Youth question

ppar3566 said:
Come on C$ that is ridicules. Paul uses metaphors to explain the church (i.e. the body). You don't go around assuming that you are really an arm or a leg you understand what he is trying to do. Further, you don't simply go ok everything he has written is a metaphor because that bit was.

My simple point is this: We understand how to read things, what they are trying to do, and what should be taken literally or not, in everyday readings by looking at the context:
1. If we read Dear ... we know that what will follow is a letter
2. Strange layout of text = poetry.

This is what I was trying to get at not that Genesis is a love letter, it is not.

How do we tell what is a metaphor or not? Simply put (but difficult to do)we need to get as much information as possible. I.e. we know the story of Jesus is not a metaphor because the writers of the gospel tell us that is not what the book are meant to do (i.e. Luke says right up front that he is writing a history)
Click to expand...


We do not see a dear, and the layout of the text is chronological. Methinks it was not a metaphor, especially since nowhere was it hinted to be a metaphor.
 
Evolution on a small scale does happen. However, to believe that a species or humans could evolve is just funny.
 
mist_01 said:
Evolution on a small scale does happen. However, to believe that a species or humans could evolve is just funny.
Click to expand...

oh ur absolutly right. Evolution is being done without a doubt! But see, as i have posted before, there are 6 different TYPES of Evolution. and only the last one is true and a science, the rest are religion.

and besides, Noah would have needed BIG BIG arc to take just all the 100 TYPES of dogs. But really, he just took 2 dogs, and they repreduced after their KINDS. Its these words that the Devil likes to get us confused with.


But to say that we all came from a cosmic burp 100000000 billion years ago is just insane. And that life came from non-life.. you know we've never seen a rock make a animal? We've been here oh around 6,000 years, and not once has a rock made.. well anything! What i find hilarious is that these professors dont even know how dumb their theory sounds.

anyway, enough of this for tonight, i gots a field trip manana! WOO!
 
They still didnt answer how you can have death before sin... which is what the Gap Theory says.

The big issues in Genesis 1 are not scientific. It doesn't really matter if creation was a quick miracle or a slow one.
Click to expand...

1) Yes it is scientific. God wanted to show his glory by making the Earth and people etc. He wouldnt write a poem about it, he would actually say what he did!
2)It does matter if it was fast or slow. If it was fast=more glory. slow=no glory. There is so much more evidance to prove that the Earth is only baout 6,000 years old. There is NO proof for a billion year old Earth. And also, what a work day God has in each of "his days." lets see: "go to work, say some words, VACATION FOR A BILLION YEARS!" Genesis' language does not leave room for more than ONE day to pass from Day 1 to Day 2. In Hebrew its permanent.. 1 24 hr day.
 
Last edited:
Actually the Hebrew word for day (yom - singular/yamin - plural) can refer to either a literal 24hour period or as simply a period on time (Father is a lecturer in biblical languages). It depends on the context as to whether it is literal or figurative. Admittedly the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is used in a rather unusual way which makes looking at the context difficult.

In response to other comments:
1. No Genesis is not scientific. It can't be it is written in a pre-scientific age.
2. I disagree that slow means no glory. You are implicitly assuming speed = power. I think slow and infinitely complex is just as amazing.
 
ppar3566 said:
Actually the Hebrew word for day (yom - singular/yamin - plural) can refer to either a literal 24hour period or as simply a period on time (Father is a lecturer in biblical languages). It depends on the context as to whether it is literal or figurative. Admittedly the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is used in a rather unusual way which makes looking at the context difficult.

In response to other comments:
1. No Genesis is not scientific. It can't be it is written in a pre-scientific age.
2. I disagree that slow means no glory. You are implicitly assuming speed = power. I think slow and infinitely complex is just as amazing.
Click to expand...

Gen 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass.. and the fruit tree.... 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day."
Gen 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night... 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
Now this we both have problems. Plants (like grass and trees) and survive without sunlight. I have a problem because they survived a couple days without light, but your problem is that they survived for a coupld millions years without light. There is light, for God said "let there be light" on the first day. But plants need SUNlight. Thats the only thing that can use sunlight for good. Otherwise sunlight just kills everything.

Also, if the Earth is millions of years old. Where's all the proof? I have seen no proof for a billion years old Earth. I am willing to put a hold on the Gen debate if someone can give me proof for a billion year old Earth. Im just using Gen as a little Power-up on my 6,000 year old Earth thing.
 
Remember my account of Genesis is that it is written in prose in a form that the Jews could easily understand to counter-act the pagan mythology that surrounded the nation of Israel. In this case I don't need plants surviving for millions of years without light i.e. the order of creation is important from a transmitting Gods truth point of view not for a literal explanation of how things happened.

