Evidence for God from Science

Jac wrote:That says it all.

Jac wrote:edit: I'm going to take one last shot at this. I am convinced that I'm not explaining myself correctly, because you are not even addressing my point. Let me just do this Q/A style:
Q. Briefly, what causes you to consider the snake in Genesis 3 to be non-literal?

In this lesson, I'd like to lay out in more detail, with at least a little visual help, my translation of the word in Gen. 3 usually translated “serpent” in Genesis 3 — hannachash. I'll also trace a few references to the “seed” of hannachash in the Old Testament. Some of what follows will be familiar, as my goal is to try and tie a few ends together a bit more tightly for readers.

The Hebrew word שחנ , is actually an adjective (ןונ ש; meaning “bright”, “brazen (as in shiny brass) with the prefixed article (-ה the word “the” in Hebrew). Thus the word is formed ןונ ש + חקיפ (a dot is added in the second letter from the right when an article is attached). The whole word then, in the Hebrew text is שחנ , hannachash
(nachash is pronounced “nakash”).

What is different about this approach is that I view the base word, nachash, as an adjective, not a noun. The NOUN spelled nachash in Hebrew can mean: snake / serpent or one who practices of divination. The adjective means “bright, brazen” and is itself the base word for other nouns in Hebrew, like “shining brass.”

Hebrew grammar, it is not unusual for an adjective to be “converted” for use as a noun (the proper word is “substantivized”).2 A common example would be “holy one” (with or without the article). If we take שחנ  as deriving from the adjective rather than as a noun, the translation becomes “the shining one”, which is quite in concert with descriptions of the satan figure in the Old Testament. For example, in Isa 14:12-15, he is called Helel ben-shachar — “The shining one, son of the dawn.” Elsewhere, divine beings are described as “shining” or luminous, even by use of the adjective ןונ ש. For example:

Daniel 10
Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by
the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris, 5I lifted my eyes
and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose
waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! His body was like beryl,
his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like
torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze
(ןונ ש; ; חקיפ) in color, and the sound of his words like the
voice of a multitude.

Personally, I tend to think that, in light of the serpentine appearance of divine beings in Yahweh's presence, what we
have in Genesis 3 is wordplay using all the meanings of the חקיפ semantic range. That is, Eve was not talking to a snake. She was speaking to an bright, shining upright being who was serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her with lies. She was in the presence of one of the sons of God, beings who had free will, who were more powerful than mere angels, whom humanity was created “a little lower” (Psalm 8:4-5; the phrase usually translated as “a little lower than the angels” is actually “a little lower than the elohim in the Hebrew text).3 She was speaking to a member of the divine council who did not share Yahweh's enthusiasm for his new creation, humankind, to whom Yahweh had just given rule over the planet (Gen 1:26-27). These mere humans were—as the “lesser elohim” had been previously—created as Yahweh's image (“let US”…“OUR” in Gen 1:26-27), to rule the cosmos for Yahweh, and earth — at least until humanity was fashioned. In this last regard, I share the view of certain lines of Jewish tradition that teach the “serpent's” motive for seducing Eve was jealousy at humanity's “appointment” as supreme authority under Yahweh on earth — as opposed to the sons of God getting that job.

• The thought might have occurred to you that when the Hebrew writers referred to the God of Israel as “THE God” (par excellence) or “Most High” (greater and more exalted than all others) that this implies more than one god. If that question crept into your mind, kudos to you! You'd be correct . . . according to Psalm 82:1, the singular God (elohim) of Israel presides over an assembly or council of other gods (elohim).

Jac3510 wrote:You do realize that his entire argument is based on a polytheistic view of the Old Testament, don't you? I can't imagine why wikipedia labels him evangelical.

• The thought might have occurred to you that when the Hebrew writers referred to the God of Israel as “THE God” (par excellence) or “Most High” (greater and more exalted than all others) that this implies more than one god. If that question crept into your mind, kudos to you! You'd be correct . . . according to Psalm 82:1, the singular God (elohim) of Israel presides over an assembly or council of other gods (elohim).

