Kurieuo wrote:Jac, below isn't necessarily just directed as you... as I'm sure you'll agree with me on many points.
Many, yes, but all the same, let me offer some thoughts on your thoughts
I personally find the word "literal" when discussing correct Scriptural interpretations not that helpful.
First point of agreement, but it's used all the same. Charles Ryrie talks about this extensively in his book
Dispensationalism Today. One such comment from him: "The word
literal is perhaps not as good as either the word
normal or
plain, but in any case it is an interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does." Obviously, he's talking about dispensationalism, but the point holds the same here.
Appreciate the half-compliment towards my own position (Day-Age)
but really when one uses that term I feel that it needs defining.
It's a real compliment. I just think that ultimately it fails to do what it claims to do. Let me
quote from Rich:
- Even though the Genesis text clearly indicates that the days are longer than 24-hours, some Christians insist that any interpretation of Genesis 1 that deviates from 24-hour days is not literal. The problem is that the Hebrew word yom has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that the 24-hour interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a day that is longer than 24-hours can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.
So Rich is on the right track. The Day-Age view purports to be a
literal interpretation of Genesis 1, insofar as it takes
yom in a plain, non-allegorized sense. The argument is that
yom literally refers to an age. In a bit more technical language, on the Day-Age view, the referent of the sign
yom is the same referent as the sign of the English word "age". And that is the strength of the position. It claims to be an actual interpretation of the text
as it is written. The moment you allow
yom to actually refer to a 24-hour day, but then say that this "day" is actually symbolic of or a metaphor for a long period of time, you have moved away from a literal (which is to say, normal) hermeneutic. You are now allegorizing. But more on that below.
For language is not so simple as to say an understanding based upon "literalness" is the correct one.
Especially when talking of translations, for any literalness is already gone the moment a translation occurs.
If by "literal" one means the "author's intended meaning" then what about when authors write poetically, use cultural phrases or literary styles?
A "literal" reading would misunderstand the author's actual intended meaning of his/her words in these instances.
So there is a cliche among translators: "All translators are traitors," or put more politely, "All translations are commentaries." But that doesn't mean that we can't get at the literal (which is to say, normal) meaning of the text. It just means we have to describe in our language what the author was referring to in their own. So, on the Day-Age view,
yom is literally referring to an age. And my argument is that you cannot consistently hold to that position for reasons I've already stated.
As such, then, when an author intends on using a metaphor, then the "literal" meaning of the metaphor is translated into the receptor language according to the intended meaning. It's well understood, for instance, that idioms cannot be directly translated. For instance, the Spanish idiom "mandar a paseo" would "literally" be translated "send a ride." Here, "literal" means taking words according to their "normal" meaning, without reference to their context. But, of course, context is king, and in Spanish, those words form a context that creates an idiom. The closest English version of that idiom we have is "take a hike!" But that, of course, is an idiom on its own! "Take a hike" taken "literally" in English would imply possessing a journey, which is just silly. So if I were offering a
literal translation, I would either render the phrase, "Take a hike" (so translating idiom for idiom) or else, "Go away" (which is the real idea).
Of course, when you can keep the first and second language closer, then it is fine to do so. "My God is a Rock" can be translated rather directly from most languages into one another. You don't have to translate the meaning, because the languages are such that they usually allow us to translate
word for word and still preserve the metaphor.
So that's all well and good, and I know you know all that. My point, with respect to the Day-Age view, is that, again, it's strength is that it claims to follow these basic rules of translation and interpretation. It doesn't take Genesis 1 in a metaphorical sense. It claims to take it forward in a straightforward, normal manner. OEC's problem with YEC is that OEC believes that YEC has the wrong referent for
yom. We think
yom literally refers to a 24 hour day; OEC thinks that
yom literally refers to an age.
If by "literal" one means the correct meaning, well this is to be debated.
In this instance, no one can claim to have the more "literal" interpretation for the correct interpretation is what's being debated.
Both sides need to put forward their arguments and reasons in order to decide the winner (which not everyone will agree on!).
No, literal can't mean "correct." That's just begging the question. Again, "literal" has everything to do with the referent of the sign. Individual words are signs that have referents. Sometimes, individual words do NOT have individual referents, but collections of words do (as in the case of idioms). Yet still in those cases, the sign has a referent, and a literal interpretation points to that referent directly. In cases of metaphor, it is the referents themselves that point beyond themselves to another idea. So "God is my Rock" allows that the sign "Rock" refers to normal rock, but then we look for what is called the salient feature of the rock (it's hardness or firmness) and attribute that to the subject, God. So a literal translation would attempt to preserve the metaphor and bring each individual sign (word) across so that salient feature can be seen in the receptor language as well as it was in the original. For, in the case of metaphor in particular, the depth of the meaning is not merely found in the signs and referents but in the beauty or weight of the comparison.
Furthermore, in a language with only several thousand words versus a language with hundreds and thousands of words, we are going to find some very "compact" words.
