[open]If it doesn't say metaphor on the box...

[Assyrian]

YECs often claim that Gen 1 and 2 must be read literally because we aren't told they are a metaphor. How many other passages in the bible could this logic be applied to? Would anyone like to add to the list? And would YECs like to indicate which ones they don't take literally and why.

(1) The Messiah stepped on a talking snake, Gen 3:1 & 15
(2) There were talking trees too, Judges 9:6-15
(3) The earth doesn't move, Psalm 93:1
(4) Sun goes round the earth, Eccles 1:5
(5) The sun stopped moving when Joshua told it to, Josh 10:12 & 13.
(6) The skies only stretch as far as Persia, Isaiah 13:5 & 17
(7) Sheba in Arabia is at the ends of the earth, Matt 12:42 and Luke 11:31
(8) The story of Jerusalem and her sisters, Ezek 16
(9) Dry bones turned into an army, Ezek 37
(10) Jesus turned bread into meat, Matt 26:26
(11) John the baptist was actually Elijah reincarnated, Matt 11:14, 17:10-12 Mark 9:11-13
(12) Any of Jesus' parables in John, the Good Shepherd, (12b) Jesus is a door.
(13) Stories in the synoptic gospels that aren't labelled parable, such as The Rich man and Lazarus Luke 16,
(13b) The Good Samaritan Luke 10.
(14) What about the parables we are only identified as such by the gospel writers? Should Jesus listeners have taken them literally if Jesus didn't actually say they were parables?

 

[gluadys]

(9) Dry bones turned into an army, Ezek 37

I always took from reading this passage that it was pretty clearly marked as a vision and a metaphor for the revival of the nation of Israel. But I did once run across a person who believed this army was literally created in the material world.

 

[laptoppop]

I'll take a quick crack at some of these:

YECs often claim that Gen 1 and 2 must be read literally because we aren't told they are a metaphor. How many other passages in the bible could this logic be applied to? Would anyone like to add to the list? And would YECs like to indicate which ones they don't take literally and why.

(1) The Messiah stepped on a talking snake, Gen 3:1 & 15

Satan is often called a snake or serpent in Scriptures. Commonly used picture language.

(2) There were talking trees too, Judges 9:6-15

Makes me think of Jesus talking about the rocks singing out... In any case, this is clearly identified as a person telling a story, not a historical recounting.

(3) The earth doesn't move, Psalm 93:1

It calls the earth "firmly established" -- the key is stability not astronomy. Of course, there are those who interpret the earth as being pretty much at the center of the universe. I don't know -- is the spectrum of the stars red shifted on one side of the earth and blue shifted on the other?

(4) Sun goes round the earth, Eccles 1:5

I talk about the sun rising and setting too.

(5) The sun stopped moving when Joshua told it to, Josh 10:12 & 13.

I don't know exactly what happened here. Interestingly, if the sun was "up" longer for the Israelites, one would expect a long night on the other side of the earth and there are legends about that too.

(6) The skies only stretch as far as Persia, Isaiah 13:5 & 17

NASB has 13:5 as "horizon" which is fine. 13:17 doesn't have anything in NASB.

(7) Sheba in Arabia is at the ends of the earth, Matt 12:42 and Luke 11:31
(8) The story of Jerusalem and her sisters, Ezek 16
(9) Dry bones turned into an army, Ezek 37
(10) Jesus turned bread into meat, Matt 26:26
(11) John the baptist was actually Elijah reincarnated, Matt 11:14, 17:10-12 Mark 9:11-13
(12) Any of Jesus' parables in John, the Good Shepherd, (12b) Jesus is a door.
(13) Stories in the synoptic gospels that aren't labelled parable, such as The Rich man and Lazarus Luke 16,
(13b) The Good Samaritan Luke 10.
(14) What about the parables we are only identified as such by the gospel writers? Should Jesus listeners have taken them literally if Jesus didn't actually say they were parables?

