Why doesn't god say what he means...?

[selfinflikted]

I used to wonder a lot about the creation story in Genesis. I remember when I was a child I used to ask my mom, "Mom, how did God create the world in only seven days?" Her answer would usually be something along the lines of... "..son, we don't know what a 'day' is to God. Just one of 'God's' days could be a whole bunch of years." Years later, after completing my curriculum in geography and geology and knowing that the earth is far older than most (*most, being most of the christians in my area) christians think, I started to wonder.... In genesis, it is recounted that god made everything in seven days. Flashbacks of "..we don't know 'god's' years..." went throught my head which lead me to wonder: If a day to god is something other than a day, why does it say "day" in the bible, and not years... my point being, if god didn't mean he made the universe in seven days, why did he say it?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

You are assuming that Jehovah wrote Genesis -- a very, very bold assumption indeed.

 

[Battie]

It's poetry. It's a story by the ancient Hebrews for the ancient Hebrews to explain that God is the creator, not Tiamat and Apsu, or someone else of the ancient near eastern pantheon. The point isn't so much how the earth was created as who did it, why He did it, and what became of it.

This is why I really dislike the way some scholars insist on overanalyzing the definition of day to try to fit science. One just shouldn't do that with poetry. It ruins the beauty and simplicity, and by focusing on the how of the creation story we miss the point completely.

 

[nvxplorer]

It's poetry. It's a story by the ancient Hebrews for the ancient Hebrews to explain that God is the creator, not Tiamat and Apsu, or someone else of the ancient near eastern pantheon. The point isn't so much how the earth was created as who did it, why He did it, and what became of it.

This is why I really dislike the way some scholars insist on overanalyzing the definition of day to try to fit science. One just shouldn't do that with poetry. It ruins the beauty and simplicity, and by focusing on the how of the creation story we miss the point completely.

It's funny how most atheists are fully aware of this, but it eludes biblical literalists. As an atheist, I can gain much wisdom from the myths of all religions. It's also curious that (much) myth is humanistic in nature, but many fundamentalists treat humanism as evil. There is a wealth of wisdom in various religious myth. Sadly, many miss this wisdom in an effort to validate their personal need for literalism.

 

[Gracchus]

"Why doesn't god say what he means...?"

Well, it is so much more convenient if he says what we mean!

 

[Manning]

I've always been intersted in this topic. I simply don't understand how you can claim some parts of Genesis are not true and simply poetry yet still be a christian.

If this is poetry created by the Hebrews and not God then why should we believe anything in Genesis and the rest of the bible for that matter.

People admit these are metaphors created by man yet still believe that the God in the bible exists and that Jesus was his son sent to earth. Where is the intellectual disconnect.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I've always been intersted in this topic. I simply don't understand how you can claim some parts of Genesis are not true and simply poetry yet still be a christian.

If this is poetry created by the Hebrews and not God then why should we believe anything in Genesis and the rest of the bible for that matter.

People admit these are metaphors created by man yet still believe that the God in the bible exists and that Jesus was his son sent to earth. Where is the intellectual disconnect.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

the words "God said" are an anthropomorphic metaphor.
there is no media for the conduction of sound. It is God's accommodation to our mental ability, essentially putting things in babytalk so that we can understand them. Does that make it false, if it is not scientifically true?

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light

the words "God saw" are an anthropomorphic metaphor. God doesn't have eyes anymore than he has a mouth to make words.


What i don't understand is why people try to push metaphors into historical and scientific boxes they were never intended to fit into.

 

[Gracchus]

I've always been intersted in this topic. I simply don't understand how you can claim some parts of Genesis are not true and simply poetry yet still be a christian.

On this forum you are a Christian if you believe the Nicene Creed, and that doesn't mention anything about a literal interpretation of the Bible.

If this is poetry created by the Hebrews and not God then why should we believe anything in Genesis and the rest of the bible for that matter.

Most people can weigh in their minds and hearts. They can assay truth. Where did Jesus ever say you had to take every word of scripture as literally, absolutely true?

