Distinguishing biblical metaphor from reality

FionnMatthew wrote: »

If I say to you that "the eagle has landed," does that mean that no literal eagle could have literally landed?

I don't think you're getting the point. the phrase "the eagle has landed" referred to the moon landing, it was a metaphor and was never meant to mean a literal eagle. Genesis is interpreted in this way too, it is not meant to be taken literally.

If we found out that an actual eagle did land, that wouldn't change the fact Neil Armstrong's statement was referring to the moon lander, not this eagle that we've just discovered. Any literal eagle that there happened to be is a coincidence. In the same way, if genesis is a metaphor then any similarities with what actually happened can only be coincidence. Spending one's entire life defending the idea that genesis is a metaphor and not meant to taken literally and then trying to make out that the authors had some secret god given knowledge when it turns out that they happened to get some details right would make one a hypocrite.

robindch wrote: »

Erm, the Apollo 11 mission which landed the first humans on the moon used a lunar lander whose callsign was Eagle, hence the phrase "The Eagle has landed" and the insignia at the top of the mission's wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

Youngsters these days!

Yeah I know, I said the term referred to the moon landing, the lunar lander was called the eagle. FionnMatthew was talking about a literal eagle with feathers and stuff.

Old people these days :P

edit:Unless they flew to the moon on something like this:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think you're getting the point. the phrase "the eagle has landed" referred to the moon landing, it was a metaphor and was never meant to mean a literal eagle. Genesis is interpreted in this way too, it is not meant to be taken literally.

If we found out that an actual eagle did land, that wouldn't change the fact Neil Armstrong's statement was referring to the moon lander, not this eagle that we've just discovered. Any literal eagle that there happened to be is a coincidence. In the same way, if genesis is a metaphor then any similarities with what actually happened can only be coincidence. Spending one's entire life defending the idea that genesis is a metaphor and not meant to taken literally and then trying to make out that the authors had some secret god given knowledge when it turns out that they happened to get some details right would make one a hypocrite.

Nobody would have to make out that the scribe of Genesis had some secret divine knowledge. Yeah, maybe some Christians would do that. But that wouldn't make it so that every Christian who came to read Genesis literally after it was scientifically vindicated was a hypocrite. If some christians had the same reaction we do, which was, hey, what do you know, it's actually literally true, that wouldn't make them a hypocrite. they might even hold to the idea that, yes, we should now read Gen as literally true, because that's what science tells us we should, but we can still regard it as having intentionally been written as a metaphorical account of creation, by a scribe who couldn't possibly have known how perfectly and coincidentally he was writing the literal truth of the matter.

Especially if christians are, as you say, inclined to read Gen metaphorically simply because it just doesn't seem plausible next to modern day cosmology. That means that while they hold to some abstract and not necessarily falsifiable beliefs about remote deities, they are tractable to scientific authority where it counts, on falsifiable hypotheses, just like we are.

FionnMatthew wrote: »

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.

I can't believe you're still flogging this dead horse, Tolkein has never, EVER,
claimed the Simarilion or any part of his created history is the word of an
omniscient being. There is a glaring difference. The only suitable
comparison to Tolkein is that both books contain massive amounts of
fiction, but we don't claim Tolkein is scientifically accurate. If you believe
that there exists a ring that will make you invisible due to an evil force as
opposed to the physics techniques of bending light that are currently being
worked on then that's fine, but don't tell us that the existence of such a
ring does not contradict science because it does. It's physically impossible.
It would break all current known laws of physics.

"It's not supposed to be a scientific statement".

I know, but if we evaluate it as one we'll see that it contradicts science
ergo, while it is fantasy, it does contradict science. It's fine as a story but
arguing it doesn't contradict science is ridiculous when it clearly does.
Just like the bible, and my poem about aethers, it's not supposed to be a
scientific statement but that doesn't mean it doesn't contradict science.

Perpetual motion machines exist!

Any evidence?

No, it exists but I have no evidence. It's a metaphor for the possible...

Okay but you know those machines don't exist because they violate too
many laws of physics, from the conservation of energy to entropy...

But it's a metaphor!

I know, but it's a physical impossibility whether or not it's a metaphor
simply because it violates known laws of physics. You repeating the
assertion, ad nauseum, that it's a metaphor does not change the cold
hard facts of the situation.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I can't believe you're still flogging this dead horse, Tolkein has never, EVER,
claimed the Simarilion or any part of his created history is the word of an
omniscient being. There is a glaring difference. The only suitable
comparison to Tolkein is that both books contain massive amounts of
fiction, but we don't claim Tolkein is scientifically accurate. If you believe
that there exists a ring that will make you invisible due to an evil force as
opposed to the physics techniques of bending light that are currently being
worked on then that's fine, but don't tell us that the existence of such a
ring does not contradict science because it does. It's physically impossible.
It would break all current known laws of physics.

