Define literal vs non-literal.

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.

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:

---

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:

---

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.

---

So we seem to be in full agreement here.

quote:

---

You're trying to read more into the story than necessary to determine how yom is being used.

---

I don't believe so.

quote:

---

The words he used would cause his audience to understand a day length like any other.

---

Maybe.

quote:

---

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?

---

See Message 93.

quote:

---

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.

---

But you had just posted this definition: The definition says that in a metaphor, " the intended meaning differs from the actual literal meaning." Yet you claim that a metaphor "would still require the literal translation."So I still don't know whether or not it is proper to call a day "literal" if the account is intended as an extended metaphor.

quote:

---

Message 93 doesn't answer my question.
Do you accept the literal definition of yom?

---

I don't quite know what "literal" means in this context, so I can't say whether I accept it or not. See Message 187.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The definition gives the literal meaning of the word yom. Either you agree with the definition or you don't.

---

Sorry--I didn't understand your question earlier. Yes, I think the Strongs definition is acceptable. But I prefer the unabridged BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon) which is the standard source for definitions of Biblical Hebrew words.

quote:

---

A metaphor is one technique. Understand the technique. There are various types of metaphors. 18 Types of Metaphors
You suggest extended metaphor:
I don't see this technique in Genesis 1:5.

---

Perhaps "extended metaphor" is too specific, then. How about "extended figure of speech?"

quote:

---

If you still disagree, then show me the words that make it a metaphor. Where are the dissimilar words the author is bringing together. What is being compared?

---

I have already done some of this in Message 93.

quote:

---

quote:

---

PD writes:
Why are you telling me this?
It isn't my comment and it has nothing to do with literal or non-literal when it comes to understanding the use of words within a sentence.

---

​

I'm not telling you this, but Peg. Its her quote (my apologies for not including her name though).

---

So why are you now telling ME this? I'm not Peg, any more than PD is.

quote:

---

No, message 93 doesn't provide what words within the sentence make it a metaphor.
It doesn't matter how the writer categorized the creation. We are talking about a word within a sentence. What words within the sentence makes the sentence a metaphor or figurative or that causes us to use one of the figurative meanings of yom?

---

YOU might be talking about a particular word within a sentence, but I was not. I was talking about the overall structure of the account as indicating that it is not meant to be literal, chronological history, as I outlined in Message 93.You have characterized the account as a "just-so story." Let's consider a "just-so story" such as Rudyard Kipling's, which he means to be taken as figurative and non-historical. Do you consider the talking animals in the story to be literal, or not? They are certainly not normal animals, because they talk. But neither are these imaginary animals metaphors for something else.This is similar to the way I see the Days in Genesis 1. They aren't quite normal Days (especially the first three). But neither are they, in themselves, metaphors for something else. They are "Days" within a stylized, non-chronological account.

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:

---

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.