Define literal vs non-literal.

the proof is in the hebrew language itself. Remember, the bible was written in ancient hebrew, not english. We have to know the meaning behind the hebrew language and we know that Yom can mean any length of time according to the ancient hebrews. They did not have days of the week like we do, they did not count the hours. They measured time by seasons so its impossible that they had in mind a 24hour time frame.Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies says about the hebrew word Yom:
A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration ... Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.There are many examples of the same word Yom being used in such ways. for example it is used when refering to the passing of seasons at Zechariah 14:8. Also a 7 day fesitval is called The 'day' of harvest
At Psalm 90:4 a thousand years are likened to one day. So in harmony with how the hebrews understood the word Yom, its only reasonable that we apply the same meaning to the book of genesis.we have to understand the scriptures in harmony with how the hebrews understood it. Zechariah 14:8"And it must occur in that day (YOM) [that] living waters will go forth from Jerusalem...In summer and in winter it will occur."Genesis 30:14Now Reu′ben went walking in the days (YOM) of the wheat harvestPsalm 25:13 Just like the coolness of snow in the day (YOM) of harvestYom is also used with reference to a particular person, as for example, the days of Noah and the days of Lot.Lu 17:26-30; Isa 1:1.The understanding of the hebrew word has been applied to genesis for a very long time. In 'A Religious Encyclopaedia' of 1894 in volume 1 on page 613 it reads : The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.

Until you pointed to Wilson in the second paragraph, I only had your word on that - and I still haven't read Wilson (or any other similar book) I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just I have to avoid biased sources. This is a crucial bit of information, thank you! would it be necessary to compare a day to a thousand years, if YOM was already "as long as a piece of string" (i.e. indeterminate)?Would a YOM of indeterminate length (supposedly even billions of years) still have an "evening and a morning"?Is this YOM what we would call "literal" language?If YOM can be used (literally or not) in a folk-tale to describe any length of time, is there a reason to believe that this YOM literally happened the way it goes in the bible? I mean, what's the proof it is actually meant to be literal (even taking that YOM can mean "any length of time)?Given that a YOM can mean any length of time (and I'm not necessarily agreeing, just positing the question), is there a reason to believe that this "YOM" is actually meant as a real period of time rather than the passage being meant in a descriptive manner - i.e. it still being a story?

it shows that Yom can be any length of time...it could be a thousand years or it could be 3 months or it could be one persons lifetime.this is exactly why Yom CAN be compared to one thousand years. there is no reason why it shouldnt. An evening is generally the end of the day and the morning is the beginning of a new day, so in terms of a period of creation, there is going to be an evening and morning. It's not literal in the sense of calling a 'Day' a 24hour period of time.Its very similar to saying 'ages' in english. 'It took him ages to come out'we know 'ages' here could mean 1 hour or 5 hours or 10 hours...its describing a length of time but not giving an exact figure. Do you mean, whats the proof it is meant to be taken literally in Genesis?Well, we know that it is in harmony with science to believe that each creative period lasted for a very long time, so there is no problem in the literalness of the account of creation in that sense.I personally believe the account to be literal as did other bible writers including Jesus Christ who spoke of Adam and Eve along with other historical figures such as Moses and king David. there is one line of evidence I could use to show that the bible presents the 7th day as still progressing. Genesis states that each of the six 'creative days' came to an end and it says the 7th day began and God proceeded to rest on that day and called it a sabbath. Ge 2:1-3. But unlike the preceeding 6 days, it says nowhere that 'there came to be evening and there came to be morning a seventh day'Then more than 4,000 years afterward, Paul indicated that Sabbath day was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 in speaking about Gods Sabbath he quotes Genesis 2:2 and said: Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest. So basically the apostle believed that Gods rest day had not ended in his time. This is strong proof that the diciples did not view genesis as a fable but rather as a literal account of Gods creation. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

So you use science as the determinant on bible context...fine, but..What happens when science does *not* agree with bible context - take Adam and Eve; it is often quoted (depending on your deity) that that Adam and Eve were born around 6000 to 12000 years ago. Science puts the first humans at around 200,000 years ago.What, then, do we use as a determinant in this case?Perhaps you motion that the science does not *work* when applying it to two different contexts? Edited by killinghurts, : FormattingEdited by killinghurts, : ContextEdited by killinghurts, : No reason given.Edited by killinghurts, : removed irrelevant postEdited by killinghurts, : added exampleEdited by killinghurts, : formattingEdited by killinghurts, : Added another exampleEdited by killinghurts, : No reason given.Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

