PDA

View Full Version : Hello John Reece, and Help.



rwatts
06-07-2016, 09:30 AM
Gidday John,

In this thread:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10930-Yom-yom-Or-when-does-quot-God-said-quot-not-mean-quot-God-said-quot&p=328746&viewfull=1#post328746

- it has been suggested that I contact you, although you might not exactly be in a position to respond. If so, I understand.

I am an atheist, and so may well be trespassing here. However, I need some input.

It seems that many folk don't exactly understand my point, perhaps in part because I'm not explaining it well enough.

So if you have anything you may be able to add, and am in a position to do so, please bear with me.

YECs insist that in Gen 1, "yom" really does mean a 24 hour day. Accordingly, I insist that the phrase "God said" or "God made" really do mean, that God physically spoke or that God physically made.

Likewise, I insist that the same phrases in the list of verses I supplied, which deal with the origin of rain, mean exactly the same thing as those phrases do in Genesis.

Many tell me "No. 'God said' simply means that God is in ultimate control, or it means that God created the laws of nature to cause things to happen."

Because I am led to believe that you have some expertise in the original languages of the Bible you may be able to sort this out. In the original Hebrew, for the OT, does the term "God said" have the same kind of literal meaning that "yom" does, and if "yom" means 24 hour day, so "God said" really does mean that God spoke, and it happened. If so, then does "God said" (as well as God made) in that list of verses I supplied in the context of the origin of rain, also have the same meaning? And that the ancient Hebrews were not thinking in terms of natural process, or the laws of nature, but rather they were thinking in terms of God's direct action.

I think creationists are picking and choosing here as to what they take literally, and what they take more liberally, but I could be wrong.

Can you help please?

Sparko
06-07-2016, 03:13 PM
John is ill and won't be on for a while. Details here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10663-quot-Complex-Abdominal-Reconstructive-Surgery-quot&highlight=

mossrose
06-07-2016, 04:48 PM
I knew he was ill, and suggested that the question be asked anyway.

For when John is able.

Jedidiah
06-07-2016, 08:51 PM
. . . for the OT, does the term "God said" have the same kind of literal meaning that "yom" does, and if "yom" means 24 hour day, . . .

Not being John I can not help most of your question, but when YECs say "yom" literally means a 24 hour day they are only partly correct. The word "yom" has three different literal meanings. Yom can mean a 4 hour day, it can also mean the daylight portion of the 24 hour day, or it can mean a long but undefined period.

rwatts
06-08-2016, 08:20 AM
John is ill and won't be on for a while. Details here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10663-quot-Complex-Abdominal-Reconstructive-Surgery-quot&highlight=Thank you Sparko.

It does not look too good I guess. I hope for John's sake, he might be able to address the question at some time in the future.

Sparko
06-08-2016, 01:42 PM
Not being John I can not help most of your question, but when YECs say "yom" literally means a 24 hour day they are only partly correct. The word "yom" has three different literal meanings. Yom can mean a 4 hour day, it can also mean the daylight portion of the 24 hour day, or it can mean a long but undefined period.as far as I understand this is correct. It is used just like the english word "day" is. It's meaning depends on the context.

1. It will take two days to get to the destination.
2. In my father's day, they didn't have computers.
3. day is when the sun shines, night is when it is dark.

and so on.

Sparko
06-08-2016, 02:17 PM
The word "said" in Genesis 1, is Strong's 559.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/559.htm

amar: to utter, say
Original Word: אָמַר
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: amar
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-mar')
Short Definition: said
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to utter, say
NASB Translation
address (1), advised (1), answer (2), answered (50), answers (1), ask (2), asked (4), asking (1), Asserting (1), assigned (1), call (2), called (4), command (1), commanded (14), commanded to say (1), commands (3), consider (1), continued (2), decided (2), declare* (1), declared (2), declared* (1), declares (1), demonstrates (1), designate (1), desired (1), follows (2), gave an order (2), gave the order (2), gave orders (2), indeed say (1), informed (1), intend (2), intended (1), intending (1), meditate (1), mentioned (1), name (1), namely (2), news (1), ordered (6), plainly says (1), promised (6), proposing (2), really thought (1), repeated* (1), replied* (1), requested (1), resolved (3), responded* (7), said (2766), said* (2), say (601), saying (862), saying* (1), says (594), sent word (1), speak (29), speak to you saying (1), speaking (2), speaks (2), specifically say (1), specified (1), spoke (77), spoken (15), still say (1), suppose (1), tell (23), telling (2), tells (1), think (1), thinking (2), thought (17), told (25), utters (1), vaunt (1).

