Define literal vs non-literal.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps. But with your reading, I see no compelling need for markers to "indicate seasons and days and years." These could be counted from the day/night cycles.

---

Granted that they might be, but is it not the case that astronomical observations were used as seasonal markers in the ancient Middle East ?

---

Yes, I believe this is true. But the light-bearers are also to indicate "days", implying that a "day" was ill-defined before Day 4.

Thats some good research you've put forth there.So tell me....if Hillell was the one who established a fixed calendar for the jewish people in the 3rd century CE, what did they use before it? is it really?Show me passages of the OT where the hours were being counted as hours then.Give me the ancient hebrew word for hour.You made the assertion, now provide the evidence. i've already done that. If i do it again you'll dismiss it again so I wont bother...i'll just say that if you want it substantiated, read back a few of my posts. its amazing what you find in the bible when you actually read it. you'll find the answer to this in Msg 18 and 87 Yes there was a literal serpent in the garden. The apostle John called Satan the 'original serpant' in the book of Revelation. The serpent was used by Satan to speak to eve who was also a literal person for Jesus spoke about her and her husband with regard to the marriage vows.And yes, there was a literal tree in the garden, but it had a symbolic purpose. Because he called it the tree of the knowledge of good and bad and because he commanded them not eat from it, the tree fittingly symbolized God’s right to determine for humans what is good (pleasing to God) and what is bad (displeasing to God). And if it was not a literal tree, then they could not have eaten from it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

However, the Genesis 1 account contains a lot of symbolism and metaphor. There are some literary hints suggesting that the entire account of Gen 1 may be figurative or metaphorical. What is meant by "yom" being "literal" or "figurative" if the entire story is metaphorical?

---

Please point out the metaphors and symbolism you feel impacts the meaning of yom in the sentences.
As I said, it is a just-so-type-story. That doesn't mean a regular day isn't a regular day in the story.

---

Perhaps the author meant the story to be an extended metaphor, which he did not believe was literal. (Perhaps your "just-so-type-story" implies this?) In this case, would we describe the days as literal or figurative? I suppose you could say that they are literal in the story but that they are not literal history in the mind of the author. That's why I asked the question that I did.The literary structure of the account has been much discussed, especially by advocates of the Framework view. In verse 2, the earth is "formless and empty", i.e. it exists but has no "forms" and these missing forms are empty. So God takes the first three days to establish "forms" and the second three days to "fill" these "forms." Or this can be viewed as God establishing "realms" and "rulers", or "habitations" and "inhabitants". The parallels are clear and striking:Day 1: light --- Day 4: light-bearers
Day 2: sky and sea --- Day 5: birds and fish
Day 3a: dry land --- Day 6a: land animals
Day 3b: vegetation --- Day 6a: man (intended to live in a garden)This suggests that the order presented in Gen 1 is topical, not chronological. It further suggests that the "Days" may not be literal but may be a literary, metaphorical device used to present this topical arrangement.

quote:

---

Yes, I believe this is true. But the light-bearers are also to indicate "days", implying that a "day" was ill-defined before Day 4.

---

A point already addressed. Moonrise marks the start of the day in Jewish tradition, even if now there are calculations to use as an alternative when the moon is not visible. Thus the day would be "ill-defined" without the moon even though the time periods involved are the same.

Peg, this is now well past the point of absurdity. Every time I provide unambiguous evidence that points in a direction that refutes your very strange interpretation, you simply invent more stipulations for me as you go along instead of acknowledging what has been proven as wrong.I provided you scripture, I provided you history, I have therefore sufficiently and conclusively shown that the Hebrews weren't stupid and that the entire concept of a 24-hour day and a 7-day week derives from Hebrew, Babylonian, and other Semitic cultures.You keep speaking about the "ancient Hebrews," but those are ancient hebrews. Apparently you want us to go back to Adam and Eve, who are NOT even Hebrew. Hebrews didn't even exist in the context of the story.You do understand that Moses and his counterparts understood concepts of astronomy, mathematics, etc, right? Moreover you also understand they understood the concept of a day, right? We know that from what he said.Why then do you refuse to acknowledge it? How do you know he wasn't being figurative? Moses was talking about literal days, which is much easier to take as literal from a literary point of view, because he went in to great detail. So how do you know we are talking about a literal talking Serpent? That doesn't mean they're literal. If I spoke about a character in a fiction novel, I would be speaking about them as if they were real in relation to the book. When Tom Cruise plays a character in one of his leading roles, people speak about the character as if he's real even though he is not.So by what rationale do you assume that the Serpent is literal? Does that mean that angels are really spirit snakes? A serpent is a physical animal, does Satan have an image? There is not enough information from the story to determine if there was an actual tree or not. It may simply be symbolism all the way through. How would we know either way?The same could applied to the Garden. Where is this garden now? We know the general area where it is supposed to be in modern times (likely Iraq), but where is the garden? Or was there ever a real garden or was it just a metaphor? How would we know?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

