Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

[annabenedetti]

They "reason" like you; illogically and fallaciously.

The Jewish (Israelite) work week is literally six days with a one day sabbath rest. This is BECAUSE (that's what the FOR in verse 11 means) God created the heavens and the earth in six days. It's so clear that even a child can understand it, but not an unbeliever.

That is clearly circular reasoning, you can't escape it.

Also: not even all Jews believe in a literal understanding.


As director of the Biblical Museum of Natural History, Rabbi Natan Slifkin embodies the ideal of a Biblical scientist. He doesn’t see any contradictions between the worlds of Bible and science. Judaism, he explains, has always been able to accommodate science and theology. He quoted the Rambam, a preeminent medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher.

“As Rambam said, accept the truth from wherever it comes,” he told Breaking Israel News. “According to the rationalist approach, it is preferable to explain creation in scientific terms, because it is always preferable to see God working within nature and a system of law. “

Conflicts do arise between Torah and science. The Hebrew calendar, presently standing at 5776, is, in theory, based on the creation of the world. Rabbi Slifkin again quoted the Rambam’s Guide to the Perplexed, in which the rabbinical scholar wrote, “The account of creation is not all to be taken literally.”

The Rambam went on to explain that the Six Days represent a conceptual rather than historical account of creation. Rabbi Slifkin cited Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hoffman (1843-1921), a member of Agudath Israel’s Council of Torah Sages, who suggested that the Six Days of Creation were lengthy eras rather than 24-hour periods.

 

[Right Divider]

Likewise for a literal six day creation.

The Bible shows that it's literal. It's up to you to show otherwise.

 

[Right Divider]

As director of the Biblical Museum of Natural History, Rabbi Natan Slifkin embodies the ideal of a Biblical scientist. He doesn’t see any contradictions between the worlds of Bible and science. Judaism, he explains, has always been able to accommodate science and theology. He quoted the Rambam, a preeminent medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher.

“As Rambam said, accept the truth from wherever it comes,” he told Breaking Israel News. “According to the rationalist approach, it is preferable to explain creation in scientific terms, because it is always preferable to see God working within nature and a system of law. “

Conflicts do arise between Torah and science. The Hebrew calendar, presently standing at 5776, is, in theory, based on the creation of the world. Rabbi Slifkin again quoted the Rambam’s Guide to the Perplexed, in which the rabbinical scholar wrote, “The account of creation is not all to be taken literally.”

The Rambam went on to explain that the Six Days represent a conceptual rather than historical account of creation. Rabbi Slifkin cited Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hoffman (1843-1921), a member of Agudath Israel’s Council of Torah Sages, who suggested that the Six Days of Creation were lengthy eras rather than 24-hour periods.

He's making claims that are just that... claims. There is no reason to believe these claims when the Bible is plain and clear.

 

[annabenedetti]

The Bible shows that it's literal. It's up to you to show otherwise.

The Bible shows that the Bible shows.

Please see my quote from the Rabbi, in my prior post.

 

[annabenedetti]

He's making claims that are just that... claims. There is no reason to believe these claims when the Bible is plain and clear.

You're arguing against a Torah scholar there, you don't even want to consider what he had to say?

 

[Right Divider]

The Bible shows that the Bible shows.

Yes, it shows a literal six day creation.... plainly and clearly.

Please see my quote from the Rabbi, in my prior post.

He uses the same silliness as many others. Like "the Bible has different meanings for day sometimes... so I can believe whatever I want".

 

[Right Divider]

You're arguing against a Torah scholar there, you don't even want to consider what he had to say?

I considered it and rejected it as the nonsense that it is.

 

[7djengo7]

God says to the Israelites:

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God... FOR [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day...

annabenedetti takes to lecturing God:

That is clearly circular reasoning, you can't escape it.

Clearly it's not circular reasoning, and clearly you do not know what circular reasoning is. But if you wish to contest the fact that you do not know what circular reasoning is, feel free to lay out a syllogism for us that you would say exemplifies circular reasoning, and tell us why you think it does.

Yeah I don't converse in syllogisms.

And because you say things like that, no rationally-thinking person takes you for anything but a pompous joke when you tell them that this or that is circular reasoning, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Clete]

Likewise for a literal six day creation.

Topic for another thread.

I provided a link that says it much better than I can. Feel free to read it.

NO! This is a debate forum, not a "post a link" forum. Make the argument or leave.

As RD's reaction shows, I knew it would be a waste of my time to summarize it.

The only waste of time around here is you. It was predictable from your very first post in this thread.

 

[Derf]

I'll do their work for them. One allegory I've heard is that "evening and morning" is a reference to a trajectory that's repeated multiple times, meaning from chaos to order. I.e., each "day" was an era where God was working with certain parts of creation until He had achieved the planned level of order/design.

 

[annabenedetti]

Topic for another thread.

No it's not.

NO! This is a debate forum, not a "post a link" forum. Make the argument or leave.

Thanks for your input.

The only waste of time around here is you. It was predictable from your very first post in this thread.

Then why are you wasting your time posting to me?

 

[annabenedetti]

Yes, it shows a literal six day creation.... plainly and clearly.

He uses the same silliness as many others. Like "the Bible has different meanings for day sometimes... so I can believe whatever I want".

To give just one example: the six days of creation culminating in the Sabbath on the seventh day symbolize how God guided the development of the world stage by stage according to a well-thought-out plan. The process is described as taking place over a period of seven days because seven was regarded in the ancient world as the number of perfection and seven days were regarded as the ideal length of a process. The unit of "seven days" is more a statement about the perfection of the process than a chronological statistic.

