Did God say it, or did you say it?

In this thread we have been discussing the definition of literal vs non-literal passages in the bible, namely what the difference is between the two.The general consensus from believers (excluding Y.E.Cs) is, in cases where the true meaning is not the literal one (like the Earth was created in 6 days), one must take the context in which the passage was made in order to interpret the true meaning of the passage.Taking the 6 day example, the following question could be postulated:How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say?Sure you can cross-reference, and that's what we saw in the 6 Day example in the other thread (cross references to both ancient language and modern science), but how do you know you are cross-referencing the correct material/evidence?Edited by killinghurts, : punctuation

Thread copied here from the Did God say it, or did you say it? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think they think that the Holy Spirit acts as a muse and imparts them with the knowledge of what god is actually saying... or something like that.

quote:

---

How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say?

---

Actually preachers are presenting the company line that says what God meant.I like the term "simple reading" (PARDES) instead of literal.The 6 day issue is a good example. Genesis 1 is the priestly version of their creation story. There isn't anything in the story to signify that the writer wasn't talking about the basic day known to man. It doesn't really matter what the word means in other places. The word has to be read within the sentence where it was used.Changing the meaning of the sentence to suit a doctrine is not a "simple reading" of the text.The languages of the original writings are dead. There are many places where meanings are unknown.The stories belong to a different culture. We have lost the slang, humor, idioms, and the substance of their lives. We're all guessing, IMO.The preachers don't know any more than anyone else what God meant in the OT. Actually they should be looking at what the writer meant for his audience.

---

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 will continue this discussion as far as 'literal day' in Genesis goes. You obviously have to study the original language that the text was written. Now, even non-believers would agree that the original text was written in Hebrew. So, what word was used for the word "day" in the context of the first chapter of Genesis?The word used is YOM. The Bible generally employs the word 'day' to signify either a twenty-four hour solar day, or the daylight portion of those hours.Now, if you want to say that the Bible isn't the Word of God...fine, throw this argument right out the window. But if it is the Word of God, or for the Christian who was wondering the same question, rest assure, the word used is YOM in Hebrew, signifying a literal 24 hour solar day.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Is God confined to being literal? IOW, could not the passages describing the creation event both be the word of God, and not be literal?Respectfully,-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : Improved the wording

quote:

---

How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say?

​

Sure you can cross-reference, and that's what we saw in the 6 Day example in the other thread (cross references to both ancient language and modern science), but how do you know you are cross-referencing the correct material/evidence?

---

The teacher should know these things because the teacher should be trained in Biblical hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation). The wikipedia article (Biblical hermeneutics - Wikipedia) is very broad-ranging, but if you scroll down to "Techniques of hermeneutics" you will find the method used by Evangelical Christians as described by Henry Virkler. This is the method which is often imprecisely called a "literal" method of interpretation. It is composed of a number of sub-methods which should all be incorporated. The most important sub-methods are the first three:

Hermeneutics - interesting.I had a quick look at the wiki site, and had one question:Who came up those methods of interpretation and how does one verify they are correct?

Hi killinghurts, The heavens an the earth existed prior to Genesis 1:2 therefore the 6 day theory is false.Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."God Bess,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT, this thread is not so much about whether the 6 day theory is true or false, more about what methods are used to "interpret" what God actually meant when the passage was written.I could just as readily say "Genesis 1:1 all happened instantaneously at the click of God's fingers ", therefore justifying the 6 day theory as a literal interpretation.But would I be correct? How do I know that my belief is correct? How do I know that the logic (or lack thereof) I applied to the context is actually what God meant when the passage was written?

quote:

---

Hermeneutics - interesting.
I had a quick look at the wiki site, and had one question:

​

Who came up those methods of interpretation and how does one verify they are correct?

---

These methods are generally accepted by various groups. The ones I referred to are generally accepted by Evangelicals (including educated YECs).I believe Augustine said that theology (including hermeneutics) is the "Queen of the sciences," but most today would classify hermeneutics as an art rather than a science. Thus, I can't answer your question of "how does one verify they are correct?" because I don't know what your standard of "verification" is for a non-scientific field.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Thanks for the honest reply kbertsche.Based on your post, I think I (and perhaps you) find it difficult to understand how hermeneutics can be used as the basis for interpretation of truth and meaning when an element of artistic license is invoked.

quote:

---

Based on your post, I think I (and perhaps you) find it difficult to understand how hermeneutics can be used as the basis for interpretation of truth and meaning when an element of artistic license is invoked.

---

Not at all. Why does an "element of artistic license" disqualify it as a good basis for interpretation?Surgery is also an art. Do you ask the surgeon to "verify" all of his methods? Do you accuse his procedures of resting on a poor basis if he can't do so? Would you prefer that your surgery be done by a robot which cannot exercise elements of "artistic license"?The Bible is literature, not science. It must not be read or interpreted as a scientific text.

true, true... they might not, you know. The hebrew text appears to be a retelling of older stories and includes elements from other mythologies and civilisations...and I don't think anyone actually HAS the "original" text.The dead sea scrolls, for example, are similar but they are NOT the same... And here again I am hearing some people (Peg for one, JRTjr for another) state that "YOM" doesn't necessarily mean the same for ancient jews as it does for us.I haven't ascertained the truth of that (I neither speak nor read Hebrew) - what I have seen so far is one quote purportedly from one person who claims to be a scholar, who wrote a book or two about hebrew and the bible, and he says that YOM can mean any length of time in addition to the standard "24 hours" and "daylight part of the day" meanings - and there is potentially supporting evidence.It would be an argument from authority to call you wrong, and I'd only have your word for it that you're able to translate from (ancient) Hebrew into English and/or are more correct that said author...

Nice idea, but I don't see the proof of that - is it not possible that genesis 1:1 is merely the opener explaining genesis 1:2 and onwards? meaning that god created "the heavens and the earth" but that it took 6 "days" to do it to completion?we'll ignore genesis 2 for now