Actually Susan Boyle’s version of this song is really good. Normally I would prefer Third Day but their version is a bit fast for my liking.

The Apostle, like the prophet, speaks of that which took place in Christ our Head, as having already taken place in us, His members. (Leo): “If we unhesitatingly believe in our heart,” says a father, “what we profess with our mouth, we were crucified in Christ, “we” died, “we” were buried, “we” also were raised again on that very third day. Whence the Apostle saith, “If ye rose again with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God”.{#Col 3:1} “As Christ died for us, so He also rose for us. “Our old man was nailed to the wood, in the flesh of our Head, and the new man was formed in that same Head, rising glorious from the tomb.” What Christ, our Head, did, He did, not for Himself, but for His redeemed, that the benefits of His Life, Here is J F B2. Primarily, in type, Israel’s national revival, in a short period (“two or three” being used to denote a few days, #Isa 17:6 Lu 13:32,33); antitypically the language is so framed as to refer in its full accuracy only to Messiah, the ideal Israel (#Isa 49:3; compare #Mt 2:15, with #Ho 11:1), raised on the third day (#Joh 2:19 1Co 15:4; compare #Isa 53:10). “He shall prolong His days.” Compare the similar use of Israel’s political resurrection as the type of the general resurrection of which “Christ is the first-fruits” (#Isa 26:19 Eze 37:1-14 Da 12:2).
live in his sight — enjoy His countenance shining on us, as of old; in contrast to #Ho 5:6,15, “Withdrawn Himself from them.”
Here is Strong’s on the word that is used for day in Hosea 6.03117 ??? yowm yomefrom an unused root meaning to be hot; n m; {See TWOT on 852}AV-day 2008, time 64, chronicles + 01697 37, daily 44, ever 18, year 14, continually 10, when 10, as 10, while 8, full 8 always 4, whole 4, alway 4, misc 44; 2287

1) day, time, year1a) day (as opposed to night) {#Ge 7:4,12 8:22 31:39,40 Ex 24:18 34:28 Nu 11:32 Jos 10:13 De 9:9,11,18,25 10:10 Ge 1:5,14,16,18 1Sa 30:12 Jud 19:8,9,11 Am 5:8 1Ki 8:29 19:8 Ne 4:22 Ec 8:16 2Sa 3:35}1a1) the heat of the day {#Ge 18:1 1Sa 11:11 2Sa 4:5}1a2) the day is still high {#Ge 29:7}1a3) cool of the day {#Ge 3:8}1a4) from dawn until midday {#Ne 8:3}1a5) growing lighter and lighter until the full day {#Pr 4:18}1a6) until the declining of the day {#Jud 19:8}1a7) the day has sunk down and become evening {#Jud 19:9}1b) day (24 hour period)1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 11b2) as a division of time1b2a) a working day, a day’s journey1c) days, lifetime (pl.)1d) time, period (general)1e) year1f) temporal references1f1) today1f2) yesterday1f3) tomorrow

The point being is that we cannot use the way the word is used in Hosea to determine the usage in Genesis.  Context is our only guide.  And the context is clear in Genesis.  Those who oppose this must reject the context and and clear reading, and take a poetic approach to the passage.

That you quote Hosea 6:1-2 as an example of “Yom” used with a number not meaning a 24-hour day and mention examples (none actually given) in Daniel’s prophesies where it is not clear that “ordinary” evenings and mornings are meant or implied, misses the point badly and merely begs the question of what does each “day” (yom) mean in Hebrew in the context of Genesis 1 where “day” (Hebrew yom) is not only used with a number but also further qualified by “evening and morning” (i.e. “So the evening and the morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth day,” etc.), so that guys like you would not miss it. Context, Phillip. Always context.

That there are examples of alternative usage and meaning, such as you cite (there may even be more) is acknowledged by all believers-what matters is what does the word “day” (Hebrew yom) mean in the context of Genesis 1 where it is used not only with a number but also qualified by the expression “evening and the morning, as well as in association with the word “night” in Genesis 1:5, which further determines the meaning as ordinary day.You mentioned one example of alternative usage and meaning and a possible second but, as I already said, outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception” Again, outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day? Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Further, in Genesis 1:5 yom occurs in context with the word “night” . Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each timeit means an ordinary day.Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?