Anyway -- on and on. A careful reading of Scripture will allow for poetic language, and yes, the first chapter of Genesis is repetitious and poetic. However, just to make sure you don't mistake the "day" as something other than what we normally say, the author goes to pains to identify it with morning and evening -- i.e., normal -- what you always see -- 24 hours.

The typical rule used for the parables is that its a story if they don't use particular names, and a more historical truth if they do. The one about the suffering in hell is an interesting one to ponder.

Anyway -- once again -- a reasonable reading of Scripture will show descriptive language, poems, word pictures, stories, etc. This does not mean that we should take the historical narratives as non-historical. For certain particular Scriptures, even conservative scholars can disagree on the way to interpret it.

On the other hand -- this does not mean that the Scriptures are so widely open to interpretation that they are worthless. One should diligently seek the Lord and allow His Spirit to guide you into all truth. Once you do that, you will completely and totally agree with me.

 

[Numenor]

I guess the question should also be asked as to why a literal interpretation is the default position. Cultural conditioning is more of a factor than some are willing to accept.

 

[Assyrian]

I always took from reading this passage that it was pretty clearly marked as a vision and a metaphor for the revival of the nation of Israel. But I did once run across a person who believed this army was literally created in the material world.

If we deny the resurrection in Ezek 37 where do we stop..?

Obviously I agree it is a vision, and this has been the traditional interpretation of the passage, but, it doesn't actually say it is a vision.

Ezek 37:1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. Is this any different from what Obadiah thought could literally happen to Elijah 1Kings 18:12 And as soon as I have gone from you, the Spirit of the LORD will carry you I know not where. And so, when I come and tell Ahab and he cannot find you, he will kill me. I don't understand what happened in Acts 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away. But this is certainly interpreted as a literal teleport by most of our YEC friends.

A quick google threw up this gem:

http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_1492212/mpage_4/printable.htm

Gbutler
For instance there is one glaring reference in this scripture to people being ressurrected for this purpose CC, But I have no idea if you even read it, and I highly doubt you believe it, heh
Ezekiel 37: 1-14

...

ccoppenbarger
You think it's literal bones being resurrected?!? Literal people coming back from the dead?!?
It's talking about reviving the nation of Israel to bring them out of captivity back into their land. This happened in order for Jesus to be born.

Gbutler
It means exactly that CC. God said it, I believe him, not some rediculous view from Church dogma

Gbutler apparently believes the event is still in the future.

The point is, it doesn't say vision, it doesn't say figurative, it is simply presented to us as a narrative, complete with waw consecutives.

 

[Assyrian]

I'll take a quick crack at some of these...

Aaagh the computer just ate my reply.

 

[Brennan]

is the spectrum of the stars red shifted on one side of the earth and blue shifted on the other?

Nope. All red-shifted.

 

[gluadys]

It calls the earth "firmly established" -- the key is stability not astronomy. Of course, there are those who interpret the earth as being pretty much at the center of the universe. I don't know -- is the spectrum of the stars red shifted on one side of the earth and blue shifted on the other?

Would biblical writers, lacking telescopes and the equipment to analyze spectra even be aware of any shift at all? Here you are appealing to modern science to influence your interpretation of scripture, yet you object when OECs or TEs do the same in reference to the age of the earth. Why the inconsistency?

As for "established", it does mean, literally or figuratively, to be made stable, which is why we also refer to the establishment of a business as the date of its founding and to those who established it as its founders. Buildings are made stable by setting them on firm foundations, and this is the analogy made in the bible in reference to the earth. e.g. Ps. 102:25, Ps. 104:5. The result of being firmly established or set on firm foundations is that the structure does not move. And this is plainly stated in Ps. 93: 1b and Ps. 96:10b. In both it refers to the world being established so that "it shall never be moved".

