|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Define literal vs non-literal. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
killinghurts writes: Thus, based on your own logic, miracles are not a fact. so now you determine facts only if there is physical evidence? Sometimes the facts require no physical evidence. For instance, if I tell you I was born but do not have a birth certificate (evidence for my birth) Im sure you would believe that I was born wether i had the certificate or not. so not all facts require evidence, right?
killinghurts writes: I am interested in which miracle you are referring to here (and who the 3 million people were), it sounds fascinating. the exodus from egypt. There were a minimum of 3 million isrealites who crossed the red sea.
killinghurts writes: 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). when the writers of the NT wrote their accounts and their letters to fellow believers, they were writing to eyewitnesses. The apostles could preach confidently and appeal to the knowledge of the hearers and you can see it in their writings...they say things like ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ and also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ If the writers were making up false misleading stories, those readers would have known immediately and christianity would not have even got a foot in the door. And with regard to those early diciples who did witness the events recorded in the bible, they were violently opposed for preaching and being diciples of Jesus. Their lives were on the line, yet they were prepared to die. No one would have been willing to do this if jesus was a fabrication...there was no benefit in it. So they must have had a rock solid conviction that what they were preaching was the truth.
killinghurts writes: 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). you are talking about two completely different topics and trying to get one answer that fits both. It doest work like that. Regarding the genesis day, you can simply look at the hebrew word to give you a clue as to what that 'day' meant in hebrew. And with regard to miracles, you cant reproduce it or see it yourself so you have to go for the eyewitness testimony from those who did see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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: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: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:See Message 63. (Though my use of "metaphorical" was probably unclear, too.)quote:What terminology and what is unclear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
the exodus from egypt. There were a minimum of 3 million isrealites who crossed the red sea. As is being discussed in another thread, you can show no corroborating evidence for this. Therefore, I and others would question strongly whether this is literal. I don't think you can effectively assert that this is literal without, some sort of corroboration. Can you give any reason why this should be accepted as literal other than the passages in the bible?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Sorry to respond twice to the same post, but something else caught my eye.
And with regard to those early diciples who did witness the events recorded in the bible The first gospel was written post 70 CE. The last probably ca 120 CE. Paul never met a physical Jesus, as a matter of fact he didn't write about a physical earthly Jesus. he wrote about a transcendent, nonphysical, non-earthly Jesus. We do not see a earthly Jesus or the 12 until a post gospel era. There is no corroborating evidence for a literal interpretation.
Their lives were on the line, yet they were prepared to die. No one would have been willing to do this if jesus was a fabrication...there was no benefit in it. So the aliens and belief systems of the Heavens Gate people was true? Why else would they allow themselves to die in the name of their religion? Just because people are willing to die for something doesn't make it true or correct. I am sure we can come up with millions of people that died for things that were not true.Also, just because people believe something is real does not make it real. Joan of Arc had visions that God wanted her to expel the English from France. She died convinced of the truth of he visions. Does anyone truly believe that God took sides in that conflict. Muhammad had visions from god too. Why are his beliefs less valid? Finally, even if there were these apostles, we have no idea how they died.The only apostle deaths recounted in the New Testament are that of James, the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2) and Judas (Matthew 27:0, Acts 1:18). There is a tradition that Peter died in Rome(no evidence), but there is nothing on the rest of the apostles except folklore. Your beliefs on this are not based on anything literal.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Honey, when I ask you to clarify something, it is because I'm obviously not getting your point as you are presenting it. Sending me back to a post with no more clarification doesn't help. Say it a different way.
What definition of yom do you feel is required in Genesis 1:5?
quote:I didn't call the first three days, literal days. I said the common meaning (literal) of the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5. I contend that the story didn't literally happen. I've given you many links and examples to help you understand creative writing. I really don't know any other way to help you understand. Please tell me what definition you prefer to use for the word yom on the first three days vs the last three days.
quote:Again, if I didn't understand you the first time, pointing me back there isn't going to tell me what I missed. Besides, you never did tell me what symbolism or metaphors you were talking about in that post. Personally, I still feel you are confusing what definition is necessary for the word and the overall story. As I've said and shown before, literal meanings of words can be used within fictional stories. You're getting bogged down in the idea of literal. Oddly enough you're being too literal with the definition. IOW, the meaning of the word doesn't write the story. 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. The point was that there was darkness (no moon or stars) and then there was light (no sun) for the length of the day known to the audience. Using the words evening and morning was how the author conveyed the length of the day to the audience. This isn't a scientific report. It is a story. What English word do we have for a sunless, moonless, starless rotation of the planet? We aren't trying to write a more accurate story. We are trying to understand what the author was telling his audience. If you have a better definition, provide it with support. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:You didn't?? Now I'm very confused! quote: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: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: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: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:
Which definition is good for Genesis 1:5? Perhaps 2a "working-day" or 2d "day as defined by evening and morning."
yom n.m. day1. 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
if the account about the isrealites crossing the red sea is not literal, what is Yom Kippur
why do they have a jewish traditional holiday in commemoration of the event?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes: The first gospel was written post 70 CE. The last probably ca 120 CE. Paul never met a physical Jesus, as a matter of fact he didn't write about a physical earthly Jesus. he wrote about a transcendent, nonphysical, non-earthly Jesus. We do not see a earthly Jesus or the 12 until a post gospel era. There is no corroborating evidence for a literal interpretation. I would have to disagree with you on the timing of the writing of the books of the NT. 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.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:This is what the story is telling us and what I've been trying to tell you. Normal day, solar day, or 24-hour day are our adjectives today to basically say the audience was expected to envision the length of day to which they were accustomed, which we know is equal to one rotation of the planet. These adjectives weren't meant to be exact concerning this story. They were meant to get the gist across that yom as used in Genesis 1:5 wasn't referring to a longer or shorter amount of time than the audiences average day and differentiate the length from the name of the light. IOW, you were taking my use of the terms too literally.
