Metaphor for what?

[Armoured]

Hey,

So, plenty of people involved in the creationism vs. evolution discussion on the evolution side are Christian. Most of us have, at some time or other been challenged with "how can you be Christian if you don't believe the Bible?", to which we invariably reply something along the lines of "I believe the Bible, I just take Genesis metaphorically"

So, my question, what do you think it's a metaphor of?

Personally, I think the whole Adam and Eve bit is a metaphor for the development of farming, when people went from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle "in the garden", to becoming settled farmers "living by the sweat of the brow".

So I was curious to hear what other Christians who accept evolution think?

 

[Resha Caner]

Personally, I think the whole Adam and Eve bit is a metaphor for the development of farming, when people went from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle "in the garden", to becoming settled farmers "living by the sweat of the brow".

Huh?

Leaving Eden was a punishment. So the development of farming was a punishment from God?

 

[Armoured]

Huh?

Leaving Eden was a punishment. So the development of farming was a punishment from God?

Metaphorically, yes. Because once mankind had "eaten of the tree of knowledge", which, I believe, is a metaphor for learning the rudiments of civilisation, there wasn't much choice but to become settled. Hunter gatherers don't worry about neighbours, taxes, sewerage, crop failures, war, a whole bunch of stuff, their existence is fairly idylic. Abandoning that for civilisation and all that comes with it can, I believe, very much be seen as "The Fall".

 

[Resha Caner]

Hunter gatherers don't worry about neighbours, taxes, sewerage, crop failures, war, a whole bunch of stuff, their existence is fairly idylic.

Live that life sometime and you might have a different view of how idylic it is.

Even though I consider Genesis history, I realize there is also a metaphor in the story. The thing is, Paul explains the metaphor in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, so I don't see a need to invent our own.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I read Genesis as a rather simplified version of the process of God's Creation. The full account of the 13.7 Billion (give or take an eon) years of the Universe would have been a little overwhelming for a late Stone Age - early Bronze Age people. (One observes it is somewhat overwhelming for Computer Age folks.) Nor is that full account needed to understand the Universe is God's Creation on all levels, or to grasp the relationship of God and mankind.


Some of it is metaphor - such as the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'. First, that entity was NOT the 'Tree of Knowledge'. When Eve and then Adam ate the fruit thereof, they didn't instantly learn differential calculus, how to build a computer, or even how to plumb a toilet or the secret of the lever. They learned about 'Good' and 'Evil'; in my mind, not particularly 'how to be nice' and 'how to be naughty', but 'good and evil' in the sense of 'good results' and 'bad results'.

In other words, the knowledge of the repercussions of one's actions. I don't find it a stretch to compare ignoring the law of gravity with ignoring the law of calories and the law of sexual purity. It isn't hard for most of us to see the problem with stepping off a cliff, eating too much rich, fatty foods or seeking sexual congress at any and all occasions. We're all familiar with broken legs, clogged arteries and the complex nature of sexual misconduct eventualities.

Follow God's laws and directions, have success; ignore God's laws and directions, have disaster. Take your pick.

One finds all sorts of metaphor used throughout the Bible. Several of the prophets 'acted out' prophesies regarding the nation of Israel. Jesus spoke of 'beams in the eye'.

Why should one expect Genesis to be different?

 

[Resha Caner]

I read Genesis as a rather simplified version of the process of God's Creation. The full account of the 13.7 Billion (give or take an eon) years of the Universe would have been a little overwhelming for a late Stone Age - early Bronze Age people. (One observes it is somewhat overwhelming for Computer Age folks.) Nor is that full account needed to understand the Universe is God's Creation on all levels, or to grasp the relationship of God and mankind.

I've got no problem with saying Genesis is a simplified version of God's creative process - that we wouldn't understand if He told us everything.

But I do disagree that we're smarter than Stone Age/Bronze Age peoples. What they did was VERY impressive given the starting point. The idea of Grug beating one rock against another out of childish pleasure, accidentally cutting himself when it fractured, and going, "Ugg. Maybe me use to kill wabbit," is a demeaning caricature. I'm not saying you would use such a caricature - just making a point.

So, I think Stone Age people were perfectly capable of "getting it" if God had decided on a more "scientific" narrative. It's just that He had to stop at some level of detail, and He stopped at the point where he deemed the text fulfilled His purpose.

