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?

[benchwarmer]

Genesis 1 is quite explicit that Day 4 is about stars forming...a unit of time AFTER plants started growing on planet Earth.

No this is incorrect. Feel free to provide the proof that this is what Genesis says.

Yet you can't provide proof of what Genesis means either. No one can apparently or we wouldn't be debating about it.

The point is that the creation account is flawed when reading it plainly. Only if you resort to extreme word play can you jam the account to fit with reality.

This same dance is then redone when shown that the two creation accounts don't even line up. More apologies, more dancing, more word play, no clarity.

[JehovahsWitness]

The point is that the creation account is flawed when reading it plainly.

No the creation account is not flawed when reading it plainly. If we take the words in the account to mean what they say they mean, it is perfectly logical.

JW

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 141 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, there is nothing in the Genesis account that conflicts with the idea that stars were created 4 billion or more light years before the earth.

7 days of creation would conflict with that. Which is why taking the account literally and not metaphorically is unsound.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 141 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, there is nothing in the Genesis account that conflicts with the idea that stars were created 4 billion or more light years before the earth.

7 days of creation would conflict with that. Which is why taking the account literally and not metaphorically is unsound.

I would agree if you take the seven days to mean seven 24 hours periods then you might have a problem. But since I am refering above to the period before the start of those seven creative periods anyway, I'm not sure how this comment is related to what I posted.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 141 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, there is nothing in the Genesis account that conflicts with the idea that stars were created 4 billion or more light years before the earth.

7 days of creation would conflict with that. Which is why taking the account literally and not metaphorically is unsound.

I would agree if you take the seven days to mean seven 24 hours periods then you might have a problem. But since I am refering above to the period before the start of those seven creative periods anyway, I'm not sure how this comment is related to what I posted.

You said as quote above there is nothing in Genesis that conflicts that the stars(some or all) were created before the earth. Except as I pointed out the 7 days of creation time frame is to small for that. Let alone the bible states the stars were not made until the 4th day.

If you don't take a day in the Genesis account to mean a 24 hour period when it clearly defines it so. Then you are already taking a non literal position.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 150 by JehovahsWitness]

No, I am talking about what I said, or observed.

[JehovahsWitness]

You said as quote above there is nothing in Genesis that conflicts that the stars(some or all) were created before the earth. Except as I pointed out the 7 days of creation time frame is to small for that. .

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.

If you don't take a day in the Genesis account to mean a 24 hour period when it clearly defines it so. Then you are already taking a non literal position.

Did I say I was taking a "literal position" whatever that means?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 157 by JehovahsWitness]

Literal means to take the words written as is. i.e. 1 hour = a 60 minute period.

A literal position would mean taking the words written as fact.

A literal position of this sentence:

Jimmy made dinner

Would mean that a person named jimmy made dinner.

This thread essentially boils down to literal vs metaphorical. Those attempting to justify Genesis as scientific seem to be trying to take a literal position. That there is nothing in Gen 1 that contradicts with reality seems to be a literal position if you hold that view. The conflicts with Gen 1 and scientific knowledge are meaningless if it is metaphorical.

Aesops fables have talking animals but the meaning and point of them are irrelevant to it being scientifically possible. If Gen 1 is metaphorical then it is meaningless to justify it scientifically. In fact it seems silly.

[benchwarmer]

The point is that the creation account is flawed when reading it plainly.

No the creation account is not flawed when reading it plainly. If we take the words in the account to mean what they say they mean, it is perfectly logical.

JW

This is clearly not the case. If I read it plainly it says creation happened in 7 days. That is not logical and you admit this yourself when you talk about how a day is not necessarily a 24 hour period. QED

[Neatras]

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.

What verse did you take that from?

Every single non-theist that's debated you so far has taken the first few chapters from the Bible and read them in the most elementary fashion possible. Where each successive day detailed the progression of things that come into existence. With one day detailing plants, and then a subsequent day being about stars and sources of light that would be required to exist prior to those plants. Since the first chapter of Genesis is about creation, it follows that the order given is the order of creation.

So what verses did you pull from to get the idea that stars were created earlier than plants?