Distinguishing biblical metaphor from reality

PDN wrote: »

If it's a metaphor then it is not making a scientific statement. Therefore it does not conflict with scientific evidence.

In fairness I think the phrase "consistent with" is adding confusion here. When I hear "consistent with" I think "overlapping and not contradicting", not "completely separate". Pointing out that a book that does not attempt to make any kind of scientific claim does not contradict science is kind of redundant tbh. How could it possibly contradict science, regardless of what it said, if it's not saying anything related to science

Zillah

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Pointing out that a book that does not attempt to make any kind of scientific claim does not contradict science is kind of redundant tbh.

He said that if Genesis is properly interpreted as a metaphorical work, which it probably is, it is consistent with scientific consensus on the origins of the universe.

I'd take one step back there though. If it's metaphorical, it could be consistent with scientific consensus. Metaphor being open ended. We could read it as a metaphor for the origin of the universe as described by cosmologists.

That's fine. Then it's not only consistent, it's the same, albeit expressed a different way.

Another possibility is that it is mostly about the origin of the universe as science tells us it was, but contains certain claims which are not falsified by scientific evidence or contradicted by theory, but which are unnecessary to a scientific cosmology proper. In this case, it is still consistent with scientific consensus, although rather less elegant a story.

Another possibility is that it is not a metaphor for cosmological matters at all, and instead for something else, having nothing to do with cosmology. In this case it would also be consistent with scientific claims, so long as the story it does tell does not contradict laws of physics or known historical fact.

But then, metaphor is open to interpretation. So everyone is going to have their arguments about what it means. Some of those interpretations may not be consistent with scientific consensus.

J C wrote: »

... I have indeed sinned and I am not worthy of Gods infinite mercy ... yet I have asked for it ... and received it ... and I am Saved, alleluia!!!

... and so I will not be consigned to Hell ... where I deserve to be ... thanks be to God.

Well that was easy :rolleyes:

So basically I can murder, rape and pillage my weasly black guts out for the rest of my life and because I ask jolly old saint god for forgiveness at the end I get away with it? Even though he gave me the choice to ignore him until the last minute to begin with? and wont punish me even though I deserve it under his justice system?

utterly ludicrous notion.

So to clarify this thread so far.

world created in 7 days as written in bible= metaphor.

man dies, comes back to life and flies back to Krypton or wherever, as also written in same book= literal truth.

Of course, it all makes sense now!*

*still doesnt make sense

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fairness I think the phrase "consistent with" is adding confusion here. When I hear "consistent with" I think "overlapping and not contradicting", not "completely separate". Pointing out that a book that does not attempt to make any kind of scientific claim does not contradict science is kind of redundant tbh. How could it possibly contradict science, regardless of what it said, if it's not saying anything related to science

That's really your problem then. "Consistent with" doesn't imply that subject matter overlaps. Two terms are consistent that can both be true at the same time.

Zillah

FionnMatthew wrote: »

He said that if Genesis is properly interpreted as a metaphorical work, which it probably is, it is consistent with scientific consensus on the origins of the universe.

I'd take one step back there though. If it's metaphorical, it could be consistent with scientific consensus. Metaphor being open ended. We could read it as a metaphor for the origin of the universe as described by cosmologists.

That's fine. Then it's not only consistent, it's the same, albeit expressed a different way.

Another possibility is that it is mostly about the origin of the universe as science tells us it was, but contains certain claims which are not falsified by scientific evidence or contradicted by theory, but which are unnecessary to a scientific cosmology proper. In this case, it is still consistent with scientific consensus, although rather less elegant a story.

Another possibility is that it is not a metaphor for cosmological matters at all, and instead for something else, having nothing to do with cosmology. In this case it would also be consistent with scientific claims, so long as the story it does tell does not contradict laws of physics or known historical fact.

But then, metaphor is open to interpretation. So everyone is going to have their arguments about what it means. Some of those interpretations may not be consistent with scientific consensus.

Stop that.

Ush1

krudler wrote: »

So to clarify this thread so far.

world created in 7 days as written in bible= metaphor.

man dies, comes back to life and flies back to Krypton or wherever, as also written in same book= literal truth.

