IMHO the first eleven chapters of Genesis are metaphorical only, so I'm not concerned with the Hebrew language or the meaning of the word "day". The creation story in Genesis was originally penned as a cosmogony, which was a type of ancient literary genre used to explain the "who" and the "why" of creation. Cosmogonies weren't written to tell scientific or historical facts.
You said, Genesis is "metaphorical only" this is the fallacy of bifurcation. One because this is not the only proposition that is available. Who decides it is "metaphorical only?" Just because you say it is metaphorical does not mean that is the ONE true proposition of Genesis. You also claimed that Genesis was not written to tell scientific or historical facts, who are you to determine what the Book of Genesis tells illiterately? The Bible backs up the literal view of Genesis. It is not metaphorical.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
Both of these scriptures indeed say that death entered the world through man's sin. But what "world" is being referred to here? is it the planet? You seem to be interpreting it this way. Or is it the current creation on the planet? That is another possible meaning. Or does it mean the world of mankind?
We have to remember that in interpretation, context is everything. Until we can resolve the actual meaning of the word "world" as used in this context, we do not know if this argument is applicable or not.
Following your post before this one, talking about Smidlee's post I agree with you. Even though we disagree about an Old Earth or a Young Earth. You ask me what do I refer to as the "world?"
Death entered in the "world" by Adam. World stands for all creation or Nephesh Chayyah ; the following is an excerpt from AiG on this topic.
A Creation That Groans
It is conceivable that God withdrew some of His sustaining (restraining) power at the Fall when He said, “Cursed is the ground” (Genesis 3:17), and the augmented Second Law of Thermodynamics resulted in a creation that groans and suffers (Romans 8:22).
Although plants are not the same as man or animals, God used them to be food and a support system for recycling nutrients and providing oxygen. They also play a role in mankind’s choosing life or death. In the Garden were two trees—the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The fruit of the first was allowed for food, the other forbidden. In their rebellion Adam and Eve sinned and ate the forbidden fruit, and death entered the world (Romans 5:12).
Furthermore, because of this sin, all of creation, including nephesh chayyah, suffers (Romans 8:19–23). We are born into this death as descendants of Adam, but we find our hope in Christ. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22, KJV). As you look at the “dead” leaves of fall and remember that the nutrients will be reclaimed into new life, recognize that we too can be reclaimed from death through Christ’s death and resurrection.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
If the words were only metaphorical, then they are not true. For they very explicitly say that certain things happened. If these things did not indeed happen, then the statements that these things happened are not true.
If there is even one factual statement in the Bible (as it was originally written) that is not absolutely accurate, then the Bible is not completely reliable. And if the Bible is not completely reliable, then we have no basis for determining which part is reliable and which part is not reliable. And if we have no basis for this, we have no basis for accepting anything it says as reliable. And if we have no basis for accepting anything in the Bible as reliable, we have no basis for out faith.
My point here is that this concept destroys the very foundations of Christianity. That is why I say that theistic evolution is destructive to the very foundations of the Christian faith.
We cannot have it both ways. Either the Bible is completely reliable in all of its details, or we have no foundation whatsoever for our faith.
Amen! Good post Bible Writer. We have the same views about theistic evolution. It does destroy the very foundations of Christianity. Because if you read Psalms 11:2-3, you can see that if you destroy the foundations then the whole structure collapses.
2For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart. 3If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
For theistic evolution to be able to work and have any kind of effect the Biblical account of Genesis has to be illiterate because if it were not, evolution could not fit. What theistic evolutionists do is adding to the word of God, which is very dangerous. Proverbs 30:5-6
5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
I do not see how people can add "fallible" methods of man to the infallible word of God. And think that they are talking truth when they claim the Bible to be metaphorical.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
This conclusion does not follow from its premise. Therefore, the rest of your post does not follow either.
His conclusion follows from the premises.
///////////If the words were only metaphorical, then they are not true. For they very explicitly say that certain things happened. If these things did not indeed happen, then the statements that these things happened are not true.
If there is even one factual statement in the Bible (as it was originally written) that is not absolutely accurate, then the Bible is not completely reliable. And if the Bible is not completely reliable, then we have no basis for determining which part is reliable and which part is not reliable. And if we have no basis for this, we have no basis for accepting anything it says as reliable. And if we have no basis for accepting anything in the Bible as reliable, we have no basis for out faith.
My point here is that this concept destroys the very foundations of Christianity. That is why I say that theistic evolution is destructive to the very foundations of the Christian faith.