It was on the basis of scriptures like these that the church opposed the teaching of Copernicus and Galileo which hypothesized the movement of the earth around the sun. So the theologians of the time did consider that they had astronomical implications.

Again, you reject the astronomical implications through an appeal to modern science, yet object when the same appeal to modern science leads to conclusions about scriptural interpretation which you are not comfortable with. This is inconsistent hermeneutics. How do you tell when an appeal to modern science is legitimate and when it is not? Scripture itself certainly does not tell you.

 

[gluadys]

If we deny the resurrection in Ezek 37 where do we stop..?

Obviously I agree it is a vision, and this has been the traditional interpretation of the passage, but, it doesn't actually say it is a vision.

Ezek 37:1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. Is this any different from what Obadiah thought could literally happen to Elijah 1Kings 18:12 And as soon as I have gone from you, the Spirit of the LORD will carry you I know not where. And so, when I come and tell Ahab and he cannot find you, he will kill me. I don't understand what happened in Acts 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away. But this is certainly interpreted as a literal teleport by most of our YEC friends.

A quick google threw up this gem:

Gbutler apparently believes the event is still in the future.

The point is, it doesn't say vision, it doesn't say figurative, it is simply presented to us as a narrative, complete with waw consecutives.

So, I thought it was an isolated and extreme case. Apparently not. At least not isolated. Still strikes me as extreme.

I don't know Hebrew, so I don't know what a waw consecutive is. But I do oppose the notion that grammar and syntax have any relevance to whether a text is to be interpreted literally or figuratively. Every narrative, whether of an event, a vision, a dream, a parable, etc. will be a narrative and will use the same sort of grammatical constructions. One will find similes, metaphors and analogies even within the most historical of narratives and straightforward, common-sense statements in the most obviously figurative narratives. After all, even a fairy-tale arranges events in a sequential order.

 

[laptoppop]

Nope. All red-shifted.

Interesting. Does that mean all the stars are moving away? i.e. that we *are* at the center of the universe?

 

[grimbly]

Interesting. Does that mean all the stars are moving away? i.e. that we *are* at the center of the universe?

Well no.
First, Andromeda galaxy, a very pretty sight I might add, is blue shifted... They figure in about 2 to 3 billion years we will collide with it. (I can't find reference for 2 BYA figure, so it might be a little off)
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_galaxy

Second, I believe that we can observe our motion through space using the CMB as a reference frame.

The anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) consists of the small temperature fluctuations in the blackbody radiation left over from the Big Bang. The average temperature of this radiation is 2.725 K as measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE satellite. Without any contrast enhancement the CMB sky looks like the upper left panel of the figure below. But there are small temperature fluctuations superimposed on this average. One pattern is a plus or minus 0.00335 K variation with one hot pole and one cold pole: a dipole pattern. A velocity of the observer with respect to the Universe produces a dipole pattern with dT/T = v/c by the Doppler shift. The observed dipole indicates that the Solar System is moving at 368+/-2 km/sec relative to the observable Universe in the direction galactic longitude l=263.85o and latitude b=48.25o with an uncertainty slightly smaller than 0.1o.
good site for astronomy
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

Third, We are at the center of the universe visible to us, which is not the same thing as the center of the universe.

 

[USincognito]

I don't know exactly what happened here. Interestingly, if the sun was "up" longer for the Israelites, one would expect a long night on the other side of the earth and there are legends about that too.

Got any citations of these?

 

[Assyrian]

So, I thought it was an isolated and extreme case. Apparently not. At least not isolated. Still strikes me as extreme.

I don't know Hebrew, so I don't know what a waw consecutive is. But I do oppose the notion that grammar and syntax have any relevance to whether a text is to be interpreted literally or figuratively. Every narrative, whether of an event, a vision, a dream, a parable, etc. will be a narrative and will use the same sort of grammatical constructions. One will find similes, metaphors and analogies even within the most historical of narratives and straightforward, common-sense statements in the most obviously figurative narratives. After all, even a fairy-tale arranges events in a sequential order.