"It's not supposed to be a scientific statement".

I know, but if we evaluate it as one we'll see that it contradicts science
ergo, while it is fantasy, it does contradict science. It's fine as a story but
arguing it doesn't contradict science is ridiculous when it clearly does.
Just like the bible, and my poem about aethers, it's not supposed to be a
scientific statement but that doesn't mean it doesn't contradict science.

Perpetual motion exists!

Any evidence?

No, it exists but I have no evidence. It's a metaphor for the possible...

Okay but you know those machines don't exist because they violate too
many laws of physics, from the conservation of energy to entropy...

But it's a metaphor!

I know, but it's a physical impossibility whether or not it's a metaphor
simply because it violates known laws of physics. You repeating the
assertion, ad nauseum, that it's a metaphor does not change the cold
hard facts of the situation.

All I'm saying is that you could a) be a christian, b) believe Gen is a metaphor, c) have very good exegetical arguments for believing that, and d) still start reading Gen literally in the face of hypothetical recalcitrant scientific evidence, without being a hypocrite.

If Genesis is to be read metaphorically, it does not necessarily contradict scientific consensus. It might be read as a metaphor for the present day scientific cosmology. It could be a metaphor for anything.

For all you know, the scribe of Gen never claimed his work was the direct word of an omniscient being either. That might have been a retcon.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I don't see how "hypocrite" really applies, but if that's what you're arguing
then I see no problem with you arguing they are not hypocritical.

They will be incorrect if they argue there is no clash between science and
the bible when they say the statements, because they are taken as
metaphor, do not contradict science.

Science describes the natural world, when a statement describing the
natural world is incorrect then it contradicts scientific findings. Simple.
A poem about me filling with excitement is a metaphor, but I'm not
literally filling up with some material called excitement. I'm a pedantic
a∫∫hole if I start arguing that contradicts science but the cold hard fact
is that it does, but who the ƒuck cares? Similarly, who the ƒuck cares if
the bible contradicts science? It's a book about faith & if you're willing to
believe in god then where's the harm in dabbling in a load of other
ridiculous concepts? The trough is wide & plentiful, far be it from me to
deny them access but don't go off claiming x, y & z when the intention is
clearly to give your idea that little bit extra validation.

It doesn't matter what the intent is, I don't see how my perpetual motion
machine example does not explain this adequately. Regardless of whether
or not I say the machine exists through metaphor or a joke it simply is
incorrect to say it doesn't contradict science. It just can't happen.
The author didn't mean to contradict science, I'm sure, but he did.
He did... It's okay, he just needs to learn to be more cautious in the
future :pac:

Well, you're taking a very particular position in the philosophy of language. Which should really conclude this. Because you can take plenty of other positions on what to do with the semantics of metaphorical talk. One being that you can regard metaphorical, figurative or manifest-image talk as translatable into literal assertions made in a more scientifically regimented language.

But whatever way you want to look at that matter, it does reduce the disagreement to a disagreement about the semantics of metaphor. Which might excite me on another day, but... pfff.

i think he's long long gone, it looks like we're stuck in some kind of odd PDN free circle jerk at the moment.

I haven't checked all the posts, just did a quick search and I may have my christian facts very wrong.

But if the story of genesis and adam and eve is metaphorical, did jesus die for a metaphorical sin?

As far as I can understand it from what people have told me, people are supposedly born in sin because of the original sin by adam. That's why they need atonement by the death of jesus and to embrace him etc. etc.

Am I missing something?

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what of an ironic post considering you have consistently tip toed around the issue of whether the wider historical narrative in the early books are to be taken as literal history or not, particular the bits that conflict with actual historical data such as Noah or Moses.

It is easy to fudge the question of Adam and Eve (eg not the first humans, first humans with souls or some such interpretation) since a lot of Biblical scholars think the creation story is a poem. But the rest of Genesis and Exodus?

I see now why Tom Cruise chose to believe in the Thetans instead!
You gotta love the mental knots the authors of religious texts get into when they try to describe the motivations of a supposed omnipotent being!
Boiled down to its essential ‘truths’ religions are utterly hilarious, well done!