That's the way I think it is. I don't believe the story of creation is real, but based on the literary piece, I think the author is trying to convey a literal interpretation even if he knows he is telling a story.I think of it as an impromptu fireside story. The same could be said of almost everything else in the bible too, especially what is found in Genesis. You can pick any number of topics (the Garden, Adam & Even, the Serpent, the Tree, wrestling with angels, Abram and the alter, Noah's ark, etc, etc). The problem is that many Christians have agendas spawning from their dogma and/or doctrine. They have reasons for wanting it to be so, be it that is the way it was taught to them or for other ideological reasons.To me the bible is an historical document, chronicling some things that happened in actuality and others metaphorically. Extracting what is actual is difficult to do because of a lack of physical evidence.However, this particular argument is about literal and non-literal from a literary point of view. In the current discussion, the author seems to go out of his way in describing actual days and does not appear to be using figures of speech, again, regardless of whether or not the author believes it really happened that way in actuality. That is not known and could not be known. So we have to take what sparse information we do have and base our conclusions off of that.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

quote:

---

Perhaps the author meant the story to be an extended metaphor, which he did not believe was literal. (Perhaps your "just-so-type-story" implies this?) In this case, would we describe the days as literal or figurative? I suppose you could say that they are literal in the story but that they are not literal history in the mind of the author. That's why I asked the question that I did.

---

Whether the story portrays real events or not is more of an accuracy and inerrancy discussion. To determine whether a word is used literally or figuratively has nothing to do with whether the story actually happened. A true story can have literal and figurative language. A fictional story can have literal and figurative language. A story containing fact and fiction (faction) can have literal and figurative language.

quote:

---

This suggests that the order presented in Gen 1 is topical, not chronological. It further suggests that the "Days" may not be literal but may be a literary, metaphorical device used to present this topical arrangement.

---

I agree that Genesis 1 is not a scientific description of the origins of the universe.Let's look at literary devices. I feel people are trying to make the story metaphorical because today science tells us that the planet and life on it could not be created in 7 solar days. I can't say what the average ancient person understood the story as metaphorical.If the author wrote the story as a metaphor for billions of years of creation/evolution, then the word "yom" would still require the literal translation of a solar day. If it didn't, then the story wouldn't be a metaphor.When a word has more than one meaning as the word "yom" does, the usage of the word in the sentence determines its meaning. In Genesis 1:5 the word "yom" carries the meaning of a solar day because of the surrounding words.Now the use of a solar day can be used to symbolize a longer period of time. I have no way of knowing if that is what this author did.As the sentence is written, the literal meaning of "yom" is used. The various figurative uses are not appropriate here. Message 80Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

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

hERICtic writes:
I have already told you, every single time evening/morning are used in scripture, it refers to a single 24 hour day. This is scary now Peg. First, one does not have to do with the other. Second, ignoring this issue does not make it go away. The fact is EVERY time evening and morning are mentioned in scripture, it refers to a 24 hour day. Third, Genesis does NOT (for at least the sixth time now) state morning TO evening. It stats morning AND evening. A perfect description of a day.hERICtic writes:
You have provided no evidence that the days in Genesis refer to long periods of time. You're still doing it. You are ignoring what everyone is telling you. We are debating the first 6 days. You have offered no evidence that the authors were refering to long periods of time. In fact, Genesis does not say evening and morning for day 7. Also, the Bible makes no mention how long the seventh day is. Please show this scripture which states the seventh day is not a 24 hour day. LMAO! Peg, you havent given one single scripture which shows the days in Genesis are long days. None at all. You've given defintions of how YOM can mean long periods of time, but not by using Genesis. You continually ignore so many key points its getting ridiculous now.Again, EVENING and MORNING, every single time in scripture are used to denote a 24 hour day.Every time a number precedes YOM, it refers to a 24 hour day.Both are two crucial, key points which you ignore.The description in Genesis is exactly how one would describe a 24 hour day. Evening and morning. This is not how one would describe billions of years.hERICtic writes:
In fact, I have already told you numerous times there were words for long periods of time. None are used. Peg, at times it really does seem like you pretend to not "get" what others are saying. Yes, YOM can mean long periods of time. But it also means 24 hours. The authors could have chosen words that would show long periods of time, in which there would not be any debate. You are the one ignoring scripture, not me.To prove this: EVERY TIME evening and morning are used, its 24 hours. EVERY TIME a number precedes YOM, it refers to 24 hours. The description given, morning and evening describes perfectly 24 hours.The ONLY reason you are debating this is due to science. No other reason. We both know this. We would not be having this discussion if the evidence was not overwhelming.You have provided NO evidence at all that the first six days are not 24 hours. None. Repeating over and over that YOM also means long periods of time is not evidence that its being used in that context.hERICtic writes:
I have also give you this: Mark 10:6 (NKJV)
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’This only works if its a literal 24 hour day, not billions of years. No, you added a word before creation that is not there. I really cannot believe you just said that. We are ALL the creation according to scripture. Creation means everything.Jesus points out man were there since the beginning of creation. If its long periods of time, Adam was created at the END of creation. If it refers to days, its the beginning. Adam and Eve were the last to be created. Obviously Jesus is not refering to when they were created per day, since he would be wrong then. Cant have that according to apologists. So then Jesus could only be refering creation overall. In that context, mankind was created in the beginning, which is day 6 compared to the thousands of days that followed.hERICtic writes:
Luke 11:50—51 (NKJV)
50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of thisAbel is placed near the beginning of the creation of the world. Not billions of years later. Wrong Peg. There are many definitions of kosmos. In this context the FOUNDATION of the world, refers to the earth. You're picking and choosing which definition to use while ignoring the context of what is being stated.Bottom line, which you keep ignoring on purpose:When evening and morning are used, EVERY time it refers to a 24 hour day.When a number precedes the word YOM, EVERY time if refers to a 24 hour day.