The waw consecutive is cool. It is basically when you have a series of verbs in the imperfect tense with the letter waw (hebrew for 'and') stuck on in front of them. It is a literary style used frequently in Hebrew for narratives. You see it a lot in passages where loads of verses begins And.... Then... And... It is telling you the actions are, well, consecutive.

Now the waw consecutive crops up in YEC sites arguing that Gen 1 is a historical narrative. But as you point out grammar does not tell us if a passage is literal. Narrative is not restricted to the historical. Parables and allegories can be narratives too.

 

[Assyrian]

Interesting. Does that mean all the stars are moving away? i.e. that we *are* at the center of the universe?

I'll give you an analogy. Imagine the view Moses had from Mount Nebo. As he looked at the world, the horizon stretched out in the distance in a wide circle with him at the centre. Was this the centre of the world? Yet if he had climbed Mt Kilimanjaro or Everest he would have seen a similar circular horizon with him in the middle.

If you travelled to a galaxy far far away, you would see the same sort of red shift that we do. A local galaxy moving towards them would be blue shifted, a distant galaxy seen edge on would be more red shifted on one side than the other because of its rotation. But the general trend, in all directions, is the further away the greater red shift.

 

[Deamiter]

Interesting. Does that mean all the stars are moving away? i.e. that we *are* at the center of the universe?

A common analogy is a loaf of raisin bread. As it rises in the oven, it expands and each raisin (like each star) moves away from every other. It's not that any is at the center, it's that the space between them is expanding so from the view of any raisin, all other raisins are moving away (and those further away have more expanding space between them and are thus moving faster)

 

[Assyrian]

I'll take a quick crack at some of these:

Satan is often called a snake or serpent in Scriptures. Commonly used picture language.

It is a commonly used figure that comes up in allegorical passages.

The fact that serpent is used as a figure for Satan or the enemy of God suggests that these writers took the figure from Genesis, interpreting an apparently literal story of a talking snake allegorically.

There is nothing in the Genesis account itself to suggest the snake is anything other than a snake. We are not told this was a fallen angel with serpent metaphors added in to further describe him. No he is straight reptile all the way through the chapter all the way down to the promise that Messiah would crush this snake's head. It only makes sense if the whole story is an allegory.

But if we are going to import figurative usage elsewhere in scripture to interpret the snake, why not import figurative uses of 'day', people being make from clay, or God describing himself as a potter back into the Genesis account?

YECs argue that the use of evening and morning tell us the author want out of his way to specify 'day' as a literal day. The same could be said for the description of the snake crawling on its belly, eating dust, and striking people's heels. But we know the one Jesus defeated on Calvary did not slither, eat dust or actually bite people.

Makes me think of Jesus talking about the rocks singing out... In any case, this is clearly identified as a person telling a story, not a historical recounting.

It is clearly a narrative, but we are not told whether it is a fictional narrative, like a parable, or a historical narrative. The YEC argument is if it doesn't say it is a parable or metaphor we should take the text a face value. Why not here?

Originally Posted by Answers in Veggie tales

Secular science claims that plants can't talk and dismisses the biblical account of talking tree as myth. Yet when scientists actually examined plants rather than relying on naturalistic assumptions they found plants do respond to human speech. Other scientist have shown that lie detectors can hear tomatoes scream when they are injured. Once again science has proved the bible is right and shown the bankruptcy of 'science so called'. If Christians are going to deny the scriptural account of talking plants where will it stop? Do we deny a snake can talk? A donkey?

Will we even deny our Savior the power to make the deaf mute talk? To deny talking trees is to deny the power of God and even call the gospels into question.[/poe]

A bit cheesy but it shows how a literal interpretation of this passage could be defended if people had the same heart felt commitment to it as they have to six day creationism.

