Could Genesis be literal?

[exquirer]

In II Peter, St. Peter was very pointed when he said we were not to be ignorant of the fact that the world was of old, and a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. And this goes back to Psalm 90 etc.....

Yet the ancient Church Fathers were very pointed in teaching we were to take the days literally.

If a symbol is of that which it symbolizes (the Bible is the Word for example), then this is simple to reconcile. God alone is good, and when God saw all he made it was the Very Good (which means, God Incarnate). Our God is very real, ever present, and fully God - fully man - experiencing creation as man in the Beginning - so liturgically - prayerfully - we experience each day as its own as God experienced each day.

"God became man so man could become like God" - we experience each literal day as its own day of creation, we all die on the 6th day for example, are baptized on the first and second day with the separation of light and the waters (salt from fresh - our tears are our second baptism of repentance), are fasting on the 4th day when Judas sold out Jesus and on and one forever.....

We experience the new creation on the mystical 8th day - the first and the last - the alpha and omega. We go to Church on the mystical 8th day - Sunday - which is the first day of the new creation.

Time for Christians is eternal, relative to the absolute who is our Light - Jesus Christ.

At least, that is how I understand it and it allows me to both believe in "scientific" notions of billions of years and literally believe in creation in literal days - experiencing the latter because as a human being (man) who is limited, in limitation I experience all things through Christ Jesus through whom all things were made that are made.

ex....

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Gluadys is an English teacher. I wouldn't be so quick to reject what she's saying. Consider, if only for a moment, that extending the meaning of "literal" to include "metaphor" is an absolutely ludicrous and ad hoc proposition, designed only to sustain what is obviously becoming a rediculous insistance on reading the Bible "literally".

She needs a bit more root etymon instructions, methinks. Does she really want "literal" to really mean figurative, so that she can decide the intent of YHWH's words, herself, by her own assumptions?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

In II Peter, St. Peter was very pointed when he said we were not to be ignorant of the fact that the world was of old, and a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. And this goes back to Psalm 90 etc.....

Yet the ancient Church Fathers were very pointed in teaching we were to take the days literally.

There were ancient Church "fathers" [so called, but the father does not come after the baby is born] who understood that the days of Genesis 1 were literal numbered days of the creation week, just as Genesis says, and of the same division of one evening [night] and one morning [day] equalling one complete day as is from the beginning of creation.
They who had and studied the prophets who wrote from the beginning also wrote of the cycles within the cycles, of periods of time alloted and divided for this creation.
Enoch wrote of ten weeks of seven hundred years each for this present creation.
As is fully described in the Book of Jasher, YHWH gave Adamkind one hundred twenty years to repent, so that he would not send the flood, in the days of Noah and Methusaleh; who both preached righteousness for the one hundred and twenty years as a sign of the one hundred twenty Jubilee years [fifty years = one Jubilee year], allotted on earth to Adamkind -from that point.
His Word had dual prophetic meanings and fulfillment times, as so much in His Word does have. Prophets have understood and written of that from the beginning.
Earth has one week of seven thousand year days before the melting of the elements and the regeneration of them for the New Beginning, and the 8th Day, which is signed in circumcision on the 8th day given to AbraHAm's seed, to wear in their flesh until Adam is cut off from multiplying forever, and only those who are born again in the Living Spirit [promised to AbraHAm at his name change] of the Second Man inherit the kingdom He ransomed as Adam's only legal Kin who had the power and the will to do the biblical duty of Kinsman, so the inheritance given Adam is not lost.
In Ezekiel 47, the River of Life coming from beneath the threshold of the Temple [and from under the Throne, as a "Head" of the Waters of Life springing from eternity, in Revelation's City of God] is measured by thousand years, called "cubits" in Ezekiel.
After four thousand Cubits -years- the River is so deep a man cannot cross over. The Living Spirit came in flesh of second creation after four thousand "cubits/years ", in flesh, and now whosoever will may enter into that River of Life and drink the Waters and never thirst again.
In a week there is a beginning, a middle, and an end of the week and a last day.

Biblically speaking: in the Week of earth's thousand year days, Jesus came in the "last days" of the week; after the beginning and middle were completed. He is come in these last days of earth's seven days of one thousand years each, and He is returning for that "Last Day", to set up His Millennial Sabbath of Glorious His Peace for that "Last Day", which Day begins with that night of the Great Tribulation and dawns with the return of the "Day Star", Jesus Christ. Job knew that he would be resurrected in his flesh and see His Redeemer at the "last day" [Job 19:25]; just as Mary and Martha also knew that Lazarus would be resurrected in body at the "last day" -which day is ushered in with the resurrection and rapture, then that short "night" of darkness before that Glorius Dawning of that "Last Day", for which all creation yearns.

