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?

[StanJ]

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?

As Genesis is not a book of science I'm really not sure about science thinks it can contradict Genesis? Genesis was written as a historical account of what transpired during creation and it is not metaphorical it is literal. There is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that indicates it is a metaphorical depiction as the wording used literally states that God created our world in 6 days.

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/di ... l-genesis/

[Neatras]

As Genesis is not a book of science I'm really not sure about science thinks it can contradict Genesis?

Welcome to the forum, mate! I can see you've made a place for yourself here, so let the debating commence.

Science contradicts claims made by the Genesis account, should the Genesis account be taken literally. Namely, it contests the claim that light existed before a light source, the claim that fruit-bearing plants existed before animals, and that a single human being named all animals in existence. We know through evolutionary theory that the first human female is not a construct created from a man's rib, and that death existed for as long as life itself has existed, which extends back billions of years.

Genesis was written as a historical account of what transpired during creation and it is not metaphorical it is literal. There is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that indicates it is a metaphorical depiction as the wording used literally states that God created our world in 6 days.

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/di ... l-genesis/

And should you hold to this position, you are in direct conflict with the scientific consensus, as well as all available evidence.

AnswersinGenesis links definitely earn my ire; they are unreliable, factually incorrect, and intellectually dishonest pseudo-scientists who have a clear bias against actual science.

Aside from a clear agenda meant to support the Biblical narrative, there is no common sense or evidence-based reason to consider the Genesis account as anything except allegorical, or simply a factually incorrect folk tale.

[StanJ]

Welcome to the forum, mate! I can see you've made a place for yourself here, so let the debating commence.

Thanks for the welcome, glad to be here.

Science contradicts claims made by the Genesis account, should the Genesis account be taken literally. Namely, it contests the claim that light existed before a light source, the claim that fruit-bearing plants existed before animals, and that a single human being named all animals in existence. We know through evolutionary theory that the first human female is not a construct created from a man's rib, and that death existed for as long as life itself has existed, which extends back billions of years.

Genesis 1 doesn't say that light existed before a light source. Gen 1:1-2 depicts the geological creation of the universe and our world. Verse 3 then depicts light being created.

And should you hold to this position, you are in direct conflict with the scientific consensus, as well as all available evidence.

What scientific consensus would that be? Has science on the whole actually come out and said that it does not agree with the account in Genesis 1 or just one area of science?

AnswersinGenesis links definitely earn my ire; they are unreliable, factually incorrect, and intellectually dishonest pseudo-scientists who have a clear bias against actual science.

So I'm going to safely assume that you're not a Christian or believer in the Bible? Why don't you start by pointing out one detail in the link I posted that is wrong?

Aside from a clear agenda meant to support the Biblical narrative, there is no common sense or evidence-based reason to consider the Genesis account as anything except allegorical, or simply a factually incorrect folk tale.

As I have been a Christian for over 45 years and I'm now 63 years old I can guarantee you that there is a lot of common sense and evidence-based rationale to consider the Genesis account is definitely literal as far as the context and Hebrew is concerned. If you're trying to prove by your assertion above, that God had no part in creation, it will take a lot more than denial and negative rhetoric to do so.

[Neatras]

Science contradicts claims made by the Genesis account, should the Genesis account be taken literally. Namely, it contests the claim that light existed before a light source, the claim that fruit-bearing plants existed before animals, and that a single human being named all animals in existence. We know through evolutionary theory that the first human female is not a construct created from a man's rib, and that death existed for as long as life itself has existed, which extends back billions of years.

Genesis 1 doesn't say that light existed before a light source. Gen 1:1-2 depicts the geological creation of the universe and our world. Verse 3 then depicts light being created.

Incorrect. Genesis 1:3 details the creation of light on the first day. Genesis 1:14-19 details the creation of light sources; namely, stars, the sun, and the moon. Prior to their existence, the light was apparently pervasive despite no source. This is opposed by scientific evidence that luminescence requires a source prior to being emitted.

And should you hold to this position, you are in direct conflict with the scientific consensus, as well as all available evidence.

What scientific consensus would that be? Has science on the whole actually come out and said that it does not agree with the account in Genesis 1 or just one area of science?

I've already outlined several problems with the creation account. Namely, the existence of light prior to its source, the incorrectness of its portrayal for how females came into being, how animals were named, and that fruit-bearing plants existed before animals.

AnswersinGenesis links definitely earn my ire; they are unreliable, factually incorrect, and intellectually dishonest pseudo-scientists who have a clear bias against actual science.