Oh, here's the link. Look, from the same page you referenced, he says that "[Eve] was speaking to a member of the divine council who did not share Yahweh's enthusiasm for his new creation, humankind, to whom Yahweh had just given rule over the planet."

Besides this, he directly contradicts Jesus' own words (which is never a good idea). He argues that the elohim of Ps. 82:1 cannot refer to Israelites because there is no "scriptural basis for the idea that God presides over a council of humans that governs the nations of the earth." And yet, Jesus uses this same passage with reference to the Israelites!

Jac3510 wrote:So, on this count, Heiser's entire argument falls apart. There is no council of lesser-gods in whose image we are created. Now, you wanted to talk to me about the damage our hermeneutic is causing to Christianity. Let's look at what your hermeneutic has gotten us into so far:

1. It can be taken, by men like Crossan (whether you do or not), to deny the Resurrection;
2. It implies polytheism;
3. It means Jesus either didn't understand Scripture or was a bad exegete.

Now, all in all, you still haven't answered my question: I asked you, what in the context of Genesis 3 would lead you to such a wild (or at least non-traditional) exegesis as this? I'm asking YOU, not Heiser.

Jac3510 wrote:BTW, to further kill the argument, Paul himself says this was a snake. "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ." (2 Cor 11:3) The Greek word for serpent here is ophis, which has no bearing on light-bearing. It just means snake. Also, the LXX translates hannachash with the same word: ophis. If the idea here were "a bright-shining one," Paul would have said so. As it is, Paul translates this "serpent."

So, I either take Heiser's translation or Paul's. Hmm . . .

Jac3510 wrote:Q. Briefly, what causes you to consider the snake in Genesis 3 to be non-literal?

As pointed out by Gman, Rev. 12:9 identifies Satan as that ancient serpent.

When I look at the Bible I note that the serpent first shows up in Gen 3 and so I recognize the possibility that the serpent of Gen 3 is really Satan.

When I look at Gen 2 & 3 I note certain things that strongly indicate that this passage is not to be taken literally.

First, I can agree with Jac that the passage applies to the cross...but of course, I think Jac is wrong wrt the way it applies. The scriptures tell us that eternal life is the product of what Jesus did for us when he hung on a tree...it is not something gained by our works in picking a particular fruit from a particular tree and eating it. In other words, eternal life is the fruit of Christ's work as he hung on a tree (which we eat symbolically in the Lord's supper) and is not something gained by eating the literal fruit that grows on a tree...therefore, I see the passage as prefiguring the most important message of the Bible.

Second, experience (not science) tells me (and the author and readers of Gen 3) that snakes can't actually speak for themselves and that they are not the craftiest of all beasts.

If the actual agent in the deception of Eve is Satan, then why is the snake cursed and not Satan?

The curse says nothing about removal of the ability to speak or the ability to be crafty...So why don't snakes still speak?" Why are they not still the craftiest of all beasts?

Should one disregard one's experience and believe that snakes can still talk and are still the most crafty beast?

f one wants to adopt a hermeneutic that allows one to assume that the ability to speak was removed along with superior craftiness when the Bible is silent on the matter, then I guess (if applied consistently) that hermeneutic would allow one to add a whole lot to the Bible to accommodate quite a variety of views (that are built on locations where the Bible is silent).

Jac3510 wrote:Hey ttoews, always nice to get your thoughts. First let me say that I appreciate your response.

First, I can agree with Jac that the passage applies to the cross...

1) I never argued this passage applies to the Cross.

2) Regarding this being a prefiguration of the Cross and salvation, that's fine. I have no problem with that, but we can't use that to argue against the literal nature of the passage. Again, the Cross came 1800 years after this was written. It can have no bearing on the literalness (or lack-thereof) on the text.

Jac3510 wrote:As much as I would love to walk through that and point out things like illegitimate totatality transfer (WEHOO FOR BIG WORDS), let me just go back to what I was trying to get to before. Just one question.