(a lot more info at the link)

Just Passing Through
06-08-2016, 02:25 PM
I’m not John, but I know the Biblical languages fairly well. You won’t gain any insights from the Hebrew regarding yom that you can’t get from the English. As mentioned, it has the same general meanings as in English, 24 hours, or daylight, or an indefinite period of time. But when you specify “Evening and morning were the first, second, third, fourth...day,” you can’t really take it as intending to mean anything but 24 hours without twisting the text.
Regarding “said,” the only small insight the Hebrew might give is that Hebrew has two words, dibber and amar, that are kind of like to speak and to say. Dibber emphasizes the actual act of speaking and the specific words spoken, while amar is a general word of communication and stresses the message, not the act. Its underlying, root meaning is to make known or even to make light or visible (from the Akkadian or Uggaritic root word). It’s even used for unspoken thoughts, for example, 1 Sam. 27:1 where the NIV translates, “David thought to himself.” Literally, David said in his heart. Genesis 1 uses amar, so whether God actually spoke the words or merely thought them is not indicated.

Regarding the other passages, since you only ask about original language insights, I won’t delve into the broader question of what they mean or why the Bible speaks the way it does, except to say that context and the clear intent of the author will generally help you choose between your options 1,2,3,and 4. You wouldn’t say that anyone who says, “the sun rose,” is ignorant and wrong about cosmology, or “I’m heartbroken” is wrong about anatomy. The Bible makes concessions, both to the limited understanding of its original audience (or because God’s purpose in any given passage doesn’t require a detailed explanation), and because of the mysteries of God that can’t be put into words (anthropomorphisms, and the complexity of God’s full involvement in the universe and the laws of nature). It also speaks like we do, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes in shorthand. Don’t assume he’s ignorant or in error because he doesn’t write the way you would have.

Kbertsche
06-10-2016, 05:22 AM
As I posted in the other thread, here is the abridged BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs; the standard lexicon for Biblical Hebrew) entry for "say" ('amar):



אָמַר vb. utter, say —
Qal 1. Say; the person addressed usu. introduced by ‏אֶל‎, or ‏לְ‎; rarer combinations are; where‏ בְּ‎local; in all cases usually sq. dir. obj. of words said. The obj. spoken of may be referred to by ‏אֶל‎, or ‏לְ‎, very rarely by a simple accus., except after ‏אֲשֶׁר‎ where the words used follow (cf. ‏אֲשֶׁר 4 d).
2. Say in the heart (= think) בלבב ’א; in particular = desire; sq. inf. = purpose.
3. Promise (sq. inf.); id. + ל of person); (sq. acc. of dir. obj. + ל of pers. + inf. of purpose).
4. Command (esp. late) sq. ‏אֶל-‎ of person addressed; inf. + ‏ל‎ of pers.; sq. acc. dir. obj.; sq. cl. with ‏אשׁר‎ = that; sq. cl. with כִּי.
Niph. be said, told (all abs., indef. subj., of current saying); so said in a book; be related, told, of vision; said, told to (sq. ל ind. obj.); either so, or told concerning; hence be called.
Hiph. avow, avouch.
Hithp. act proudly, boast.

In Gen 1:3 ff, the word "said" is in the Qal stem. The things that God says are in the jussive mood (essentially a third-person command). This context may suggest that "said" in Gen 1 has the sense of "command" which is definition 4 above. However, the complete (unabridged) version of BDB lists Gen 1:3 under definition 1.

rwatts
06-11-2016, 10:20 PM
I’m not John, but I know the Biblical languages fairly well. You won’t gain any insights from the Hebrew regarding yom that you can’t get from the English. As mentioned, it has the same general meanings as in English, 24 hours, or daylight, or an indefinite period of time. But when you specify “Evening and morning were the first, second, third, fourth...day,” you can’t really take it as intending to mean anything but 24 hours without twisting the text.
Regarding “said,” the only small insight the Hebrew might give is that Hebrew has two words, dibber and amar, that are kind of like to speak and to say. Dibber emphasizes the actual act of speaking and the specific words spoken, while amar is a general word of communication and stresses the message, not the act. Its underlying, root meaning is to make known or even to make light or visible (from the Akkadian or Uggaritic root word). It’s even used for unspoken thoughts, for example, 1 Sam. 27:1 where the NIV translates, “David thought to himself.” Literally, David said in his heart. Genesis 1 uses amar, so whether God actually spoke the words or merely thought them is not indicated.

