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 268 by JehovahsWitness]

To illustrate:

John awoke, he chopped logs, from sun up till sun down on Monday

John awoke, he tilled his fields, from sun up till sun down on Tuesday

John awoke, he played cards, from sun up till sun down on Wednesday

From sun up till sun down defines the period of the day it is not a marker for the beginning and end of each period.

In each set of Gen 1 ends with: and the evening and the morning were the XXX day

The evening and morning function as adjectives describing day. That is their literary function.

[Bust Nak]

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.

That sounds very much like you are suggesting that we interpret the Bible rather than let the Bible interpret itself. But okay, I asked you before, what context or biblical harmony gives you justification for not reading it literally?

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

Yes, I meant 6 24 hour days, because that's why the Bible says.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Yes, I meant 6 24 hour days, because that's why the Bible says.[/quote]

No, I don't believe the expression "24 hours" is in the bible at all, it certainly isn't in the Genesis creation account, so no, it doesn't "say" that at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 268 by JehovahsWitness]

To illustrate:

John awoke, he chopped logs, from sun up till sun down on Monday

John awoke, he tilled his fields, from sun up till sun down on Tuesday

John awoke, he played cards, from sun up till sun down on Wednesday

From sun up till sun down defines the period of the day it is not a marker for the beginning and end of each period.

In each set of Gen 1 ends with: and the evening and the morning were the XXX day

The evening and morning function as adjectives describing day. That is their literary function.

I'm not disagreeing with you, "evening/morning" is a literary device, the question is, can the device be taken literally or not.

In your previous post you seemed to define that device by the activity (which in that example would be the "chopping of logs" (the first day's activity). John chopped logs (on the monday) God made light on the "monday". The period itself was marked by evening/morning or in your example "sun up/sun down".

Now imagine you are a martian, unfamiliar with the concept or the expression trying to understand what is being said from the context: are we to conclude

- Well since God made light on that first day that's what evening/morning must mean?

- only if we get to say that ...

- since John chopped logs on that first day, chopping logs is what "sun up/sundown means"

In other words, if we are going to establish that what happened on the first day ("the Monday") defines the expression, then we would have to be consistent. But then, as your illustrations would show, we fall into utter nonsense. How much more sensible to recognize that it is simply a literary device to mark the passing of a period of time which had a definite beginning and end.

[JehovahsWitness]

From sun up till sun down defines the period of the day it is not a marker for the beginning and end of each period.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

- are you saying a "day" is not a period?
- are you saying that period (the day) would not be marked (or signalling, or expressing) by the "sun up" part of the expression?
- are you saying the end of that period ("day") is not marked by the part of the expression that says "sundown"?

Essentially what is the difference between:

From sun up till sun down defines the period of the day
[this expression] is a marker for the beginning and end [a period]?

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

So why, in your opinion, do none of the English bible translators, at least none I have come accross opt for this word in the context of the text in question?

The fact that the original Hebrew decided to use "make" instead of "create" ...

How could the Hebrew use "make" instead of "Create" these are both English words; you refer to the Hebrew, do you know what the Hebrew words in question are? Can you say whether or not the Hebrew helps us with which word is more appropriate?

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.)

And you know this how? Because you said so? Because you guess so? or because you have some knowledge of the Hebrew that could support your statement.

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

Fine, now explain how they would be valid in the context of the point being made in the text.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Out of sight

And how would you describe something that is "out of sight"? Could there possibly and adjective in English which means can be applied to something that is "out of sight"?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Day is the marker for the period, sun up till sun down describes this length of said period.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 274 by JehovahsWitness]

In other words, if we are going to establish that what happened on the first day ("the Monday") defines the expression, then we would have to be consistent. But then, as your illustrations would show, we fall into utter nonsense. How much more sensible to recognize that it is simply a literary device to mark the passing of a period of time which had a definite beginning and end.

You are taking a separate example used to demonstrate a basic literary principle and conflating it with a separate post talking about something else. Your position is simply not sensible to have a second beginning and end. You might as well just chop of evening and morning altogether and your position would make more sense.

Edit:

This is the structure you are presenting


Beginning, action, beginning end, end.

It is redundant...

[Justin108]

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.

So why, in your opinion, do none of the English bible translators, at least none I have come accross opt for this word in the context of the text in question?

Because as I have said repeatedly, "made" is the correct word. I am not saying "create" should be used, I am saying the meanings are very similar to the point where it could be used interchangeably. However, since the proper translation is "made", it is expected that the translators use the correct word.

If you insist that lesser-known interpretations of "made" ought to be used (i.e "appear"), then why is it that no translation uses the word "appear"? Every single translation I have come across uses "made". I have never heard anyone use the word "made" in any other way than to mean "constructed", "assembled", "fashioned", etc. I have never heard anyone use the word "make" to mean "appear", so why you insist on this unorthodox interpretation makes no sense to me. It seems as though you are simply trying your best to selectively interpret the text to force it to mean something other than God "fashioning" the stars on day 4.

The fact that the original Hebrew decided to use "make" instead of "create" ...

How could the Hebrew use "make" instead of "Create" these are both English words

I thought my meaning was obvious... Let me rephrase. The fact that the original Hebrew decided to use the Hebrew word for "make" instead of the Hebrew word for "create" does not change the fact that the create-like meanings of "make" could still apply (assemble, fashion, construct, etc.).

do you know what the Hebrew words in question are? Can you say whether or not the Hebrew helps us with which word is more appropriate?

No I do not know Hebrew. I am working under the assumption that the NWT properly translated the text, and since they used the word "make", I expect "make" to be a fitting translation. And since "make" is most often used to mean some variation of "construct" or "assemble", it's appropriate to interpret it this way. If not, then the NWT did a lousy job in translating it this way.

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.)

And you know this how? Because you said so? Because you guess so? or because you have some knowledge of the Hebrew that could support your statement.

How do I know what? Did I say "this is the right interpretation"? No, I said this could be. Or are you making the claim that this interpretation is impossible?

I am operating on probability.
- The text is translated to "make"
- Assuming the NWT did a good job at translating, we can expect the various definitions of "make" to apply
- We can especially expect the most common definition of "make" to apply

If you can give me a Hebrew lesson in why the lesser-used definition of "make" in this text ought to be used, then please do. Until then, I am operating under the most common understanding of "make"

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

Fine, now explain how they would be valid in the context of the point being made in the text.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me why this would make sense in the context of Genesis? Simple: the author of Genesis, not having a clue about science, believed that God assembled/fashioned the stars on day 4. This fits perfectly within the context of Genesis

And how would you describe something that is "out of sight"? Could there possibly and adjective in English which means can be applied to something that is "out of sight"?

I am not saying "invisible" is an impossible interpretation. Such is the nature of interpretable texts. I just find it ironic that you call my interpretation "the most bizzare and unlikely", only to then tell me the sun and stars were invisible on day 3.

So in your mind, invisible stars are more likely than the notion that maybe the author of Genesis was ignorant about science?