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]

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.

You say that but why isn't your preferred interpretation of Genesis literal? What is so disharmonious about God making (in the brining into existence sense) the stars on a literal 24 hours day?

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.

So how do you reconcile Genesis 1 and 2 with science, even taking the less intuitive meaning of "make" (in the presenting what was already made previously sense) into account?

[JehovahsWitness]

You say that but why isn't your preferred interpretation of Genesis literal?

Why have a "preferred interpretation" at all. Wouldn't that just be approaching the text with pre-established confirmation bias? As I said, our approach is, if a verse it to be taken literally, the immediate or extended context and the overal harmony of the message will impose this. If a verse is to be taken figuratively the same criteria will apply.

If there is any preference at all, its that the conclusion harmonize with other scriptures and the overall picture the bible presents.

JW

[Justin108]

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

Yes indeed.

So you agree that Genesis does in fact contradict science?

[JehovahsWitness]

What is so disharmonious about God making (in the brining into existence sense) the stars on a literal 24 hours day?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe God did indeed literally create the stars, only not on the fourth "creative" day.

What is so disharmonious about ... a literal 24 hours day?

Nothing at all, indeed the bible does on occassions refer to a "day" in its most basic (literal) sense of 24 hours. However that would not reasonably be the case in Genesis due to the context of the "days" clearly being extended periods of creation, some of them being prior to the sun being used as a "timekeeper" (a visible source of light), the fact that all seven "days" are also called a "day" later in the text and various other factors.

As I said in my post above, the goal is to seek internal harmony not take a position and impose that, come what may, which if I'm not mistake would amount to "confirmation bias".

JW






RELATED POST

Does the bible contain information that harmonises with proven science ?
viewtopic.php?p=1036526#p1036526

Does the bible say God created plants before the sun?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p836617

Does the bible teach the earth is FLAT?
viewtopic.php?p=1032310#p1032310

Did the sun stop shining the day Jesus died?
viewtopic.php?p=1008274#p1008274

Did Joshua report the earth stopped spinning when the sun stood still ?
viewtopic.php?p=855182#p855182

Does the sun really set?
viewtopic.php?p=1036551#p1036551

Does the bible say God created plants BEFORE he created the sun/light?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p836617

When is the Passover "New Moon"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p911296

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE SUN , BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[Justin108]

However that would not reasonably be the case in Genesis due to the context of the "days" clearly being extended periods of creation

There's nothing "clear" about it. If God is omnipotent, he would have no problem creating the world in six days. God could even do it in six seconds if he wants to.

I have a few questions regarding the metaphorical use of "day" in Genesis
- Why use "day" do describe these time periods? Why use this word exactly?
- Is each "day" in Genesis as long as every other "day"? I.e is "day 1" as long as "day 3"?

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Yes indeed.

So you agree that Genesis does in fact contradict science?

RESPONSE: I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. My "Yes indeed" was agreeing that my initial objection was "indeed" that nothing in proven science is contracted by scripture.

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

* ie yes, that was indeed my intial claim.

[Justin108]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. My "Yes indeed" what agreeing that my initial objection was "indeed" that nothing in proven science is contracted by scripture.

Then how do you explain the fact that, according to Genesis, plants existed on day 3 prior to the sun being "made"? No definition of "make" solves this problem (as explained in post 185)

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

" My "Yes indeed" what agreeing that my initial objection was "indeed" that nothing in proven science is contracted by scripture. "

"the bible is indeed truthful and not out of line with proven science."

You keep peddling nonsense.

Q: Have you not seen my post?:))


“11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.� And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.�
(Genesis 1:11-13)

“20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.� 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.� 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.� And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.�
(Genesis 1:20-25)

•535 Ma Major diversification of living things in the oceans: chordates, arthropods (e.g. trilobites, crustaceans), echinoderms, molluscs, brachiopods, foraminifers and radiolarians, etc.
•530 Ma The first known footprints on land date to 530 Ma, indicating that early animal explorations may have predated the development of terrestrial plants.[50]
•525 Ma Earliest graptolites
•510 Ma First cephalopods (nautiloids) and chitons
•505 Ma Fossilization of the Burgess Shale
•485 Ma First vertebrates with true bones (jawless fishes)
•450 Ma First complete conodonts and echinoids appear
•440 Ma First agnathan fishes: Heterostraci, Galeaspida, and Pituriaspida
•434 Ma The first primitive plants move onto land,[51] having evolved from green algae living along the edges of lakes.[52] They are accompanied by fungi[citation needed], which may have aided the colonization of land through symbiosis.
•420 Ma Earliest ray-finned fishes, trigonotarbid arachnids, and land scorpions[53]

•Seed ferns were the first seed plants, protecting their reproductive parts in structures called cupules.
•Seed ferns gave rise to the gymnosperms during the Paleozoic Era, about 390 million years ago.
•Gymnosperms include the gingkoes and conifers and inhabit many ecosystems, such as the taiga and the alpine forests, because they are well adapted for cold weather.
•True seed plants became more numerous and diverse during the Carboniferous period around 319 million years ago; an explosion that appears to be due to a whole genome duplication event

• Angiosperms evolved during the late Cretaceous Period, about 125-100 million years ago.
• Angiosperms have developed flowers and fruit as ways to attract pollinators and protect their seeds, respectively.
• In botany, a fruit is the seed-bearing structure in flowering plants (also known as angiosperms) formed from the ovary after flowering.
• The ancestors of flowering plants diverged from gymnosperms in the Triassic Period, during the range 245 to 202 million years ago (mya), and the first flowering plants are known from 160 mya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant
https://www.boundless.com/biology/textb ... /seed-plan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ry_of_life
https://www.boundless.com/biology/textb ... /seed-plan...


In the Genesis we have plants with flowers and fruits been created before animals.

Science shows animals were in the seas and land long before there were any flower and fruit bearing plants.

Therefore Genesis contradicts science.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. My "Yes indeed" what agreeing that my initial objection was "indeed" that nothing in proven science is contracted by scripture.

Then how do you explain the fact that, according to Genesis, plants existed on day 3 prior to the sun being "made"? No definition of "make" solves this problem (as explained in post 185)

Since the sun existed prior to day three there is not reason to conclude it there wasn't light prior to day three. The only thing that would render that "impossible" would be if the sun wasn't there (ie did not exist) which, I think we agree, was not the case if the text is to be believed. That is unless you can find a verse that says that prior to day four there was no light.

JW

[DanieltheDragon]

... trying to figure out why you think the stars were created before day 4.

Because the first verse of the bible says God created "the heavens and the earth" and the heavens (refering to the physical universe) includes stars, planets, etc. This was obviously prior to day four.

JW

That is an inference the heavens can also simply refer to the sky. It is not explicit in stating that this includes the universe, stars planets, etc. what's more there does not seem to be a concept of the universe as we understand it in the early Hebrew culture.

Additionally why even mention the stars in day 4. Even if we use the brought about interpretation, where were the stars before this? Why did God need to put them in the firmament? It doesn't add up.