This looks SO awesome! I want to see it!

[lilitalienboi16]

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

[indianabob]

Thanks for this find Alex.
Looks like a 90 minute film, so I'll have to watch tomorrow.

Regards, Indiana bob

[lilitalienboi16]

I got my ticket for Monday at 7pm! I'm excited. I invited Moises too, God willing He can come!

[wat]

Let us know how it is. Looks interesting.

[lilitalienboi16]

Let us know how it is. Looks interesting.

Will do

[lilitalienboi16]

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.

[acomplishedartis]

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.

[Extol]

Ah, wish I could have been there to go with you!

I haven't been to a movie theater in five years. 

[Mike Gagne]

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.

[lilitalienboi16]

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!

[indianabob]

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.

[John from Kentucky]

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.

[lilitalienboi16]

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!

[indianabob]

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

[Dave in Tenn]

?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.

[lurquer]

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?"

[Oatmeal]

Hi

I very recently viewed the video Noah's Flood Was Not Global 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) 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) 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?  Ray asks, in the video Define The Days (02:38), and in reference to Genesis 1:5: "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 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, 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.  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 puts a big NO on the Floodwaters covering the whole Earth.  Does this definitely mean however that the "waters of Noah" (Isaiah 54:9), 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

[John from Kentucky]

Hi

I very recently viewed the video Noah's Flood Was Not Global 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) 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) 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?  Ray asks, in the video Define The Days (02:38), and in reference to Genesis 1:5: "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 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, 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.  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 puts a big NO on the Floodwaters covering the whole Earth.  Does this definitely mean however that the "waters of Noah" (Isaiah 54:9), 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.

[wat]

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.

[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 and 2 Chronicles 9:30.  In both Scriptures the Hebrew says forty 'shanah', 'shanah' meaning 'years' - the Hebrew does not say forty 'yom's.  Ray is incorrect in this assertion.

1 Kings 11:42 CLV  And the days that Solomon has reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [are] forty years,

Again, days (plural) can obviously be years but by what stretch of logic does that mean therefore that a yom/day (singular) can be years, and by what further stretch of logic does that mean that a yom/day (singular) can be an eon or eons?

Perhaps Ray is again referring to the fact that in 1 Kings 11:42 some translations use the word 'time' instead of 'days'.  Again, as previously questioned, how can there be any relevance in the translators' choice to use the word 'time' in regard to supporting his hypothesis?  Can a choice by a translator alter the meaning of the word 'yom's, plural in the Hebrew, and then by further extension alter the meaning of the word 'yom', singular, and then by further extension alter the meaning of the word 'yom', singular into a more extensive meaning?

Next Scripture: Ray speaking: "And where it talks about forever, or for the eon, many times, Isaiah 30 verse 8, and so on, its 'yom', 'day'.  'Day' can be used many ways."

Isaiah 30:8 KJV  Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

Isaiah 30:8 YLT  No, go in, write it on a tablet with them, And on a book engrave it, And it is for a latter day, for a witness unto the age,

Is this Scripture saying that a day is an eon, or is it saying, as translated in the YLT, that in a day to come the writing will become a witness for an eon?  Does this Scripture provide Ray a true justification for saying that a yom/day can be an eon?  If so, please explain to me in logical steps the justification, in plain English.

1 Kings 1:1 KJV  Now king David was old and stricken in years ['days' in the Hebrew]; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.

If the Hebrew culture prefers to use 'days' in such a context, and the Western culture prefers to use 'years', of what relevance is the choice of a translator in translating 'yom', plural, as 'years' instead of 'days'?  Please explain to me how such a translation can alter the meaning of 'yom', singular, in the Hebrew to mean a year, years, or an eon?

Next Scripture: Genesis 41:1 KJV  And it came to pass at the end of two full years...

Ray's comment: "And after the end of two yoms, years. The word is yoms."

The Hebrew word for 'years' and the Hebrew word for 'days' are both used in this Scripture, the Hebrew word for 'days' immediately following the word for 'years'.  The word 'yom's does not appear on its own as is seemingly misrepresented by Ray.  The YLT translates as: "at the end of two years of days" and the CLV translates as: "at the end of two years to a day".  How does this Scripture allow 'yom', singular to have the definition of 'years'?  There appears to be no grounds in this Scripture on which to rest Ray's hypothesis.

Next Scripture:

Amos 4:4 KJV  Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years:

Ray's comment: "Your tithes after three yoms.  But it's definitely speaking about three years, not days, not 24-hours cycles.  But after three years you bring in this other tithe, you see."

Most or many translations translate this as days, not years.  The CLV uses exclamations marks, as if there is sarcasm being used:

Amos 4:4  Come to Bethel and transgress! At Gilgal increase the transgression! And bring your sacrifices for the morning, and your tithes for three days!"

So what does this Scripture say?  Does it say what it says, or does it say what Ray says it says?  And what happened to reading all the words?

Ray's comment: "Numerous times in the Old Testament yom is translated age. Stricken in age, old age, the whole age of Jacob.  Its yom, the yom of Jacob.  Its used to mean the word 'ago', or 'always', or 'season', they dwelt in the wilderness a long season, a long 'yom'."

'Stricken in age' has already discussed above in reference to 1 Kings 1:1 and King David:
Genesis 24:1 KJV  And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age...
Genesis 24:1 CLV  And Abraham is old, come to days...

It can be argued that 'well stricken in age' is easier to understand in the English, but what effect has that on the meaning of 'yom's (days) and 'yom' (day) in the Hebrew?  A translator may translate a word in a way that he wishes, but can that have any effect on the actual meaning of the word?  Is it good scholarship to appeal to the way a word has been translated, then to take that translated word out of the context of that translation, and then to say that that Hebrew word can have that meaning, and then to say that the singular of that word can have that meaning, and then to say that the singular of that word can go further in that meaning?  Is such an argument truly logical and does it have any sense?

'Old age': I looked up the expression: 'old age' in the KJV and I found no reference to 'yom's or 'yom' as part of that expression in any of 15 matches found.

'The whole age of Jacob': Genesis 47:28: This is a 'days of the years of' expression as in Genesis 47:8, and this expression has already been discussed.

Joshua 24:7 KJV  ...and ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season.
Joshua 24:7 CLV  ...and you dwell in a wilderness many days.

Again, 'season' is the choice of a translator and that choice cannot be worked backwards in order to give that meaning to the word 'yom's and then worked further backwards to give that meaning to the word 'yom'.

Ray comment: "This word is used all kinds of ways that never ever insinuates 24 hours. In Chronicles it's translated to the word 'chronicles' 27 times in the Old Testament. It's translated 'continually' or 'continuance' or 'ever' or 'evermore,' that's King James talk."

'Chronicles' is a combination of two words: 'dabar' and 'yom's.  How is it valid to strip one of the words, a yom plural, out of this two-word combination and then to say that the singular of that stripped out word has the same meaning as the two-word combination?

In respect to an eon, that has been discussed in relation to Isaiah 30:8.

Ray's comment: "So yom is not for a 24-hour period. It stands for time in general, days, weeks, months, years, eons, ages."

Ray's comment: "...So when He says, 'and the evening and the morning were day one', that could be millions or billions of years.  There is no time limit set on that whatsoever.  None."

Please show me using the above Scriptures accurately how Ray has truthfully shown this.  As I have explained in depth I am not able to see how Ray came to the conclusion that these Scriptures are in support of his Genesis day-age hypothesis.  Your help and the help of the forum to explain to me the validity of Ray's conclusion would therefore be most appreciated.

Thanks

Oatmeal