Could Genesis be literal?

[juvenissun]

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.

I don't know how to explain this. But to your example, the literal meaning of "fish" includes "all creatures live in water", include shrimp, crab, worm, etc. The scientific link is: they all breath in water. Whale is also a fish, because it moves the same as fish. So if I said a shrimp is a fish, it is not a metaphor.

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.

Your science has a historical burden. Mine has not. Atom to me is NOT the smallest particle. No scientist uses an outdated definition.

Link the literalism to science is very important in understanding.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Thanks for your concern. I don't think what you said would happen.
When science conflicted the Scripture, the Scripture always wins. That is how we read Gen 1: NOT METAPHORS.

 

[Mallon]

That is how we read Gen 1: NOT METAPHORS.

Of course that's how you read Gen 1, because you've given yourself no other option by outright rejecting non-literal interpretations from the outset. You apparently value literalism and scientism more than the Bible itself.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course that's how you read Gen 1, because you've given yourself no other option by outright rejecting non-literal interpretations from the outset. You apparently value literalism and scientism more than the Bible itself.

Not true. In fact, under the assumption that you are a faithful Christian, I probably will gladly accept your interpretations to, e.g. Gen 1, on the non-scientific aspects or meanings (i.e. metaphors). What I am insisting is that Gen 1 is also scientifically correct, by the so-called "literal" interpretation.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know how to explain this. But to your example, the literal meaning of "fish" includes "all creatures live in water", include shrimp, crab, worm, etc. The scientific link is: they all breath in water. Whale is also a fish, because it moves the same as fish. So if I said a shrimp is a fish, it is not a metaphor.

It's not scientifically accurate either. Shrimp are crustacean invertebrates, not fish. So your "literal" = "scientifically accurate" has been tossed out the window. And whales do NOT breath in water. They breath air the same as any other mammal. Cut off from air, whales will drown in water the same as you and me.

Your science has a historical burden. Mine has not. Atom to me is NOT the smallest particle. No scientist uses an outdated definition.

I agree. No scientist uses the word atom in that way any more. The meaning of the word has been changed.

Link the literalism to science is very important in understanding.

Why? People get along fairly well with standard common sense meanings--except when they try to be scientifically accurate. That is why science defines words with more precision than is needed for ordinary conversation. (Rather like the legal profession, which also needs tight precision in its definitions, so that words no longer have the basic meaning understood by the majority of the population.)

What I am insisting is that Gen 1 is also scientifically correct, by the so-called "literal" interpretation.

Only when you distort the meaning of "literal" to force-fit your science into it.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

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.

Truth =verity
Jesus Christ is the Truth. What He said is true. What men deny about what He said is a lie. And believing the liar, they are then sons of that liar, who was a liar from the beginning and who decieved Eve to doubt God's Word was true. -And we all suffer the truth of God's Word proven the day the head of our race fell, in that we are born in the same Adam spirit, as fallen, dead in spirit, shamed, and former sons of God -which is why we must be born again, of the Water =the Living Spirit/Christ, and the Spirit =the Words He speaks.

 

[artybloke]

Truth =verity

But it doesn't necessarily = fact.

As Jesus' parables show. Or was he lying too?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

But it doesn't necessarily = fact.

As Jesus' parables show. Or was he lying too?

Jesus' parables are shadows of real truths.
An example of a similie from the Word: Adam is made in the image of the Person of YHWH the Word, who is the Tselem, Similitude of YHWH. Adam is not YHWH, but is made in the likeness/image, of YHWH. The reality of the answer to a parable, or similie, is stronger than the shadow of it seen in the parable, or similie.

from the entry from Mozeson's dictionary on parable, taking up the entry part way through:


...Reverse to a liquid-nasal-fricative (SML --> RMZ) to get
ReMeZ (hint, indication). A #1-#2 letter flip of SML reveals MaS(H)aL (parable, allegory, comparison, metaphor, SIMILE). MoaSHeL is resemblance. An SM likeness term is S(H)aiM (name, fame association), as a name is "as one" with the thing it names. A $iMLOAN (yoke), like a SIMILE, yokes two things together of a peculiar ZahN (sort, kind). ZahN in Aramaic means "same," according to the Lexicon. For frictive-nasal synonyms and antonyms of sameness, see “SIN.”