It calls the earth "firmly established" -- the key is stability not astronomy. Of course, there are those who interpret the earth as being pretty much at the center of the universe. I don't know -- is the spectrum of the stars red shifted on one side of the earth and blue shifted on the other?

It is not so much the statement the earth is firmly established, but that the earth 'cannot be moved'. Science has shown the earth is in constant motion, rotating around its own axis every day and in a free fall orbit of the sun. While we think of the moon orbiting around the earth, in fact they both orbit around the combined center of gravity. This isn't the center of the earth, but about ¾ of the earth's radius out from the center. In other words the moon drags the earth around in a massive wobble every 29.5 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

Psalm 93:1 says clearly the earth will never be moved. Is there any reason other than modern science not to read this literally?

I talk about the sun rising and setting too.

But do you talk about the sun hurrying around to rise on the other side? Eccles 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. You talk about the sun rising and setting, but these phrases go way back and come to us from a time when everybody simply knew the sun moved around the earth. Again is there any reason other than modern science not to read this passage literally?

I don't know exactly what happened here. Interestingly, if the sun was "up" longer for the Israelites, one would expect a long night on the other side of the earth and there are legends about that too.

I don't think what people in Australia or America saw is the issue. The issue is what the account tells us happened. It says the sun stood still, it stopped. But the sun's motion has nothing to do with the length of our day. That is entirely down to the rotation of the earth. Again as Luther pointer out, is there any reason other than 'that fool Copernicus' not to take this literally?

NASB has 13:5 as "horizon" which is fine. 13:17 doesn't have anything in NASB.

Horizon is a very loose interpretation rather than a translation. It says quite literally in Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens. I think this is significant because one of the YEC arguments for a global flood is that the flood covered all the high hill under the whole heavens Gen 7:19. Yet we see from Isaiah that 'the ends of the heavens' can actually refer to somewhere more, shall we say, local. I also think it helps our understanding of Gen 1 when we realise 'the heavens' does not refer to space stretching out in all directions in a great sphere surrounding the planet, but simply to that bowl of sky above their heads.

Isaiah 13:17 tell us where this distant land was. The people from the end of the heavens were the Medes from around north western Iran.

Anyway -- on and on. A careful reading of Scripture will allow for poetic language, and yes, the first chapter of Genesis is repetitious and poetic. However, just to make sure you don't mistake the "day" as something other than what we normally say, the author goes to pains to identify it with morning and evening -- i.e., normal -- what you always see -- 24 hours.

Like the snake which slithered on its belly and ate dust.

The typical rule used for the parables is that its a story if they don't use particular names, and a more historical truth if they do.

That is not quite so straight forward. Adam itself isn't an actual name but the word for man or mankind. In fact according to Gen 5:2 it is God's name for mankind male and female. The people in Ezekiel 16 have names. The woman is called Jerusalem. Her sisters are Sodom and Samaria. Again in Ezek 23:4 we have the allegory of two sisters Oholah and Oholibah who are actually Samaria and Jerusalem.

The narrative in Judges 9 seems to play fast and loose with names too. My grasp of Hebrew is very basic but it seems to read:
Judges 9:8 The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to Olive, 'Reign over us.' 9 But the olive said to them, 'Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?' 10 And the trees said to Fig , 'You come and reign over us.' 11 But the fig said them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?'

This seems very similar to the way Gen 2&3 switch between adm as a name and ha'adm 'the man'.

The one about the suffering in hell is an interesting one to ponder.

A lot of people take it as a factual account because it mentions names. I would say instead that parables don't usually have names while historical accounts usually do. Then again, historical accounts don't usually feature people chatting with an allegory.

Anyway -- once again -- a reasonable reading of Scripture will show descriptive language, poems, word pictures, stories, etc. This does not mean that we should take the historical narratives as non-historical. For certain particular Scriptures, even conservative scholars can disagree on the way to interpret it.

Again this is assuming the text is a historical narrative which is unlikely when one of the main characters, the snake along with all the physical descriptions of it, is entirely allegorical.

