Define literal vs non-literal.

Lets use some common sense here. Without the sun the earth would be just like any other planet devoid of sufficient heat and light. Nothing could survive at all. Even if it took a literal day, life would be completely unsustainable let alone long epochs of time.Secondly, the 3rd verse of Genesis 1 has God saying: That of course makes no sense since God, according to the text, has yet to even create the sun, yet somehow there is light and it was called the "day?" Day and night, light and dark, only make sense in direct relation to the sun which hasn't even been created yet. How can you "evening" or "morning" when the only thing distinguishing is the sun, which hasn't even been created at that point?Yet somehow we're expected to believe the narrative actually happened? It makes for a terrible fiction novel let alone non-fiction. It's an absurdity. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Yes, it does but let's examine the time line to see if that even makes sense from a physical point of view.Day 1: God created light and called it "day" and the darkness "night." There was evening and there was morning.Day 2: God separated the waters and called the expanse "sky." There was morning and there was evening.Day 3: God creates vegetation, it was morning and evening.Day 4: God finally gets around to creating the Sun, moon, and stars.Day 5: God creates wildlife .Day 6: God created Adam and he was very pleased with his accomplishments.Day 7: God chills because omnipotent and perfect beings need nap time.So, here are two glaring problems if we're going to look at this from a literal standpoint.Problem 1: For the first three days there is this inexplicable light source (even though there was no sun, yet somehow it was day and night (even though you need the Sun for that).Problem 2: On day 3 he creates vegetation, yet still no Sun because that comes on the 4th day. According to the Kelvin temperature scale, without radiation of any kind, the temperature would likely be colder than -273 degrees Celsius, which is Zero Kelvin. That's considered absolute zero that can be measured. Even Mercury has a freezing point. How can plants survive in those conditions.So, as you can see there are both problems with the text and the physics. How do you reconcile this problematic situation? Then why did God directly say that he created the greater light on the 4th day if he already created it? You are making conflicting statements. You asserted to PD that there was no way of telling time (no chronometers) because there was no sun. Now you are saying that the sun was already created, even though it was explicitly stated that it was created on the 4th day. Um, and you deduced all of that from the bible, or is that the AnswersinGenesis explanation, which isn't at all factually supported?That doesn't make any sense and that is a gigantic leap of faith to be talking about "diffused light... coming thru the atmoshphere... making it overcast... because it's too thick" just from reading a very brief passage. That's absurd and obviously makes no sense if in all of the verses it explicitly states, "there was evening, and there was morning." If the Sun was so thoroughly blotted out because of the phantom, unspoken atmospheric change that bears no conceivable relevance to the story, there could not be evening and morning.Remember, he called the darkness night. But according to you it was dark for the first three days. Also the very opening of the bible says that God formed Light. If the intention is to block out the light, what sense does it make to even have a light?It just doesn't make any sense, but by now I'm sure you realize that. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typosEdited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Okay, now I know you both are just parroting some apologetic website like AiG. Please refer to MSG 48.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