Regarding the other passages, since you only ask about original language insights, I won’t delve into the broader question of what they mean or why the Bible speaks the way it does, except to say that context and the clear intent of the author will generally help you choose between your options 1,2,3,and 4. You wouldn’t say that anyone who says, “the sun rose,” is ignorant and wrong about cosmology, or “I’m heartbroken” is wrong about anatomy. The Bible makes concessions, both to the limited understanding of its original audience (or because God’s purpose in any given passage doesn’t require a detailed explanation), and because of the mysteries of God that can’t be put into words (anthropomorphisms, and the complexity of God’s full involvement in the universe and the laws of nature). It also speaks like we do, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes in shorthand. Don’t assume he’s ignorant or in error because he doesn’t write the way you would have.

Thanks for your work here JPT.

However I still have problems with this:-

"You wouldn’t say that anyone who says, “the sun rose,” is ignorant and wrong about cosmology, or “I’m heartbroken” is wrong about anatomy. The Bible makes concessions, both to the limited understanding of its original audience (or because God’s purpose in any given passage doesn’t require a detailed explanation), and because of the mysteries of God that can’t be put into words (anthropomorphisms, and the complexity of God’s full involvement in the universe and the laws of nature). It also speaks like we do, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes in shorthand. Don’t assume he’s ignorant or in error because he doesn’t write the way you would have."

- in the context of this:-

"As mentioned, it has the same general meanings as in English, 24 hours, or daylight, or an indefinite period of time."

It looks to me that, allowing for the variations of meaning in the context of "said", there was still some kind of action by God, then something appeared. That is, Gen 1 is not talking about natural process or laws of nature, any more than "yom" is talking about a thousand years (being a day to God).

So just how do you get to dismiss the term "said" so easily in that list of verses I supplied? Saying that they could be metaphor looks for all the world to me that you are choosing this, not because of what the Bible actually claims, but more so because they're are some scientific theories you are happy to accept despite what the Bible says, while there are other theories you don't want to accept, because of what the Bible says.

I don't know why you think that the intent of the authors of those verses I supplied was to talk in terms of "heartbreak" and "sunrise", when the most straightforward concept is that "said" in those verses means the same as it does in Gen 1. That is God spoke, or God thought, and something happened. With out that direct action, it would not have happened. And there is no mention of natural process being involved in either case.



That's my problem - understanding the justification for these different interpretations placed on that one word "said". The justification always looks to me like an issue of convenience, as opposed to what the original authors actually, or likely meant.

If you can accommodate 21st century science with that list I supplied, then a theistic evolutionist has every reason for doing so with respect to Gen 1.

Kbertsche
06-11-2016, 11:13 PM
Thanks for your work here JPT.
...
It looks to me that, allowing for the variations of meaning in the context of "said", there was still some kind of action by God, then something appeared. That is, Gen 1 is not talking about natural process or laws of nature, any more than "yom" is talking about a thousand years (being a day to God).
...
...That is God spoke, or God thought, and something happened. With out that direct action, it would not have happened. And there is no mention of natural process being involved in either case.
...
If you can accommodate 21st century science with that list I supplied, then a theistic evolutionist has every reason for doing so with respect to Gen 1.
Roland, your problem does not seem to be with biblical languages, but with a false dichotomy between divine action and natural law. You seem to think that if God acts, natural law cannot be involved. Conversely, if natural law acts, God cannot be involved. Your view is inconsistent with both Christian theology and the origins of modern science. Both of these see God as the "actor" behind natural law. "Natural law" is our description of God's normal actions with His creation.

Just Passing Through
06-12-2016, 02:31 AM
I guess you do want a verse by verse commentary on all the passages you cited, even if Hebrew is not needed to add insight. Okay.

Leviticus 26:4 I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit.
Jeremiah 5:24 They do not say to themselves, ‘Let us fear the LORD our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest.’

