Yom, yom. Or when does "God said", not mean "God said"?

[rwatts]

I gather that in the context of Genesis 1, when it is written that:-

“And God said, “Let there be [X],” and there was [X]”
“God made [Y]…”

- then the reader has no choice but to accept that God literally did move his mouth, speak, and thus X came into existence or that God literally did, by his limbs, make Y.

However, when I put these verses to people:-

Leviticus 26:4
Jeremiah 5:24
Jeremiah 14:22
Acts 14:17
Job 37:6
1 Samuel 12:16-19
2 Chronicles 7:13
Amos 4:7
Matthew 5:45
Genesis 7:4
Psalm 105:32

- where we read things like:-

2 Chron 7:13*“When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, …”

Lev 26:4 “I will send you rain in its season …”

Job 37:6 “He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth,’ and to the rain shower, ‘Be a mighty downpour.’

- then I’m told that they literally mean, not that God speaks and rain happens or that God literally uses his limbs to make rain, but rather that these verses mean:-

1) that God is ultimately in control the weather, or

2) that these verses are metaphor, or

3) that these verses mean that God made natural processes and the laws of nature to make rain, or

4) that these verses mean that sometimes God overrules nature to bring about a miracle.


But I don’t see this at all. To my mind, those verses read exactly like the verses in Gen 1.

The implication is that modern meteorology is as unbiblical as is modern biology.

Naturally, to show me wrong, I guess one needs to know the original Hebrew meaning of the words and phrases behind these English words and phrases in that list of verses I have provided.

Can anyone show me that the original Hebrew meanings in the list of verses I provide, are substantially different to the meanings behind the same words in Genesis 1? Can anyone show me that the original Hebrew meant natural processes and/or the laws of nature as we understand those terms?

If there is no difference, then surely creationists ought to be teaching real Biblical science and denying much of modern meteorology, as well as modern biology, astronomy and geology?

[Kbertsche]

I gather that in the context of Genesis 1, when it is written that:-

“And God said, “Let there be [X],” and there was [X]”
“God made [Y]…”

- then the reader has no choice but to accept that God literally did move his mouth, speak, and thus X came into existence or that God literally did, by his limbs, make Y.

No, not even Jorge is this literalistic. Here "said" is not emphasizing literal speech, with vocal chords, lips, and sound waves. It is emphasizing something closer to declaration or proclamation. You could view "said" here as a metaphor for "decided" or "declared".

However, when I put these verses to people:-

Leviticus 26:4
Jeremiah 5:24
Jeremiah 14:22
Acts 14:17
Job 37:6
1 Samuel 12:16-19
2 Chronicles 7:13
Amos 4:7
Matthew 5:45
Genesis 7:4
Psalm 105:32

- where we read things like:-

2 Chron 7:13*“When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, …”

Lev 26:4 “I will send you rain in its season …”

Job 37:6 “He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth,’ and to the rain shower, ‘Be a mighty downpour.’

- then I’m told that they literally mean, not that God speaks and rain happens or that God literally uses his limbs to make rain, but rather that these verses mean:-

1) that God is ultimately in control the weather, or

2) that these verses are metaphor, or

3) that these verses mean that God made natural processes and the laws of nature to make rain, or

4) that these verses mean that sometimes God overrules nature to bring about a miracle.

You have not been told this by me. We've had this discussion before. I've told you that God literally causes the rain to fall. You seem to have conveniently forgotten my answer.

But I don’t see this at all. To my mind, those verses read exactly like the verses in Gen 1.

The implication is that modern meteorology is as unbiblical as is modern biology.

Naturally, to show me wrong, I guess one needs to know the original Hebrew meaning of the words and phrases behind these English words and phrases in that list of verses I have provided.

Can anyone show me that the original Hebrew meanings in the list of verses I provide, are substantially different to the meanings behind the same words in Genesis 1? Can anyone show me that the original Hebrew meant natural processes and/or the laws of nature as we understand those terms?

If there is no difference, then surely creationists ought to be teaching real Biblical science and denying much of modern meteorology, as well as modern biology, astronomy and geology?

I agree with you; these verses are similar to Gen 1. Both have metaphorical/poetic elements. In both, God is the cause of what happens. But I don't see how this is in conflict with modern meteorology.

[rwatts]

I agree with you; these verses are similar to Gen 1.

O.k.

Both have metaphorical/poetic elements.

So, consider Gen 1. Where does factual claim begin and end, and metaphor begin and end? If "yom" means actual day, why does not "said" mean actual speech?

Besides, poetry is not necessarily metaphor, anymore than history is necessarily truth. Poets can write factual poetry with no metaphor, and historians can write false history.

But I don't see how this is in conflict with modern meteorology.

