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?

[Goat]

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?

If you look at the Hebrew, yes.. First of all, it's full of puns that are also very symbolic.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 14 by KingandPriest]

Are not the clouds in the sky made up of water that has just changed state from liquid to gas. Water separated from water occurs on a continual daily basis where water evaporates from the ocean and collects in the sky.

Why talk about it as a dome, or vault, if it's just the clouds we're talking about? That explanation doesn't hold water (get it? ^^) if it's a cloudless day out. Is there still water up there, enough of it that it requires a dome or vault to hold it back?

To your first question, I don't know, I am not the author. I can only speculate.

Now to your later questions about a cloudless day. Does the atmosphere still have water molecules on a cloudless day? Yes. There is water molecules present in the mesosphere even on day with no clouds in the sky.

It is possible that the concept of a dome or vault to hold it back describes the relationship of the earths gravity and the effect it has on the atmosphere. To our knowledge, the word atmosphere didn't exist thousands of years ago, so it wouldn't have made sense to describe it in these terms. Applicable terms for the period were chosen, which still align with the scientific data we have today.

The terms evening and morning make sense as long as you have light.

Which comes from where...?

I don't know, we are not told. I can only guess what was the actual source of this light. It could have been God himself for all I know.

And no, even if there was some mystical light, no. What is another term for morning? Sunrise. Another term for evening? Sunset. Mankind's concept of a day is predicated on the movement of the sun.

Yes, if you limit it to man's concept of a day. If you recall the events are described as a summary which did not come from man's perspective.

So before the first light ever existed from a star it could have been called darkness or evening.

So I have KnP stating that the first light comes from a star. Well, in Genesis, when are stars formed? Genesis 1 says "Day Four"...so what happened with the light at the start on Day One? Where in science does it say this light came from?
Remember, KnP, you're appealing to science to justify your claims here. This means that any time science contradicts a Genesis claim, that claim should be discarded.

Not so. Please read Genesis 1 again. Light was called for on day one, not day four.

Genesis 1:3
Then God said, “Let there be light�; and there was light.

What I stated earlier was based on our scientific understanding of where light comes from. Based on our understanding, light comes from stars, and before this light came into existence, it would have been dark. This does not mean another source of light was not possible, it may just be unknown to us today.

Some ancient cultures recognized the day starting with the sunrise, others with the loss of sunlight. So it is only difficult to understand if you apply today's concept of day and night to be the only application which could exist.

But I'm not. As I just explained, I used the concept of sunrise and sunset against your claim.
The ancient Hebrews would have used simple sunrise and sunset to mark their days, would they have not? So why would they write about 'days' as a concept of measured time before they say the sun was created?

Yes, the ancient Hebrews viewed the day as evening and then day. This is why the days on the Hebrew calendar always correspond to the portion of 2 Gregorian calendar days. See http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?hebrew=5777

You are asking questions about why something was written as if I am the author. I cannot answer why, but if you are asking me to speculate, I would assert this was to communicate to the Hebrews that they were to follow this pattern of recording their days instead of basing it on sunrise to sunset.

Please correct me and explain what science does support in terms of the various species we see today.

I'll tell you what it does not. It does not support that creatures are 'created after their own kind'. This was your claim.
I am not going to argue evolution here, not as a rebuttal to this. All I have to do is point out that science does not do what you say it does. If you say Jerry ate a sandwich today, but he didn't actually eat one, I do not have to point out what exactly Jerry ate instead (if he even ate at all). At the very least, all I have to do is point out he didn't eat a sandwich.
The burden of evidence is upon you, to show that science supports creationism.
To my knowledge, it does not.

My point was that science does not contradict the Genesis account, as the OP suggested. If you think I went to far in saying that science actually supports or affirms something that it does not, then I apologize for overstepping that boundary.

[DanieltheDragon]

[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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 32 by KingandPriest]

Not so. Please read Genesis 1 again. Light was called for on day one, not day four.

Quote:
Genesis 1:3
Then God said, “Let there be light�; and there was light.

What I stated earlier was based on our scientific understanding of where light comes from. Based on our understanding, light comes from stars, and before this light came into existence, it would have been dark. This does not mean another source of light was not possible, it may just be unknown to us today.

What Gen 1:3 refers to is clearly an ignorant understanding of astronomy and how the sun functions as our primary light source. There indeed are other forms of light such as bursts and ejections from black holes, explosions, fission, fusion, generally electrons just getting busy. What Genesis 1:14-19 clearly states is that the sun and moon formed after the earth and plants. This blatantly and bluntly contradicts any rational thought given what we now know about the universe. For some ancient sheepherders in 2000 BCE I'll give em a pass since they didn't have the education or tools to understand why they are wrong. We have that access though and there is no excuse to treat this as a literal account.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 32 by KingandPriest]

It is possible that the concept of a dome or vault to hold it back describes the relationship of the earths gravity and the effect it has on the atmosphere

No because it also says inside this vault or dome is the sun and stars. Now again for a sheepherder in 2000bce it could appear that way and would help explain rain to them. This, however is 2016ce and we have better tools and access to information that shows otherwise.