God sends rain normally by the ordinary laws of nature. They are his laws, it is still God who does it. The very fact that they recognize that rain comes at regular times during the year shows at least a rudimentary acknowledgement that weather is not all fickle god-play. At times he withholds rain or sends inundation, and the extent to which he needs to bend the laws of nature to do so is his decision and unknowable to us. He is capable of setting up the course of events so perfectly that, like unbelievably intricate clockwork, flood or drought comes exactly when it needs to to achieve his purpose without any miracle at all, just wise and gracious timing. Even the natural laws can be used to accomplish amazing things when one is all-powerful and all wise.
Verses like this do not mean that either the ancient people believed or God intended to say that rain is exclusively a supernatural phenomenon. Consider a passage like Isaiah 55:10-11: “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” I think that displays some understanding of the natural hydrologic cycle, without denying that God’s purposes are fulfilled by that cycle.

Jeremiah 14:22 Do any of the worthless idols of the nations bring rain? Do the skies themselves send down showers? No, it is you, O LORD our God. Therefore our hope is in you, for you are the one who does all this.

That (NIV) is actually a rather unfortunate translation. More literally, “Among the idols of the nations are there any rainmakers? And if the heavens give abundance, is it not you, O LORD our God?” He is not denying natural processes, but at a time of drought that came as God’s judgment he is basically saying, “Does it make any more sense asking the sky for rain than it does asking a wooden idol?”

Acts 14:17 “Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.”

I’m reminded of the passage from Deuteronomy 8:17, “You may say to yourself, ‘My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.’ But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth.” Saying that God is ultimately behind our prosperity (or lack of it), hardly means that the Bible denies that we have muscles that work, and jobs where we earn a paycheck through quite natural means, and live in a country with many natural resources, and on and on for the natural sources of prosperity. Those natural sources of wealth are exactly what the Israelites were tempted to think were the whole picture. Setting them straight is not denying the natural but allowing them and us to see a more complete view of reality.

Job 37:6 He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth,’ and to the rain shower, ‘Be a mighty downpour.’

Most of the book of Job is poetry, and much of the discourse in Job is very poetic, metaphorical and not intended as a scientific discourse on how nature works, just a reflection of how little we understand of how nature works and to what extent God acts behind, with, and through things that are a simple part of nature.

2 Chronicles 7:13 “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people...”

Here he is specifically addressing times when God takes specific action in judgment. God can and does at times override the laws of nature, in judgment or in grace. Unless the Scriptures specifically identify such a time, it’s unwise to read into any natural calamity a direct action and judgment by God, though nothing is outside of his providence. I think of what Jesus answered when people asked him if certain calamities were God’s judgment (a man born blind: whose sin was God punishing. A tower collapse that killed 18 men.) He said, no, they were not judgments; they were not interventions in the natural order of things. But they were permitted, either because of how God would be glorified through that natural event, or how the natural event teaches us the lesson to repent and be prepared for death at any time.

Amos 4:7 “I also withheld rain from you when the harvest was still three months away. I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain; another had none and dried up.”

This is one of those times when God specifically informed Israel that he was sending trials to call them to repentance. A specific instance in which God did override the laws of nature for his purposes.

Matthew 5:45 He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

They didn’t think of the sun as a god, or as a fickle being that may or may not show up tomorrow. It was an object God placed in the sky, and it follows a regular course like clockwork. God said after the Flood, Genesis 8:22, “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” Now do they have to have a clearly defined theory of gravity and the mathematical equations that go along with it to convince you that God’s control of nature is not miracles all the time, as if God pauses every morning and thinks, “Hmm, do I want to raise the sun today? Where’s it going to go this time around?” This verse is about the goodness God has provided for all people, not about micromanaging the sun’s movements.

Genesis 7:4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

Yes, sometimes God uses miracles.

Psalm 105:32 He turned their rain into hail, with lightning throughout their land;

This is describing the ten plagues God sent against Egypt. Yes, a miracle.

I don’t see that any of these passages requires me to pick and choose which laws of nature I want to believe in.

rwatts
06-12-2016, 02:47 AM
Roland, your problem does not seem to be with biblical languages, but with a false dichotomy between divine action and natural law. You seem to think that if God acts, natural law cannot be involved. Conversely, if natural law acts, God cannot be involved. Your view is inconsistent with both Christian theology and the origins of modern science. Both of these see God as the "actor" behind natural law. "Natural law" is our description of God's normal actions with His creation.Not exactly, because I have a great deal of sympathy with theistic evolutionists here.

