Dracil said:
Ah, but I'd say it is impossible to read anything without putting your own meaning into the text. It is the way our brain works. We'd have to agree to disagree then.
I disagree. I believe it is possible to read something and look for the author's intended meaning without changing the meaning of his/her words and the context of that which it is in.
Dracil said:
Mmm, are you changing the words you're using? I'm quite sure in your original post, you said the word "twm," but now it's "muwth"?
I assume you don't have a Hebrew font installed on your computer. What I wrote was in Hebrew and "muwth" is the transliteration of the word.
Dracil said:
Well in that case, I think we may yet reach an agreement then.
Ok, so you agree with my other definition of literal, and thus agree that there can be figures of speech. The question then is, how do you know the author's intent? Or rather, what do you think *is* the author's intent here? I'd say the author's intent in writing Genesis is part of the overall message of faith and salvation in the Bible.
I would say that the author didn't know that there was going to be a Bible, let alone 61 other books written by another 40 or so authors, within a span of 1600 or so years.
Because the author was limited in knowledge of what the future held, he wrote with the inspired intent to tell of what he did know, by divine inspiration from the Almighty God.
Dracil said:
No, it is because the word "literal" has two different meanings. There is the "correct" way, which you're advocating, which is generally not used in these forums. And there is the "popular" way, as is understood by most people here, which is the equivalent of "YEC" or "TE." You are now thinking that your defintion of "literal" is the only one, and you are actually trampling upon the other YECs' definition of literal. I understand which definition of literal you're using now, but it would be good to not presume people are talking about the less common form to begin with.
I don't see it as trampling over yec's understanding of their hermeneutical approach. I see it as correcting the name of their approach. I think often people don't take the time to think out completely what some words implications are. Literalists means one who takes everything literally. To say yec's are literalists is a fallacy because many have stated here that they don't take Psalms to be literal in every verse and chapter therein.
So, literalists is an incorrect word to use to describe them. Most yec's that I have come across don't call themselves literalists, but are rather called literalists by those who object to their interpretation. It is simply an over exaggerated remark meant to make yec's look stupid. It is also used to trap yec's into a complete literal interpretation of everything, otherwise they will be called inconsistent with their hermeneutical approach.
It is simply a dishonest tactic and that is how I see it.
Dracil said:
They have already been asked in the first, second, and fifth posts in this thread. However, since you are using the alternative defintion of literal, rather than the ones usually used by YECs, this is no longer the main point. Indeed, the thread was actually not directed towards you, but to the other YECs.
The main point then, between us, is what IS the intended meaning of the author?
If we are still on the same subject: Genesis 2:17, then I believe the author's intended meaning is not spiritual death but physical death. I believe the author already knew and understood that it is sin that separates man from God and that because of their sin, one of their consequences was not being able to eat of the Tree of Life, which would result in physical death.
The phrase "in the day" is a figurative phrase used in the OT several times, and in Genesis 2:17 it is meant to refer to "in the day of disobedience." The passage starts off with saying what not to do, then says if you do do it, which is disobedience, then you will die in the day of your sin(disobeying God).
It cannot refer to spiritual death, in the verse, because of the definition of the word muwth is physical death not spiritual death. It does not even give the slightest of hints that it is to be taken as spiritual death. In fact Genesis 3:19, confirms this is physical death by God announcing that Adam will return to the dust from that which he was made.
Satan, in Genesis 3:4 uses this phrase against Eve telling her that surely she wouldn't die from eating the fruit off the Tree of Knowledge. She wouldn't die from eating the fruit, nor did she die on the day she ate the fruit, but in the day of her sin, she became subject to physical death because God kicked them out of the Garden.
Sin = separation from God = spiritual death
Muwth = physical death
Both happened at the fall.
Christ's death on the Cross = forgiveness from sin = spiritual life
Christ's resurrection = physical life for eternity
One of those we receive when we believe in Jesus Christ and follow Him.
The other we receive upon Christ's return.
Both are redemption of what happened at the fall.