People admit these are metaphors created by man yet still believe that the God in the bible exists and that Jesus was his son sent to earth. Where is the intellectual disconnect.

Christians live with all sorts of intellectual disconnects and cognitive dissonances. They are convenient points to divorce what they do from what Jesus said they should do.

 

[Silent Bob]

I've always been intersted in this topic. I simply don't understand how you can claim some parts of Genesis are not true and simply poetry yet still be a christian.

By believing in Jesus and loving your neighbor.

Belief in Jesus does not necessitate belief in a literal interpretation of scripture which is never 100% literal... Of course the earth doesn't have corners, surely it has no foundations either, well the mustard seed is the smallest Jesus' audience knew about and the list goes on.

In short when some Christians want a part of scripture to be literal they take it literally while they still explain other parts away. We are all guilty of the same thing the only difference is that we take the Creation literally while others take some verses of Genesis literally.

 

[Manning]

rmwilliamsll, obviously a god will not have the physical characteristics of say eys, ears, or a nose. Because of this I can accept the anthropormorphizing of God in thise sense. Also, of course the parables Jesus used are not meant to be taken as literal stories as well. These I believe are exceptions because of the nature of God and of parables.

However, I can not accept that God meant for the story of Adam and Eve to be a metaphor, or say the entire creation story. If you don't believe Genesis is literally true then why believe ANY of the bible is literally true. Why even accept the bible?

For God (I'm now assuming God gave us genesis through man) to describe a 6 day creation of animals being created individually as well as the earth forming in 6 days 6,000 years ago is completely false in light of modern scientific theories of evolution, uniformitarianism, etc. Why would God give us contradictions to theories he must have known we would develop in the future.

 

[Manning]

My main problem with all of this is that people want to pick and choose which parts they believe. If this was divine scripture passed down from God then why should we not take all of it as historical fact? To me it seems intellectually dishonest to say "Well I like all that love and Jesus stuff, but that Genesis chapter contradicts scientific evidence we know exists, so I'll just believe what I want to".

That is honestly my biggest problem, people picking out parts that fit their idea of what the world should be instead of simply acknowledging that parts of the bible are absolutley false and were not meant to be taken as a metaphor when written down.

I realise we have gotten off the topic of Evolution/Creationims but I feel that this was inevitable in light of the OP.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If you don't believe Genesis is literally true then why believe ANY of the bible is literally true. Why even accept the bible?

why this extraordinary linking of everything together?

The Scriptures are a compilation of documents. It is not a single work from a single pen. Why would how i interpret Gen 1 have anything to do with how i interpret Matt 1? Let alone seemingly putting all hermeneutics into either literal or not-literal pair of boxes, if nothing else this is lousy granularity.

 

[Jase]

For God (I'm now assuming God gave us genesis through man) to describe a 6 day creation of animals being created individually as well as the earth forming in 6 days 6,000 years ago is completely false in light of modern scientific theories of evolution, uniformitarianism, etc. Why would God give us contradictions to theories he must have known we would develop in the future.

Do you think the ancient hebrews would have understood anything if God went into detail talking about photons, relativity, quantum mechanics, sea floor spreading, volcanism, nuclear fission, etc. etc.? I believe Genesis is written from the perspective of the authors. It is a dumbed down version so they could get the theological point, without having to understand the complex science behind how it all works.

 

[nvxplorer]

My main problem with all of this is that people want to pick and choose which parts they believe.

One need not interpet literally to see the validity of various parts of scripture. You can believe the message without regard to literalism.

If this was divine scripture passed down from God then why should we not take all of it as historical fact?

Because the message of the Bible does not deal exclusively with history.

To me it seems intellectually dishonest to say "Well I like all that love and Jesus stuff, but that Genesis chapter contradicts scientific evidence we know exists, so I'll just believe what I want to".

Actually, ignoring reality in favor of literalism is intellectually dishonest.

That is honestly my biggest problem, people picking out parts that fit their idea of what the world should be instead of simply acknowledging that parts of the bible are absolutley false and were not meant to be taken as a metaphor when written down.

