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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 218 by JehovahsWitness]

you believe that when stars "come out" in the sky every night, they are literally being moved from elsewhere into the a place [area/space/expanse/firmament...] called "the sky"? ... and then in the morning the stars are moved literally away to elsewhere to be put back in the sky the next day?

I don't believe in the bible. Your the one that has to deal with these verses not me.

[Justin108]

Since the sun existed prior to day three there is not reason to conclude it there wasn't light prior to day three.

As was established in post 185, while the sun existed on day 3, it must have been elsewhere in order for your alternate definitions to make sense.


Your first definition of "make" defines it as "come about". This tells us the sun, while existing, was not where earth was at the time. Therefore, the plants would not have received any of the warmth or light provided by the sun.


Your second definition of "make" defines it as "produce", or as per the parts you highlighted, "bring out". Again, as before, this tells us that, while the sun existed, it was not where the earth was at the time. Therefore, the plants would not have received any of the warms or light provided by the sun.

[JehovahsWitness]

... 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.

Possibly. But since the "sky" is mentioned as coming about on day two we can safely conclude that that is not what is being referred to.

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

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

[JehovahsWitness]

Since the sun existed prior to day three there is not reason to conclude it there wasn't light prior to day three.

As was established in post 185, while the sun existed on day 3, it must have been elsewhere in order for your alternate definitions to make sense.

Established? Established by whom? You may well have "established this'' but I hope you are not implying everyone has to agree with your conclusions. I congratulated you that you were at least accepting the text as written and examining various applications, unfortunately you seem (in my opinion) to have settled one that is the most bizzare and unlikely.

I do not agree with your conclusions on the matter, so what you say, may have been established in your own mind but that seems all that is reasonable to say on that theory.

JW

[Justin108]

Established? Established by whom? You may well have "established this'' but I hope you are not implying everyone has to agree with your conclusions.

I merely went with your definitions. If you disagree with my conclusions, please explain why.

I congratulated you that you were at least accepting the text as written and examining various applications, unfortunately you seem (in my opinion) to have settled one that is the most bizzare and unlikely.

Feel free to provide a less bizarre and more likely interpretation. I have asked you several times to explain to me what exactly happened to the stars on day 4. You finally answered with a few alternate definitions of "make". I followed these definitions and formed the above conclusion.

I ask again, please explain to me what exactly happened with the stars on day 4? What does it mean when God "made" them on day 4?

[Bust Nak]

Why have a "preferred interpretation" at all. Wouldn't that just be approaching the text with pre-established confirmation bias?

No, I don't see why you cannot approach the text without pre-established confirmation bias and coming away with a preferred interpretation.

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.

I get that much. My question was, how are you justifying a figurative reading of genesis when the extended context and the overall harmony of the message does not impose figuratively reading. Indeed letting the Bible interpret itself should lead to a literal 6, 24 hours days young Earth creationism, no? Nothing in genesis jumps out and say, no, that cannot be literal.

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

But why not? What surrounding context or harmony is imposing on you to not believe stars were created on the fourth "creative" day?

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)

Surely God doesn't need a timekeeper to know 24 hours has passed?

the fact that all seven "days" are also called a "day" later in the text and various other factors.

Now that I haven't heard before. Where in the Bible is the creation week referred to as a singular day?

[JehovahsWitness]

I merely went with your definitions.

And you feel that for stars to "appear" they have to be moved? Do you apply that when the stars appear every night? I you reason "Oh the stars are coming out" facinating how every morning they move somewhere else and every evening come back so we can see them!

You don't think your reasoning is a little bizzare?

[JehovahsWitness]

You keep peddling nonsense.

That's quite a sweeping statement. What exactly are you referring to. I have thousands of posts on this forum and not a small number in this thread, perhaps it would be an idea to quote the offending statement, explain how it's nonsense and offer proof that it is such.

JW

[rickmeist]

[Replying to post 2 by KingandPriest]

The History of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Forgive me because this comment of mine should maybe belong in a separate thread but Genesis 1 has confused all since it was first written. What is the 'Spirit of God'? I could imagine the turmoil at the Council of Nicea and it most certainly has confounded the theologians and ultimately passed on to the brethren, utter bafflement.

Because of this 'Spirit of God' the Trinity had to be invented. I mean, If there is a God then what the dickens is the 'Spirit of God'? Well, it became the 'Third person'.

And so enters the 'Holy Spirit'. Whatever it is.

[JehovahsWitness]

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"?

Why use metaphor at all? Why not? Metaphor is a very useful linguistic tool to convey certain ideas efficiently and effectively. They are also usually extremely memorable (ie easy to remember) as they present sometimes complex ideas in a simple and vivid way by relating them to something we are familiar with. So why use metaphor at all? Because it's an interesting, useful and memorable way of teaching.

Why use this word [day] exactly?

Because "day" in Hebrew, as in English is a very flexible word that still manages to convey the idea of a period of time. "Period when God was doing things" doesn't have the same ring to it. A day starts, progresses (usually with various activities performed in it) and eventually ends. It's a very fitting word to describe God's creative timeframe. "There was evening, and morning ... a first day"; it's also (in my opinion) very beautiful*.

Is each "day" in Genesis as long as every other "day"? I.e is "day 1" as long as "day 3"?

We can't say for certain but given the imagery I don't think it would be unreasonable to presume so.





* The word "day" is often used in songs and poetry.