Genesis story of creation "Days" literal or not?

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
That might stand on it's own but for a verse like this: Exodus 20:10-11 where God makes a direct comparison to the days of a normal week to the days of Creation. In other words, if the Hebrews were to understand that no sun, moon stars for the first 3 days meant no definite time period, then they would have correctly questioned what God meant by "6 working days" and a rest day - because on the latter understanding it could literally mean anything.
Did the Hebrews take Daniel's seven weeks as literal?
However, if you wish to show a Jewish rabbinical commentary where the days are treated as 24 hour days, feel free to share.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There was literally no sun for the first three days. On day one the earth was formless. How do we say the day was 24 hours long?
As mentioned, God didn't need any time at all, but we have a recorded sequence of events.
Not only that but in the future days will be longer than 24 hours

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Did the Hebrews take Daniel's seven weeks as literal?
However, if you wish to show a Jewish rabbinical commentary where the days are treated as 24 hour days, feel free to share.

You er in only relying on an English translation without looking at the word used and how it is used elsewhere.

The word "Shabuwa" (H7620) as translated into "weeks" in Daniel 9 and "week" elsewhere is erroneous. It is simply a word for "7" and without further context it cannot be assumed to be referring to a collection of days to make a 7 day week. Ie: 7 "weeks" or 70 "weeks". This is a translator's error in making the assumption.

Proof:
Genesis 29:27(KJV)
Here the context is clear. Jacob worked 7 years for Rachel. But Laban didn't give him Rachel, instead, Leah, citing the custom of not giving the firstborn. So Jacob had to do another 7 years.
Since the original 7 years was already fulfilled (Genesis 29:21(KJV) ), then the phrase used in verse 27 "fulfill her week" (the word "week" actually being Shabuwa "7"-(H7620)) refers to another 7 (years in this case) for Rachel, not Leah.

Jacob did this additional 7 (Shabuwa) years and got Rachel.

Genesis 29:28(KJV): And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week (Should be "7"): and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.

Conclusion: Shabuwa, or "7" is mistranslated "week" or "weeks", since it is actually used elsewhere to refer to years. It simply is a word for "7" and should not be assumed to be "7 days".
The direct comparison to the 6 days of Creation is re-itterated in the Sabbath command which differentiates work days from Sabbath day, and therefore IS a valid measure - the only consistent conclusion is that they (the days of Creation) were regular days, not extended periods.

Edit: Version changed to KJV as NIV further adds words that aren't there and mis-translates.
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
You er in only relying on an English translation without looking at the word used and how it is used elsewhere.

The word "Shabuwa" (H7620) as translated into "weeks" in Daniel 9 and "week" elsewhere is erroneous. It is simply a word for "7" and without further context it cannot be assumed to be referring to a collection of days to make a 7 day week. Ie: 7 "weeks" or 70 "weeks". This is a translator's error in making the assumption.

Proof:
Genesis 29:27(KJV)
Here the context is clear. Jacob worked 7 years for Rachel. But Laban didn't give him Rachel, instead, Leah, citing the custom of not giving the firstborn. So Jacob had to do another 7 years.
Since the original 7 years was already fulfilled (Genesis 29:21(KJV) ), then the phrase used in verse 27 "fulfill her week" (the word "week" actually being Shabuwa "7"-(H7620)) refers to another 7 (years in this case) for Rachel, not Leah.

Jacob did this additional 7 (Shabuwa) years and got Rachel.

Genesis 29:28(KJV): And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week (Should be "7"): and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.

Conclusion: Shabuwa, or "7" is mistranslated "week" or "weeks", since it is actually used elsewhere to refer to years. It simply is a word for "7" and should not be assumed to be "7 days".
The direct comparison to the 6 days of Creation is re-itterated in the Sabbath command which differentiates work days from Sabbath day, and therefore IS a valid measure - the only consistent conclusion is that they (the days of Creation) were regular days, not extended periods.

Edit: Version changed to KJV as NIV further adds words that aren't there and mis-translates.
Thanks. I'll take a host of translators, working together, over your own personal opinion. But, I appreciate the effort.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Thanks. I'll take a host of translators, working together, over your own personal opinion. But, I appreciate the effort.

LOL. I suppose you think the translators of the KJV are still around to collaborate with modern translators?

And besides, the meaning of Shabuwa is not simply my opinion:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7620&t=KJV

All it means is a period of seven. Where it is unclear what it modifies (days, weeks, months, years) is either left up to context, as I have shown, or some other reckoning (as in Daniel, which is roughly 500 years before Christ - the "7's", can only mean periods of years taken from the starting point to Messiah - and "week" indeed an erroneous translation.

I'm not a fan of the NIV, but even it gets it right over the KJV in this instance:

Daniel 9:25 (NIV) Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

Daniel 9:25 (KJV) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

You were saying something about collaborating translators? lol. Silly silly.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
LOL. I suppose you think the translators of the KJV are still around to collaborate with modern translators?