Of course, it all makes sense now!*

*still doesnt make sense

Yes but that zombie man is totally compatible with science somehow, turns out there is no problem biologically with someone coming back from the dead.

Good to know really.

Zillah wrote: »

Stop that.

deleted the duplicates. for about half an hour there, i would post, and the post would say it had posted, then it would disappear. i would refresh, scour the forum, but couldn't find my post, so i posted twice more. it also happened with my more recent post. the last page would only display the first 4 posts.

then it logged me out, and whenever i logged in, i'd get the "thank you for logging in" screen, after which i'd be presented with the "please log in" screen again. repeat. nothing.

seems fixed now though.

Lemegeton

J C wrote: »

Hell ... is ... how do you say it ... HELL !!!
... and there is no fun in sin ... just misery, pain and death!!

the pre-marital and therefore sinful sex i had with my girlfriend last night was ****ing awesome. :P:P:P it felt the exact opposite of misery, pain and death.

you make me sick. you claim that when a beautiful pure amazing baby is born it is already a sinner because two people listened to talking snake a couple of thousand years ago. and then that child can only be saved by spending their entire life worshipping a being and by living exactly how that being wants them to live.
its a load of horse****. how can you them claim your sky wizard wants us to have free will. its like someone putting you in front of 2 doors and telling you to pick one and you have free will as to which you choose but then tells you if you dont pick door number 1 then you are evil and will spend eternity in eternal agony in the fires of hell.

Zombrex

FionnMatthew wrote: »

He said that if Genesis is properly interpreted as a metaphorical work, which it probably is, it is consistent with scientific consensus on the origins of the universe.

If Star Wars is interpreted as stuff-that-never-happened it is consistent with the scientific consensus on the workings of the universe

Like Sam said this is rather redundant.

FionnMatthew wrote: »

He said that if Genesis is properly interpreted as a metaphorical work, which it probably is, it is consistent with scientific consensus on the origins of the universe.

I'd take one step back there though. If it's metaphorical, it could be consistent with scientific consensus. Metaphor being open ended. We could read it as a metaphor for the origin of the universe as described by cosmologists.

That's fine. Then it's not only consistent, it's the same, albeit expressed a different way.

Another possibility is that it is mostly about the origin of the universe as science tells us it was, but contains certain claims which are not falsified by scientific evidence or contradicted by theory, but which are unnecessary to a scientific cosmology proper. In this case, it is still consistent with scientific consensus, although rather less elegant a story.

Another possibility is that it is not a metaphor for cosmological matters at all, and instead for something else, having nothing to do with cosmology. In this case it would also be consistent with scientific claims, so long as the story it does tell does not contradict laws of physics or known historical fact.

But then, metaphor is open to interpretation. So everyone is going to have their arguments about what it means. Some of those interpretations may not be consistent with scientific consensus.

OR.....it could be the primitive scribblings of backwards nomads who had no idea how the universe was created and so made up a story.......Yeah that's probably it

J C wrote:

fionnmatthew wrote:

J C wrote:

fionnmatthew wrote:

J C wrote:

Either it is wrong or it is right ... if it is wrong lets all decently join the A & A ... or some other faith that has a modicum of truth to it

What would it take to convince you it was wrong? The smoking gun?

... as far as I see all of the evidence and logic stacks up in favour of the Genesis account!!!

You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.

I did ... just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I didn't answer your question.

You did not answer the question. You prevaricated. You avoided answering the question.

An answer to my question would look like,

"The only thing that would convince me Genesis was false is God telling me it is false"

"I would be convinced Genesis was wrong if we found incontrovertible fossil evidence of transitional species."

or even

"It is impossible for there ever to be any evidence that would convince me that Genesis is wrong."

As in, an answer that says what sort of evidence, if any, would convince you Genesis was wrong. I don't have to like it, but it does have to be an actual answer to the question I asked, which was, just to make it really really clear:

FIONNMATTHEW wrote:

WHAT SORT OF EVIDENCE WOULD CONVINCE YOU THE ACCOUNT IN GENESIS IS FALSE?

Now please answer the question, and stop being a git.

