Could Genesis be literal?

[gluadys]

Incredibly confusing.

If you give me two random words, I am trying to tie them together one way or another. I would have no way to be sure whether the relationship between them is parable, allegory or metaphor.

That would depend on how you (or the author) tied them together. It is the context which tells you which figure of speech you are dealing with. (You learned this once in English class--you've just forgotten. You probably passed a test about it when you were about 12, so it's not really difficult.)

For the worse, the relationship between these two exact words may change depends on how do you link them together.

Exactly. The speaker or writer chooses how to link them.

Take the word "leaven" (yeast) for example. Jesus compares the kingdom of God to leaven mixed into flour which leavens the whole loaf. A positive symbol.

But on another occasion he tells the disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And Paul tells the Corinthians to "purge out the old leaven" A negative symbol using the same word.

For example, snow and sun:

1. both are bright
2. both are "pure"
3. both come down from sky
4. both are necessities for life (snow means water in polar area)
5. snow melt --> sun down
6. vapor condensed into snow --> space dust condensed into star
7. ...

These are reasons why you might be able to make a figure of speech based on this comparison. But if you are using a symbol that is not ready-made, then you have to take time to explain it. So you wouldn't just say "The sun is a snowflake" Or compose a parable in which a snowflake stands for the sun. Because that would not be understood. So you would have to say something along the line of "The snow shone with the brightness of the sun under the cloudless sky." Then people understand that the characteristic you are comparing is brightness.

In order to separate them apart, these three terms must be defined logically. So is for the term "literal".

You mean the figures of speech? They are. Look up the definitions.

simile
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/simileterm.htm
metaphor
http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/metaphorterm.htm
allegory
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/allegory.html
parable
http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/parableterm.htm


btw--how do you define "literal"?

 

[juvenissun]

simile
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/simileterm.htm
metaphor
http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/metaphorterm.htm
allegory
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/allegory.html
parable
http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/parableterm.htm


btw--how do you define "literal"?

I don't know. Literality could be the same thing as allegory, parable or metaphor. It could take some explanations. For example, the literal meaning of "water" could be: 1. liquid water; 2. solid or gaseous water; 3. fluid (liquid or gas); 4. anything contains water; 5. anything looks like water; 6. anything behaves like water (such as: metal in the outer core of the earth, or plasma, or aurora).

How do you like to restrict it?

 

[gluadys]

I don't know. Literality could be the same thing as allegory, parable or metaphor. It could take some explanations. For example, the literal meaning of "water" could be: 1. liquid water; 2. solid or gaseous water; 3. fluid (liquid or gas); 4. anything contains water; 5. anything looks like water; 6. anything behaves like water (such as: metal in the outer core of the earth, or plasma, or aurora).

How do you like to restrict it?

Definition of "literal"
1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.
4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

http://www.answers.com/topic/literal

Emphases added. As you see this is not how I like to restrict it. This is the acknowledged, standard meaning of "literal".

Using this definition only your example 1 is the literal meaning of "water".

Example 2 is only true in the context of chemistry: all forms of water are H20. But we already have other basic terms for solid water (ice) and gaseous water (steam, vapour)

None of the others examples conform to a literal meaning of "water" given the meaning of "literal" above.


This is why I often question if a person really knows what they are saying when they claim to hold to a literal interpretation of scripture. Many self-proclaimed literalists actually interpret scripture in very non-literal ways.

 

[juvenissun]

Definition of "literal"
1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.
4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

http://www.answers.com/topic/literal

Emphases added. As you see this is not how I like to restrict it. This is the acknowledged, standard meaning of "literal".

Using this definition only your example 1 is the literal meaning of "water".

Example 2 is only true in the context of chemistry: all forms of water are H20. But we already have other basic terms for solid water (ice) and gaseous water (steam, vapour)

None of the others examples conform to a literal meaning of "water" given the meaning of "literal" above.


This is why I often question if a person really knows what they are saying when they claim to hold to a literal interpretation of scripture. Many self-proclaimed literalists actually interpret scripture in very non-literal ways.

Well said. Thanks. I like to take what you said as a narrow definition of the word literal.

Except the most strict meaning of water, my other "interpretations" are meanings extended from the chemical and physical property of water. There are "interpretations" with very specific requirements, and can be readily identified. So, they are NOT metaphor etc. either.

