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]

The implication was that the bible was scientifically inaccurate BECAUSE it stated that light/stars were created after plants. My point was to establish that this was inaccurate since the bible makes no such statement...

Okay, do you have any problem with the implication that the bible was scientifically inaccurate BECAUSE it stated that light/stars were made after plants?

Already addressed post #94

[KingandPriest]

My argument is that Day 3 has an event happening that, per science, cannot happen before the event that is talked about as happening on Day 4.
Quibbling over the word 'create' or 'made' or whatever does not alter my argument.

I know JW is trying to make the passage fit a timeline that comports with what you consider to be important. However, to your point, if the presumption is that this chapter is taken as a detailed literal description, how "scientifically" do these things happen in seven days? If that can happen, why can't there be an alternative source of radiation for one day? In for a penny, in for a pound. I will agree with you though that making Gen. 1 a scientific treatise rather than a philosophical one does not make sense.

We'd need evidence of this radiation. Also, we can't have a planet Earth existing some undefined period of time before the sun. Science tells us the sun existed before the Earth.

Science only hypothesizes that the sun came first. There is no evidence to support that the sun is older than the Earth. It is just a hypothesis that is widely accepted with no supporting empirical evidence.

In fact we actually have evidence that supports the earth may be older than the sun, but this evidence is ignored because it does not align with the widely accepted nebular hypothesis.

[JehovahsWitness]

As was established by you back in post 4, Genesis is meant to be read literally. For that reason, we need to read "made" literally. With that in mind...

make
meɪk/
verb
1.
form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create.
"my grandmother made a dress for me"
synonyms: construct, build, assemble, put together, manufacture, produce, fabricate, create, form, fashion, model, mould, shape, forge, bring into existence
"he makes model steam engines"
2.
cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about.
"the drips had made a pool on the floor"

There are a lot of words there, which one(s) do you think applied to the passage in question. Fashioned? constructed? Do you think the verse is saying God "shaped" the stars on the fouth day? The way a sculpture "shapes" a slab of rock into something beautiful? Did he "assemble" the stars/light the way you take already existing elements (like bricks) to assemble a wall?


Which of the above words do you choose to apply and why?

[benchwarmer]

My argument is that Day 3 has an event happening that, per science, cannot happen before the event that is talked about as happening on Day 4.
Quibbling over the word 'create' or 'made' or whatever does not alter my argument.

I know JW is trying to make the passage fit a timeline that comports with what you consider to be important. However, to your point, if the presumption is that this chapter is taken as a detailed literal description, how "scientifically" do these things happen in seven days? If that can happen, why can't there be an alternative source of radiation for one day? In for a penny, in for a pound. I will agree with you though that making Gen. 1 a scientific treatise rather than a philosophical one does not make sense.

We'd need evidence of this radiation. Also, we can't have a planet Earth existing some undefined period of time before the sun. Science tells us the sun existed before the Earth.

Science only hypothesizes that the sun came first. There is no evidence to support this.

Well, you would be wrong. Again. Last time this was discussed I pointed you to a link that shows scientists are observing planet formation. Here's another link:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/09/e ... from-earth

And a more recent one:

https://astronomynow.com/2016/01/05/vla ... formation/

I suppose you can be pedantic and claim this is not showing how Earth formed, but I think most people would realize that observing other planets forming around stars likely tells us how they formed around the one we are currently orbiting. One could also go by the fact we haven't observed the reverse happen yet.

If you want to ignore observation and rely on ancient myths, go for it. However, please stop saying we have no evidence.

[Justin108]

As was established by you back in post 4, Genesis is meant to be read literally. For that reason, we need to read "made" literally. With that in mind...

make
meɪk/
verb
1.
form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create.
"my grandmother made a dress for me"
synonyms: construct, build, assemble, put together, manufacture, produce, fabricate, create, form, fashion, model, mould, shape, forge, bring into existence
"he makes model steam engines"
2.
cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about.
"the drips had made a pool on the floor"

There are a lot of words there, which one(s) do you think applied to the passage in question. Fashioned? constructed? Do you think the verse is saying God "shaped" the stars on the fouth day? The way a sculpture "shapes" a slab of rock into something beautiful? Did he "assemble" the stars/light the way you take already existing elements (like bricks) to assemble a wall?


Which of the above words do you choose to apply and why?

As I have already stated...

While I understand "make" to have several definitions, they all seem to be saying the same thing. If you can find a definition that does not agree with my interpretation, feel free to mention it.

Whether God fashioned, constructed or shaped the stars, it doesn't change the fact that before he did this - the stars did not exist. They may have existed as separate gasses, but they did not exist in the form of stars prior to God "making" them stars. It does not matter whether he did so via shaping them, fashioning them, constructing them or assembling them. It does not change the core issue which is that the stars did not exist, at least not as stars, prior to God making them.

Furthermore, my focus on the above definition is not the synonyms (which you seem to be focusing on), but rather the actual definition, namely: "form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances"

Now if you can actually give me a definition that resolves the core issue (i.e the issue of plants existing prior to stars) then please do so. As it stands, your focus on whether God "fashioned" or "constructed" the stars is entirely irrelevant to the core issue.

To illustrate this in a very simple manner:
day 3: plants (no stars)
day 4: stars

Now please give me a definition of "made" that would allow for stars to exist prior to day 4.

[rikuoamero]

My argument is that Day 3 has an event happening that, per science, cannot happen before the event that is talked about as happening on Day 4.
Quibbling over the word 'create' or 'made' or whatever does not alter my argument.

