The 24 hour "evening and mornings" ??? (Peter)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Fri Sep 1 17:23:08 EDT 2000

At 14.50 01/09/00 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
>Yes, because the only argument you have offered...

I think you've missed at least four others, Peter. 

1) There is no signal from the author that he is using the term ywm any
differently from the normal usage of the word.

2) The author uses other, related terms (night, evening & morning) without
any marking for special significance of these words, indicating that the
word day should be take normally.

3) The author specifically indicates that a day ran from one morning to the

4) The author shows that the Sabbath was inaugurated at the time of
creation, for God rested on the seven day. Can anyone conceive it likely
that, in inaugurating the Sabbath rest, the author did not have an ordinary
day in mind?

Let me return to a few posts that Michael wrote.

13:19, 25/08/00
>When [ywm] is not augmented
>(prefixed article or pronoun-like "b"- or in the plural) and used with
>numbers, the word *always* refers to a literal day (some 200x)

08:34, 28/08/00
>In *every* case where the two [evening and morning] are used in 
>the same sentence (some 35x in Bible works), the words *never* bear 
>any other meaning than the literal.

His posts were never responded to adequately.

It would seem clear by now that you've got nothing to support your weird
views about the abnormal or irregular length of the day in Gen1 and
therefore resort to saying the following:

>...depends on an interpretation
>of kl ymy xyyk which conflicts with that given in standard Hebrew grammars,

You have made this so far *unsupported* claim several times. I think you
should back it up or stop repeating yourself uselessly.

So far all you have done is to use an analogy (about hot dogs) to attempt
to support this claim: <<By exactly the same argument, KOL YEMEY XAYYEYKA
in Gen 3:17 does not mean "every day of your life", it means "the whole of
your life".>> You've got no further.

Why didn't the author simply write kl xyyk?

>and you have offered no evidence to support your non-standard understanding
>of the Hebrew language.

This is a new unsupported claim. Peter, you seem to be talking nonsense.

Please try to follow the basic rule of not attacking someone without at
least evidence to support your statements. What you have done recently is
what is normally defined as flaming.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list