Wicknight wrote: »

If Star Wars is interpreted as stuff-that-never-happened it is consistent with the scientific consensus on the workings of the universe

Yes.

Like Sam said this is rather redundant.

At least for the purposes of determining what happened using Star Wars.

But it pays to be clear about what "consistent with" means.

PDN claims that a metaphorical Genesis and scientific cosmology are consistent. That may be true. Fine. I'm not sure it amounts to much, though.

Something I wonder is would religious people be so quick to insist that genesis is meant to be a metaphor if scientists were finding that it actually was consistent with* what happened. somehow I doubt they'd forego the opportunity to say that their 4000 year old book got it right.

*consistent with meaning 'in agreement with each other', not 'completely separate because one is being interpreted as stuff that never happened'

Sam Vimes wrote: »

OR.....it could be the primitive scribblings of backwards nomads who had no idea how the universe was created and so made up a story.......Yeah that's probably it

I don't think it's likely that they meant it literally, just speaking from an acquaintance with origin myths. The nature of ancient myth is very different to the literalness of religious doctrines in the present day, and the distinction between allegorical and literal really isn't as clear in ancient civilizations and ways of thinking. Creation was so far beyond people's ability to know that, yes, they made up a story, but they wouldn't have had any illusions that that story was literally true - it would have been understood that it was figurative.

Just to go a bit further, there wasn't a clear distinction between history and rumour either, and often Roman authors contemporaneous with the gospels would claim that the purpose of their history is to instill morals, and not necessarily to be as accurate as possible. There was sort of an understanding in Roman history that the report of more factual matter at the more recent end of the scale could segue smoothly, as it backdated, into what was more widely accepted as figurative and mythic material. Embellishment and reconstruction of missing records from imagination wasn't seen as anathema to history.

So, bearing in mind the woolly nature of any ancient distinction between factual report, biography, history, rumour and legend, myth and fantasy, it's rather difficult to safely look on the subject matter of the gospels, which apparently purport to be more 'literal,' as much more than historical fiction.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Something I wonder is would religious people be so quick to insist that genesis is meant to be a metaphor if scientists were finding that it actually was consistent with* what happened. somehow I doubt they'd forego the opportunity to say that their 4000 year old book got it right.

*consistent with meaning 'in agreement with each other', not 'completely separate because one is being interpreted as stuff that never happened'

That's a pretty redundant question.

You could ask the same question of yourself as regards Tolkien's Silmarrilion, which, my guess is, nobody here believes to be literally true.

The answer really has no bearing on this discussion. The natural reaction would be, "hey, what do ya know?"

Unless you're saying that no Christian scholar has ever claimed Genesis is "metaphorical" except because of evidentiary challenges from science. Which is false; catholic theology was doing it centuries upon centuries ago; see PDN's comments on the church fathers.

Ghost Buster

robindch wrote: »

Ghost -- calm down, please.

Im sorry. The study of Klingon may have some merit. Amongst a billion galaxy's with even more billions of stars there may well be a Klingon language.:o

FionnMatthew wrote: »

That's a pretty stupid question.

You could ask the same question of yourself as regards Tolkien's Silmarrilion, which, my guess is, nobody here believes to be literally true.

The answer really has no bearing on this discussion. The natural reaction would be, "hey, what do ya know?"

I really don't see the stupidity of the question tbh. Do you honestly think that not a single person would go from the "metaphorical" camp to the "literal" one if it started to look like it might actually be right? What you say about the "woolly nature" of ancient mythology is right so wouldn't it be a massive indicator that christianity is true if in among all this woolly made up stuff from the time there was an accurate description of how the universe originated?

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Unless you're saying that no Christian scholar has ever claimed Genesis is "metaphorical" except because of evidentiary challenges from science.

No, I'm not saying that

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes but that zombie man is totally compatible with science somehow, turns out there is no problem biologically with someone coming back from the dead.

Good to know really.

Yup, its great to get that cleared up, phew.

The bible, a book of fairytales that are reality when it suits its believers, but back to fairytales when they are challenged as being true, well some of them anyway.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I really don't see the stupidity of the question tbh. Do you honestly think that not a single person would go from the "metaphorical" camp to the "literal" one if it started to look like it might actually be right? What you say about the "woolly nature" of ancient mythology is right so wouldn't it be a massive indicator that christianity is true if in among all this woolly made up stuff from the time there was an accurate description of how the universe originated?