I know JW is trying to make the passage fit a timeline that comports with what you consider to be important. However, to your point, if the presumption is that this chapter is taken as a detailed literal description, how "scientifically" do these things happen in seven days? If that can happen, why can't there be an alternative source of radiation for one day? In for a penny, in for a pound. I will agree with you though that making Gen. 1 a scientific treatise rather than a philosophical one does not make sense.

We'd need evidence of this radiation. Also, we can't have a planet Earth existing some undefined period of time before the sun. Science tells us the sun existed before the Earth.

Science only hypothesizes that the sun came first. There is no evidence to support that the sun is older than the Earth. It is just a hypothesis that is widely accepted with no supporting empirical evidence.

In fact we actually have evidence that supports the earth may be older than the sun, but this evidence is ignored because it does not align with the widely accepted nebular hypothesis.

Facepalm. That is all I can say with regards to this.

[bluethread]

It is not about Gen 1 being detailed. Someone said Gen 1 does not contradict science, I disagree. Whether you think that disagreement is important is another subject. I don't think the bible needs to be in line with science because it features magic as a main component of how it views and describes the world. God magicked creation, if you believe that who cares what science says.

It's like the flood story, if you believe it is a factual account why bother trying to prove it's scientifically possible?

I agree with you to a point. However, just as attempting to make a philosophical argument fit scientific detail is not necessary, rejecting it as "magic" is not proper either. We in the scientific era live in the elusion that all things can be explained scientifically. That leads us to the orthodoxy of nothing being important, if it does not comport with what can be currently verified scientifically, hence the labelling of things as "metaphor" or "magic". Everything science has confirmed was mysterious at one time. When one is dealing with first principles and philosophical arguments, a scientific framework is rarely an overriding consideration, though it is not entirely ignored either.

I am really responding to your earlier statement regarding this being a matter of "sheepherders" not understanding the relationship between the sun and plant life. I disagree. I think that those "sheepherders" knew perfectly well about the relationship of the sun to plant growth. They could see the shadows as well as you and had plenty of time to note that they were always opposite from the sun. In fact, it is more likely that someone living in an age without artificial light would note such things. My point is that, in this passage, that is not as important as the value of the sun. moon and stars in establishing linear time. Also, that it is possible that this concept is placed on the 4th "day" of creation, because the signs and seasons of the sun is more important than the radiology at this point. There is no disagreement with science. That is just not how the argument is arranged.

[benchwarmer]

As was established by you back in post 4, Genesis is meant to be read literally. For that reason, we need to read "made" literally. With that in mind...

make
meɪk/
verb
1.
form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create.
"my grandmother made a dress for me"
synonyms: construct, build, assemble, put together, manufacture, produce, fabricate, create, form, fashion, model, mould, shape, forge, bring into existence
"he makes model steam engines"
2.
cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about.
"the drips had made a pool on the floor"

There are a lot of words there, which one(s) do you think applied to the passage in question. Fashioned? constructed? Do you think the verse is saying God "shaped" the stars on the fouth day? The way a sculpture "shapes" a slab of rock into something beautiful? Did he "assemble" the stars/light the way you take already existing elements (like bricks) to assemble a wall?


Which of the above words do you choose to apply and why?

I have to ask, what difference does it make other than playing word games?

Which day were the stars functional?

Which day were the plants alive?

All this back and forth looks like is an attempt to dance around word meaning with no real justification. Make those words mean whatever you want, it still doesn't account for plants coming before stars and the direct contradiction this has with observed reality.

Why is it that when the Bible conflicts with science theists get into confusing word games that don't help clarify anything?

At best we can surmise the Bible is not clear on a very basic question. i.e. How did we get here? If it can't even answer that in a reasonable, clear, conforming with observation way, then why should we believe anything written between its covers? It would have been better to leave that out of the canon since it's clearly mythology (and contradictory on top of that).

A couple pages in and the book has already shot itself in the foot.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 107 by bluethread]

I don't think I said they didn't understand a relationship between sun and plant life. What I meant was that their understanding was clearly not at the same level we have today. So things like the sun appear to move with a bright sky and things like the moon appear to move with a dark sky. This would be perfectly rational for a people without the tools we have at our disposal today.

That to pretend they had the same understanding we do is preposterous. Which is why Gen1 should not be taken from a factual approach. It being a philosophical account seems more practical. They might understand lots of daylight helps their plants grow but they probably didn't know about photosynthesis or why daylight helps their plants grow.

The author of Genesis 1 clearly did not intend to convey a scientifically accurate representation of how a creation might occur.

[JehovahsWitness]

Now if you can actually give me a definition that resolves the core issue (i.e the issue of plants existing prior to stars) then please do so. As it stands, your focus on whether God "fashioned" or "constructed" the stars is entirely irrelevant to the core issue.

First of all I have posted extensively in this thread as to why "create" in Genesis 1:14-16 would not be a fitting choice for an English translation of the Hebrew work used in this verse. Since not one of the major translations use the word "create" ie bring into existence in that verse and the original Hebrew certainly does not support this choice, can you please justify your choice of "create" from the dictionary list you yourself posted rather than another of the several alternative words from the DICTIONARY definition provided (see below) ?

As was established by you back in post 4, Genesis is meant to be read literally. For that reason, we need to read "made" literally. With that in mind...

make
meɪk/
verb
1.
form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create.
"my grandmother made a dress for me"
synonyms: construct, build, assemble, put together, manufacture, produce, fabricate, create, form, fashion, model, mould, shape, forge, bring into existence
"he makes model steam engines"
2.
cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about.
"the drips had made a pool on the floor"

New International Version
God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

New Living Translation
God made two great lights--the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.

English Standard Version
And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

New American Standard Bible
God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

King James Bible
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

New American Standard 1977
And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

King James 2000 Bible
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

American King James Version
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

American Standard Version
And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

World English Bible
God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars.

[/b]