Discerning Which Definition to Use

When a word with multiple meanings is encountered in a sentence, how does one discern which meaning is to be used?Most people know that it is the usage within the sentence that tells us which meaning is intended by the author.This issue keeps popping up and I thought I'd start a thread for this issue to avoid dragging other topics off course.This thread is not restricted to any one word or verse in the Bible. I will be starting with Peg's favorite though, since it keeps popping up.Yom in Genesis 1. Even after a long discussion in the Define literal vs non-literal. thread. Peg apparently still doesn't or won't understand how to discern which meaning of a multiple-meaning word is to be used within a sentence.From Message 136 in the Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance? thread: Peg, the usage within the sentence tells us which meaning to use. The first occurrence is the name of the light hours, the second occurrence refers to what we call a 24-hour day. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.Rules of Bible InterpretationYom: From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset (This refers to the name of the light hours), or from one sunset to the next (This refers to what we call a 24-hour day)), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb) -- age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... Live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger. As noted above, the common usage refers to the name of the light hours or what we call a 24-hour day. The words around yom (night, day, evening, morning) are consistent with what we call a 24-hour day. Ancient Egypt: The Father Of Time
Sun Dial of Ahaz: Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. (Isaiah 38:8)The Priestly writer was aware of a 24 hour day as was his audience. So they knew the length of a regular day. Notice: It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis.The common usage for the word "yom" is the name of the light hours and for what we call a 24-hour day. Without clear indicators signifying a figurative use, the logical translation for the first occurrence would be the name of the light hours and the second occurrence would be what we call a 24-hour day.The context of the sentence, which mentions evening and morning, clearly tells us that "yom" should be translated as a 24 hour day. There are no indicators in the sentence to suggest otherwise. Peg, if you feel there are indicators that tell us to use a figurative meaning, then show me the indicators (English or Hebrew) within the sentence that tell us to use a figurative meaning. Now you like to try a use other verses to set a precedent for what you propose, but this rule does not negate the usage of a word within a specific sentence. The rules of language and grammar still prevail.So let's move forward, Peg. Show me the indicators. Don't rehash the same arguments as the other threads. No one has disagreed that the word yom has more than one meaning. No one has disagreed that it has been used figuratively within the Bible. In this one sentence: Show me the indicators, in Hebrew or English, that tell us to use a figurative meaning of yom.(Bible Study please)Edited by purpledawn, : Title Typo

quote:

---

i certainly dont view the light of day as 24 hours...i dont know anyone who does.

​

i think of it as the 'light time' as opposed to the 'dark time'

​

i believe there is light in the sky for 12 hours, not 24.

---

Yom has multiple meanings. We aren't trying to figure out what the word Yom means. Those meanings have already been provided for us by the lexicon. I did not create those meanings.No one has intimated that the light hours are 24 hours long. Per the Lexicon we are given the literal meanings of yom. Notice there are two literal meanings for the word.
1. Sunrise to sunset (the light hours)
2. Sunset to sunset (this is what we call a 24-hour day)We are also given the figurative uses of the word yom. So far we agree on the first usage of the word yom in Genesis 1:5. It refers to the light hours. What we disagree on is the second usage of the word yom in Genesis 1:5. I say the literal meaning of sunset to sunset is to be used and you say a figurative meaning is to be used. When yom is to be used figuratively there are indicators within the sentence that instruct us to do so, just as with our word day. So far you have been unable or unwilling to provide those indicators that tell you to use a figurative meaning for the second usage of the word yom in Genesis 1:5.

quote:

---

Its not only the immediate verse you need to look at to determine which definition to use, but also other passages in the rest of the bible which may expand on the verse you are looking at.

---

No. To discover all possible meanings of a word, we look at how it is used in other verses, but again that has already been done for us.To understand which definition to use within a sentence, we rely on the sentence. Only the sentence can tell us which meaning we are to use. Show me the indicators in Genesis 1:5 that you feel tells us to use a figurative meaning for the second use 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:

---

In the KJ version at 2 Peter 3:10 it reads, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

​

if you look at this verse you might conclude, like many do, that the earth is going to be destroyed.

---

This is where the Rule of Historical Background comes in to play. If one reads the verse and assumes the word earth refers to the entire planet, then they will conclude incorrectly that the plant will be destroyed. At the time 2 Peter was written, ge was not a name for the planet (Not The Planet), but the literal meaning of the word ge is to be used in that sentence. I don't see a figurative meaning for the word ge/earth.The praises in Psalm 104:5 and the laments in Ecclesiastes 1:4 do not assist one in understanding the meaning to be used for ge in 2 Peter 3:10. In all three verses the literal meaning of the word eretz or ge is used.You're confusing the meaning of the word with what the sentence is saying. These are two different issues. A sentence can be speaking figuratively and still use the literal meanings of words within the sentence. My love's like a red, red rose - all the words use their common meaning.
Carthage was a beehive of buzzing workers. - all the words use their common meaning.
This is your brain on drugs - all the words use their common meaning.The sentence is what gives us the visual picture that is different than how we commonly view love, Carthage, workers or a brain.Don't confuse the meaning of the word, with the meaning of the sentence, paragraph or story.