I think it is worth pointing out here that just because something is a metaphor does not mean I do not believe in a reality underlying that metaphor (namely God made the world and everything in it, we have dominion of the world under Gods authority as his image/representatives on earth). Secondly just because something is expressed in metaphorical language does not mean it should not be taken very seriously. Nor does it mean that we should not live our lives in light of this message.
 
ppar3566 said:
Secondly just because something is expressed in metaphorical language does not mean it should not be taken very seriously. Nor does it mean that we should not live our lives in light of this message.
Click to expand...

But there is so much more proof that it WASNT a metaphore. What evidance is there to support the fact that its a metaphore? Yes they needed a non-pagan creation story. Doesnt mean God made one up for them. Why would God lie? I dont think God would say "I made it this way, but im going to tell you another way." And God is infinatly wise. The future is His past. He is the past, present, and future. And God can multi-task. God knew that Satan would sprout about the Evolution idea. The best way to disprove that is by having the truth! There was only one person present when God made the Earth, and that was God, so that means that we have to take the word of the only person that was there.. GOD!
 
Stc95 said:
But there is so much more proof that it WASNT a metaphore. What evidance is there to support the fact that its a metaphore? Yes they needed a non-pagan creation story. Doesnt mean God made one up for them. Why would God lie? I dont think God would say "I made it this way, but im going to tell you another way." And God is infinatly wise. The future is His past. He is the past, present, and future. And God can multi-task. God knew that Satan would sprout about the Evolution idea. The best way to disprove that is by having the truth! There was only one person present when God made the Earth, and that was God, so that means that we have to take the word of the only person that was there.. GOD!
Click to expand...

Metaphor = lie (why?). Paul uses a metaphor of the body to discribe the church. Jesus uses a metaphor of yeast to describe religious hipocrites. James uses many metaphors to describe the evil of the tongue. You would agree these are metaphors but you would not consider them to be lies. They express deep truths in a way that is easy to understand. You are assuming that just because we do not recognise Genesis as an illustrative account of creation that the Jews who were the first readers would have also read it as literal. Proof is a elusive word but my evidence is as follows:

1. Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is written in a style not seen anywhere else in the bible. It is unique.
2. The story is similar not only in style but in content to pagan stories written about the creation of the world/temple of Ra.
3. One of the most familiar story to the Jews at the time was the story of Ra
4. The story of Genesis has some important changes to these pagan stories that re-assert God as creator of all, As ruler over all, and as humans as not only important but the very image/representative of God.
5. Genesis was written in a pre-scientific era
6. Yes God wrote Genesis but he did so through a person, a person who wrote for a specific purpose to a specific audience, in a specific genre.

Person = Moses
Audience = newly freed slaves born and raised in Egypt
Purpose = to re-assert God as ruler of all things and humans as the pinnacle of creation.
Style = either prose or poetry
 
What you said above does not limit it to a metaphore at all.

Number 5 i would have to disagree with. How can you have a pre-scientific era? Thats like Pre-historic. It just doesnt work. You cant have something before history and you cant have something before science. So far you have said nothing that proves it to be a metaphore. Ok, so maybe God wrote it in a fancy language, maybe that was how they wrote way back when. There are lots of creation stories, and all about the same.. maybe because it all happend the same! Do you know there are hundreds of flood stories all the same. Does that mean that the flood was a metaphore?

Im not saying that the Jews didnt read it as a metaphore or illustrative thingy-maboby. They could have read it anyway for all i care. But what i am saying is that what Genisis says is truth. And that God made the Earth in six 24 hr days.
 
ppar3566 said:
Metaphor = lie (why?). Paul uses a metaphor of the body to discribe the church. Jesus uses a metaphor of yeast to describe religious hipocrites. James uses many metaphors to describe the evil of the tongue. You would agree these are metaphors but you would not consider them to be lies. They express deep truths in a way that is easy to understand. You are assuming that just because we do not recognise Genesis as an illustrative account of creation that the Jews who were the first readers would have also read it as literal. Proof is a elusive word but my evidence is as follows:

1. Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is written in a style not seen anywhere else in the bible. It is unique.
2. The story is similar not only in style but in content to pagan stories written about the creation of the world/temple of Ra.
3. One of the most familiar story to the Jews at the time was the story of Ra
4. The story of Genesis has some important changes to these pagan stories that re-assert God as creator of all, As ruler over all, and as humans as not only important but the very image/representative of God.
5. Genesis was written in a pre-scientific era
6. Yes God wrote Genesis but he did so through a person, a person who wrote for a specific purpose to a specific audience, in a specific genre.

Person = Moses
Audience = newly freed slaves born and raised in Egypt
Purpose = to re-assert God as ruler of all things and humans as the pinnacle of creation.
Style = either prose or poetry
Click to expand...

