Featured Where are the Fossilized Remains of Millions of Humans?

The fossil record shows that dinosaurs and modern animals coexisted.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2045809&postcount=53

 

Dawning- the word in all caps. That was the word I drew attention to.

just as the "evening and MORNING" were the first day.

That is simply like saying the eve of the Civil war and the dawning of a new age of freedom.

 

No it's not. And the evening and the morning were the first, or one day.

That's what it actually says.

I notice you avoid my questions concerning the creation of Eve.

 

That might be true, if -- and that's a big "if" -- yowm could be interpreted as being anything other than a literal 24-hour day throughout the first two chapters of Genesis. Unfortunately for you, it can't be. In the presence of a cardinal number, yowm must be taken as being precisely and literally whatever number precedes it in the passage. Again, unfortunately for you, that is the case with every occurrence of yowm in those passages.

 

Who said otherwise??

The eve and dawn are USUALLY used figuratively. One would EXPECT them to be used figuratively first and then LOOK for reasons in the text why they MIGHT possibly be literal.

What you want to do is the opposite. You want to take terms like "day" and "eve" that are used figuratively more often than literally and pretend that they must be literal here when there is NO, absolutely NO indicator in the text that they ARE.

And I don't remember the Eve question.

What was it?

 

That's not true.

An example is Daniel 11:20“Then in his place one will arise who will asend an 1oppressor through the 2Jewel of his kingdom; yet within a few days he will be shattered, though not in anger nor in battle.

Here is another:
"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)

To be honest, I think that whole ordinal number tied to yom business is baloney.

Even if there were NOT verses that PROVED it was baloney, I don't see a single reason why anyone should embrace it.

 

Word study of "yom"

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

 

Yep.

I think this text is particularly telling:

Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." - See more at: http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm#sthash.a7EEkU43.dpuf

THE DAY

THE DAY

that the Lord made the heavens and the earth.


WELL THAT HAS TO BE A LITERAL 24 HOUR PERIOD!!!!!!

IT HAS TO BE!!!!

So did god make the universe in 144 hours or in 24 hours, YECers?

Which is it?

Because both uses of the word "day" are in Genesis 1-2.

In THE DAY that the Lord made the heavens and the Earth!!

YOM.

 

Look it up.

 

That's right. Not "first" day. Not evening and morning.

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2045809&postcount=53

Argue day all you want, the fossil "record" puts dinosaurs and modern animals together.

 

http://creation.com/william-lane-craig-vs-creation

WLC (william lane craig): Secondly, in any case, the claim is simply false. It is false. We do have passages where yom is used with an ordinal number to refer to a non-literal day. One such passage would be Hosea 6:2. In Hosea 6:2, it says, “He will revive us after two days. He will raise us up on the third day that we may live before him.” Here the days are not meant to be 24-hour periods of time. It is talking about God’s judgment upon Israel. He’s rent Israel. He has judged Israel. But on the third day, he will raise us up.​

The third day is symbolic of the day of God’s deliverance and healing and restoration of Israel after it’s having been wounded and rent by the Lord’s judgment. It’s simply false that yom used with an ordinal number always refers to a 24-hour period of time. In Hosea 6:2, it is clearly not referring to a literal 24-hour period of time.​

JS: From RC, yet again:

The old-Earth creationist Alan Hayward, whom Ross praises for ‘sound theology’ despite being a unitarian,29 so denying the Deity of Christ as is clearly taught in the New Testament (e.g. John 1:1–14, 5:18; Titus 2:13), claimed that this passage “is at least one exception that shatters the so-called rule.”30 Not surprisingly, Ross accepts and repeats this argument (C&T:47).​

However, this verse is set in a very specific sort of poetic synonymous parallelism. It is a common Semitic device, which takes the form X//X+1, i.e. one number followed by the next one, but where the numbers are not meant to be taken literally because they refer to the same thing in different ways.31 Other OT examples that illustrate the synonymity are:​

Job 5:19: ‘From six calamities he will rescue you, from seven no harm will befall you.’​

Prov. 6:16: ‘There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:’​

Prov. 30:15: ‘There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, “Enough!”​

