Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

[Clete]

No it's not.

Yes, it is, you nincompoop!

The topic of this thread is made perfectly and explicitly clear in the opening post where is says...

"Some have claimed that Genesis 1 is just allegorical or symbolic. This is a thread for them to explain the allegory and/or the symbolism in that chapter."​

Thanks for your input.

You're a lazy coward.

Then why are you wasting your time posting to me?

Because it isn't a waste of my time. There are two possible outcomes...

1. You'll surprise everyone on the forum by proving me wrong.
2. Everyone will see you for the fool that you are, including those who might not otherwise have noticed without my input.

Either way, I and the rest of the whole forum benefits.

 

[Clete]

Now you have to provide facts to support your claim that someone whom you reverently call "expert" on a particular question is actually an expert, since obviously we do not share your reverence for Bible-despising errorists. You don't expect us to believe your "experts" are experts just because you and/or they claim they are, do you?

Of course, that is precisely what he expects!

Well, it is, at the very least, what he hopes for because even if he were sent to Hell and told he had to post on TOL 200 posts a day, everyday, from now on, 10,000 years from now he'll still have never posted anything that supports his claims.

 

[7djengo7]

2. Everyone will see you for the fool that you are, including those who might not otherwise have noticed with my input.

Either way, I and the rest of the whole forum benefits.

This is a good point. Also, note that she, in her narcissistic shallowness, says "Then why are you wasting your time posting to me?" assuming we are addressing posts in reply to her posts for the sake of posting to her. Indeed, it would be a colossal waste of time doing so for the sake of posting to her, since she, as a proud, hardened enemy of truth and logic, is not amenable to being reasoned with. The way I see it, we are posting to her (or whatever other Bible-despising errorist happens to be hanging around) for (ideally, at least) the sake of other readers of our posts, some of whom are our own brethren in worldview belief, as well as for our own sakes.

 

[Clete]

This is a good point. Also, note that she, in her narcissistic shallowness, says "Then why are you wasting your time posting to me?" assuming we are addressing posts in reply to her posts for the sake of posting to her. Indeed, it would be a colossal waste of time doing so for the sake of posting to her, since she, as a proud, hardened enemy of truth and logic, is not amenable to being reasoned with. The way I see it, we are posting to her (or whatever other Bible-despising errorist happens to be hanging around) for (ideally, at least) the sake of other readers of our posts, some of whom are our own brethren in worldview belief, as well as for our own sakes.

Precisely!

I really would enjoy it, though, if, every once in a while, someone surprised the whole forum and proved one of my predictions wrong!

 

[7djengo7]

Precisely!

I really would enjoy it, though, if, every once in a while, someone surprised the whole forum and proved one of my predictions wrong!

Or had the honesty to admit they've got nothing and have been firing blanks all along.

 

[7djengo7]

That's vitriol, RD.

That's calling truth that you hate, "vitriol," AB.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Tons? Wow! That's a lot!

It's not an "appeal to authority" to quote a legitimate expert or educator in the field in question.

I suspect you know this, and I suspect it's a dodge to avoid actually addressing what they have say as experts in their study of sacred texts.

Steve Gardner is a writer at Authentic Theology, preaches in a prison, and engages in public ministry. He is in the Doctor of Ministry in Missional Theology program at Lipscomb University. He received a Master of Divinity degree (M.Div.) from the Wake Forest University School of Divinity and is proficient in Biblical Hebrew and Greek. He has a master of science in engineering and is also a practicing lawyer and clerked for federal judges in North Carolina and Washington, D.C. Steve served as a deacon and Sunday School teacher, an adjunct professor at a law school and graduate school, and chief editor of three quarterly publications, and on boards of multiple organizations, including ones associated with arts, education, children, engineering, homelessness, law, and health.

Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 — Often Cited by Young Earth Creationists — Do Not Necessarily Refer to Six, Consecutive 24-Hour-Days

Young Earth Creationists frequently rely on Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 to insist that God created everything in six, consecutive 24-hour-days. This post explains why the three main arguments made by Yo…

authentictheology.com

. . . . Once one understands that yom, yamim, day, and days have several possible literal meanings, it is easy to see that it is reasonable to interpret the creation days of Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 as something besides six, consecutive 24-hour-days. This is even before one recognizes that allegorical, metaphorical, God-days, symbolic, and still other interpretations are reasonable, as well.​

​

Rejecting this ambiguity and insisting their interpretation is the only plausible one, Young Earth Creationists offer arguments that are plainly wrong. But they keep repeating them.​

​

First, some of them argue since the first use of yamim in each verse refers to a 24-hour day, it is illogical to interpret the second use in each to mean something different. But there are multiple instances in the Bible in which the same word used twice in a short span means two different things.​

​

Second, they argue yamim always refers to literal 24-hour-periods in non-prophetic literature. But there are multiple examples in which it does not.​

​

Third, they argue that anytime a form of yom is preceded by a number, it always clearly refers to a literal 24-hour-period. But there are contrary examples.​

​

This post addresses problems with these three main arguments by Young Earth Creationists regarding Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 (and more). . . .​

Continued at the link.

You've made the case. One that should have already been readily apparent and in turn you've had what in turn? Mature debate addressing salient points? Thoughtful discussion? Or childish and immature snark?

 

[Right Divider]

You've made the case.

No, she didn't. She dumped the usual equivocation, question begging, appeals to popularity, appeals to authority, etc. etc. etc.