I ask the question in the context of young earth creationism and the need to take the straightforward meaning of verses in the Bible.

It seems to me that they demand this, when it suits, and then are quite prepared to accommodate and compromise (to use their terms) with it does not suit.

Thus when it suits, "day" and "said" really do mean "24 hours" and "spoke" because that is the straightforward meaning of the words in the Bible. That is the meaning of the original words.

But in other contexts, words like "said" don't mean "spoke". But rather they can mean metaphor for "nature", "natural process", or "laws of nature".

However, I wonder if the ancients really viewed it this way. More likely they viewed "said" consistently across the Bible and if in one case "said" means "spoke" or "thought", so it does in other cases.


Even taking words in context, folk in a prescientific culture had no concept of our laws of nature and natural processes, so why should we assume any idea they had about the origins of anything - rain, babies, planets, frost, snow, drought, ..., matches our ideas?

As with my post back in the Nat Sci forum, this is really aimed at believers like Jorge.

I'm here because it was suggested that I come here to find out what words like "said" and "made" really meant, as far as the ancients thought of them, in those differing circumstances.

rwatts
06-12-2016, 02:55 AM
I guess you do want a verse by verse commentary on all the passages you cited, even if Hebrew is not needed to add insight. Okay.

Leviticus 26:4 I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit.
Jeremiah 5:24 They do not say to themselves, ‘Let us fear the LORD our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest.’

God sends rain normally by the ordinary laws of nature. They are his laws, it is still God who does it.

JPT, is that how the ancients thought of the meaning of those words? Or is that a theological interpretation placed on the meaning by later translators and theologians? Do you apply the same interpretation of "said" when it comes to Gen 1. That is, when God "said" and the moon came into existence, it was due to the laws of nature, as opposed to a miracle?

How do you determine exactly what the ancients thought?



Most of the book of Job is poetry, and much of the discourse in Job is very poetic, metaphorical and not intended as a scientific discourse on how nature works, ...

However, poetry is not necessarily all metaphor, just as history is not necessarily all fact let alone all truth. A poem can describe fact, using words that are plain description, with no metaphor.

Rightly or wrongly, I cannot help but think that you are placing onto the words, what you think they might mean, without much reference to what the ancients probably thought they meant, particularly when it comes to claiming things like "natural process" or "laws of nature".

Just Passing Through
06-12-2016, 11:06 AM
I’m not really concerned with what ancient people think. If the average Joe Jew thought the sun was a golden chariot or a bowling ball rolling across the hard surface of the sky, makes no difference. If the Bible and the Christian faith were just the creation of the culture and the product of imaginative theories about origins and God and how the world works, then it would matter. But if God is real and the Scriptures are his word, then the question is not whether the common ancient understanding of the laws of nature would hold up to modern scientific scrutiny, but whether the truth that God shared and inspired the prophets to write down, wrapped in accommodations for human and cultural limitations, and perhaps even misunderstood by the individuals who recorded it, actually reflects reality. That truth may necessitate some reexamination of what we thought God meant in a passage in light of new insights that science gives us to the world around us, as New Testament apostles looked back at the Old Testament with a new and greater understanding of the Trinity, for example, and found that the true nature of our Triune God was present even when the common man before their time would not have seen it or understood those same passages in the same light. The fact that people had neither understood nor held completely accurate views of the nature of God did not make the Word inspired by God incorrect or ignorant. And the same is true of natural laws and origins. Yes, the way I interpret a passage may be different than the ancients. They may have been wrong. I may be wrong. But if God is real and he inspired the Word, then the Word is true.

rwatts
06-12-2016, 10:14 PM
I’m not really concerned with what ancient people think. Well I am, for the reason that if "Yom" means "24 hours" because that's what the ancients meant, then it raises the same questions in the context of "said" and "made" with respect to God.

This is why my question is primarily aimed at young earth creationists who insist on a literal understanding of some parts of the Bible, on the grounds that this is what the word actually meant.

Thanks for your input anyway. Parts of it have been valuable.