This is where a lot of the debate and confusion comes into play -- for a "day" in the English sense is not really yom as the Hebrews would have understood.
The actual language and words used would take growing up in the actual culture to fully understand each in their truly correct sense.
The question is not, never has been, and never will be over whether or not "day" is a 1:1 translation of
yom. No one thinks it is. The question is what precisely the referent for
yom is and then what is the best word in English that points to that same referent.
One of the first things I learned in translation is that flash cards are terrible things. They wrongly suggest that this word means that word. "'Yom' means 'day'," we say. But that's just false. "Yom" does not mean "day" any more than "Dios" in Spanish means "God" or "Angyong" in Korean means "Hello." Rather, "Yom," "Dios," and "anygong" all have their own referents, and the English words "Day," "God," and "Hello" all point to those same respective referents in some cases.
Again, I know you know all this. But it highlights the linguistic nature of the OEC/YEC debate. If OEC does not want to be labeled as an allegorical interpretation (and Deem and Ross and others take great pains to insist it is not), then it must show that its interpretation of the Hebrew words take those words according to their normal meanings and that they point to their normal referents. I simply think that they fail to do so consistently.
Now if by "literal" one means takes Scripture seriously, then literal should perhaps be avoided.
Thankfully, that's not what "literal" means!
So I place on the table that using the term "literal" is any sense when talking of Scripture is by no means helpful to discussions over correct interpretations.
Rather, it seems to me that invoking "literal" is often another way of saying "my understanding is the correct meaning of the text" while yours in wrong.
Which is what is being debated in the first place.
I don't agree with that assessment. I think that arguing over the word "literal" is a red herring. When we are asking which interpretation is literal, we are not asking which is correct. We are asking which one is allowing the original language to points to its normal referents and which one has the original language pointing to referents completely unrelated to the signs associated with them. When TEs take "Adam" and "Eve" to be symbolic figures, or when some in the ancient church took "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" to refer to sex, they were having those signs refer to concepts they were normally unrelated to. That makes their interpretation allegorical, and that makes their interpretation subjective and completely unreliable, and therefore, such an "interpretation" ought to be rejected.
Day-Age Clarification: Accomodationist or Compatibilist?
In the instance of YEC and OEC Day-Age, these are two real possible interpretations that take Scripture seriously.
That much can be said, and I'd clearly agree with you if that is what you intended by "literal".
In other words there is no real YEC or Day-Age proponent who would question Scripture as a reliable source of knowledge.
Both value and virtue Scripture believing it to be a part of God's special revelation.
A main misunderstanding I'd like to weigh in on is of the Day-Age interpretation being an "Accomodationist" approach, or reducible to such. Firstly,
The Day-Age position is not based upon reading Scripture in light of Science.
The Day-Age position is not based upon reading Science in the light of Scripture.
That's the claim. And it has to be the claim, since it claims to be a literal interpretation. By nature, no literal interpretation can be based on an external influence such as modern science. The moment you permit eisogesis, you have the signs referring to concepts foreign to them, and you are therefore no longer offering a literal interpretation.
I just don't think the claim holds up under scrutiny. That's all!
Day-Agers cop the accomodationist label from both directions here -- YECs and staunch Science advocates.
When in fact, the Day-Age position is based upon a Compatibilist approach.
There is nothing wrong with this. Thomas Aquinas, for whom many have great respect, embraces both special revelation and natural knowledge gained via reason.
The former often creates the outline (e.g., leads to knowledge of God) the latter fills in the details (e.g., knowledge about God, us, grace, salvation, etc).
On many occasions, Scripture doesn't touch upon Science nor vice-versa Science upon Scripture.
They are after all two very different sources and often have different purposes.
Where they do come together on some truth the true Compatibilist will not forsake one for the other.
Rather, they will consider all possibilities in Scripture and all possibilities in Science to try and determine the best conclusion.
It is foundational to the Compatibilist that both will never clash if each are properly interpreted and understood.
One is not accommodating anything into either side... but rather drawing the most compatible solution based on two assumed reliable sources of knowledge.
The important point here to understand with the Compatibilist is:
There will never be instance where one needs to forsake Scripture, nor forsake reason and experience (natural knowledge including the physical sciences).
So to claim a Compatibilist would forsake Scripture or Science if faced with say some scientific discovery that proves God didn't create the universe or life -- this is just untenable.
In the eyes of the Compatibilist, such has never occurred to date and will never occur.
While greater clarity may be had over time both will always be compatible with a correct understanding.
But this is why I am not a compatibilist, because your compatibilism denies literalism.
What your compatibilism does is take a series of possible meanings and then compare those possible meanings with external sources and ask which interpretation best fits that external evidence. In doing so, you permit that external evidence to be the lens by which you select your meaning. That
is interpreting Scripture though science.
