Define literal vs non-literal.

quote:

---

Thanks for the lesson. Now I know that there are prefixes that indicate a figurative use of the word "yom."
I realize the meaning of the base word doesn't change. Not my best choice of words.

​

Thanks

---

I don't think I said anything very profound. The prefix "ba" on "yom" is often idiomatic, but not always. In the final analysis, the meaning of "yom" in a specific passage must be determined by context.BTW, one point that I've tried to make in this thread (the text specifically says that the indicators of "days" did not appear until Day 4, implying that the length of the first three days is ill-defined) is one of a number of things that seemed to jump out of the text recently, when I did a literal translation of Genesis 1-2 from the Hebrew. Afterwards I found a fairly well-done verse-by-verse translation on the web that you might find helpful:
TheologyWeb Campus

quote:

---

BTW, one point that I've tried to make in this thread (the text specifically says that the indicators of "days" did not appear until Day 4, implying that the length of the first three days is ill-defined) is one of a number of things that seemed to jump out of the text recently, when I did a literal translation of Genesis 1-2 from the Hebrew.

---

I think we've talked about the indicators before. You're referring to the sun, moon, etc.The narrator tells us it was a regular solar day when he says there was evening and there was morning. Is there something in the Hebrew that is different in that phrase before the indicators were created than there was after they were created?

---

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:

---

The narrator tells us it was a regular solar day when he says there was evening and there was morning.

---

Rather, the narrator tells us that the first three Days were not "regular solar days" when he explicitly says that the "sol" (sun) did not appear until Day 4.I believe the formulaic phrase "and then there was evening, and then there was morning" tells us that one work-day had ended and the next was about to begin. As Victor Hamilton says: Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

As I have pointed out in my earlier posts, all we can reliably say is that in the story the markers that allow humans to precisely tell the time are missing. However, it is one thing to say that a human on the ground - if there were any - might make an error in determining the start of the day and quite another to say that the period of the day was different.Given that there is nothing in the story to imply even the slightest change in the actual period, and given that we would need a huge difference in the actual period to be significant (even if a "day" were a year or a decade or even a century it would not really matter) the absence of the markers seems to be an irrelevance.

You have me at a loss. This is the intial post of this thread: So I feel that I am right on topic when discussing if Genesis 1 refers to solar days or long periods of time. One checks for internal information, grammer, language, translation, the mind of the author, the context and so forth. I believe I covered all the areas. I have yet to see you offer any information that its anything but 24 hours. You also have debated Paul and Hydroglyphx in the same respect regarding its its literal or not. Also, I was told to go to this thread and debate my viewpoint on this topic (since it was brought up elsewhere and not really in context of that thread) by PurpleDawn. I do not see how I am not grasping your points though, when in fact, you started to debate me, as Peg and I were discussing the length of the days in Genesis, literal or not. You were the one who addressed my points initially. I have read all the posts here and many clearly are in context as to what you and I are talking about. If you're looking as to "why" the author wrote what he did and from that come to a conclusion as to how he wished Genesis 1 to be revealed, ok.I have a hard time accepting that the author wrote down everything was perfect, knowing full well at the beginning of creation for millions of years, death and destruction was upon the animal kingdom. But again, I may be off topic bc I am certainly not understanding what you are trying to convey regarding why my viewpoint is off topics concerning this thread. I have read PurpleDawns posts (which I love reading) against Pegs "epoch" point of view, which seem to take the same stance I do, that its not long periods of time. The thread is called "Literal vs Non-Literal", so I would assume my stance on it being a literal day would be on topic, with evidence provided. With the other viewpoint, that its not to be taken literally and why, to be the counter point.You seem to feel I am dogmatic, when in fact, the evidence is overwhelming. Is adhering to the evidence when little of no counter evidence to the contrary considered dogmatic? I have seen nothing to indicate by anyone that its anyting but a solar day. PD clearly showed the Hebrew grammer points to a solar day. I have provided the context and internal evidence using scripture to show it can only refer to a solar day. you brought up that theologians take it as long periods of time, which I then brought up Old Testament or Hebrew scholars take it as literal. Yet you accuse me of using biased sites? You also accuse me of being a YEC, when in fact, I'm an atheist.That all being said, I'll stand down. For the simple fact, I love reading what PD has to say, among other people on this topic and other topics. I only joined this thread to debate Peg-which has offered no evidence whatsover to support her view. I also realize why she has taken that stance. That being said, I'll still be around, but as a viewer.

quote:

---

Rather, the narrator tells us that the first three Days were not "regular solar days" when he explicitly says that the "sol" (sun) did not appear until Day 4.

---

Just because one doesn't have a watch doesn't mean time doesn't pass normally. The blind see no sun but their day is just as long as mine. I explained earlier that I would be using the term "solar day" to differentiate between the use of day as the name of light and its use to refer to the day that equates with the planets rotation, since Peg couldn't handle it when I said 24-hour day. The narrator didn't say solar day.The narrator does know that evening and morning refer to sunset and sunrise and so does his audience. He is writing about the past and using normal language to tell the people it was a regular rotation of the planet, even though he probably didn't know the planet actually rotated. Lack of indicators doesn't change the passage of time. The narrator didn't change the phrase after the indicators arrived. I don't see anything that suggest the rotation of the planet was longer or shorter than the day (rotation of the planet) the writer and his audience knew. I don't see anything added to the word yom that expressed that difference whether literally or figuratively.The literal meaning of a word is used unless indicated otherwise. In Genesis 1:5, the literal meaning is used and refers either to the light or the length of time it takes the planet to rotate. (Easier to say solar day. )Edited by purpledawn, : TypoEdited by purpledawn, : Idea

---

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 think I agree with everything in your post except the last phrase:

quote:

---

the absence of the markers seems to be an irrelevance.

