Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

[Stripe]

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.

It has some poetic elements. Repetition, chiasm.

A lot of the Bible has literary elements that are often described as poetic.

The point is, use of such things does nothing to diminish the accuracy of the plain meaning.

 

[Right Divider]

It has some poetic elements. Repetition, chiasm.

A lot of the Bible has literary elements that are often described as poetic.

The repetition in Genesis 1 does not appear "poetic" to me.

The point is, use of such things does nothing to diminish the accuracy of the plain meaning.

Fully agree that Genesis 1 could be poetic and still be literally referring to six normal days. Just not seeing the "poetry".

 

[Stripe]

Check out the link

 

[Right Divider]

Check out the link

I did

 

[Derf]

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

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

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).

So you must appeal to authority to make any claims about the creation week.

What you're looking for is the fallacy of false appeal to authority (or appeal to false authority). The lexicon might be either, depending how good a lexicon it is.

An eyewitness of a murder is appealed to to convict the perpetrator. The witness is the best expert available on that particular crime. The problem, of course, comes when the defense attorney says the the witness meant something different than what he said. I don't know what that fallacy might be called.

 

[Right Divider]

So you must appeal to authority to make any claims about the creation week.

God is an acceptable authority for an appeal. He is the only one.

What you're looking for is the fallacy of false appeal to authority (or appeal to false authority). The lexicon might be either, depending how good a lexicon it is.

Nothing can be declared true simply because someone says so.

An eyewitness of a murder is appealed to to convict the perpetrator. The witness is the best expert available on that particular crime.

Can you not see the difference between an eyewitness in the PRESENT and someone claiming what happened when nobody was there and in the DISTANT past?

The problem, of course, comes when the defense attorney says the the witness meant something different than what he said. I don't know what that fallacy might be called.

Science claims are never confirmed solely and simply based on an experts claims.

 

[Derf]

God is an acceptable authority for an appeal. He is the only one.

Then you can't use the Bible, as it was written by men. Its claims of inspiration are also written by men. The translations we use were translated by men. And I would wager that your understanding of Gen 1 is not original with you.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong about Gen 1--I'm in substantial agreement with you on it. What I'm trying to point out is that @annabenedetti has, so far in this thread, as much right to accuse you of false appeal to authority as you do her. You're both appealing to authorities that are not God for your understanding of the passage.

Nothing can be declared true simply because someone says so.

What about "I have a stomach ache"? Am I not an authority on my own physical ailments?

Can you not see the difference between an eyewitness in the PRESENT and someone claiming what happened when nobody was there and in the DISTANT past?

If nobody was there, then there were no witnesses. But Gen 1 appears to be an eyewitness account, handed down to someone who in turn handed it down to someone else (maybe several someone elses), who eventually handed it down to Moses. The whole question this thread hinges on is whether the witness and the recipients of the account are being truthful and accurate in their testimony. The issue, imo, is whose authorities are true and whose are false.

Science claims are never confirmed solely and simply based on an experts claims.

Nor biblical claims based on theologians'. Until you can show differently, which I think you can, Anna's claims and your claims are on equal footing. But you need to show it.

 

[Right Divider]

Then you can't use the Bible, as it was written by men.

Are you an unbeliever? The Bible is God's Word. That He had men write the "words" is irrelevant.

Its claims of inspiration are also written by men. The translations we use were translated by men. And I would wager that your understanding of Gen 1 is not original with you.

Blah blah blah.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong about Gen 1--I'm in substantial agreement with you on it. What I'm trying to point out is that @annabenedetti has, so far in this thread, as much right to accuse you of false appeal to authority as you do her. You're both appealing to authorities that are not God for your understanding of the passage.

Wrong. The Bible is God's Word.

What about "I have a stomach ache"? Am I not an authority on my own physical ailments?

The context is specifically about science claims.
Also, you could be lying.

If nobody was there, then there were no witnesses.

There was one witness. The Creator Himself.