On the other hand -- this does not mean that the Scriptures are so widely open to interpretation that they are worthless. One should diligently seek the Lord and allow His Spirit to guide you into all truth. Once you do that, you will completely and totally agree with me.

I am afraid the nature of these discussions is to polarise our positions. The debate becomes about whether or not we see Genesis as a collection of historical data. But even if it were, it is not the historical facts that are important so much as their implication for us. But once you start looking at that, we are on very similar ground. The lessons of Genesis are crystal clear. God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything in them. God created us, making us in some way like him, to have fellowship with him, but our sin has broken that relationship. God has promised a redeemer to restore our relationship with him.

 

[mark kennedy]

YECs often claim that Gen 1 and 2 must be read literally because we aren't told they are a metaphor. How many other passages in the bible could this logic be applied to? Would anyone like to add to the list? And would YECs like to indicate which ones they don't take literally and why.

(1) The Messiah stepped on a talking snake, Gen 3:1 & 15

This one is spread throughout Scripture, serpent does not allways mean snake. Dan is call a serpent but it doesn't mean he was a reptile.

(2) There were talking trees too, Judges 9:6-15

A text without a context is a pretext and there is an explanation for the parable in the immediate context:

"Now therefore, if you have acted in truth and sincerity in making Abimelech kind, and if you have sealt well with Jerubaal and his house, and have done to him as he deserves..." (Judges 1:16)

If you are reading something figurative it should be readily apparent from the immediate context. No such language or interprutation exists for Adam and Eve or the 6 days of creation.

(3) The earth doesn't move, Psalm 93:1

Once again you have ignored the context that proclaims God's universal kingdom (93:1-4), over the earth (93:1,2), over the heavens (93:3,4). This has nothing to do with astronomy or geology.

"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, [wherewith] he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." (Psalm 93:1)

All it says is that the world (tebel, tay-bale' inhabited world) is established. It has nothing to do with geology or cosmology and the heart of the emphasis is on God which makes this an obvious literary device. Not so with Genesis 1 and 2 that are specifically identified as 'accounts'.

(4) Sun goes round the earth, Eccles 1:5

That is just plain silly, he is talking about the sunrise and sunset.

(5) The sun stopped moving when Joshua told it to, Josh 10:12 & 13.

That's what it says alright and as far as anyone knew that is what happened. The sun and moon were told to stand still and I see no reason not to take this as a literal miracle. The context makes it clear that hailstones killed more of the enemy the Hebrew swords (Josh. 10:11).

I don't dismiss this one, I think it says what it means and happened exactly as it is described. Let me guess, you think it's impossible right?

(6) The skies only stretch as far as Persia, Isaiah 13:5 & 17

That is not what it says, it says from the end of heaven probably indicating the horizon.

(7) Sheba in Arabia is at the ends of the earth, Matt 12:42 and Luke 11:31

The farthest reaches, the Bible also indicates four corners of the earth. I don't even have to look at the context for this one, it's an obvious idiom.

(8) The story of Jerusalem and her sisters, Ezek 16

A common personage not unlike someone saying 'shes a good ship'.

(9) Dry bones turned into an army, Ezek 37

Specifically idenfied the hope of Israel in the immediate context but you allready knew that right? You did read the passage didn't you?

(10) Jesus turned bread into meat, Matt 26:26

That is actually a common belief among Catholics, the bread is Christ. You can't take this one literally unless you want to argue that Jesus thought he was a loaf of bread.

(11) John the baptist was actually Elijah reincarnated, Matt 11:14, 17:10-12 Mark 9:11-13

Not reincarnated, Elijah was taken bodily into heaven which was the beginning of the Prophetic age. The 'spirit' and 'power' of Elijah had come upon the person and work of John. Elisha asked that he get a two-fold measure of Elijah's spirit which was granted if Elisha actually wittnessed Elijah's departure.