1. Good, the style should show it's set apart.
2. Many cultures have a similar Flood story. Does that mean the Jews copied them?
3. Scripture is God-breathed, not inspired by the writings of pagans. Unless, of course, you don't believe Paul.
4. That should make the Creatoin story even more convincing for the Christian!
5. Irrelevant. If Scripture is God-breathed, what does it matter that it was written in a pre-scientific era? If Scripture is God-breathed, it wouldn't matter when it was written because it is the plenary verbal Word of God.
6. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED. Yes, a man wrote it, but do you honestly believe that Moses got a good idea to write what he thought God would have him write? You detract from the value of the book as a whole.

Person: Probably Moses.
Audience: the Jews (and later Christians)
Purpose: to show God's greatness by demonstrating how He created the world and created us with a special purpose.

A special note: It is chronological and is very specific, and is not preceded by words that would indicate a metaphor, nor is it followed by words that would suggest a metaphor. I note this especially because it is followed by a recap in more detail (Genesis 2:4-25) and then the fall of man (Genesis 3). Genesis 4 is the story of Cain and Abel, and there ends what evolutionist Christians generally consider the metaphor.

No indication that what it says is taken from anything else or is a nice story.

It seems to be very specific:
Genesis 5 said:
1 This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a] " 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father [b] of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [c] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Click to expand...

After that, it leads up to the flood story. I assume you find that to be a metaphor also, even though there are no phrases or words that suggest a metaphor. I also assume you find the Tower of Babel story to be a metaphor...

But, it contains very detailed records amongst all of this (which you'd have to assume were bunk), all the way at least to chapter 12 (the call of Abram) with no phrases or words to indicate a metaphor, and when it at last shifts into what you would call "what actually happened", nothing changes. Like I've said so many times, there are no words to suggest that what the reader had just read was an analogy or a metaphor or anything. Instead, it goes into the history of what had happened up until Moses' time. The big thing is that since there are no transitional words that indicate a shift from fanciful story to actual fact, you must assume the entire thing is either fact or fiction. What's it going to be?

I know it's a long post, but I'll end with recommending that you read 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Heck, I'll just post it.
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Click to expand...

If you detract from the divine inspiration of Genesis, you detract from the credibility of Paul. Do you see where the credibility of the whole thing starts to get a bit looser?
 
I think you are mixing up two very different issues here.

1. Is the bible God breath /God Inspired, is it perfect, is it true? To all questions I would say yes and fight with anyone who said otherwise. In other words I am most definitely on your side here.

2. The second issue is one of interpretation of the scriptures. We all interpret the bible when we read it (in other words the bible is not self-evident). The things that influence our interpretation are cultural/social (e.g. capitalism has given rise to the prosperity gospel:(, church/denomination (my denomination puts a lot of emphasis on the holy spirit others do not), our friends/family/ other important people (my father is a lecturer at a theology college this influences how I read the bible) and individual (my personal experience and my personality). My point is that these influences are dramatically different from the ones that the original readers of Genesis. So to get the best interpretation possible we need to understand their context and how they would have interpreted Genesis.

What I am saying is that I hold the bible as sacred and the divine revelation of God. However, I am also suggesting that your interpretation of Genesis may not be a correct one. This has nothing to do with the validity of the scriptures. This is where reading the bible gets difficult because we can not just copy and paste the bible without understanding how the context of the writing (i.e. each book was written in a specific time for a specific purpose to a specific audience). This is where we differ. It is my belief that to interpret the bible correctly then we need to try to put ourselves as best we can in the shoes of those who first received it to try and understand how they would have interpreted it. This is what I have being trying to do, though perhaps not very successfully. When using the knowledge of historians and theologians with a better understanding than me on the issue, I don’t feel the Jews would have read the Genesis account literally but rather figuratively. I could be wrong, that is plain, but I am trying to treat the bible with as much respect as I can in the way I feel most appropriate.

Again this is where we agree that respect and reverence is needed when reading the bible.
p.s. C$ you are right Moses most likely rather than definately wrote Genesis. Thanks for picking me up on this :)
 
Last edited:
ppar3566 said:
I don’t feel the Jews would have read the Genesis account literally but rather figuratively.
Click to expand...
They could have read it as an epic poem written by Plato! It could be a horror story by Alfred Hitchcock. Or maybe a romance with Leonardo Di Caprio. Heck, even a James Bond movie! Just because someone says something, does not make it write. God could have written Genisis to tell the Jews that that is how the Earth was made and that GOD did it. It doesnt have to be a metaphore. They can still read it as such, but that doesnt make it so. and there is so much more evidance that GOD made the world like he said he did, than any other way.
 
I think we have done as much as we can on this topic and I think it is worth agreeing to disagree. Thank you for your considered opinions on the matter and I look forward to many more discussions on various topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top