Plain Meaning.

Status
Not open for further replies.

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Nuts, I shouldn't have went into the Creationist subforum! XD look what I found clinging to my heels when I came out ...

When you take the plain meaning of Scripture and then throw in 'that's your interpretation' claims, what you're essentially doing is stating that Scripture can't be trusted but _____ can. Here that blank is usually science.

Okay then. What is the plain meaning of this passage?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

In particular, what does the word "heavens" refer to?

And importantly: can you think of anyone to whom your meaning would not appear to be the plain meaning?
 

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Okay then. What is the plain meaning of this passage?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

In particular, what does the word "heavens" refer to?

Easy mate. "Heavens" is the crystal sphere above our heads, which contains the sun moon and stars, and holds up the cosmic waters.

Next question?
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't get it. There are so many people here on this forum right now, creationist or not, and yet nobody's telling me what the plain meaning of Genesis 1:1 is.

If Genesis 1:1 really has a single, well-defined plain meaning, how dangerous can it be to tell me what it is?
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟23,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't get it. There are so many people here on this forum right now, creationist or not, and yet nobody's telling me what the plain meaning of Genesis 1:1 is.

If Genesis 1:1 really has a single, well-defined plain meaning, how dangerous can it be to tell me what it is?

I'm too tired to play word games right now. Yes, your "point" that different people, especially people throughout history would differ on the details of interpreting that scripture plainly is fine - but useless. I would expect that each would think of "heavens" as what they were accustomed to -- while the full real meaning probably is beyond all of us -- but we can sample it. I doubt that few other people would read "multidimensional universe" into "heavens" as I would. If you press to the logical conclusion of throwing out Scripture because of human differences, you end up with the Scriptures being worthless and each person responsible for their own private interpretation.

Peter specifically pointed out (emphasis mine):
Thus we regard the message of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp that is shining in a gloomy place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(2Pe 1:19-21 ISV)

Seeking the "plain meaning" of a verse is NOT a new way of interpreting Scripture, but is rather part of the oldest tradition of interpretation, and indeed, until the late 1800s was the first preferred way to consider a passage. At such a time, some "theologians" in Germany decided that miracles were not possible and prophecy was not possible and that scriptures came from man, not God -- and then proceeded to build a system of interpretation to match their preconceptions. This developed into branches such as documentary criticism (such as JEDP theory and the Q document, etc).

I'm not sure how to link to a different posting reliably, so pardon me for copying a relevant post:

Here is a great summary page concerning the classical 4-fold interpretation: http://www.hadavar.org/Four_Ways.html

Some quotes:
  1. The P'**** - the verse can have a plain meaning - and
  1. The Remez - the verse can have an allegorical meaning
  1. The D'rash - the verse can have a practical application
  1. The Sod - the verse can teach about the nature of God.
The four ways are not independent - they are four ways of looking at the *same* scripture passage in order to mine the richness inside. Indeed - the same article talks about the P'****:

This consists of applying to the text of the Bible the normal standards of diction, style, and arrangement in order to understand the plain meaning. P'**** deals with the explanation the plain meaning of the text. Of the four, this is the interpretive method the rabbis prefer.

In the Talmud, in Shabbat 63A, this statement is found:
"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning,"

The importance of this statement is revealed by Rabbi Aharon Feldman in his book The Juggler and the King. Rabbi Feldman describes the comment, "a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning" as the "Sages dictum." A dictum is an "authoritative declaration." He goes on to say that it is an authoritative declaration of the rabbinic sages that "the simple meaning of the text is always true." So, the rabbinic sages understood that this interpretive method was to be preferred.

(note: CFs filters are filtering out the hebrew name of the first principle of interpretation)

This sure sounds fine to me. The modern "fundamentalism" movement was a reaction against the theologies springing from Germany - it was an attempt to return to a historical interpretative framework.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This whole discussion ignores the poetic nature of Genesis 1! Of course nobody uses the "plain meaning" of "I am the vine."

Of course it violates the creationist worldview so they tend to ignore the repeating, poetic structure that's also seen in Psalms. But as with many other passages, a "plain reading" is not necessarily a "literal meaning."
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
The permalink to a post is found at the coloured number beside the hash mark at the top left, eg #5.

You've made my point for me:

"different people, especially people throughout history would differ on the details of interpreting that scripture plainly"

and yet

"If you press to the logical conclusion of throwing out Scripture because of human differences, you end up with the Scriptures being worthless and each person responsible for their own private interpretation."