What, in the context of Genesis 3, causes you to take nacham to be figurative?

Actually, for the record, you have changed your argument. You are now arguing it is not figurative at all, but you are rather translating the word differently. That's fine, but I still want to know: what in the context causes you to take this as either a figurative snake or an alternate translation of "brazen one"? Why do YOU think it should be taken in either sense, rather than refering to an actual snake?

Jac wrote:You've misunderstood your own argument, Gman.

Jac wrote:You do know that nchsh (="snake") and nchsh (="brasen") are not the same word, right? It is not like the same word has two possible meanings. Actually, nchsh is not a word at all--it is a ROOT of a word.

So I need to know which of two different arguments you are putting forward, because, right now, you are mixing them. Are you arguing

1) That nchsh is the word nachash, and thus should be translated "snake," in which case the "snake" is purely a literary device that describes Satan;

OR are you arguing
2) that nchsh is the word nechosheth (the adjective), and thus should be translated "a bright one" (used substantively), in which case we have no literary device at all; in fact, we have no snake, we have a word "the bright one" referring to some semi-divine being (which later revelation tells us is Satan)?

So,which word are you using? Please note, again, this is not one word with two different meanings. These are two distinct words. Which one do you say the word in Genesis 3 is? The word nachash (snake) is NOT "more of an adjective." It is a noun, plain and simple, that means "snake." The word nechosheth (bright, as per Heismer) is NOT the word nachash and has NO relationship to snakes whatsoever. These two words simply have a similar root, no more, and no less.

We can't proceed with your argument until you tell me which one you are using.

19. THE SERPENT OF GENESIS 3.

In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Ap. 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake : no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3 : and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4. In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs.

But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph. Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in v. 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the followin 1000 g words could be addressed to him :-- "Thing heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness : I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (v. 17). Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in Ezek. 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.
There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezek. 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (vv. 1-10). The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Gen. 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezek. 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in v. 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring, of course, to his fall). So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Prov. 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1Sam. 23:22. Ps. 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Gen. 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Gen. 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being. We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated (*2) by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure Hypocatastasis (see Ap. 6) or Implication; it no more means snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen. 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Tim. 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matt. 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in vv. 14, 15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said. When it is said in v. 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heal of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. When it is said (v. 15), "He shall crush thy head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair. It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God. This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Rom. 16:20). This again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.

The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Heb. 2:14. 1John 3:8. Rev. 20:1-3, 10). What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech?

It is the same with the other Figures used in v. 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go". This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in v. 15. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Ps. 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Prov. 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Gal. 3:14, 15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Ps. 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow and subjugation. If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it was more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Cor. 11:3, 14).

It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle (*3). It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" : the former being based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional belief : for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.
The temptation of "the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said?" The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar question "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son". All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said. The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to omit the word "freely" (3:2, cp. 2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, cp. 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).
It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8, 14, 17). The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented; the latter temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.

The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime and immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs. Whenever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan". This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the newspapers of the world, and is treated as "general literature". This is why anything in favor of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial".

This is why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen. 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps. 91:11. He himself could say "It is written" (Matt. 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied. This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.

Jac3510 wrote:This is obvious, but just as obvious is the fact that Revelation was written some 1800 years after Genesis. Thus, whatever extra light the Revelation may shed on this passage, it cannot affect its original meaning.

Do you believe that we are to interpret Scripture in light of our experience?

Should we not, rather, measure our experience against the teachings of Scripture?

As far as the serpent not being the carftiest of all beasts, you can tangle with Jesus on that, not me: "Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." (Matt 10:16)

...and from that revelation, we come to see the curse on the snake as a curse on Satan as well--especially in 3:15.

