Define literal vs non-literal.

quote:

---

Ok, when you come to accept the definitions that have been given for the hebrew Yom, perhaps then we can keep discussing it.... until then, im out.

---

I think you need to pull the beam out of your own eye, Peg, then read Message 202.

---

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

quote:

---

Apparently you and Peg can't make your case within the sentence, so we move out to the story.

---

And neither can you--you often refer to the entire story. (And neither should ANY of us; context is essential to determining the meanings of words.)

quote:

---

Fine, but stop using figurative as a catch all.

---

OK, so maybe "figurative" isn't the best word, either. How about I just use "non-literal" as a catch-all? (It looks like I need to go back and re-read Bullinger's "Figures of Speech" text so that I can use these terms properly!)

quote:

---

Just-So-Stories are fiction and the author means them to be taken as such. You throw literal around like you do figurative.
What do you mean by literal? Use the word "exist" if you are talking about whether something exists in real life. Use common meaning, if you are referring to the meaning of the word used.

​

No, we are not to assume the talking animals exist in real life. Yes, we are to visualize a whale per the common usage of the word, but with a bigger throat.

---

But you didn't answer my question. "Do you consider the talking animals in the story to be literal, or not?" Perhaps you are as uncomfortable calling them "literal" as I am calling the Days if Genesis "literal?"

quote:

---

In Genesis 1:5 the listener is to visualize a regular length day just without the sun, moon, stars, etc.

​

They weren't normal, in the sense that certain things weren't created yet, but they were normal length per the common meaning of the word yom as it is used in the sentence.
The common meaning of the word "yom" is a name for light as opposed to dark (not the sun, moon, or stars) and it refers to the length of time it takes the earth to rotate once. The word doesn't refer to the sun, moon, or stars. So it is irrelevant whether they are present.

​

The common meaning of yom is used in Genesus 1:5. There is nothing in the story or the sentence to denote any longer time or any figurative usage.

---

I am uncomfortable calling the days "normal" because they were very unusual. I am uncomfortable calling them "24-hour" because it stresses their length, which was not the concern of the author. I am uncomfortable calling them "literal" because they are in a non-literal account (and neither do they fit your definition of "literal day", as there is no sun to rise and set). I am very uncomfortable talking of the earth's rotation, because this imports modern science into the account.I agree with the gist of your position on the days, but I can't agree on any of the specific wording that you would like me to ascribe to.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

OK, so maybe "figurative" isn't the best word, either. How about I just use "non-literal" as a catch-all?

---

Don't use a catch all. Be specific as you expect me to be.

quote:

---

But you didn't answer my question. "Do you consider the talking animals in the story to be literal, or not?" Perhaps you are as uncomfortable calling them "literal" as I am calling the Days if Genesis "literal?"

---

I did depending on what you mean by literal. I asked you to clarify what you mean by literal and I gave answers for different meanings. Literal, as we are using it, is an adjective. My response to you was: No, we are not to assume the talking animals exist in real life. (That means, no there aren't literally talking animals in the world.)Yes, we are to visualize a whale per the common usage of the word, but with a bigger throat. (That means it is a literal whale as per the common use of the word whale.) The whale is a whale, the man is a man, and the fish is a fish.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 am uncomfortable calling the days "normal" because they were very unusual. I am uncomfortable calling them "24-hour" because it stresses their length, which was not the concern of the author. I am uncomfortable calling them "literal" because they are in a non-literal account (and neither do they fit your definition of "literal day", as there is no sun to rise and set). I am very uncomfortable talking of the earth's rotation, because this imports modern science into the account.

---

Good grief! You're making a mountain out of a mole hill and yes, I think you literally are out there trying to turn a mole hill into a mountain just to annoy me. You're over thinking it.The common literal meaning of the word yom is called for in the sentence. Message 80
You need more than your discomfort to support a figurative use.

---

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

quote:

---

My response to you was: No, we are not to assume the talking animals exist in real life. (That means, no there aren't literally talking animals in the world.)