And besides, the meaning of Shabuwa is not simply my opinion:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7620&t=KJV

All it means is a period of seven. Where it is unclear what it modifies (days, weeks, months, years) is either left up to context, as I have shown, or some other reckoning (as in Daniel, which is roughly 500 years before Christ - the "7's", can only mean periods of years taken from the starting point to Messiah - and "week" indeed an erroneous translation.

I'm not a fan of the NIV, but even it gets it right over the KJV in this instance:

Daniel 9:25 (NIV) Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

Daniel 9:25 (KJV) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

You were saying something about collaborating translators? lol. Silly silly.
You assume I am talking KJV, that's funny.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
You assume I am talking KJV, that's funny.

Better stop while your ahead. You quoted Daniels 7 "weeks", so it matters not which translation (KJV or other) it comes from. It's incorrect. No special interpretation needed. Your counterpoint to the comparison of Creation days to Exodus 20:10-11 is rebuffed because it is not a fair comparison - "Shabuwa" doesn't mean "week". :)
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Better stop while your ahead. You quoted Daniels 7 "weeks", so it matters not which translation (KJV or other) it comes from. It's incorrect. No special interpretation needed. Your counterpoint to the comparison of Creation days to Exodus 20:10-11 is rebuffed because it is not a fair comparison - "Shabuwa" doesn't mean "week". :)
I don't take your word as authoritive over all the other translators. When teams of translators use an English word, after multiple peer reviews, it's better than your personal opinion.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I don't take your word as authoritive over all the other translators. When teams of translators use an English word, after multiple peer reviews, it's better than your personal opinion.

You shouldn't take my word as authoritative. You also shouldn't make up bullstuff to back up weak positions or ignore sound logic, for the simple reason that it makes your mind soft and pliable and easy to mess with. But I somehow think that may be already the case.

1) Not all translators agree on the word "week". The NIV is a pretty good example here in Daniel 9:24-27(NIV).
2) The actual definition of the word in Strong's is just "7" or a period of 7. That could be a week, but not necessarily.
3) If you insist that Daniel's weeks are literal weeks, well, you have a bit of a problem - as Messiah arrives nearly 500 years later than He should. But then, that wasn't your actual argument to begin with. It started with Daniel's weeks needing interpretation, but now your backed into a corner where you insist weeks are literal (ie: correctly translated) and also needing interpretation, lol!
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
You shouldn't take my word as authoritative. You also shouldn't make up bullstuff to back up weak positions or ignore sound logic, for the simple reason that it makes your mind soft and pliable and easy to mess with. But I somehow think that may be already the case.

1) Not all translators agree on the word "week". The NIV is a pretty good example here in Daniel 9:24-27(NIV).
2) The actual definition of the word in Strong's is just "7" or a period of 7. That could be a week, but not necessarily.
3) If you insist that Daniel's weeks are literal weeks, well, you have a bit of a problem - as Messiah arrives nearly 500 years later than He should. But then, that wasn't your actual argument to begin with. It started with Daniel's weeks needing interpretation, but now your backed into a corner where you insist weeks are literal (ie: correctly translated) and also needing interpretation, lol!

What I say is that we don't know how long the days of creation were. We know that the weeks in Daniel are not literal. We know the sun wasn't created until day 4 and in day 1 the earth was formless. How do we get a 24 hour day out of a formless planet?
What I say is that God created and God shares his sequence of creation with us. If it took 144 hours or 144 billion years is irrelevant to me. The relevant part of the story is original sin and the corruption it brought to all creation.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
What I say is that we don't know how long the days of creation were. We know that the weeks in Daniel are not literal. We know the sun wasn't created until day 4 and in day 1 the earth was formless. How do we get a 24 hour day out of a formless planet?

According to Exodus 20:10-11 the days are indeed literal, since a direct comparison is made between the days of Creation and the work and Sabbath days in the Sabbath command. So the position you take is that God was telling a fib or purposely misleading the Hebrew listeners in making such a comparison. Basically your position makes God into a liar for the sake of whatever cosmology you want to believe in.

What I say is that God created and God shares his sequence of creation with us. If it took 144 hours or 144 billion years is irrelevant to me. The relevant part of the story is original sin and the corruption it brought to all creation.

Original sin (that is, inherited or inescapable sin as nature and passed on through procreation) is not taught in Genesis. It is taught by Saul/Paul when he puts his spin on the Genesis account and what it means.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
According to Exodus 20:10-11 the days are indeed literal, since a direct comparison is made between the days of Creation and the work and Sabbath days in the Sabbath command. So the position you take is that God was telling a fib or purposely misleading the Hebrew listeners in making such a comparison. Basically your position makes God into a liar for the sake of whatever cosmology you want to believe in.



Original sin (that is, inherited or inescapable sin as nature and passed on through procreation) is not taught in Genesis. It is taught by Saul/Paul when he puts his spin on the Genesis account and what it means.

