Figurative speech in Genesis

[philadiddle]

In the creation account God speaks and breathes. Do any of you think that as God was creating the world he literally spoke to create sound waves? Or that He literally has to breathe to make Adam alive? Or is it figurative to at least some level because we can't comprehend exactly what it was that He was doing?

 

[Papias]

If God spoke to make sound waves, then there had to be pre-existing air, because sound waves are vibrations in air. But the first thing Genesis descibes being created was light, and air doesn't seem to ever be made - I guess that might fall under "sky" = second day, firmament, but we know that Genesis describes that as a hard, metal dome, not air. In fact, is there a reason to think that the writer of Genesis thought that there was such a thing as air? (I've actually met a college student who didn't realize we lived in air - he thought the room was a vacuum).

Thinking of the opening scene of Genesis, with God floating over the watery deep - did God have human feet while he was floating? If so, why, if no land had ever existed? If not, then did he grow feet later so that when he made us in his image we'd have feet? Was that before or after he performed mouth-to-nose resuscitation on a pile of mud? Or are we in the image of God except for our feet? Sometimes I've taken my shoes off and they didn't seem very Godly.

I'm sorry, but reading even parts of the obviously metaphorical Genesis story as if they are literal very rapidly becomes an exercise in silliness. It's like reading Sol 4:5 and thinking that this woman literally has livestock stapled to her chest.

Maybe you need a response from a YEC.

Papias

 

[AnswersInHovind]

So then what is your system for determining literal and non-literal?

Just because the author speaks of God in terms of a theophany, doesn't mean how he speaks about the world isn't literal.

Does God have a backside? No, yet in his theophany to moses on the mountain the text speaks of His backside. Does that therefore mean that Moses is also non-literal?

It also shows the weakness in your argument when you use a verse from Song of Solomon to show how silly a literal reading is, since almost every line of that book is a similie. Its kinda obvious with the "like" in there. Narration is also a different literary style than song, verse, prophetic speech and things like that.

 

[philadiddle]

So then what is your system for determining literal and non-literal?

Just because the author speaks of God in terms of a theophany, doesn't mean how he speaks about the world isn't literal.

Does God have a backside? No, yet in his theophany to moses on the mountain the text speaks of His backside. Does that therefore mean that Moses is also non-literal?

It also shows the weakness in your argument when you use a verse from Song of Solomon to show how silly a literal reading is, since almost every line of that book is a similie. Its kinda obvious with the "like" in there. Narration is also a different literary style than song, verse, prophetic speech and things like that.

So then you agree that the creation account is figurative to at least some degree.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

So then you agree that the creation account is figurative to at least some degree.

I see what you are getting at, and its very obvious.
The creation account is historical. The author doesn't need metaphor to talk about the tangible. But God, as an intangible being, must be personified to be comprehended.

 

[Mallon]

The creation account is historical. The author doesn't need metaphor to talk about the tangible. But God, as an intangible being, must be personified to be comprehended.

Surely you can't be arguing that God accommodates Himself to the limited understanding of man in order to communicate with us.

 

[philadiddle]

I see what you are getting at, and its very obvious.
The creation account is historical. The author doesn't need metaphor to talk about the tangible. But God, as an intangible being, must be personified to be comprehended.

In addition to what Mallon said, you don't think that how God did it would be accomadated to the understanding of the ancient Hebrews in order to get a more important theological truth across to them?

 

[Jpark]

In the creation account God speaks and breathes. Do any of you think that as God was creating the world he literally spoke to create sound waves? Or that He literally has to breathe to make Adam alive? Or is it figurative to at least some level because we can't comprehend exactly what it was that He was doing?

The Holy Spirit is why we're alive today (Job 33:4; Job 34:14-15).

 

[philadiddle]

The Holy Spirit is why we're alive today (Job 33:4; Job 34:14-15).

Maybe you could explain to me how this is on topic.

 

[Jpark]

Maybe you could explain to me how this is on topic.

My answer is that it is literal. God literally spoke these things into existence and He literally breathed to give Adam life.

 

[Papias]

AIH wrote:

It also shows the weakness in your argument when you use a verse from Song of Solomon to show how silly a literal reading is, since almost every line of that book is a similie. Its kinda obvious with the "like" in there.

