Define literal vs non-literal.

There are many occasions when reading through the threads here that I come across this sentence:"Well that's obviously not to be taken literally - it was just a dream/song/interpretation that had at the time"When reading the bible, what are the rules around what is to be taken literally, and what is not?Are there any rules?

So you use science as the determinant on bible context...fine, but..What happens when science does *not* agree with bible context - take Adam and Eve; it is often quoted (depending on your deity) that that Adam and Eve were born around 6000 to 12000 years ago. Science puts the first humans at around 200,000 years ago.What, then, do we use as a determinant in this case?Perhaps you motion that the science does not *work* when applying it to two different contexts? Edited by killinghurts, : FormattingEdited by killinghurts, : ContextEdited by killinghurts, : No reason given.Edited by killinghurts, : removed irrelevant postEdited by killinghurts, : added exampleEdited by killinghurts, : formattingEdited by killinghurts, : Added another exampleEdited by killinghurts, : No reason given.Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

There is a serious problem with this line of thought.

quote:

---

its not simply because i choose to believe the bible over science, its because there is evidence to the contrary

---

What about the scientific evidence you used to determine that the '6 days' was not literal? Why do you choose to use science as the yard stick here and not in the latter case?Before science revealed the earth could not have been made in '6 days', people believed the '6 days' was literal.. now (except for a select few) people, like yourself, don't take it literally, why, what changed? -> as you said, there is scientific evidence to the contrary.And now science reveals that humans are much older than 6000 years (using identical science), and you choose to believe the story simply because there is evidence to the contrary - can you explain this? How is a given story correct simply because there is evidence to the contrary? What is different here?I know:Put simply, you agree with science when it suits the story. When it contradicts your story, you throw it out without any question of your own beliefs. It's akin to throwing out evidence in a murder case that proves someone innocent, simply because you have a predefined belief that they are guilty. It's unreasonable.I agree that dating methods are not infallible, but they *are* comparable using differing isotopes. Independent calculations giving roughly the same result is very compelling, wouldn't you agree?Edited by killinghurts, : grammarEdited by killinghurts, : added questionEdited by killinghurts, : added questionEdited by killinghurts, : grammarEdited by killinghurts, : grammarEdited by killinghurts, : No reason given.Edited by killinghurts, : spelling

From your previous posts you stated that this new understanding of the Hebrew language gave us an indeterminate length of time - you said that yourself, the word 'Yom' can literally mean *anything*.You then went on to say: So the word 'Yom', can mean any period of time, yet you support the narrowing of that scope to be what science reveals it to be - why do you do this here and not when the evidence is to the contrary? Here you have only only included evidence that supports your story - you didn't even include anything 'in harmony' with science... when someone omits evidence I think one has a right to be skeptical, wouldn't you be?By interpreting the true word 'Yom' and applying science as the yard stick you have put a limit on the length of time a 'day' can be according to the creation context, hence science *works* for you here.But You've directly contradicted yourself - you stated science is 'in harmony' with the 'Yom' interpretation, yet 'geological clocks that run too slow to provide anything absolute'?Is it in harmony with science or is it not?Regarding carbon dating, ~75,000 years is the limit for carbon dating, which is much older than 6000 years - and it's very predictable and measurable. I'd like to see some references as to why carbon dating "starts going a bit wirey" after a few thousand years. Apart from: Which you have clearly taken out of context - Libby was speaking about civilization specific to a particular archeological site, not the age of homo sapiens.If you want to prove carbon dating is erroneous simply take the science and disprove it. Taking a random, out of context quote (which I am 100% sure you have gleaned from a pro-creation/ anti-evolutionist website or book) indicates that you are unable, or simply frightened to think for yourself. Since I believe everyone is capable of thinking for themselves, I suspect you are in the latter category, so do me a favor, face your fears - take the science and disprove it:Here is the science - it's quite simple really. C14 has a measurable half life of ~5800 years. We can measure the rate of decay.When something is alive, the amount of carbon remains constant and predictable.As soon as something dies the carbon begins to decay according to it's half life. After ~5800 years it is 'half' decayed, leaving ~2900 years, after which it is one quarter decayed... it keeps decaying (by half) until it is immeasurable or "wirey" as you put it. The only 'evidence' you have included is that which supports your story. Of course your story will make sense if you do not include any evidence or 'Human history' as you put it that is to the contrary, right?Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

I am not nit picking, and I apologize if you think I am, my questions are fundamental to this thread:Do you support scientific dating methods as evidence that the 6 day theory is not to be taken literal or do you not?Because if you do (which you did claim to) you cannot reject it when the same science is used in a different context. If you do reject it, then youa) have a compartmentalized mentality - you only apply it when it suits your own belief system.orb) Do not understand scientific dating methods and choose respond with dogmatic packaged answers you have be taught by your authoritative figures.I suspect b). Here you have not responded to my statement, you've only gone on to add unreferenced supporting 'evidence' in a further attempt to discredit science and support your story.I noted that you've directly contradicted yourself in this thread:

quote:

