Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

[Right Divider]

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.

That doesn't hurt my feelings.

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.

Good for you. Please ignore me if you like.

 

[Derf]

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.

Why does that "matter" in this discussion?

 

[redfern]

Why does that "matter" in this discussion?

I think you are asking about what I said in my second paragraph. If not, please ping me again.

The point I was leading to was that by applying pretty-well established laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics, we find that significant levels of conversions of photons to matter and vv, requires that the temperature be astoundingly hot. Not melting-lead hot, but instead at or beyond well-inside the sun hot.

This harks back to the suggestion (not from you, Derf) that the darkness in Gen 1:4 is shadow. That just doesn’t look like a good fit at all.

 

[Stripe]

This harks back to the suggestion (not from you, Derf) that the darkness in Gen 1:4 is shadow. That just doesn’t look like a good fit at all.

What else would it be?

 

[Derf]

I think you are asking about what I said in my second paragraph. If not, please ping me again.

The point I was leading to was that by applying pretty-well established laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics, we find that significant levels of conversions of photons to matter and vv, requires that the temperature be astoundingly hot. Not melting-lead hot, but instead at or beyond well-inside the sun hot.

This harks back to the suggestion (not from you, Derf) that the darkness in Gen 1:4 is shadow. That just doesn’t look like a good fit at all.

Seems to me that a little shade is exactly what would have been needed. But are you suggesting a symbolic or allegorical alternative?

 

[redfern]

What else would it be?

To answer that I would have to reverse-engineer whatever human-controlled textual influences over the last several millennia might have altered what God really said into the text we read today. I am not a scholar on ancient languages, nor am I privy to what caused errors that in fact have been found when comparing some of the surviving very old Biblical texts.

It’s like being given an ancient document in which a mathematical problem is incorrectly solved. The mathematical problem may be a very valid one, but what caused the error in the solution is secondary to just honestly and truthfully admitting the error exists. I find it more beneficial to study how to correctly do math, than to spend my time studying how many ways a math problem has been incorrectly approached.

 

[Stripe]

To answer that I would have to reverse-engineer whatever human-controlled textual influences over the last several millennia might have altered what God really said into the text we read today. I am not a scholar on ancient languages, nor am I privy to what caused errors that in fact have been found when comparing some of the surviving very old Biblical texts.

It’s like being given an ancient document in which a mathematical problem is incorrectly solved. The mathematical problem may be a very valid one, but what caused the error in the solution is secondary to just honestly and truthfully admitting the error exists. I find it more beneficial to study how to correctly do math, than to spend my time studying how many ways a math problem has been incorrectly approached.

Or it just means shadow.

 

[redfern]

Seems to me that a little shade is exactly what would have been needed. But are you suggesting a symbolic or allegorical alternative?

Indeed, if I were in a home that had the furnace set to 10,000 degrees Celsius, I would at least hope for a cup of iced tea.

In spite of the frequently being asked about the allegorical or symbolic meaning of the scientifically fanciful situation described in the first few verses of Gen 1, I would be vastly more convinced of its veracity if the Gen 1 creation account was a bit more faithful to the scientific history that accurately reflected what was going on. If seeing symbolism and allegories is of prime importance, then maybe we should try to discern what the symbolism and allegories are in first few sentences in the Lord of the Rings.

As I explained to RD, I would like to have a way of discerning whether the issues with forepart of Gen 1 are due not to failings of God, but to human failings on the part of the original scribe and/or later copyists and/or translators. Maybe the Bible – as it was being delivered in pristine form by God – was a true and faithful and far more accurate account than what I read in my KJV English language Bible.

 

[redfern]

Or it just means shadow.

Maybe it does. If by shadow you mean the hottest part of the flame of an acetylene torch. Just define shadow to fit your fancy, and ignore the apparently silly prior mentions of a solid object that blocks light coming from a certain direction.

 

[7djengo7]

Indeed, if I were in a home that had the furnace set to 10,000 degrees Celsius, I would at least hope for a cup of iced tea.

In spite of the frequently being asked about the allegorical or symbolic meaning of the scientifically fanciful situation described in the first few verses of Gen 1, I would be vastly more convinced of its veracity if the Gen 1 creation account was a bit more faithful to the scientific history that accurately reflected what was going on. If seeing symbolism and allegories is of prime importance, then maybe we should try to discern what the symbolism and allegories are in first few sentences in the Lord of the Rings.