To claim you have a literal--that is, a normal, non-eisogetical, non-metaphorical--interpretation, you have to show that your interpretation is warranted by the text alone. Now, as a Christian, I take it on
faith that what the Scripture says will line up with science. And where there is a mismatch, we have every right to reexamine our interpretations of both sources. But we are not to use science as a lens or siphon whereby we select an interpretation so that it may fit with science. Rather, when we see a problem, we go back to the text and say, "Wait, is my interpretation textually warranted, or have I imported assumptions from outside the text?"
OEC, then, can ask YEC's about imported assumptions (and YECs can do so about OECs, obviously). But OECs cannot use science as an argument that the YEC interpretation is wrong. And if OEC thinks YEC has imported assumptions, OEC must state them and show where at a
textual level. And on that point, I think OEC raises some good points. It certainly does appear, for instance, per the OEC argument, that the creation account of Genesis 1 is told from the perspective of earth. And Gen 1:1's use of "the heavens and the earth" seem to constitute a merism that means the whole universe, and thus, it seems that OEC interpreters have a strong case when they say that the sun was actually created on Day 1. So the OEC answer on the Sun "appearing" on Day 4 seems textually warranted. So those are the kinds of places where our assumptions are worth checking out in the text! But the central argument--that
yom refers to an age, does not seem to stand up to scrutiny, for reasons I've outlined elsewhere.
Does it matter who penned Scripture?
This is a side issue, but I'm personally not at all phased that the author, whether Moses or what-have-you, actually knew the full thrust of the words being used.
This doesn't bother me at all and in fact to think the author must know the full scope of their writing I think downplays God's inspirational role.
God is the ultimate mastermind directing the author like the strong wind forcing a boat in a particular direction (the Greek word for "moved" in 2 Peter 1:21 is the same word found in Acts 27:15-17)
So what really matters is what God, the true author, intended for His revelation.
And I believe God is brilliant enough to write to many audiences through the one pen aka scribe.
Problem solved.
Finally, for us as Christians... as often gets repeated by those on both sides.
What matters in all this is coming to a knowledge of God and believing in Jesus' words.
Believing in Jesus provides ultimate meaning and purpose in life, and obviously means grace rather than judgement.
You know I use to really give a damn about debating the Genesis Creation. But now, it's like I'm not at all phased about who is right.
What I believe and what others believe can be different as long as they truly know what matters.
I'm with you in that I don't care who is right. But my concern is the hermeneutics. OEC hermeneutics are,
in my assessment inconsistent. And I worry about the theological implications. I've argued about Rom 5:12 and Rom 8 for years now on this board. Allowing death before the Fall is a MAJOR problem theologically. And it has very PRACTICAL ramifications. As a hospital chaplain, it goes to the very heart of my pastoral theology. To permit death before the fall is to permit death and suffering to be natural. And that simply does not work . . . not at the hospital bedside. You want to talk about God being the ultimate author of Scripture, and therefore, humans can be ignorant of what they were really writing. I don't buy that, but fine. What I want to talk about is the fact that God wasn't writing to answer our mere curiosities. He was writing to teach us something about ourselves and our place in this world, what it is, what it isn't, and what it should be. When I am ministering to a mother who has just lost her two week old son, it is helpful to know that this suffering is not natural. It is, in fact, unnatural. And it is due completely and entirely to the brokenness of our spirits, and that this brokenness, since it affects the very image of God, affects the creation over which this image rules. And that points to a hope that all will be made right again (1 Thess 4:13). See, for me, a theology of restoration and redemption isn't just rooted in God's decision to do something for us at the Cross. It's rooted in the fact that God is putting things back
like they ought to be, and that word "ought" is the one that has full importance. OEC doesn't--it cannot--see redemption as a matter of "ought." It is NOT true that we ought to have a world in which there
ought to be no death. To the contrary, we live in a world where death
ought to reign! "This is what is supposed to happen," I have to think to myself, when I see death and suffering. The appeal to redemption, then, is actually not an appeal to
redemption at all but an appeal to
recreation. That's certainly a matter of grace. I would never deny that. But it is missing the redemptive aspect that makes the whole biblical narrative so powerful, and what makes it so
pastoral.
I can literally take the suffering by the hand, look them in the eye, and say, "It was not supposed to be this way. You have suffered a great evil, and God will make it right." I can only say that because of my theology of Genesis 1.
So I could not care any less than I do about how old the universe is. What I care about is what kind of world Genesis 1 has God creating. OEC paints a picture of a world that is at odds with the rest of Scripture, so far as I can see it. And, linguistically, I don't see any warrant for holding to it. And so I don't! Obviously, I don't challenge anyone's salvation or piety or love for the Lord or love for Scripture over their interpretation of Genesis 1. But I do think that OEC is a deficient
theology and that it fails offer any kind of linguistic warrant for its position.
I often think God often looks down upon Christians, so passionately defending their positions, and smiles in a manner like we'd smile at these kids:
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKdDyyanGk[/youtube]
Haha . . . I enjoyed that. Very cute! :lol I hope my words don't poke your heart, K!