That is dealing with literal and non-literal. That's the very definition of it, in fact, which makes it on topic.If the text doesn't make sense because of internal inconsistencies, like how you can even have sunrise and sunset without the Sun, then how is that not questioning it's literalness? PD, there is no way to do that unless you can determine what is physically possible. You can't have light without a Sun, so it therefore cannot be literal.Maybe I am not understanding your objection. If not, can you please clarify?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Where does it say that the source of the light can't be seen??? WHAT?!?!? Peg, NOWHERE in the text is anything even remotely described like that, nor is it even slightly inferred. That is a complete fabrication. Please substantiate your argument with the bible. This is utter nonsense from start to finish. Let's juxtapose the verses:Day 1: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day."As you can see here, it talks about light, in reference to the "day" and it talks about "darkness" in reference to night. Sounds like the Sun, since it directly mentions day and night.Day 4: And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day."Day 4 is where God creates the heavenly bodies, including the Sun, if we're going to be literal. Tell me why God says he created the Sun on the 4th day if it was already created on Day 1? Why is he being redundant? What perspective? There is no one there to see it, including the animals. That happens on Day 5 and Adam on Day 6. Even supposing this mystery blocking of the Sun (which is not discussed anywhere in the text) existed, the temperature would still be the same of that in space. If this inexplicable cover was dark for the first three days, no vegetation would be able to survive in those temperatures. You need radiation for plants to grow. That's why during a nuclear holocaust (where the dust covers the entire atmosphere, blocking out the sun's radiation) nothing survives. The temperatures plummet so that everything would be frozen solid. What precisely is the difference between "create" and "made?" And what relevance does this have with the conversation? I am aware that according to the text that he created the heavenly bodies for man's convenience. That does nothing to answer the question of why the Sun is described in two different places, during two different stages of his master plan. Oh, the vapor canopy theory that most creationists reject? The waters above are most likely talking about clouds, since even primitive know that's where rain comes from. What it doesn't explain is how light (not really being light because it was blocked out for no apparent reason) is mentioned. Then in no uncertain terms it is created a second time.If the Sun were there the whole time, but blocked out, then the entire reference of "light" and "dark" are meaningless. Moreover, so is day and night, if it were dark that whole time until the 3rd day.Nothing about that makes any sense, nor is it even discussed in the text, so it is a moot point. Oh, but not the following days? What happened that stopped the sun from shining? Show me in the bible. Again, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so."This is the 4th Day I'm quoting. See how he describes the Sun here to mark day and night?Now back to the 1st Day:"God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day."See how he's describing the Sun? Why is he being redundant? Where does it say anything about the Sun being blocked out of the atmosphere?This is particularly even more troublesome for you because you don't believe in literal days, according to you. So that means for an undisclosed amount of time, the magic canopy was blocking out the Sun. So for what could have been thousands of years, the vegetation was not receiving any radiation whatsoever making plant life an impossibility.So which is? Are we talking literal days or are we talking long epochs of time? Because you can't have your cake and eat it too.You are going to have to remain consistent. Just so you know, AiG is a Young Earth website who believe in literal days. You might want to first check that out before you get yourself on a track that refutes your previous claims.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

That is what were doing, except we couldn't know for sure because we can't ask him.All it will do is lead to more speculation.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

According to my Concordance, the prefix "ma" or "mah" simply denotes an exclamation for how something was done, or why it was done. It doesn't change the root word, which according to you is light. According to Strong's online concordance, ohr, isn't even a word. The word is owr and it means sunlight, day, morning, etc. Nonsense. Obstructions of any kind is not only mentioned in the bible, but ma'ohr wouldn't change 'ohr' (if it were a word), it would just change either the tense, causation or the action of whatever root word this prefix is attached to. It's essentially the same thing in English as changing words from run to ran, or to run. or run because, etc. It's just an exclamation and it is a common theme in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages. It doesn't say it was blocked out at ALL. I requested you to substantiate that biblically. I have a concordance and I personally looked it up. "Block out" is nowhere to be found. That's either an invention on your part or some apologetic website providing you false information. Well, this fails since if it was made for man's benefit. Mankind wasn't made for another 2 days, and for you, not for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. That makes it even more convoluted than it already is. Peg, it doesn't mention anything, whatsoever, about the sun being covered, or blocked out, or that there was darkness even when the sunlight should be there. You are taking two or three different verses and jumbling them together.It appears that you are aware of the implications and just making things up so it can make sense in your own mind. To vindicate yourself, Just show me where this eclipse of the sun can be found in the first chapters of Genesis. We'll go from there. If you cannot do that then it would be courteous to simply concede that point and retract it. The bible is explicit in saying that he called the light "day" and the darkness "night." That can only be the Sun. Let's be realistic and look at it in context. Morning and night are only possible with the sun. The imagery is that before there was a sun created, yes, there was total darkness just like it is in space. That was all before the creation ex nihilo event on the 4th day. You said it was dark! You said there was this mysterious cloud cover, or whatever. It was dark, but enough light got through. That's not supported biblically at all. That's a total fabrication. So why are you using their information then? No, you aren't. You are switching back and forth to literal days to undetermined epochs, switching from cloud cover to lights shining through. You're flailing about trying to make the text make sense when it simply doesn't make any sense, while also trying to conform to your own personal theories and doctrine.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Obviously one has to take in to account certain laws of physics to know if that is even possible. That's one way to do it, and this far that is precisely what you and Peg have been discussing (referring to times where sunlight is present versus sunset and night, where no light is shining at all).I think it is something like this. The author is trying to describe something literal. I think he is literally discussing days here because of his explicit wording, such as "it was morning, it was evening," for each corresponding day. It seems like he actually went out of his way to illustrate that.Peg on the other hand does not believe it is describing literal days. But my simple illustration of how vegetation not being able to grow in darkness just solidifies the point that it could not be long epochs from a literary point of view.That seems very consistent with the topic to me. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Why then does the author mention evening and morning for each corresponding day if it were unimportant?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Oh, I finally see what you're saying. All right, no problem.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Peg, it appears this discussion is OT. I suggest we take it to the Accuracy and Inerrancy forum to finish our debate.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