Simplistic question. If I ask you to "watch your step," am I asking you to physically look at your feet?

 

[Manning]

The Scriptures are a compilation of documents. It is not a single work from a single pen. Why would how i interpret Gen 1 have anything to do with how i interpret Matt 1? Let alone seemingly putting all hermeneutics into either literal or not-literal pair of boxes, if nothing else this is lousy granularity.

Yes they are compliation. But do you accept that they are all divinely inspired by the God decribed in the bible? If they are all divinely inspired then we should not find contradictions between modern science and the ancient orders/thoughts/etc of God and his people. If they are NOT all divinely inspired then either the canon needs to be revised (which of course is a whole different arguement altoghether) or there is no reason to believe any of the stories for which there is no historical/archeological evidence because it is written by man.

Do you think the ancient hebrews would have understood anything if God went into detail talking about photons, relativity, quantum mechanics, sea floor spreading, volcanism, nuclear fission, etc. etc.?

No, most of those things they would not have understood. That is irrelevent. I do not expect a god to decribe the theory of relativity or the inner workings of a cell, but I certainly would not expect a God to decieve people by decribing animals popping up through creation when we know all species have evolved from a single ancestor.

God certainly could have dumbed down evolution while still maintaing the basic theory.

I believe Genesis is written from the perspective of the authors.

Who are the authors? If the author is God we should not find blatant inaccuracies. If the authors are humans I have no reason to believe Genesis over the Koran or the Iliad.

 

[Manning]

One need not interpet literally to see the validity of various parts of scripture. You can believe the message without regard to literalism.

If we cannot believe many of the parts then why should we believe this message that you claim is from God?

Because the message of the Bible does not deal exclusively with history.

Correct, but the parts that do deal with facts of the past need to be correct if we are going to accept that this book is indeed from God.

Actually, ignoring reality in favor of literalism is intellectually dishonest.

I agree. This is why I do not accept the Bible over any other book I've read.

Simplistic question. If I ask you to "watch your step," am I asking you to physically look at your feet?

Of course not. However if I write down a story of how the earth and everything on it was formed, how Noah took two of every animal, and how God destroyed Soddom and Gomorah and then want people to accept it was inspired by God it better be dead on to what current evidence shows us actually happened.

 

[Gracchus]

My main problem with all of this is that people want to pick and choose which parts they believe.

If the Lord gave me a mind, he probably expects me to use it.

If this was divine scripture passed down from God then why should we not take all of it as historical fact?

But IF it was just the best the writers could come up with, why can’t we separate the gold from the dross?

To me it seems intellectually dishonest to say "Well I like all that love and Jesus stuff, but that Genesis chapter contradicts scientific evidence we know exists, so I'll just believe what I want to".

Some of us do not believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. Even many Christians do not believe it.

That is honestly my biggest problem, people picking out parts that fit their idea of what the world should be instead of simply acknowledging that parts of the bible are absolutley false and were not meant to be taken as a metaphor when written down.

I really doubt that is your biggest problem.

I realise we have gotten off the topic of Evolution/Creationims but I feel that this was inevitable in light of the OP.

If you disagree with the OP and can’t support your disagreement with evidence, there is nothing to be done but derail the thread, or shut up. So I guess it was inevitable that the thread would go off topic.

 

[Manning]

But IF it was just the best the writers could come up with, why can’t we separate the gold from the dross?

Feel free to pick out what you believe to be the nuggets of truth, just don't claim that this truth comes from God, but from ancient man no different from you or me.

 

[Manning]

If you disagree with the OP and can’t support your disagreement with evidence

I don't have much of a disagreement with the OP. I'm unclear as to what evidence you would like. I hope you don't interpret my writings as to believe in a 6 day creationism or any of that jazz. I have never claimed to be a Christian.

 

[Gracchus]

Feel free to pick out what you believe to be the nuggets of truth, just don't claim that this truth comes from God, but from ancient man no different from you or me.

All truth is from God. And even ancient man could speak the truth. So can I. So could you.