"No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision."

If your plain interpretation doesn't match Luther's plain interpretation, doesn't that show that both of these are private interpretations and not shared interpretations? Plain interpretations are private interpretations because what is plain to one person is not to another. To you, it is plain that the heavens are the universe with vacuum and all. To Luther, it was plain that the heavens were a series of crystal spheres. To Moses, it was plain that the heavens were a dome over his head. Aren't these three all private interpretations?
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
65
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
What is a "plain reading" to a 21st century post-modernist Christian, a 20th century modernist Christian (fundamentalist), and a 5th century BC Hebrew shepherd who hears it read to him in the Temple one day, are not the same thing.

The concept of "plain reading" is based on a fallacy. We do not come to the Bible (or any other text for that matter) with a completely empty mind. We come to it as encultured beings, with a whole host of ideas and ways of reading that we've been immersed in since birth. We bring them with us when we read.

The "plain reading" is often the false reading because we haven't done the work beforehand to examine what our own encultured biases are.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,715
17,633
55
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟393,462.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Easy mate. "Heavens" is the crystal sphere above our heads, which contains the sun moon and stars, and holds up the cosmic waters.

Next question?

Please tell me your joking, and that you don't beleve there's a Crystal sphere surounding the Earth ?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Please tell me your joking, and that you don't beleve there's a Crystal sphere surounding the Earth ?


Well, that was the plain meaning of Gen. 1:1 to Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and the vast majority of Christian teachers through the Middle Ages. That is what was taught in the schools and universities of the time as both scientific and theological fact.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cubanito

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2005
2,680
222
Southeast Florida, US (Coral Gables near Miami)
✟4,071.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I remember in my linguistics class we studied a dozen or so meanings for the sentence fragment "mommy sock" by a two year old.

Pushed to the wall we can be certain of nothing of our own attempts. This principle applies in mathematics (Godell's incompleteness theorems), physics (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), informational thermodynamics, and especially linguistics.

Nonetheless, despite all this vaguery, we can understand much, including the "plain" meaning of Gen 1:1. Gen 1:1 means that, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

JR
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Well, that was the plain meaning of Gen. 1:1 to Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and the vast majority of Christian teachers through the Middle Ages. That is what was taught in the schools and universities of the time as both scientific and theological fact.

calvin's commentaries are online:

from: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/cvgn1-03.htm

6. "Let there be a firmament."

The work of the second day is to provide
an empty space around the circumference of the earth, that heaven and
earth may not be mixed together. For since the proverb, 'to mingle heaven
and earth,' denotes the extreme of disorder, this distinction ought to be
regarded as of great importance.

Moreover, the word "rakia" comprehends
not only the whole region of the air, but whatever is open above us: as
the word heaven is sometimes understood by the Latins. Thus the
arrangement, as well of the heavens as of the lower atmosphere, is called
"rakia" without discrimination between them, but sometimes the word
signifies both together sometimes one part only, as will appear more
plainly in our progress. I know not why the Greeks have chosen to render
the word "stereooma", which the Latins have imitated in the term,
firmamentum; for literally it means expanse. And to this David alludes
when he says that 'the heavens are stretched out by God like a curtain,'
(Ps. 104: 2.)

If any one should inquire whether this vacuity did not
previously exist, I answer, however true it may be that all parts of the
earth were not overflowed by the waters; yet now, for the first time, a
separation was ordained, whereas a confused admixture had previously
existed. Moses describes the special use of this expanse, "to divide the
waters from the waters" from which word arises a great difficulty. For it
appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should
be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and
philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my
mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but
the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other
recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.


Here the Spirit of God would teach
all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely
and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the
history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned.
The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that
theatre which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the
waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive.

The
assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read
concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance
respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. And truly
a longer inquiry into a matter open and manifest is superfluous. We see
that the clouds suspended in the air, which threaten to fall upon our
heads, yet leave us space to breathe. They who deny that this is effected
by the wonderful providence of God, are vainly inflated with the folly of
their own minds. We know, indeed that the rain is naturally produced; but
the deluge sufficiently shows how speedily we might be overwhelmed by the
bursting of the clouds, unless the cataracts of heaven were closed by the
hand of God.