BRANCHES: An antonym for the SM sub-root of SAMENESS is SHOANeH (different) - see "CHANGE." Some cognates of SAME not mentioned earlier include: ANOMALOUS, ASSIMILATE, ENSEMBLE, HAMADRYAD, HAPLOID, HENOTHEISM, HOMEO-, HOMO-, [but note K’iIMOA (like)] HOMILY, SAMSARA, SANSKRIT, SEEMLY, SIMPLE, SINGLE (Latin from semel), SIMPLICITY and SOVIET. To the AHD's list add SYMPTON and scores of SYM- and SYN- words; Greek syn means "with' see "SYNOD." SHAM and SHAMANISM relate here as well. No creature is more SIMILAR to man than the SIMIAN; Latin simia means "ape." Perhaps the SENSES, like SMELL, stimulate associative SIMULATIONS, and we should be SENTIENT of relatives in the SM families of SEEMING and SIMILARITY. $eMeL (likenes) undergoes a M213 metathess in Hungarian masolat (copy) .
See global forms of SM likeness (name) at “SEMANTICS.”
In Chinese, zhen is a symptom and su miao is a drawing. Name in Chinese is xing, while in Cantonese a surname is sing.
A signed name or one’s title is shomei in Japanese. A SYMBOLIC pennant or flag for the Japanese Shinto is a nusa. Ne$, ENSIGN or flag in Aramaic and Syriac and Psalms 60:6, reverses our fricative-nasal theme of likenesses. Sammilita is to ASSIMILATE in Hindi.

 

[artybloke]

Jesus' parables are shadows of real truths.

And there it is in a nutshell: scientism. The atheistic idea that truth only equals what can be proved. That somehow there is "real truth" which is "factual" and "shadow truth" which is not as good.

The parables of Jesus reveal truth through story; so do the Genesis creation myths.

 

[artybloke]

Jesus' parables are shadows of real truths.

And there it is in a nutshell: scientism. The atheistic idea that truth only equals what can be proved. That somehow there is "real truth" which is "factual" and "shadow truth" which is not as good.

The parables of Jesus reveal truth through story; so do the Genesis creation myths.

 

[Mallon]

But it doesn't necessarily = fact.

I would argue that truth = fact, but not necessarily 'scientifically-verifiable fact', as yeshuasavedme or juvenissun would.
I'm with you on the scientism thing, though. That much is obvious.

 

[exquirer]

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.

No - really I don't know the difference between denotation and connotation.

But - while ignorant - I don't think the English semantics are relevant compared to the ancient Eastern thought in which semantics over the ages can twist and turn precise meanings.

As a physics type - I literally believe formulas that are symbols that have meaning in models of reality and describe reality and make predictions about reality to some precision.

As a religious - I literally believe formulas of the Word - in Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, in Prayers, in Saints, in all things beautiful created by God (from whom is every good and perfect gift) - and I can see as man or understand as man literally - experientially in a seven day creation while "knowing" (knowledge puffs up - the experience of love builds up) in those days as being representative (like words typed on a speaking stone - a computer which is literally silicon that can speak - just hook up the speakers).

The letters are symbols that compose words that have literal meaning, and I experience them as I read them and picture them in my mind - associating them with reality. They become part of the totality of experience associated with what they describe - like the Word in the Bible - its like one remembers when Jesus said this or did that - so the Word becomes book and dwells among us as book - and the Word becomes flesh, and we are bid to handle him for he is meek and lowly...... and these are all wonderful mysteries.

ex....

 

[juvenissun]

Only when you distort the meaning of "literal" to force-fit your science into it.

OK, I will quiz you to see when would you call cut:

Could both "river water" and "sea water" be the correct literal meaning of water? So when I say water, it could mean either or both.

So you can see where am I leading to. Do we have to build the scientific nature of water into its literal meaning? If not, then water could literally mean many different natures of water. If this is the case, then you lose the point of your argument.

