Allegory?

[lucaspa]

It appears that ALL of the evos don't have any allegorical meaning for Genesis.

The next time they claim it's not literal, but instead is allegorical I'll have to remember to bring up this discussion.


You see, if you can't back up your claims my evo friends...then why make them?

LOL!! Didn't read the replies, did you?

1. We are not talking about all of Genesis nor have we claimed that all of Genesis is non-literal.

2. I said Genesis 2 is allegorical.

3. You haven't addressed any of my posts in several threads arguing that Genesis 1 is structured to a) destroy the Babylonian gods and b) justify the Sabbath.

Bring up this discussion if you want. It will only serve to embarrass you, however.

 

[lucaspa]

Ah, doctrine1st...metophoric for what?

Seems like all you evos like to do is make the claims but NEVER explain them.

Ark Guy, if you don't understand, simply ASK! You don't need to get petulant about it.

You do know what a metaphor is, don't you?

A simile is a comparison where you use the words "like" or "as". The description of behemeth is a simile: "his tail was like a cedar".

A metaphor is a simile where the words "like" and "as" are unspoken.

So, doctrine1st is saying that the serpent like temptation, Adam is like all men, Eve is like all women, and the tree is like the loss of innocence, the one forbidden thing is the like what each of us finds irresistable.

Is that clearer?

I would have used the word "symbolic" instread of metaphor, but metaphor is not wrong.

Now, the shape of the universe in the OT is the "science" of Babylon. It is a flat earth with caverns underneath (including the underworld of the dead), a transparent crystal dome above the earth, stars fixed in the dome, and water above the dome which comes down through openings in the dome to produce rain. We consider this cosmos mythical because we know it is not accurate.

The authors of the Bible set their theological messages in this view of the universe like Shakespeare set his truths of human greed, lust for power, guilt, honor, etc. in a mythical Scotland in Macbeth. But like the truths of human nature don't depend on a literal Scotland, the theological truths in the OT don't depend on the mythical cosmos.

 

[NeilUnreal]

I was watching "A Baby Story" on The Discovery Channel while surfing for news this morning, and it started me ruminating on this thread. Here's an interesting way in which the Genesis story is allegorical or metaphorical.



Human females have a really difficult time with labor. This is primarily due to the fact that our planetoid-sized noggin has to fit through a pelvis that's also designed for walking upright. Our head is so big because we have such a large brain in comparison to body size. This brain is what gives us much of what we associate with being human, including reason, a complex conscience, etc.



According to Genesis, pain in childbirth is the result of a curse entailed from eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. So in that sense, Genesis is right, the difficulty of human labor is linked to our higher faculties.



Now I don't know how the writer(s) of the Genesis story knew this. Was is revelation? Was it coincidence? Was it based on an observation of childbirth and some lucky guesses? It doesn't really matter. We, with our better scientific knowledge can see this allegory in the ancient myths that form Genesis. Thus, I presume those myths are valuable to us for the same reason they were valuable to the original authors and redactors: they continue to have a cultural power a richness even as our culture and knowledge changes.



So, as a liberal Christian, I have no problem reading Genesis allegorically, including reading newly-fashioned allegories and metaphors into it. However, I am not restricted to this approach. I can also see fragments of history in it, both cultural and actual, read it as a work of religious fiction, gain insight about how the ancients connected their cosmology and religion, or look to it as a theological source.



-Neil

 

[lucaspa]

According to Genesis, pain in childbirth is the result of a curse entailed from eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. So in that sense, Genesis is right, the difficulty of human labor is linked to our higher faculties.

Now I don't know how the writer(s) of the Genesis story knew this. Was is revelation? Was it coincidence? Was it based on an observation of childbirth and some lucky guesses?

THuh? Linked to our higher faculties? Everyone at the time knew childbirth was painful and they could see that the baby's head is the difficulty. After all, once the head is out it's all downhill from there. Anyone who has actually witnessed a birth knows this.

It doesn't look like Genesis 2 was making any metaphors with our higher faculty here. It is simply a naive creation story to say why childbirth is painful. Other mammals don't go thru the long labor and pain that human women do. Nor is the mortality rate from childbirth anywhere near what it is in humans. So the authors naively put this in with the reason humans fear snakes and why it is so tough to farm. It's a rather naive and touchingly innocent creation myth. Reminds you of Pandora's Box or how weaving was invented via Ariadne, doesn't it?

Thus, I presume those myths are valuable to us for the same reason they were valuable to the original authors and redactors: they continue to have a cultural power a richness even as our culture and knowledge changes.

Now this I can agree with!

So, as a liberal Christian, I have no problem reading Genesis allegorically, including reading newly-fashioned allegories and metaphors into it. However, I am not restricted to this approach. I can also see fragments of history in it, both cultural and actual, read it as a work of religious fiction, gain insight about how the ancients connected their cosmology and religion, or look to it as a theological source.

-Neil

Which means you get so much more of what God intended out of the texts than literalists. The narrow focus on history really limits them, doesn't it? They miss nearly all the messages.

 

[NeilUnreal]

Linked to our higher faculties?

I meant that today we recognize that both difficulty in labor and our higher facilities are related by the size of the head. It is possible that the writer(s) of Genesis recognized this, but unlikely, since the ancients tended to center thought in the heart, not the head. I was just recognizing it in passing as a possibility, not a probability.

Which means you get so much more of what God intended out of the texts than literalists. The narrow focus on history really limits them, doesn't it? They miss nearly all the messages.

Yes, by the grace of God and the hard work of scholars and archaeologists, we get the best of both worlds. We can use history to help us understand how the ancients read the myths, and use our own experience to find new meaning in them. There are distinct advantages to living at this end of time! (But then, I guess each generation can claim that advantage in their own time...)

Myths are such powerful things! A fact so often missed by literalists at either extreme: religious or materialist.

-Neil

 

[lucaspa]

We can use history to help us understand how the ancients read the myths,

I think this is the most important. Putting our new meanings into it from our new knowledge is less important to me. It's too much like looking at JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye and trying to find some meaning to the references to snow in it (something my English teacher tried to do). The book is set in NYC in winter. Therefore there is snow.

Thus I like the historical work of setting Genesis 1 at the end of the Babylonian Captivity and then looking at the Enuma Elish. What were the authors trying to do? Keep Jews from defecting to the Babylonian religion. How did they do it? By showing that all the Babylonian gods were objects created by Yahweh. To emphasize this they took the order of the appearance of gods in the Enuma Elish and had Yahweh create the objects the gods represented in order.

The message is that God created and the Babylonian gods are false. A valid message. The details make sense at that time and place. They don't make sense in modern science.

I also had a Catholic priest/Biblical scholar explain the usage of the term "in the image" in that historical period. It makes perfect sense in that historical context. All the modern ways to try to view it lead to problems. The historical approach leads to theological insights that simply don't show up to the Biblical literalists.