As I explained to RD, I would like to have a way of discerning whether the issues with forepart of Gen 1 are due not to failings of God, but to human failings on the part of the original scribe and/or later copyists and/or translators. Maybe the Bible – as it was being delivered in pristine form by God – was a true and faithful and far more accurate account than what I read in my KJV English language Bible.

What make of fart2text conversion software have you been using to generate your posts?

 

[7djengo7]

Indeed, if I were in a home that had the furnace set to 10,000 degrees Celsius, I would at least hope for a cup of iced tea.

How would you do so? And what (if any) point were you trying to make by saying that? Was it intended to be some sort of response to what you had quoted from @Derf?

 

[Stripe]

Maybe it does. If by shadow you mean the hottest part of the flame of an acetylene torch. Just define shadow to fit your fancy, and ignore the apparently silly prior mentions of a solid object that blocks light coming from a certain direction.

Wha...?

 

[Clete]

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.

You could have simply said, "No, I don't think God authored the Bible." and saved yourself a lot of time.

You have to understand that your post here, in the mind of most Christians, disqualifies you in any discussion that pertains to Christianity or the Christian worldview except as an outsider, an unbeliever, an effective atheist.

If God is not competent enough to maintain the integrity of the message of a book then why would anyone trust Him with their eternal soul?

And, while there are some who foolishly believe that the King James Bible is THE preserved word of God, I can assure you that Right Divider isn't one of them and so you sort of answered a question that wasn't asked. No one but a scant few believe that an English translation of the bible is perfect nor do they believe that it is necessary for it to be perfect.

So, I would ask you this...

Do you believe God had ANYTHING to do with the authorship of the bible and if so, to what extent?

 

[Right Divider]

To answer that I would have to reverse-engineer whatever human-controlled textual influences over the last several millennia might have altered what God really said into the text we read today.

A gross assumption on your part. God is fully capable of getting His message through.

I am not a scholar on ancient languages, nor am I privy to what caused errors that in fact have been found when comparing some of the surviving very old Biblical texts.

These "errors" are trivial and do not affect the message.

It’s like being given an ancient document in which a mathematical problem is incorrectly solved.

Fake news.

The mathematical problem may be a very valid one, but what caused the error in the solution is secondary to just honestly and truthfully admitting the error exists. I find it more beneficial to study how to correctly do math, than to spend my time studying how many ways a math problem has been incorrectly approached.

Believe God and that will help you.

 

[Right Divider]

As I explained to RD, I would like to have a way of discerning whether the issues with forepart of Gen 1 are due not to failings of God, but to human failings on the part of the original scribe and/or later copyists and/or translators. Maybe the Bible – as it was being delivered in pristine form by God – was a true and faithful and far more accurate account than what I read in my KJV English language Bible.

You continue to make unfounded assumptions about the integrity of God's Word.

 

[ok doser]

What make of fart2text conversion software have you been using to generate your posts?

 

[redfern]

A gross assumption on your part. God is fully capable of getting His message through.

These "errors" are trivial and do not affect the message.

Fake news.

Believe God and that will help you.

Let me see if I do this right. In emulation of the way you so kindly demonstrated recently, my response to everything you just said is: “irrelevant”. Wow, now I have avoided any pretense of honestly considering what you said.

But no, using your patented “irrelevant” stamp is indeed is an infantile way of responding to a post. So let me return to what I last authored to you. Such arguments as you want put forward I will simply ignore. You may rip my ideas to shreds for the edification of those who share your convictions. But meantime I will emulate what I read in Matt 27:14 – Answer you never a word.

 

[Right Divider]

Let me see if I do this right. In emulation of the way you so kindly demonstrated recently, my response to everything you just said is: “irrelevant”. Wow, now I have avoided any pretense of honestly considering what you said.

You're proving yourself to be one of the most irrelevant posters here on TOL. Great job!

But no, using your patented “irrelevant” stamp is indeed is an infantile way of responding to a post. So let me return to what I last authored to you. Such arguments as you want put forward I will simply ignore. You may rip my ideas to shreds for the edification of those who share your convictions. But meantime I will emulate what I read in Matt 27:14 – Answer you never a word.

Good for you. Do you feel better now?

 

[7djengo7]

You're proving yourself to one of the most irrelevant posters here on TOL. Great job!

Good for you. Do you feel better now?

RD, you gave me an idea for a title for a novel about TOL:

Where The @redfern Grows (More Irrelevant With Each Post)​

 

[7djengo7]

Such arguments as you want put forward I will simply ignore.

Telling us that is like telling us that all your further posts will be marked by the handle, "redfern".