As such, I'm not convinced we're smart enough to better understand God's creative process. We may have more information, but I often doubt that brings better understanding.

Some of it is metaphor - such as the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'.

This kind of thing I find very curious. Maybe the tree is only a metaphor, but why couldn't it have been a real tree? I think there is a post-modern hesitancy to believe the amazing. We don't like to think God used "magic" - that eating some magical fruit produced a change in Eve ... and so we fall back on what alternatives? God sent a fairy-angel to ding her on the head with a wand? Or God is disconnected and left Eve to discover evil on her own?

I believe God interacts with us, and I believe those interactions are physical. I just had this kind of conversation with an unbeliever about the Eucharist. She was asking if the bread and wine are "magic" because they produce faith. My response was simple. If she only accepts the material world, doesn't she think some kind of physical change occurs when people go from unbelief to belief? Well, so do I. The means of grace (bread and wine) in the Eucharist cause a physical change in the believer.

So why not a tree? If the Tree of Life in the Garden* is a metaphor for anything, it's a metaphor of the Cross. And eating from it to obtain life is a metaphor of the coming Eucharist. And that the Tree was producing fruit ...

Again, I think there are plenty of metaphors already articulated in Scripture about such things.

* Note: OK, a different tree than the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil first mentioned, but still one of the trees in the Garden - and interesting in that while the Tree of Life gave, well, life, the other Tree produced death.

 

[granpa]

Deleted

 

[MKJ]

Hey,

So, plenty of people involved in the creationism vs. evolution discussion on the evolution side are Christian. Most of us have, at some time or other been challenged with "how can you be Christian if you don't believe the Bible?", to which we invariably reply something along the lines of "I believe the Bible, I just take Genesis metaphorically"

So, my question, what do you think it's a metaphor of?

Personally, I think the whole Adam and Eve bit is a metaphor for the development of farming, when people went from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle "in the garden", to becoming settled farmers "living by the sweat of the brow".

So I was curious to hear what other Christians who accept evolution think?

I think you might find that many read it as allegory, which is a bit different.

A metaphor is when a word is used to mean something different but related to its usual use.

If I say, Fred is a real pig, I probably don't mean he really is a pig, I mean he has pig-like qualities.

An allegory is a bit different - it often involves symbolic elements, and the use is meant to give a deeper spiritual meaning - the point is often to take a spiritual or psycological truth and make it into a story. Allegories can be quite sophisticated and involved. Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory, and so is Animal Farm.

 

[granpa]

if I were going to interpret it as allegory then the most logical thing would be
to interpret each of the realms and each of the species as a race of people

according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands, according to their nations.

 

[Armoured]

I think you might find that many read it as allegory, which is a bit different.

A metaphor is when a word is used to mean something different but related to its usual use.

If I say, Fred is a real pig, I probably don't mean he really is a pig, I mean he has pig-like qualities.

An allegory is a bit different - it often involves symbolic elements, and the use is meant to give a deeper spiritual meaning - the point is often to take a spiritual or psycological truth and make it into a story. Allegories can be quite sophisticated and involved. Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory, and so is Animal Farm.

You are correct, of course. I hope my original question is clear enough anyway.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I've got no problem with saying Genesis is a simplified version of God's creative process - that we wouldn't understand if He told us everything.

But I do disagree that we're smarter than Stone Age/Bronze Age peoples.

I didn't say we are smarter. But we know more about how the Universe is constructed, and that makes a difference.

As an analogy, one does not learn the mathematic discipline of calculus prior to learning algebra, geometry and trigonometry. It isn't that those pre-cursors make one 'smarter', but they establish the basis for the more advanced form of math.

I remember as a child looking at the Sun and believing it moved in the sky. I also remember being told it was the Sun that was stationary - at least in terms of the solar system - and the Earth revolved. It took me a year or two to really accept that.

It's just that He had to stop at some level of detail, and He stopped at the point where he deemed the text fulfilled His purpose.

Yes. No question.

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Maybe the tree is only a metaphor, but why couldn't it have been a real tree?

It could have. But I think the more serious idea taught here is that mankind had a choice to make, and made the choice to NOT obey God.

