Is the Genesis account metaphorical?

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:11 pm

Is the Genesis account metaphorical?

We having a talking snake, a paradise lost through disobedience to divine law, a story about wrongful killing, an order to build an ark as a display of faith, a flood to punish transgressors...

It seems to me a way to educate through story, and not a historical account at all.

Post by **otseng** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:17 pm

Though there are also symbolisms behind the stories, I believe them literally.

A lot of Christians believe they are just symbolisms and don't interpret it literally. But, I find I have no problem (in most cases) reconciling a literal interpretation of Genesis with science.

And that's what this subforum is all about, to hopefully show that there are some logical reasons to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:26 pm

otseng wrote:Though there are also symbolisms behind the stories, I believe them literally.

A lot of Christians believe they are just symbolisms and don't interpret it literally. But, I find I have no problem (in most cases) reconciling a literal interpretation of Genesis with science.

And that's what this subforum is all about, to hopefully show that there are some logical reasons to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Saying "some Christians believe it, some don't" sort of kills the debate, otseng.

So, let me ask this to all literalists/fundamentalists out there; why do you believe in a literal genesis, and what, to you, suggests genesis is a historical document?

Post by **otseng** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:47 pm

If Genesis was not written as a literal book, why would they spend so much time on geneology? You'd only write geneologies if you're going to write a literal, historical book.

Also, why would it spend so much time on names of places? Which also no archeological findings disputes any sites which Genesis names.

My major hangups with it being literal before was being able to reconcile science and Genesis. The flood was a major problem for me. But Brown's hydroplate theory convinced me that a global flood could've occured and has a logical explanation.

I believe the reason a lot of Christians take Genesis metaphorically is that they hold on to evolutionism. It's difficult to reconcile a literal interpretation of Genesis while believing in evolution.

But, if you don't believe in evolution, there's no reason to not take Genesis literally.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:58 pm

otseng wrote:If Genesis was not written as a literal book, why would they spend so much time on geneology? You'd only write geneologies if you're going to write a literal, historical book.

To me it looks like a saga. Perhaps these people were real and their deeds and lifespans eventually became inflated in the minds of their descendants. Beowulf mentions real people but is largely myth.

Also, why would it spend so much time on names of places? Which also no archeological findings disputes any sites which Genesis names.

Except Eden, which is treated as a real physical location in the book. 3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Are there any archeological findings that support the events that happened in them?

In the garden of Eden, God talks, walks and Adam and Eve hide from him as if he had a corporeal body. The image behind the bible is that God is up in the heavens looking down on a flat earth, and isn't much different from a man. When people start working towards reaching him, God realises unity is a very bad thing:

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

The Lord also lies:
Gen.2:17
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And then there are two different accounts within genisis of the same thing. First of all, it's said that man and woman were created after the animals to have dominion over them.:

1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

AND

Gen.2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The ark was 450 feet long, but it seemed to completely disappear from history other than some sketchy sightings in a mountain in Turkey. The largest wooden boats in history were 300 feet, and they were reinforced with iron and leaked badly.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

The sky is supposed to be made of water, which is why it's blue.

There is also a serpent that talks.

DeoxyriboNucleicAcid · Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:10 am

Creationism is a funny old thing. I wonder where the light came from when God said 'Let there be light'?

He didn't create the Sun and Moon until the 4th day. Seems like an anomaly to my doubting old mind.

Post by **otseng** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:54 pm

Corvus wrote: Are there any archeological findings that support the events that happened in them?

I doubt it could ever be found given that the flood destroyed everything.

When people start working towards reaching him, God realises unity is a very bad thing:

I don't think it was the unity that was a bad thing, but making a name for themselves that was bad.

Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

The Lord also lies:
Gen.2:17
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Obviously they didn't die physically. But they did die spiritually. Meaning that their relationship with God is gone.

And then there are two different accounts within genisis of the same thing. First of all, it's said that man and woman were created after the animals to have dominion over them.:

Gen.2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

It doesn't have to mean that forming the animals was after creating Adam. It could simply mean that God had formed the animals in the past.

The ark was 450 feet long, but it seemed to completely disappear from history other than some sketchy sightings in a mountain in Turkey.

Some people believe it is still there.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

There are various interpretations of this. I personally believe it was some sort of water canopy that existed in the atmosphere prior to the flood. It would explain why the entire earth had a tropical climate. The greenhouse effect would warm up the earth to produce a warm and humid environment.

There is also a serpent that talks.

It was a demon possessed serpent.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:39 pm

First I would like to say Hi.

Well I find that this is a very interesting conversation. I have been listening to a person by the name of John McArther. He has an in depth study on this very topic called "Battle for the Begining". It has opened my eyes. You can check it out at http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Grac ... chives.asp

The Lord also lies:
Gen.2:17
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

We have to realize that before this sin that not only was there no death spiritually but also non physically. Meaning that before this happend they would of lived eternally, but because of this sin they released sin into the world that causes death and disease.

I obviosly cant put out every excerpt from the series that Dr. McArther has out but you can go to the site and listen to the broadcast that he does on some radio shows. It cost nothing and gets a ton of things explained. Not only does he do this in a biblical way but has plenty of science to back his teachings up. He does teach this day by day of creation.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:43 pm

Some people believe it is still there.

But the fact remains that we lost an artifact as long as a village and as tall as... I don't know, something tall. The city of Troy, the battle of which was the source of myths, legends and the Illiad, is an actual city we've searched for assidiously and discovered. Considering the amount of people who would be interested in finding the ark, how could it allude all of them?

There are various interpretations of this. I personally believe it was some sort of water canopy that existed in the atmosphere prior to the flood. It would explain why the entire earth had a tropical climate. The greenhouse effect would warm up the earth to produce a warm and humid environment.

What kept the canopy suspended in the air?

It doesn't have to mean that forming the animals was after creating Adam. It could simply mean that God had formed the animals in the past.

The passage states that forming the animals was a direct result of Adam being "alone", so he formed them as "help meets".

It was a demon possessed serpent.

Is that stated or implied? God curses the serpent and all its descendants, not the demon. Why punish a creature that's not accountable for its actions? Even then, why does God allow the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve under His very nose?

Post by **otseng** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:16 pm

DeoxyriboNucleicAcid wrote:Creationism is a funny old thing. I wonder where the light came from when God said 'Let there be light'?

He didn't create the Sun and Moon until the 4th day. Seems like an anomaly to my doubting old mind.

Since this is such a good question, I created a new topic to talk about this - Light, stars, and creationism.