• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

Derf

Derf

Well-known member
redfern said:
Thanks, Derf. But alas, I am not sure that advanced my understanding. If God separated the light and the darkness, that implies the light and darkness were not separated before He did that. Can you enlighten me on what non-separated light and darkness is, or looks like? Since light is just a common name for travelling photons, and dark is the absence of such photons, I am having trouble understanding what is being said. If I “unseparated” light and darkness, I would be mixing traveling photons into a place where there wasn’t any. I would end up with perhaps a lower concentration of photons, but that just means the light is dimmer.
Click to expand...
I think someone else gave a reasonable answer--shadows...most likely as the primeval photons converted to other types of matter. This is conjecture, but it fits well enough with both secular and biblical descriptions to not need any symbolism.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Idolater said:
Based on your declaration that space isn't a thing. If for all intents and purposes all space has always existed, then that's why I'm asking what is the difference between this idea and pantheism? We know and believe that God has always existed, but if space also has always existed, then space therefore shares the property with only God, of permanent, eternal existence. This to my mind makes space basically God (along with light). And I don't see any Scripture that would support that notion (as opposed to light).

Light does not require space to exist.
Click to expand...
Has logic always existed?
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Idolater said:
Setting aside time (as that is a whole other ontological ball of wax imo).

What I agree with is that if you have a point (I mean a Euclidean point, not a point in an argument), then you could conceive of that point as being somewhere, except and only except, if there is literally nothing else in existence. In that exceptional case, then your point would be, in our parlance, everywhere and nowhere at once, since there is nothing else. And since I'm talking about a Euclidean point, this point itself also takes no space, by definition.

So what if God, Who is light, and Who has always existed, basically was always in His complete existence a Euclidean point, and in this point existed all deity, and He is light, so also all light existed but all only just "within" (figurative language since "within" kind of requires space) this, point.

Then you really have no space, since as you say, space is basically demonstrated through comparison between two points. If there's only one point, then there's no space, or at least, there's no space necessary.

Obviously this goes beyond our ability to truly conceive, I think. What on Earth does "no space" even mean? idk. But logically, just taking the meaning of terms at face value, if there is just one single solitary Euclidean point, and nothing else, then space just isn't required for that point to exist, and in all His fullness.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
It helps to define space. I define it as the distance (noun) between matter. If there were no matter, only a mind, there would not be no space, rather there would be no way to measure any distances. However, the mind could conceptualize bits of matter — and therefore space —even without creating it.

So while it is difficult for us to comprehend a universe without matter, my definition is helpful in that it doesn't force nonsense ideas such as space being a manipulable thing. It's merely a byproduct of there being stuff to measure distances off.
 
R

redfern

Active member
In this thread the flow of comments that started with Stripe’s mention of the CMB soon led into discussions about light and darkness which then led to discussions about what it means to say God is light. I thought the purpose of this thread was to examine the creation account as presented in Genesis 1. As I read it, in Genesis 1 the “light” that is spoken of is what God called “Day” and the darkness He called “night”. I think discussions about whether God himself is moving photons, or whether He cloned himself by saying “Let there be light” are a bit off topic. The meaning of “light” in Genesis 1 is what we refer to when we go to the sunny beach and get a sunburn. In other words, if you’re not talking about the light that defines daytime, I think you’re off the subject that this thread was designed for.

But I also confess that I feel not very qualified to “explain the allegory and/or the symbolism” of Genesis 1. For me, so far I don’t know whether Genesis 1 is a clearly stated literal account, or is reliant on us discerning symbols or allegories within it. But so far the divergent and incompatible views in this thread on what it means (just a few verses into it), are evidence to me that it is not obvious what is factual and what is symbolic or allegorical in Gen 1.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
redfern said:
In this thread the flow of comments that started with Stripe’s mention of the CMB soon led into discussions about light and darkness which then led to discussions about what it means to say God is light. I thought the purpose of this thread was to examine the creation account as presented in Genesis 1. As I read it, in Genesis 1 the “light” that is spoken of is what God called “Day” and the darkness He called “night”. I think discussions about whether God himself is moving photons, or whether He cloned himself by saying “Let there be light” are a bit off topic. The meaning of “light” in Genesis 1 is what we refer to when we go to the sunny beach and get a sunburn. In other words, if you’re not talking about the light that defines daytime, I think you’re off the subject that this thread was designed for.

But I also confess that I feel not very qualified to “explain the allegory and/or the symbolism” of Genesis 1. For me, so far I don’t know whether Genesis 1 is a clearly stated literal account, or is reliant on us discerning symbols or allegories within it. But so far the divergent and incompatible views in this thread on what it means (just a few verses into it), are evidence to me that it is not obvious what is factual and what is symbolic or allegorical in Gen 1.
Click to expand...
What do you think Genesis 2:4 means?
 
R

redfern

Active member
Stripe said:
What do you think Genesis 2:4 means?
Click to expand...
Dunno. But if the Bible was (in effect) authored by God, and is crucial for us to understand, then I would surely hope God is a competent enough author that I can start on page 1, understand it, and then page 2, etc. This is a Gen 1 thread, remember?
 
R

redfern

Active member
One more brief contribution to the “what is light” discussion that has appeared in several posts. The daylight definition of light that I understand early Genesis 1 to refer to actually is only satisfied by photons within a very narrow set of frequencies (or wavelengths). If physics is right, most photons in the very early universe had wavelengths far too short to be seen as part of what we call daylight. And the CMB has wavelengths vastly too long to be seen with our eyes (which is why it is called cosmic MICROWAVE background).

BTW, if I make a claim (probably from what I understand science to say), that is clearly and demonstrably scientifically wrong, I would be most grateful to be corrected (hopefully with an applicable link or such.)
 
R

redfern

Active member
Derf said:
… a reasonable answer--shadows...most likely as the primeval photons converted to other types of matter. This is conjecture, but it fits well enough with both secular and biblical descriptions…
Click to expand...

Again I express my thanks for a polite and on-topic reply. But as I expressed in my first posting (post 206) when possible I try to measure ideas expressed against what I understand science to say on the subject. So when you say “it fits well enough with … secular …descriptions”, I question that. Specifically, you mention “primeval photons being converted to other types of matter.” It may be just a slip in what you were trying to say, but the phrasing “converted to other types of matter” implicitly implies that the photons are already a type of matter. Not so.

But more to the core of what I understand you to say,”… shadows...most likely as the primeval photons converted to other types of matter.” Do you know what typical energy a photon would need to have to form say, a single new electron? The requisite equations are quite simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top