 

[Resha Caner]

I didn't say we are smarter. But we know more about how the Universe is constructed, and that makes a difference.

In what way?

It could have. But I think the more serious idea taught here is that mankind had a choice to make, and made the choice to NOT obey God.

I can agree Adam & Eve made the wrong choice.

 

[Calminian]

Metaphorically, yes. Because once mankind had "eaten of the tree of knowledge", which, I believe, is a metaphor for learning the rudiments of civilisation, there wasn't much choice but to become settled. Hunter gatherers don't worry about neighbours, taxes, sewerage, crop failures, war, a whole bunch of stuff, their existence is fairly idylic. Abandoning that for civilisation and all that comes with it can, I believe, very much be seen as "The Fall".

Do you also think the Resurrection is a metaphor? If so, what do you think it means? If not, what would you say to people who do?

 

[Calminian]

I read Genesis as a rather simplified version of the process of God's Creation. The full account of the 13.7 Billion (give or take an eon) years of the Universe would have been a little overwhelming for a late Stone Age - early Bronze Age people...

I'm always fascinated when I hear this. Please explain why. As a young child interested in dinosaurs I never had a problem understanding millions of years or the concept that these animals existed before man. I may not have full understand how long 1 million was, but I know there was a big difference between a millions years and one day. Yet you say adults like Abraham and Moses wouldn't have been able to understand it. Why have you come to this conclusion?

Some of it is metaphor - such as the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'. First, that entity was NOT the 'Tree of Knowledge'. When Eve and then Adam ate the fruit thereof, they didn't instantly learn differential calculus, how to build a computer, or even how to plumb a toilet or the secret of the lever. They learned about 'Good' and 'Evil'; in my mind, not particularly 'how to be nice' and 'how to be naughty', but 'good and evil' in the sense of 'good results' and 'bad results'.

In other words, the knowledge of the repercussions of one's actions. I don't find it a stretch to compare ignoring the law of gravity with ignoring the law of calories and the law of sexual purity. It isn't hard for most of us to see the problem with stepping off a cliff, eating too much rich, fatty foods or seeking sexual congress at any and all occasions. We're all familiar with broken legs, clogged arteries and the complex nature of sexual misconduct eventualities.

LOL! What? So the learned good and bad results from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? I'll have to mark that one in my "now I've heard it all" journal. It never ceases to amaze me how unbelief gives birth to the most amazingly hard to believe theories.

That's just a side note, though. Really interested in why you don't think Moses would have been able to comprehend deep time or other concepts that 5 year olds understand today.

 

[Armoured]

Do you also think the Resurrection is a metaphor? If so, what do you think it means? If not, what would you say to people who do?

No I don't, and I'd say, "well I believe it is".

The difference is that the resurection doesn't have the entirety of the geological science, biology, physics and chemistry disputing it. A literal reading of Genesis rather does.

 

[Calminian]

No I don't, and I'd say, "well I believe it is".

The difference is that the resurection doesn't have the entirety of the geological science, biology, physics and chemistry disputing it. A literal reading of Genesis rather does.

Er, it doesn't? Hmmm. I thought medical science was pretty conclusive that men don't rise from the dead after 3 days.

Seems to me you just pick and choose which sciences to believe and which not to, based on which part of the Bible you want to believe.

 

[Armoured]

Er, it doesn't? Hmmm. I thought medical science was pretty conclusive that men don't rise from the dead after 3 days.

No. There is no evidence at all to suggest Jesus did not rise from the dead. There is, however, reams and reams of evidence that the universe wasn't created as Genesis tells it.

Seems to me you just pick and choose which sciences to believe and which not to, based on which part of the Bible you want to believe.

Sorry if this comes off as snarky, but I am so sick of this accusation. Everyone, even the most rabidly literal YEC believer, "picks and chooses". There's a reason it's called Bible study. Just reading it uncritically and accepting the whole thing as totally literal and direct is impossible. And if you say you don't pick and choose just like everyone else, prepare to be challenged.

 

[Calminian]

No. There is no evidence at all to suggest Jesus did not rise from the dead. There is, however, reams and reams of evidence that the universe wasn't created as Genesis tells it.