So you are saying that verses that don't have the word "like" in there are to be interpreted literally?

Papias

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Someone said it in another topic. But the choice of language and literary device (i.e. poetic, lyrical, narrative, etc) has nothing to do with the factual or historical value of the piece in question. Are you trying to make a point that we should interpret everything allegorically as we please every time there is metaphorical language, or are you just trying to say "gotcha"?

 

[philadiddle]

Someone said it in another topic. But the choice of language and literary device (i.e. poetic, lyrical, narrative, etc) has nothing to do with the factual or historical value of the piece in question. Are you trying to make a point that we should interpret everything allegorically as we please every time there is metaphorical language, or are you just trying to say "gotcha"?

I'm trying to show that it is not a "100% literal historical work". There is at least some element of figurative speech in there no matter what your view.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

I agree with a figurative reading of Genesis 1 and 2, but I want to clear some things up.

I think he is basically saying that our hermeneutics is off, and that Song of Solomons was supposed to be figurative as multiple verses in that book are similes, while Genesis is historical as it tell us descendants and conveys true stories.

Again I agree with a figurative reading of Genesis 1 and 2, but I also understand what he is saying, and just wish to clarify...hopefully it worked and didn't just mess things up more.

 

[razeontherock]

In the creation account God speaks and breathes. Do any of you think that as God was creating the world he literally spoke to create sound waves? Or that He literally has to breathe to make Adam alive?

The breath of G-d is consistently referred to as the life of man. He can take it away at any time, and we have no promise of tomorrow. Figurative, yes. He is a Spirit, so His breath is not like our breath. His breath is more like ...

our life.

I don't think Him speaking has anything to do with sound waves, although some have heard Him speak audibly. I think Him speaking has more to do with ...

Creation.

 

[razeontherock]

you don't think that how God did it would be accomadated to the understanding of the ancient Hebrews in order to get a more important theological truth across to them?

No, not in the least. He explicitly does NOT tell us how He did it. He doesn't tell us how the stone got rolled away from the tomb, nor how Jesus rose from the dead. What the Bible doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. Human tendency for closure makes for poor theology when left unchecked.

 

[shernren]

Come on guys, beating up on creationists over things like this is slightly ridiculous.

Just because "my heart broke" is a metaphor doesn't mean it could ever mean that I'm happy, or that all of English is irreparably ambiguous as a result.

There is deep literary imagery in Genesis, but its ambiguity and effects on exegesis are on a different level from simple anthropomorphisms.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Learn proper hermeneutics, that will answer all of these questions of yours.

 

[philadiddle]

The breath of G-d is consistently referred to as the life of man. He can take it away at any time, and we have no promise of tomorrow. Figurative, yes. He is a Spirit, so His breath is not like our breath. His breath is more like ...

our life.

I don't think Him speaking has anything to do with sound waves, although some have heard Him speak audibly. I think Him speaking has more to do with ...

Creation.

you don't think that how God did it would be accomadated to the understanding of the ancient Hebrews in order to get a more important theological truth across to them?

No, not in the least. He explicitly does NOT tell us how He did it. He doesn't tell us how the stone got rolled away from the tomb, nor how Jesus rose from the dead. What the Bible doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. Human tendency for closure makes for poor theology when left unchecked.

So in one post you say that speaking has nothing to do with actual speaking, and that His breath represents our lives, then in the next post you say that God didn't accommodate the truth to our level understanding, not even in the least. But didn't you just admit that He did explain something (life and breath) in a way that accommodates the meaning to our level of understanding?

 

[philadiddle]

Come on guys, beating up on creationists over things like this is slightly ridiculous.

Creationists consistently tell me that creation is historical and not figurative, that it is 100% literal and historic truth. I'm merely demonstrating simple points that refute that claim. As you could see with razeontherock, he said that God's truths are not accommodated to our level of understanding, not even in the least. Yet in this same thread he admitted that there was symbolic language that represents a greater truth. He could have just said, "yes those parts are figurative, so some of the things in Genesis are accommodated to our level of understanding, but I still believe it is a historical account" but he didn't.