|
Author
|
Topic: Define literal vs non-literal.
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
"Literal" is imprecise
quote:
Still you don't tell me what you mean by literal.
I believe the word "literal" is too vague and imprecise. It has multiple meanings as you have presented in Message 213, so it can be unclear and misleading. I am following your advice there, and trying to communicate what i mean without using the word:
Since you don't feel these answer your question, you need to clarify what you feel the word literal means without using the word literal. quote:
I'm not unclear about what you're saying,
I hope this is true!
quote:
You agree and then you say something like your last sentence to muck it up. IOW, you agree and then you turn around and disagree with what you just agreed to.
WHO is mucking things up? You are the one who is pushing for definitions of terms. You are the one who presented a definition of a "literal day" in Message 184. You are the one who pressed me to agree with your definition. I'll try to lay the logic out very simply: 1) Your definition of "literal day" in Message 184 requires a sunset. 2) The first three days of Genesis 1 have no sun. 3) With no sun, there can be no sunset. 4) With no sunset, we have not met your definition of "literal day." 5) Therefore, the first three Days of Genesis cannot properly be called "literal days" by your definition. QED Please tell me which step of logic above you disagree with? I don't know why you are so concerned about coming to agreement on precise definitions of words, especially potentially misleading words like "literal." I think we'd make much more progress by trying to communicate concepts instead of debating definitions of words.
quote:
The author is referring to the length of a normal day with the word yom,
...
The author defined the length of the day for his audience. (evening and morning)
...
I don't care what you call a 24-hour day or planetary rotation. If you have a word that makes you more comfortable, use it. The bottom line is that the day was the length of the day that the author and his audience experienced on a daily basis. The literal meaning of the word yom. The author can only write with the words he has. To convey the regular length of the day, he says there is an evening and a morning. This tells his audience he was referring to a regular length day.
No, he is not stressing the LENGTH of the day. I though we agreed on that? When I said earlier in Message 174 that "I don't see anything in the text to suggest that the author is concerned about the lengths of the Days" you replied in Message 177purpledawn writes: Of course you wouldn't because he isn't. The people concerned with the length of the "days" are people trying to reconcile the Bible with science. I'm not concerned about the length of time it takes our planet to rotate. I've had a morning and an evening every day of my life so far and I don't expect it to change.
So why are you now going back on what you said and stressing the length of the days?
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: "Literal" is imprecise
quote:
The definitions of yom are not mine. I provided links. If you don't agree with their definitions, there's no point in you being part of this discussion.
I don't mind the definitions too much, though I believe they are too simplistic. But YOU are the one who seems to disagree with the definition of "literal day" that you yourself provided!
quote:
Your "logic" is just criticizing the story, which is not what this thread is about.
No, I am not criticizing the story. I am criticizing attempts to force agreement on unclear terminology.
quote:
This thread is about how one can tell when the common definition of a word is used or a figurative one.
I think the topic of the OP is broader than individual words:
killinghurts writes: 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?
I suggest we quit arguing/discussing the word "Day" in Genesis 1. Let's get back to the topic of the thread, which is not restricted to any particular passage or to individual words. I think this is a more interesting topic.
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: People are Imprecise
quote:
It is the literal definition of the Hebrew word "yom", not the English word day. I can't do much about them being simplistic. If you have a better definition source, provide it.
See Message 200. Here is the definition you provided:
Strong's writes: a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next)
quote:
So explain how I disagree.
I've already explained this multiple times. I don't know why you're pretending not to understand it. You disagree in that you insist:
quote:
The literal meaning of the word yom is used in the day phrases of creation,
Now look very carefully at the definition of "literal day" which you provided, above. Do you see that it says, "whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next)"? This definition requires a sunset. A sunset requires a sun. Days 1-3 had no sun. Thus Days 1-3 were not "literal days" per the definition above. Your insistence on calling Days 1-3 "literal days" implies that you are NOT actually using the definition you have provided. Thats' why I said that "YOU are the one who seems to disagree with the definition of "literal day" that you yourself provided!" If you want to keep calling Days 1-3 "literal days," you should provide an alternative definition which actually fits (i.e. which does not require a sun as part of the definition).
quote:
quote:
I am criticizing attempts to force agreement on unclear terminology.
What terminology and what is unclear.
See Message 63. (Though my use of "metaphorical" was probably unclear, too.)
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: People are Imprecise
quote:
I didn't call the first three days, literal days.
You didn't?? Now I'm very confused!
quote:
I said the common meaning (literal) of the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5.
