RE: Discontinuity Conference Report

From: Stephen J. Krogh (
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 23:17:50 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Why YEC?"

    > This argument is inconclusive. The Bible, after all, has no other
    > occasion
    > to enumerate sequential epoch’s of time. This argument can be challenged
    > on
    > several counts. For one, it is true only for passages describing days of
    > human activity rather than divine activity. More importantly, no rule of
    > Hebrew grammar states that yom attached to an ordinal must always refer
    > to
    > 24-hour days. Hosea 6:2 prophesies that “after two days He (God) will
    > revive us (Isreal); on the third — ordinal — day, He will restore us.”
    > For
    > centuries, Bible commentators have noted that the “day” in this passage,
    > where the ordinal is used , refers to a year, years, or a thousand years,
    > or
    > maybe more.
    > Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
    > Oops! I should have said that there is no numeral plus _yom_ that needs
    > an extended period. I did not say that there was a rule, just usage.
    > Language is replete with matters that do not run with rules--unless one
    > erects a rule for every idiom. I will add that the "evening-morning" is,
    > to me, a strong indication that a restricted period is in view.

    Looking at the word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text, one finds this
    phraseology: “and was evening and was morning day Xth.” The NIV renders the
    time markers in this way: “And there was evening, and there was morning —
    the Xth day.” The word arrangement in both cases is a departure from the
    simple and ordinary. It creates ambiguity. If “day Xth” was intended as the
    noun compliment for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb
    should appear just once, in plural form (as the KJV renders it): And the
    evening and the morning were the Xth day.” We would expect the literal
    Hebrew to say, “and were evening and morning day Xth.” However, this is not
    the case. This syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof. However, it
    does at least suggest an indefinite period for each phase of the creation.

    Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
    The PanTerra Group

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 23:18:16 EDT