I agree that science has its proper place in society, but it is not an infallible guiding light whereas the Bible provides us with knowledge of God and his purposes that cannot be gleaned from any other source.so when they dig up a human bone and put a date of 200,000 years on it, i am very sceptical just as you are of the bibles claim that humans have been around for 6,036 years. And yes, i believe the bible over such science because there is more evidence that the bible is a true source of information then the few areas where it touches on scientific matters.dont get me wrong, its not simply because i choose to believe the bible over science, its because there is evidence to the contrary.
Besides this, dating methods are not infallible....there are many variables that could give such an old reading. IOW what im saying is when the science contradicts the bible, it doesnt ruffle my feathers lol. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

There is a serious problem with this line of thought.

quote:

---

its not simply because i choose to believe the bible over science, its because there is evidence to the contrary

---

What about the scientific evidence you used to determine that the '6 days' was not literal? Why do you choose to use science as the yard stick here and not in the latter case?Before science revealed the earth could not have been made in '6 days', people believed the '6 days' was literal.. now (except for a select few) people, like yourself, don't take it literally, why, what changed? -> as you said, there is scientific evidence to the contrary.And now science reveals that humans are much older than 6000 years (using identical science), and you choose to believe the story simply because there is evidence to the contrary - can you explain this? How is a given story correct simply because there is evidence to the contrary? What is different here?I know:Put simply, you agree with science when it suits the story. When it contradicts your story, you throw it out without any question of your own beliefs. It's akin to throwing out evidence in a murder case that proves someone innocent, simply because you have a predefined belief that they are guilty. It's unreasonable.I agree that dating methods are not infallible, but they *are* comparable using differing isotopes. Independent calculations giving roughly the same result is very compelling, wouldn't you agree?Edited by killinghurts, : grammarEdited by killinghurts, : added questionEdited by killinghurts, : added questionEdited by killinghurts, : grammarEdited by killinghurts, : grammarEdited by killinghurts, : No reason given.Edited by killinghurts, : spelling

What changed was our understanding of the hebrew language. It was a hidden language for a very long time because it stopped being used...even modern jews dont read ancient hebrew. But as archeological evidence came to light on the hebrew language, the meaning of these words became clearer. Just because some people interpret it to be 6 literal days does not mean the bible was wrong. from the time Adam was created, the Bible gives a year-by-year count of time that links up with reliable secular history. These records were incorporated in the early books of the Bible and preserved as a record of time. This history tells us that mankind has been here for 6,036 years.on the other hand we have the geological clocks that run too slow to provide anything absolute, or the radiocarbon clock, which works fairly well for the first few thousand years, but starts going a bit wirey beyond that. And if you are discerning, you will question why the majority of radiocarbon measurements on human finds fall within the bibles 6,000-year range.a nuclear physicist named W.F. Libby, a pioneer in radiocarbon dating, stated in the journal Science in 1961: No. I trust the account of human existence as found in the timeline of the bible because when we look at human history we know that human language is within the 6,000 's, We know that that majority of human artifacts found and dated fall within that range. We know civilisations emerged in the 6000 year range and that the farming revolution appeared within the 6,000 year range so with all that evidence, why should I beleive that humans existed a million years ago when the only evidence they present is their word that a bone we found was dated to be that old???Are you telling me that i should disregard all that physical evidence for the 6,000 years of human habitation for the a piece of bone that has been given a date based on a suspect dating method??? Is that reasonable? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

