by alecto » March 28th, 2008, 8:38 pm
It does seem like "plain reading" so defined, is in fact a lot like just taking "literal" to mean using the dictionary definitions of the words except in the case of metaphor. Even if we accept "plain reading" as different and significant, however, we get into two problems:
1: If we use our language to do anything, we have to take non-scriptural information (e.g. how sentences are constructed, what words mean, etc.) to interpret scripture, i.e. to find out what the "plain meaning" is. Why is this any different, really, than using geology to find out what the plain meaning has to be?
2: How do we determine where metaphorical langiage ends and begins? sqrt[-1] quoted the phrase "six normal earth-rotation days", but there are verses in the Bible that don't seem to be metaphorical in style that would preclude there being such a thing (e.g. God stopping the sun for Joshua). The normal method for distinguishing metaphorical from non-metaphorical language is via a criterion of impossibility. If I say "that man is a real bear" I am lying or using a metaphor, because no men are bears. Thus we say the sentence is metaphorical. It would seem to me (and I think St. Augustine uses the same kind of rule) that we therefore conclude the six days in Genesis are metaphorical because anyone competant to tell the age of the earth will know it is far older than that, just like most people know that no man is a bear.
Sentio ergo est.