24 hour days are irrelevant even in Exodus 20. Days are pointed out, but the time makes no difference. Question: When was the measurement of "hours" created? Would you say that's a recent invention or ancient?
As for you concept of original sin and Paul...it's just one of your inventions to avoid God's present action on earth. I take your views with a grain of salt.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,045
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
24 hour days are irrelevant even in Exodus 20. Days are pointed out, but the time makes no difference. Question: When was the measurement of "hours" created? Would you say that's a recent invention or ancient?
As for you concept of original sin and Paul...it's just one of your inventions to avoid God's present action on earth. I take your views with a grain of salt.

If you want to talk about original sin then I just started a thread about that here
http://christianityhaven.com/showth...l-concept-of-original-sin&p=128484#post128484

Let's stay on topic in this thread
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Original sin (that is, inherited or inescapable sin as nature and passed on through procreation) is not taught in Genesis. It is taught by Saul/Paul when he puts his spin on the Genesis account and what it means.

And therein lies some of the problem - we are to accept evidence presented by you ("fact", I think you called it, which should cause one to question out of hand); however, consideration of other (relatively) accepted norms ("fact", as you might call it), is dismissed by you.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
And therein lies some of the problem - we are to accept evidence presented by you ("fact", I think you called it, which should cause one to question out of hand); however, consideration of other (relatively) accepted norms ("fact", as you might call it), is dismissed by you.

Eh?

Whether or not something is presented by me or someone else is irrelevant. It's only the evidence itself that stands or falls on it's own merit.

As for what I dismiss (Saul/Paul's teaching is what you refer to?) I have given lengthy explanations for this elsewhere, that not ONE PERSON has even attempted to address honestly without being insulting and leveling childish accusations (and that would be others at this point, not you)

As for Genesis, there is no original sin found there. You can put quotes around the word *fact* if you like, but the concept as it relates to Genesis is largely from Saul/Paul's writings. It's unique to Pauline Christianity. Judaism by and large does not accept it.
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
24 hour days are irrelevant even in Exodus 20. Days are pointed out, but the time makes no difference.

I wouldn't necessarily say irrelevant. The Hebrews (I think) were able to draw the connection between the "days" (figurative) of God's work in creation, and their 24-hour "days". One would have to stick with only one definition for "day", however, to have them mean the same thing.
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The initial chapters of Genesis contain summarised statements of accomplishment, not statements of mechanism.

==============================================================================================

Day – Hebrew יוֹם (yowm) – Strong’s H3117 – Strong: a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term) – Brown-Driver-Briggs: day, time, year, day (as opposed to night), day (24 hour period), evening and morning, a working day, a day's journey, time, period (general), year, days, lifetime (pl.), etc.

Genesis 1:5: And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day
Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars [also.]
Genesis 2:4: These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they [were] created in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 4:3: And in the end of days, it happened, Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground.
Genesis 6:4: There were giants in the earth in those days. And also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore to them, they were mighty men who [existed] of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:5: And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Genesis 18:11: Now Abraham and Sarah [were] old, far gone in days, and it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
Genesis 27:44: and stay with him a few days until your brother's fury turns away,
Genesis 27:45: until your brother's anger turns away from you and he forgets what you have done to him. Then I will send and bring you from there. Why should I also be bereaved of both of you [in] one day?
Isaiah 34:8: For [it is] the day of the LORD's vengeance, the year to repay for the fighting against Zion.
Ezekiel 30:3 For the day [is] near, even the day of the LORD [is] near, a cloudy day. It shall be the time of the nations.

==============================================================================================

Evening and morning – What happens in the evening? Colours fade, detail becomes indistinct, visual perception descends into chaos. What happens in the morning? Colours appear, leaves on trees become distinguishable, corners on buildings become progressively more distinct.

The expression “the evening and the morning were” denotes God’s progressive creation of order out of chaos during the particular time period noted.

The “days” coincide with phases of the Earth’s formation and population with life, as determined by modern science. (There is one apparent deviation from that – but is it simply a translation problem?)

The “days” (formation and population phases) are recorded with accuracy, as though the author was observing the process from, or near, the Earth’s surface. And from that perspective, all the “problems” dissolve. (If Readers do not get why that is so, please ask for clarification.)

The obvious question then arises: How did that author know?

==============================================================================================

The gap theory, postulates that between the creation of the Earth mentioned in Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2, there is a large time gap. The idea seems to have been initially formulated to harmonise what appeared to be indisputable evidence of a very old Earth, with the concept of 6x24-hour-days-of-creation. It is often associated with a pre-Adamic civilisation destroyed by Satan, allowing Verse 2 onwards to be a recreation. The latter idea is demolished by Satan being in the Garden of Eden before he became Satan. The former idea is quashed by the science-connected phases recorded.

==============================================================================================

Mimicking Mesopotamian law and literature – Actually, the shoe might be on the other foot. The myths etc. of pagan civilisations could be seen to be simply distortions of the original history. See how quickly the Israelites descended into paganism each time God delivered them from the penalty of their previous lapse. It only took one generation.

Abram’s (Abraham’s) and Noah’s lives overlapped by around 60 years. And Abram lived in the city that was the logical expansion of Noah’s original post-Flood settlement. It would make sense that Abram learned about the true God and original history from the well-known but largely ignored Noah.
 
Top Bottom