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]

why are you attributing that specific meaning* (bring into existence) to the text?

Because that's what "make" means

That's what make can mean, but there are other meanings in English which do not carry the thought of "bring something into existence".

I've been asking you for days now to give me one such example.

Since the Hebrew work here does not meant that, while "make" is a fitting English word to use in the text an alternative meaning (from the many available) must be imposed.

If you cannot give me a fitting translation of the original Hebrew word, can you at least give me an explanation for what it means?

[JehovahsWitness]

If you cannot give me a fitting translation of the original Hebrew word, can you at least give me an explanation for what it means?

Make is a perfectly fitting English translation; what is under discussion is which of the different dictionary meanings of the word (make) in context should be attributed to the word. We have (I believe) already established that "to bring into existence" is not one of them (based on the Hebrew meaning), thus what are the other dictionary meanings that might be more fitting.

...

make
meɪk/
verb
1.
form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create.
"my grandmother made a dress for me"
synonyms: construct, build, assemble, put together, manufacture, produce, fabricate, [strike]create[/strike], form, fashion, model, mould, shape, forge, [strike]bring into existence[/strike]
"he makes model steam engines"
2.
[strike]cause (something) to exist[/strike] or come about; bring about.
"the drips had made a pool on the floor"

For example, if we keep the English word "make" (which is perfectly acceptable in English) and recognize that one dictionary meaning attributed to "to make" is to come about ...



... then effectively we have Genesis 1:16 not meaning that the stars "came into existence" on day four but the appeared or "surfaced" on day four.

or alternatively if we select the dictionary meaning of "to produce"



... then effectively we have Genesis 1:16 not meaning that the stars "came into existence" on day four but that on day four the stars "turned out" or were "brought out" on day four... that they began to "show, display, exhibit"


I won't do a word study on all the meanings of "to make" but I think the above demonstrates that "make" is a perfectly good English translation because it carries many means that imply the processing or a change effectuated on something that already exists.

And that, was my point!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 182 by JehovahsWitness]

Still a problem there JW. So this means that prior to Day 4, the sun/stars did not appear/were not present/(invisible?). Again, this spells problems for plants that need photosynthesis to make food.

I decided to drop by again because this time, you finally said what your preferred meaning of the phrases in Genesis is, instead of giving us the go-around for several days.

[JehovahsWitness]

Still a problem there JW. So this means that prior to Day 4, the sun/stars did not appear/were not present/(invisible?). Again, this spells problems for plants that need photosynthesis to make food.

But it does address the accusation (which is what I initially objected to) that the text states that the stars/sun (our sun is a star) were "created" ie "came into existence" on day four. My point is that is NOT what the text says and not what the language implies and I think I have reasonably presented enough word study on the text to reasonably indicate that an alternative meaning should be imposed.

[Justin108]

... then effectively we have Genesis 1:16 not meaning that the stars "came into existence" on day four but the appeared or "surfaced" on day four.

If God made the sun "surface" on day 4, then this would mean that the sun has not "surfaced" up until that point. So while the sun existed before day 4, it has not yet surfaced. What exactly does this mean? Was the sun hidden somehow? Was the sun somewhere else? Explain to me what exactly happened when the sun "surfaced"?

Alternatively, if we use our understanding of "appear" or "present itself", we can either assume that the sun somehow moved from a place where it was unapparent, or that it was invisible and became visible. Assuming you don't mean the latter, my understanding of this overall definition is that the sun was elsewhere and on day 4, God moved the sun. Am I understanding this correctly?

or alternatively if we select the dictionary meaning of "to produce"



... then effectively we have Genesis 1:16 not meaning that the stars "came into existence" on day four but that on day four the stars "turned out" or were "brought out" on day four... that they began to "show, display, exhibit"

As before, this seems to suggest that the stars existed before day 4 but was elsewhere. Then on day 4, God essentially placed the stars where they are now. Are we in agreement here?


So what we can establish from the above definitions of "make" is that, while the sun and stars existed prior to day 4, they were elsewhere. Then on day 4, God essentially brought them out of wherever they were before.

