Genesis 2:4 says it (Genesis 2:4???) is an account of history?
-
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
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
Last edited:
Thanks, I will try to listen to these (and the preceding 2 programs as well) when I get enough spare time (hopefully, within a few days).
BTW, challenges to currently prevailing scientific ideas are actually a good thing. In science an idea is accorded the rather elevated title of theory when it has passed the test of being scientifically challenged. I can show you a number of published scientific papers that specifically focused on apparent weaknesses and errors in initial explanations for what the CMB told us about the early universe. And I can show you where over a period of years later scientific papers resolved those apparent weaknesses in CMB theory.
OK, “toledoth” is not a word I recall ever coming across before. Probably because I have not spent much time in studying the background of the ancient religious texts that disparate religions depend on.
And I don’t see that toledoth does much to clarify the apparent confusion arising from the divergent beliefs that have been expressed by posters in this thread.
It's a summary of the passage saying who or what it's about. Genesis has 10 of them and they indicate 10 source tablets.
It's a side issue sparked by this comment:
From the text, Genesis 1 should be regarded as an account of history, although that doesn't preclude allegory or symbolism being legitimately extracted from it. (The toledoth for Gen 1 being in Gen 2 shows that the chapter divisions could have been created better.)
No, it doesn't.
Remember, God had already created "the heavens and the earth," regardless of whether space exists as a "thing" or not.
God created light, and then after He created it, He made it so that there was an absence of light in at least one place.
See my analogy I gave to Anna earlier.
There was no space, yet God had already created the heavens and the earth?
Even if space IS a "thing" (not saying it is), your statement doesn't follow, given the context.
Wrong.
Separating light from darkness simply means that light "isn't" in some locations.
We call these places where light "isn't" darkness, or shadow, because there is no light to be found.
Thus, we can understand that, conversely, if there is no separation between light and darkness, that light must have been everywhere, filling the universe, where there was no shadow, no darkness, because darkness disappears when light is present.
A thought just occurred to me. What if this meant that photons originally could have passed through matter, and the "separation" would be God making it so that light couldn't pass through matter, "dividing" it like placing a rock in front of a flashlight?
The universe already existed, all God would have to do is make it so that objects created shadows, and they would be what "divides" the light, separating light from darkness.
Food for thought.
But not ACTUAL light, which is a wave/particle.
Unless you're saying that God is a wave/particle?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
He doesn't, because we're not talking about God. We're talking about created light.
God didn't create Himself. Thus, 1 John 1:5 is clearly not talking about light, literally, but light, as in, understanding, a figurative/allegorical use.
A lack of light.
That's nice.
Yes, that's what I've been saying.
As Clete said, "space" is just a concept, not an ontological "thing," and thus has no need to be created.
Again, God created light AFTER he created the heavens and the earth, not before.
Your argument is worded as if He created light before the other..
I would agree, as long as by "create darkness," you mean "remove light from some locations" and not actually "creating darkness." in the same way He created light or matter.
1 John 1:5 has nothing to do with the light in Genesis 1.
Neither of those are my position.
Yes, that's what I've been saying, and thus, God "separating light from darkness" is simply making it so that light isn't everywhere all at once, but rather, that things block light.
Which has nothing to do with this, and thus, the rest of your argument falls apart.
...there was light and the heavens and the earth and God, and before there was light, there was only God and the heavens and the earth that He had created. And before that, only God existed.
Yes, and?
Again, as Clete said, "space" doesn't exist. It's just a concept.
No, God is not "literally light."
Which isn't my position anyways....
Please stay focused.
Supra...
No, He didn't, as "space" isn't something that's created.
Why do you assume He removed photons?
Why couldn't He have just moved them, or as I proposed above, stopped them from passing through matter? Or perhaps done something analogous to my analogy to Anna?
You keep ignoring the fact that God made light AFTER he made the heavens and the earth though, so that's out the window...
Supra.
Which doesn't make any sense at all. God ceased from creating on day 7.
You're right, you can't conceive of whatever it is you're talking about. The reason you can't conceive of it is because it makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because you're contradicting yourself.
Have you ever heard of a stolen concept fallacy? It happens when someone uses a concept while denying another concept upon which the concept that they're using is logically predicated upon. So, for example, if some stupid liberal were to say that "All private property is theft!" then that would be a stolen concept fallacy because they are using the concept of "theft" to undermine the concept of "private property" and just ignoring the fact that the concept of theft presupposes the concept of private property. They have thus "stolen" the concept of theft.
You are doing something similar and it is why you can't make sense of it. Not only that, but it would seem that you are intuitively aware of it as well. That's why you felt the need to add the parenthetical explanation of "(figurative language since "within" kind of requires space)". And here's the kicker, Idolator - it isn't figurative language, its your mind trying to use sound reason. It's proof that what you're thinking isn't working because you can't even speak of it without contradicting yourself. And, I don't say that to be insulting at all. It isn't that you aren't smart enough to figure out how to keep from contradicting yourself, its that no one possibly could do so because it isn't possible to keep from contradicting yourself because you're trying to use the very concept that you're trying to deny.