Elijah does actually return bodily and prophesies for about half the Tribulation period. There are some extremly supernatural things associated with Elijah, reincarnation is just not one of them.

(12) Any of Jesus' parables in John, the Good Shepherd, (12b) Jesus is a door.

Most parables are prefaced with a 'like' or 'as' and followed by an interprutation. Here Jesus is using Good Shepherd as a title and there is no need since it does not even qualify as a parable.

(13) Stories in the synoptic gospels that aren't labelled parable, such as The Rich man and Lazarus Luke 16,

That's because the Rich man and Lazarus are not parables they are people.

(13b) The Good Samaritan Luke 10.

Again, the good Samaritan was a person who was despised as a half breed. He did God's will while the other pure breed Jews walked by without helping this man.

I don't know if you ever heard of the Stanley Milgram Experiments but there was a version done of the Good Samaritan. Seminary students shortly before graduation were told to hurry across campus to give an improptu speach on the Good Samaritan. On the way, you guessed it, they passed someone on the side of the path who was in need of help. Not one of them stopped.

There is nothing figurative about the message of the Good Samaritan.

(14) What about the parables we are only identified as such by the gospel writers? Should Jesus listeners have taken them literally if Jesus didn't actually say they were parables?

You have to take a serious look at the context and just because something uses figurative language does not mean it is not literal. Something far more important, just because taking a passage literally means God acted in a supernatural way does not mean it's hyperbole, legend or myth. What it means, often times, is that God acts in time and space in accordance with his will and we call these events miracles. It's supernatural from our point of view but for God it's perfectly natural.

 

[laptoppop]

Got any citations of these?

http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/joshld.htm

 

[laptoppop]

A common analogy is a loaf of raisin bread. As it rises in the oven, it expands and each raisin (like each star) moves away from every other. It's not that any is at the center, it's that the space between them is expanding so from the view of any raisin, all other raisins are moving away (and those further away have more expanding space between them and are thus moving faster)

Thanks. For my tired, simple mind this is the one that explained it best to me.

 

[artybloke]

The waw consecutive is cool. It is basically when you have a series of verbs in the imperfect tense with the letter waw (hebrew for 'and') stuck on in front of them. It is a literary style used frequently in Hebrew for narratives. You see it a lot in passages where loads of verses begins And.... Then... And... It is telling you the actions are, well, consecutive.

Well, no, not quite; though it might be different in Hebrew. The connective "and" doesn't necessarily imply consecutive.

If the writer had said "then" rather than "and" it would be consecutive; but if the writer uses "and", then that could as easily mean that everything was happening at the same time, or in a totally random order, as that they're all happening one after the other.

For instance: "the sky is getting dark and the temperature is dropping and there are spots of rain falling from the sky." Is that consecutive or spontaneous?

Using the word "and" as a connective is an example of "parataxis", where phrases are laid down serially, rather than sequentially, with the implication that the reader then makes the connection for him/herself. If a translator turns one of those "and" phrases into a "then" phrase, that is an example of an interpretive translation. The translator assumes a sequence where the original gives you the choice of a sequence, a random sorting or a spontaneous series of events.

This is one of the difficulties of translation: there are always choices to be made, and we make those choices according to the way we think. If we are already inclined to see a sequence, that's what we find.

I don't know if the word "then" actually existed in ancient Hebrew; but the fact that it uses repeated "wah" phrases means that there's part of the text that may or may not be consecutive.

The repeated use of one word at the beginning of a clause is also, incidentally, an example of what ancient Greek rhetoricians would have called "anaphora." It's a form of emphasis used to persuade the listener (and the Bible as a whole was intended to be heard, not read in private) of the force of the argument being put forward. It was not intended to prove that something was "historical" as opposed to "metaphorical" or "poetic."

A consideration which, in any case, would have been as far from the minds of the writers and original hearers as we are from Proxima Centauri.