Here's the problem tho... The fact that the sun existed somewhere before day 4 does not solve the problem of plantlife being without a sun on day 3. If the sun existed but was elsewhere, then the plants would still be without a sun. The sun (being elsewhere) would not be able to provide heat and sunlight to the plants.

So as you can see, this entire dispute on the meaning of "make" serves nothing to fix the scientific inaccuracy of Genesis. No matter how you define "make", the result is still plants being without a sun.

[Justin108]

Still a problem there JW. So this means that prior to Day 4, the sun/stars did not appear/were not present/(invisible?). Again, this spells problems for plants that need photosynthesis to make food.

But it does address the accusation (which is what I initially objected to) that the text states that the stars/sun (our sun is a star) were "created" ie "came into existence" on day four. My point is that is NOT what the text says and not what the language implies and I think I have reasonably presented enough word study on the text to reasonably indicate that an alternative meaning should be imposed.

Actually, your initial claim was that

There is nothing in a correct reading of Genesis that contradicts proven science

But as we have demonstrated, even with the various alternate definitions of "make" you provided, Genesis still contradicts proven science.

[Bust Nak]

Okay fine. Now prove your statement to be true.

That's easy, the Bible says the stars were made on the forth day, they weren't according to our scientific understanding.

Of course you will have to first explain what (in your opinion) the bible means when it says the stars were "made" on the fourth day.

It meant the stars were made on the fourth day.

It would be good to support your argument with references.

Genesis 1:14-19

Looks like an open and shut case to me.

Since the word in question in the original Hebrew does not mean to bring something into existence that previously doesn't exist (but has a vast range of other meanings...

None of the possible translating you highlighted helps. It is still contradicted by science.

And I pointed out that the stars were created before the seven days and that the seven "days" should not be take to mean seven 24-hour periods.

Why shouldn't it be taken to mean seven 24-hour periods exactly? Is it because seven literal days contradict our scientific understanding?

The alternative choice of meanings that must be attributed to "make" can be see from an earlier post made on this point... it carries many means that imply the processing or a change effectuated on something that already exists.

It's a red herring since it's still wrong. "Produce," "bring about," "turn out..." The narrative along the lines of previously created stars being presented on the forth day doesn't help make Genesis 1 consistent with science.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 172 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes, but which verse in Genesis 1 (and which word) are you referring to? I cannot say if something is to be taken literally or figuratively unless I know specifically what is under discussion.

JW

All of it

Well you will have to speak to someone that regards ALL of the verses in Genesis 1 literally because that is not the case for me; some of the verses are to be read literally and some figuratively.

I can't really say more unless you have a specific verse in mind.

JW

The classical cake and eating it defense? surely you can do better than that right?

Genesis 1 is short and it includes repetitive literary elements throughout with only minor changes between each verse to account for the progression of creation. The its metaphorical in some places argument and literal in others is weak because of the structure of the story.

[JehovahsWitness]

As before, this seems to suggest that the stars existed before day 4 but was elsewhere. Then on day 4, God essentially placed the stars where they are now. Are we in agreement here?

No we are not. I mean, it's an explanation that at least doesn't contradict the words in the text. Kudos that you are now at least, taking the words and their various meanings and seem to be open to alternative applications in a real life context; that's good. Unfortunately you seem to have settled on the least reasonable application, but at least its an application. Still it fails to take into account other expressions in the passage which lead to a better and more scientifically sound, conclusion


JW

[TheBeardedDude]

As before, this seems to suggest that the stars existed before day 4 but was elsewhere. Then on day 4, God essentially placed the stars where they are now. Are we in agreement here?

No we are not. I mean, it's an explanation that at least doesn't contradict the words in the text but it's far from the most reasonable one and fails to take into account other expressions in the passage which lead to a better and more scientifically sound, conclusion.

JW

How does one attain a "scientifically sound" reading of the stories in Genesis (or any other book of the New or Old testaments) when the stories predate the advent of science?