I'm curious to know what it was that changed your mind?
Have you read the wonderful Isaiah chapter 55 in recent years? It's so amazing, and we learn additionally some wonderful things there, and more than one reason for great hope. One of the reasons to hope is because God's thoughts are so much higher than ours.I prefer John Owen's analogies of a father speaking to his child or that of Moses viewing the back of God on Sinai.
Have you read the wonderful Isaiah chapter 55 in recent years? It's so amazing, and we learn additionally some wonderful things there, and more than one reason for great hope. One of the reasons to hope is because God's thoughts are so much higher than ours.
Isaiah is full of truth about actual situations and events, and chock full of metaphors (see below).Do you take Isaiah as metaphorical?
But that's not what you did. You wrote a declarative statement: It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis as literal. That isn't questioning. That is declaring a conviction of what you believe as truth.
Ted, I'm thinking that Life isn't the same as this mortal life we have here, where we live only so long, and then these bodies die. Adam was not in this ordinary mortal world at first, but in a different kind of place, under a profoundly different condition.
Again, I appreciate your concern. My main two points were: 1) we should admit a metaphor when we see it (and I gather you disagree and that's fine),
and 2) we should be careful not to assume that a literal interpretation guarantees we have grasped the spiritual point.
Hi chadrho,
Thanks for your response. You wrote:
That's not true of what I've written. I have never denied or disagreed that we should admit a metaphor when we see it. What I've asked of you is your understanding in this account of the creation of a metaphor. If it's there, I have no problem accepting it and believing that God wrote us a metaphor. I just don't see any construct that would allude to any of the account of creation to being metaphorical in structure. So, I asked you to respond with what words you found in the creation account that were metaphorical. So far, you've only made a false claim as to what I believe and offered up not a single evidence of anything that you see as a metaphorical construct in the creation account.
If you'd merely answer my question, then I'd address your ideas about it.
You also wrote:
I'm honestly not even sure what that means to convey.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
Ok, let me introject here and suggest it's a so much more wonderful to read it fresh, and fully, really listening, to hear it new. Taking your time, and really absorbing all that is there, which is a lot. There's no hurry! It's a deep and timeless story, and far more subtle and wonderful than we usually hear it summarized.I'm not sure what it would be and certainly can't find any Scriptural justification that it was. According to the first two chapter of Genesis, God created Adam by forming him
I offer two (possible) metaphors in the OP: The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the light and dark (Day and Night) of the 1st day. I am saying those are metaphors. I am pretty clear at this point that you do not see those as metaphors.
I apologize if I have mischaracterized anything you have said. I am saying those are metaphors and you are saying they are not. Apparently, we disagree about what a metaphor is. I am open to correction on this point.
Hi chadrho,
Well, let's be honest. Your offering that these two pieces as possible metaphors would deny that there is any construct of the writing that actually makes them metaphors. Do you know the definition of a metaphor and how one is presented in basic prose or discussion.
In Song of Solomon we read: Dark am I, yet lovely, daughters of Jerusalem, dark like the tents of Kedar, like the tent curtains of Solomon.
'dark 'like the tents of Kedar' and 'like the tent curtains of Solomon' are metaphors. They are a comparison of Solomon's complexion. That his complexion is dark, like one would see if they saw the tents of Kedar of the tent curtains of Solomon. Metaphors are always used as a comparison.
What is the comparative that you find in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? What is God comparing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to? Same question for dark and light. What is God comparing the dark/light or day/night to?
In Genesis 27 we read of an encounter between Isaac and Jacob. Jacob leans over to Isaac and Isaac gets a whiff of Jacobs odor and he says to him, "Ah, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that the LORD has blessed." That's a metaphor. He is comparing the smell of Jacob to the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed. The word 'like' is what clues us to the metaphorical construct of comparative analysis.
Now, if God's word says that the dark of the night was like the black ink of a frightened squid, then we'd have a metaphorical construct. However, and you may ask any basic language or English teacher, the two issues that you bring up, as they are presented in the Scriptures, are not metaphorical in any way.