The question is not if I am forcing science into the word. But what if I like to understand the word on its scientific meaning? So, when I ask: what kind of water? Could one of the answers be: gaseous water? Is it still literal? Why not?

I can imagine that your last defense would be: "the literal meaning of water has no scientific connotation in it". As a science teacher, I absolutely do not agree with that.

 

[gluadys]

OK, I will quiz you to see when would you call cut:

Could both "river water" and "sea water" be the correct literal meaning of water?

Yes.

So, when I ask: what kind of water? Could one of the answers be: gaseous water? Is it still literal? Why not?

No. Because if you point to the "gaseous water" rising from a pot of boiling water and ask someone what it is, they will answer "steam". Similarly, if you hand a person a piece of solid water and ask what it is they will answer "ice". And if you ask them why they didn't call these things "water" they will say it is because "water is a liquid".

Now, they will agree that steam (and vapour) and ice are H20 (i.e. water molecules) in a different state than liquid water and that all are convertible into each other. But this is where the basic, literal meaning of "water" differs from the scientific meaning. The scientific meaning--which refers to the chemical molecule no matter which state it is in--is not the literal meaning. Normally, we do not understand a reference to "water" to mean steam/vapour or ice.

I can imagine that your last defense would be: "the literal meaning of water has no scientific connotation in it". As a science teacher, I absolutely do not agree with that.

Insofar as liquid water is also a scientific concept, it would be wrong to say water has NO scientific connotation. But, unless one is referring to molecular structure, "water" does not have the connotation of H20 other than in its liquid state.

On this basis, I would say that no biblical reference to water can literally refer to anything other than water in its liquid state. This doesn't mean that ancient peoples were unaware of the effect of heat and cold on water, but that when water was not in its liquid state, they used terms like mist, vapour, cloud to refer to its gaseous state and ice, snow, hail to refer to its solid state.

If it is dubious exegesis to expand the literal meaning of "water" even to include steam or ice, even less can it be expanded in all the other directions you would take it. If, for example, "water" could mean "anything that contains water" it could mean anything from a tin bucket to the human body. One may as well not have any meaning for the word at all. Nor any meaning for "literal".

Words are pretty elastic as any poet or dictionary can tell you. But that elasticity has limits and the very meaning of "literal" is to set strict limits on that elasticity.

You want to turn the very meaning of "literal" inside out so that you have the freedom of a poet to use words in a broad range of metaphor--yet, unlike a poet who knows s/he is using metaphor and glorying in it--you want the right to still call your metaphors "literal".

 

[gluadys]

OK, I will quiz you to see when would you call cut:

Could both "river water" and "sea water" be the correct literal meaning of water?

Yes.

So, when I ask: what kind of water? Could one of the answers be: gaseous water? Is it still literal? Why not?

No. Because if you point to the "gaseous water" rising from a pot of boiling water and ask someone what it is, they will answer "steam". Similarly, if you hand a person a piece of solid water and ask what it is they will answer "ice". And if you ask them why they didn't call these things "water" they will say it is because "water is a liquid".

Now, they will agree that steam (and vapour) and ice are H20 (i.e. water molecules) in a different state than liquid water and that all are convertible into each other. But this is where the basic, literal meaning of "water" differs from the scientific meaning. The scientific meaning--which refers to the chemical molecule no matter which state it is in--is not the literal meaning. Normally, we do not understand a reference to "water" to mean steam/vapour or ice.

I can imagine that your last defense would be: "the literal meaning of water has no scientific connotation in it". As a science teacher, I absolutely do not agree with that.

Insofar as liquid water is also a scientific concept, it would be wrong to say water has NO scientific connotation. But, unless one is referring to molecular structure, "water" does not have the connotation of H20 other than in its liquid state.

On this basis, I would say that no biblical reference to water can literally refer to anything other than water in its liquid state. This doesn't mean that ancient peoples were unaware of the effect of heat and cold on water, but that when water was not in its liquid state, they used terms like mist, vapour, cloud to refer to its gaseous state and ice, snow, hail to refer to its solid state.

If it is dubious exegesis to expand the literal meaning of "water" even to include steam or ice, even less can it be expanded in all the other directions you would take it. If, for example, "water" could mean "anything that contains water" it could mean anything from a tin bucket to the human body. One may as well not have any meaning for the word at all. Nor any meaning for "literal".

