Days of Genesis

[Lili]

I have heard that the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1 demands that the days be interpreted as 24 hour days rather than long periods of time. Is this true?

[John Reece]

I have heard that the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1 demands that the days be interpreted as 24 hour days rather than long periods of time. Is this true?

Yes.

Not only the grammar, but also what the text says in terms of the grammar.

The grammar and what the text says are expressed in this comment by Keil:

The first day commenced at the moment when God caused the light to break forth from the darkness ; but this light did not become a day, until the evening had come, and the darkness which set in the evening had given place to the next morning to the break of day. [...] But if the days of creation are regulated by the recurring interchange of light and darkness, they must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, of years or thousands of years, but as simple earthly days. -- Commentary on the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (Eerdmans, 1985 reprint)

[Lili]

Thanks for answering.I have two other questions,both regarding Genesis.

Is it possible that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 have gaps? I have heard that "x begat y" can mean "x fathered the line culminating in y." On the other hand, these genealogies give the age of the father when he begat his son or descendant, and the number of years he lived after that, which seems to prevent adding more time to the genealogies.

I would also like to know whether the Hebrew of Genesis 6-9 shows that the flood was global rather than local.

[Tladatsi]

Thanks for answering.I have two other questions,both regarding Genesis.

Is it possible that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 have gaps? I have heard that "x begat y" can mean "x fathered the line culminating in y." On the other hand, these genealogies give the age of the father when he begat his son or descendant, and the number of years he lived after that, which seems to prevent adding more time to the genealogies.

I would also like to know whether the Hebrew of Genesis 6-9 shows that the flood was global rather than local.

The text makes quite clear that the entire world is flooded. Yahweh's goal was to destroy all human life. That can only mean a world wide flood. Moreover, the description is that of the sluice gates in the metalic dome that is the sky opening up and water pouring down. In Gen 7:20 it says the mountain tops were covered with water. That is not not global, I don't know what is.

[Glenn P]

I have heard that the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1 demands that the days be interpreted as 24 hour days rather than long periods of time. Is this true?

Yes

But do bear in mind - the disagreement between old and young earth creationists almost never involves disputes over what yom means. The issue is whether that passage is meant to convey history in the ordinary sense at all.

[Glenn P]

The text makes quite clear that the entire world is flooded. Yahweh's goal was to destroy all human life. That can only mean a world wide flood.

Incorrect. It would only have to mean that if people inhabited the whole globe.

[Tladatsi]

I have heard that the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1 demands that the days be interpreted as 24 hour days rather than long periods of time. Is this true?

The text says "day". In Hebrew, as in English, days can be used metaphorically to mean indeterminate amounts of time, e.g. "In The Days of Julius Ceasar". However, when used metaphorically, the literary context usually makes that clear. There is nothing in the text to suggest the author meant anything other than the ordinary sense of the word "Yom", i.e. sunset to sunset.

[Glenn P]

I would also like to know whether the Hebrew of Genesis 6-9 shows that the flood was global rather than local.

What I will say here applies to your opening post as well: Disputes of this nature are rarely, if ever, solved simply by an appeal to what the Hebrew says. generally speaking, and certainly in both these cases - the Hebrew really says no more than the English says. Whether the flood was local or global is not revealed by looking into the Hebrew. The only possible interesting point is that `erets in this passage simply means "earth" in the sense of "land." Whether it also entails the globe is an issue to be fought over, and is not specific one way or the other by the Hebrew term.

[Tladatsi]

Incorrect. It would only have to mean that if people inhabited the whole globe.

Well I guess you are correct in as much as the author of Genesis concieved of the world as flat and not a globe. Whether the world is flat or round however, it is not possible for the mountains near Ararat to be underwater and the mountains elsewhere not to be flooded.

More to the point the text is quite clear as its meaning:

Gen 7:19

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.

Note it says the "whole heavens", not the heavens over the Eurasian Triangle or the Levant.

Gen 7:20

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Not some of the mountains.

Gen 7:21-23

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

Note the repeated use of "all", all flesh, all who had noses, all living things.

Only those floating in Noah's box were alive.

[Glenn P]

Tladatsi, the arguments you are engaging in, as I noted, are not about the literal meaning of the Hebrew, but rather more extended arguments about how to interpret the text.

[Tladatsi]

Oh, dear me no. The Hebrew text tells us much which cannot be captured in an English translation. That is why I have been learning Hebrew. I am not saying that the various English translation are not useful but when in doubt returning to the original text is always enlightening. In this case determining whether the context indicates a literal reading or a more metaphorical reading.

This is to say nothing of all of the humor and style that total lost in English. It also help you recognize some theological axes all translators have to grind when they translate.

What I will say here applies to your opening post as well: Disputes of this nature are rarely, if ever, solved simply by an appeal to what the Hebrew says. generally speaking, and certainly in both these cases - the Hebrew really says no more than the English says. Whether the flood was local or global is not revealed by looking into the Hebrew. The only possible interesting point is that `erets in this passage simply means "earth" in the sense of "land." Whether it also entails the globe is an issue to be fought over, and is not specific one way or the other by the Hebrew term.

[Tladatsi]

Just so. I firmly believe that the Bible means exactly what it says, or more to the point, the Biblical authors meant their words to be understood just as they were written for the Biblical audiance. Some portions are clearly metaphorical, dream sequences and divine visions such as in Daniel and Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs, &c. However most of the Tanakh is meant to be understood just as it was written without secret or metaphorical meaning. When Yahweh says He wants to destroy all life on earth, that is just what is meant, not just in the alluvial plain of Mesopotemia. Now I suppose that the author of Gen 7 might have conceived of the whole world as being Mesopotemia, or thought his audiance might, but that is an entirely different issue. So when the Biblical authors wrote "ark", i.e. a box, that is what they meant.

Tladatsi, the arguments you are engaging in, as I noted, are not about the literal meaning of the Hebrew, but rather more extended arguments about how to interpret the text.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Tladatsi, the arguments you are engaging in, as I noted, are not about the literal meaning of the Hebrew, but rather more extended arguments about how to interpret the text.

What am i missing? I'm getting this, but not getting this. I'm seeing this explaination in another thread.Tlad showed the verses (and since you said the Hebrew really says no more than the English says), therefore, what meaning is being conveyed, if not the literal meaning? What am i missing?

i purposely ran the paragraph together, to wrap it in the "what am i missing?s... i did that specifically to illustrate something in 7:18-19...."increased greatly" and "preveiled exceedingly"
If i recall, there were more than these two examples, but it's getting late.

A different question.....What am i missing (in the explaination)?

[technomage]

I firmly believe that the Bible means exactly what it says, or more to the point, the Biblical authors meant their words to be understood just as they were written for the Biblical audiance.

And if the original authors, and the original Biblical audience, understood these passages as theological metaphor rather than as history...?

[xtreem5150ahm]

And if the original authors, and the original Biblical audience, understood these passages as theological metaphor rather than as history...?

Then what good is the text (communication) to us, unless we can find the "key code"?

If it is God's Word, are we to assume that God did not have us in mind also, since, as you question, it would be understood by the original (contemporary) audience that understood that metaphor?

Thank you for letting me pound my fist on the table... i had to get it out of my system.