If this isn’t enough to convince any honest Hebrew student, all three examples: yom with a number; yom with “evening and the morning,” and yom with “night” (Genesis 1:5; 1:8;1:13; 1:18-19; 1:23; 1:31) are used together in the context of Genesis 1. Why did I ask the question three times: “Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?” Because we are not dealing with one element here (i.e. number, or evening and morning), but all three (i.e. number, “evening and the morning” and “night”)used with yom in the context of Genesis 1, so that no one can possibly miss it (except those who don’t want to believe it because their faith in scientific opinion eceeds that in the scriptures).

That is why I specificially mentioned Dr. Barr, because although he does not concede that the Bible is true; indeed, is highly critical of the doctrine of infalliability; nevertheless, acknowledges that the writer(s) of Genesis 1 intended clearly to teach that the word “day” (yom) in the context of each of the days of the creation account means an ordinary 24-hour day based on his competence and epertise. His answer to the question:”Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?” based on his own thorough and meticulous study of both text and context (a text without a context is a pretext)in Genesis 1 obviously is “No, Genesis 1 would not be the exception”–that there could be no mistaking the obvious plain meaning of the Hebrew language of  Genesis 1, where all three elements (i.e. number, “evening and the morning” and “night”) are used with yom here in the context of the creation account of Genesis 1. (Read Dr. Barr’s quote again regarding what the writer (s) of Genesis 1 meant to teach according to the Hebrew usage and meaning of yom in this context–and then check out the quote to verify that I have quoted it correctly and have not taken it out of context). Even nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said, quote, “If, for eample, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretion of scripture is hopeless.”

I know all of this will still not be enough to convince many like Phillip, but the problem is not the linguistic evidence in this case, but rather exalting scientific opinion above the sure testimony of scripture. One is free to believe what he will (Try to convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still) but don’t try to make the Bible teach and say what it doesn’t simply because you will not accept the obvious plain meaning of scripture according to the Hebrew language in this context and Hebrew scholarship because of infalliable scientific opinion. I have more respect for someone who says he knows what the Bible teaches, but does not believe it, than that. I could say much more, but I think I have worn out this topic and my comments.

The way in which many young earth creationists regard their interpretation of the Genesis creation account as being obvious tends to indicate that they have not closely examined the text and its implications. Aside from the problem of fitting the events mentioned (such as trees growing and all that Adam did on day 6) into 6 24 hour days there is the bigger question of God’s relationship to the physical universe in time and space. In the creation account we have a series of declarations by God along with statements of the outworking of these declarations. Those that claim that the account obviously only covers a 144 hour period make the hidden assumption that God must only declare and act in time and space as a human or any other creature does.

The insistence that the days Genesis 1 must be 24 hours even with regard to Gods activity fails to take into account anthromophisms. With similar justification some Mormons have argued that Old Testament references to God having body parts (arm, hands eg Exodus 6:6, 7:5) must be taken as meaning God must have a physical body (mormon teachings include that God (the Father) was once a man, and that Jesus was conceived by physical intercouse), and no doubt they can make arguments that the primary meanings of the Hebrew words is of physical body parts.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because a word or grouping of words usually has a particular meaning than there cannot be any exceptions to that even if the context implies it. What is usual does not prohibit exceptions. Gods declaration of and creation of the universe doesn’t exactly qualify as usual. In the case of ‘Yom’ with a number there are other examples of it not meaning a 24 hour day (e.g. Hosea 6:1-2). Even of the case of ‘evening morning’ there are other examples where it is unclear whether ‘ordinary’ evenings and mornings are meant (e.g. in the prophecies of Daniel).

You stated: “Whatever that supposed to mean (sounds like some philosophical babble to me) Dr. Barr stated openly and honestly what the language of Genesis meant, based on his competence and expertise in Hebrew, particularly the days of creation in Genesis 1. What he meant by professors of Hebrew at world-class universities was leading universities like Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, Cal. ,etc. He said what he meant and meant what he said, though there are die-hards today who will try to convince you otherwise.”

Outside specifically evangelical universities the belief in the infalliability of scripture is regarded as seriously unfashionable in biblical studies departments in “world class universities” and in particular the common assumption is that the creation accounts are to be considered myths without scientific basis. From this perspective the young earth interpretation, contradictory of scientific evidence is actually to be preferred, hence Barr’s elaboration that “it’s really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as an appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.”

Have you ever noticed that evolutionists are actually keen to claim that creationists believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old? I recently saw a television program on evolution in it creationism was introduced as ‘the belief that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago’ and hardly bothering to mention any reason’s for rejecting naturalistic evolution. This emphasis is hardly as a result of a careful analysis of the possible meaning of the word ‘Yom’ but rather a desire to discredit creationism as a whole.