There are several ways to prove this. Your own post does a pretty decent job of it, but another way would be to ask the question, "How big is this single point?" That's a question that cannot be answered. Any attempt to answer it would contradict the concept of a "single point". Whether you say it's huge or tiny then I ask, "Huge/tiny in comparison to what?" Thus, you'd be forced to leave the size of this point as either "zero" or "undefined", which in the real world means that it does not exist and you find yourself in agreement with me when I tell you that space does not exist. No matter which way you turn, all roads lead to "space does not exist". Therefore, space does not exist. QED
And, while you might want to believe that time is an entirely different ball of wax, I'm telling you that it isn't. It's very nearly the exact same topic. The only difference is that time is a fourth dimension. Just as you cannot talk about something existing outside of space without contradicting yourself, you also cannot talk about something existing outside of time without contradicting yourself. If you don't believe me, just go ahead and try it. Try talking about timeless existence without employing the concept of existence, which presupposes duration, which is time. Try talking about "before time began" without using the concept of "before" which directly implies sequence, which is time. You can't do it because it cannot be done.
And here's the really real bottom line, Idolator. Contradictions DO NOT exist! The fact that its contradictory is the proof that it doesn't exist. If contradiction isn't proof of falsification then you cannot know anything at all. If contradiction is allowed then the law of identity doesn't work and anything you claim to be true cannot be verified, including the idea that contradiction isn't proof of falsehood. You'd find yourself instantly trapped in a circular quagmire of nonsense.
And, by the way, this does not subordinate God to time and space, as I've heard some people say in a sort of emotional reaction to these ideas. To say such a thing makes the same error again. Time and space do not exist! You cannot be subordinated by something that does not exist. Time and space are ideas. They do not exist outside a thinking mind. God is the very embodiment and fountainhead of all rational thought. No idea can be superior to the mind that conceives it so no, God is not trapped within nor in any other way subordinate to time and space.
Clete
What you have is a verse that says something figurative and an opinion.
What I have is that verse, which says sometthing figurative, and a verse that says that God literally created light.
Because you say so? Why couldn't it be the other way around?
Duh.
Duh. So why do you insist that it is?
Why can't YOUR verse be figurative, and mine literal?
You have to read more than one verse at a time...
I John 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
So, if your wooden and literal interpretation is correct then John is telling his audience that it is sinful to walk around in a dark room but if we walk around during the day or with the lights on then we have fellowship both with one another and with God.
That's pretty obviously not what is being said here. This is perfectly consistent with the other uses of the light metaphor.
John 3:20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
It's talking about righteousness and wisdom. Not the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Last edited:
You probably have, but have you read this one?
New Solution to the Light Travel Time Problem
Danny R. Faulkner, AiG–U.S., lays groundwork for the beginning of a new solution to the light travel time problem.
answersresearchjournal.org
Yeah, I read it way back when.You probably have, but have you read this one?
(see also https://kgov.com/starlight)New Solution to the Light Travel Time Problem
Danny R. Faulkner, AiG–U.S., lays groundwork for the beginning of a new solution to the light travel time problem.
There are certainly some things in it to think about, especially the stuff about questioning the distances and of course the importance of stretching, but I doubt that it's the full story.
Right Divider
Body part
Symbolism requires (at minimum) two things:
- A symbol
- The thing symbolized by the symbol
If anyone has "discerned symbols or allegories within it", I'd like to see it. What we are getting is people continuing to fallaciously claim (begging the question) that they are there without ANY substantiation whatsoever.
Again, since nobody has provided any support for the "allegorical/symbolism", that leads to only one conclusion.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Do you doubt that God authored the Bible?
Do you doubt that God is "a competent enough author"?
Right Divider
Body part
Is there any place in the world where you can show me an original manuscript authored by God? On stone, parchment, animal skin, anything? If not, then in reality what we have is what humans wrote down. Notice that in my statement you are responding to I said “in effect”, by which I was acknowledging that the Bible I have (and you have) is the end result of the efforts of both translators, and also of scribes who – probably with the purist of intentions – copied and passed on the “scriptures” that came into their hands. But I have seen studies that document errors in those processes. So neither of us in reality has seen a Bible that God personally authored (Did God write in English, since that is the language my Bible is in?)
I have equal concern with how the very first manuscripts were authored. Did God dictate to the original human recorders the very words that were to be written? Or did He explain the ideas to the person, and depend on the person to use his (the human author’s) own words to express what God had explained to him?
So in answer to your question, God did not author, in English, and sans being a copy of a copy of … the original, what I read in the Bible. If you will kindly provide me an original manuscript in English - authored personally by God with no fallible humans in between, then I will unwaveringly say God authored that particular Bible.
Right Divider
Body part
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
The old "I've seen studies" gambit.
God, being the Creator of all things, is perfectly capable of superintending the preservation of His Word.
Your concerns are of no concern to me.
What does the Bible say about this?
Your attempts to instill doubt about God and His Word are your own personal problem.
Irrelevant.
Silly and irrelevant.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
All of creation was authored by God
Ok, pardon me for taking the time to trying to clearly elucidate my concerns about saying God authored the Bible. Since you are trivially dismissive of such efforts on my part, I will limit my responses to only other posters who may actually respond in a more mature way.
Right Divider
Body part
There was nothing "immature" about my response. Please state your world view, because you argue about the Bible like an atheist.
Last edited:
Until such a time as I think you will at least respect and give meaningful answers to the points I have already made, I elect to reserve my future posts for those who do choose to consider and give cogent answer to other’s posts. If indeed you sincerely feel that responding with “irrelevant” is not being dismissive of the ideas I expressed, then you and I have vastly divergent understandings of what a polite, meaningful, and productive conversation entails. Should that be the case, I have no interest in interacting with you.