JAL said:
Gluadys, in these last series of posts you revisited two tactics that don't wash with me.
First, you label any interpretation other than YOURS as non-literal to write off my conclusions as contradicting my own literalism. You did the same thing with the 24-hour issue, where your definition of day could not be shown from the text since the earth was still water whereas my definition of day was Moses' words taken literally. That's why I ignored your last post on the 24-hour issue where you continued to accuse ME of being non-literal.
Yes, we are running into something I have often noticed in other discussions of like nature. Many people who claim to be literalists actually are not literalists at all when you look at what the word "literal" really means.
lit·er·al (ltr-l)
(Communications, Literature, Mathematics)
adj.
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.
(Emphasis added)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Literal
Given what "literal" means, we can say that the literal meaning of a day on any planet or satellite is the period of time it takes for the body to rotate once on its axis. For the earth, through all of human history, that has been just under 24 hours.
That is the primary, simplest, factual, non-metaphorical, non-figurative, obvious meaning of "day".
Now both we and the biblical writers also used the word "day" in less obvious ways---to refer to a person's lifetime, or to the time period of an event which, in fact, was longer than a day, or to any extended period of time, as appropriate.
By definition, all of these uses are non-literal. That doesn't mean they are untrue, or unreal. But they are not literal.
Similarly, a firmament, is, as you say "a physical substance to anchor our visible stars". (Actually, its primary purpose as noted on day 2 of creation, is to separate the waters. But it is also for the stars on day 4.)
And, according to Genesis 11, it is close enough to be reached by building a high tower.
That is the literal meaning of firmamant. To say it is space is to use the word metaphorically.
So many people claim they interpret scripture literally. Yet when scripture says the earth stands still, that it is fastened securely to its foundations so that it will not shake or totter, they do not interpret these literally at all---even though the biblical writer intended for them to be understood literally.
So, I grant. It is a pet peeve of mine that people, who regularly use non-literal interpretations of their own, fault me for using a non-literal interpretation they do not approve of. If they can change a writer's intended literal meaning to a figurative meaning, because they want to keep in step with science, why do they have trouble when I interpret a passage non-literally when we have pretty good textual evidence that it was intended from the outset to be non-literal!!
For example, you say:
Perhaps we need to keep in mind that Moses main goal is to depict the world as created in six days to establish a paradigm/calender of resting every seventh day.
Exactly! This is one of the main signals that "day" in Genesis 1 is not to be interpreted literally (as one rotation of the earth on its axis=24 hours). The days are to be interpreted paradigmatically, not literally.
The same goes for the two-table framework in which the days are set. Three days to set up the domains followed by three paired days to fill each domain. That is the source of the order in Genesis 1 and indicates that the order is not literally chronological one day after another.
(BTW, Im still uncomfortable with the term mystic. Here you conflate it with metaphorical which confuses me because I define a
mystic as a religious experientialist (one who espouses seeing/hearing God). Im a mystic, but thats an issue separate from literalism versus metaphor/myth. Im not saying your usage is wrong, but can we please stick with the more common meaning (experientialist) as to avoid confusing feeble minds like mine?)
You know something? I used to be uncomfortable with the word "organized". You see, I always figured that a person who was organized was uptight, prosaic, with no sense of artistry, no music in their soul, no capacity to let themselves go and be sponataneous. I also thought organized people wrote neatly and clearly, never wore bright colours and always had a place for everything and everything in its place.
That does not describe me. Far from it. Not only am I not like that; I don't want to become like that. So when people started to tell me that I was "so organized" or a "good organizer", I was pretty surprised and quite uncomfortable, though they meant it as a compliment. Finally, a wise friend to whom I confided this discomfort said to me, "You know, being organized is not the same as being neat." Well, that broke the dam. If a person as messy as I am can still be organized, then a person who wears bright colours, laughs at jokes, enjoys a sponateous day in the park, etc. etc. can be organized.
I can be organized!! And once I gave myself permission to be organized, I discovered I really am. And I can take some pride in that.
So, even though you feel uncomfortable with the term "mystic", I suggest you not reject it, yet. Much of what you say has a definite mystical flavour to it. Maybe you just need to become a little more familiar with the idea and give yourself permission to accept the description.
As for combining the word "metaphor" with it, that is because mystical experience is so different from ordinary experience that it can only be expressed in metaphorical language. There is no literal way to talk about a mystical experience.
Which reminds me. Even the word "literal" has a primary meaning (as outlined above) and secondary meanings which are not the
literal meaning of "literal". (Do you follow me here?)
One of the secondary or non-literal meanings of "literal" is "real, actual" or even "true".
Now, if a person is using this secondary meaning of "literal", you can understand why it would be important to them to be a literalist and avoid non-literal meanings. Because, by this second meaning, anything non-literal is "not real, not actual" even "not true".
I think, in order to avoid confusion, it is best to restrict the meaning of "literal" to its primary meaning. If one wants to say that something is real or true, one should say "real" or "true" not "literal".
Now since Christ was referring to His heavenly Flesh, it stands to reason that He was also referring to heavenly Blood. True, there are other verses which prohibit human flesh and blood from entering heaven, but precisely what I deny of Christs statement is human flesh and blood. He is referring to His heavenly Flesh and Blood.
This is one of the things I mean by "mystical". Heavenly flesh and blood is mystical flesh and blood. (And I don't mean I am disagreeing with you about it being physical. It could be physical too.) What it is not is literal flesh and blood for that would be the ordinary physical body of Jesus of Nazareth. The body that could be seen and touched by the disciples.
A good parallel is where Jesus spoke of living water a couple of chapters earlier. I take it literally as a reference to physical water, but not EARTHLY water. Its heavenly Water (i.e. divine Water), for He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water (Jn 7:38; cf. Eze 36:25).
And since you say this water is not earthly, I would replace the phrase "I take it literally" in this paragraph with something like "I take this to be real physical water, but not EARTHLYwater..." for if I am right, what you want to emphasize is that although it is not earthly water (which is what "literal" water is), it is still real, real and physical. Just as real and just as physical as literal, earthly water is. Yet, because it is not earthly water, but a mystical, living water, it confuses things to say it is literal water. Literal water is what comes out of my tap when I turn it on to fill the kettle.
The second tactic you revisited was, in a most cavalier manner, dismissing contradiction as mere paradox.
Speaking of what is and is not literal, I literally did not say paradox was "mere". I consider these paradoxes most profound.
I agree with every paradox/contradiction you name. There is no way to accept orthodox Trinitarian, Incarnational doctrine without accepting these paradoxes.
For you, that has meant leaving orthodoxy to affirm a fully material explanation in contrast to the notion of immaterial spirit. I have no problem with you making that choice. I would have to explore the concept a lot more myself before being convinced. I think there are some problems with it, but I am not prepared to go into them yet.
Sorry, Gluadys, this kind of thing does not wash with me. When I think Ive contradicted myself, I admit it, and then try to revise my theology, which is the whole point of my next post. Im going to revise my reading of Genesis because I think Ive located a contradiction with science. What surprises me is that none of the scientific minds on this forum mentioned it before, despite how frequently I begged them for this kind of information. [/color]
Good for you. It is always healthy to review one's convictions from time to time. My concepts in theology have been revised many times, (always for the better, I hope.)