It's in conflict with modern meteorology in the same sense that if Gen 1 speaks of miraculous creation of planets, stars, life, different organisms as opposed to a natural formation of these, then those verses I point to, equally speak of a miraculous formation of rain, (other verses deal with other phenomena) as opposed to a natural formation of rain.

(Sure, to settle this, one would need to look at the original words underlying all phrases such as "yom", "God said", "God made", "God created" etc., and work out the intent of the authors of those words. But I simply fail to see how one set of words mean "God literally caused" and therefore natural formation of stars, planets and organisms is wrong, while the other set of words also mean "God literally causes" and therefore mean natural formation of rain is correct.)

No, not even Jorge is this literalistic.

I know. But then, I don't exactly understand why not? Surely the straightforward meaning of those words is?

It's as if, in the context of Genesis, folk are saying don't build a complex theology around those words, take them exactly as they read. But in the context of other verses, people are saying one of two things:-

1) Build a complex theology around them, don't take them exactly as they read or

2) Build a complex theology around them, but claim to be taking them as exactly as they are read.

[mossrose]

Are you reading all these verses in Aramaic and Greek? Or English.

[oxmixmudd]

No, not even Jorge is this literalistic. Here "said" is not emphasizing literal speech, with vocal chords, lips, and sound waves. It is emphasizing something closer to declaration or proclamation. You could view "said" here as a metaphor for "decided" or "declared".


You have not been told this by me. We've had this discussion before. I've told you that God literally causes the rain to fall. You seem to have conveniently forgotten my answer.


I agree with you; these verses are similar to Gen 1. Both have metaphorical/poetic elements. In both, God is the cause of what happens. But I don't see how this is in conflict with modern meteorology.

I think however that what Roland is getting at is an element all too often glossed over. When we read scripture in modern times we apply a 'textual classification lens' that is in most cases defined by what we understand, present day, scientifically. We - most of the time - do not read the text with the same 'textual classification lens' that a reader in the 6th century BC, or even the 12th century AD, or even the writer himself would have used. I think it is very reasonable to say that the writers viewed many of these descriptions as accurate both technically and theologically. For them the Sun literally rose over a flat Earth and traversed the sky and then made the journey under the Earth to rise again. We use (for these passages) the classification of phenomenal writing to transition from the image likely in the writers mind to what we would understand today - but the motivation for that transition and classification is what we know scientifically about the Earth and Solar system - NOT the Biblical text itself.

Likewise the issue of weather and what causes it. While as 21st Century Christians our sense of God being behind the weather may be similar to the writers, our conception of HOW He is behind it is quite different. For one thing, we do not see God as literally throwing hail stones, nor do we see tornadoes as literally the finger of God. And per Christ's words about such things, we mostly dispense with the idea bad weather is some sort of manifestation of God's judgement.

But once again, we base our classification of these descriptions as 'metaphor', not technical, on what we know from science, not the text itself.

And we do this almost without thinking about it. We don't ask ourselves how the writer's understood the text, we just read it, we know those descriptions are not technically accurate, and we filter them through our science derived 'textual classification lens', and out pops 'metaphor'. (and in some cases, they are pre-filtered for us by the Biblical translation team e.g. birds flying 'in' the sky rather than 'before the face of' the sky).

But the point Roland makes is we (or many of us) don't do that when it comes to Genesis. And regardless of why, that is a very inconsistent thing to do.


Jim

[Kbertsche]

So, consider Gen 1. Where does factual claim begin and end, and metaphor begin and end? If "yom" means actual day, why does not "said" mean actual speech?
...
I know. But then, I don't exactly understand why not? Surely the straightforward meaning of those words is?

It's as if, in the context of Genesis, folk are saying don't build a complex theology around those words, take them exactly as they read. But in the context of other verses, people are saying one of two things:-

1) Build a complex theology around them, don't take them exactly as they read or

2) Build a complex theology around them, but claim to be taking them as exactly as they are read.

As both John Lennox and Hugh Ross have said, words such as "day" have multiple "literal" meanings (or "multiple dictionary meanings"). The Bible is not a science test where each word has one specific technical definition (like the words "energy" or "power"). The Bible is literature. Each word has a semantic range of meaning. The actual word meaning in any specific instance must be determined by context and other literary considerations, not by blindly applying a technical "look-up table".

Besides, poetry is not necessarily metaphor, anymore than history is necessarily truth. Poets can write factual poetry with no metaphor, and historians can write false history.

agreed.

It's in conflict with modern meteorology in the same sense that if Gen 1 speaks of miraculous creation of planets, stars, life, different organisms as opposed to a natural formation of these, then those verses I point to, equally speak of a miraculous formation of rain, (other verses deal with other phenomena) as opposed to a natural formation of rain.

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy. Either a phenomenon is explained by natural law, OR God did it. If God did it, it must have been done in a "miraculous" way which cannot be explained by natural law.