Also note

http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/02.php

Given that nearly all water in the atmosphere is in the troposphere layer that is from the ground to below the stratosphere where planes fly, means there is nothing separating the waters there is no dome no vault. There is no space void of water particles between the waters on the ground and in the sky.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 32 by KingandPriest]

It is possible that the concept of a dome or vault to hold it back describes the relationship of the earths gravity and the effect it has on the atmosphere

No because it also says inside this vault or dome is the sun and stars. Now again for a sheepherder in 2000bce it could appear that way and would help explain rain to them. This, however is 2016ce and we have better tools and access to information that shows otherwise.

Also note

http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/02.php

Given that nearly all water in the atmosphere is in the troposphere layer that is from the ground to below the stratosphere where planes fly, means there is nothing separating the waters there is no dome no vault. There is no space void of water particles between the waters on the ground and in the sky.

Lets take a look at what the text acualy states

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.

Does the text say let there be lights inside the firmament or in the firmament. Something can be in your view, but that does not mean it is inside anything. If I look in a persons window, I can see inside the house without actually being inside.

So rather than adding to the text and insinuating that the stars had to be inside the sky, you can allow the text to speak for itself. This is the error many have made in claiming the text is contradictory because they add something that is not there.

Where you see the word you presume to be inside is the Hebrew word וַיִּתֵּ֥ן
is transliterated as nathan which can mean : bestow, give, grant, permit, put or to set. None of the possible translations include the concept of placing inside. So it would be inaccurate to presume the text is describing the placement of stars inside of our atmosphere.

Verse 14 tells us the command, and verse 17 states how it was accomplished. There are details which appear to be glossed over, but this is a summary of creation not a detailed discourse.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 36 by KingandPriest]

Set or put would fit the bill. "God set them in the firmament."

in
in/
preposition
1.
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
"living in Deep River"
synonyms: inside, within, in the middle of; More

Whether they use in or inside the context describes the same thing. It does not say God set the stars and sun in view it says God set the stars in the firmament. Now the Hebrew might read a bit different then that but that is because their words and grammar are completely different. This is simply how it is translated to convey its meaning. It is also translated that way not because of nathan but the prefix


#9004 בְּ or בַּ or בָּ or בֶּ

prefix or inseparable preposition;
combined with the definite article -
in, at, to, on, among, with, towards;
according to, by, because of.

Nathan is not what is used to translate the word in. The prefix attached to raqiya is how they get that translation. There are those more fluent in Hebrew than me but I am competent enough to understand there is not a gross mistranslation with Nathan as it is rather directly translated with the God set

The literal translation without correcting for grammar reads something like: and set gods in firmament the sky lights shine upon earth.

Obviously this doesn't make a good English sentence but you get the point.

[bluethread]

What Gen 1:3 refers to is clearly an ignorant understanding of astronomy and how the sun functions as our primary light source.

On what do you base that? Why can't it be the statement of a concept and simply a differentiation between that which is light and that which is dark?

[DanieltheDragon]

What Gen 1:3 refers to is clearly an ignorant understanding of astronomy and how the sun functions as our primary light source.

On what do you base that? Why can't it be the statement of a concept and simply a differentiation between that which is light and that which is dark?

because the differentiation spelled out in Gen 1 is the light will be called day and the dark will be called night. The night and day function of our planet is a result of the sun. This concept does not appear to correlate in the Hebrew scripture as a bit further down. God creates the sun to rule over the prexisiting daylight. Day in Genesis functions separate from the sun. It is its own light.


This makes sense from a primitive standpoint where you look up at the sky and its bright blue and there is this white shiny thing that "rises" and "falls" with the bright blue sky. They didn't have satellites telescopes etc.

[bluethread]

What Gen 1:3 refers to is clearly an ignorant understanding of astronomy and how the sun functions as our primary light source.

On what do you base that? Why can't it be the statement of a concept and simply a differentiation between that which is light and that which is dark?

because the differentiation spelled out in Gen 1 is the light will be called day and the dark will be called night. The night and day function of our planet is a result of the sun. This concept does not appear to correlate in the Hebrew scripture as a bit further down. God creates the sun to rule over the prexisiting daylight. Day in Genesis functions separate from the sun. It is its own light.


This makes sense from a primitive standpoint where you look up at the sky and its bright blue and there is this white shiny thing that "rises" and "falls" with the bright blue sky. They didn't have satellites telescopes etc.

No, the day and night of our planet is a function of the earth's rotation on an axis relatively perpendicular to the sun, but you are reading a lot into a few verses. The concept of day and night need not be limited to our planet. On Uranus you are more correct. The day and night intervals are primarily a function of it's rotation around the sun. However, aren't we getting juuusssst a little ahead of ourselves here. Why would we expect the seminal sentences regarding the nature of the universe to include this much detail and in that form. Shouldn't we expect it to first state things conceptually and then apply them to specifics?

It appears to me that you are choosing to presume that the concept of yom to be limited to sunlight at the outset and thus the viewing of the sun separately as a function of primitive intellect. Could it be that these "sheepherders" realized that maybe the greater light had something to do with heat and light, but that beyond that it was not really relevant to their day to day lives. Oh yes, by the way(10 sentences later) it also correlates with the times and the seasons.

By the way, how have those unmentioned details been useful to you in your life today?