Define literal vs non-literal.

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

Message 93 doesn't answer my question.Do you accept the literal definition of yom? There is still a difference between understanding that the word yom is used literally within the sentence, and whether the overall story actually happened as written or not.As I've said before, this thread isn't really addressing the latter.As I said in Message 97, 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.Metaphor: A direct relationship where one thing or idea substitutes for another.Quite frankly, those implying that even though the word yom is used literally; but the story is metaphorical still haven't provided the clues within the story or from history to support that position.For an author to substitute one thing or idea for another, the author would need to understand both of those ideas and so would his audience.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.Show me what thing or idea is being substituted for another and that both ideas were understood by the author and his audience.IMO, it isn't metaphorical. It's just a story that isn't intended to reconcile with our science today.

---

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

Not much for directly answering a question are you?

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

Do you understand that the fist use of yom in Genesis 1:5 is just a name?
I've been assuming that you view the second use of yom in Genesis 1:5 as several rotations of the planet instead of one. Is that correct?

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)

---

quote:

---

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.

---

There is nothing in the Genesis 1:5 text to suggest the usage of evening and morning are figurative.In Message 80, I agreed that the use in Proverbs 4:18 is figurative. It is a simile. It is structured as a simile. Genesis 1:5 is not structured to be read figuratively. Proverbs 4:18 doesn't shine any light on the use of the words ereb, boqer, or yom in Genesis 1:5.

quote:

---

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.

---

You're trying to reconcile what the Bible says with science of today. That is not how one determines whether a word, sentence, or story is used literally or figuratively. Your own words from Message 11. Just because you don't believe God could cause the dry land to appear in one solar day, doesn't mean the author and his audience didn't believe he could.Show me within the sentence of Genesis 1:5 the indicators that tell us evening and morning are being used figuratively.

---

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:

---

Just to correct a point. Genesis clearly states the earth was covered by water first, then dry land appeared. Its the other way around. It was the volcanos, on dry land, which spewed forth gasses which created water vapor.

---

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.

---

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 quite know what "literal" means in this context, so I can't say whether I accept it or not.

---

Think of the word "day" with nothing else around it. If that was all you could say to another person, what would they understand?The definition gives the literal meaning of the word yom. Either you agree with the definition or you don't.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

A metaphor is one technique. Understand the technique. There are various types of metaphors. 18 Types of MetaphorsYou suggest extended metaphor: I don't see this technique in Genesis 1:5. In this example that all the world's a stage. The words "world" and "stage" have several meanings each. How do you decide which meaning of each word is to be used in this metaphor?
The planet is a theatre stage or a step in the process?
The afterlife is a theatre stage or a step in the process?
The human race is like a theatre stage or a step in the process?I don't see that Genesis 1:5 is written as a metaphor. The metaphor would have to mean something to the writer and the audience and I don't see that the reasons provided so far support that. 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?

---

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'm not telling you this, but Peg. Its her quote (my apologies for not including her name though). But yes, it does matter, since Peg brought it up to add validity to her stance. Shes trying to make Genesis 1:9 fit modern science, to prove YOM is actually a long period of time. The problem though, her premise is faulty, therefore her conclusion based upon that premise is.

---

Then reply to her message, not mine. The reply button is at the bottom of message you are responding to, not the top.The post I'm responding to was a response to kbertsche not me. Pay attention to what you're doing. Make sure you're responding to the right message.What she brought up has nothing to do with the meaning of yom and you correcting her doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of yom or how to determine if a word is used literally or not.This is not an accuracy and inerrancy thread. Keep to the topic please.

---

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:

---

because we know the facts we should be able to look at these verses and say, 'well they are not literal because...'

---

There's a difference between whether the verse describes something that actually happened and whether the words in the sentence are used literally.This discussion isn't about whether the verses describe something that actually happened as stated. It is about what a word means within a sentence.Genesis 1:5 isn't written figuratively and you haven't shown otherwise.

quote:

---

Yom and day are really worlds apart.

---

No they aren't.

---

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:

---

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.

---

There was a whole rotation of the planet for the light to gradually come into existence. I don't see that it changes the use of the word yom in Genesis 1:5.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, it is impossible that Moses meant for it to have a figurative meaning. The writer didn't write the sentence figurative. My guess is you don't understand figurative language either.What imaginative leap did the writer's audience need to make in order to comprehend the author's point?What two unrelated things are being compared?

quote:

---

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.

---

You can't show me the figurative language in the sentence, but you want me to tell you what Moses knew? Rudely done. I've already showed you what they understood about time, at the time Genesis 1 was written. Message 80Wilson is correct in what he says, but it doesn't apply in Genesis 1:5. Just because a word can be used a certain way, doesn't mean that it is. You have to show me that Geenesis 1:5 was writtenin a way that requires the figurative use of yom. You haven't done that yet.The literal meaning of yom refers to the light period of time of a solar day and it also refers to a solar day (rotation of the planet). I didn't make up the meaning. Message 80 You're focusing on the figurative meanings of yom without a reason.

---

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:

---

Yom and Day are very different.

---

Seriously???? No they aren't.Yom:
1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
2. the period of twenty-four hours,
3. a general vague "time,"
4. a point of time,
5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."Day
1. the time of light between one night and the next
2. the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight
3. one of these days at some future time
4. (sometimes plural) a period or point in time he was a good singer in his day in days gone by any day nowJust as with the word yom there are indicators that make the English word day part of an idiom which then gives it the figurative meanings.As you have been shown and as you have just provided the definition, we see the literal meanings of the word yom and the figurative meanings. To use the figurative meanings the indicators have to be there. You can't just deem it so.When "yom" is rendered year it is not the same form as used in Genesis 1:5.miyamim
yamimah.
yamimIn Genesis 1:5 it is rendered "yovm". There is a difference that caused the translator to use the word year instead of day. You can't just render the meaning figurative without the necessary indicators.Show me the indicators.

quote:

---

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

---

Show me that is even something viable. Link with examples.

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

---

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:

---

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 Re: Was Evening and Was Morning (Message 93).

---

Apparently you and Peg can't make your case within the sentence, so we move out to the story. Fine, but stop using figurative as a catch all. Just-So-Stories are fiction. As I said in Message 97: 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:

---

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.

---

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. How the Whale Got His ThroatThe story is fiction, which means it didn't happen in reality.
The animals are talking. That's personification, a literary technique. I'm sure Kipling used various literary techniques within the story.The story as a whole is not figurative, as you like to put it. The story is not expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another. The listener is to visualize the story just as it is written. They are to visualize the sailor dragging a wooden grate up a whale's throat. In Genesis 1:5 the listener is to visualize a regular length day just without the sun, moon, stars, etc.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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:

---

Ok, 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.

---

I think you need to pull the beam out of your own eye, Peg, then read Message 202.

---

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:

---

OK, so maybe "figurative" isn't the best word, either. How about I just use "non-literal" as a catch-all?

---

Don't use a catch all. Be specific as you expect me to be.

quote:

---

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?"

---

I did depending on what you mean by literal. I asked you to clarify what you mean by literal and I gave answers for different meanings. Literal, as we are using it, is an adjective. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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