So I'm going to safely assume that you're not a Christian or believer in the Bible? Why don't you start by pointing out one detail in the link I posted that is wrong?

Your link makes the claim that Bible authors believed their stories to be literal. There's no reason for me to contest that claim; its truth has no bearing on the actual scientific validity of the stories. Even authors can spew falsehoods, and given the scientific illiteracy of the past, that wouldn't surprise me if they believed wholeheartedly such wrongness.

Aside from a clear agenda meant to support the Biblical narrative, there is no common sense or evidence-based reason to consider the Genesis account as anything except allegorical, or simply a factually incorrect folk tale.

As I have been a Christian for over 45 years and I'm now 63 years old I can guarantee you that there is a lot of common sense and evidence-based rationale to consider the Genesis account is definitely literal as far as the context and Hebrew is concerned. If you're trying to prove by your assertion above, that God had no part in creation, it will take a lot more than denial and negative rhetoric to do so.

Well, you're free to present some of your evidence, since I've already shown my hand by pointing out the scientific consensus being in opposition to the creation story. It would be improper for you to dismiss my inquiry for your supporting arguments.

[StanJ]

Incorrect. Genesis 1:3 details the creation of light on the first day. Genesis 1:14-19 details the creation of light sources; namely, stars, the sun, and the moon. Prior to their existence, the light was apparently pervasive despite no source. This is opposed by scientific evidence that luminescence requires a source prior to being emitted.

What God is doing in verses 14 - 19 is dictating that the light from the light sources is allowed to filter through the canopy of water that he created in verses 6 & 7. What God did in v3 was instigate the light source of the sun which instantly instigated luminescence of the moon and other planets.

I've already outlined several problems with the creation account. Namely, the existence of light prior to its source, the incorrectness of its portrayal for how females came into being, how animals were named, and that fruit-bearing plants existed before animals.

I've already accounted for the light source creation in verse 3 and you have not given me any detail as to female or animal creation or fruit bearing plants so I can't exactly address what you haven't.

Your link makes the claim that Bible authors believed their stories to be literal. There's no reason for me to contest that claim; its truth has no bearing on the actual scientific validity of the stories. Even authors can spew falsehoods, and given the scientific illiteracy of the past, that wouldn't surprise me if they believed wholeheartedly such wrongness.

Not just Bible authors but linguistic Scholars of today. It's a basic tenet of Christianity that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. You obviously can't prove otherwise so why even bother vilifying the biblical story? It's your prerogative whether to believe it or not but it's not your prerogative to be derogatory about it, especially as you can't corroborate any of your denials.

Well, you're free to present some of your evidence, since I've already shown my hand by pointing out the scientific consensus being in opposition to the creation story. It would be improper for you to dismiss my inquiry for your supporting arguments.

Thanks but I already knew that and I've already done that which is far more than you've done by simply denying what's been presented without any corroboration to your denials or your assertions.
I'm afraid you're under a very big misconception in this regard or you simply refuse to accept what has been rationally presented to you.

[Neatras]

Incorrect. Genesis 1:3 details the creation of light on the first day. Genesis 1:14-19 details the creation of light sources; namely, stars, the sun, and the moon. Prior to their existence, the light was apparently pervasive despite no source. This is opposed by scientific evidence that luminescence requires a source prior to being emitted.

What God is doing in verses 14 - 19 is dictating that the light from the light sources is allowed to filter through the canopy of water that he created in verses 6 & 7. What God did in v3 was instigate the light source of the sun which instantly instigated luminescence of the moon and other planets.

Well, can't fault you for coming to that interpretation. I would normally chalk this up to mental gymnastics, but at the very least it leaves me something else to discuss: namely the "canopy of water." Do you have any dimensions for the canopy, or how it actually is a "canopy" of water, considering the atmosphere consists of mostly nitrogen, with only trace amounts of water vapor in lower altitudes? Because that's what we see today.

I've already outlined several problems with the creation account. Namely, the existence of light prior to its source, the incorrectness of its portrayal for how females came into being, how animals were named, and that fruit-bearing plants existed before animals.

I've already accounted for the light source creation in verse 3 and you have not given me any detail as to female or animal creation or fruit bearing plants so I can't exactly address what you haven't.

Well, current estimates put the origin of sexual reproduction at 1.2 billion years ago. Additionally, human evolution has been accurately modeled and studied; as with most sexually reproducing species, there is evidence that females existed without any individual ever being created from a rib.

