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

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:38 am

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?

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:21 pm

[Replying to post 160 by Neatras]

Probably the line that says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. However the obvious problem with this approach is that if that line is to include stars then why mention them being made on day 4?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:25 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: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

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:28 pm

Neatras wrote: 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.

Well that's probably their problem.

Neatras wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:
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?

For the first point Genesis 1:1; for the second common sense, a knowledge of language and the rest of Genesis ie verses 2 - 31.

JW

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:45 pm

benchwarmer wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:
benchwarmer wrote:
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

This is clearly the case. If you read it in Hebrew the words convey plainly their meaning. Genesis is perfectly logical. Still it's best not to confuse what is "plain" (that which is apparent, evident, observable) with that which is "literal" ie that which is taken at its most basic or usual sense without metaphor or exaggeration.

JW

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:14 pm

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Sorry, JW, common sense and miracles are worse than oil and water.
You are invoking the impossible to justify the impossible by invoking "common sense."
I am afraid I won't let you off the hook that easy.

V/R

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:30 pm

Willum wrote:Sorry, JW, common sense and miracles are worse than oil and water.You are invoking the impossible to justify the impossible by invoking "common sense."

I am afraid I won't let you off the hook that easy.

V/R

My comment was referring to the application of "common sense" to the reading/understanding of the text, which forgive me, I do believe theists and atheists alike are attempting to do here. In other words, if the writer presents (A) as happening chronologically before then (B) then he cannot logically (or according to common sense) presenting at the same time (B) as happening before (A).

You are invoking the impossible to justify the impossible by invoking "common sense."

I don't think I am but I will need to hear you explain what you mean by the above to say more, since I don't really understand the comment fully or how this comment relates to anything I have said so far. Perhaps you can explain how I am allegedly "invoking the impossible" (ie what that impossible is) to justify the the impossible (ie what "impossible" thing I am attempting to "justify" is) by "invoking common sense" (my use of the words "common sense" have been explained above - see my first paragraph in this post) but I think its fair to say that most if not all posters in this forum attempt at the very least to "invoke common sense" when it comes to their analysis of any given rationale.

JW

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:07 pm

benchwarmer wrote:
bluethread wrote:
This is the precise thinking that I was just posting DtD about. Since a philosophical argument, designed to counter despotism based on truly unscientific thinking, does not line up as a scientific explanation it is discarded as useless. Do we throw out the works of Copernicus, because the orbits on his drawings are not elliptical?
If Copernicus was claiming to be the creator of the universe and didn't draw his orbits correctly then yes, we should probably consider all of his work suspect. Is Copernicus the creator of the universe? Does he claim to be? What's the point here?
So, being the creator of the universe obligates one to provide an explanation in details that would be understood and accepted by all of the creation in all time periods? Though Copernicus drew circular orbits, because he was not aware of the elliptical orbits, we generally do not criticize people who do the same thing today, when they are explaining heliocentrism. That is the point. The purpose of Gen. 1 is not to provide a complete and detailed account of creation. It's purpose was to point out the flaws in the prevailing mythology of the time, just as the purpose of the writings of Copernicus was to counter the prevailing mythology of his time.

The main problem is that Christians themselves can't seem to agree on which parts of the Bible are correct, true, should be followed, etc. Some go so far as to deny scientific observation in order to prop up their belief system and the Bible it's based on. Others simply dismiss parts of the Bible as non-literal in one way or the other in order not to appear in denial of reality. The problem is, the more we learn, the more must be dismissed.
Why, even though they have been superceded by later discoveries, aren't the works of Copernicus still respected as authoritative with regard to heliocentrism? People generally do not site Keppler when arguing for heloicentrism, but only when arguing for elliptical orbits. Yet, because some ignore historical context and create immutable doctrines, as the RCC did in judging Copernicus, we are supposed to throw the Scriptures out with the doctrine, i.e. baby and bathwater.

Eventually we are only left with what appears to be teachings on morality mixed in with a bunch of non literal stories. However, even these moral teachings are contradictory and more things need to be dismissed. It never ends.
So, now you take a singular point, which is in dispute, and justify that point by generalizing it. That is what the RCC did with Copernicus.

Are there some useful insights in the Bible? Sure. Sadly they are saddled with a ton of contradictory, immoral, and frankly ridiculous stories that lead many to toss the whole thing.
Is this an argument against the composition of Genesis 1, or is this just a bias that is being applied to Genesis 1?

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:13 pm

[Replying to post 167 by bluethread]

So, being the creator of the universe obligates one to provide an explanation in details that would be understood and accepted by all of the creation in all time periods? Though Copernicus drew circular orbits, because he was not aware of the elliptical orbits, we generally do not criticize people who do the same thing today, when they are explaining heliocentrism. That is the point. The purpose of Gen. 1 is not to provide a complete and detailed account of creation. It's purpose was to point out the flaws in the prevailing mythology of the time, just as the purpose of the writings of Copernicus was to counter the prevailing mythology of his time.

So because Copernicus uncovered amazing truth, but did not have the tools necessary to do it accurately, to within modern standards, you discount his work?
I'd say that if some alleged creator of the universe were to write something down, or have someone else do it, it should possess much more accuracy than Copernicus.

[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.

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

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

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:43 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote:
DanieltheDragon wrote: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?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:05 pm

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 167 by bluethread]

So, being the creator of the universe obligates one to provide an explanation in details that would be understood and accepted by all of the creation in all time periods? Though Copernicus drew circular orbits, because he was not aware of the elliptical orbits, we generally do not criticize people who do the same thing today, when they are explaining heliocentrism. That is the point. The purpose of Gen. 1 is not to provide a complete and detailed account of creation. It's purpose was to point out the flaws in the prevailing mythology of the time, just as the purpose of the writings of Copernicus was to counter the prevailing mythology of his time.
So because Copernicus uncovered amazing truth, but did not have the tools necessary to do it accurately, to within modern standards, you discount his work?
I'd say that if some alleged creator of the universe were to write something down, or have someone else do it, it should possess much more accuracy than Copernicus.
No, I do not discount the work of Copernicus and very few people do. That is the point. It is rare that people expect information given to a particular set of people for a particular purpose be presented in a manner that would be considered "accurate" by another set of people for a different purpose.