From your previous posts you stated that this new understanding of the Hebrew language gave us an indeterminate length of time - you said that yourself, the word 'Yom' can literally mean *anything*.You then went on to say: So the word 'Yom', can mean any period of time, yet you support the narrowing of that scope to be what science reveals it to be - why do you do this here and not when the evidence is to the contrary? Here you have only only included evidence that supports your story - you didn't even include anything 'in harmony' with science... when someone omits evidence I think one has a right to be skeptical, wouldn't you be?By interpreting the true word 'Yom' and applying science as the yard stick you have put a limit on the length of time a 'day' can be according to the creation context, hence science *works* for you here.But You've directly contradicted yourself - you stated science is 'in harmony' with the 'Yom' interpretation, yet 'geological clocks that run too slow to provide anything absolute'?Is it in harmony with science or is it not?Regarding carbon dating, ~75,000 years is the limit for carbon dating, which is much older than 6000 years - and it's very predictable and measurable. I'd like to see some references as to why carbon dating "starts going a bit wirey" after a few thousand years. Apart from: Which you have clearly taken out of context - Libby was speaking about civilization specific to a particular archeological site, not the age of homo sapiens.If you want to prove carbon dating is erroneous simply take the science and disprove it. Taking a random, out of context quote (which I am 100% sure you have gleaned from a pro-creation/ anti-evolutionist website or book) indicates that you are unable, or simply frightened to think for yourself. Since I believe everyone is capable of thinking for themselves, I suspect you are in the latter category, so do me a favor, face your fears - take the science and disprove it:Here is the science - it's quite simple really. C14 has a measurable half life of ~5800 years. We can measure the rate of decay.When something is alive, the amount of carbon remains constant and predictable.As soon as something dies the carbon begins to decay according to it's half life. After ~5800 years it is 'half' decayed, leaving ~2900 years, after which it is one quarter decayed... it keeps decaying (by half) until it is immeasurable or "wirey" as you put it. The only 'evidence' you have included is that which supports your story. Of course your story will make sense if you do not include any evidence or 'Human history' as you put it that is to the contrary, right?Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

i think your nit picking.a very long time is a fairly broad way to describe what scientists call billions of years... are billions of years a very long time? thats right, there are very few absolutes in terms of radiocarbon dating becaues there are many variables.ie, cosmic rays are never steady, they could have been stronger or weaker in the past , solar flares change the level of radiocarbon and these occur from time to time, the earth’s magnetic field moves as it's doing right now and my guess is that this would affect radiocarbon levels....even the changing volume and temperature of the ocean can affect it and the climate is always changing. These reasons should be enough to make anyone think twice before accepting radiocarbon dating.Besides these reasons, i think the most significant reason to doubt evolutions theory that mankind have been here longer then 6,000 years is the fact that of all the dates found for samples associated with man’s presence, the vast majority have turned out to be less than 6,000 years ago.So tell my why you believe the dating of anything by the radio carbon method is absolute??

refer to Message 97 in the topic PRATT Party Free for All for an explanation of the calibration of Radio carbon dating.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I am not nit picking, and I apologize if you think I am, my questions are fundamental to this thread:Do you support scientific dating methods as evidence that the 6 day theory is not to be taken literal or do you not?Because if you do (which you did claim to) you cannot reject it when the same science is used in a different context. If you do reject it, then youa) have a compartmentalized mentality - you only apply it when it suits your own belief system.orb) Do not understand scientific dating methods and choose respond with dogmatic packaged answers you have be taught by your authoritative figures.I suspect b). Here you have not responded to my statement, you've only gone on to add unreferenced supporting 'evidence' in a further attempt to discredit science and support your story.I noted that you've directly contradicted yourself in this thread:

quote:

---

you stated science is 'in harmony' with the 'Yom' interpretation, yet 'geological clocks that run too slow to provide anything absolute'

---

I don't want to hear about what's wrong/right with the science (surely that's been done in another thread somewhere in this forum) I want to know how you can use science to support your story in one context, and not the other, that's all..Edited by killinghurts, : grammarEdited by killinghurts, : spelling

quote:

---

There are many occasions when reading through the threads here that I come across this sentence:

​

"Well that's obviously not to be taken literally - it was just a dream/song/interpretation that had at the time"

​

When reading the bible, what are the rules around what is to be taken literally, and what is not?

​

Are there any rules?

---

Supposedly, but they seem to change depending on what one is protecting.I like the Rules of PARDES Interpretation.P'shat (pronounced peh-shaht' - meaning "simple") is what I would equate to a literal (adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression), but still allows for creative writing styles. I feel that preachers have no problem with "simple reading" until we get to the idea of unity. Unity tends to trump "simple reading". Literal is relative to doctrine.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

It doesn't count as evidence if you make it up.

Well clearly there he's talking about the situation before the invention of carbon dating anyway.

Hey Peg. I've argued creation with biblical fundamentalists who claim that the meaning of the Hebrew yom can change when used with what are called "ordinals". They assert that the type of ordinal used in Genesis, as opposed to other places where yom appears, confirms the literal 6-day account of creation.What are your thoughts on this pertaining to a literal interpretation of the bible?