Words are pretty elastic as any poet or dictionary can tell you. But that elasticity has limits and the very meaning of "literal" is to set strict limits on that elasticity.

You want to turn the very meaning of "literal" inside out so that you have the freedom of a poet to use words in a broad range of metaphor--yet, unlike a poet who knows s/he is using metaphor and glorying in it--you want the right to still call your metaphors "literal".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

No. Because if you point to the "gaseous water" rising from a pot of boiling water and ask someone what it is, they will answer "steam".

Similarly, if you hand a person a piece of solid water and ask what it is they will answer "ice". And if you ask them why they didn't call these things "water" they will say it is because "water is a liquid".
God's Word calls the waters thickened like stone, and the face of the deep/abyss/[water of heaven above, I believe] "frozen".
Now, they will agree that steam (and vapour) and ice are H20 (i.e. water molecules) in a different state than liquid water and that all are convertible into each other. But this is where the basic, literal meaning of "water" differs from the scientific meaning. The scientific meaning--which refers to the chemical molecule no matter which state it is in--is not the literal meaning. Normally, we do not understand a reference to "water" to mean steam/vapour or ice.
God's Word describes the hydrologic cycle and calls water "vapor". It's still water, no matter how small it is distilled.

Job 36:27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
Job 36:28 Which the clouds do drop [and] distil upon man abundantly.

In Job 38:28, the meaning is not negative, but is that the rain is the father of the dew. -Like father, like son? http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Job&c=38&v=30&t=KJV#conc/28
The waters are hid in stone, and the face of the deep/abyss, is frozen.

Job 38:30

 

[yeshuasavedme]

And there it is in a nutshell: scientism. The atheistic idea that truth only equals what can be proved. That somehow there is "real truth" which is "factual" and "shadow truth" which is not as good.

The parables of Jesus reveal truth through story; so do the Genesis creation myths.

The parables of Jesus are similies of what is true, which His own are given to understand by "revelation" [as He said]. But the Genesis record of Creation is true fact and not similies, and needs no "revelation" to "see"; but Adam is made as a similie of YHWH in the Person of the Word. -Adam is not the Person of the Word, but is the a "tupos", the image, the similie, of Him who was to come [Romans 5:14] and who was and is, the Similitude, Himself, of the Unseen YHWH.

Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.....

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

 

[gluadys]

No. Because if you point to the "gaseous water" rising from a pot of boiling water and ask someone what it is, they will answer "steam".

Similarly, if you hand a person a piece of solid water and ask what it is they will answer "ice". And if you ask them why they didn't call these things "water" they will say it is because "water is a liquid".

God's Word calls the waters thickened like stone, and the face of the deep/abyss/[water of heaven above, I believe] "frozen".

I think the scripture usually associates "abyss" with the waters below and specifies when it means waters above. But I wouldn't argue that point.

God's Word describes the hydrologic cycle and calls water "vapor". It's still water, no matter how small it is distilled.

Job 36:27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
Job 36:28 Which the clouds do drop [and] distil upon man abundantly.

In Job 38:28, the meaning is not negative, but is that the rain is the father of the dew. -Like father, like son? http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Job&c=38&v=30&t=KJV#conc/28
The waters are hid in stone, and the face of the deep/abyss, is frozen.

Job 38:30

"Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?"


I don’t know Hebrew and I will not comment on the possible nuances of the original language.

But assuming that this is a correct and approximately literal (word-for-word) translation, the implication of these rhetorical questions is either that no-one has fathered/begotten rain or dew or that God is the father of the rain and the begetter of the dew.

It is not that the rain is the father of the dew (which is incorrect in any case, since dew is a condensation of water vapour, not drops of rainwater.)


"The waters are hid as [with] a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen."

Here the translators have included the preposition [with]. I assume the Hebrew preposition has several meanings or is merely implied. In any case it does not appear to be saying that the water itself is solid, but is using a metaphor to describe the solidity which hides it. The parallel line again does not say that the waters of the deep are frozen, but that the face of the deep is frozen: consistent with the formation of ice on the top of a body of water.

