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?

[Justin108]

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?

The reason the stars and sun appear during different times on earth is because the earth moves. It's the earth's rotation that causes stars to "appear" and "disappear". Is this what happened on day 4? The sun was already there but the earth just rotated the right way?

JW all you've been doing throughout this entire debate is tell us what "make" doesn't mean. You keep telling us that our interpretations are wrong. But you have not once told us what actually happened on day 4.

So for the umpteenth time: what happened on day 4? What does it mean when Genesis says God "made" the stars on day 4?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 258 by JehovahsWitness]

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Each set has a beginning an action and a conclusion. The red denotes the beginning the blue denotes the action the green denotes the conclusion. the evening and the morning are attached to day they don't denote the beginning and end of each set. And God said denotes the beginning of the set there is no need to add in another beginning. Nor does it make sense to introduce the beginning of a set at the end. Nor do you need two beginnings and two ends.

"And the evening and the morning were" because day can have multiple meanings context is requisite to define it. The term is specifically defined by the evening and morning that is the point of adding this phrase in. Since there is already a beginning and a conclusion there is no need for evening and morning to do so.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 259 by JehovahsWitness]

Where is this?

Verse 5 the first signature. Moreover Ereb and twot mean essentially the same thing

Ereb is sunset,night etc twot is the end of night,morning, coming of daylight etc.

These words simply reinforce verse 5 to echo it through the chapter.

[Bust Nak]

My question was, how are you justifying a figurative reading of genesis

We don't have a "figurative reading of Genesis" we have a figurative reading of specific verses or expressions in Genesis.

But why though? It's not obviously figurative at a glance, there is nothing in the passage themselves that suggest it should not be taken literally. Letting the Bible interpret itself should, by my count, lead to a literal 6 day creationism. It is presented as a narrative of what happened.

Also, I still want to know where the Bible refers to the whole creation week as one single 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?

The reason the stars and sun appear during different times on earth is because the earth moves. It's the earth's rotation that causes stars to "appear" and "disappear".

So then I take we agree that them literally moving away from the earth (your rationale) is not the ONLY explanation of stars "appearing"? It could be that they are their but for some reason or other they are not "visible".

Agreed?

[JehovahsWitness]

But why though? It's not obviously figurative at a glance, there is nothing in the passage themselves that suggest it should not be taken literally.

Well then maybe you would need to do more than "glance" at it, maybe you would need to read and analyse the verse and it's context in the light of overall biblical harmony and it would become more apparent.

Letting the Bible interpret itself should, by my count, lead to a literal 6 day creationism. It is presented as a narrative of what happened.

Do you mean 6 24-hour days? If so, why? Can you present your rationale?

JW

[Justin108]

So then I take we agree that them literally moving away from the earth (your rationale) is not the ONLY explanation of stars "appearing"?

Well considering the fact that you have yet to provide an alternate explanation, it certainly seems to be the only explanation for the stars "appearing".

It could be that they are their but for some reason or other they are not "visible".

So in your mind, invisible stars are a more likely interpretation than God moving and/or creating the stars on day 4? And in post 234, you called my interpretations "the most bizzare and unlikely"?

Stars give off their own light. It is this very light that's needed for photosynthesis to take place. Invisible light makes absolutely no sense. Is this your official interpretation? That the stars were invisible on day 3?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 258 by JehovahsWitness]

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day..

Indeed, you have highlighted the creative works on the "first day" but the signature "evening"/"morning" [green] is marking the end of that creative period, not defining the signature. We know this because the other days have different creative works but are still marked by the same "ending".

To illustrate If a woman describes her shopping spree. She explains: I bought 12 dresses and an umbrella [1]. That was my first day. I bought a coat, a hat and gloves [2], that was my second day. And I bought a rainbow coloured poodle [3], that was my third day.

- are we to presume that the expression "that was my first day" (the time marker) is defined by the activities in the first day ie "buying 12 dresses and an umbrella? so that the end of each successive day, she again buys "12 dresses and an umbrella"?

- Or would it not be more reasonable to conclude that whatever marked the "end of her day (and the beginning or a second) was independent of the activities within the first?

Thus it seems more reasonable to conclude that the time marker exists in the narrative independent of the activities of the day, especially as an alternative reading would leave day #1 with a time marker but no activity within the day to mark (only the timemarker itself).

[JehovahsWitness]

So in your mind, invisible stars are a more likely interpretation than God moving and/or creating the stars on day 4

I thought we agreed that given the language used, "creating" the stars on the fourth day is not an option (in any case, not if we are to respect the text as written).

In order to "appear" what would the stars have to be prior to that? Can one see the stars with ones naked eye in daytime? If not how would you describe them at that moment? What is a common expression used in English, when the sun is no longer blocked from view by clouds?

[Justin108]

I thought we agreed that given the language used, "creating" the stars on the fourth day is not an option (notif if we are to respect the text as written).

No, I agreed that "make" does not necessarily mean "create", but I see no reason to exclude it as a possibility. "Make" seems to have enough in common with "create" for it to be used interchangeably in some instances. The fact that the original Hebrew decided to use "make" instead of "create" does not change the fact that the create-like meanings of "make" could still apply (assemble, fashion, construct, etc.).

So while I fully agree that the word "create" was not used, there is nothing to suggest various interpretations like "assemble", "fashion", etc. are invalid. Frankly, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense than invisible stars

In order to "appear" what would the stars have to be prior to that?

Out of sight