Thus a literal reading of the Bible, on which "creation science" implicitly insists, misses the point of the Bible itself, which seems uninterested in literal interpretation. Like poetry and certain kinds of prose, which sometimes speak in metaphors and symbols, the Bible as a whole does not intend these stories to be taken literally.

Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning

Genesis as Allegory. Creationism and Evolution in Judaism. Science and Judaism. Jewish Science. Jewish Ideas and Beliefs

www.myjewishlearning.com

 

[Right Divider]

To give just one example: the six days of creation culminating in the Sabbath on the seventh day symbolize how God guided the development of the world stage by stage according to a well-thought-out plan.

You have your opinion and that of others with a similar opinion. You've made NO actual case for this.

The process is described as taking place over a period of seven days because seven was regarded in the ancient world as the number of perfection and seven days were regarded as the ideal length of a process. The unit of "seven days" is more a statement about the perfection of the process than a chronological statistic.

More opinion without any support.

Thus a literal reading of the Bible, on which "creation science" implicitly insists, misses the point of the Bible itself, which seems uninterested in literal interpretation.

More opinion... i.e., begging the question.

Like poetry and certain kinds of prose, which sometimes speak in metaphors and symbols, the Bible as a whole does not intend these stories to be taken literally.

Please make an ARGUMENT as to why Genesis 1 is "like poetry and certain kinds of prose". You can't or you would have by now.

Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning

Genesis as Allegory. Creationism and Evolution in Judaism. Science and Judaism. Jewish Science. Jewish Ideas and Beliefs

www.myjewishlearning.com

Again you refer to one of your "preferred opinion pieces". MAKE an ARGUMENT or go away and sulk.

 

[annabenedetti]

You have your opinion and that of others with a similar opinion. You've made NO actual case for this.

More opinion without any support.

More opinion... i.e., begging the question.

Please make an ARGUMENT as to why Genesis 1 is "like poetry and certain kinds of prose". You can't or you would have by now.

Again you refer to one of your "preferred opinion pieces". MAKE an ARGUMENT or go away and sulk.

You'd love it if I'd "go away and sulk" so you could take credit for it.

I've made a case if you'd actually consider it, but you dismiss it as "opinion."

I'm using Jewish rabbinical sources who most likely know more about their sacred texts than most Christians who are not the first caretakers of those texts. I count myself in that, and unless you can convince me otherwise, I count you in that also. I wish Chair were around, I would ask him for his input.

 

[ok doser]

You'd love it if I'd "go away and sulk"

I'd love it if you'd just go away. You bring nothing to the site but bitterness and rancor. You're a miserable wretch.

 

[Right Divider]

You'd love it if I'd "go away and sulk" so you could take credit for it.

Another of your tons of false accusations.

I've made a case if you'd actually consider it, but you dismiss it as "opinion."

You've made no case at all. You continue to:

• Beg the question
• Appeal to authority
• Appeal to popularity
• Falsely equivocate
• etc.

I'm using Jewish rabbinical sources who most likely know more about their sacred texts than most Christians who are not the first caretakers of those texts.

Appeal to authority is not an argument. It is a fallacious appeal.

I count myself in that, and unless you can convince me otherwise, I count you in that also. I wish Chair were around, I would ask him for his input.

Again, the text is clear and your "sources" (as well as yourself) use fallacious "reasoning" as your only tool.

 

[annabenedetti]

Another of your tons of false accusations.

You've made no case at all. You continue to:

• Beg the question
• Appeal to authority
• Appeal to popularity
• Falsely equivocate
• etc.

Appeal to authority is not an argument. It is a fallacious appeal.

Again, the text is clear and your "sources" (as well as yourself) use fallacious "reasoning" as your only tool.

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.

 

[7djengo7]

You'd love it if I'd "go away and sulk" so you could take credit for it.

How could he take credit for your manifestly severe character defects? Oops....sorry....I meant to say "mxnifestly".

I've made a case if you'd actually consider it, but you dismiss it as "opinion."

Having actually considered your ravings in this thread, it's perfectly clear you've made no case. All you've done is make claims you've not supported with any facts.

I'm using Jewish rabbinical sources who most likely know more about their sacred texts than most Christians who are not the first caretakers of those texts.

All you're doing, here, is making yet more claims you have no hope of supporting with facts.

I count myself in that, and unless you can convince me otherwise, I count you in that also.

You like counting, eh?

I wish Chair were around, I would ask him for his input.

LOL

Wait... @chair isn't just a sock puppet account of yours?!

 

[7djengo7]

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

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?

 

[Right Divider]

Tons? Wow! That's a lot!

Yes, it is.

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

You're only appealing to him because he's a supposed expert and you already agree with him. He used that same fallacious arguments that you do.

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,

Well gee... with a name like "Authentic Theology" its got to be right.

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.

I find that most people with "Religious" degrees are wrong about many things regarding the Bible.

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.​

Notice how he makes a CLAIM WITHOUT SUPPORT. No, it is NOT "reasonable" to falsely equivocate the word DAY in Genesis 1 simply because DAY can have other meanings in other parts of the Bible.

This is even before one recognizes that allegorical, metaphorical, God-days, symbolic, and still other interpretations are reasonable, as well.​

Again, making an UNSUPPORTED CLAIM. Just like you.

​

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.​

False accusation.

​

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.​

Again, with the FALSE EQUIVOCATION.

​

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.​

I don't know who the "they" is, but this is still simply another attempted misdirection.

​

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.​

Again, it does not matter how many times is appears differently throughout scripture. This is AGAIN, simply misdirection.

​

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

Nope. Just claiming victory is not enough.

Continued at the link.

No doubt with more of the fallacious falsehoods.