We cannot have it both ways. Either the Bible is completely reliable in all of its details, or we have no foundation whatsoever for our faith./////////
(1+2=3 ; Premise + Premise = Conclusion)
1. If the Genesis account was only metaphorical
2. They cannot be true
3. Therefore the Bible is not reliable source of information.
Even if his logical statement was indeed fallacious. You committed the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Just because his Premises do match the conclusion does not mean it is false. or Just because the conclusion does not follow the premises does not mean the conclusion is false. Just because it doesn't match does not mean it is not true. In which what he is speaking of is true. (Moderator's this statement was not to "flame" anyone, The fallacy of appeal to ignorance is an actual fallacy. Not a flaming statement.) Just because his Premise statements "to you" cannot be proven or disproved does not make the rest of his message totally false.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
1. If the Genesis account was only metaphorical
2. They cannot be true
But it's not the case that a) metaphors in general are never true and b) a metaphorical Genesis is not true. The entire argument hinges on that statement, and it can be and has been shown that a metaphorical Genesis can be spiritually true.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
But it's not the case that a) metaphors in general are never true and b) a metaphorical Genesis is not true. The entire argument hinges on that statement, and it can be and has been shown that a metaphorical Genesis can be spiritually true.
But evolutionists deny the "literal" to fit "evolution" in there. They "add" it to Genesis, they use the metaphorical Genesis to justify the spiritual sense and that is it they deny the literal physical part because they believe man's fallible assumptions over the physical account of Genesis. You believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and rose again the third day, because you believe scriptures. If scripture did not say that, then there would be no belief. Why don't most Christians today just believe what Genesis says to be literal? I can tell you why they want to add evolution to it because the philosophy of the devil is enticing by feigned words of scientists. You cannot "man's opinions" to the Bible. If all Genesis is, is a metaphorical story, what does Genesis 1:1 shows spiritually? How about Genesis 1:27? How about the creation of the Sun, Moon, & Stars? What spirituality does is symbolize when God creates the plants and sea creatures? In this case a metaphorical Genesis is not true. Because the physical literal Genesis can justify both. As for the metaphorical Genesis can only justify the spiritual just so "evolution" can be added to the Genesis account, which is not God's word.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
But evolutionists deny the "literal" to fit "evolution" in there. They "add" it to Genesis, they use the metaphorical Genesis to justify the spiritual sense and that is it they deny the literal physical part because they believe man's fallible assumptions over the physical account of Genesis. You believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and rose again the third day, because you believe scriptures. If scripture did not say that, then there would be no belief. Why don't most Christians today just believe what Genesis says to be literal? I can tell you why they want to add evolution to it because the philosophy of the devil is enticing by feigned words of scientists. You cannot "man's opinions" to the Bible. If all Genesis is, is a metaphorical story, what does Genesis 1:1 shows spiritually? How about Genesis 1:27? How about the creation of the Sun, Moon, & Stars? What spirituality does is symbolize when God creates the plants and sea creatures? In this case a metaphorical Genesis is not true. Because the physical literal Genesis can justify both. As for the metaphorical Genesis can only justify the spiritual just so "evolution" can be added to the Genesis account, which is not God's word.
Science describes the how. The Bible describes the why. The spiritual truth of the creation account is that God created the universe.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
If the words were only metaphorical, then they are not true.
Originally Posted by Dark_Lite
This conclusion does not follow from its premise. Therefore, the rest of your post does not follow either.
Your conclusion is patently incorrect. If I say that x happened, and x did not happen, I did not tell the truth. The fact that I may have been speaking metaphorically has nothing to do with it.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
If the words were only metaphorical, then they are not true.
Your conclusion is patently incorrect. If I say that x happened, and x did not happen, I did not tell the truth. The fact that I may have been speaking metaphorically has nothing to do with it.
The fact that you may have been speaking metaphorically has everything to do with it. If phrasing that appears to be literal is, in fact, metaphorical, it should not be read literally and cannot be analyzed literally. If Genesis is metaphorical, you are still analyzing it literally.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
But it's not the case that a) metaphors in general are never true and b) a metaphorical Genesis is not true. The entire argument hinges on that statement, and it can be and has been shown that a metaphorical Genesis can be spiritually true.
It is indeed true that a metaphorical Genesis could still teach spiritual lessons. But if the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not factually accurate, they are not factually true. There is absolutely no escape from this unquestionable fact.
A metaphor can show truth. But to be true, a metaphor which contains an allegation of fact must contain some statement indicating that it is a metaphor.
There are indeed metaphors in the Bible. But these metaphors always contain a statement indicating that they are metaphors. Jesus often taught in parables. But Jesus also taught in anecdotes. A careful reading of the gospels shows that the difference between his parables and his anecdotes was carefully delineated by Jesus as He spoke and by the inspired historians as they wrote.
But those who wish to deny the truth of numerous scriptures often claim that they are only metaphors. This is done by Preterists, covenant theologians, and replacement theologians in regard to most of Old Testament prophecy. It is done by amillenists in regard to the scriptures about the millennium. And it is done by theistic evolutionists in regard to Genesis.
All of these are nothing more that an attempt to escape the results of clear pronouncements of the Word of God.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
Linear Mode