It was apparently because of the Hebrews that we even have 7 days a week, Peg, consisting of 24-hour days. Literally, the Hebrews knew a day the same way we know a day.But even supposing they didn't, they surely don't think of a day as being an undisclosed amount of time. Yom Kippur is still a day, plus 1 hour. They fast for 25-hours on this holiday. He didn't call 6 days, 1 day. He called 1 day, 1 day. There happened to be 6 of them in the creation account, the 7th for the sabbath. From a literary point of view, most everyone concludes this because the wording is very explicit. There isn't a lot of room for literary interpretation. A literal day is clearly the imagery the author is portraying with his verbiage.Do I think that is how it happened in actuality? No, not by a long shot. But we're just discussing the text and apparently nothing else.You may have answered elsewhere, but if so I did not see it. If you'll indulge me, what is the purpose of the author explicitly mentioning morning and evening, the 1st, 2nd , 3rd, etc day, if he did not intend for you to think he was being literal?I find it strange that you being a literalist suddenly are departing from a literal perspective here. Why only here is it symbolism but most everything else is literal?For something like the Serpent in the Garden, there is a little more room to question whether or not it is symbolism or actual talking snakes, because of the ambiguity. There does not seem to be any ambiguity with this, though.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I guess you don't know your own bible very well. Let's just examine one book of the bible and your hero, Jesus. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" -- Matthew 26:40 Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." -- Matthew 26:45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" -- Matthew 27:45Even supposing they didn't, they still understood the concept of sunset to sunset, sunrise to sunrise, evening to evening, morning to morning. That is supported, again, by the bible. Where do you think the word "Yom" comes from, Peg?You just continually make no sense. It's like you don't even think about what you're saying and their absurdities. Prove that they do things differently. You do realize that the very concept of a 7-day week comes from the Hebrews, right? Almost all ancient cultures understood time and were extremely accurate too. The Indians, the Mayans, the Chaldeans, etc were all well versed.Substantiate that they did things differently from modern Jews? Of all the cultures in the world, no other culture arguably has maintained their traditions as thoroughly and in tact as the Jews. And you can't ignore the 20 other times he didn't. So which is better supported, Peg? What makes you think this, though? How have you deduced that they couldn't possibly be speaking about a literal day? Is it because it appears physically impossible to you or do you have another reason? You may have already answered that question before, but I've never seen it. What compelled you to think that these aren't literal days? We'll go from there. How have you deduced all that from a passage that says nothing about that? This is massively speculative. So? That's clearly figurative, especially since it comes from a collection of poems. Consider your source. The same could not reasonably said of Genesis.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

You do understand that all the original manuscripts written by the apostles, right? Whether it was Greek or not is irrelevant to the fact that these were Hebrews. If they didn't know what an hour was, then why were they writing about it?The term "hour" also appears thousands of years before in the Psalms and Ecclesiastes. You are clearly wrong that ancient Hebrews were stupid and didn't know how to delineate between increments of time. That's ridiculous. Are you telling me people knew how to build pyramids or Solomon's Temple, but didn't know what time of the day to start construction, what time was allotted to take a lunch break, or what time of day they would stop constructing?In order to understand larger increments of time, like weeks, months, years; one must first understand the concept of smaller denominations like hours, minutes, and seconds.Biblical timeline's, which I'm sure you are a fan of, couldn't even be possible without a basic understanding of time.

quote:

---

Even supposing they didn't, they still understood the concept of sunset to sunset, sunrise to sunrise, evening to evening, morning to morning. That is supported, again, by the bible. Where do you think the word "Yom" comes from, Peg?

