So I grew up around creationists. When I presented this idea, the only attempt at a justification I heard was something like “in the original Hebrew the word for a literal day was used, that’s how we know creation happened in literal 6 days”
Which baffled me enough to shut me up, so that guy probably thinks he convinced me.
I dont know hebrew, but that does seem plasuable enough to me. My understanding is that different languages have different structures, and therefore its definitely plausible that hebrew has a “literal” structure. Similar to how we say literally, except we use it wrong a bunch.
Of course, I generally doubt anyone that says they know hebrew until they demonstrate it, so i doubt what they said was true, but I could understand how it might’ve been believable.
Yeah, I could imagine there being some kind distinction in a language, such that it is always clear when one is making a metaphor as opposed to being literal. I also don’t know if that actually applies to Hebrew.
But what baffled me was more that even if this were true, holding a belief that goes against pretty much all evidence, based purely on a grammatical quirk of an ancient culture. It’s quite a stretch 😅
So I grew up around creationists. When I presented this idea, the only attempt at a justification I heard was something like “in the original Hebrew the word for a literal day was used, that’s how we know creation happened in literal 6 days”
Which baffled me enough to shut me up, so that guy probably thinks he convinced me.
Original Hebrew? Anything in Hebrew that is supposedly from the “original” is a translation.
Well duh, if they meant metaphorical day, they should have used the hebrew word for metaphorical days.
/s
I dont know hebrew, but that does seem plasuable enough to me. My understanding is that different languages have different structures, and therefore its definitely plausible that hebrew has a “literal” structure. Similar to how we say literally, except we use it wrong a bunch.
Of course, I generally doubt anyone that says they know hebrew until they demonstrate it, so i doubt what they said was true, but I could understand how it might’ve been believable.
Yeah, I could imagine there being some kind distinction in a language, such that it is always clear when one is making a metaphor as opposed to being literal. I also don’t know if that actually applies to Hebrew.
But what baffled me was more that even if this were true, holding a belief that goes against pretty much all evidence, based purely on a grammatical quirk of an ancient culture. It’s quite a stretch 😅