---

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:

---

And what are the figurative meanings?

---

I gave those in Message 7 right below the literal.

quote:

---

I have showed you from Genesis 2:4 that ALL the previous 6 days...the days you claim to be 24 hours long....are refered to as ONE day.
Gen 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, IN THE DAY that Jehovah God made earth and heaven"

---

In Genesis 2:4 a figurative definition of yom is required. In the lexicon meaning provided in Message 7 one of the figurative meanings is "(as) when". In Genesis 1:5 the word is yovm. In Genesis 2:4 the word is beyovm.Genesis 2:4 is not referring to a literal 24-hour day. It is referring to a general time in the past. The sentence is simply saying,

quote:

---

You havnt showed me what the literal indicators are....what are they?

---

It isn't nice to demand when you won't provide the indicators that tell you figurative. Indicators are needed to signal figurative use in this case, not literal use. If you read the excerpt above, it is explained clearly.

quote:

---

yes it has.
Gen 2:4 says that all 6 days were 1 day. This implies that the 'day' is being used figuratively. So yes, i agree with you here, all the possible meanings of the word are shown in the surrounding verses.

---

No, Genesis 2:4 is not referring back to the days in Genesis 1. It is referring forward to the A&E story. These all belong to the Redactor and they refer to what follows, not what has already been read. (Notice I'm sending you forward, not backwards. ) I'm not clear on which usage of the word yom you are saying is to be used figuratively. You need to clarify, but the use of yom in Genesis 2:4 has no bearing on either use of the word yom in Genesis 1:5.The indicators must be within the sentence itself as it is in Genesis 2:4. Those indicators are not in Genesis 1:5. Do you really not see the difference?

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

To understand which definition to use within a sentence, we rely on the sentence. Only the sentence can tell us which meaning we are to use.

​

Ok, if that is the case then please show me what the definition, and indicators for that definition, are in the following verse:

​

What indicates that the leaven is literal or firgurative? writes:

​

Matt 16:5-6 "Now the disciples crossed to the other side and forgot to take loaves along. 6 Jesus said to them: Keep YOUR eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

---

What word are you talking about in this verse?As I said, the meaning of the word is different than the meaning of the sentence, paragraph, or story.Edited 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

quote:

---

So the context shows that the earth in vs 10 was the 'people' not the planet/earth/ge because the planet was not destroyed...only the people were.

---

Nothing you said has anything to do with determining which definition of ge to use in the sentence.You are confusing the meaning of the word ge with what the sentence is saying. The word ge means earth. Whether you believe the word earth refers to the planet or not is irrelevant to which meaning of the word is to be used. There is no figurative meaning given for the word ge in the Lexicon. If you feel the sentence is speaking figuratively, that is another issue and has nothing to do with which definition of ge is to be used.Do you understand the difference?

quote:

---

I hope you can see why a figurative or literal use of a word cannot be determined within a sentence alone. You need much more then just the sentence in question. You really cannot apply creative writing to the bible...it wasnt written by creative writers using creative writing teqniques...our rules do not apply.

---

Again, you're confusing the way we determine which definition of a word is to be used and whether the sentence is written figuratively.Yes, the writers in the Bible used literary techniques. If they didn't, you wouldn't be looking for a figurative meaning. There are idioms, metaphors, allegories, poems, etc. Dismissing their skills because you don't understand those techniques, doesn't change the fact that the writers did use literary techniques. You also have nothing to back up your position.Yes, whether we use a figurative or literal definition of a word can be and is determined within the 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:

---

the problem with the above excerpt is that the writer is basing this on 'proper english'

​

Yes in english it may be right, but hebrew has nothing to do with english and its grammatical rules. The indicator should be the word yom itself. Not how we translate it into english. Its used figuratively within the same passage and therefore there is no reason why it cannot be figurative in the preceeding verses.

---

The very first paragraph speaks of Hebrew.Saying that Hebrew is different and then not explaining the difference or the indicators necessary in Hebrew is just an excuse. You have repeatedly been asked to provide the indicators necessary in Hebrew to signal us that the figurative meaning is to be used. You haven't done that either.

quote:

---

the leaven. Just by reading the verse, show me the indicators of the whether the 'leaven' is figurative or literal.

---

Zume is not a word with multiple meanings. It only has one meaning: leaven. In Matthew 16:6 the leaven is a symbol of corruption or hypocrisy, but the definition of the word leaven isn't corruption or hypocrisy. The normal meaning of the word is being used figuratively within the sentence.Do you understand the difference?