There has to be a term or an extended (?) term for "literal meaning" that includes, for example, my other "interpretations" of water. Because I don't think they are qualified to be called parable, allegory or metaphor yet. Whatever that term is, I would like to call it the general, or extended definition of literal.

 

[gluadys]

Well said. Thanks. I like to take what you said as a narrow definition of the word literal.

There has to be a term or an extended (?) term for "literal meaning" that includes, for example, my other "interpretations" of water.

IOW, in order to have your interpretations considered "literal" you need to change the meaning of "literal".

That's the problem with this whole theology of exalting literal meanings as more valid than non-literal meaninngs.

The biblical text cannot really be interpreted consistently with the standard meaning of "literal". So literalists have to "extend the meaning of 'literal'" to include non-literal meanings.

Wouldn't it be more honest to keep the meaning of "literal" as it is, and admit that you don't always interpret scripture literally?

After all, it was only a human decision in the first place to say that literal meanings are to be preferred when interpreting scripture. Why not put that decision down to human error?

Neither literal nor non-literal interpretations are to be preferred. We don't have to extend the meaning of "literal" to encompass what are clearly not literal meanings of the terminology. We just have to stop thinking that it is somehow more virtuous and pious to read a text literally than not.



What is the investment you have in the value of literal interpretation that makes it so important to identify every reading as literal--even when it is not?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Could Genesis be literal? In the sense that the early Hebrews thought so, sure. In the sense that God expects us to think so, no. God accomodates His message to our limited understanding of the world. Just as those same Hebrews thought the world was flat and rested on pillars, so too did they think the earth was young and created in six days (although there are some reasons for thinking otherwise). I see the creation story of Genesis as having been understood literally by the first Hebrew people, but that doesn't address the question as to whether God intended for us to believe it that way.

The Hebrews never believed the world was flat.

The world is fixed firmly on "pillars". YHWH Elohym said so. Those pillars are called "winds" in 1 Enoch, and we would call them "magnetic forces".
The winds are called "spirits", "angels" of His creation designed for specific tasks, and who obey the Creator and delight to obey His will forever and forever. That is their food and drink, to do His will. They answer to Him from the beginning of creation.


Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Psa 75:2 When I shall laqach [rapture, from the midst of earth] the congregation I will judge/vindicate [them] uprightly/with equity.
Then, after that rapture, the earth and all it's inhabitants are dissolved: the entire order of the creation will be changed -but He bears up the pillars and a new creation begins for the thousand years Sabbath Rest of His Peace.
Psa 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

[1 Enoch Chapter 18]
1 I saw the treasuries of all the winds:
I saw how He had furnished with them the whole creation
2 and the firm foundations of the earth.
And I saw the corner-stone of the earth:
I saw the four 3 winds which bear [the earth and] the firmament of the heaven.
And I saw how the winds stretch out the vaults of heaven, and have their station between heaven and earth: these are the pillars 4 of the heaven.

I saw the winds of heaven which turn and bring the circumference of the sun and 5 all the stars to their setting.
I saw the winds on the earth carrying the clouds: I saw the paths 6 of the angels.
I saw at the end of the earth the firmament of the heaven above.

And I proceeded and saw a place which burns day and night, where there are seven mountains of magnificent stones, 7 three towards the east, and three towards the south. And as for those towards the east, was of coloured stone, and one of pearl, and one of jacinth, and those towards the south of red stone.
8 But the middle one reached to heaven like the throne of God, of alabaster, and the summit of the 9,10 throne was of sapphire.

And I saw a flaming fire. And beyond these mountains Is a region the end of the great earth: there the heavens were completed.
And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards 12 the height and towards the depth.

And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no 13 birds, but it was a waste and horrible place [Chaos, the septic tank of the universe, so to speak, where all the waste will be shut up forever].

 

[gluadys]

The Hebrews never believed the world was flat.

The world is fixed firmly on "pillars". YHWH Elohym said so. Those pillars are called "winds" in 1 Enoch, and we would call them "magnetic forces".

Why would we do that? What is the basis for 1) denying the literal meaning of "pillars" and 2) using this particular metaphor? Why does 1 Enoch calling them "winds" mean we would call them magnetic forces?