Many fruit bearing plants cannot produce fruit without some pollinator, usually insects. We are aware that fruit bearing plants experienced coevolution with insects to develop a symbiotic relationship, and one distinct group did not appear before the other.

Additionally, Genesis 2:20 makes the claim that Adam named all livestock, birds, and wild animals. I'm personally interested in whether or not he named extinct animals that have been fossilized for millions of years, but that is likely a question for another day. As it stands, the claim that a single human named all living animals is farfetched, to say the least. It would make more sense if the folk tale were written without any idea of scope for the sheer diversity of life on earth, otherwise story writers wouldn't be so quick to make these claims. We have several examples of myths being written based on an incorrect knowledge of the world, with their distinct tells being a lack of awareness for the sheer scope of the world they attempt to describe/explain.

Your link makes the claim that Bible authors believed their stories to be literal. There's no reason for me to contest that claim; its truth has no bearing on the actual scientific validity of the stories. Even authors can spew falsehoods, and given the scientific illiteracy of the past, that wouldn't surprise me if they believed wholeheartedly such wrongness.

Not just Bible authors but linguistic Scholars of today. It's a basic tenet of Christianity that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. You obviously can't prove otherwise so why even bother vilifying the biblical story? It's your prerogative whether to believe it or not but it's not your prerogative to be derogatory about it, especially as you can't corroborate any of your denials.

I can critically analyze the story, compare it with modern science, and highlight discrepancies or mistakes. Which is rather easy to do when you're not emotionally invested in the stories.

Well, you're free to present some of your evidence, since I've already shown my hand by pointing out the scientific consensus being in opposition to the creation story. It would be improper for you to dismiss my inquiry for your supporting arguments.

Thanks but I already knew that and I've already done that which is far more than you've done by simply denying what's been presented without any corroboration to your denials or your assertions.
I'm afraid you're under a very big misconception in this regard or you simply refuse to accept what has been rationally presented to you.

Well, you haven't actually presented anything to me, except for bible verses and claims that linguistic scholars believe the Bible to be truthful. That's not really any kind of argument in favor for the scientific credibility of the Bible, which is what the topic for this discussion is. Sorry, but your supposed evidence amounts to "people believe it, and I believe it." You have mistaken fallacies for rational arguments, and as a result your claims fail to make any kind of impact.

Are you willing to take me seriously now? Because I'm more than eager to discuss the scientific contradictions in Genesis; whether or not you're going to address these challenges, or simply going to dismiss them by appealing to popular belief, I can't say. I hope you'll come to terms with the fact that I'm not convinced when someone else says they are convinced. To try and convince someone of a particular idea, the most important component is providing evidence that the idea is factually correct. What you've been doing has not met that measure; instead, it is a common technique employed by the religious to assert that the standards for evidence have already been met, and thus they are not required to meet it in the current discussion.

[Rufus21]

If you're trying to prove by your assertion above, that God had no part in creation, it will take a lot more than denial and negative rhetoric to do so.

I don't believe that anyone in this thread claimed that God had no part in creation.That is a completely separate debate.

If, after 31 pages of this thread, you still don't see strong evidence of science (and common sense) contradicting Genesis, you haven't been reading. I would suggest starting at page 1 again and seeing how far we have come.

[StanJ]

If you're trying to prove by your assertion above, that God had no part in creation, it will take a lot more than denial and negative rhetoric to do so.

I don't believe that anyone in this thread claimed that God had no part in creation.That is a completely separate debate.

If, after 31 pages of this thread, you still don't see strong evidence of science (and common sense) contradicting Genesis, you haven't been reading. I would suggest starting at page 1 again and seeing how far we have come.

I'm not new to forums just to this forum and if you think I'm going to read 31 pages of nonsense you've got another think coming. I'm pretty sure after 45 years of studying the Bible I've earned the right to express my views and I know what I'm talking about. Most people who use science as a point of verification or validity have no idea what the science says. The two most used and operative words in science are IF and MAY.

[Rufus21]

I'm not new to forums just to this forum and if you think I'm going to read 31 pages of nonsense you've got another think coming. I'm pretty sure after 45 years of studying the Bible I've earned the right to express my views and I know what I'm talking about.

But you know that this is a DEBATE forum, right? Not a "stubbornly preaching your opinion while ignoring all the contrary evidence" forum. If you aren't willing to read a few criticisms, you aren't going to enjoy this forum very much.

[StanJ]

Well, can't fault you for coming to that interpretation. I would normally chalk this up to mental gymnastics, but at the very least it leaves me something else to discuss: namely the "canopy of water." Do you have any dimensions for the canopy, or how it actually is a "canopy" of water, considering the atmosphere consists of mostly nitrogen, with only trace amounts of water vapor in lower altitudes? Because that's what we see today.

