Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

[redfern]

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?

Some strange logic I see in your post. Your first sentence portrays me as saying God didn’t author the Bible, and then your closing sentence reopens the door and asks if I believe God was involved in the authorship of the Bible. Ya really ought to avoid declaring what my beliefs are, and then asking me what my beliefs are.

And your first sentence is a pretty good example of a strawman argument, in which you misrepresent what my position is, probably because the extreme position of total disbelief in the Bible is much easier to attack than the very modest shortcomings I have focused on.

I challenge you to show anywhere I have declared the Bible to be purely man-made (aka “a fable”). I am aware that one of the prime governing rules at TOL is that calling the Bible as being devoid of divine content is grounds for being banned from this site.

My focus that I have assiduously tried to maintain is on just the first few sentences of Gen 1 (which is supposedly the chapter this thread was supposed to be looking at). Almost every book I have read I started on page 1, and read page after page to the end. But as this thread shows, doing that in the Bible has demonstrated that there are (sometimes acrimonious) differences even within the Christian community as to what is the meaning of just the first 90 words of the Bible.

I am most appreciative of you being willing to acknowledge that the English KJV is not a perfect representation of ideas contained in the original Biblical manuscripts.

You do have one other very salient point in your post. You reference people trusting God with their soul. In my case, after my death, if I am brought to the judgement bar, I will do so with unwavering conviction within myself that I have been true and faithful to what I believe is true. If God damns me to Hell for my beliefs, then so be it. For me to accept ideas, usually from hard-core Christians, that violate either my own spiritual convictions, or that run contrary to the laws of science that I have successfully depended on for years, would force me to become a filthy liar to myself. I will not stand before God and lie to him by pretending to beliefs that I do not honestly hold.

 

[Clete]

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.

Instead of belly-aching about it, why don't you just take his response at face value and respond to it with "It's not irrelevant just because you claim it to be. Explain why it's irrelevant."

 

[Clete]

Some strange logic I see in your post.

Oh boy, here we go!

Your first sentence portrays me as saying God didn’t author the Bible,

That's because it sounded to me like that was your point. You didn't say it outright but you did a Mexican hat dance around it three times.

and then your closing sentence reopens the door and asks if I believe God was involved in the authorship of the Bible.

It isn't the same question and your less than direct answer is what left the door open, not my question.

Ya really ought to avoid declaring what my beliefs are, and then asking me what my beliefs are.

I didn't declare anything. If I read it wrong then clarify yourself and stop acting like a third grade cry baby. It isn't my job to read your mind. If you failed to communicate your point clearly, then that's on you, not the reader.

And your first sentence is a pretty good example of a strawman argument,

No, it wasn't any sort of argument at all. It was me making an observation.

in which you misrepresent what my position is, probably because the extreme position of total disbelief in the Bible is much easier to attack than the very modest shortcomings I have focused on.

I misrepresented nothing. Your post and mine are still right there for the whole entire world to read.

I challenge you to show anywhere I have declared the Bible to be purely man-made (aka “a fable”).

I never suggested that you made that claim, at least not directly. You sort of left it in a state where anything anyone says about your position allows you some wiggle room where you could have plausible deniability no matter what anyone said.

I am aware that one of the prime governing rules at TOL is that calling the Bible as being devoid of divine content is grounds for being banned from this site.

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Now everyone is looking for a reason to ban you. Sheesh! Would you give me a break!

My focus that I have assiduously tried to maintain is on just the first few sentences of Gen 1 (which is supposedly the chapter this thread was supposed to be looking at).

Okay fine.

Do you believe that God has ANYTHING to do with the authorship of just the first few sentences of Gen 1? If so, to what extent?

Almost every book I have read I started on page 1, and read page after page to the end. But as this thread shows, doing that in the Bible has demonstrated that there are (sometimes acrimonious) differences even within the Christian community as to what is the meaning of just the first 90 words of the Bible.

Nonsense.

I am most appreciative of you being willing to acknowledge that the English KJV is not a perfect representation of ideas contained in the original Biblical manuscripts.

There isn't 1% of Christianity that would disagree with me on that point so its a little weird for you to be acting like its an unusual stance to take.

You do have one other very salient point in your post. You reference people trusting God with their soul. In my case, after my death, if I am brought to the judgement bar, I will do so with unwavering conviction within myself that I have been true and faithful to what I believe is true.

David Koresh would likely be able to do the same, as would all of Jim Jones' followers and perhaps millions of other fools who will find themselves in Hell precisely because of what they believe, or rather, what they failed to believe.

If God damns me to Hell for my beliefs, then so be it.

Wow, you really should be careful what you say. Blasphemy is a banable offense too, you know. If you think you're smarter than God, I've got some news for you.

For me to accept ideas, usually from hard-core Christians, that violate either my own spiritual convictions, or that run contrary to the laws of science that I have successfully depended on for years, would force me to become a filthy liar to myself. I will not stand before God and lie to him by pretending to beliefs that I do not honestly hold.

I mean, you're just a stupid buffoonish clown!

"I challenge you to show anywhere" that any Christian has ever suggested that you show up and try to lie to God! If you're an unbeliever then fine! May God judge you according to your actions. If that isn't the case then where in the world is all this idiotic stupidity coming from?

I'll give you one and only one additional chance to answer the question I've asked with a direct answer. If you fail to give one then we will all know who it is who's interested in having substantive two way conversation and who isn't. Any additional posts that even somewhat resemble this last one will be ignored.