Do you consider 1Enoch to be inspired scripture? Do you think the rabbis erred in not including it in the Hebrew canon?


One more question: do you consider the description in 1 Enoch to be "literal"? Do you consider "magnetic forces" to be a literal meaning of "pillars"?

 

[Mallon]

The world is fixed firmly on "pillars". YHWH Elohym said so. Those pillars are called "winds" in 1 Enoch, and we would call them "magnetic forces".

But if you read "pillars" allegorically, what is to prevent you from reading Christ's death on the cross allegorically? Aren't you calling God a liar by not taking Him at His word? You can keep your science to yourself, but as for me, I have faith in God's unchanging word. God said, I believe it, end of story. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

But if you read "pillars" allegorically, what is to prevent you from reading Christ's death on the cross allegorically? Aren't you calling God a liar by not taking Him at His word? You can keep your science to yourself, but as for me, I have faith in God's unchanging word. God said, I believe it, end of story. Etc. Etc. Etc.

No I am not. And are you trying to be sarcastic or facetious.

Winds that are pillars, in Enoch, are the foundations of earth. A wind is a force.
In Enoch, the OT and NT, all created forces are spirits, or angels. Lightning is a force, a spirit, for instance, that answers to YHWH, in Enoch and in the OT. All winds, or forces, obey YHWH.
Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we [are]?

Psa 89:8 O LORD God of hosts,
Who is mighty like You, O LORD?
Your faithfulness also surrounds You.
Psa 89:9 You rule the raging of the sea;
When its waves rise, You still them.

Mat 8:27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

All created forces/ angels/ spirits in heaven and in earth, in the sea and under the sea will praise YHWH in the Person of the Word come in flesh, and enthroned.
Both in 1 Enoch and in Rev are all forces/spirits/winds which are all His own creation, and who are all ruled by Him, and are all upheld by His Word and who are all obedient to Him in all things, will give glory to Him.

Rev 5:13 And every thing founded/κτίσμα, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

κτίσμα,1) thing founded
2) created thing



God appeared in a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire.

Exd 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

Psa 99:7 He spake unto them in the cloudy pillar: they kept his testimonies, and the ordinance [that] he gave them.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.

Enoch 18...
And I saw the corner-stone of the earth: I saw the four 3 winds which bear [the earth and] the firmament of the heaven. And I saw how the winds stretch out the vaults of heaven, and have their station between heaven and earth: these are the pillars 4 of the heaven. I saw the winds of heaven which turn and bring the circumference of the sun and 5 all the stars to their setting. I saw the winds on the earth carrying the clouds: I saw the paths 6 of the angels

Enoch 57
[Chapter 57]
1 And it came to pass after this that I saw another host of wagons, and men riding thereon, and 2 coming on the winds from the east, and from the west to the south. And the noise of their wagons was heard, and when this turmoil took place the holy ones from heaven remarked it, and the pillars of the earth were moved from their place, and the sound thereof was heard from the one end of heaven 3 to the other, in one day. And they shall all fall down and worship the Lord of Spirits. And this is the end of the second Parable.

A24 And the judgement was held first over the stars, and they were judged and found guilty, and went to the place of condemnation, and they were cast into an abyss, full of fire and flaming, and full 25 of pillars of fire.

2Ki 2:1 And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.

Have a nice day -and don't get caught in a wind "pillar", like a tornado or a whirlwind; they can take you away to where you may not want to go, like Kansas.

 

[BobRyan]

I've kind of been toying with this idea for a few days now, but I'm sure there are holes that I'm not seeing.

Could it be possible that the writer(s) of Genesis fully meant for Genesis to be taken literally?

Yes. It is "obvious" that Moses was not "a darwinist". It is "obvious" that the Israelites at the foot of Mt Sinai where not "darwinists". It is obvious that the SUMMARY of the Genesis 1-2:3 timeline given in Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor ... for in SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE..." is nothing at ALL like a "summary of darwinism".

So that part of the question is obvious to all.

They could have assumed the world really was created in 6 days

Wrong - rather they could assume that God "knew something" and that Moses was a prophet ordained for ministry by God -- giving messages from God. THEN when "God said" something like "SIX DAYS you shall labor ... for in SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them" they would "assume God was not a liar".

That is really the only "assumption" that they had to "start with".