Kbertsche
06-14-2016, 05:11 AM
Well I am, for the reason that if "Yom" means "24 hours" because that's what the ancients meant, then it raises the same questions in the context of "said" and "made" with respect to God.

This is why my question is primarily aimed at young earth creationists who insist on a literal understanding of some parts of the Bible, on the grounds that this is what the word actually meant.

Thanks for your input anyway. Parts of it have been valuable.
You are listening to YECs who don't know any Biblical Hebrew. Below is the abridged BDB entry for "yom". Do you see a definition that says "24 hours"?


יוֹם n.m. day —

1. day, opp. night.
2. Day as division of time:

a. working-day.
b. דֶּרֶךְ יוֹם‎ a day’s journey; without ‏דֶּרֶךְ‎ etc., שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים three days, etc.
c. to denote duration of various acts or states: seven days; forty days; 150 days.
d. day as defined by evening and morning.
e. day of month (c. num. ordin.).
f. יוֹם defined by subst., inf., or other cl.: cstr. יוֹם הְֶַלֶג = the snowy day; so, = time יוֹם שָׂרָתִי d. of my distress; of day emphat. characterized by proph. and others; on the other hand ’יוֹם רָשׂוֹן לי a day of acceptableness to ’י; pl. sq. subst.
g. particular days defined by n.pr.loc.: יוֹם יְרְעֶאל i.e. of judgment, with implied restoration; יְמֵי הַגִּבְעָה i.e. of the outrage at Gibeah.
h. c. sf., thy, his, or their day, in sense of (1) day of disaster or death.
i. specif. a holy day: יוֹם הְַַבָּת the sabbath day (v. also ‏שַׁבָּת); also of false gods, יְמֵי הַבְּעָלִים.

3. ’יוֹם י day of Yahweh, chiefly as time of his coming in judgment, involving often blessedness for righteous.
4. Pl. days of any one

a. = his life, his age; יָמִים רַבִּים long life; ‏בָּא בַּיָּמִים advanced in days = of advanced age; rarely sg. e.g. קְשֵׁה-יוֹם one hard of day, i.e. whose day (= life) was hard; of life as approaching its end.
b. (in) the days of (i.e. life-time, reign, or activity of).

5. Days:

a. indef.: יָמִים אֲצָדִים some days, a few days.
b. of a long time, זֶה יָמִים אוֹ זֶה שָׁנִים these days or these years;‏ אוֹ חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ יָמִים אוֹ יֹמַיִם‎whether two days or a month or days (an indefinitely long period); יָמִים רַבִּים many days.
c. days of old, former or ancient times (esp. of early period of Isr. hist.): יְמוֹת עוֹלָם (poem); coming days ‏הַיָּמִים הַבָּאִים; coming time יוֹם אַצֲרוֹן.

6. יוֹם = time;

a. vividly in gen. sense (v. also 5 supr.): time of harvest; usu. יְמֵי; proper time for paying wages; time of parturition.
b. appos. to other expr. of time: חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים a month of time (lit. a month, time).
c. pl. in specific sense, appar. = year, lit. יָמִים; מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה = from year to year, yearly; distrib.; וַיְהִי לְיָמִים מִיָּמִים and it came to pass at days from days (= after some days).

7. Phrases, without prep. and with, are:
...


If you really want to engage (argue with) "young earth creationists who insist on a literal understanding of some parts of the Bible", you'll need to go back to the science forums. The biblical language forum tends to be a more irenic, scholarly discussion of what the original languages really say and mean.

rwatts
06-15-2016, 07:50 AM
The biblical language forum tends to be a more irenic, scholarly discussion of what the original languages really say and mean.Oh I know KB.

However, I don't think I'll get much sense there. And I think you can undestand why.*


(This kind of question I've asked numerous times on YEC facebook sites and silence always follows, or we just go round in circles. I want them to tell me what the original meaning of "God said" or "God made" is in both contexts, and all they do is give me their own interpretation, or they tell me what "yom" must mean, or they go silent. It's mostly the latter.)

It was worth a shot here. It's just a pity about John's illness.

Thanks for your input as well.


* This is a question of what did those authors really mean. What were they (probably) thinking and what did they (probably) mean when they used those phrases. I did note your challenge to Jorge in the Nat Sci forum.