I don't see such a big distinction between natural law and miracle. From a biblical perspective, God sometimes accomplishes things via natural law and sometimes via miracle. But in both cases, God is the one who is doing things.

My understanding is that God is the one who causes the rain, even today. Modern meteorology does not compete with God for this, it simply explains the mechanisms that God normally uses to cause rain.

I see no conflict between God causing rain and modern meteorology. I see no conflict between God creating the heavens and earth and the Big Bang. God is the cause of both; science is our description of how God does it.

(Sure, to settle this, one would need to look at the original words underlying all phrases such as "yom", "God said", "God made", "God created" etc., and work out the intent of the authors of those words. But I simply fail to see how one set of words mean "God literally caused" and therefore natural formation of stars, planets and organisms is wrong, while the other set of words also mean "God literally causes" and therefore mean natural formation of rain is correct.)

If you are really interested in this, below is the lexicon entry for "'amar" ("said") in the Qal stem. This is the word used in Gen 1:3ff. The quote below is from the abridged vision of BDB, which is the standard lexicon for Biblical Hebrew.

Source: BDB abridged

אָמַר vb. utter, say —
Qal 1. Say; the person addressed usu. introduced by אֶל, or לְ; rarer combinations are; where בְּlocal; in all cases usually sq. dir. obj. of words said. The obj. spoken of may be referred to by אֶל, or לְ, very rarely by a simple accus., except after אֲשֶׁר where the words used follow (cf. אֲשֶׁר 4 d).
2. Say in the heart (= think) בלבב ’א; in particular = desire; sq. inf. = purpose.
3. Promise (sq. inf.); id. + ל of person); (sq. acc. of dir. obj. + ל of pers. + inf. of purpose).
4. Command (esp. late) sq. אֶל- of person addressed; inf. + ל of pers.; sq. acc. dir. obj.; sq. cl. with אשׁר = that; sq. cl. with כִּי.

© Copyright Original Source

[rwatts]

I think however that what Roland is getting at is an element all too often glossed over. When we read scripture in modern times we apply a 'textual classification lens' that is in most cases defined by what we understand, present day, scientifically. We - most of the time - do not read the text with the same 'textual classification lens' that a reader in the 6th century BC, or even the 12th century AD, or even the writer himself would have used. I think it is very reasonable to say that the writers viewed many of these descriptions as accurate both technically and theologically. For them the Sun literally rose over a flat Earth and traversed the sky and then made the journey under the Earth to rise again. We use (for these passages) the classification of phenomenal writing to transition from the image likely in the writers mind to what we would understand today - but the motivation for that transition and classification is what we know scientifically about the Earth and Solar system - NOT the Biblical text itself.

Likewise the issue of weather and what causes it. While as 21st Century Christians our sense of God being behind the weather may be similar to the writers, our conception of HOW He is behind it is quite different. For one thing, we do not see God as literally throwing hail stones, nor do we see tornadoes as literally the finger of God. And per Christ's words about such things, we mostly dispense with the idea bad weather is some sort of manifestation of God's judgement.

But once again, we base our classification of these descriptions as 'metaphor', not technical, on what we know from science, not the text itself.

And we do this almost without thinking about it. We don't ask ourselves how the writer's understood the text, we just read it, we know those descriptions are not technically accurate, and we filter them through our science derived 'textual classification lens', and out pops 'metaphor'. (and in some cases, they are pre-filtered for us by the Biblical translation team e.g. birds flying 'in' the sky rather than 'before the face of' the sky).

But the point Roland makes is we (or many of us) don't do that when it comes to Genesis. And regardless of why, that is a very inconsistent thing to do.


Jim

Exactly.

In the case of Genesis and day, the original Hebrew is pulled out, and the claim is made "See this word in the original Hebrew? It means 24 hour day. So therefore modern science is heresy because it contradicts the literal word of the Bible."

But this is not done with words like "made" and "said", particularly in the context of that list of verses I supplied. It's just assumed one does not need to take them literally enough such that modern meteorology must be heresy as well because it contradicts the literal word of the Bible.

I think people are being very selective.

And I don't see how those words can be considered to be compatible with our modern notions of "laws of nature" or "natural process", which is a claim people implicitly make.

[rwatts]

The actual word meaning in any specific instance must be determined by context and other literary considerations, not by blindly applying a technical "look-up table".

However it appears to be that way with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

If you are really interested in this, below is the lexicon entry for "'amar" ("said") in the Qal stem. This is the word used in Gen 1:3ff. The quote below is from the abridged vision of BDB, which is the standard lexicon for Biblical Hebrew.

