bless,
Alex
-
Hi
I very recently viewed the video Noah's Flood Was Not Global (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c) on the bible-truths.com Youtube site and note that near the end of the video Ray said or inferred that it was during the 6 days of Creation, not during the flood of Noah's time, that seashells ended up at the top of what is now Mt Everest.
Was it during the 6 days of Creation that the worldwide fossil record also was formed?
Yes, at least that part of it which was formed during the 6 scriptural yoms.
By what process? Was it by animals etc being covered by volcanic debris? Can sedimentary rock come from a volcano (most fossils are found in sedimentary rock)?
By the same processes that create sediment even today. The rest of your "questions" are straw-men.
In bringing order out of chaos, was the Creation itself temporarily the cause of chaos in that millions of animals died catastrophically by the Creation process itself?
Things moved from EVENING (chaos) and MORNING (order) in each of the six scriptural yoms.
How could it be that seashells were in/on what was possibly the first bit of land to come out of the sea when it is chronologically mentioned in Genesis that the appearing of the dry (land), the naming of the dry, and the bringing forth of plant life on the dry, occurred before the bringing forth of sea life?
Because "evening" and "morning" are processes, not events. And for the same reason that God took the fourth yom to name the greater and lesser lights He had already created on Yom one. Not, therefore, strictly chronological.
In the video (starting from 24.28) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=24m28s) Ray explains in detail how in the commandments' "6 days shall thou labour, but in the seventh day no work shall be done" (refer to Exodus 20:8-11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV)) the definition of day in the fourth commandment was not 24 hours: that mankind as a general rule worked during the day and always rested at night - they did not labour for 24 hours per day; and consequently the claim that a day in Genesis One is 24 hours is not a claim based on factuality. Why does not the same basis of argument speak against the claim that a day in Genesis 1 is a vast eon of time, as the definition of day in the fourth commandment, as well as not being 24 hours, was also not a vast eon of time, and not only did mankind not work for 24 hours per day, mankind did not work for a vast eon of time per day either, and consequently the claim that a day in Genesis 1 is a vast eon of time is not a claim based on factuality? Can there be two definitions/meanings of the word "day" in the same portion of Scripture, Exodus 20:8-11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV)? Ray asks, in the video Define The Days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mHu3Gisc4M#t=02m38s) (02:38), and in reference to Genesis 1:5 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A5&version=KJV): "Did God change his mind as to what the definition of a day was, halfway through a verse?" Answering that question in regard to Genesis 1:5, and a similar question may be asked of Exodus 20:8-11, Ray at first is saying "No", and then he says "Yes", of course not saying that God changed His mind, but that there can be two definitions/meanings of the word "day" in one verse, and in one portion of Scripture.
Others have waded into this and all I can add is that "yom" is a word which carries various shades of meaning depending on how it is used in a sentence, just as 'day' in English is not strictly defined.
Merriam Webster:
Full Definition of DAY
1
a : the time of light between one night and the next
b : daylight 1
c : daytime
2
: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
3
: the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight
4
: a specified day or date
5
: a specified time or period : age <in grandfather's day> —often used in plural <the old days> <the days of sailing ships>
6
: the conflict or contention of the day <played hard and won the day>
7
: the time established by usage or law for work, school, or business
— day after day
: for an indefinite or seemingly endless number of days.
From 26:28 in the NFWNG video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=26m28s) to 33.54 Ray states a proof from Genesis 1:14 and a proof from Genesis 2:1 that prove that "days" (in Genesis 1) means "years". His logic does not make sense to me, so would someone please explain to me the rationality of what he said?
I might could, if he had said that. Maybe he did, but that is not the way I remember it. He said that the word 'yom' did not necessarily mean a 12 or 24 hour day, but could mean a long time. He did not say that it had a strict definition of "years".
If I built a watch, which when completed I was going to use for seasons, and for days, and years, the watch would be fully completed as soon as I finished constructing it, even though I was yet to use it for seasons, and for days, and years. Is Ray saying that these luminaries were used for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years until the end of the sixth day (or to the end of the fourth day?) (signs for who?), and in regard to the second proof, in his quoting from Genesis 2:1 to say that these signs, seasons, days, and years were finished, being inclusive in in God's finished work, are there going to be no more signs from these luminaries?
What on earth makes you think Ray said we aren't living in a created world now? That God said, "Let them be for signs, etc." is no more difficult to understand than that plants and animals are still "being fruitful and multiplying". The very words used in the Scripture in Genesis 1 translated 'create' or 'formed' imply an initial act that continues. We've lost this in English, to a large extent, but it might be best rendered "is creating' or "let us be making". So perhaps you should consider building a watch rather than having already built one.