 

[Mallon]

Does she really want "literal" to really mean figurative, so that she can decide the intent of YHWH's words, herself, by her own assumptions?

Ummm... gluadys is the only one here defending the dictionary definition of literal. Have you even been reading her posts? juvenissun is the one trying to "extend" the meaning of literal to incorporate metaphor.

 

[exquirer]

The Fathers are so-called - because they are self emptied. Knowledge puffs up, love builds up. They are Fathers because the Father and Son make a home in them - and as they are containers of the uncontainable God.....

The point of Riemann and Einstein is that the literal truth can coexist with relativistic (relative to the absolute) in unconfused union in a mathematical sense and physical sense. Literal - it is no longer a metaphor - symbol is literal truth even in man's fallen science....

I can literally believe in 8000 years from Adam for the second coming, literally believe in the creation that is of Old (the Cosmos is of Old), and literally believe in them being numbered without having to get into heavy duty literal accounting.

For instance, am I to keep track of 70x7 or 70x70 times for forgiveness?

I'll take 7 as literal and give it a rest! an eternal rest!

We should plant ourselves in the third day in humility - worshipping the undivided trinity, and thanking God for the birds of heaven that make their habitations in the branches.

Peace,

ex.....

 

[juvenissun]

The way you "extend the meaning" goes far outside the bounds of even metaphorical language. Real symbolism has to be more rooted in the literal meaning than your "extended literal" interpretations.

OK, I understand you now.

Your recognition of "literal" is too narrow to me.
My recognition of "literal" is much more restricted than metaphoric.
So, if we take the meaning of your "literal", then until someone suggested a new term for my "literal", there would never be an agreement. As for me, due to the lack of better term to use, I will then use the next best one, which is: literal.

Simply remember a good example on this argument: I take "cloud" as a literal meaning of "water". But you don't think so.

 

[juvenissun]

Ummm... gluadys is the only one here defending the dictionary definition of literal. Have you even been reading her posts? juvenissun is the one trying to "extend" the meaning of literal to incorporate metaphor.

No. That is what I against.

Well, it is a mess. It is all the fault of linquist. They did not do a good job.

 

[Mallon]

No. That is what I against.

Right:

Simple, while I could not limit the interpretation of Scripture to only use the narrow definition of literal, I do not like to see it be interpreted metaphorically either. I want to extend the meaning of "literal"...

So, how about the "literal" means: the primary meaning of the word plus meanings related to the word on scientific basis.

Well, it is a mess. It is all the fault of linquist. They did not do a good job.

What in the world is a "linquist"?

 

[exquirer]

Semantics can be tough - but all language is symbol and all symbols are of that which they are symbols of in ancient thought.

For example, I can teach Pi by using symbols and numbers, or I can old my finger on the diameter of a cut out circle, and then circumscribe the circle and feel the symbol.

The symbol is of that which it is a symbol of.

ex...

 

[gluadys]

I think she is confused on the meanings of figurative and literal. She wants literal words to really have a figurative meaning, in the Bible, I think?

No, that's juvenissen. Literally water means water and pillars mean pillars.

But juvenissen wants water to mean not only water but cloud,steam, vapour, ice, fluid, bucket, plasma and all sorts of other things AND he still wants to say that these are all "literal" meanings of "water".


And he wants pillars to mean not only pillars but winds, supports, needles and chopsticks AND he still wants to say that these are all "literal" meanings of "pillars".

Why not be honest and admit that these are all potentially figurative meanings, but the literal meaning of water is water and the literal meaning of pillar is pillar.

Otherwise it is meaningless to speak of any interpretation being literal at all.

 

[juvenissun]

Right:




What in the world is a "linquist"?

Sorry, that is a metaphor of linguist.

 

[gluadys]

In II Peter, St. Peter was very pointed when he said we were not to be ignorant of the fact that the world was of old, and a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. And this goes back to Psalm 90 etc.....

Yet the ancient Church Fathers were very pointed in teaching we were to take the days literally.

If a symbol is of that which it symbolizes (the Bible is the Word for example), then this is simple to reconcile. God alone is good, and when God saw all he made it was the Very Good (which means, God Incarnate). Our God is very real, ever present, and fully God - fully man - experiencing creation as man in the Beginning - so liturgically - prayerfully - we experience each day as its own as God experienced each day.