I would really like to hear Vossler weigh in on this.

I think this is a case where the literal meaning is quite plain and simple. God gives us rain and dew, ice, snow, hoarfrost and all the other meterological phenomena, and each should be understood literally as it is named.

To wrest it into a science lesson on the hydrological cycle or the comparative density of ice and water is to remove it from its natural context.

In this situation a non-literalist like myself wonders why literalists are so insistent on a non-literal interpretation.

And what is even more puzzling is why they still want these meanings recognized as "literal"?

There is no logic in this.

I can only shake my head in wonder at how self-proclaimed literalists can accept such broad deviation from the literal meaning and still try to play the fear card about the so-called "danger" of allegorical interpretation.

We are told by those who defend a literal interpretation that to move away from that basis is to allow scripture to mean anything the interpreter wants it to mean.

Then when we actually look at the proposed interpretations of literalists we find that their "literalism" allows scripture to mean anything the intepreter wants it to mean.

This is sheer hypocrisy.

 

[juvenissun]

OK, I will quiz you to see when would you call cut:

Could both "river water" and "sea water" be the correct literal meaning of water?

Yes.

So, when I ask: what kind of water? Could one of the answers be: gaseous water? Is it still literal? Why not?

No. Because if you point to the "gaseous water" rising from a pot of boiling water and ask someone what it is, they will answer "steam". Similarly, if you hand a person a piece of solid water and ask what it is they will answer "ice". And if you ask them why they didn't call these things "water" they will say it is because "water is a liquid".

OK, liquid water. Could "clear soup" be literally described as water (drink the soup = drink the water = drink the solution)? Is heavy water a literal meaning of water? Is brine a literal meaning of water? If a river water is murky, could the clay-laden water still be literally described as water? etc. etc.

The meaning of these questions is: if there are 10 jars of liquid water, but have different impurities mixed in each of them (may be colors), could we say that all these 10 jars hold "water" on its literal sense?

I guess you would say "yes".

OK, when I look at these 10 jars. I "want" to tell the difference between water in one jar from that in another jar. So I say: this jar of water is different from that jar of water, etc. Am I distorting the literal meaning of water?

(Reminder: could the "wind" described by Job be different from the "wind" described by David? If I say this wind is not that wind, am I using a metaphor? or could I still be literal?)

 

[gluadys]

OK, liquid water. Could "clear soup" be literally described as water (drink the soup = drink the water = drink the solution)? Is heavy water a literal meaning of water? Is brine a literal meaning of water? If a river water is murky, could the clay-laden water still be literally described as water? etc. etc.

The meaning of these questions is: if there are 10 jars of liquid water, but have different impurities mixed in each of them (may be colors), could we say that all these 10 jars hold "water" on its literal sense?

I guess you would say "yes".

OK, when I look at these 10 jars. I "want" to tell the difference between water in one jar from that in another jar. So I say: this jar of water is different from that jar of water, etc. Am I distorting the literal meaning of water?

(Reminder: could the "wind" described by Job be different from the "wind" described by David? If I say this wind is not that wind, am I using a metaphor? or could I still be literal?)

One thing you need to remember is context. A metaphor or other figure of speech always has a context.

You cannot just take two words and say one is a literal or a metaphorical use of the other. You have to look at how it is used in the sentence, in the paragraph, in the text as a whole.

Generally speaking most things can be sub-divided into categories. As you say water is water whether it is river water or ocean water, distilled water, bath water or rain water, etc.

Water is water even when something is added to it like salt or silt. Sometimes we have a special word for one of these categories (e.g. "brine" for salt water).

It gets a little more dicey when water is an ingredient or an element of composition in something. Water is an ingredient in soup, even when it is 90%+ of the soup--as with a clear broth. But one would hardly say that a thick pea soup is water even though it has water in it.

(But metaphorically "pea soup" can mean a thick fog--which is another form of water.)

So it would be better to say that "broth" means a watery soup than to say it literally means water. But of course, the water in the soup is literally water.

In practice, it would sometimes be difficult to distinguish between salty water and a thin broth.