Replies

The problem for you in that link at #160 is that every example Griggs gives of an alternative word for "yom" that Moses could have used in Genesis 1 to mean either "a continuing event from long ago" or ambiguous time" would also apply to Genesis 2:4, in which you've conceded that "yom" is figurative and not literal.

Have we switched our discussion to an analysis of the linked article? I am not inclined to do so. I merely pointed out his mention of how to tell whether a 24 hour period was meant. If you are seriously interested in how Hebrew works, you might want to consult BibChr who has taught the language at the graduate level.

If you think the only reason for holding to 24 hour days is the structure of Genesis, you are mistaken.

Gen 2:4 is and always has been figurative. To acknowledge that is not a concession. But you know that.

Griggs doesn't address Genesis 2, so you're left with making an exception in chapter 2 for the Griggs' rule you're relying on for chapter 1. Doesn't seem like much of a rule.

If you read Gen 2:4, you'd quickly realize that there is no number associated with "day." I believe that was the rule. Did you read it? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Have we switched our discussion to an analysis of the linked article?

You jumped on a comment I made to someone else. That's certainly fair, but it's curious that you're complaining about us discussing it now.

If you read Gen 2:4, you'd quickly realize that there is no number associated with "day." I believe that was the rule. Did you read it? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Griggs' rule is altogether too convenient. It enables you to insist on one meaning for yom in Genesis 1 and another for Genesis 2. Once you've painted yourself into that corner, you're forced to insist that things like radiometric clocks are some sort of trickery, and insisting that there are no transitional fossils in the face of thousands of them.

All for what? Ironically, so that you can agree with the atheistic materialists about the stakes of the debate over evolutionary theory.

Evolution informs us not at all about Salvation, as much as literal Creationists and atheists wish it would.

Creationists do a great service to the Devil by insisting that disbelief in evolution is necessary for Salvation, or that belief in evolution is incompatible with Christianity.