Isn't this tantamount to saying that this is a "literal day?" At any rate, you claim "the common meaning (literal) of the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5." According to the Strong's definition that you presented, "yom" used in a literal sense means "from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next". So I'll try to explain this again (though I don't know how I can be any more clear than I was). 1) According to the Strong's definition, does a "literal day" (i.e. the "literal" meaning of the word day) REQUIRE a sunset? Absolutely. 2) Does the Day in Genesis 1:5 have a sunset? Absolutely not. An evening, but no sun and no sunset. 3) Does the Day in Genesis 1:5 fit the Strong's definition for a "literal day" (i.e. "yom" used in a literal sense)? Absolutely not. The definition requires a sunset, but there is none in Gen 1:5. I really don't know how to make this any clearer than I've said above, or in Message 227 or Message 220.
quote:
Please tell me what definition you prefer to use for the word yom on the first three days vs the last three days.
I think your phrase "normal days" isn't bad, so long as we understand that there are lots of unique, abnormal details on these days. "Normal days" is probably the best descriptive phrase I've seen so far in this thread.
quote:
It doesn't matter if I describe an elephant that is purple with pink dots and has big ears and flies. The common meaning of the word elephant is understood. Actually the common meaning of all the words in the sentence are used. But a purple flying elephant with pink dots doesn't literally exist. For the sake of the story we are to imagine a flying purple elephant with pink dots. Same goes for Genesis 1:5. The common meaning of evening, morning, and day are used, but the story has the audience envision a day without a sun, moon, or stars. In a story we can have light with no sun, evening with no sunset, and morning with no sunrise.
Good analogy. I agree completely with what you said above. (Amazing!) Your analogy illustrates the problems that I see with the word "literal." Is the elephant story "literal?" No. Does the elephant literally exist? No. In the story, is the elephant literal? That depends on what one means; the word "literal" is ambiguous here. Yes, an elephant is being described, not a squirrel or a rabbit. But the elephant has non-physical features; it is an imaginary elephant. So I think "literal" is an unclear way to describe the elephant.
quote:
If you have a better definition, provide it with support.
As I've said a number of times, BDB is the standard Hebrew lexicon. I prefer the unabridged version, but it is MUCH too long to reproduce here, and contains numerous semitic language phrases. I'll try to reproduce "yom" from the abridged BDB, but it will still be a mess with all the Hebrew characters that don't transliterate very clearly. It's much clearer to look it up yourself in BDB.
BDB writes:
yom n.m. day 1. day, opp. night. 2. Day as division of time: a. working-day. b. derek≈ yoma day’s journey; without derek≈ etc., slset◊ ya—mm three days, etc. c. to denote duration of various acts or states: seven days; forty days; 150 days. d. day as defined by evening and morning. e. day of month (c. num. ordin.). f. yomdefined by subst., inf., or other cl.: cstr. yom haeleg≈ = the snowy day; so, = time yom sa—ra—t◊ d. of my distress; of day emphat. characterized by proph. and others; on the other hand ’yom ra—son ly a day of acceptableness to ’y; pl. sq. subst. g. particular days defined by n.pr.loc.: yom yr{e}l i.e. of judgment, with implied restoration; yme haggib≈{a i.e. of the outrage at Gibeah. h. c. sf., thy, his, or their day, in sense of (1) day of disaster or death. i. specif. a holy day: yom haabba—t◊ the sabbath day (v. also sabba—t◊); also of false gods, yme habb{a—lm. 3. ’yom y day of Yahweh, chiefly as time of his coming in judgment, involving often blessedness for righteous. 4. Pl. days of any one: a. = his life, his age; ya—mm rabbm long life; ba—} bayya—mm advanced in days = of advanced age; rarely sg. e.g. qse-yom one hard of day, i.e. whose day (= life) was hard; of life as approaching its end. b. (in) the days of (i.e. life-time, reign, or activity of). 5. Days: a. indef.: ya—mm }∞sΩa—d≈msome days, a few days. b. of a long time, zeh ya—mm }o zeh sa—nmthese days or these years; }o hΩo—d≈es }o ya—mm }o yo—mayimwhether two days or a month or days (an indefinitely long period); ya—mm rabbm many days. c. days of old, former or ancient times (esp. of early period of Isr. hist.): ymot◊ {ola—m (poem); coming days hayya—mm habba—}mm; coming time yom }asΩ∞ron. 6. yom = time; a. vividly in gen. sense (v. also 5 supr.): time of harvest; usu. yme; proper time for paying wages; time of parturition. b. appos. to other expr. of time: hΩo—d≈es ya—mm a month of time (lit. a month, time). c. pl. in specific sense, appar. = year, lit. ya—mmm; ma—mm ya—mma = from year to year, yearly; distrib.; wayh lya—mm ma—mm and it came to pass at days from days (= after some days).
Which definition is good for Genesis 1:5? Perhaps 2a "working-day" or 2d "day as defined by evening and morning."
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: People are Imprecise
quote:
Finally! The light is on!
I'm glad you finally understand and we can put this behind us. On to the next!