But Gen 1 appears to be an eyewitness account, handed down to someone who in turn handed it down to someone else (maybe several someone elses), who eventually handed it down to Moses. The whole question this thread hinges on is whether the witness and the recipients of the account are being truthful and accurate in their testimony. The issue, imo, is whose authorities are true and whose are false.

God is fully capable of getting the truth in print.

Nor biblical claims based on theologians'. Until you can show differently, which I think you can, Anna's claims and your claims are on equal footing. But you need to show it.

You are pitting God's description of His acts during creation against false claims of unbelievers who have an agenda to disagree with God. I'll stick with God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There was one witness. The Creator Himself.

More like three witnesses...

Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

God is a triune Witness - His standard of "two or three witnesses" comes from his triune Nature.

 

[annabenedetti]

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.

Thanks. He hasn't moved beyond 'because the Bible says so.' There is a long history of reading the creation account allegorically, or of at least allowing for both points of view without calling either heretical. The YEC's 'if you don't believe in a literal six day creation you're a bible despiser!' isn't as widely held as they'd like to think. I could respect the view of someone who personally believed in a literal six day creation but allowed there there were valid arguments for a non-literal reading of it and wouldn't call a non-literal view unChristian.

 

[Right Divider]

@Derf Also note that the starting place for this thread is the Bible. That is exactly what we are discussing.

 

[Right Divider]

Thanks. He hasn't moved beyond 'because the Bible says so.'

Why should I move? It's crystal clear and you've provided no reason for me to move.

There is a long history of reading the creation account allegorically,

Begging the question AGAIN!

or of at least allowing for both points of view without calling either heretical.

Not once have I called your false view heretical. You make SO MANY false accusations!

The YEC's 'if you don't believe in a literal six day creation you're a bible despiser!'

Every time we discuss the Bible, you show that you don't believe a thing that it says.

isn't as widely held as they'd like to think. I could respect the view of someone who personally believed in a literal six day creation but allowed there there were valid arguments for a non-literal reading of it and wouldn't call a non-literal view unChristian.

Believe as you like, you're clearly railing against God and His Word.

 

[Stripe]

Thanks. He hasn't moved beyond 'because the Bible says so.' There is a long history of reading the creation account allegorically, or of at least allowing for both points of view without calling either heretical. The YEC's 'if you don't believe in a literal six day creation you're a bible despiser!' isn't as widely held as they'd like to think. I could respect the view of someone who personally believed in a literal six day creation but allowed there there were valid arguments for a non-literal reading of it and wouldn't call a non-literal view unChristian.

Darwinists love it when they can talk about who it is holding an idea or how many people believe it.

As long as they never have to provide reasons for their assertions, they feel safe in a conversation.

 

[Stripe]

I did

It describes the poetic structure of Genesis.

 

[Right Divider]

It describes the poetic structure of Genesis.

It was quite a stretch

 

[Stripe]

It was quite a stretch

It was? What's not plausible?

 

[Derf]

Are you an unbeliever? The Bible is God's Word. That He had men write the "words" is irrelevant.

not when you are talking about what meanings the words convey rather than what the words are.

Blah blah blah.

Wrong. The Bible is God's Word.

But your understanding of its meaning is not necessarily God's Word, nor even inspired.

The context is specifically about science claims.
Also, you could be lying.

Ever heard of medical science?

There was one witness. The Creator Himself.

Then your claim of "nobody" was incorrect.

God is fully capable of getting the truth in print.

You are pitting God's description of His acts during creation against false claims of unbelievers who have an agenda to disagree with God. I'll stick with God.

No, I'm rightfully pitting your understanding of the passage against someone else's, which you shouldn't fear if yours is true, meaning you would be able to have a meaningful conversation about it with them.

"I'll stick with God" is what everybody on these forums says when he's run out of other comebacks. And it always seems to mean they've stuck their fingers in their ears and won't listen or converse anymore.

 

[Right Divider]

It was? What's not plausible?

I'm not saying it's implausible. Still a stretch in my opinion.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not saying it's implausible.

I'm confused.

Why is it a stretch?

 

[annabenedetti]

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

Thank you for a reply that sticks to the subject without getting personal.

What was the source of the light on day one?