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?

[KingandPriest]

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?

Which current understanding of science contradicts Genesis?

Many have attempted to compare science to the events recorded in Genesis Ch2 or even with Genesis Ch 1. This is a error because of the neglect in reading what was actually written.

Genesis chapter 1 and the first few verses of Ch2 is the summary of creation. From Genesis 2:5 forward, this is a separate account that is descriptive of the history of man which includes the spiritual man, not just the physical body.

The History of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then 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 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.� 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear�; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth�; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth�; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.� 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.� 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind�; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.� 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.�

29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food�; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

... continued in Genesis 2:1-4

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.


4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created

Genesis 2:4 is an obvious conclusion to the text which preceded it. It is a line of demarcation that points to a separation in the summary. From this point forward, the author is no longer describing a summary of physical/natural events but spiritual. Three verses later the author is describing a "living soul." This is obviously no longer describing physical events which can be compared to naturalistic science experiments but metaphysical claims such as a soul. We know our modern science has a very difficult time attempting to explain and describe metaphysical or intangible things of existence, like the soul, will, ideas, thoughts, intent, etc. So to assert that science contradicts the account in Genesis is a false narrative that cannot be proven true. The best one could claim is that science has no such means of verifying these things, or has alternative theories.

• 1. Does science contradict or validate that the earth could have formed before the sun?
  2. Does science contradict or validate that "waters separated from waters" when we look at the process of evaporation and cloud formation?
  3. Does science contradict or validate that the Earth was a watery world first, and then the earths crust rose above sea level?
  4. Does science contradict or validate that land formed, and then plants formed?
  5. Does science contradict or validate that plants are the base food chain, and all animals whether on land or in water need plants to survive?
  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 could go on showing the agreement between our scientific understanding of the earths formation and life on the planet earth with Genesis Ch1.

[Neatras]

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.

Natural selection and the theory of evolution does not, under any circumstances, make the claim that a cat will turn into a dog. Do not make a false claim about what the theory actually states.

[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

[KingandPriest]

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.

Natural selection and the theory of evolution does not, under any circumstances, make the claim that a cat will turn into a dog. Do not make a false claim about what the theory actually states.

That is my point. Science supports that creatures were created each after their own kind, just as the bible describes.

[Neatras]

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.

Natural selection and the theory of evolution does not, under any circumstances, make the claim that a cat will turn into a dog. Do not make a false claim about what the theory actually states.

That is my point. Science supports that creatures were created each after their own kind, just as the bible describes.

The language you used was poorly chosen, then. Because what you originally wrote was that cats will not turn into dogs "regardless" of evolution or natural selection. The inverse, that cats will turn into dogs "because" of evolution or natural selection, follows naturally.

A more appropriate phrasing would have been "cats will not turn into dogs, as predicted by evolutionary theory and natural selection."

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 5 by KingandPriest]

No, that's not correct. Science supports that all life has a single common ancestor and that all living things are related to one another. It does not support that there is an immutable level to which all "kinds" can be reduced to.

[bjs]

Traditionally those who are argue that the opening chapter of Genesis is metaphorical have done so because of style and context.

The style is an elevated prose which eventually breaks into poetry. Hebrew poetry is almost never literal. The first chapter of Genesis is not strictly prose or strictly poetry, which is one of the reasons that there is so much debate about the interpretation of the passage. Personally, I think that the opening passage is intended to be read as a Psalm of praise. The author used elevated prose throughout the passage, holding back from full poetic form so that he could finally break into song when he reached the creation of man.

The context of the passage is that of a prologue. It does not fit naturally with Genesis 2 and on. As a prologue, it appears to introduce book of Genesis and the Creator God, without trying to give specifics about the actual work of creation.

Both the style and the context suggest that the first chapter of Genesis was not meant to be read literally.

I will note that within Christianity the idea that Genesis 1 is not literal dates back at least as far as the fourth century, long before modern science in any way contradicted a literal reading of the passage.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

Can plants grow without sunlight?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by KingandPriest]

That is my point. Science supports that creatures were created each after their own kind, just as the bible describes.

I wasn't aware that science had 'cracked the case' so to speak, with regards to the origin of life. I could've sworn that it's still an open question as of this moment in time, with several different hypotheses, such as panspermia, being investigated, but none of them having gained a full (or close to) consensus.
I also wasn't aware that 'kind' is valid terminology in biology. I'm aware of clade, species, family, genus, etc...but not 'kind'.