---

It is not irrelevant to the story or to the narrator, who explicitly mentions them in Gen 1:14.If we think that something in the biblical text is "irrelevant," we are almost certainly misunderstanding the history, culture, or language of the original writer. Usually we are guilty of importing modern concerns (length of days, how it fits with modern science, etc) instead of correctly understanding the concerns of the original author.

quote:

---

You also accuse me of being a YEC, when in fact, I'm an atheist.

---

Sorry; I incorrectly inferred this based on your reliance on YEC sources.If you're not committed to the YEC position, I recommend getting your information from more scholarly, less biased sources.

quote:

---

Lack of indicators doesn't change the passage of time. The narrator didn't change the phrase after the indicators arrived. I don't see anything that suggest the rotation of the planet was longer or shorter than the day (rotation of the planet) the writer and his audience knew. I don't see anything added to the word yom that expressed that difference whether literally or figuratively.

---

I mostly agree with what you say here.But I don't see anything in the text to suggest that the author is concerned about the lengths of the Days. I believe he is, in fact, trying to de-emphasize the length of the days by mentioning that the indicators of time don't appear until Day 4.

quote:

---

But I don't see anything in the text to suggest that the author is concerned about the lengths of the Days. I believe he is, in fact, trying to de-emphasize the length of the days by mentioning that the indicators of time don't appear until Day 4.

---

I don't see how that makes sense at all. After all if the moon cannot be seen to rise it does not mean that the length of the Jewish day has changed, only that the start of the day cannot be precisely identified. On the other hand the references to mornings and evenings seems to emphasise the idea that - despite the lack of markers - we are dealing with the same duration as a solar day.It seems more likely to me that he was trying to de-emphasise the importance of the heavenly bodies by relegating them to a later point in creation and demoting them to mere markers of time.

quote:

---

I don't see how that makes sense at all. After all if the moon cannot be seen to rise it does not mean that the length of the Jewish day has changed, only that the start of the day cannot be precisely identified. On the other hand the references to mornings and evenings seems to emphasise the idea that - despite the lack of markers - we are dealing with the same duration as a solar day.

---

I don't believe I've claimed that "the length of the Jewish day has changed," have I? My position is that time is indefinite/indeterminate on the first three Days, and that the author is not trying to emphasize the length of the Days.

quote:

---

It seems more likely to me that he was trying to de-emphasise the importance of the heavenly bodies by relegating them to a later point in creation and demoting them to mere markers of time.

---

I agree that this is probably a big factor in placing the sun and moon later in the account.

quote:

---

I mostly agree with what you say here.

​

But I don't see anything in the text to suggest that the author is concerned about the lengths of the Days. I believe he is, in fact, trying to de-emphasize the length of the days by mentioning that the indicators of time don't appear until Day 4.

---

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.You're trying to read more into the story than necessary to determine how yom is being used. The words he used would cause his audience to understand a day length like any other.There isn't anything in the text that changes the meaning of the word yom to a figurative use in Genesis 1:5. The text is very straight forward. The usage of yom in this instance is literal which means it refers to the name of the light in the first usage in the sentence and refers to the time it takes the planet to rotate in the second usage.I also agree with what PaulK said in Message 175.

---

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:

---

I don't believe I've claimed that "the length of the Jewish day has changed," have I? My position is that time is indefinite/indeterminate on the first three Days, and that the author is not trying to emphasize the length of the Days.

---

Now you're getting off topic. What does this have to do with whether a word is used literally or non-literally?Do you accept the literal definition of yom?

---

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:

---

I don't believe I've claimed that "the length of the Jewish day has changed," have I? My position is that time is indefinite/indeterminate on the first three Days, and that the author is not trying to emphasize the length of the Days.

---

I didn't say that you had. What I was pointing out is that the absence of the markers is irrelevant to the duration of a day - they are simply a means of more accurately determining the division between one day and the next, or between day and night. Imprecision at the level of minutes or hours does not seem to be of any significance to this discussion.I also find it hard to understand why the absence of precise markers should be considered a de-emphasis (which WAS your claim) of the duration, unless you mean only that some of the creative work might have slightly slipped into the next day. (Let me add that to the best of my understanding the scientific evidence indicates that the length of a day has increased over time, not hugely decreased !). If the author meant to convey that the period of time was hugely indeterminate - rather than being an ordinary day - I would have expected rather more evidence of that than something that suggests the possibility of an error in working out the duration on the order of an hour or so.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You also accuse me of being a YEC, when in fact, I'm an atheist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which I have. Just to clear up a point. I have also used OEC, which I have stated. Of the many I frequented, none were able to dispute the many points I brought up with evidence. Some were off the wall trying to twist the Hebrew to make it says the plural, to make it fit long periods of time. I also have stated most Hebrew and OT scholars back my assertions. I use YEC sites, bc its the most easiest to gather information from. But I do use other sources to check how honest they are. Trust me, from debating many years, I would not call ANY apologist site non-biased or honest.Take care. Well, at least for now.