---

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 will the earth/ge be destroyed according to 2 Peter?

---

I guess that's a no. You don't understand the difference between the definition of the word and the meaning of the sentence.Your question has nothing to do with the definitions for the word ge. You're taking a considerably later definition and applying it to ge. I've shown you the rule of historical background.The writer is saying that the known inhabited land will be destroyed, not the planet.If you feel that ge refers to the planet, then yes the planet will be destroyed. It doesn't matter what any other verse says in the Bible, if you make ge refer to the planet, that's how it reads. There is nothing in the sentence that is figurative concerning ge. No, the verses from the OT don't make a difference. You really don't understand literary techniques. Try reading some of the links I've provided.When you use the correct meaning, the planet isn't destroyed. When you use the wrong meaning, the planet is destroyed.You're trying to fit the writers' words into a hodge podge of current beliefs and knowledge.IOW, you making things up to suit your purpose regardless of language, grammar, history, audience, etc.Learn, Peg.

---

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:

---

Its dishonest to put a literal interpretation to a word that is being used figuratively in the same account.

---

It's also dishonest to put a figurative meaning to a word when the literal meaning is called for in the sentence. Now show me the indicators in Hebrew or English that tells you that the second use of the word yom in Genesis 1:5 requires one of the figurative meanings.

quote:

---

But what are the 'indicators' of what determines its figurative use?

​

In one breath you are saying there are gramatical indicators to show a literal definition, so now show us the indicators for the figurative in this verse.

---

When there are literal meanings for a word and figurative meanings for a word, there are indicators within the language to tell us a figurative meaning is to be chosen. A literal definition usually needs no indicators. Yom is one that needs no indicators for the literal. You have been shown this several times.Leaven is a substance that is used to produce fermentation in dough or liquid. There are no other meanings for the word. It is what it is.Symbolism also goes back to historical background. Leaven was a symbol for hypocrisy, corruption, or evil. It doesn't symbolize that for the general population today.When it comes to symbols and idioms, the scholars have done the research to enable us to understand these types of phrases. There is no way to discern these types of things from the text unless the writer explains it at some point like the writer did for Matthew 16:5-6. The explanation is in verse 12. Again, leaven is not a multiple meaning word. This is not the same type of situation as the word yom.

quote:

---

Purpledawn, in Message 9 you said I don't see a figurative meaning for the word ge/earth.

---

Correct, no figurative meaning is given in the Lexicon.

quote:

---

so in Message 20 when i ask you if the meaning of the verse is literal you say

​

purpledawn writes:

​

I guess that's a no. You dont understand...

---

You didn't ask me if the meaning of the verse was literal. you asked: Ok, so will the earth/ge be destroyed according to 2 Peter?

quote:

---

What am i not understanding? That the earth in this verse is figurative as you have indicated you agree with??? Or is it something else?

---

Since you asked that question, which has nothing to do with understanding the meaning of the word ge, that tells me that you don't understand the difference between the definition of the word and the meaning of the sentence.The common meaning of the word ge is used and it isn't used figuratively. IOW, there is no figurative technique or language involving the word ge.

quote:

---

Im not intersest in the literal definition of the word 'ge', im interested in how you came to the view that in this verse its to be taken figuratively. I have explained how we come to a figurative explaination, now tell me how you came to it....was it by some gramatical 'indicator'? if so, what is that indicator?

---

I didn't say the verse should be taken figuratively. (That really doesn't mean anything.)In Message 23, I said: There is figurative language within the verse. In verse 11 the writer even says: The author doesn't tell us this is a vision. He is very clear that everything will be destroyed. He is also clear that heaven and earth will be restored or rebuilt.The difference is, I don't assume that ge refers to the planet and you do. From what I have found out the planet was not named at that time. So earth cannot refer to the name of the planet. If you want to argue that point, go to the appropriate thread. (Not The Planet)As far as this thread goes, ge has no figurative definition and the common meaning of earth or land is to be applied in 2 Peter 3:10.

quote:

---

as i've maintained, i dont believe there is an indicator in the passage that says the yom must be taken as a 24 hour day.

---

Again, the indicators are for the figurative not the literal. When it comes to which literal meaning to use, yes, the sentence does give us indicators to which literal meaning is to be used.

quote:

---

I've stated many times now that a real 'yom' based on the account in genesis is actually only 12 hours. This is becasue the account says that the yom was the 'light'

---

It isn't up to you to decide what the definition for yom is. That has already been done by the scholars.There are two literal meanings:
1. the light hours
2. sunset to sunsetIn the Genesis 1 creation story there is a narrator and the character, God. The narrator is the writer of the story. From his own point in time he is writing about the past.The narrator tells us that God called the light "day" and the darkness "night". Then the narrator tells us that there was evening and morning the first day.The narrator is telling his audience that the separation of light and darkness took place in the first sunset to sunset time frame, which is 24 hours. I've shown you before and provided it again in Message 1, that the writer understood a 24 hour day. Their hours weren't evenly spaced like we have today, but they were broken into 12 segments for daylight and 12 segments for night.Stop trying to change what the writer is telling his audience. You blot your copy-book when you can't even accept the basic rules of reading.

quote:

---

I dont believe you have any indicators for a literal reading...even the surrounding verses use day to mean all 6 days....if it can be used figuratively there, then it can be used figuratively in chpt 1 as well.

