Adam would have written Genesis 1, and since he wasn't there until Day Six, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that he got his information directly from God, whom he talked with on a regular basis.
When God speaks throughout Scripture of His mighty power, and He choses to use an example, it's almost always an act of creation that He alludes to.
Originally Posted by Isaiah 40:12
Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
Originally Posted by Job 38:4-7
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Ok, so God talks about his acts of creation.
No problem there.
But why do you think this means he is being literal?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
Originally Posted by Job 38:4-7
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Originally Posted by Assyrian
Ok, so God talks about his acts of creation.
No problem there.
But why do you think this means he is being literal?
I think his point is Genesis = Science, Science = Truth. Scientism in action.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
No, I think here his point is that God said it, 'He' with a capital H, therefore it must be literal. God cannot or would not use metaphor. Clearly Jesus must have been nothing like his Father.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No, I think here his point is that God said it, 'He' with a capital H, therefore it must be literal. God cannot or would not use metaphor. Clearly Jesus must have been nothing like his Father.
I start to wonder what would be the limitation of understanding a literal description as a metaphor. Is a metaphor same as a parable? Or does a parable have more restrictions than a metaphor? If so, is there no bound for an understanding being a metaphor?
For example, if I say snow, you may somehow understand it as the sun, if you like to.
I start to wonder what would be the limitation of understanding a literal description as a metaphor. Is a metaphor same as a parable? Or does a parable have more restrictions than a metaphor? If so, is there no bound for an understanding being a metaphor?
Not quite, though both are comparisons. A parable is usually an allegory i.e. a story in which the various elements are symbolic of a spiritual reality e.g. in the parable of the sower, the sower is Christ (or a preacher), the field is the world, the seed is the gospel, the various soils are the variety of responses to the gospel.
A metaphor is usually a short statement that compares A with B by saying "A is B". So Jesus says "I am the vine" Understanding the relationship of vine and branches is a pictorial way of understanding the relationship of Jesus to the believer. So it is similar to the allegory, but it does not have the story element that the parable does.
For example, if I say snow, you may somehow understand it as the sun, if you like to.
That would be an improper reading in most cases. A poet might be able to draw some sort of comparison between the snow and sun, but it would take some doing and would likely be rather strained and artificial.
An effective parable or metaphor is one in which the symbolic element is easily related to the reality it depicts. It should not be farfetched and need a lot of explanation to work out the connection.
The notion that allegorical interpretation is a free-for-all of personal subjectivism is untrue. It betrays a lack of knowledge and experience in working with symbols. Symbols have to have a living relationship with what they symbolize in order to communicate what they are intended to communicate. Sometimes a symbol lives and communicates effectively because it is deeply rooted in a culture. Sometimes because it touches on daily common experience. IOW effective symbols have a public life in the community.
When symbols are given personal idiosyncratic meanings, they are no longer a vehicle of communication. They have private meanings, not public meanings. At best they become secret passwords for a small social group like a secret handshake.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Not quite, though both are comparisons. A parable is usually an allegory i.e. a story in which the various elements are symbolic of a spiritual reality e.g. in the parable of the sower, the sower is Christ (or a preacher), the field is the world, the seed is the gospel, the various soils are the variety of responses to the gospel.
A metaphor is usually a short statement that compares A with B by saying "A is B". So Jesus says "I am the vine" Understanding the relationship of vine and branches is a pictorial way of understanding the relationship of Jesus to the believer. So it is similar to the allegory, but it does not have the story element that the parable does.
That would be an improper reading in most cases. A poet might be able to draw some sort of comparison between the snow and sun, but it would take some doing and would likely be rather strained and artificial.
An effective parable or metaphor is one in which the symbolic element is easily related to the reality it depicts. It should not be farfetched and need a lot of explanation to work out the connection.
The notion that allegorical interpretation is a free-for-all of personal subjectivism is untrue. It betrays a lack of knowledge and experience in working with symbols. Symbols have to have a living relationship with what they symbolize in order to communicate what they are intended to communicate. Sometimes a symbol lives and communicates effectively because it is deeply rooted in a culture. Sometimes because it touches on daily common experience. IOW effective symbols have a public life in the community.
When symbols are given personal idiosyncratic meanings, they are no longer a vehicle of communication. They have private meanings, not public meanings. At best they become secret passwords for a small social group like a secret handshake.
Incredibly confusing.
If you give me two random words, I am trying to tie them together one way or another. I would have no way to be sure whether the relationship between them is parable, allegory or metaphor. For the worse, the relationship between these two exact words may change depends on how do you link them together. For example, snow and sun:
1. both are bright
2. both are "pure"
3. both come down from sky
4. both are necessities for life (snow means water in polar area)
5. snow melt --> sun down
6. vapor condensed into snow --> space dust condensed into star
7. ...
In order to separate them apart, these three terms must be defined logically. So is for the term "literal".
Linear Mode
