Clete, Based on the warning from Sherman that I stick to the defined subject matter for this thread, my authoring further posts that do not specifically deal with allegories or symbols in Genesis 1 may precipitate my having to vacate the thread.
We don't mind a bit of wiggle room in the discussion. The problem is that you were getting too far off topic.
Clete's question is definitely related to the topic, so feel free to answer it.
Some of the posts I had hoped to respond to have some excellent content, but any meaningful reply from me would not be focused on either symbology or allegorical content.
You can always start a new thread (I think... not sure the requirements for new members to be able to start new threads. @Sherman
could answer that better than I could.)
From the first I have tried to be consistent in saying that I find the early verses of Genesis to be scientifically problematic.
Problematic for whom?
Because I don't find it problematic at all.
But I am fully willing to overlook that if in fact those verses are only symbolic, since science does not place constraints on symbolic meanings.
What if Genesis ISN'T symbolic though, but an actual record of history, and the "science" is wrong?
But in over 300 posts I have yet to see anyone plainly say those verses are symbolic, and here are the underlying meanings.
Anna tried to avoid doing so, but considering what she posted, she thinks it's allegory/symbolism, despite not answering the OP.
It would be presumptuous for me dream up possible allegorical (or symbolic) meanings, when none of the defenders have done so.
But you're at least willing to consider it allegorical or symbolic, despite not knowing exactly what such is referring to.
Why is that more logical to you?
So my only comment on the allegories involved necessarily is that there are no clear allegorical meanings.
In which case, why consider the passage to be allegorical at all?
Why does Genesis 1 HAVE to be allegorical?
Which from my stance leaves me with verses that are neither symbolic nor supported scientifically.
No, that would be begging the question, specifically in that you assume that they are not supported scientifically.
What if they are, but you've only been paying attention to one side of the argument, not even aware of the other side's position?
We might debate (and have debated) whether science does conflict, but that has been deemed as being off the subject.
Not quite. The discussion was moving towards the CMB, which isn't quite on topic enough for this discussion.
The second rule for this forum that long ago annabenedetti mentioned is “2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect.”
To which I pointed out that calling Genesis 1 figurative/allegorical/symbolic doesn't fall into that category.
Notice the offense of holding an account to not be true applies to not only the Bible as a book, but forbids casting doubt on individual accounts within the Bible (think “creation account”). So I am left with the option of either denying what I believe to be credible science, or leaving not just this thread, but the entire “Creation Science” portion of TOL.
Except that you're missing the third option, which is exactly what this thread is about, which is the assertion that Genesis 1 is not literal, but figurative.
It's not "whether Genesis 1 is true or not, it's whether it's figurative or litral. See the difference?
I again appreciate your unusually perceptive replies, and again wish you well. But since the “Science” in these “Creation Science” forums is a different critter than the science I am immersed in my professional life, and the rules pretty well muzzle me, I see no benefit to anyone in my continued presence under the thumb of the TOL autocrac.. I wish you well.
Science is just science. What youo're referring to are a specific group's of scientists interpretations of the evidence, not science itself.
I strongly recommend you check out this thread
for a discussion of the evidence, or any of the other Hydroplate Theory threads.