Yep....

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

quote:

---

That doesn't mean they're literal. If I spoke about a character in a fiction novel, I would be speaking about them as if they were real in relation to the book. When Tom Cruise plays a character in one of his leading roles, people speak about the character as if he's real even though he is not.

​

So by what rationale do you assume that the Serpent is literal? Does that mean that angels are really spirit snakes? A serpent is a physical animal, does Satan have an image?

---

You have two different issues here concerning literal.When talking about whether something exists in the real world, I wouldn't use the word literal. A fictional character in a novel does not exist physically in reality; but if the writer says the character is running down the street, the word running is used literally and we visualize the character physically running down the street in the story. If the writer says the character is running away from himself, the word running is used figuratively. We don't visualize the character physically running away from himself.In the A&E story, the literal serpent is literally talking within the story. That is what we visualize. In reality, snakes exist but don't talk.What we've been talking about concerning "yom" is which meaning of the word to use. The literal meaning or a figurative meaning.

quote:

---

There is not enough information from the story to determine if there was an actual tree or not. It may simply be symbolism all the way through. How would we know either way?

---

Same issue here. The writer wants us to visualize a real tree that grows. That doesn't mean the tree from the story exists in real life.This thread deals more with the meaning of words and phrases, not whether the events actually happened in reality or whether the people/creatures existed in reality. Existence in reality isn't the issue of this 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

quote:

---

Wrong Peg. There are many definitions of kosmos. In this context the FOUNDATION of the world, refers to the earth. You're picking and choosing which definition to use while ignoring the context of what is being stated.

---

Peg is right in this instance. The use of kosmos in Luke 11:50 does not refer to the planet.Even one of our meanings for the word "world" is: the inhabitants of the earth: the human race. Kosmos seems to deal more with people. Ouranos seems to deal more with the heavens.Since the writer is talking about holding people accountable for the death of people, Luke 11:50 logically is referring to the beginning of mankind; not the planet. See "Not the Planet.

---

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 disagree. "Kosmos" also means planet.the circle of the earth, the earth (Linked Word)There are many words to desribe people, few to describe planet. Why use one of the words that could also describe a planet? So you're saying it should read as the beginning of the inhabitants instead of the beginning of the planet?I will admit though, its possible you could be correct. Not enough evidence exists based upon the verse I gave to definently show it refers to the beginning of creation.

quote:

---

I have already told you, every single time evening/morning are used in scripture, it refers to a single 24 hour day.

​

Anytime a number precedes YOM, it refers to a 24 hour day.

---

Yes, you and others have made these false claims many times. Repeating falsehoods does not make them true.Zech 14:7 uses the identical construction to Genesis 1:5, "yom echad" ("one day" or "day one") but in context seems to be talking about an extended period, the day of the Lord. Note that it also speaks of the "evening" of this "day."

quote:

---

I have also give you this: Mark 10:6 (NKJV)
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

​

This only works if its a literal 24 hour day, not billions of years.

---

No, as I have already explained, the way you try to read this verse is nonsensical and non-contextual.

quote:

---

Again, EVENING and MORNING, every single time in scripture are used to denote a 24 hour day.

​

Every time a number precedes YOM, it refers to a 24 hour day.

---

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

quote:

---

I disagree. "Kosmos" also means planet.

​

the circle of the earth, the earth (Linked Word)

---

Nope. The word earth here doesn't refer to the planet. Since your issue is with an erroneous meaning of kosmos and not literal or figurative, you can continue this discussion, if you wish, at the proper thread. Not the Planet

---

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