Source: BDB abridged

אָמַר vb. utter, say —
Qal 1. Say; the person addressed usu. introduced by אֶל, or לְ; rarer combinations are; where בְּlocal; in all cases usually sq. dir. obj. of words said. The obj. spoken of may be referred to by אֶל, or לְ, very rarely by a simple accus., except after אֲשֶׁר where the words used follow (cf. אֲשֶׁר 4 d).
2. Say in the heart (= think) בלבב ’א; in particular = desire; sq. inf. = purpose.
3. Promise (sq. inf.); id. + ל of person); (sq. acc. of dir. obj. + ל of pers. + inf. of purpose).
4. Command (esp. late) sq. אֶל- of person addressed; inf. + ל of pers.; sq. acc. dir. obj.; sq. cl. with אשׁר = that; sq. cl. with כִּי.

© Copyright Original Source

Thank you KB.

So in the context of Gen 1 and the context of that list I supply, which meanings apply, and how does one know? If, in Gen 1 "yom" means 24 hours because of something like a lookup table, or a definition similar to that which you have supplied, what does "said" actually mean? What about "made"?


(I have no problems with people reinterpreting the Bible in order to take into account new ways of thinking. It needs to be done. But I do have a problem with rejecting some kind of modern thinking in one set of verses because of what the Bible literally says, but accepting some other kind of modern thinking despite what the Bible literally says.)

[rwatts]

Are you reading all these verses in Aramaic and Greek? Or English.

I'm not reading them in anything other than English.

However, in the case of the OT the original words would be Hebrew and the NT in Greek, I presume.

[mossrose]

I'm not reading them in anything other than English.

However, in the case of the OT the original words would be Hebrew and the NT in Greek, I presume.

That's correct. And some of the words translated into English may very well have slightly different meanings. We know that the Greek word translated into the English word "love" can have 4 different meanings according to the actual Greek word used.

So what we read in English as "said" or "speak" may have actual different nuances according to the original language.

May I recommend that you ask John Reece about the actual usage in the passages you mentioned. He is scholarly in both Greek and Hebrew and could likely tell you if there are differences in the original languages.

[Kbertsche]

Thank you KB.

So in the context of Gen 1 and the context of that list I supply, which meanings apply, and how does one know?

As I said, this is literature. Determining the meaning requires considering a number of literary factors.

If, in Gen 1 "yom" means 24 hours because of something like a lookup table, or a definition similar to that which you have supplied, what does "said" actually mean? What about "made"?

For the word "said" in Gen 1, I'd say that the main meaning is definition #4 on the BDB list, "command". I say this because the things that are said are in the jussive, which is essentially a third-person command.

You can do a similar exercise with "day" and "made", if you wish. But I think what you really want is a YEC (Jorge?) to weigh in on these questions.

(I have no problems with people reinterpreting the Bible in order to take into account new ways of thinking. It needs to be done. But I do have a problem with rejecting some kind of modern thinking in one set of verses because of what the Bible literally says, but accepting some other kind of modern thinking despite what the Bible literally says.)

I agree with you that many people are inconsistent with biblical interpretation. In principle, we should try to understand the text in the context of the original author and audience. Jim and I and many other OECs and TEs try to do this. But YECs more typically insist on understanding the "plain meaning of the text to an eight-year old child", while ignoring the differences in language and culture.

[rwatts]

But I think what you really want is a YEC (Jorge?) to weigh in on these questions.

Yes.

However, I tend not to mention his name in titles because mentioning it tends to scare him off.

Then I run the risk of folk, who I think have a much more sensible approach to the Bible, weighing in.

But you are correct. I really am hoping for Jorge to drop by. (It was something Jorge wrote to Jim in another thread, which made me think of this one.)

[rwatts]

That's correct. And some of the words translated into English may very well have slightly different meanings. We know that the Greek word translated into the English word "love" can have 4 different meanings according to the actual Greek word used.

So what we read in English as "said" or "speak" may have actual different nuances according to the original language.

May I recommend that you ask John Reece about the actual usage in the passages you mentioned. He is scholarly in both Greek and Hebrew and could likely tell you if there are differences in the original languages.

John Reece?

I reckon I came across him on FB recently. But I don't remember where. How do I contact him? I really would love to know the answer to this, because at day's end, I really think folk on all sides, read into the Bible the particular theology they choose to adopt. Some theologies kind of make sense to me. But others do not.

[JonathanL]

John Reece?

I reckon I came across him on FB recently. But I don't remember where. How do I contact him? I really would love to know the answer to this, because at day's end, I really think folk on all sides, read into the Bible the particular theology they choose to adopt. Some theologies kind of make sense to me. But others do not.

He posts occasionally in the Biblical Language 301 subforum. He's not been posting there for a while though, so I'm not sure if you'd get a reply if you made a thread there.

[mossrose]

Chrawnus is correct. John us a longstanding member here and spends most of his time in Bib. Languages. He has had a few health issues lately, so may be slow to respond, but I am sure he will if he can.