Prov. 30:18: ‘There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand.’​

Amos 1:3: ‘This is what the Lord says: “For three sins of Damascus, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath…”​

Hosea 6:2 is likewise this specific Semitic figure of speech, so must be interpreted accordingly. So the use of ‘two days’ and ‘three days’ are not intended to give literal numbers, but to communicate that the restoration of Israel mentioned in the previous verse will happen quickly and surely. This applies regardless of eschatological views about when this takes place.​

Therefore, these instances must refer to normal days, or maybe even shorter periods, as opposed to long periods, otherwise the device would lose its meaning, i.e. the restoration would not be quick and sure if the days were long periods of time.​

So Hayward and Ross are wrong to use this verse with a special grammatical structure to try to overturn the hundreds of crystal-clear examples of yôm used with a number.​

 

:thumbs:

:thumbs:

 

Never considered doing this, Aaron, you might start a trend here.

 

Its a made up rule, Aaron. Walter Kaiser and James Price, both Hebrew scholars say its bunk which you probably already know.

I DON'T think you have a whole bunch of reputable scholars who espouse the ordinal number rule.

I know there are some, just like there are some who say it is bunk.

 

When they, or you for that matter, can point me to one single incident in the Old Testament in which a cardinal number is used with the word yowm that doesn't mean a literal 24-hour day, I will listen to your reasoning. So go for it. Produce one such example. I'll be waiting.

Before posting this, I reviewed some of your "reputable scholars." One said that Hebrew has only 8,700 words. This is the kind of idiocy produced by your "reputable scholars." That's the number of words used in the Old Testament, but ancient Hebrew is known to have over 85,000 words at the minimum. So forgive me if I don't trust your "reputable scholars."

 

No you won't. You won't listen to reason and I'll prove it.

I am going to provide an example where the "cardinal number" is used with the word "yowm" and it does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

After I do this you are going to start vociferously wiggling and trying to find out how to get out from under this fact.

You are going to do like Obama with Obamacare. He said, "You like your insurance company you can keep it- period." Now he is saying "WHAT I MEANT WAS you can keep it if blah, blah, blah..."

This is EXACTLY what you are going to do.

I am going to provide EXACTLY what you ask for and then you are going to pull an Obama and say, "What I meant was blah, blah, blah..."


You are going to add criteria that you did not provide in the above request. You are going to spin the request. You are going to wiggle.

Now, you are not going to use the WORDS "what I meant was..." because I said you would use them. No. what you are going to do is pick other words that basically mean the same thing just so you can say that you did not do EXACTLY what I predicted.

But it is what you are going to do nonetheless.

Watch.

Hosea 6:2
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

Nobody on EARTH thinks that days there is literal- nobody remotely reputable.

The cardinal number is there qualifying yom.

Alright... GO!!!

Start spinning and wiggling and pulling an Obama.

Ready... GO!

One example, right?

Just one.

Go!!!

 

Actually, don't have to do any of that. Watch this ...

You're absolutely right. They don't. But the Hebrew words are sheniyim and sheliyshiy[/I ](transliterated) -- used here as ordinal, not cardinal numbers.

You lose again.

 

Okay, well, lets make this real simple.

I think the "cardinal rule" business is bogus and I am not alone.

I think that Aaron's mythical "hundreds" of Hebrew scholars who say that it always applies is baloney.

I don't think there IS such a rule and I have Hebrew scholars who agree with me.

You think there IS such a rule and you have Hebrew scholars who agree with you.

So, I'll be overly kind and say at the LEAST that this is a wash.

Which means you'll have to come up with another argument to demand that "days" in Genesis 1 are 24 hour periods.

Got one?

 

You have some real problems if the days in the Genesis account are long periods of time.

For instance, God created all plant life on the third day. He did not create the Sun, Moon, or stars until the fourth day.

If the days were long periods of time, how could plants survive for years without sunlight?

There is another problem for plants if the days in Genesis were long ages, God did not create the birds until the fifth day, and God did not create the insects until the sixth day. So again, how did plants survive for long ages without the birds and insects to pollinate them?

How did the birds survive for a long age without insects?

So, there are tremendous problems with the view that each day was a long age in the Genesis account.