Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

[Stripe]

What was the source of the light on day one?

The cosmic microwave background.

What reason do you have to back up your assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

 

[annabenedetti]

Why should I move? It's crystal clear and you've provided no reason for me to move.

You haven't moved from your initial circular reasoning.

Not once have I called your false view heretical. You make SO MANY false accusations!

I didn't say you did.

Every time we discuss the Bible, you show that you don't believe a thing that it says.

Believe as you like, you're clearly railing against God and His Word.

Talk about false accusations... We've rarely "discuss[ed] the Bible," nor have Il shown that I "don't believe a thing it says", nor am I "clearly railing against God and His Word." My Catholic faith allows for an allegorical understanding of Genesis. So does the faith of many Jews and many Christians. Genesis 1 shouldn't be used to define a believer or unbeliever.

 

[annabenedetti]

The cosmic microwave background.

Would the cosmic microwave background support the plant life of day 3?

What reason do you have to back up your assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

Referring back to the Hebrew word "yom:"

H3117 יום - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon

studybible.info

Theological wordbook of the Old Testament : Harris, R. Laird (Robert Laird), 1911-2008 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Includes bibliographies and index

archive.org

Genesis plainly says six days. Those six days can be read as allegorical. We're not limited to a literal understanding.

 

[Stripe]

Would the cosmic microwave background support the plant life of day 3?

I don't know.

You do know that plants can survive for a day even without sunlight, right?

Genesis plainly says six days. Those six days can be read as allegorical. We're not limited to a literal understanding.

We know your opinion.

We're looking for a reason that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

 

[ok doser]

What was the source of the light on day one?

God


duh

 

[7djengo7]

So you must appeal to authority to make any claims about the creation week.

What you're looking for is the fallacy of false appeal to authority (or appeal to false authority). The lexicon might be either, depending how good a lexicon it is.

An eyewitness of a murder is appealed to to convict the perpetrator. The witness is the best expert available on that particular crime. The problem, of course, comes when the defense attorney says the the witness meant something different than what he said. I don't know what that fallacy might be called.

Some appeals are to authority, whereas other appeals are to "authority".

 

[7djengo7]

He hasn't moved beyond 'because the Bible says so.'

And you haven't moved beyond 'because I and those whom I assert to be authority say so'.

I prefer to stick with what God says, rather than with what Bible-despisers like you say.

 

[7djengo7]

What I'm trying to point out is that @annabenedetti has, so far in this thread, as much right to accuse you of false appeal to authority as you do her.

@annabenedetti is appealing to "authority," whereas @Right Divider is appealing to authority.

Do you agree with her in calling people who oppose God's Word, "authority"?

 

[Stripe]

God
duh

The Darwinist asserts that Genesis is "allegory." They say that plants could not have survived Day 3 without sunlight. However, even if this were a sensible objection — it's not because plants can thrive after being afloat for a year and go a day in the dark — but even were it halfway coherent, it would not be reason to call the Bible allegorical, it would be reason to call it wrong.

Darwinists want to deny the plain meaning of scripture, but for some reason they don't want to deny its accuracy.

This all leads into the inherent failure of the poetry gambit. Declaring scripture to have elements of a particular literary type does nothing to show that the words cannot mean what they plainly say.

 

[Clete]

Thanks. He hasn't moved beyond 'because the Bible says so.' There is a long history of reading the creation account allegorically, or of at least allowing for both points of view without calling either heretical. The YEC's 'if you don't believe in a literal six day creation you're a bible despiser!' isn't as widely held as they'd like to think. I could respect the view of someone who personally believed in a literal six day creation but allowed there there were valid arguments for a non-literal reading of it and wouldn't call a non-literal view unChristian.

While holding the literal view is not a salvific issue, it is unchristian to hold that view, which is to say that the non-literal view is in contradiction to the Christian worldview. More accurately, it is in contradiction to the biblical worldview in that the early chapters of Genesis isn't the only place where the bible explicitly (i.e. not in figurative or in any sort of poetic language) affirms a six day creation.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”

 

[Derf]

@annabenedetti is appealing to "authority," whereas @Right Divider is appealing to authority.

Do you agree with her in calling people who oppose God's Word, "authority"?