WE on the other hand can "assume" that slaves coming out of egypt were not "darwinists".

WE on the other hand can "assume" that IF God knows a thing or two about what HE did to put life on earth and IF His word is trustworthy -- THEN Noah was a real person and so also Abraham -- which means THEY TOO had some knowledge of how it all started -- and could have passed some of that down to their descendants.

We can even "assume" that God "has an interest" in explaining the TRUTH about mankind being fallen into sin -- since God is in the business of promoting the Gospel of salvation.

It is pretty silly to say "there was this hominid sitting on his cave floor bashing in his daily ration of monkey-brain-breakfast when suddenly he had -- a BAD THOUGHT -- and presto!! All mankind was doomed to the 2nd death lake of fire so God had to come up with the Gospel to redeem us BACK to that paradise CAVE".

Everyone more or less sees that obvious point -

so also did Darwin - which is why he finally said he had to CHOOSE between Christianity and the myths of darwinISM -- in the end he said he chose darwinISM over Christianity.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Hebrews never believed the world was flat.

The world is fixed firmly on "pillars". YHWH Elohym said so. Those pillars are called "winds" in 1 Enoch, and we would call them "magnetic forces".
The winds are called "spirits", "angels" of His creation designed for specific tasks, and who obey the Creator and delight to obey His will forever and forever. That is their food and drink, to do His will. They answer to Him from the beginning of creation.


Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Psa 75:2 When I shall laqach [rapture, from the midst of earth] the congregation I will judge/vindicate [them] uprightly/with equity.
Then, after that rapture, the earth and all it's inhabitants are dissolved: the entire order of the creation will be changed -but He bears up the pillars and a new creation begins for the thousand years Sabbath Rest of His Peace.
Psa 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

Thread is title "could GENESIS be LITERAL" -- what part of "Genesis" is "Psalms" -- the last last last -- after last chapter?

Or was the point here that If ANY symbol is EVER used in ANY text in ALL of scripture - THEN Christ is not real, the Gospel is not real, the world is not real, the fall of mankind isn not real - the BIBLE is "up for grabs" - slice it up between real-vs-fake any way that pleases you??

What is the argument?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[juvenissun]

The biblical text cannot really be interpreted consistently with the standard meaning of "literal". So literalists have to "extend the meaning of 'literal'" to include non-literal meanings.

What is the investment you have in the value of literal interpretation that makes it so important to identify every reading as literal--even when it is not?

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".

For example, I want to extend the meaning of "water" to any substance/feature which is "fluid", or "fluid-like". Because water is a fluid. Also, I would insist that cloud fits the literal meaning of water. Would you call this interpretation metaphor, parable or allegory? I think "literal" is better, before a better term shows up.

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

 

[juvenissun]

One more question: do you consider the description in 1 Enoch to be "literal"? Do you consider "magnetic forces" to be a literal meaning of "pillars"?

This would be another example:

Pillar is used to "support" a system. A pillar could have different shape, size and appearance.

So, a chopstick, or a needle could be literally called a pillar if it can support a weight. So, if a magnetic field can be used to support a system, it would also be an "invisible" pillar.

Is this interpretation metaphoric? I don't think so.

 

[gluadys]

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".

What is the difference between "extending the meaning of literal" and "interpreting metaphorically"?

Why is it so important to you that even when you go well beyond the literal meaning, the extended meaning still be labelled a literal meaning? What is the problem with calling a figurative meaning exactly what it is: a figurative meaning?

For example, I want to extend the meaning of "water" to any substance/feature which is "fluid", or "fluid-like". Because water is a fluid. Also, I would insist that cloud fits the literal meaning of water. Would you call this interpretation metaphor, parable or allegory? I think "literal" is better, before a better term shows up.

I would say "cloud" is "water" only in a chemical sense. Otherwise it is figurative. As to which figure it is, that depends on the context. To be parabolic, it has to be part of a parable. To be allegorical, it has to be part of an allegory. To be a metaphor, it has to be used in a metaphor. Symbolism doesn't exist in the abstract. You can't know what the figure is apart from how it is used.

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

I don't write the dictionaries. It is not up to you and me to change the meaning of a word.

This would be another example:

Pillar is used to "support" a system. A pillar could have different shape, size and appearance.

