Define literal vs non-literal.

Do you even read your own links??? Your own link uses genesis 1 as evidence that Yom is of an unspecified length of time. Even the hebrew day is said to have no fixed hours. Its based only on the light according to your link. i think your link provides enough information. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

i seriously cant believe you'd be asking this after i've mentioned it throughout this whole thread.Im not going to explain it again, if you want to know the explaination for why it refers to an unspecified length of time, read back.Otherwise, here is a definition of the hebrew word showing exactly how the word can be used if you want it to mean 24 hours, then go for it...close your eyes. Im over it. The hebrew word is used throughout the bible in all the above ways...its not as simple as a set 24 hours no matter how much you try to claim that it is.

that the creative period (which carried on for an unspecified length of time) began in the evening (a period where there is darkness, or when things were not clearly discernable) and ended in the morning (when the final outcome of the creative works for that day became clearly discernable)its not the 'day' that is figurative, but it is the evening and morning which are figurative.i posted this scripture earlier to back up this figurative use of evening and morning
Proverbs 4:18 the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established. in this verse the righteous persons way of life is slowly revealed until the 'day' (the light) is firmly established...IOW, when the light of day reveals his works.So it is in the figuative 'morning' of Geneis when the results of Gods creation comes into focus and are clearly seen.As an example, on the 3rd creative day God caused the dry land to appear. Now the creation of land requires volcanic activity, so we can imagine that millions of large volcanos were active during this period and were spewing out large amounts of lava beneath the waters until they began to form the landmasses. This isnt an overnight process as we know. It takes a long time for an island to form, so during this time was the 'evening' because the process was incomplete, but when it was complete it became the 'morning' or a period of light when all was clearly discernable.

of course it can be and it should be.the bible uses figurative language throughout and we know its figurative because we know the earth is not really a 'building' as such...or there are no 4 corners to it, humans are not the sea, the heart does not think, the earth is not a footstool, it does not sit on foundations etc etc etcbecause we know the facts we should be able to look at these verses and say, 'well they are not literal because...'Why shoudl it be any different with genesis...especially considering it uses the word Yom in a symbolic way in genesis? You cant use modern english to determine the meaning behind the hebrew language....why do you think the english bible has been revised so many times??? Its because the hebrews think differently to us, they construct their sentences differently to us, they structure their thoughts differently to us and they have words that have a multiple of meanings and can be used in a multitude of different ways.Yom and day are really worlds apart.

Gen 1:3 uses a progressive verb which means the light was not instantaneous. And God proceeded to say. is a Hebrew verb wai.yo'mer which is a progressive action. Its not instant and this same verb is used more then 40 times in Genesis. Its not like God flicked a switch and suddenly there was light...the light came to be over a period of time.here is a translator who actually puts this thought into his translation And as i've already mentioned, because it uses a word that has many meanings including figurative meanings, then its not impossible that moses meant for it have a figurative meaning. show in genesis 1:5 how any of these meanings cannot apply.
Show me that Moses viewed the yom of genesis as a 24 hour day...explain why he would write that the 'light' was called 'yom' if he was thinking of time.

the english 'day' is not the literal meaning of the hebrew word 'yom'this is the problem.Yom means many things...it means an age, it means time, it means length of days, it means heat, it means light...forget the english word and get to know what the hebrew word actually means.Yom (Hebrew) A day; by extension an age or time period. Yom and Day are very different.

LOLOk, when you come to accept the definitions that have been given for the hebrew Yom, perhaps then we can keep discussing it.... until then, im out.

Literally.
these are to be taken as miraculous events that really happened (except for the flood, that wasnt miraculous, it just rained so much that everything became flooded)but a miraculous event is 'miraculous' by nature...its not somethign that would normally happen without supernatural intervention.

because i dont believe all science is wrong... i believe that some of it is wrong and some of it is based on preconcieved ideas and some of it is right.its the same with archeology. some of it is right, some wrong, some based on preconcieved ideas.Remember these are just humans who are drawing conclusions about the data they collect. They are not infallible and they make mistakes...and they often disagree with each other which shows a lot about just how accurate they can be.

No. Not when those accounts specifically tell us that a miracle occured.remember the bible is a collection of writings from those who witnessed cirtain events and wrote them down. The miracles Jesus performed were described exactly as that...there was nothing figurative about them. Maybe you need to study the subject before you draw your conclusions.

You cant test a miracle. The evidence that a miracle occured comes from the testimony of those who witnessed it. And their testimony may not be enough on its own... but when the testmony comes from 3 million people you can be pretty sure that it happened.

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? the exodus from egypt. There were a minimum of 3 million isrealites who crossed the red sea. 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. 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.

if the account about the isrealites crossing the red sea is not literal, what is Yom Kippurwhy do they have a jewish traditional holiday in commemoration of the event? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

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. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

On the timing of the writings of the NT - people who actually study the writings such as biblical archeologists have said that the NT was completed no later then 80AD. Its only critics who watch from the sidelines who make claims to the contrary. They dont offer any proof, they simply make statements and proclaim it as fact.Regarding Jesus as being a real historical figure - Josephus mentions his brothers by name as "James the brother of the one called Christ"
And there are Roman writers such as Suetonius, Pliny, and the Roman historian Tacitus who all confirm the historicity of Jesus. For critics to claim that he was not a real person is just ludicrous.