Nor does David rashly recount this among His miracles, that
God "layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters," (Ps. 104: 31;) and
he elsewhere calls upon the celestial waters to praise God, (Ps. 148: 4.)
Since, therefore, God has created the clouds, and assigned them a region
above us, it ought not to be forgotten that they are restrained by the
power of God, lest, gushing forth with sudden violence, they should
swallow us up: and especially since no other barrier is opposed to them
than the liquid and yielding, air, which would easily give way unless
this word prevailed, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters.'

Yet
Moses has not affixed to the work of this day the note that "God saw that
it was good:" perhaps because there was no advantage from it till the
terrestrial waters were gathered into their proper place, which was done
on the next day, and therefore it is there twice repeated.

white space for ease of reading and bolding are mine.
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That's great rmwilliams - thanks.

The fact that Calvin needed to go to such lengths to explain these verses in Genesis 1 shows that there is no such thing as a "plain reading".

Genesis 1-3 is amongst the most complex sections in the whole Bible -- anyone who claims that there is an easy interpretation has little regard for centuries of church history.
 
Upvote 0

Atha

Witness...
Aug 19, 2006
2,492
45
Champlin
✟2,903.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Heaven is the place beyond the matter, where the naturally larger pieces of matter, are just the smallest, rather than just the air above, the Heavens are the single greatness of form, like rather than nearly countless atoms its one Heaven... this is the place that God has peace and well His Throne is there, fartther than the darkness of space... thats just like peace for God again, as the song (universe) sings wihtin Heaven's Place...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Seeking the "plain meaning" of a verse is NOT a new way of interpreting Scripture, but is rather part of the oldest tradition of interpretation, and indeed, until the late 1800s was the first preferred way to consider a passage. At such a time, some "theologians" in Germany decided that miracles were not possible and prophecy was not possible and that scriptures came from man, not God -- and then proceeded to build a system of interpretation to match their preconceptions. This developed into branches such as documentary criticism (such as JEDP theory and the Q document, etc).

I'm not sure how to link to a different posting reliably, so pardon me for copying a relevant post:

Here is a great summary page concerning the classical 4-fold interpretation: http://www.hadavar.org/Four_Ways.html

Some quotes:
  1. The P'**** - the verse can have a plain meaning - and
  1. The Remez - the verse can have an allegorical meaning
  1. The D'rash - the verse can have a practical application
  1. The Sod - the verse can teach about the nature of God.
The four ways are not independent - they are four ways of looking at the *same* scripture passage in order to mine the richness inside. Indeed - the same article talks about the P'****:

This consists of applying to the text of the Bible the normal standards of diction, style, and arrangement in order to understand the plain meaning. P'**** deals with the explanation the plain meaning of the text. Of the four, this is the interpretive method the rabbis prefer.

In the Talmud, in Shabbat 63A, this statement is found:
"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning,"

The importance of this statement is revealed by Rabbi Aharon Feldman in his book The Juggler and the King. Rabbi Feldman describes the comment, "a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning" as the "Sages dictum." A dictum is an "authoritative declaration." He goes on to say that it is an authoritative declaration of the rabbinic sages that "the simple meaning of the text is always true." So, the rabbinic sages understood that this interpretive method was to be preferred.

(note: CFs filters are filtering out the hebrew name of the first principle of interpretation)

This sure sounds fine to me. The modern "fundamentalism" movement was a reaction against the theologies springing from Germany - it was an attempt to return to a historical interpretative framework.

I find it interesting that you brought up the topic of how Rabis have interprated this passage. I did a little digging, a while back, to ask some CF Jews how they interprate Genesis and their views of the YEC position.

Here was one very interesting response from an Orthodox Jew http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=24697718&postcount=762

It seems very plain to me that our views of the Scriptures have changed over the generations dependant on our understanding of concepts like "the heavens."

Also, where Peter is clarifying how prophecies are interprated... well, that was a very important point to early Christians who saw Jesus as Messiah in contrast to their Jewish brothers who saw Jesus as not fullfilling certain prophecies. We see, of course, that they misunderstood prophecies that were foretelling the first and second comings Christ. But this was not obvious to the way these scriptures were understood prior to His first coming.

Likewise, I am certain that we do not currently possess a completely "correct" view of end times prophecies and they will only become completely clear in hindsight when they have been fullfilled.

The same principal applies to Genesis. It becomes increasingly clear as scientific principles help to reveal aspects of creation that were not clear in ancient times, IMHO.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.