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?

[Bust Nak]

No we are not. I mean, it's an explanation that at least doesn't contradict the words in the text but it's far from the most reasonable one and fails to take into account other expressions in the passage which lead to a better and more scientifically sound, conclusion.

Is an interpretation better and more reasonable because it is more scientifically sound?

In other words, we are to use an interpretation based on how closely it matches science, rather than how the impression one gets as a reader?

[JehovahsWitness]

Still a problem there JW. So this means that prior to Day 4, the sun/stars did not appear/were not present/(invisible?). Again, this spells problems for plants that need photosynthesis to make food.

But it does address the accusation (which is what I initially objected to) that the text states that the stars/sun (our sun is a star) were "created" ie "came into existence" on day four. My point is that is NOT what the text says and not what the language implies and I think I have reasonably presented enough word study on the text to reasonably indicate that an alternative meaning should be imposed.

Actually, your initial claim was that

There is nothing in a correct reading of Genesis that contradicts proven science

But as we have demonstrated, even with the various alternate definitions of "make" you provided, Genesis still contradicts proven science.

Yes indeed. And then someone raised the point about the stars being created (came into existence) on the 4th day as an example of the bible contradicting proven science and I objected since that is not what a "correct reading" would lead us to understand.


JW

[TheBeardedDude]

Still a problem there JW. So this means that prior to Day 4, the sun/stars did not appear/were not present/(invisible?). Again, this spells problems for plants that need photosynthesis to make food.

But it does address the accusation (which is what I initially objected to) that the text states that the stars/sun (our sun is a star) were "created" ie "came into existence" on day four. My point is that is NOT what the text says and not what the language implies and I think I have reasonably presented enough word study on the text to reasonably indicate that an alternative meaning should be imposed.

Actually, your initial claim was that

There is nothing in a correct reading of Genesis that contradicts proven science

But as we have demonstrated, even with the various alternate definitions of "make" you provided, Genesis still contradicts proven science.

Yes indeed. And then someone raised the point about the stars being created (came into existence) on the 4th day as an example of the bible contradicting proven science and I objected since that is not what a "correct reading" would lead us to understand.


JW

What is a "correct" reading? One that is reinterpreted in a way so as to make it congruent with scientific fact?

[JehovahsWitness]

Is an interpretation better and more reasonable because it is more scientifically sound?

Well it can't hurt; it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick [British English: idiom]

In other words, we are to use an interpretation based on how closely it matches science, rather than how the impression one gets as a reader?

No, I don't think so. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses we hold firmly to the method of letting the bible "interpret itself" in other words, allowing verses that are ambiguous or less easy to understand to be clarified by other verses on the same subject; all the while seeking internal harmony and have complete confidence that internal harmony is there to be found.

That said, one would expect a book from God to be scientifically sound, and as I have said on several occassions, the bible is indeed truthful and not out of line with proven science. True science is after all simply the study of the natural world and we believe that natural world was designed and created by the same God that inspired the bible.

In short, scientific consensus (which is far from infallible) does not dictate bible interpretation, but that the bible (which is not a science manual, but a spiritual book of faith) reflects proven science is what we would expect. When the scientific consensus (not necessarily science itself but how the facts are interpreted) conflicts with the bible, our believe is the bible is right and that the scientists that disagree would do well to go back and reevaluate their conclusion.

JW

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 192 by JehovahsWitness]

Your correct wording doesn't fly with science either. From the outside lookin in it looks like you want to argue the stars were made before day 4 but were simultaneously not shining on the earth prior to day 4. Then on day 4 God brings them about into the firmament. It still doesn't change the fact that there were no star photons hitting the planet for the plants. Never mind the fact that there are star billions of light years away and that somehow these photons instantly traveled across the universe simultaneously.


I can limbo pretty good but your setting the bar to low it's hurting my back.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your correct wording doesn't fly with science either. From the outside lookin in it looks like you want to argue the stars were made before day 4 but were simultaneously not shining on the earth prior to day 4.

No I am not trying to argue that. But yes, I am arguing that the stars existed prior to the fourth day, indeed that the stars/planet/our sun where included in "the heavens" that are mentioned in the very first verse of the first chapter of the bible.

JW

[TheBeardedDude]

Your correct wording doesn't fly with science either. From the outside lookin in it looks like you want to argue the stars were made before day 4 but were simultaneously not shining on the earth prior to day 4.

No I am not trying to argue that. But yes, I am arguing that the stars existed prior to the fourth day, indeed that the stars/planet/our sun where included in "the heavens" that are mentioned in the very first verse of the first chapter of the bible.

JW

So a "correct reading" is one where you assume it says something it didn't and didn't mean what it said when it did say it?

[JehovahsWitness]

So a "correct reading" is one where you assume it says something it didn't and didn't mean what it said when it did say it?

No a correct reading would be one where one accepts what the text says and takes it that it means what it says when it says it.

[TheBeardedDude]

So a "correct reading" is one where you assume it says something it didn't and didn't mean what it said when it did say it?

No a correct reading would be one where one accepts what the text says and takes it that it means what it says when it says it.

Except when it doesn't (as in the star example)

[JehovahsWitness]

Except when it doesn't (as in the star example)

No, the discussion on the meaning of "made" has simply been centered on reasoning on dictionary definitions. I did referece the Hebrew, simply because the bible was not written in English and original language can help us to know which English meaning (definition) is closest to the author's intention when there are several options.

JW