Donations for the month of May


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Tom
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,533
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,792
Posts54,932
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,464
Tom 4,533
chestnutmare 3,325
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,867
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
American Election
by Pilgrim - Sun May 05, 2024 7:03 AM
Nouthetic Counseling
by Pilgrim - Sun May 05, 2024 6:55 AM
N.T. Wright
by Pilgrim - Fri May 03, 2024 6:47 PM
The Righteousness of God - Horatius Bonar
by Pilgrim - Wed May 01, 2024 7:44 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#47073 Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:17 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 13
I was recently on another Reformed board reading a blog concerning Young Earth vs. Old Earth. Years ago, one of the arguments (and there are many) that convinced me of the Y/E position is when I read that whenever the Hebrew word “Yom” is used in the OT with a numeral it always means a 24 hour period of time.

Reading this blog I noticed that one of the bloggers challenged this argument saying and I quote: “Hosea 6:1,2 . . . Clearly the prophet is not speaking of solar “days” but of longer periods in the future. Yet he
numbers the days in series.”

As I went to this passage, I had a hard time understanding where this particular blogger was coming from by this refutation. In fact as I read the verse I thought it backed up my understanding. Yet, this went unchallenged by any of the YE bloggers, but was applauded by a few OE bloggers. Unfortunately, the blog was closed before I could say anything.

I was however left wondering if I could be missing something in my reading of Hosea 6:1-2 on why someone could conclude that it clearly is talking about long periods of time. I have checked some other blog entrees made by the same person who made the quote above and it appears that he is quite conservative in almost everything else he said. He has stated elsewhere that he has a high view of Scripture and believes that Scripture must interpret Scripture.

1 Come, and let us return to the LORD;
For He has torn, but He will heal us;
He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
2 After two days He will revive us;
On the third day He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight. NKJV
What do you think?

Tom

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,464
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,464
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by Tom
... Years ago, one of the arguments (and there are many) that convinced me of the Y/E position is when I read that whenever the Hebrew word “Yom” is used in the OT with a numeral it always means a 24 hour period of time.
1. Perhaps you misunderstood or failed to notice the specific qualification concerning "yom" with a numeral which could quickly disqualify the phrase in Hosea 6:1,2? shrug The actual 'proof' is usually stated as:

"Argument from ordinal prefix. In the 119 cases in Moses’ writings where the Hebrew word “yomstands in conjunction with a numerical adjective (first, second, third, etc.), it never means anything other than a literal day. The same is true of the 357 instances outside of the Pentateuch, where numerical adjectives occur."

In Hosea 6:2 we read, "after two days", not "after the second day".

2. Even, for the sake of argument, if the Hosea passage is understood to mean a longer period than 24 hours, which it certainly does, IMO... AND, it can be shown that this is an exception to the 'ordinal' argument, it still has little to no weight in refuting the overwhelming evidence that "yom" in Genesis 1 is to be understood as 24 hours.

For a brief but succinct defense of the traditional "6 day 24-hour" interpretation of the creation in Genesis 1, see here: The Length of Days in Genesis 1.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 13
Pilgrim

Forgive me for not understanding you, but it appears you and I are both saying the same thing. Yet, I know you wouldn't have said what you did if I wasn't missing something. confused

I asked my wife to look at this and she is confused also.

Thanks for the article.

Tom

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,464
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,464
Likes: 57
Tom,

I don't understand your confusion. scratch1 Perhaps I have not grasped what is bothering you??? shrug

My impression was you wanted to know how to refute this person's response who appeared to find a loophole or exception to the "ordinal + yom" rule using the Hosea 6:2 passage. Is that correct?

IF <--- that is correct, then my answer is that Hosea 6:2 either 1) doesn't qualify grammatically because the text says, "in two days" rather than "the second day", more specifically, there is no use of a numeric adjective with "yom". And,

IF <--- one wants to accept that the Hosea 6:2 passage does qualify under the numeric rule, then this would be a single exception to the rule which does not and cannot nullify the hundreds of other examples where a "numerical adjective" is used with "yom".

In short, Hosea 6:2 is at best a VERY weak argument against the 24-hour 6-day creation interpretation of Genesis 1. The combined weight of all the arguments for this view is overwhelming and Hosea 6:2 is of no consequence regardless how one understands it.

Lastly, I do believe that "yom" as it appears in Hosea 6:2, preceded by the "two" is to be understood as a period of time rather than 48 hours.

Now, if I have totally failed to clear things up for you, please try to let me know what it is you are still confused about?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 13
Pilgrim

Thank you, that was helpful. Perhaps it was just the way you worded it before that confused me.

I would however, like you to expand on the following, particularly on what in the context leads you to believe it is a period of time, rather than 48 hours.

Quote
Lastly, I do believe that "yom" as it appears in Hosea 6:2, preceded by the "two" is to be understood as a period of time rather than 48 hours.

Not saying I disagree, just wanting to understand a little better.

Tom



Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,464
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,464
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by Tom
I would however, like you to expand on the following, particularly on what in the context leads you to believe it is a period of time, rather than 48 hours.
- The passage is prophetic in nature.
- Fulfillment was in the distant future.

To show that my understanding is wrong all one needs to do is show that Hosea's words actually happened two days after they were spoken. This is one of the major hermeneutical problems Chiliasts face with their "plain reading, literalist" reading of the Bible.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 79 guests, and 19 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
May
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,517,197 Gospel truth