Jesus refers to snakes as crafty. Regarding the removal of the ability to speak, we don't know enough about the nature of that snake to make the charge. Perhaps Adam and Eve could talk to all animals before the Fall. Perhaps they couldn't talk to any animals, but Satan was allowed to tempt Eve through that particular snake. Perhaps the loss of the ability to speak wasn't necessary to imply for the exact reason that the Israelites could well see that snakes no longer talk. There are endless possibilities, but the fact that there is even one militates against this as being an argument against the literalness of the snake.

With that said, your first clause is right. Experience should have no bearing on interpretation whatsoever.

1. What do you see IN THE TEXT that would imply the snake was non-literal; and...

2. Assuming we DO take the text as non-literal, what IN THE TEXT (that is, without reference to later Scripture) would lead you to believe this was a symbol for Satan? If nothing of the sort exists IN THE TEXT, then what, IN THE TEXT, do you find the word "snake" to be a figure for?

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:This is obvious, but just as obvious is the fact that Revelation was written some 1800 years after Genesis. Thus, whatever extra light the Revelation may shed on this passage, it cannot affect its original meaning.

original meaning is not the same thing as original understanding. When the OT speaks of God, the ultimate Author knew what kind of God was being considered, however, the Jews would not have understood the OT God to be triune in nature....and God seems to have been OK with his people possessing a more "simple" less accurate understanding until further revelation disclosed his triune nature.

Jac3510 wrote:I'm sorry, Gman, but you are just facutally wrong. This isn't a matter of how to interpret a word. This is just a plain manner of grammar. Do I need to quote from introductory Hebrew grammars here? I can, if necessary.

Here's a few basics:

1. Hebrew words have no vowels. They are composed of consonants only;
2. The standard form (especially for verbs) is to create words of three-constant roots;
3. This is a common feature of all semetic languages;
4. Roots are not words;
5. Two words with the same root may or may not be related;
6. Knowing the meaning of a root does not necessary entail knowing the meaning of the word;
7. Two words with the same root do not, then, have the same meaning, nor must the necessarily derive from the same meaning.

OK, so let's take the ROOT NCHSH (three lettrs - N (nun) CH (heth) and SH shin)). This is not a WORD. It is a root, and the root has to do with divination. Roots, then, and given prefixes, suffixes, infixes, etc., to make words and give them proper inflections. But even then, context has to tell you which word you are using (since they make look the same if the root is bare). This is not at all different from English. Consider the following words:

bear
bear

Here, we have two different words. The first is a noun, the second is a verb. They have different meanings. They are NOT related, regardless of their spelling. You can't say the noun is "more of a verb" or that the verb is "more of a noun." The context in which those four letters are found will tell me if I want the noun or the verb form.

So it is with NCHSH. So I'm reading Hebrew, and I come to this word. I say to myself, "Ah, NCHSH. Let's see, this could be a couple of words. It coult be NaCHaSH, in which case, this should be translated 'snake.' I wonder if Moses is using this word 'snake' literally or figuratively?" Or, I could come to the word NCHSH and say, "Ah, NCHSH. Clearly, Moses is using the adjective NeCHoSHeTH in a substantival manner, and therefore, I should translate this 'bright one.'"

Regardless of how I take this, I cannot say that this is Nachash and translated it as "bright one" because they are different words. Your confusion is that you are taking the root itself to be the word, and that is simply wrong. Both nachash andnechosheth are derived words from the root NCHSH, but they are not the same word, nor do they have overlapping meaning. Heiser recognizes as much, and he opts for the latter translation (since he is a polytheist).

What YOU have to decide is whether or not this WORD (not root) is Nachash or Nechosheth. If the former, it is translated "snake." If the latter, it is translated "bright one." You cannot, however, translate this "snake," and say, as Bullinger does, that this "snake" is a way to refer to a bright one.

Jac3510 wrote:References available upon request. Conversely, I have a few Ph.D's in Hebrew I can get written statements from on this.

Jac3510 wrote:This is Hebrew 101, Gman.

Jac3510 wrote:At this point, I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong (although I obviously think it is). I am saying that we have to have the right WORD to interpret, and right now, you are conflating two words. You simply cannot do that.