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]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Well make and create are still synonyms even in Hebrew.

No they are not.

[Justin108]

Firstly you do know that the bible wasn't written in English right?

You said yourself that...

My point is yes, Genesis 1:16 uses the word "make"

Yet now you seam to be appealing to a mistranslation again. If the Watch Tower properly translated the original Hebrew, then "make" is the proper translation and therefore means "make". If you do not agree with this, then you must concede that the NWT translation is false. So which is it? Is "make" the correct translation, or is the NWT a flawed translation? If "make" is not the correct translation, then what is?

If the aim is to understand what the writer meant it would be much more useful to consult a Hebrew concordance

I'm asking you. You're the one insisting that this text does not say God created/made the stars on day 4. If that is not what the text says, then what does the text say? I have asked you this repeatedly. You keep telling us what the text doesn't say, but you haven't told us what the text does say

[JehovahsWitness]

You keep telling us what the text doesn't say, but you haven't told us what the text does say

The text in English (correctly) says "made" the Hebrew is "asha"
The text in English (correctly) does not "create" in Hebrew its "bara"

The two words are not the same, they are not absolute synonyms in English and they are absolutely not synonyms in Hebrew.

Is there anything you contest in the above?

You're the one insisting that this text does not say God created/made the stars on day 4.

The text most certainly does not use both words, it uses one, therefore your implying by using the forward slash that the two words are either interchangable or that the text uses both is inaccurate.

Is there a reason why you are not acknowledging the points I am making? ie that the text does not use the word create but make (which is perfectly acceptable in English) and that the Hebrew for "make" and "create" carry different but related meanings.

[Rufus21]

Both of the above facts (that humans descend from other humans; that the human body contains elements found in the ground) are proven scientific truths.

Those are not proven scientific truths.

Humans did not decend from other humans, they decended from earlier life forms. Mankind didn't magically come into existence one day. That is a fact.

Some of the elements in our bodies are also found in the ground, although not in the same proportions, but most of those elements come from the stars. It is more correct to say that we were created not from the dust on the ground but from the stars in the sky.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.�
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

[JehovahsWitness]

It is more correct to say that we were created not from the dust on the ground but from the stars in the sky.

Well thank you for that illuminating "scientific" statement.

i) that humans were indeed created
ii) that humans were created from star dust.

Well, I respect that each person has their own beliefs, enjoy.

JW

[rikuoamero]

You keep telling us what the text doesn't say, but you haven't told us what the text does say

The text in English (correctly) says "made" the Hebrew is "asha"
The text in English (correctly) does not "create" in Hebrew its "bara"

The two words are not the same, they are not absolute synonyms in English and they are absolutely not synonyms in Hebrew.

Is there anything you contest in the above?

As I asked before...what's the difference? Why are you from my point of view, splitting hairs over the usage of one word?

So can I get you to answer the following please?
In Gen 1, what happens on Day 3? You can use whatever word you want to use in place of create, if you want.
In Gen 1, what happens on Day 4? You can use whatever word you want to use in place of create, if you want.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 76 by rikuoamero]

My question was is there any factual information in the post that you contest? It's really a yes or no question.

If no, then you concede the information is correct and I will consider building on that.

If yes, then contest it with factual information.


I will not be moving on until I get one or the other, a "yes" or a "no" with a supporting counterargument.

JW

[Bust Nak]

Is there a reason why you are not acknowledging the points I am making? ie that the text does not use the word create but make (which is perfectly acceptable in English) and that the Hebrew for "make" and "create" carry different but related meanings.

Seems like a red herring to me, so God made the stars on the forth day, as opposed to creating it on the forth day. So what? It still contradict the order as understood by science.

[Rufus21]

Well thank you for that illuminating "scientific" statement.

i) that humans were indeed created

I did not say that at all. My post clearly says that humans were not created, they descended from earlier life forms.

I'm not sure why you put the word scientific in quotes. I assume it was for the sake of sarcasm, but that wouldn't make sense since my comments are scientifically validated. Was there another reason?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 77 by JehovahsWitness]

To be honest, JW, I'm completely lost at this point. How about we start over, because I'm having extreme difficulty trying to follow your train of thought here. I don't know what exactly it is you yourself are in disagreement over...it can't be the word create, because even in the translation and the list of synonyms you gave earlier, made is a valid synonym to use.
Basically, I don't know what to make of our conversation so far.

What I do understand is this
Genesis 1 refers to plant life being formed (or alternative word) on Day 3.
Genesis 1 refers to stars, the moon and sun being formed (or alternative word) on Day 4. It also refers to the moon as a light source.
This is not scientific, we learned quite some time ago that stars formed first, then the Earth, then plant life (very roughly speaking). We know the moon does not produce light of its own, it reflects it instead.

Are you in agreement with the part in blue?