juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 No scientist uses an outdated definition.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Truth =verityTo 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.
Jesus' parables are shadows of real truths.But it doesn't necessarily = fact.
As Jesus' parables show. Or was he lying too?
Jesus' parables are shadows of real truths.
Jesus' parables are shadows of real truths.
I would argue that truth = fact, but not necessarily 'scientifically-verifiable fact', as yeshuasavedme or juvenissun would.But it doesn't necessarily = fact.
No - really I don't know the difference between denotation and connotation.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.
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.
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".
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".
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
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.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.
yeshuasavedme said:gluadys said: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".
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
OK, I will quiz you to see when would you call cut:
Yes.Could both "river water" and "sea water" be the correct literal meaning of water?
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?)
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?)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?