“Yes, but I do not agree with that premise.”
I fail to see how it matters whether you agree or not, unless you are a scholar of the Hebrew language. Are you? If not, you sort of lack the authority for your opinion to matter when it comes to the meaning of Hebrew words.
“That is why the N.I.V changed it to account, the preachers could not explain why it said generations in ch 2 because it gives a reason not to believe in a literal six day creation.”
Well, I have no idea of the motivations of the NIV translators, but I don’t think that it would really be relevant either way. They may well have changed the translation to avoid confusion, but that doesn’t mean the confusion was warranted.
“We can see from the N.T that generations covered many years, not days.”
Why would you repeat this argument? Do you not understand that the N.T. is written in Greek, while Genesis is written in Hebrew, so the same word is not being translated?
I fail to see how it matters whether you agree or not, unless you are a scholar of the Hebrew language.
Why would you repeat this argument? Do you not understand that the N.T. is written in Greek, while Genesis is written in Hebrew, so the same word is not being translated?>>>>>
True but it has all been translated into English by translators who were ordained by God for the Chore.
I don`t have to spend hours in the dictionary every time I read a verse in the Bible.
Gen 2 says generations and you say it is not a continuation but an explanation.
Even if that is what it was it would still be instilling the idea that the six day creation was not literal for those who think it is literal.
And if it is to be taken literally some one could rightly say that it all happened in one day.
Do you not understand that God had the Bible translated into English so that we do not have to try to figure it all out by going to a language we do not understand?