If scientific evidence vindicated a Biblical account, we'd all have to go to the literal camp.

FionnMatthew wrote: »

If scientific evidence vindicated a Biblical account, we'd all have to go to the literal camp.

Ah but the reasoning I always see for why genesis should be interpreted metaphorically is based on the structure of the prose and the like. Basically I've never seen an argument that would become any less valid if the story turned out to be accurate. If something was meant to be read as a metaphor then it's meant to be read as a metaphor whether it turns out to be accurate or not. It turning out to be accurate should not make anyone change their position on whether it was meant to be metaphorical or not, but we both know it would.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

OR.....it could be the primitive scribblings of backwards nomads who had no idea how the universe was created and so made up a story.......Yeah that's probably it

no no no you dont get it clearly, they were METAPHORS for one day when man actually did understand more of the world and universe and then it could be seen as such, they were actually quite ingenious that way, foolproofing a book 2000 years before it would be argued.

Ush1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Something I wonder is would religious people be so quick to insist that genesis is meant to be a metaphor if scientists were finding that it actually was consistent with* what happened. somehow I doubt they'd forego the opportunity to say that their 4000 year old book got it right.

*consistent with meaning 'in agreement with each other', not 'completely separate because one is being interpreted as stuff that never happened'

Dawkins postulated the finding of DNA evidence which actually showed that Jesus did not have a biological father and the idea that the religious would dismiss it as science not applying to them.

You could bet your bottom dollar they would trumpet such findings from skyscrapers.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

Because human culture does not exist in a vacuum. Every culture throughout history has its own ways of communicating truths. We should not be so arrogant as to expect all communication to be geared to 21st Century western prejudices.

That's fine, that's culture.
But this is God, I imagine there were ways of being transcendent i.e forming a structure based on current culture but one that also stands the test of time and avoids confusion and misinterpretation. The problem here is that you insist that the 'bible is what it is' at it's given place in time. That there is no point in questioning the 'whys' of a supreme being (for obvious reason!) and that receiving the message second hand from history was his intention all long. This is a belief that requires faith, faith that a supreme being set events into motion in a chosen way. The problem with this that the outcome of this chosen way appears chaotic to a lot of us.
Believers of course will say that the situation is not up for debate; this is his will and it would ignorant of us to expect to know better, again the whole situation becomes a matter of faith.

PDN wrote:

You fundamentally misunderstand the point of the Bible. It is not a legal document written to purely impart information.

It appears somewhat disingenuous on your part to state that if it (the bible) imparted exact information it would be reduced to a legal document. There is a middle ground; which was of course my point.

PDN wrote:

Christianity is about a relationship with God. And, as with all relationships, we use songs, poetry and stories to build our relationships. This is why most non-western cultures use stories and art to communicate truth rather than plain prose. I appreciate that concept may be difficult to understand to those wedded to ideas of western superiority and cultural imperialism. It probably also causes problems for those who have difficulty in sustaining lasting relationships in life.

I don't know what you mean here exactly, you seem to be suggesting that becasue I do not accept that methaphor and parable are the the way a supreme being is communicating with me that there is a liklihood that I may have problems sustaining any kind of relationship? I wonder if you can appreciate that in not forming a relationship with, what I believe to be a ficticious entity, that this is actually a benefit for me?

PDN wrote:

Like most things in life, if the truth is important to you then you seek for it. Sorry if thats upsetting for those who prefer a cut and dried ideology.

I don't understand how any process of seeking out the truth would end in the discovery of a Christian God. It seems incredibly fortuitous that the Christian truth seekers should find exactly what it is they were looking for and that the rest of us come up empty.
If you believe that you have found the truth amoungst texts and scrolls which outlay varying messages from an ancient superstitious time then so be it.
One must feel sorry for all those people who were born into other religions who will spend their lives seeking the truth, indeed it must cause you pause for thought on occasion that there are others out there who are as confident (if not more confident) than you that they too have found the truth?