Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discerning Which Definition to Use
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 16 of 106 (558679)
05-03-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by hooah212002
05-03-2010 10:14 AM


hooah212002 writes:
Then explain Genesis 1. Why does Genesis 1 list individual days? I refuse to quote the same verses anymore, only for you to ignore them.
because genesis 1 is giving us an overview of the steps God took to prepare the earth for habitation.
In vs 1-5 is a brief description of earth being put into rotation to have alternating days and nights. That process was the first 'yom' or 'length of time' When it was complete it as as if a new day had dawned therefore it was described figuratively as day 1.
Vs 6-8 show the 2nd 'yom' or 'length of time' was in creating an expanse between the waters...they were separated to create an the expanse of the heavens. When this was complete a 2nd new day had dawned because it was something completely new...like a new day, day 2.
hooah212002 writes:
For example: if I am a carpenter and I build my own shed, I might detail how exactly I did it and what I did on a given day. Now, when I reflect on it, I may say something like " back in the day when I built this shed". Are you going to all of a sudden think it took me 1 day to build the shed? Or will you realize that I am being figurative?
Its almost exactly the same for genesis.
The point is that it shows the word YOM is used figuratively within the same account so why is it that some people are demanding that the Yom in vs 4/5 is literal?
is it merely because they want it to be literal in order to make a case against the bible? Its dishonest to put a literal interpretation to a word that is being used figuratively in the same account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 05-03-2010 10:14 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 05-03-2010 8:45 PM Peg has replied
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2010 9:38 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 17 of 106 (558682)
05-03-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by purpledawn
05-03-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Which Definition to Use
purpledawn writes:
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.
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.
purpledawn 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.
the leaven. Just by reading the verse, show me the indicators of the whether the 'leaven' is figurative or literal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2010 11:03 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2010 9:14 PM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 18 of 106 (558685)
05-03-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
05-03-2010 7:31 PM


Re: Rule of Historical Background
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 05-03-2010 7:31 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 05-03-2010 8:59 PM purpledawn has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 19 of 106 (558687)
05-03-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peg
05-03-2010 7:47 PM


That process was the first 'yom' or 'length of time' When it was complete it as as if a new day had dawned therefore it was described figuratively as day 1.
My god peg. Do you actually have a reading comprehension disability? YOUR bible clearly states these events hapenning in a literal day:
The Bible writes:
....Evening and morning: the first day
Evening and morning: second day
Evening and morning: third day
How many bloody time does it have to be quoted to you? Of course a "new day had dawned" because it was DAWN OF THE NEXT LITERAL DAMNED DAY! You know, dawn: sun fricking rise? Do we need to also identify figurative and literal definitons for "evening" and "morning"?
The point is that it shows the word YOM is used figuratively within the same account so why is it that some people are demanding that the Yom in vs 4/5 is literal?
Yom being literal is quantified by the words MORNING AND EVENING. Every other time used it is phrased just so as to mean "a random period of time".
Its dishonest to put a literal interpretation to a word that is being used figuratively in the same account.
Peg, if the bible cannot be read the same way as any other literature: what in the fuck was god thinking? Answer me this: who was literate at the time these books were written? Could the lay-men sheep herder read? Was he privvy to a bible? I say nay, it was priestly men who wrote these books.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 05-03-2010 7:47 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Peg, posted 05-03-2010 9:09 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 20 of 106 (558690)
05-03-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by purpledawn
05-03-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Rule of Historical Background
purpledawn writes:
Yes, whether we use a figurative or literal definition of a word can be and is determined within the sentence.
Ok, so will the earth/ge be destroyed according to 2 Peter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2010 8:34 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2010 9:34 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 21 of 106 (558691)
05-03-2010 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by hooah212002
05-03-2010 8:45 PM


hooah212002 writes:
Peg, if the bible cannot be read the same way as any other literature: what in the ____ was god thinking?
he was probably thinking that he would only reveal understanding to a select few

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 05-03-2010 8:45 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by hooah212002, posted 05-03-2010 9:51 PM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 22 of 106 (558692)
05-03-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
05-03-2010 8:08 PM


Re: Which Definition to Use
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 05-03-2010 8:08 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 05-04-2010 1:31 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 23 of 106 (558693)
05-03-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
05-03-2010 8:59 PM