First of all let's get this clear, I don't require your validation or you to understand biblical principles because obviously you are incapable of doing so. please just stop all the patronizing responses and deal with the issues at hand which according to the rules I've read here, is your responsibility.
Of course I don't have any dimensions and what the atmosphere consists of today vs what it consisted of at creation are not the same thing at all. Gen1:6-8 is day 2 of creation when all the Earth was, was a big geological ball covered by water.

Well, current estimates put the origin of sexual reproduction at 1.2 billion years ago. Additionally, human evolution has been accurately modeled and studied; as with most sexually reproducing species, there is evidence that females existed without any individual ever being created from a rib.

Speculation, estimates, and theory does not equate to reality my friend. Wikipedia is not peer reviewed and anybody can write in it as they see fit and make the theory seem to be a fact, which is something you should know.

Many fruit bearing plants cannot produce fruit without some pollinator, usually insects. We are aware that fruit bearing plants experienced coevolution with insects to develop a symbiotic relationship, and one distinct group did not appear before the other.

What you have to learn to do is wrap your head around the fact that God created everything fully mature. In other words the chicken did come before the egg. As such God embedded the processes of procreation and regeneration in all living things.

Additionally, Genesis 2:20 makes the claim that Adam named all livestock, birds, and wild animals. I'm personally interested in whether or not he named extinct animals that have been fossilized for millions of years, but that is likely a question for another day. As it stands, the claim that a single human named all living animals is farfetched, to say the least. It would make more sense if the folk tale were written without any idea of scope for the sheer diversity of life on earth, otherwise story writers wouldn't be so quick to make these claims. We have several examples of myths being written based on an incorrect knowledge of the world, with their distinct tells being a lack of awareness for the sheer scope of the world they attempt to describe/explain.

Sadly, your predisposition of accepting so-called scientific fact over the Bible in every instance makes you incapable of seeing the truth. Adam may have named what he was presented with but there's no indication that all of those names are still in use today. What we use today is called the "binomial nomenclature", which had its beginnings in the early 1600s. I'm pretty sure Adam didn't know Latin.
In context, the all in Genesis 2:20 relates to animals that were in his geographical location, not all the animals on Earth. it is very apparent you did not know how to read the Bible in its context.

I can critically analyze the story, compare it with modern science, and highlight discrepancies or mistakes. Which is rather easy to do when you're not emotionally invested in the stories.

In fact, you have already shown you cannot critically analyze. One must be intimately aware of the subject matter in order to be able to critically analyze it. You are aware I hope that criticising is not the same as critically analyzing?

Well, you haven't actually presented anything to me, except for bible verses and claims that linguistic scholars believe the Bible to be truthful. That's not really any kind of argument in favor for the scientific credibility of the Bible, which is what the topic for this discussion is. Sorry, but your supposed evidence amounts to "people believe it, and I believe it." You have mistaken fallacies for rational arguments, and as a result your claims fail to make any kind of impact.

That's right, because that's what we're discussing, the Bible. The issue is not whether the Bible is scientifically credible, the issue is whether the Bible is true and in my opinion it is. Trying to use science to dispute what the Bible says useless because the Bible is not a scientific book and therefore does not use scientific language or at least what you view to be scientific language.

Are you willing to take me seriously now? Because I'm more than eager to discuss the scientific contradictions in Genesis; whether or not you're going to address these challenges, or simply going to dismiss them by appealing to popular belief, I can't say. I hope you'll come to terms with the fact that I'm not convinced when someone else says they are convinced. To try and convince someone of a particular idea, the most important component is providing evidence that the idea is factually correct. What you've been doing has not met that measure; instead, it is a common technique employed by the religious to assert that the standards for evidence have already been met, and thus they are not required to meet it in the current discussion.

I am taking you seriously, otherwise I never would have replied to your initial post, but that doesn't mean that just because you're serious that you are accurate or even possess full knowledge of the issue. You appear to want to haggle about certain scientific points, and that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Genesis 1 is literal or metaphorical and I've already shown that it is literal. Whether you accept it or not is of course your choice and not something that can be debated until you decide to accept it or not. I am sure you think you are convinced but there's an old saying about being convinced, in that 'the roadway to hell is paved with those that thought they were convinced'.
It is obvious that your predisposition leaves little room for you to seriously consider any alternative and as such it makes no sense in us debating something that will not change the outcome.