"God became man so man could become like God" - we experience each literal day as its own day of creation, we all die on the 6th day for example, are baptized on the first and second day with the separation of light and the waters (salt from fresh - our tears are our second baptism of repentance), are fasting on the 4th day when Judas sold out Jesus and on and one forever.....

We experience the new creation on the mystical 8th day - the first and the last - the alpha and omega. We go to Church on the mystical 8th day - Sunday - which is the first day of the new creation.

Time for Christians is eternal, relative to the absolute who is our Light - Jesus Christ.

At least, that is how I understand it and it allows me to both believe in "scientific" notions of billions of years and literally believe in creation in literal days - experiencing the latter because as a human being (man) who is limited, in limitation I experience all things through Christ Jesus through whom all things were made that are made.

ex....

I like the interpretation, but calling it "literal" makes no sense to me.

Do you know the difference between denotation and connotation?

I get the impression you are imparting to the term "literal" a connotation of "true" or "real". And it is this connotation that is more important than the actual literal meaning.

 

[gluadys]

She needs a bit more root etymon instructions, methinks. Does she really want "literal" to really mean figurative, so that she can decide the intent of YHWH's words, herself, by her own assumptions?

No, I want the word "literal" to really mean "literal" and not the fanciful non-literal interpretations so many self-proclaimed literalists want to bring in under the umbrella of "literal meaning".

Ironically, in the hands of self-proclaimed literalists, the word "literal" has been emptied of meaning. It no longer means what is plainly written, but whatever the interpreter's fancy claims it means.

 

[juvenissun]

No, that's juvenissen. Literally water means water and pillars mean pillars.

But juvenissen wants water to mean not only water but cloud,steam, vapour, ice, fluid, bucket, plasma and all sorts of other things AND he still wants to say that these are all "literal" meanings of "water".


And he wants pillars to mean not only pillars but winds, supports, needles and chopsticks AND he still wants to say that these are all "literal" meanings of "pillars".

Why not be honest and admit that these are all potentially figurative meanings, but the literal meaning of water is water and the literal meaning of pillar is pillar.

Otherwise it is meaningless to speak of any interpretation being literal at all.

I did modify the meaning of literal. You do not accept it. What can I do? In science, a new term would be figured out in a convention. I guess, in this case, it is the responsibility of you literalist.

How about "extended-literal"? Which is much more conservative than metaphor, parable or allegory.

In other words, I want one word, which justifies the way of interpretation, so the word "water" would also mean ice AND vapor. What would be that ONE word? If you say that there is no such word, then make up one. I do not accept metaphor, parable or allegory because they could give more meanings than what I want.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

No, I want the word "literal" to really mean "literal" and not the fanciful non-literal interpretations so many self-proclaimed literalists want to bring in under the umbrella of "literal meaning".

Ironically, in the hands of self-proclaimed literalists, the word "literal" has been emptied of meaning. It no longer means what is plainly written, but whatever the interpreter's fancy claims it means.

I am a biblical literalist. That means that when God states cold hard facts, straightforwardly, I believe His cold hard facts straightforwardly, without trying to get meanings out of them other than what He specifically stated.
Etymon is from the Hebrew word emet/truth, and all root etymons of all words were given by God, in the beginning, to Adam, and are the firm foundation for all the cognates grown out of or descended from that one root.

I also know that God's Word -teachings of wisdom- has double meanings, and that behind the obvious there is a stronger truth that many people have no interest in "threshing" the grain of the Word to find, and miss the pearls hidden in the doubling.
Job's friend accused him of missing the doubling secrets of wisdom -but Job knew more than his friend, after all.
Job 11:6 And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that [they are] double to that which is!

So what is the problem with the pillars of fire, wind, smoke, clouds, salt and invisible forces being literally pillars of fire, wind, smoke, clouds, salt, and invisible forces. God's Word is a stay, a pillar for us to trust in, even, and we are each individual "pillars" in His heavenly temple, that He is building for the Glory to indwell.

pillar is to set, to put, to place -to be set, to be put, to be placed. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5324&t=KJV

So the elements that God "sets, puts or places" for any purpose can be whatever He uses to set, put, or place.

 

[juvenissun]

I also know that God's Word -teachings of wisdom- has double meanings, and that behind the obvious there is a stronger truth that many people have no interest in "threshing" the grain of the Word to find, and miss the pearls hidden in the doubling.
Job's friend accused him of missing the doubling secrets of wisdom -but Job knew more than his friend, after all.
Job 11:6 And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that [they are] double to that which is!

