How do we know Genesis was intended to be a metaphor?

[Justin108]

Other than our current understanding of science clearly contradicting Genesis, what reason is there to believe Genesis was written as a metaphorical account of creation?

[JehovahsWitness]

Those attempting to justify Genesis as scientific seem to be trying to take a literal position.

Well then may I respectfully suggest you find someone that takes a literal position and debate that point with them. As for myself I do not think everything in Genesis should be taken literally by which I mean all words take at their most elementary most basic sense.

JW

Again if it's metaphor why does it need to be scientifically justifiable? Why are you so hard pressed in presenting a metaphor as congruent with science?

Which verse are you referring to?

[DanieltheDragon]

Those attempting to justify Genesis as scientific seem to be trying to take a literal position.

Well then may I respectfully suggest you find someone that takes a literal position and debate that point with them. As for myself I do not think everything in Genesis should be taken literally by which I mean all words take at their most elementary most basic sense.

JW

Again if it's metaphor why does it need to be scientifically justifiable? Why are you so hard pressed in presenting a metaphor as congruent with science?

Which verse are you referring to?[/quote]

I was under the impression we have been talking about Genesis chapter 1 this entire time.....

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 172 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes, but which verse in Genesis 1 (and which word) are you referring to? I cannot say if something is to be taken literally or figuratively unless I know specifically what is under discussion.

JW

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 172 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes, but which verse in Genesis 1 (and which word) are you referring to? I cannot say if something is to be taken literally or figuratively unless I know specifically what is under discussion.

JW

All of it

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 172 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes, but which verse in Genesis 1 (and which word) are you referring to? I cannot say if something is to be taken literally or figuratively unless I know specifically what is under discussion.

JW

All of it

Well you will have to speak to someone that regards ALL of the verses in Genesis 1 literally because that is not the case for me; some of the verses are to be read literally and some figuratively.

I can't really say more unless you have a specific verse in mind.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 166 by JehovahsWitness]

You are proposing the impossible concept of a God so stupid that he would time his creation of stars so that two people would see all the stars, instead of all mankind see stars as their light arrived on the planet.

Well I have no idea how you got that idea from anything I have written. Perhaps you can identify the actual post that you base the above on and quote my words because I cannot imagine how you got that from anything I actually posted.

The impossibility of a being of such power is a logically non-sequitur assumption, certainly to base a logical conclusion.

ditto

Then you have to have the stars thus created before those days, and so on and so on.

Well if you are saying that I posted that the stars where part of "the heavens" that were created "in the beginning" then yes, that is exactly what I am saying; notably because that is what the text explicitly says in Genesis 1:1.

...and so on and so on.

What does this refer to?


JW

[Justin108]

Correct me if I'm wrong but to "create" means to bring something that did not previously exist into existence*; So you are effectively attributing the meaning of "create" to the word.

I have not once referenced the word "create" in any of the above definitions. I have consistently been using the various definitions of the word "make". If they happen to sound similar then so be it. I didn't decide what the definition for "make" is, I simply referenced it. If you have a more fitting definition of "make" then feel free to provide it.

Since the word in question in the original Hebrew does not mean to bring something into existence that previously doesn't exist

Again, you are telling us what the word does not mean. We have been through this countless times. Stop telling me what the word does not mean and tell me what the word does mean.

why are you attributing that specific meaning* (bring into existence) to the text?

Because that's what "make" means and since the NWT translated the text as "make", I am using the meaning for "make" which from every definition that I can find comes down to "bring into existence". If you disagree that "make" is the appropriate translation then you have to concede that the Watch Tower falsely translated the text. Either that or you need to provide a definition for "make" that does not involve bringing anything into existence.

So here are your options
a) Concede that Genesis is in contrast with science
b) Concede that the Watch Tower failed to accurately translate the text
c) Provide an alternate definition of "make"

[Justin108]

Ok, Lets start with the facts we do know

There is empirical evidence that supports the age of the sun being about 4.6 billion years old ± 1-5% margin of error depending on the method used. The actual calculations show the Sun is 4.57 billion years old ± 1% margin for error.

This would yield a date range of 4.5243 - 4.6157 billion years ago. By contrast we have more evidence supporting a date range of the planet earth between 4.492 - 4.596 billion years ago. We also have additional evidence on the Earth to support the possibility that the water on the planet Earth, is older than the sun, but by marginal amounts.

Based on the presence of rocks that were 4.4 billion years ago, and the presence of fossils at least 3.5 billion years ago, it is presumed that the sun must have been luminous prior to the formation of plants. This makes sense, but the time line does not explain why the sun had to form and become luminous prior to the earth. Only that it had to become luminous prior to plant life. The accretion process for the earth could have began millions of years before the sub began to form.

So once again, lets compare the date ranges for the age of the sun vs earth
Earth: 4.492 - 4.596
Sun: 4.5243 - 4.6157

The evidence suggests that all of the planets and sun in our solar system formed around the same time, meaning it is not possible to confirm which began to form first. It is only assumed and theorized that the sun formed first. This is not a fact, and has not been corroborated by our observations of other solar systems in the universe. The older date for the sun was chosen for the sole purpose of aligning with the nebular hypothesis which predicts that solar systems form from the inside out. This same hypothesis though would then have to support an older age for the gas giants than currently calculated. We know and have observed planetary migration, which could account for how these gas giants formed closer to the sun, and then migrated to the orbits we see today, but this would create another problem of not leaving sufficient material to form the inner planets.

So the same theory that presumes the sun is older that all the other planets (which has not been validated by empirical evidence), fails to explain many other phenomena we see in our solar system today. It is presumed to be true, despite much contrary evidence.

There is overlap between these two dates. The older date for the sun was chosen because it was assumed that the sun came first. There is no empirical evidence to support that the sun was formed first. Just an assumption made by cosmologist.

It is just as possible that the earth is 4.59 billion years old and the sun is 4.52 billion years old. There is nothing in science that prevents this except for the assumptions made by some individuals.

All of this is irrelevant. Even if the earth was somehow older than the sun, there is absolutely no way it would be older than all the stars. According to Genesis, however, the stars weren't made until day 4. So even if the earth was older than the sun, Genesis would still be wrong.

[JehovahsWitness]

why are you attributing that specific meaning* (bring into existence) to the text?

Because that's what "make" means

That's what make can mean, but there are other meanings attributed to the verb "to make" which which do not carry the thought of "bring something into existence". Since the Hebrew word here does not mean to bring into existence but does have a multitude of other meaning, some of which encompass to process or enable something that already (or previously) exists, "make" in this circumstance, while a perfectly fitting English choice, obviously in context carries an alternative meaning (from from "to bring into existence").

The alternative choice of meanings that must be attributed to "make" can be see from an earlier post made on this point.

JW

[Justin108]

And I pointed out that the stars were created before the seven days and that the seven "days" should not be take to mean seven 24-hour periods.

So in order for your position to be held up, you not only need to selectively define "made" (not that you've even gone as far as providing a definition), you also need to selectively define "day". How would you define "day" in this context?

No the creation account is not flawed when reading it plainly.

If one were to read this text plainly then "day" would mean 24 hours and "make" would mean bringing something into existence.