What's in a Day?

[Omni_Skittles]

Originally Posted by Omni_Skittles

ARE YOU CRAZY? lol i will try... haha

honestly i don't think that's in the bible....

[Omni_Skittles]

Just for ya'll's argument sake

Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" Gen 8:22. The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." Gen 39:10. Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" Gen 2:3. In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen 2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" Ex 13:10.

There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" Gen 25:31. It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." Gen 39:11. On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" Gen 50:20. Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." 1 Kings 1:51. Yet another nuance appears in 1 Sam 9:13: "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen 4:14) or refer to some particular "day" 1 Sam 1:4 and the "daytime" Neh 4:16.

The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in 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." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i. e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i. e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).

The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-escha- tologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isa 2).

It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches Ex 14:24; Judg 7:19. The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk Est 4:16 and sometimes dawn Deut 28:66-67.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

[Ted]

jester

I haven't changed the argument at all. We were talking about what the Bible says about creation. I can't help it if you do not like what the Bible translators say. Yet, without them you would have no Bible. Regardless of how you feel they are the experts.

As for the hydraulic engineer if he is not trained in geological interpretation he is out of his league. He is not credible.

Shalom
Ted

[Ted]

Omni

That is the interpretation of "yom" that I was trained it. Like other words in Hebrew it can have more than one meaning though related.

Shalom
Ted

Originally Posted by Ted

jester

You are wrong on that. Such an engineer knows the effects of water on rocks. That is his job. However, he is not trained in geological interpretation. Such interpretation as he might give has no credibility if he is not trained in geology. He can say what he likes but it would be the same as me trying to tell a nuclear scientist how to run his business. That is not my field.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what I want. It has everything to do with the facts and the evidence. What I want is immaterial.

Shalom
Ted

Ted, hes a water specialist, okay, he plays with water, he understand its affects. If he tests the force of water on rocks, gets a result, matches it to what is observable in nature, then presummes that forceful water casued the formations we see in the grand canyon, thats right up his alley, besides, he had geologists on his staff, who assit him in interpretation of the affects on the rocks.

Get it now Ted? It a related field, observation is observation.

Good lord, if its not stamped 'scholar' you wont open it!

[Omni_Skittles]

Just like my language... well Navajo haha. Okay I've researched, read the bible and the hebrew, and I've come to the conclusion... I just don't know. I wasn't there and in my belief i am going to ask the big guy when i get to heaven.

[Ted]

jester

I disagree. He is not a credible geologist. His field is engineering not geology. There is a big difference. Just like the fact that the average GP is not qualified to treat cancer. The specialist treating cancer has to be an oncologist.

Perhaps you have some unresolved fear of specialists and experts?

Shalom
Ted

[Ted]

jester

I would ask further as to whether or not his "research"? has been subjected to peer review? That too, is important.

Not only does it have to have scholar stamped on it, which may or may not be necessary, it has to be subjected to peer review. Then I will consider it. Notice I said consider it.

Shalom
Ted

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Jester

Ted, hes a water specialist, okay, he plays with water, he understand its affects. If he tests the force of water on rocks, gets a result, matches it to what is observable in nature, then presummes that forceful water casued the formations we see in the grand canyon, thats right up his alley, besides, he had geologists on his staff, who assit him in interpretation of the affects on the rocks.

Get it now Ted? It a related field, observation is observation.

Good lord, if its not stamped 'scholar' you wont open it!

Could you please explain why it is relevant whether the Grand Canyon was cut gradually by river erosion or repeated flash floods or whether it was cut catastrophically in a single event?

There are several other examples of catastrophic land erosion such as the Badlands, formed when an ice dam burst and released megatonnes of water over many hundred thousand square miles.

I fail to see the relevance to creationism.