Re: Rule of Historical Background
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 05-03-2010 8:59 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 05-04-2010 2:15 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 24 of 106 (558694)
05-03-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peg
05-03-2010 7:47 PM


Show the Indicators
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 05-03-2010 7:47 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 05-04-2010 2:31 AM purpledawn has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 25 of 106 (558695)
05-03-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Peg
05-03-2010 9:09 PM


In fear of deviating from the topic, I will ask anyways: why then, do your people go door to door preaching? Why do christians even bother telling people about jeebus? If god already knows who he wants to hang out with him, why do you try? If they already have "the understanding", you aren't doing god's work. Or is he incompetant?
I don't know how much more of your mental gymanstics I can take Peg. I thought this would be a nice discussion where I learned a bit from the other side, but you mince words too much. My brain is turning to mush.
he was probably thinking that he would only reveal understanding to a select few
Then you "select few" (not sure who you are, you all can't even sort that out) need to piss off and keep your foul religion to yourselves if your holy tyrant doesn't love everyone.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Peg, posted 05-03-2010 9:09 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 05-04-2010 1:53 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 26 of 106 (558705)
05-04-2010 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by purpledawn
05-03-2010 9:14 PM


Re: Which Definition to Use
purpledawn writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2010 9:14 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 05-04-2010 7:06 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 27 of 106 (558710)
05-04-2010 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by hooah212002
05-03-2010 9:51 PM


hooah212002 writes:
I don't know how much more of your mental gymanstics I can take Peg. I thought this would be a nice discussion where I learned a bit from the other side,
lol
you've done nothing but argue with my opinion since you started in this thread which says a lot about your motives for joining in
then you miss the humor in my tongue in cheek remark...oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by hooah212002, posted 05-03-2010 9:51 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by hooah212002, posted 05-04-2010 2:01 AM Peg has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 28 of 106 (558711)
05-04-2010 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
05-04-2010 1:53 AM


No, Peg, I am pointing out how you are twisting words around. Don't try and assume why I joined this discussion, because I told you why.
This thread doesn't appear to be about "opinion", Peg. if you think a literal reading of the bible is about opinion, then my opinion of your bible is that jesus can fly and has tentacles. he also looks like Chtulu.
We are talking about definitions and word usage, Peg, which, to my knowledge, aren't open for your opinion.
then you miss the humor in my tongue in cheek remark...oh well.
Being purposefully obtuse is not funny.
Now, perhaps you would care to answer some of the questions I took the time to posit to you, instead of responding with 1-liners. You know, to further this discussion.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 05-04-2010 1:53 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 05-04-2010 2:24 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 29 of 106 (558713)
05-04-2010 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by purpledawn
05-03-2010 9:34 PM


Re: Rule of Historical Background
Purpledawn, in Message 9 you said I don't see a figurative meaning for the word ge/earth.
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...
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?
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?
Edited by AdminPD, : Msg links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2010 9:34 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 05-04-2010 7:50 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 30 of 106 (558715)
05-04-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by hooah212002
05-04-2010 2:01 AM


hooah212002 writes:
We are talking about definitions and word usage, Peg, which, to my knowledge, aren't open for your opinion.
actually, we are talking about how to determine the meaning of a word when a word has multiple means....as purpledawns OP asks
When a word with multiple meanings is encountered in a sentence, how does one discern which meaning is to be used?
Purpledawn ends her OP with the following question
purpledawn msg1 writes:
Show me the indicators, in Hebrew or English, that tell us to use a figurative meaning of yom.
My answer to this question is that Yom has many meanings. There are no 'indicators' in hebrew that state a word must be taken figuratively or literally....the only real indicators are:
1. Context of the immediate passage
2. Other verses of the bible revealing more information on the subject
These are the indicators we use to determine a figurative or literal use of a word. The meaning of the word comes into play, but if it is being used figuratively, then the meaning changes to its figurative use. If you are still interested in this topic, the by all means i can provide some verses that use figurative meanings and we can discuss how the figurative use of the word is determined by other scriptures.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by hooah212002, posted 05-04-2010 2:01 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by hooah212002, posted 05-04-2010 2:44 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024