4 ms·

This argument stems from the interpretation of a single Hebrew word found in the old testament... יום (yom). The definition of yom is 'a defined period of time'

This argument stems from the interpretation of a single Hebrew word found in the old testament... יום (yom). The definition of yom is 'a defined period of time'. Whereas the common use of yom is 'day', it could also be translated as 'epoch', 'age', 'year' etc. Genesis reads that God created the heavens and the earth in 'six defined periods of time'. It's unfortunate that the original translators back in the 1600s used the word 'day', and even more unfortunate that so many cling so strongly to what was probably a single person's translation.

greglindahl 9y ago
If you dig a little deeper you'll discover that there are many folks (especially in the US) who think that the KJV was divinely inspired. So, alas, your argument, which also applies to many other important parts of the Bible, is well known and is unlikely to convince anyone from that camp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement
baddox 9y ago
I’ve heard that, but the Genesis creation story also mentions evening and morning separating each “day.” Is that also a mistranslation?
lhuser123 9y ago
> and even more unfortunate that so many cling so strongly to what was probably a single person's translation Yeah, so unfortunate. And then, every Sunday at Bible study, a new teacher will give a different interpretation of the same word.
jemfinch 9y ago
Not really. That claim fails trivially to the "evening and morning" of each day. The argument fundamentally stems from the Protestant belief in "Sola Scripture": that all Christian doctrine and belief derives from scripture. Since many protestants prefer a literal interpretation of scripture, they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 for consistency. You can see this backed up if you watch any of the material from Answers in Genesis, as I watched at my church from elementary school onward. You can also see this reinforced by the fact that young earth creationism literally did not exist as a phenomenon in the early church, or the medieval church, or in modern Catholic and Orthodox churches. Many early church fathers (and before that, Jewish scholars) long wondered whether Genesis 1 recorded literal history, or if it was a literary story. In particular, they took note of the chronology and found it strange that God created day and night (the first day) before he created the sun (the fourth day). The strongest argument against literal interpretation, I'm, is that the literary structure of Genesis 1 is so clear: God performance three acts of separation (day from night, waters above from waters below, and waters below from themselves with land) followed by three acts of decoration, where he decorates the previously separated things: sun and moon and stars in the sky, birds in the air and fish in water, and then land animals and man.

greglindahl 9y ago

If you dig a little deeper you'll discover that there are many folks (especially in the US) who think that the KJV was divinely inspired. So, alas, your argument, which also applies to many other important parts of the Bible, is well known and is unlikely to convince anyone from that camp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

baddox 9y ago

I’ve heard that, but the Genesis creation story also mentions evening and morning separating each “day.” Is that also a mistranslation?

lhuser123 9y ago

> and even more unfortunate that so many cling so strongly to what was probably a single person's translation Yeah, so unfortunate. And then, every Sunday at Bible study, a new teacher will give a different interpretation of the same word.

jemfinch 9y ago

Not really. That claim fails trivially to the "evening and morning" of each day. The argument fundamentally stems from the Protestant belief in "Sola Scripture": that all Christian doctrine and belief derives from scripture. Since many protestants prefer a literal interpretation of scripture, they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 for consistency. You can see this backed up if you watch any of the material from Answers in Genesis, as I watched at my church from elementary school onward. You can also see this reinforced by the fact that young earth creationism literally did not exist as a phenomenon in the early church, or the medieval church, or in modern Catholic and Orthodox churches. Many early church fathers (and before that, Jewish scholars) long wondered whether Genesis 1 recorded literal history, or if it was a literary story. In particular, they took note of the chronology and found it strange that God created day and night (the first day) before he created the sun (the fourth day). The strongest argument against literal interpretation, I'm, is that the literary structure of Genesis 1 is so clear: God performance three acts of separation (day from night, waters above from waters below, and waters below from themselves with land) followed by three acts of decoration, where he decorates the previously separated things: sun and moon and stars in the sky, birds in the air and fish in water, and then land animals and man.