So, a chopstick, or a needle could be literally called a pillar if it can support a weight. So, if a magnetic field can be used to support a system, it would also be an "invisible" pillar.

Is this interpretation metaphoric? I don't think so.

No, a chopstick or a needle or a wind or a magnetic force cannot literally be called a pillar. These are all figurative meanings.

But it certainly shows that the version of "literal" espoused by you and yeshuasavedme admits of "figurative" language that is far more bizarre than anything that those who are honest about their non-literal interpretations ever come up with.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it certainly shows that the version of "literal" espoused by you and yeshuasavedme admits of "figurative" language that is far more bizarre than anything that those who are honest about their non-literal interpretations ever come up with.

Speaking of bizarre, Gluadys, and just out of none-of-my-business curiosity, do you espouse Original Sin; and if not, do you hide behind comments made by [human] men of the past to support your denial, or do you simply not see that in the Scriptures?

 

[gluadys]

Speaking of bizarre, Gluadys, and just out of none-of-my-business curiosity, do you espouse Original Sin;

yes.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

What is the argument?

in Christ,

Bob

My post was a reply to this one: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43604852#post43604852

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Well said. Thanks. I like to take what you said as a narrow definition of the word literal.

Except the most strict meaning of water, my other "interpretations" are meanings extended from the chemical and physical property of water. There are "interpretations" with very specific requirements, and can be readily identified. So, they are NOT metaphor etc. either.

There has to be a term or an extended (?) term for "literal meaning" that includes, for example, my other "interpretations" of water. Because I don't think they are qualified to be called parable, allegory or metaphor yet. Whatever that term is, I would like to call it the general, or extended definition of literal.

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?

 

[Mallon]

I think she is confused on the meanings of figurative and literal.

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".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Why would we do that? What is the basis for 1) denying the literal meaning of "pillars" and 2) using this particular metaphor? Why does 1 Enoch calling them "winds" mean we would call them magnetic forces?
To explain what is explained in Enoch and in the Word of God.



Do you consider 1Enoch to be inspired scripture?
Yes I do, becasue Jesus did -He called it Scripture, in Mat 22:29,29; Daniel did, and Paul did, Isaiah did, Jude did, James did, Barnabas did, Peter did, and John did; and Hannah, Sanuel's mother did [she quoted it as factual truth in her praise when her request was granted]; and the angel's did, for Enoch wrote of the tablets written in heaven which Enoch saw and read, and in the angel in Daniel 10:21 refers to those tablets Enoch first wrote of; "I will show you what is written in the Scripture of Truth and one/echad, "binds" with me in these things -they fought the Prince of Persia, a heavenly ruler, when he was rebelling against the Scripture of Truth and would not let the Jews return in the foretold time., and so they "bound that wicked ruler in the heavenlies"; and Cyrus below let Israel go]; Abraham did; Moses did; and the Qumran community of Believers did, who left us the Dead Sea Scrolls which testify of these things; the Ethiopian Coptic Church did and does, who preserved Enoch as Canon for the almost two millennia it was "lost" to the western world, and from where copies were got in the late 1700's.
Tertullien did; Origen did; and Clement did, and so do I.


Do you think the rabbis erred in not including it in the Hebrew canon?
There was no "canon" list for the Jews until the first century, after the Jews rejected Jesus as Enoch wrote of Him, who was the Son of Man who was in heaven, who was to come, who was with God and who was God, who was the Elect, Anointed/Messiah. They made a political decision to follow up their crucifying the Son of Man, the Seed of the Woman who was promised in Genesis 3 and who was seen in heaven by Enoch, alone and only, as hidden in God, with God, and who was God to come in flesh and redee, the lost by His death, and regenerate all things and unite the earth with heaven through His name, back for the Glory of the Unseen Father to indwell.

One more question: do you consider the description in 1 Enoch to be "literal"? Do you consider "magnetic forces" to be a literal meaning of "pillars"?

"Electro -magnetic force" for want of a better description. If I find one I'll let you know. I am not a physicist, but I am a student of His Word.
Enoch called them "winds"/forces/spirits/powers, in the writings he left. He also said the Oath of God spoken by the the Son of Man -in the Person of the Word- brought them into being and holds all things together -which the author of Hebrews refers to in chapter 1.