Clete

 

[Derf]

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.

Lol.

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.

But not the history of scientific history, right? Since current "scientific history" is vastly different from previous centuries' "scientific history". Like the Greek's scientific history, that said the universe has always existed, or the pre-Copernican scientific history that said the sun and planets revolve around the earth?

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.

Sure...start a thread. But this thread is about the potential symbols and allegories people hold for Gen 1.

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.

Or failings of science? Is that even on your radar? You seem to have much faith in today's science that it won't ever again require such revolutions as it has had even within the last 1/4 century.

 

[Idolater]

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

It needn't be, not necessarily. There is one solution which was mentioned in one of JR's links, "appearance of age." https://answersresearchjournal.org/solution-light-travel-time-problem/

The author holds a doctoral degree. His quote: " Light created in transit as part of a fully functioning universe"

Its explanatory power isn't even questioned, from a scientific standpoint in the link, it's dismissed because somebody (maybe the link's author? they're never named) finds it means God's deceptive (basically because it means He deliberately made the universe look older than it really is).

There's no need for allegory or symbol in Genesis on this theory. Creation was a miracle, full stop. The only thing the narrative can't defy, and be consistent with miracle, is logic, and that didn't happen. Genesis is logical.

, 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.

Begging the question. What was actually going on, was the miracle of creation.

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.

You might miss a word here or there but the kind of corruption you seem to be implying is like whole pages replaced by something else. There's no way that happened. The basic story in Genesis is exactly what I expect Moses first wrote down, under the influence of God's breath the Holy Spirit ("He has spoken through the prophets").

 

[Idolater]

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.

So I've got Scripture that tells me God is the Logos, God is love, God is spirit, and God is light.

Which of these are literal, wooden, and which are figurative, allegorical and or symbol?

 

[redfern]

What else would it be?

Dunno. But I am open to suggestions, as long as they have a modicum of scientific credibility. Can you supply such?

 

[Stripe]

The Earth blocking a light source, ie, a 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?

No, and perhaps I am in violation of the title of this thread since I am not particularly adept at discerning symbolic or allegorical meanings. I simply had a sincere hope (now seriously faded) that someone in this thread could provide a scientifically sensible explanation for the first few verses of the Bible.

 

[Stripe]

Aren't they self-explanatory?

 

[Idolater]

No, and perhaps I am in violation of the title of this thread since I am not particularly adept at discerning symbolic or allegorical meanings. I simply had a sincere hope (now seriously faded) that someone in this thread could provide a scientifically sensible explanation for the first few verses of the Bible.

You mean a non-miraculous explanation

 

[redfern]

The Earth blocking a light source, ie, a shadow.

Do you mean the earth that at the time light was separated from darkness? You know, the earth that at that time was “without form, and void”? .A shadow from that earth?

 

[Right Divider]

No, and perhaps I am in violation of the title of this thread since I am not particularly adept at discerning symbolic or allegorical meanings. I simply had a sincere hope (now seriously faded) that someone in this thread could provide a scientifically sensible explanation for the first few verses of the Bible.

This thread was created specifically for those that claim a "allegorical/symbolic" meaning for Genesis 1. So, indeed, you are in the wrong place.

 

[Stripe]

Do you mean the earth that at the time light was separated from darkness? You know, the earth that at that time was “without form, and void”? .A shadow from that earth?

No. I mean that there was a light source on the left, the Earth on the right, so one side of the planet was day separated from the other side, which was night.

 

[redfern]

Aren't they self-explanatory?

If you feel they are self-explanatory, then please enlighten me. I’ve seen you seriously misapply the CMB as part of the explanation, and shadows from void and not-yet formed earths. But I am willing to see if you can avoid a third strike.

 

[Right Divider]

If you feel they are self-explanatory, then please enlighten me. I’ve seen you seriously misapply the CMB as part of the explanation, and shadows from void and not-yet formed earths. But I am willing to see if you can avoid a third strike.

That is only one earth.
Even an earth that is "without form" is still not invisible (eg. it still blocks light).
Please get on the topic or start your own thread.

 

[redfern]

No. I mean that there was a light source on the left, the Earth on the right, so one side of the planet was day separated from the other side, which was night.

Ok, so you mean the Bible was in error saying the earth at this time was without form? It was already an opaque spherical object?

 

[redfern]

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?

Yeah, follow the conversation back a few steps, and you will see that was in reference to the extremely high temperatures at the time the CMB radiation was emitted.

 

[7djengo7]

Yeah, follow the conversation back a few steps, and you will see that was in reference to the extremely high temperatures at the time the CMB radiation was emitted.

Oh, so you were just chatting about fiction.

 

[redfern]

That is only one earth.
Even an earth that is "without form" is still not invisible (eg. it still blocks light).
Please get on the topic or start your own thread.

Arrggh, a typo, you got me on that one. Kinda busy right now dodging arrows from all your buddies, doesn’t leave much time for proof reading. And I wasn’t going to respond to you anymore – that makes 2 flubs on my part.

But maybe your middle sentence is a chance for me to stay on subject. Are you saying that ‘without form’ really doesn’t mean what “without form” means in ordinary plain English? If it is without form, how do those pesky photons know where it is to smack into it? “Without form” is just allegorical? That maybe it was already a sphere, but God just hadn’t yet formed its surface details – like mountains and oceans and such?