​

Yes, we are to visualize a whale per the common usage of the word, but with a bigger throat. (That means it is a literal whale as per the common use of the word whale.) The whale is a whale, the man is a man, and the fish is a fish.

​

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.

---

Haven't I answered your question about the Days in Genesis in a pretty much similar way?1) We are NOT talking of historical 24-hour days.
2) We ARE to visualize a relatively normal day, but with some unique and unusual features.What is unclear about this?

quote:

---

Good grief! You're making a mountain out of a mole hill and yes, I think you literally are out there trying to turn a mole hill into a mountain just to annoy me. You're over thinking it.
The common literal meaning of the word yom is called for in the sentence. Message 80
You need more than your discomfort to support a figurative use.

---

I'm not trying to annoy you at all. I have agreed with the gist of your position on the word "day" multiple times in this thread (Message 162, Message 174, Message 212. But for some reason you are not satisfied with this, and want me to agree to some specific wording that you present. I think you are trying to over-define things. The literal meaning of "yom" as you presented in Message 184 clearly CANNOT work in the sentence, because it requires a sunset when there is no sun to set.

quote:

---

Haven't I answered your question about the Days in Genesis in a pretty much similar way?

​

1) We are NOT talking of historical 24-hour days.
2) We ARE to visualize a relatively normal day, but with some unique and unusual features.

​

What is unclear about this?

---

Still you don't tell me what you mean by literal.I'm not unclear about what you're saying, I just don't understand your need to clarify the first days weren't visually like a regular day. The author is referring to the length of a normal day with the word yom, not that everything about that day was same as usual. Whether the day was visually normal is irrelevant to yom.

quote:

---

I'm not trying to annoy you at all. I have agreed with the gist of your position on the word "day" multiple times in this thread (Re: Biblical absurdities (Message 162), Re: Indicator of Days (Message 174), Literal and non-literal (Message 212). But for some reason you are not satisfied with this, and want me to agree to some specific wording that you present. I think you are trying to over-define things. The literal meaning of "yom" as you presented in Re: Indicator of Days (Message 184) clearly CANNOT work in the sentence, because it requires a sunset when there is no sun to set.

---

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. Message 162
The author defined the length of the day for his audience. (evening and morning) Message 174
The author defined the length of the day for his audience. (evening and morning) Message 212
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.Same as the whale story. The people visualize a whale with a bigger throat. Like the baby elephant story. The people visualize an elephant without the trunk. In this story people visualize a day without the sun, moon, and stars. That doesn't mean the author can't use the words for evening and morning with yom to convey the regular length of the day.This is not a factual story. Stop trying to make fiction adhere to fact. You're not arguing that yom as used in Genesis 1:5 means a long period of time, so stop fussing with irrelevant details. They have no bearing on the word yom.That's why people have difficulty discerning literal vs non-literal in the Bible. Our current knowledge gets in the way of taking the story at face value.

---

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

Let me remind you of something you said earlier: Now you tell me that I *should* take other events that do *not* line up with the facts (and that you have described as miraculous) to be literal.Wouldn't it make more sense to describe those as not literal too?Awaiting your reply.Edited by killinghurts, : GrammarEdited by killinghurts, : Grammar

According to you, what rule dictates whether the science is right or wrong?

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:

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.
QEDPlease 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 177
So why are you now going back on what you said and stressing the length of the days?

No. Not when those accounts specifically tell us that a miracle occured.remember the bible is a collection of writings from those who witnessed cirtain events and wrote them down. The miracles Jesus performed were described exactly as that...there was nothing figurative about them. Maybe you need to study the subject before you draw your conclusions.

quote:

---

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 Re: Indicator of Days (Message 184). You are the one who pressed me to agree with your definition.

---

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. This thread is about how one can tell when the common definition of a word is used or a figurative one.

quote:

---

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 Re: Indicator of Days (Message 184). You are the one who pressed me to agree with your definition.

