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]

[Replying to post 319 by Rufus21]

This is Debating Christianity forum and as such it's about debating the Christian perspective not about affirming the scientific perspective is better than the Christian perspective. In terms of this thread, the issue is whether or not Genesis 1 is literal or metaphorical and so far you haven't presented any perspective that makes it a metaphorical one.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 320 by StanJ]

I'd like to weigh in on some things you've said. You say here

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.

This is problematic because what is it we use when we're dealing with the real world? What is it we use when we try to determine what the world was like in the past?
We use science.
For example you say at the start of post 320

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.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that a long time ago (I'm unsure if you're an Old Earth Creationist or Young Earth, but doesn't really matter for the purpose of this comment) the Earth was indeed covered by water, as in the picture you show.
Problem is...what evidence is there of this canopy? What evidence is there that it ever was there at all, apart from this story written a few thousand years ago?
In order for us to determine there actually was a real canopy of water a long time ago, we would have to use the tools of science...but you've disqualified science from looking into this matter. You don't allow it.

[polonius]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness claimed:[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

There is nothing in a correct reading of Genesis that contradicts proven science. Whether one chooses to view it as a metaphor is a matter of personal choice, personally believe it to be a historical account of the origins of mankind.

JW

It has been pretty well established that the first seven books of the Bible (including Genesis and Exodus) are founding legends of the Hebrews. The Bible was written in 800 – 700 BC.in Canaan.

It’s based on stories very many of which are simply made up, that is not history.

Perhaps you might profit from reading or viewing the following on line.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/fi ... bible.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed


And a good summary:

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 321 by StanJ]

The scientific understanding can be applied to help inform a literal understanding or metaphorical one. Given our understanding of the physical reality we exist in the Genesis 1 account becomes laughable if considered literal. A metaphorical account is therefore more logical. Unless you default to the magic perspective where God just magicked things into existence but as Divine insight brought up that turns God into a deceiver as he gave the appearance of a reality that contradicts his creation. It is also illogical to create the universe in such a way, why make it so big for example.

Gen 1 also contradicts Gen 2. A literal account is simply illogical.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 320 by StanJ]


Moderator Comment

Hello StanJ! Welcome to the forum! Personal comments that undermine a person's character are against forum rules. Please don't tell people that they are incapable of understanding anything, including the truth as you see it. Simply debate the topic, and you should do well on this forum!

Thanks

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Justin108]

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"?

I am not insisting on anything, I am presenting possible options. Those options are (as you yourself correctly said) with regard to the possible interpretations the text from the dictionary definitions of the word (made), not translation of the Hebrew word.

At no time did I suggest that "appear" is a more appropriate translation.

JW

Then what is the correct interpretation? You insist "fashion", "construct", "assemble", etc. are incorrect understandings of "made". If you are so sure these understandings are incorrect, what is the proper understanding of the word "made" in Genesis 1? What happened to the stars on day 4? Can I please finally get an answer to this?

[Rufus21]

This is Debating Christianity forum and as such it's about debating the Christian perspective not about affirming the scientific perspective is better than the Christian perspective.

I think that might be part of the misunderstanding. A big part of this forum is about debating the validity of Christianity and other religions. I would again urge you to read the earlier posts in this thread to understand the discussion we are having.

In terms of this thread, the issue is whether or not Genesis 1 is literal or metaphorical and so far you haven't presented any perspective that makes it a metaphorical one.

Again, the first 31 pages of this discussion are full of evidence that Genesis is metaphorical. It would be more productive for you to respond to those posts instead of mine. Don't shoot the messenger.