Part way through the above section, from 27:16.5 in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbxaFCJ59c#t=27m16.5s), Ray expounds on the "and it was so" of Genesis. Ray says that that phrase, those words, those Hebrew letters, and even the little "pointies", are identical to that same phrase you find in other places in the Bible, and that he can show us others places where it takes even longer periods of time than the 4 generations mentioned in 2 Kings 15:12. This is where the software in my E-Sword falls down, obviously. Not counting the six times the phase appears in Genesis 1 (first day x 0, second day x 1, third day x 2, fourth day x 1, fifth day x 0, sixth day x 2 = 6), the software can only find one other example of the identical phrase, and that is the one that Ray mentions from 2 Kings 15:12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+15%3A12&version=KJV). I do notice that the "And so it came to pass" of 2 Kings 15:12 was written at the time that the event that it speaks of is fulfilled, not at any time before its fulfilment. Should the occurrences of this phrase in Genesis be treated any differently? Was each "and so it came to pass" phrase in Genesis fulfilled in the day in which it is declared, and at the time that it is spoken?
The final "and so it came to pass" of Genesis 1 appears in Genesis 1:30:
Genesis 1:29-30 KJV
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Were mankind and the animals able to eat from that point on?
Was the final "and so it came to pass" ("and it was so" - KJV) in regard to diet/food fulfilled a million years later, or even as much as 2 days later, or immediately after, or had it been fulfilled at (immediately before) that time (as in 2 Kings 15:12)? If it was fulfilled at (immediately before) that time, and as per exactly the same usage of the phrase in 2 Kings 15:12, whence comes the argument that the other "and so it came to pass"es mean a long time later, or any time later?
Also, if the fowls and the beasts and the creepy-crawlies were created millions of years earlier, were they happily waiting around for millions of years until the ordaining of their food supply in Genesis 1:30, or were those birds and beasts etc created in that same 12-hour day and during the previous 12-hour day?
Why does each day of Creation get a one only single evening and a one only single morning? What is the specific answer to that question?
Again, what is the definition of a day in Genesis 1:5?
See above.
These are just questions. Is it OK to ask questions directly related to a teaching on the bible-truths YouTube site? And that are suitable for explaining the difficulties one is having with the teaching?
Yes, I suppose it usually is. However, elsewhere in this thread when you were advised to check out the full conference to get answers to your questions, you poo-poo'ed the idea. All I can tell you is that none of us are qualified to 're-teach' what Ray taught...and even if we were, isn't it better to go directly to the source of the one who's teachings you are questioning? Since Ray isn't here, that must be the material on the website, not the forum.
I have previously tended to think that because of the worldwide fossil record the Flood was worldwide (parts of the Earth being uplifted at that time, and other parts dropping (as a result of all the fountains of the great deep being broken), explaining where the floodwaters went).
As Ray says, and as I can see, Psalm 104:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+104%3A9&version=KJV) puts a big NO on the Floodwaters covering the whole Earth. Does this definitely mean however that the "waters of Noah" (Isaiah 54:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+54%3A9&version=KJV)), and the rending of all the springs of the vast submerged chaos (from Genesis 7:11 CLV), etc, did not have a cataclysmic worldwide effect? For how long was Noah on the Ark?
In saying that science agrees with the Kabbalah, Ray is in agreement, at least in the area that he talks about in the video, with the teachings of the Kabbalah, and in the video he does give them respect in regard to their knowledge. Is it therefore ok to study the Kabbalah? Going the other way, is it possible instead that mainstream cosmological science (and evolution science from its inception), instead of being strictly based on observational, experimental and reason based science is now founded on a philosophical premise, and from that unscientific origin and root comes its agreement with the Kabbalah?
Oatmeal
Nothing you've said assuming a world-wide flood is not also true of a regional flood. I don't know what to make of your other questions. You don't need anybody's permission to study anything you want. When you have a website, you can share your findings. Lastly, if you think 'mainstream science' does not base their theories on observation, experiment and reason, you're building a straw-man argument in very many cases. The only exception to that is theoretical physics based entirely on mathematics, imo. In that field, 'experiment and observation' are exceedingly difficult, if not axiomatically impossible. However, what the 'math' has predicted has in large measure BEEN observed in experiment when such experiments were feasible. Not that it matters to most folks.
All I'll add is "watch-read" the Nashville '08 conference. It is not necessary for you to agree with any of it, but if your questions are genuinely sincere, that is the ONLY source I can send you to. We'll see.
-
The way I see it, a day can be 12 hours, 24 hours, one thousand years, or a more extended period of time.
The important thing is that God is referring in every instance I know about, to an event that has taken place, or is about to take place.
The event is to be the main point of focus.
Joel
yayyyy joel. i read through these posts and got lost in all the words. joel's post hit the nail on the head.
claudia
-
The way I see it, a day can be 12 hours, 24 hours, one thousand years, or a more extended period of time.
The important thing is that God is referring in every instance I know about, to an event that has taken place, or is about to take place.
The event is to be the main point of focus.
Joel
yayyyy joel. i read through these posts and got lost in all the words. joel's post hit the nail on the head.
claudia
You didn't miss much Claudia.
In the end, Ray was absolutely right in understanding yom as a variable period of time which begins and ends.
I do believe what Joel said is very important too.
God bless,
Alex