Did God say it, or did you say it?

In this thread we have been discussing the definition of literal vs non-literal passages in the bible, namely what the difference is between the two.The general consensus from believers (excluding Y.E.Cs) is, in cases where the true meaning is not the literal one (like the Earth was created in 6 days), one must take the context in which the passage was made in order to interpret the true meaning of the passage.Taking the 6 day example, the following question could be postulated:How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say?Sure you can cross-reference, and that's what we saw in the 6 Day example in the other thread (cross references to both ancient language and modern science), but how do you know you are cross-referencing the correct material/evidence?Edited by killinghurts, : punctuation

Hermeneutics - interesting.I had a quick look at the wiki site, and had one question:Who came up those methods of interpretation and how does one verify they are correct?

Hi ICANT, this thread is not so much about whether the 6 day theory is true or false, more about what methods are used to "interpret" what God actually meant when the passage was written.I could just as readily say "Genesis 1:1 all happened instantaneously at the click of God's fingers ", therefore justifying the 6 day theory as a literal interpretation.But would I be correct? How do I know that my belief is correct? How do I know that the logic (or lack thereof) I applied to the context is actually what God meant when the passage was written?

Thanks for the honest reply kbertsche.Based on your post, I think I (and perhaps you) find it difficult to understand how hermeneutics can be used as the basis for interpretation of truth and meaning when an element of artistic license is invoked.

quote:

---

Not at all. Why does an "element of artistic license" disqualify it as a good basis for interpretation?

---

Because it may not be what God meant to say, if you "make it up" which is what an artistic license is then you don't know if it is really what God meant.

quote:

---

Surgery is also an art. Do you ask the surgeon to "verify" all of his methods?

---

Yes, wouldn't you check to see if a doctor is experienced and has been involved in many successful operations before going under the knife? - you see that is measurable - you can't just make that up.

quote:

---

I dont understand why no one gets this point about Yom. ????

---

I think the confusion arises around the fact that the interpretation, as you put it, is so broad it can mean literally any length of time. Thus *any* specific interpretation cannot ever be claimed as the absolute 'truth'... under that definition, 6 days could really mean six days (in the YEC example), or 4 billion years (in those religions that accept science, where they deem it fitting of course).Given such a broad concept, how can one organization claim to even know the truth, let alone have an understanding of God's meaning?

Back on topic...So how do we now claim to fully understand what was meant as opposed to think we understand what was meant?furthermore...Did God mean to portray the current understanding? or did we, mere humans, decide (for God) what the understanding is?Edited by killinghurts, : additional context

So you admit that no one person knows the absolute truth, and to tell someone otherwise is a lie.Do you find it strange when religions claim "the truth", when in your own words, you have described it as unattainable due to our own reasoning and knowledge?

You certainly did, unless I have misinterpreted the following: ..? Okay, I'll play along with your riddle -> How do you know the water source is clean? Edited by killinghurts, : context

Excellent.Now getting back to what the riddle actually means...How do we test the understanding (given by humans) is actually what God meant?

So let's summarize...For someone to test claims that organization/church knows the "truth" about the bible and thus what God means (not just what they think God means)... you say we must go back to the bible (which by the way completely negates the need for any kind of interpretative organization/church) and corroborate this with other passages of the bible, language and context...Round and round in circles we go -> how do you know the rules you have just mentioned (i.e corroborative passages, language and context) are the correct test for meaning? Are you 100% sure this is what God applied as rules in the bible when it was written?If we look at the other thread in this forum ("Literal vs Non Literal") it is clear that those rules simply don't work, otherwise that thread wouldn't be longer than 1 page, right? because everyone would clearly know that 6 days means 6 days or 4 billion years... instead we see a sea of confusion.Edited by killinghurts, : Grammar

Hi Kapyong, can you please summarise your argument, it sounds like you have touched on an important issue here, I'd like to understand it a little more clearly.Thanks