I don't know your position on the hydroplate theory espoused by many here, but those "many" would call Walt Brown an authority, though not an infallible one. Anna has the right to seek out authorities for her position, too. These might be rabbis, or Hebrew experts, or her uncle who told her bed-time stories as a child.

It's no different than us saying "I'll stick with God," if someone has already had to translate the words for us or someone has to develop a system by which to understand the words. It's pitting our "authority" against hers. And that's ok--now let's find out how good her uncle was at telling stories. Let's compare the two sets of "authorities" to see which we should believe.

 

[Right Divider]

not when you are talking about what meanings the words convey rather than what the words are.

So God's Word cannot be understood?

But your understanding of its meaning is not necessarily God's Word, nor even inspired.

I never said that it was. Why the false accusation?

Ever heard of medical science?

Oh course I have. Does it have different requirements than regular science. Can an expert make a claim that is automatically considered true? NO. They have the same requirements as everyone else.

Then your claim of "nobody" was incorrect.

I guess that I have to be more clear for you. I assumed that you could understand plain English. Shame on me. I meant no normal human.

No, I'm rightfully pitting your understanding of the passage against someone else's, which you shouldn't fear if yours is true, meaning you would be able to have a meaningful conversation about it with them.

"I'll stick with God" is what everybody on these forums says when he's run out of other comebacks. And it always seems to mean they've stuck their fingers in their ears and won't listen or converse anymore.

I take the plain and obvious reading of the scripture as opposed to the twisted and often dishonest type.

 

[Right Divider]

You haven't moved from your initial circular reasoning.

There was nothing circular about my reasoning.

I didn't say you did.

You certainly implied it.

 

[Right Divider]

The cosmic microwave background.

What reason do you have to back up your assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

Because "day" has many meanings... duh.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't know your position on the hydroplate theory espoused by many here, but those "many" would call Walt Brown an authority, though not an infallible one. Anna has the right to seek out authorities for her position, too. These might be rabbis, or Hebrew experts, or her uncle who told her bed-time stories as a child.

The difference is that we do NOT claim that Dr. Walt Brown is correct because he's an expert. We claim that his explanations are scientifically valid.

It's no different than us saying "I'll stick with God," if someone has already had to translate the words for us or someone has to develop a system by which to understand the words. It's pitting our "authority" against hers. And that's ok--now let's find out how good her uncle was at telling stories. Let's compare the two sets of "authorities" to see which we should believe.

We don't compare two sets of authorities, we compare their explanations of the facts. The literal six day creation of consistent with the facts throughout scripture, the "poetry/allegory/symbolism" story is not.

 

[7djengo7]

I don't know your position on the hydroplate theory espoused by many here, but those "many" would call Walt Brown an authority, though not an infallible one. Anna has the right to seek out authorities for her position, too. These might be rabbis, or Hebrew experts, or her uncle who told her bed-time stories as a child.

No authority is for @annabenedetti's position. Were she to seek out authority and be willing to agree with authority, then she would be one of our fellow young-earth creationists.

Of course she has the freedom to wrongly call the non-authorties to which she has appealed, "authorities". I, for one, would never say that freedom to be wrong is a right, though.

It's no different than us saying "I'll stick with God,"

You don't consider believing what God states in Genesis 1 to be sticking with God?

if someone has already had to translate the words for us or someone has to develop a system by which to understand the words. It's pitting our "authority" against hers.

God is only "authority" and not authority?

And that's ok--now let's find out how good her uncle was at telling stories. Let's compare the two sets of "authorities" to see which we should believe.

You're lumping God in as one of two sets of "authorities"?

 

[way 2 go]

Thank you for a reply that sticks to the subject without getting personal.

What was the source of the light on day one?

all the matter of the universe in one place that was spread out on day 4



14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

day one earth and light without form but both in existence on day one
day two and three gave form to the earth
day four form to the light

 

[Right Divider]

What was the source of the light on day one?

Gen 1:3-5 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (1:4) And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[annabenedetti]

There was nothing circular about my reasoning.

We disagree.

You certainly implied it.

No I didn't. You inferred it when you inserted yourself into "a long history."

Anyway, thanks for the thread. It's been interesting.

 

[Right Divider]

We disagree.

That's because I'm right and you're wrong.

Anyway, thanks for the thread. It's been interesting.

Thanks for nothing.