It's fine if you don't believe the account of God as it is given. There are billions of people who do that. But it's not quite so fine to give, as your reason for not believing the account as written, some false testimony that it's presented as a metaphor. And, if that is the reason to support your understanding, then you need to know that it isn't the truth that these two issues are presented by God as metaphorical dialogue in the Scriptures. Please don't believe me. Go and study for yourself what a metaphor is. Find out, what makes a piece of writing metaphorical in its understanding.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
I am using metaphor as "a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else" (see link below). In the Genesis account there is tree whose "fruit" is knowledge of good and evil. And, there is another tree whose "fruit" is life. I am taking "fruit" as a metaphor in the sense that it represents something else, i.e. knowledge of good and evil and/or life.
metaphor | Definition of metaphor by Lexico
So, you are right, I am not treating metaphor as synonymous with simile; although, I would agree that a simile is a metaphor.
I say "possible" only because I know there are those who disagree, so I don't want to act like it's obvious to everyone.
There is no suggestion in Genesis 1 that is metaphorical.
So, I will ask, what is the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil representative of?
Sure! You can take it all literally. We know that Children make up the Kingdom of God. Don't feel marginalized as the humble, innocent and pure have the Kingdom. They are not versed in debate.The title is a bit overstated. A more tempered, and personal, version would be, "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally."
Why do I say that? There are metaphors in the account that cannot be taken literally. And, if they are taken literally, the interpreter runs the risk of missing the true intent of the metaphor. I'll give a couple examples.
1) In Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day. And yet, the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon, and stars) have yet to be created. Now, I ask, "What is a literal day?" A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis-the sun being that which determines light or dark. One cannot form a literal concept of a day in regards to the first day of creation. In other words, a metaphor has creeped in somewhere. Someone might attempt to explain the separation of light from darkness by saying, "On the first day, God separated right from wrong, good from evil, good angels from fallen angels." Fine. Whatever. I have no problem someone interpreting the metaphor. That's what we are supposed to do with metaphors. But, let's at least be honest and admit it's a metaphor.
2) In Genesis 2:17 we are told of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I ask myself, "What kind of tree is that? How do I form a literal conception of that kind of tree?" I challenge anyone reading my words to try, at this moment, to form a literal conception in their minds of such a tree. I contend, without having to try really hard to do so, one cannot form such a conception. Why? Because it is a metaphor. What does that fruit look like in your mind?
Here is the important part. Even if someone were able to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally, it would do them no good. What matters is not affirming its historical reliability. What matters is grasping the spiritual truths being communicated in the account, e.g. God exists, God is Creator, creation is not God, creation is good, humanity is created in the divine image, sin is a killer, humanity is in need of redemption, a promise of redemption has been made, etc.
Believing that something is historically true does not change anything. I believe Billie Holiday is the greatest jazz singer of all time, that doesn't somehow change my life. Arguments over taking the creation account in Genesis literally miss the point (including the argument I am now making). The point is the truths being communicated via the account. And, happily for those of us who accept the account, science can't communicate those truths to us, only the account in Genesis can do that.
Does what I am saying make sense?
I do too mainly because there are at least two creation stories in the first few chapters of Genesis and they differ in significant ways."I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally."
It's good to become aware of how Augustine helped form the idea that many now use of the light of days 1-3 being some special light not the sun (though on day 4 we see the appearance of the sun, moon and stars also (a notable part, as they are part of the 'heavens'...) thus more fitting as a revealing and message about instead of a first-moment of existing). This link I just was finding looks like it may be helpful:
St. Augustine and Cosmology | Villanova University
St. Augustine made four distinct efforts to provide a clear and coherent interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. ...
...
And God said: Be light made. And light was made (Gen 1:3). St. Augustine made several unsatisfactory attempts to find a chronological explanation of the six days of creation in Genesis 1 while he was working on his intellectual interpretation of its literal sense. ...
(he kept trying until he ran out of time it seems, but of course did not know what we can now see with good telescopes and just trigonometry alone: stars more distant than 8,000 light years away (with only trigonometry and telescopes this is visibly so))
@miamited
@Chadrho