One that should have already been readily apparent and in turn you've had what in turn?

Begging the question as usual. Make an argument and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, you're just redundant and useless.

Mature debate addressing salient points? Thoughtful discussion? Or childish and immature snark?

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, she didn't. She dumped the usual equivocation, question begging, appeals to popularity, appeals to authority, etc. etc. etc.

Begging the question as usual. Make an argument and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, you're just redundant and useless.

Your latter showed everything one needed to know if they hadn't already. Look dude, you have an unshakable conviction and there's no arguing with it no matter what anyone puts your way. You have no sincere time time for anything.

Utterly pointless and you keep believing what you will. It's actually kinda bemusing why you invite contrary opinions when you have no honest intent on giving them any credence whatsoever.

 

[Derf]

Some have claimed that Genesis 1 is just allegorical or symbolic. This is a thread for them to explain the allegory and/or the symbolism in that chapter.

Rules:

• Clear definitions required.
  • No ambiguity.
  • No equivocation.
• No fallacies allowed.
  • No begging the question.
  • No appeals to popularity.
  • No appeals to authority.

Go!

I have a question. Are you also bound by the same rules in your responses?

 

[Right Divider]

Your latter showed everything one needed to know if they hadn't already.

I give you all the respect that you deserve.

Look dude, you have an unshakable conviction and there's no arguing with it no matter what anyone puts your way. You have no sincere time time for anything.

I stick with the truth. You like fantasy.

Utterly pointless and you keep believing what you will. It's actually kinda bemusing why you invite contrary opinions when you have no honest intent on giving them any credence whatsoever.

Get real and make a serious argument. Stop with the:

• Equivocation
• Begging the question
• Appeals to popularity
• Appeals to authority
• etc

 

[Derf]

I have a question. Are you also bound by the same rules in your responses?

@Right Divider Oh, right...you have me on ignore.

 

[Right Divider]

I have a question. Are you also bound by the same rules in your responses?

Yes. Is there a problem?

 

[Right Divider]

@Right Divider Oh, right...you have me on ignore.

No, you were off ignore a long time ago. I do reply to your posts sometimes and sometimes I miss them.

 

[Derf]

No, you were off ignore a long time ago. I do reply to your posts sometimes and sometimes I miss them.

Ok.

 

[Derf]

Yes. Is there a problem?

Possibly. Appeal to authority is not a fallacy. We all do it when we quote from the Bible, or consult a Hebrew lexicon/dictionary. Both are "authorities" on different levels, but for those of us who don't know Hebrew, or didn't directly experience the creation week, it's the only way we can have discussions on your topic.

 

[Stripe]

In essence, yes it does. If it's allegory and/or symbolism, it cannot also be a literal interpretation.

This is the Darwinist's favorite fallacy. I call it the poetry gambit. They are usually not this explicit, preferring to just say "Genesis is poetry" and hoping the implications holds sway that because it is poetry, it cannot mean what it plainly says.

Of course an explicit analysis shows that this attitude is utterly devoid of reason. There is no reason that Genesis cannot be describing real events using words that might be poetically inspired.

Likewise, there is no necessary divide between "allegorical" and "literal." Here's a simple challenge to the Darwinist: Share some text that you consider to be "literal," and we will quickly and easily derive useful allegorical meaning from it.

The earth wasn't created in a literal six days.

Because you say so?

The Bible says otherwise.

What's the point of your thread?

The thing Darwinists never provide: Reason. You make an assertion. You say that the Bible does not mean "six days" when that's what it says.

Why? Why should we believe you that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

Because it's "poetry"?

 

[Right Divider]

Possibly. Appeal to authority is not a fallacy.

Yes, it is. Believing that something is true because an "expert" says so is a fallacy. God is the only exception.

We all do it when we quote from the Bible, or consult a Hebrew lexicon/dictionary.

God's Word is true because God is true. Lexicon's are not God's Word.

Both are "authorities" on different levels, but for those of us who don't know Hebrew, or didn't directly experience the creation week, it's the only way we can have discussions on your topic.

Lexicon are not God's Word, though they can be a helpful tool.
Nobody alive today "directly experienced the creation week". That is a fact and is useless in this discussion (or any other discussion about the creation of all things).

 

[Right Divider]

This is the Darwinist's favorite fallacy. I call it the poetry gambit. They are usually not this explicit, preferring to just say "Genesis is poetry" and hoping the implications holds sway that because it is poetry, it cannot mean what it plainly says.

Of course an explicit analysis shows that this attitude is utterly devoid of reason. There is no reason that Genesis cannot be describing real events using words that might be poetically inspired.

Likewise, there is no necessary divide between "allegorical" and "literal." Here's a simple challenge to the Darwinist: Share some text that you consider to be "literal," and we will quickly and easily derive useful allegorical meaning from it.

I don't believe that Genesis 1 is using "poetic or symbolic" language. I'd like one of those that do think this to actually demonstrate it (instead of the usual begging the question "it's so obvious" nonsense).

HOW is it poetic or symbolic? WHY is it poetic or symbolic? Be specific.

 

[way 2 go]

The writer used the allegory of evening and morning. But if God created morning, or daylight, on the first day, why does it show God created the sun on the fourth day?

1 rotation of the earth = 1 day

day one earth and light without form but both in existence on day one

day two and three gave form to the earth

day four form to the light

so to summarise there was a rotating earth on day one and there was a light source

3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day