---

Again, not my definitions. I presented links for all the definitions I presented. I don't think I missed any.

quote:

---

I'll try to lay the logic out very simply:
1) Your definition of "literal day" in Re: Indicator of Days (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

---

Quite frankly I think you just arguing for the sake of arguing. We aren't trying to create a definition for the word yom. It already exists. We are discussing how one knows which meaning of the word is to be used. The reason this is even an issue is because there are people who want to use a figurative meaning of the word yom to support their attempts at reconciling science and the Bible.In the Genesis days of creation the common usage of the word yom is used. If you disagree, then provide the meaning you feel is necessary. As I've explained several times, the "logic" you provided above has no bearing on which definition of yom is to be used. Your "logic" is just criticizing the story, which is not what this thread is about.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's nice, but it isn't what this thread is about. If you want to do that, start another thread.

quote:

---

No, he is not stressing the LENGTH of the day. I though we agreed on that? When I said earlier in Re: Indicator of Days (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 Re: Indicator of Days (Message 177)

---

He isn't putting emphasis on the length of the day. IOW, the day phrase isn't the main point of the sentence. What is being created is the main point. The day phrase just told the audience how much time had passed. Just because it isn't the main point, doesn't mean the writer wasn't telling them how much time had passed.If you agree the common usage of the word yom is necessary in the Genesis day phrases, then we have no more to discuss. Everything else you're bringing up is really off topic.

---

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

I'm sure you are a good person Peg, but your attempts at portraying me as ignorant will not work. In fact, I see it as a weakness in your argument.I am drawing conclusions based on your statement. Let me remind you once again. You explicitly state here that because we know 'facts' - (such as the age of th earth, through empirical evidence), we should take the 6 day theory as non-literal. That's great - we can test those 'facts' today through the scientific methodology.Now I don't know about you, but I have never seen any empirical evidence of man walking on water, I've never seen any evidence of a man being resurrected, I've never seen any empirical evidence of someone parting the red sea with a stick...So I ask you again, is this statement true? Eyewitness accounts are simply not enough - even for you - as you have stated - we need facts. Where are the facts?

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: 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.

You cant test a miracle. The evidence that a miracle occured comes from the testimony of those who witnessed it. And their testimony may not be enough on its own... but when the testmony comes from 3 million people you can be pretty sure that it happened.

Thus, based on your own logic, miracles are not a fact. I am interested in which miracle you are referring to here (and who the 3 million people were), it sounds fascinating.None the less can you elaborate on how you verify an eyewitness account? Surely it's not based purely on the mere number of people - if that were true we'd all declare Ghosts, UFO's, Demons, Santa Clause, etc as factual (no offence if you do believe in any or all of those things).I seem to see a disconnect between your logic defining the 6 days as literal and the other 'miracles'. You define a rule in the first case (based on fact), and break it in the second (based on no facts and only eyewitness accounts).Edited by killinghurts, : missed a bit

quote:

---

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.

---

You are correct that the thread isn't restricted to any particular passage or individual words, but Peg and I were discussing the word Yom. You jumped into that discussion with Message 42. Yom and its usage in Genesis 1:5 is what we were discussing. If you want to discuss a different sentence or word, then make a new post.

quote:

---

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!

---

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. So explain how I disagree. The fact that there is no sun in the story the first day is irrelevant to the usage of the Hebrew words for evening, morning, and day. How the author grouped what was created also has no bearing on the usage of the Hebrew words for evening, morning, and day. I've shown you examples of why that is. It is not a factual story. All you've provided is your discomfort.

quote:

---

I am criticizing attempts to force agreement on unclear terminology.

---

What terminology and what is unclear. Again, I didn't make the definitions and I didn't write the story. If you feel a different definition is required, then make your case and provide support. Since you aren't arguing for a longer period of time, your criticism reflects on the story, not what definition of the word is to be used.If you are uncomfortable with the definition, then there's nothing left for us to discuss. I can't do anything about the given definition. We aren't deciding what yom means, we are looking at what determines which definition (which are already known) to use.Summary: The literal meaning of the word yom is used in the day phrases of creation, but the world was not literally created in six days.Edited by purpledawn, : SubtitleEdited by purpledawn, : Summary

---

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