So what is the problem with the pillars of fire, wind, smoke, clouds, salt and invisible forces being literally pillars of fire, wind, smoke, clouds, salt, and invisible forces. God's Word is a stay, a pillar for us to trust in, even, and we are each individual "pillars" in His heavenly temple, that He is building for the Glory to indwell.

pillar is to set, to put, to place -to be set, to be put, to be placed. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5324&t=KJV

So the elements that God "sets, puts or places" for any purpose can be whatever He uses to set, put, or place.

 

[gluadys]

I also know that God's Word -teachings of wisdom- has double meanings, and that behind the obvious there is a stronger truth that many people have no interest in "threshing" the grain of the Word to find, and miss the pearls hidden in the doubling.
Job's friend accused him of missing the doubling secrets of wisdom -but Job knew more than his friend, after all.
Job 11:6 And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that [they are] double to that which is!

Double meanings exist. But a double meaning, by definition, is not a literal meaning. Not unless you change the meaning of "literal". The whole purpose of a double meaning is to take us beyond the literal meaning into a deeper truth.

So what is the problem with the pillars of fire, wind, smoke, clouds, salt and invisible forces being literally pillars of fire, wind, smoke, clouds, salt, and invisible forces. God's Word is a stay, a pillar for us to trust in, even, and we are each individual "pillars" in His heavenly temple, that He is building for the Glory to indwell.

Nothing wrong with them at all, as long as you recognize that these are all metaphors. I never said there is anything wrong with metaphor. It seems to me that it is self-proclaimed literalists who are suspicious of metaphor.

So you end up wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want to use all the metaphorical meanings implicit in scripture, but you don't want to acknowledge that you are eek: using metaphor). You want to label your metaphorical uses literal uses because, for some reason, that makes it ok to use metaphor.

Why isn't it ok to dig into the metaphorical meanings of scripture without the cloak of pseudo-literalism? That's what I want to know.

 

[juvenissun]

Double meanings exist. But a double meaning, by definition, is not a literal meaning. Not unless you change the meaning of "literal". The whole purpose of a double meaning is to take us beyond the literal meaning into a deeper truth.



Nothing wrong with them at all, as long as you recognize that these are all metaphors. I never said there is anything wrong with metaphor. It seems to me that it is self-proclaimed literalists who are suspicious of metaphor.

So you end up wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want to use all the metaphorical meanings implicit in scripture, but you don't want to acknowledge that you are eek: using metaphor). You want to label your metaphorical uses literal uses because, for some reason, that makes it ok to use metaphor.

Why isn't it ok to dig into the metaphorical meanings of scripture without the cloak of pseudo-literalism? That's what I want to know.

I think it is a good question. This is my answer:

I want to interpret the word with a meaning which is scientifically true. Many meanings given by metaphor are not qualified to this condition.

For example: to interpret "water" as "ice" is scientifically very true (98% accurate, e.g.). But to interpret "water" as "flower" would only be (about) 15% true in science. Nearly every word could be a metaphor of water (e.g. force, red, etc.), but only a few limited ones would keep a high percentage of scientific accuracy.

"Pseudo-literal" is an alternative. But I don't like it. There is nothing "pseudo" about. As I explained, the alternative meanings have high percentage of scientific accuracy.

 

[gluadys]

I think it is a good question. This is my answer:

I want to interpret the word with a meaning which is scientifically true. Many meanings given by metaphor are not qualified to this condition.

For example: to interpret "water" as "ice" is scientifically very true (98% accurate, e.g.). But to interpret "water" as "flower" would only be (about) 15% true in science. Nearly every word could be a metaphor of water (e.g. force, red, etc.), but only a few limited ones would keep a high percentage of scientific accuracy.

"Pseudo-literal" is an alternative. But I don't like it. There is nothing "pseudo" about. As I explained, the alternative meanings have high percentage of scientific accuracy.

What does scientific accuracy have to do with literal meaning? "Literal" doesn't mean "accurate" scientifically or otherwise.

For example, it is not scientifically accurate to call a crawfish a crawfish, because it is not literally a fish. Yet it is literally a crawfish.

For that matter an atom is not literally an atom, for when Democritus coined the term, he meant it to refer to the smallest possible particle, one which could not be divided into anything smaller. But we have a scientifically accurate definition of atom even though we divide it into subatomic particles.

 

[Mallon]

To juvenissun and yeshuasaved me: you both really ought to read about scientism and positivism, because it strikes me that you both unwittingly subscribe to these philosophies, emphasizing scientific verifiability as you do. It's a dangerous road that ultimately leads to atheism.