quote:Finally! The light is on! The problem isn't with the word literal. The problem is that you're using the word literal in an ambiguous way. That's why I kept asking you what you felt it meant. (Which you never really said, as I recall.) This analogy is what I've been trying to get you to understand. Message 210 Because we have the word evening and morning in the sentence, the definition from your list would be: d. day as defined by evening and morning. We start with a basic day and the author tells us how to view it differently. The author did not tell us to view a longer or shorter day. That's the amazing part of the story. Wow, God did that all in one day! We've heard it so many times we've lost the wow factor.
quote:Literal isn't unclear. You're using it in an unclear way. Literal doesn't describe the elephant. Try to understand the difference between the common use of a word (literal meaning) and whether the character or story actually exists in real life (literally exists). You also have to understand that even though the literal meaning is used, the story may dictate that we imagine alterations to the common meaning. That's why it is best sometimes to rephrase and not use the word causing the problems. I'm glad you finally understand and we can put this behind us. On to the next! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Why do christians celebrate Christmas day as the birth of Jesus? Historical, if there was a Jesus Christ, we have no way of knowing his birthdate? It is solely a tradition. Why is this 2010? It is not based on any confirmed dating of anyone's birth.
quote: quote:Source Pick a date, any date. Your argument is ridiculous to an extreme. Just because people celebrate something does not make it true. People believe many false things. Do I need to list them. You need some sort of evidence that agrees with the myths and stories you mention. Without corroborating evidence they remain myths.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by Theodoric, : changed subtitle Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I would have to disagree with you on the timing of the writing of the books of the NT. 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. What do you have as evidence for any of these assertions? You have tradition and the bible itself. I venture to posit that you have nothing else. I'd love to see some sort of evidence that the gospels are literal and based on real verifiable events. This is your faith, this is not evidence.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by Theodoric, : changed subtitle Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Theodoric,
OP 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? You're demanding hard outside evidence that the written event literally happened. The thread is about how one determines what is to be taken literally and what isn't. Method, not proof. This is a Bible Study thread and the path you're taking is more along the lines of Accuracy and Inerrancy and fits more with the Evidence for the Biblical Record Thread. I feel your discussion with Peg is better served in that thread. If killinghurts disagrees with me, he can let me know.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension. Thank you AdminPD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I think that's part of the problem. The rules aren't consistently followed. When the interpretation conflicts with the groups doctrine or a personal belief, the supposed rules are ignored. In Message 80, I provided the rules per apologetics. Rules 7 and 8 leave room to wiggle. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4994 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
"Peg" writes: so now you determine facts only if there is physical evidence?
Most of the time, yes.
"Peg" writes:
Sometimes the facts require no physical evidence. For instance, if I tell you I was born but do not have a birth certificate (evidence for my birth) Im sure you would believe that I was born wether i had the certificate or not.
Very manipulative straw man argument you have there... let's pull it apart shall we? Firstly - you have setup the easily shot down "birth certificate" evidence - evidence like that can be forged, faked, or as you have put it - missing. Case closed, you weren't born?! Don't be silly... You forgot to mention one slightly more important piece of evidence: You are here - you must have been born to be here. Why do we know that? Because we witness people being born *every second* of *every day*, here in the *real* world. Therefore it is reasonable, beyond doubt, to assume that you were born. We don't witness people walk on water, or turn water into wine, or part the red sea with a stick.
"Peg" writes:
when the writers of the NT wrote their accounts and their letters to fellow believers, they were writing to eyewitnesses. The apostles could preach confidently and appeal to the knowledge of the hearers and you can see it in their writings...they say things like ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ and also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ If the writers were making up false misleading stories, those readers would have known immediately and christianity would not have even got a foot in the door. And with regard to those early diciples who did witness the events recorded in the bible, they were violently opposed for preaching and being diciples of Jesus. Their lives were on the line, yet they were prepared to die. No one would have been willing to do this if jesus was a fabrication...there was no benefit in it. So they must have had a rock solid conviction that what they were preaching was the truth.
It's the same argument you have here, you simply don't address the disconnect between what we know about the physical world (facts) and the miracles in the bible. All you have done is presented a story, a straw man of your own that can be shot down. Let me show you (and I don't present my own beliefs here, so don't bother replying to the detail - it's just to show you that your argument can be shot down):
"Peg" writes:
when the writers of the NT wrote their accounts and their letters to fellow believers, they were writing to eyewitnesses. The apostles could preach confidently and appeal to the knowledge of the hearers and you can see it in their writings...they say things like ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ and also, ‘As you yourselves also know’
All you need is a few people in powerful positions to advocate a story, convincing the rest of the populace is easy. We see that happen every day - we see religions succeed on this principle.
"Peg" writes:
If the writers were making up false misleading stories, those readers would have known immediately and christianity would not have even got a foot in the door.
Religions get their feet in the door every day based on false and misleading stories. Take a look around.
"Peg" writes:
And with regard to those early diciples who did witness the events recorded in the bible, they were violently opposed for preaching and being diciples of Jesus. Their lives were on the line, yet they were prepared to die. No one would have been willing to do this if jesus was a fabrication...there was no benefit in it. So they must have had a rock solid conviction that what they were preaching was the truth.
It's not unusual for people to die for their beliefs, misguided as they may be. See, we can argue hearsay all day, and that's exactly what it is, hearsay. Now that we have cleared up the difference between hearsay and evidence, can we assume that the whole walk on water/ water into wine/part the red sea was meant to be literal?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024