---

you stated science is 'in harmony' with the 'Yom' interpretation, yet 'geological clocks that run too slow to provide anything absolute'

---

I don't want to hear about what's wrong/right with the science (surely that's been done in another thread somewhere in this forum) I want to know how you can use science to support your story in one context, and not the other, that's all..Edited by killinghurts, : grammarEdited by killinghurts, : spelling

The facts also tell us- You cannot turn water into wine.
- There was no global flood.
- You cannot walk on water.
- You cannot part a sea with a wooden staff.Are these now to be take non-literally?Please reply.Edited by killinghurts, : Grammar

Hi Peg can you please reply to my last message, I'm interested in your response.

Let me remind you of something you said earlier: Now you tell me that I *should* take other events that do *not* line up with the facts (and that you have described as miraculous) to be literal.Wouldn't it make more sense to describe those as not literal too?Awaiting your reply.Edited by killinghurts, : GrammarEdited by killinghurts, : Grammar

According to you, what rule dictates whether the science is right or wrong?

I'm sure you are a good person Peg, but your attempts at portraying me as ignorant will not work. In fact, I see it as a weakness in your argument.I am drawing conclusions based on your statement. Let me remind you once again. You explicitly state here that because we know 'facts' - (such as the age of th earth, through empirical evidence), we should take the 6 day theory as non-literal. That's great - we can test those 'facts' today through the scientific methodology.Now I don't know about you, but I have never seen any empirical evidence of man walking on water, I've never seen any evidence of a man being resurrected, I've never seen any empirical evidence of someone parting the red sea with a stick...So I ask you again, is this statement true? Eyewitness accounts are simply not enough - even for you - as you have stated - we need facts. Where are the facts?

Thus, based on your own logic, miracles are not a fact. I am interested in which miracle you are referring to here (and who the 3 million people were), it sounds fascinating.None the less can you elaborate on how you verify an eyewitness account? Surely it's not based purely on the mere number of people - if that were true we'd all declare Ghosts, UFO's, Demons, Santa Clause, etc as factual (no offence if you do believe in any or all of those things).I seem to see a disconnect between your logic defining the 6 days as literal and the other 'miracles'. You define a rule in the first case (based on fact), and break it in the second (based on no facts and only eyewitness accounts).Edited by killinghurts, : missed a bit

Most of the time, yes. Very manipulative straw man argument you have there... let's pull it apart shall we?Firstly - you have setup the easily shot down "birth certificate" evidence - evidence like that can be forged, faked, or as you have put it - missing.Case closed, you weren't born?!Don't be silly...You forgot to mention one slightly more important piece of evidence: You are here - you must have been born to be here. Why do we know that? Because we witness people being born *every second* of *every day*, here in the *real* world. Therefore it is reasonable, beyond doubt, to assume that you were born.We don't witness people walk on water, or turn water into wine, or part the red sea with a stick. It's the same argument you have here, you simply don't address the disconnect between what we know about the physical world (facts) and the miracles in the bible.All you have done is presented a story, a straw man of your own that can be shot down.Let me show you (and I don't present my own beliefs here, so don't bother replying to the detail - it's just to show you that your argument can be shot down): All you need is a few people in powerful positions to advocate a story, convincing the rest of the populace is easy. We see that happen every day - we see religions succeed on this principle. Religions get their feet in the door every day based on false and misleading stories. Take a look around. It's not unusual for people to die for their beliefs, misguided as they may be.See, we can argue hearsay all day, and that's exactly what it is, hearsay.Now that we have cleared up the difference between hearsay and evidence, can we assume that the whole walk on water/ water into wine/part the red sea was meant to be literal?

I'd suggest closing this topic now.There are clearly no well defined rules for what is to be taken literally and what is not.

Both the methods of interpretation you and PD have proposed are far too broad. Rules must be objective and leave no room for interpretation, otherwise we end up with... an 18 page forum thread trying to define even the simplest of words.. like "day". Surely reading the text without understanding the difference between literal and non-literal meaning would be a more "blind" way of reading it than having some clearly defined rules... that's why we have YEC's and non-YEC's for example.. right? (not to mention 30000 different christian denominations). Right, as I said, there's no clearly defined rules. Unfortunately many people (including some in this thread) are happy to pick and choose the language, history and culture that suites their own story best, and simply ignore or not respond to any part that directly (or indirectly) contradicts it. That's people for you.Edited by killinghurts, : grammar

I am not "asking for rules of literary interpretation that leave no room for interpretation"I am asking for rules of interpretation that result in objective meaning.I.e - when two or more people independently read a passage in the bible, they conclude the meaning of the passage in much the same way - like a street directory if you like.This clearly doesn't happen.I am beginning to agree with you that it cannot exist due to the nature of the text.