In fact, the word "day" comes from a very old Proto-Indo-European word *dhegh which means "to burn". The heat of the sun is what defines the word "day", but we get three full days without a sun in the bible. Can we really properly refer to the first three "days" as days?



DoomRater writes:


The consistency counsel is demanding that you no longer say "sunrise" or "sunset".

greylady writes:


Actually, in the original hebrew, the word 'day' is ambiguous, and could actually mean anything from the 24 hour day we know to millennia as one 'day'.

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


Good point greylady. A lot of Ancient Hebrew words are ambiguous because the language had so few words. The Hebrew word "yom" is used for day, but it's also used for a period of light, an entire year, or even something as vague as a point in time, along with several other uses.

In contrast, the English word for "day" has a far more precise meaning which is why I pointed out the translation problem. The only people who could end this argument would be the original authors of the bible, but unfortunately, that's not possible.

Spectre100 writes:


I site only one example of the what and why for nomenclature being made entirely of fail: Eskimo for snow, how many do YOU know?

Winterset writes:


Sure we can get the original authors to confirm this. I'm sure they remember it like it was only yesteryom.

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


Yesteryom... awesome!

Katy writes:


Saying the bible was originally written in Hebrew is a misnomer. Some of it was, yes; but some was written in Greek, some in Aramaic ... I'm trying to remember - think there was another language in there somewhere. Obviously it's all been translated and re-translated over the years, and then when King James got HIS hands on it, he had his clerics "reinterpret" it in order to encourage his subjects to remain submissive and meet, and to obey him. Sound familiar? And don't even get me started on the decisions made by random Popes and such about what books would remain in and what books would be considered apocryphal and on what random reasons those decisions were made ...

Katy writes:


*facepalm* King James wanted his subjects to be submissive and *meek* (not meet) ... Goddess ... Stupid fibro brain fog *grumble grumble*

This Site is a FAIL. writes:


Your definition of a day is in the perspective of man on earth, not GOD.

There's only one bible and all accurate translations (hebrew, aramaic, greek, english) say the same thing. Unless you're reading diverse doctrine.

This Site is a FAIL.

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


@This Site is a FAIL.: There is no single source text to the bible. The bible is a compilation of many source texts.

This page explains each section of the bible in detail and where we get our sources from:

someguy writes:


assuming god has one perfect translation. his godliness translated his will into English in English a day is thusly defined. if god wanted to say something else he could have created and defined a new word. but he didn't, he chose to use the English word "day" which means he either didn't understand the meaning of the word or he used it improperly, neither of which is very Godly.

Bahookee writes:


Does the sun have a beginning and an ending? It's not eternal right? Then why the issue with light before the sun?

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


Stars do indeed have a beginning and ending, but that's not the point. The bible says that there was light and darkness, day and night, however, the sun and stars aren't created for another three days. Day and night exists on Earth because of the rotation relative to the sun. Without the sun, you can't have day and night.


Oh the irony!