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?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 21 by rikuoamero]

There is no mention of the stars being created after the plants. I don't see those words in any of the verses you copy pasted. Which verse are you quoting when you say "the stars were not created until the day after"?

Genesis 1 says that plants are created and grow on the third day, yet stars are not created until the day after.

JW

Genesis 1:11-13

States plants are created and bear fruit on the third day.

Genesis 1:14-19

States the Sun and the stars as well as the moon(the book fails here to as the moon reflects light not creates light) are created on the 4th day.

It is reasonable to suggest 3 comes before 4. We can also reasonably suggest that if something was not created until the 4th day that it did not exist on the 3rd day.

If plants were created on the 3rd day how would they survive and grow without the light from the sun?

None of the verses say God "created" the sun, or the stars on the fourth day. I have already addressed this issue in my earlier post (see above)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 41 by JehovahsWitness]

So God didn't make or create or any word to that effect, anything in Genesis apart from light at the very start. I do find it curious the route you're taking.

[Justin108]

edit

4. Does science contradict or validate that land formed, and then plants formed?

No, but it most certainly contradicts the possibility of plants forming before the sun existed. Which is exactly what Genesis states (plants: day 3, sun: day 4).

This blatant contradiction needs nothing more than a very basic understanding of science. There is no possible way plants would have been able to form without the sun. Plants require sunlight, plants require heat and plants require water. Without the sun, earth would have none of this. The plants would be frozen, as would all the water.

6. Does science contradict or validate that every creature exists in its own kind? Meaning a cat will never turn into a dog regardless of natural selection or evolution.

I'm not getting into a debate about evolution so I'm letting this one go

[Justin108]

[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

You're contradicting yourself. First you say there is a "correct reading", implying an objective way of reading Genesis. Then you say that whether one reads Genesis as a metaphor is a matter of personal choice, suggesting subjective freedom in reading Genesis.

Anyway, how does a literal reading of Genesis account for the claim that the sun was made a day after God made the plants? Do you have anything resembling a scientific explanation, or are you going to go with "God did it"?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

Can plants grow without sunlight?

Why do you ask?

Should be obvious. Genesis 1 says that plants are created and grow on the third day, yet stars are not created until the day after.

Genesis says nothing of the kind. Please provide the quote that says "the stars were not creatd until the day after".

JW

The fact that Genesis 1:16 ends in "he also made the stars" tell us he made the stars on this day. Unless you unjustifiably assume that he made some stars earlier (with no mention of them in Genesis up until this point) and that he made the rest of the stars on day 4, as mentioned in Genesis 1:16? Is that your interpretation of this text? That Genesis conveniently omitted the fact that God had already made several stars before day 4?

[JehovahsWitness]

The fact that Genesis 1:16 ends in "he also made the stars" tell us he made the stars on this day.

Did you read my post (see above)? Is there something in it you do not understand?

I ask because you make no acknowledgement of the Hebrew language to which I referred or indeed to the fact that the word "make" and "create" are not absolute synonyms even in English much less in Hebrew.

JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 43 by Justin108]

Might want to edit the age of the sun there Justin. The current accepted age of the universe is 13 billion years so where you got 45 from for the sun I don't know

[JehovahsWitness]

[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

You're contradicting yourself. First you say there is a "correct reading", implying an objective way of reading Genesis. Then you say that whether one reads Genesis as a metaphor is a matter of personal choice, suggesting subjective freedom in reading Genesis.

I did not contradict myself in any way. The "correct reading" implies there is a correct and an incorrect reading. Ones is free to decide how one chooses to interpret the bible (as indeed any literature). This subjective decision does not effect what is the "correct reading'" according to the author, that is arguably absolute.

To illustrate: I may write in sentence (A) "The girl went to the shops." As the author I am referring to a literal girl and literal shops. That is the correct reading. Or I may write in sentence (B) "The girl went to the shops." As the author I am referring to a figurative girl and figurative shops. That is the correct reading; I may even choose to put a figurative sentence next to a literal on in the same paragraph or even the same line.

Are you as the reader not FREE to decide whether you view sentence (A) as figurative or literal? It doesn't make your view correct but it remains a matter of personal choice how you will interpret the expressions.

Thus the fact of personal choice in interpretation does not contradict the fact that it may or may not be correct. The fact that you are free to decide whether or not to run your dog over with your car or not does not mean there is not a correct or an incorrect way of treating your dog according to the relevant authorities.


JW

[Justin108]

Well what He really is reported as saying is "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and night" (1:14) you'll notice what he did NOT say is "I'll now create them"... you may be interested to know that in Hebrew "make" (as in "make" the stars or the luminaries Heb: waiya'as) does not have the same meaning as "create" (Heb bara). This is the reason why Genesis 1:14-16 does not contain the word "create". In the light of this, why are you suggesting that the stars were created on the fourth day when that is not what the bible actually says at all.

What do you believe happened on day 4? Try to explain to me as if I were a 10 year old. If God simply "let the stars be" on day 4, what exactly does this entail?

According to the NWT translation, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the translation officially accepted by Jehovah Witnesses, the wording is as follows:

Genesis1:16 (NWT) And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day+ and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bibl ... genesis/1/

Now with this in mind, I have a few follow up questions

1) Do you reject the definition officially accepted and published by the Watch Tower?
2) What do you understand "the two great luminaries" to be? Do you agree with the typical belief that this refers to the sun and moon? If not, what do you believe these two luminaries refer to?
3) Is it fair to conclude that "and also the stars" in context of this verse can be read as "and also (made) the stars"?
If not, what exactly happened to the stars at this point? If God did not make the stars, what did he do with them on day 4? Why did he mention them?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 47 by rikuoamero]

Thanks for the heads up