Sorry, but there is extensive clinical evidence that men cannot be resuscitated after being dead 3 days. Lazarus was dead 4 days. Yet the testimony of scripture says they rose from the dead. Why do you choose the testimony of scripture over science in the case of the gospels, yet choose naturalistic scientific theories over the testimony of scripture in the case of the Genesis?

Sorry if this comes off as snarky, but I am so sick of this accusation. Everyone, even the most rabidly literal YEC believer, "picks and chooses". There's a reason it's called Bible study. Just reading it uncritically and accepting the whole thing as totally literal and direct is impossible. And if you say you don't pick and choose just like everyone else, prepare to be challenged.

Understand about the snarkiness. I challenged you, so it would seem fair to challenge me back. Just understand my challenge comes from very sincere concerns about what's happening to the modern church.

No, I don't pick and choose. I read the Bible exegetically, in that I allow scripture to indicate whether it's speaking literally or figuratively. The bible often uses metaphors, and other non-literal expressions. It also often speaks literally. Context is key, and context alone will indicate how to interpret something.

What you're doing is the opposite of exegesis. Instead of allowing the author to indicate the literary devises he's using, you go outside of the Bible, and look to the opinions of fallible men to determine how you interpret scripture. My question is, why? Do you see how problematic that can be?

Bishop Spong (John Shelby Spong) BTW, uses this same principle to not only spiritualize Genesis, but the rest of the Bible as well, including the resurrection. He looks to scientists who tell him that these miracles couldn't have happened and so considers it all a metaphor. Is he not simply doing what you're doing, just more consistently?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In what way? (Do modern humans understand the structure of the Universe better.)

One. Most semi-educated people understand the Sun is the center (of gravity) for the Solar System and the Earth revolves about the Sun.

Two. Most semi-educated people understand the Solar System is a rather small unit of the Galaxy.

Three. The Earth did not always exist in the current form.

I'm going to stop here and offer this bit of explanation. I'm sure the Creation story could have included things like the organization of the Solar System, Galaxy and Tectonic plate shift. The people who started memorizing these traditions could easily have memorized the words. The trouble is, they would not have frame of reference by which to apply the meanings of the words and concepts.

For instance, if told the Earth rotated around the Sun, they would have smiled, nodded and decided the source was insane. After all, the people on Earth knew the Earth was standing still. One could not detect movement - like on a horse, donkey or floating in the water.

Aside from that, the information is not required to have relationship with God. There are many, many things the Bible does not include.

For instance, there are no instructions on how to make a battery. (Which can be made from citrus fruit, copper and zinc (I think) wire. But then, the Bible would have to include instructions on how to make wire. And light bulbs. How to produce neon for the really cool lights. Computers.

Do you see the reason to keep things as simple as possible?

I can agree Adam & Eve made the wrong choice.

Fair enough. I'm not going to argue the actual existence of A&E. I think it quite possible they did exist. My point is, the truth of what God wanted us to know does not hinge on their actual existence.

 

[Calminian]

...For instance, if told the Earth rotated around the Sun, they would have smiled, nodded and decided the source was insane. After all, the people on Earth knew the Earth was standing still. One could not detect movement - like on a horse, donkey or floating in the water.

Archie, earth is defined in Genesis as "dry land." That's what the ancients were talking about when they used the term erets. And they were right in claiming the dry land did not move on its foundation, unlike a boat would on the sea.

Second, why would the ancients have thought God was insane for telling them a land/sea unit known as a planet was orbiting the sun? I understood this concept at age 5.

Aside from that, the information is not required to have relationship with God. There are many, many things the Bible does not include.

Yes, it's not required but what a blessing it is to proclaim, and what a stumbling block it is to the unbelieving world, when you affirm their doubts about the Word of God.

Do you see the reason to keep things as simple as possible?

You think asking people to believe the middle and end of the story, while doubting and reinterpreting the first is simple?

Here's simple: you can believe he Bible from cover to cover.

Fair enough. I'm not going to argue the actual existence of A&E. I think it quite possible they did exist. My point is, the truth of what God wanted us to know does not hinge on their actual existence.

IOW's proclaim to the world that the first adam may have been just an idea, just a story, but the last Adam—which is linked to the first by genealogies, mind you—well, that one you have believe in. Simple? IMO, that's a cesspool of confusion.

The simple gospel starts in Genesis, and ends with the Cross and Resurrection.