---

No they don't and I have shown you your error in that area also. Nothing you've provided supports your notions.Quite frankly, I'm starting feel you are being obtuse on purpose.Edited by purpledawn, : Word change

---

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:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

There is no way to discern these types of things from the text unless the writer explains it at some point like the writer did for Matthew 16:5-6. The explanation is in verse 12.

​

which is exactly my point.

​

You however claimed that the indicators are located in the sentence alone.
In your OP you stated

purpledawn writes:

​

Peg, the usage within the sentence tells us which meaning to use.

​

Now are you agreeing with me that other verses help to identify a figurative use?

---

No. The issue with yom and your issue with leaven are not the same thing.One deals with a multiple meaning word and determining which definition is to be used in the sentence.The other deals with symbolism and idioms, which have nothing to do with the definition of the words. The words within them are the common meaning, but the phrase has an entirely different meaning; which is determined by the culture.The definitions of the words have already been determined, but you continue to argue the toss.Obviously you're not a dab hand with language skills and don't care to learn.

---

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:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

As far as this thread goes, ge has no figurative definition and the common meaning of earth or land is to be applied in 2 Peter 3:10.

​

as usual you have officially confused me yet again.

​

So tell me, what what do you think 'ge' is according to the verse?

---

Apparently you're not comprehending the written word. Your answer is in my words that you quoted. It refers to earth (not the planet) or land.Why don't you tell me what you feel the writer is telling his audience in 2 Peter 3:10 since you feel it is figurative.

quote:

---

because there are figurative uses for evening and morning in the scriptures which are linked to the 7th day of genesis.

​

The Apostle Paul explained that we are living in an 'evening period' and that the morning was approaching

​

Romans 13:11 "[Do] this, too, because YOU people know the season, that it is already the hour for YOU to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers. 12 The night (evening) is well along; the day (morning) has drawn near..."

---

No there aren't figurative uses of morning and evening linked to the 7th day of Genesis.Paul's literary style does not impact what was written in Genesis 1. You haven't learned yet, that just because a word is used literally or figuratively in another language, by another writer, hundreds of years later; doesn't impact another writer's use of the word. Each writer makes their own point.Paul's writing has no impact on Genesis 1. Genesis 1 may influence Paul, but it isn't the other way around.You're trying to change what is written to fit what you need Genesis to say.In Genesis 1:5 and the subsequent days, the words morning and evening are not used figuratively. They refer to morning and to evening. The writer isn't implying anything else. Even in Romans 13:11-12, the words carry their common meaning otherwise his audience wouldn't understand what he was saying. Paul's poetic style of writing doesn't change what is written in Genesis 1:5 and you haven't made a case for the comparison.If you read a book written in the 1800's, it makes no sense to go to a book written today to understand the meaning of a word used in the older book.Learn, Peg.

---

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 dont need to do that because Peter does so himself in preceeding verses. This is why i keep saying that the sentence itself is not how to determine what the writer is saying or if the word he is using is meant to be taken figuratively or literally. You cant read the bible that way. You must take other verses into consideration which is what we do with the word yom in genesis.

---

No, that's not how it works and your attempts to make it work are falling flat. Preceding verses and verses from other writers do not tell us which definition of a word is to be used when there are multiple meanings for the word. You keep going off into other tangents that aren't the same thing such as 2 Peter.Nothing in 2 Peter 3 tells us that the word ge refers to mankind. Ge is not a figurative meaning for mankind. The common meaning of the word ge is used. That's why it is translated earth and not mankind.As far as what the author is telling his audience in chapter 3, he isn't using ge to refer to mankind.

quote:

---

So the earth in 2 peter is figurative, its not literally the planet or the land, but is the people who dwell on it.

---

No it isn't. The author is talking about the land and the people who dwell on it. "The earth and everything in it will be laid bare." The word earth is not talking about people.Genesis 18:25 has nothing to do with understanding 2 Peter 3:10.

quote:

---

But of course, if you dont take other verses into account when trying to determine this, then you take Peters words literally and assume the earth/land is going to be destroyed as many do.

---

Unfortunately that is what he's saying, although he's not referring to the planet. The scary part is that the other verses you bring in do nothing to support your position. You're making it say what you need it to say. You're not accepting what it does say.You have no outside support for your methods.

---

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