FYI, nothing in my position has changed. I've been trying to say the same thing throughout this thread (e.g. Message 93, Message 162, Message 187, Message 209). If there is anything that I have "finally" understood, it is how to explain my position in a way that you understand.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2010 7:51 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Rules of interpretation
quote:
In Message 80, I provided the rules per apologetics. Rules 7 and 8 leave room to wiggle.
For another formulation, I would suggest Virkler. His method is consistent with the site you linked to, but I think he organizes the steps in a more logical and clear fashion. Here is the description of his method from wikipedia under Biblical hermeneutics:wikipedia, Biblical hermeneutics writes:
In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers what language says, supposes, doesn't say, and implies. The process consists of several steps for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s). One such process is taught by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):
1. Lexical-syntactical analysis: This step looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
2. Historical/cultural analysis: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
3. Contextual analysis: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
4. Theological analysis: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
5. Special literary analysis: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 239 by purpledawn, posted 03-28-2010 9:17 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Jesus as literal person?
quote:
quote:
I would also disagree with you on the point of Jesus not being spoken of as an earthly literal person. the gospels are the account of his life and they certainly present a real person.
You may have every right to believe this but, for the sake of argument, from what evidence do you derive this?
The Gospels are narratives relating many details of Jesus' life and ministry. He is born, talks with people, eats with them, walks with them, etc. The Gospels certainly present Him as a literal person! How can you read them and not agree? Note the topic of this thread. As Purpledawn has stressed regarding Genesis 1, we are not considering here whether or not the Gospel accounts are actually true or whether Jesus actually was a literal person, but whether or not the accounts portray Him as a literal person.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 241 by bluescat48, posted 03-29-2010 9:56 AM | | bluescat48 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 244 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 10:43 AM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 249 by AdminPD, posted 03-29-2010 12:44 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
Message 252 of 271 (552518)
03-29-2010 5:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 244 by Theodoric
03-29-2010 10:43 AM
|
|
Re: Jesus as literal person?
quote:
The writings of Paul do not portray him as a literal person. He makes no mention of the happenings in the gospels(primarily because they did not exist in his time). He talks about a Jesus that existed in another realm. The writings of Paul are classic representations of the mystery cult, platonic beliefs of that time. He is writing about the other worldly Son of Man. He is not writing as if he believed jesus was a real historical figure.
1) We were discussing Jesus in the Gospels, not in Paul. Since Paul had never met Jesus in the flesh, he understandably writes less about Jesus' earthly life than do the Gospel writers. 2) Claims similar to yours above are often made by modern atheists, but they betray an ignorance of Paul's writings and/or the Gospels. As Jaywill showed, Paul mentions a number of events which ARE recorded in the Gospels. These include Jesus death, burial, and resurrection (and also the Last Supper). 3) The question for this thread is not even whether Paul BELIEVED Jesus was a real historical figure. The question is how Paul PRESENTS Him. As PD asked, what in Paul's writings suggests that he did not intend to portray/present Jesus as a literal, historical, real person? And more specific to the OP, what methodology are you using to determine that Paul did not intend to do so? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 244 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 10:43 AM | | Theodoric has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 254 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 7:21 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Jesus as literal person?
quote:
Paul no where talks about the happenings of the Gospels. There is a reference to a last supper but ther is no historical info or info that
Clearly false, as Jaywill and I have shown.
quote:
Not a physical resurrection on this earth and not a physical appearance to disciples.
Paul's description of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection seems (to me) to be consistent with the descriptions in the Gospels, and to claim a real, historical event. Look, for example, at 1 Cor 15:14-17:
NET Bible writes: And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.
What do you see in the TEXT that tells you that Paul is not trying to claim a real, historical resurrection? What interpretive methodology are you applying to the TEXT to determine what Paul is trying to communicate? Again, we are NOT asking the question of whether or not Jesus really lived (and we are not interested in unscholarly revisionist historians who claim that He didn't). We are asking about the TEXT itself. What is the interpretive methodology which you are applying to the text to determine authorial intent?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 253 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 7:10 PM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Jesus as literal person?
quote:
There are clearly no well defined rules for what is to be taken literally and what is not.
Can you explain what you mean by this? PD and I have posted two formulations of rules for interpretation. What do you object to in them? What further information would you like? If you are looking for some sort of mechanical formula that can be blindly applied to the text (especially the ENGLISH text), you are out of luck. We are discussing literary interpretation. This is more of an art than a science. It requires a knowledge of the language, culture, and history of the writer. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Jesus as literal person?
quote:
Both the methods of interpretation you and PD have proposed are far too broad. Rules must be objective and leave no room for interpretation, otherwise we end up with... an 18 page forum thread trying to define even the simplest of words.. like "day".
...
Right, as I said, there's no clearly defined rules.
It sounds like you are looking for something that does not exist, and can not exist. You are asking for rules of literary interpretation that leave no room for interpretation. You seem to be trying to impose a mathematical or engineering-type precision on literature. This is nonsense.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 267 by killinghurts, posted 04-01-2010 1:04 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2