---

I'm not. The introduction of Greek is your invention, your straw man, your distraction to shift the goal. So let's deal with the fact that Hebrews, which is undeniably supported biblically, knew and understood what hours were.

quote:

---

Substantiate that they did things differently from modern Jews? Of all the cultures in the world, no other culture arguably has maintained their traditions as thoroughly and in tact as the Jews.

---

I asked you to substantiate your argument in reference to TIME, specifically hours and days, not reply with more distraction. If you cannot do that then simply admit that you're wrong so that we can move forward. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. -- Genesis 1:1That was his first stated goal. Everyone knows it was a continuous process, until he decided to rest on the 7th Day. What is your point? This is interesting because you completely overlook all the other Days, you know, all 7 of them, where he specifically states that "And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day, the second day, the third day, etc, etc, etc.If these are not literal days the author is trying to convey, then what are they? How much time are we talking in between these Days? I asked you this before and you've thus far completely ignored it and haven't explained what they mean. I agree that the bible is replete with figures of speech. I agree that things like the four corners is a figurative reference to North, South, East, West or that the Earth being God's footstool is figurative, bespeaking of his majesty. I don't doubt that at all. My question is, if this is metaphorical, then who is to say things like the Tower of Babel, or the Flood, or the wrestling with angels are not also metaphorical?Did Adam and Eve even literally eat a piece of fruit or was it symbolic of their inability to remain obedient to God? Was there even literally and Adam and Eve? Was there really this tree in the Garden, or is the tree and garden just a fictitious setting for the backdrop of a metaphorical story about disobedience?How do you decide what is literal versus what is non-literal? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typos

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

"All Hebrew days begin at exactly 18:00 hours, which corresponds to hour 0 of the Hebrew calendar's day. So remember to recognize that in all subsequent calculations, hour 0 is actually 18:00 or 6 pm. The rabbis also divided the hours into 1080 parts, thus making each part 3 and 1/3 seconds and each minute 18 parts. All calculations are done in days, hours and parts." SourceAs you can see, the term "evening and morning" in Genesis have much significance since the Hebrews have and still observe a new day beginning exactly at 1800 hours (which is 6 PM for all you layman), which is when evening begins. "A "part" (or in Hebrew, cheilek) is a unit of time used in the Jewish calendar, equal to 3-1/3 seconds. There are 18 parts in a minute and 1,080 parts in an hour. Most sources express time from calendar calculations in days, hours and parts, although some sources break the parts down into minutes. For example, the period between moladot could be written as 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 1 part (29d 12h 44m 1p), because 793 parts is 44 minutes and 1 part (793 = 44 times 18 parts plus 1 part) . This makes the resulting times look somewhat more familiar, but it increases the number of calculations, so we will stick with days, hours and parts." SourceWho is cited as the originator?In the fourth century, Hillel II established a fixed calendar based on mathematical and astronomical calculations.When did Hillel the Younger live? Between 320 and 385 CE. In other words, ancient.Jesus spoke about hours in the bible. David spoke about hours in the bible. Solomon spoke about hours in the bible. Matthew spoke about hours in the bible. You also have historians telling you in no uncertain terms that the Hebrews then and now use increments of time such as hours, and what's more, the day begins at a specific hour!Even supposing there were no exact hours (because there were no watches back then) they still understood what a day meant. Daytime, then nighttime. I mean, they aren't stupid, Peg. The author goes out of his way to explain a literal day, but for some reason you keep dismissing it and relying on a very obscure passage that doesn't even reference the creation story. Yes, and in the course of that discussion you said that ancient Hebrews don't use hours, which of course is an absurdity. That's ridiculous, Peg. Substantiate that Moses was writing on the 7th Day. Please show me anything in the bible descriptive of that. Why do you think the 7th day was not 24 hours? Where does it say that? Where do you come up with this stuff? Who instructed you on all this and on what basis did they come up with this bizarre interpretation? Then when the language is crystal clear, like, "it was evening, it was morning -- the first day," why do you assume thousands of years?Was there a literal Serpent in the Garden? Was there an actual Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?These sound very symbolic to me, so I am curious how you interpret it. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston