Let's see how this works: The First Part of Genesis Is a Metaphor for Childbirth

[MineralMan]

Yeah, that's the ticket. It doesn't literally describe the creation of the universe. Instead it's a metaphorical tale used to explain sex, pregnancy and childbirth to youngsters.

Many analysts say so. Now, I don't have the links to those analyses right at hand, but take my word for it. Many say so.

[delisen]

1. Nice.

[Lordquinton]

2. It's up to personal interpretation

but if you interpret it any other way you're a literalist.

[MineralMan]

3. Yup. You have to find the metaphor.

[Lordquinton]

4. And it has to be the correct metaphor

Or we'll burn you alive. Metaphysically of course, they aren't allowed to actually do that anymore.

[guillaumeb]

5. The beginning is an excellent metaphorical version of the Big Bang theory.

Google: genesis as metaphor for the big bang

and read as much as you wish.

[Major Nikon]

17. You keep forgetting to qualify this as your opinion

If one didn't know any better, one might think you are trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

[guillaumeb]

18. An unrealistic position.

Absent specific citations, my assumption is that I am reading opinions.

[Major Nikon]

19. When then at least you are honest about your duplicity

[guillaumeb]

21. And you are consistently insulting.

So you do have that.

[Major Nikon]

34. You insulted yourself by admitting to being duplicitous

But don't miss a chance to pretend to be a victim....again.

[guillaumeb]

41. And you follow insult with false accusation. eom

[Major Nikon]

46. Kinda rich coming from the one who without basis calls non-believers here "intolerant"

Meanwhile I asked you why you didn't qualify your assertion as an opinion, and your reply was in the absence of providing proof what you assert as factual is actually your opinion.

Unlike you, I actually support my assertions of fact, with actual facts. For further reading, see...

Definition of duplicity
1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action

[guillaumeb]

47. Points for being consistent.

And for being the definer of what constitutes an acceptable interpretation of metaphor in the Bible.

[Major Nikon]

48. So everyone who disagrees with you now is a "definer"

I suppose that's a step up from your dehumanizing 11th commandment argle-bargle, but not by much. Still progress is a good sign.

[guillaumeb]

49. No, you called "bullshit" on a well known position on water as Biblical metaphor.

So what does that response make you, if not the self-appointed definer?

[Major Nikon]

50. Sure, just like everyone who calls bullshit on invisible sky daddies is a "believer"

My response makes me someone who calls bullshit on obvious bullshit. No hidden meanings there, guy, regardless of how much time you waste looking for them.

[guillaumeb]

57. Your response reveals what you want to believe. eom

[Major Nikon]

61. Sure, the alternative to that is duplicity

You know, like saying one thing while believing another for which you are gaining notoriety.

[guillaumeb]

62. And again, your responses are either gifs,

or ad hominem attacks.
Speaking of notoriety that is.

[Major Nikon]

63. So far just in the last day you have called me...

Definer, fundamentalist, and biblical literalist all intended as pejorative. So let’s not pretend that didn’t happen when we both know it did. Seems more honest that way, no?

[TwistOneUp]

52. Please!

For the last Two Thousand Effing Years christianity has defined everything. Who can marry who, when you can fuck, whom you can and cannot fuck, who you can be and whom you cannot be, what clothes you can and cannot wear, who you pray to and how often, and woe to those who fell / fall outside of the christian definitions. Remember that Barrel-O-Fun, Torquemada? Or everyone that was slaughtered on the Iberian peninsula after 1492 for not being a christian? Christianity has even gone so far as to define themselves as the only "true" church.

And you have the nerve to try and use define as a perjorative? Of course, you only do that in regards to OTHERS.

[guillaumeb]

58. So if a non-theist attempts to be "THE DEFINER" I should overlook the attempt? eom

[TwistOneUp]

59. Hey, it was YOUR GOD that allegedly said ...

Turn the other cheek.

Easy to say, hard to practice if you're a hypocrite.

[guillaumeb]

60. So non-theists become the definers?

An interesting display of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. So the authors of Genesis knew about the Big Bang thousands of years before Georges Lemaitre?

Or do you mean to say they made said metaphor completely unaware?

[guillaumeb]

42. I said exactly what I meant.

[Act_of_Reparation]

55. And yet the problem remains unaddressed.

Were the authors of Genesis privy to the big bang thousands of years before anyone else thought it up, or were they in the habit of deploying literary devices entirely on accident?

Come on. Speak up. Inquiring minds want to know.

[guillaumeb]

6. Another attempt at reconciliation/explanation:

Aviezer’s premise is that the Big Bang theory confirms the first verse of the Bible, but that in contrast to modern physics, which by its own admission is unable to discern what happened before the Big Bang, Genesis clearly describes the cause: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” God’s command “let there be light” refers to the appearance of the primeval fireball, containing all the matter and energy of the present-day universe, and the chaos–tohu va-vohu–described in the Bible matches the random and chaotic condition of the universe in its initial state. Finally, “God separated the light from the darkness” refers to the formation of atoms, the consequent freeing of photons and the flooding of the universe with electromagnetic radiation.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/reading-modern-science-into-genesis/

[edhopper]

16. The Earth was not created for 10 billion years

not "in the begining"
The rest of Genisis gets the orer of everything wrong as well.
It's as if writers were looking around and just making up how they came to be.

What's next? Qouting from answersingenisis?

[guillaumeb]

7. And there is this, from the same source as above:

However, Nahmanides’ comment on Genesis 1:1 implies exactly that:
“At the briefest instant following creation, all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard….

From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so.” In Schroeder’s view, this kind of in-depth reading of the Torah will always tend to reveal the consonance between two sources of truth–revelation and science.

Nahmanides was born in 1194.

[MineralMan]

8. You appear to have missed the satirical tone of my

initial post, my dear guillaumeb.. I was drawing a parallel with the idea that the flood story was a metaphor for some sort of "cleansing," rather than a story about a vengeful murderous deity.

You provided three posts in reply, for which I thank you, but they did not address my satire.

It is child's play to offer a ludicrous metaphorical explanation for something that is a simple cautionary tale designed to keep people from straying from a straight and narrow path. Global extermination gets the message across quite effectively.

I would encourage you to stretch your perceptions a little. The satire was clear in my post. Sorry you wasted your time.

[guillaumeb]

9. Sharing information is never a waste of time.

It is too simple by far to dismiss a story that has multiple levels of meaning. Pleas stretch your perception to encompass these levels, and do not dismiss what you seem to have missed.

[MineralMan]

10. You did not share information.

You shared some apologetics and eisegesis about the Genesis creation myth. Anyone with a bit of knowledge about the Big Bang theory could write those. The idea of the universe beginning as a tiny particle is also not a unique one. It is a part of several such myths.

You are, perhaps, confused about what I know and do not know. Since you know virtually nothing about me, that is not surprising. That you assume superior knowledge, however is somewhat surprising.

You make the same mistake with others in this group.

[guillaumeb]

11. I shared viewpoints that differ from your own views.

And you apparently rejected them.

And given that one was written by a person in the 12th Century, your comment about "Anyone with a bit of knowledge..." are bizarre.

[MineralMan]

12. You shared examples of eisegesis.

You also apparently did not bother to read my entire reply. I noted the common nature of the origin from a minute particle, or even nothing, in other creation myths. Your 12th century opinion does not convince.

[guillaumeb]

13. You made a claim about myths reflecting a knowledge of the Big Bang theory.

My source refutes that claim. There is a surface understanding of the Bible, and there is a deeper understanding, based on research. And that points out the weakness of a self-directed approach. It depends on the ability of an individual to know what is worth reading, and to know that it is even there to be read.

I have been reading the Bible and commentary for many years, but I would never claim any expertise in the field. I am simply a learner.

But I know enough to realize that there might be far more to the Bible than a surface reading would reveal.

[MineralMan]

14. ..

You have exceeded my limit of attention. Sorry.

[guillaumeb]

15. I am also sorry.

[Major Nikon]

20. Deriving hidden meanings from the bible. Wow, what a revelation!

https://www.inverse.com/article/44021-nibiru-doomsday-theory-april-23-origins

[guillaumeb]

22. Interpreting metaphor 101.

Covered in entry level literature classes.

[Major Nikon]

23. Thanks for that, Captain Obvious

Meanwhile nobody is claiming you aren't free to derive whatever meanings YOU think make sense, just as anyone else is free to call bullshit.

Meanwhile the list of charlatans who claim to have inside knowledge of the bible's hidden meanings go all the way back to its origin and they just aren't that hard to find then or now. Everyone from David Koresh to David Meade to streetcorner preachers to Sunday school indoctrinators to anonymous people on the internet claim to know these hidden meanings. Most are so convinced of it they try to pass off their hidden meanings as facts. Regardless of how strongly they are convinced or how many people they manage to dupe, remarkably the world was still turning on April 24th.

[guillaumeb]

24. And you are free to"call bullshit", just as we are free to interpret that call

as in reality an insistence that your opinion is the deciding one.


I understand your need to insist on a literal interpretation. I do. But your insistence on literalism reminds me of the theists who also insist on a literal interpretation.

A commonality of sorts.

[Major Nikon]

25. Credibility speaks for itself when an "interpretation" is obvious strawman bullshit

Also kinda funny how suggesting literacy is an "opinion". It's a fact the authors said what they said. I don't need an "opinion" to read what they wrote.

[guillaumeb]

30. More confirrmation, not that it is needed,

that you are "THE DECIDER" when it comes to Biblical interpretation.

[Major Nikon]

31. "confirmation"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[guillaumeb]

32. Yes, there is a lot of projection in these posts.

Change is possible.

[Major Nikon]

33. Ah yes, the fully predictable rework of the tired old "I'm rubber, you're glue" cliche

To save time you might want to consider numbering your canned responses. That way instead of wasting time and bandwidth you can just say something like #34 and we'll all know.

[MineralMan]

38. #42!

[marylandblue]

40. My literature classes taught me that metaphors did not have infinite meaning

I got points off my essays if I misinterpreted a metaphor.

[guillaumeb]

43. And? eom

[marylandblue]

44. And it means you can't treat a flood and a baptism as the same metaphor

Just because they both involve water.

[guillaumeb]

45. #1) Water is the common element.

#2) Water as cleansing agent is mentioned many times in the OT and the NT.


#3) Water is symbolic of cleansing the body of sin. As in Baptism or the ritual cleansing in the OT.


#4) The Flood was written to show sin being cleansed from the entire world.

So, based on those 3 factors, the flood can be treated as a metaphor for cleansing and renewal.

From a Christian perspective:

Protestant Interpretations
The most prevalent nineteenth-century Protestant understandings of the Flood of Noah viewed it as a symbol of baptism—that is, the Flood was a type or symbol of Christian baptism and its cleansing nature. First Peter 3:18–21 provided the proof text for Protestant (as well as Latter-day Saint) commentators.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/let-us-reason-together/was-noah-s-flood-baptism-earth

From a Jewish perspective:

In 1 Peter 3:18–22, we learn that the story of Noah is also a picture of salvation and water baptism. Noah is a prophetic antetype of Yeshua.
To start with, Noah building the ark is a prophetic picture of the redeemed believer working out his own salvation (Phil 2:12), yet while doing so according to YHVH’s exact plans or specifications (e.g. repentance from sin, faith in Yeshua, baptism for the remission of sins, and faithful obedience to YHVH’s commandments).
Noah builds an ark of safety from Elohim’s wrath or judgments against sinful man. The ark is a metaphorical picture of the believer’s salvation, and Noah is a spiritual picture of Yeshua. The flood is also a picture of water baptism for the remission of sins, which ceremonially pictures the death of the old sinful man, and the birth of the new spiritual man (Rom 6:3–6). Water can both clean one of dirt and kill

https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/tag/the-flood/

[Major Nikon]

51. Both of your examples refer to a literal flood, not a metaphorical one

The more you try to banish your bullshit, the more pure it becomes.

[marylandblue]

53. Your second link is from a Hebrew Christian source, not Jewish

It relies on Christian sources rather than Jewish, and it's considered offensive to Jews to call it a Jewish perspective. Hebrew Christians are also called Messianic Jews.

Just thought you should be aware of that.

[TwistOneUp]

56. Yes, we have a special word for Jews that believe in Jesus.

We call them, "christians".

[underpants]

26. I'm guessing "Canadian girlfriend"

There were two boys but they promulgated the human race. Even if there was a girl we're talking Appalachia.

Unless there were monkeys. Persian monkeys.

[mobeau69]

27. Our time should be better spent.

Silliness.

[MineralMan]

28. I see. Well, I guess you told me, then.

Silliness was the point, though. Perhaps you needed to be there or something.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

29. I was raised Roman Catholic, which means I was never encouraged to read the Bible.

When I finally decided to give it a try, when I was about 28 or so, I was completely gobsmacked.

Quite frankly, much of Genesis reads like science fiction, especially if you are as thoroughly ignorant of it as I was.

[Major Nikon]

35. Now you know why the RCC kept the bible under lock and key for centuries

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. Alas, it's not even very good science fiction.

I managed to grow up blissfully unaware of certain standard Bible stories, and the first time I heard about God telling Abraham to murder his son, Isaac, I was so horrified that had I not already abandoned any semblance of religious belief, that alone would have made me do so.

Telling a father to kill his son? THAT'S what a god does? There is something seriously wrong with that.

And people think non-believers can't possibly be moral.

[Major Nikon]

37. Imagine the worst immorality. There's probably a reference condoning it in the bible

Rape, murder, child molestation, and slavery is all in there. Yet we must believe the bible is our one and only moral compass. Kinda funny how that works.

[gay texan]

54. Well that should irritate

A number of Baptists, lol!