How was the sun created on the fourth day?

[CleanShavenJesus]

So the rest of it is literal, but the part that doesn't make any sense is metaphorical. How convienent.

Look, I'm not a literalist. I'm just saying, more and more of the Bible is taken metaphorically by Christians as time goes on. Probably because it's been proven that the majority of the Bible could never even have happened. I wonder if the whole thing will be metaphorical in 50 years?

Is it wrong to believe our hermeneutics can get better as time goes on?

No, that just means people are realizing how false the "Word of God" is as time goes on.

Is it wrong to take a verse and try to read it in the genre we believe it was supposed to be? This isn't concordism. Why on earth would anyone take a poetic/metaphorical verse, and try to read it as a science book?

But who is it up to to say that certain parts are metaphorical and some are not? You? Why isn't the story of Jesus metaphorical? It doesn't make any actual sense, but he's a good role model. Maybe it's a fictional prose work to teach people to be kinder to one another. He didn't even exist.

I mean, do you really believe if the author of Genesis' intent was to write about the mechanics of creation, he would have made the mistake of saying God created light on the first day before He created the sun or the stars on the fourth day?

I believe he was uneducated in terms of astrology (like everyone in the time period in which he lived), and started a fictional story that would go on to control the minds of people for thousands of years. Because nobody knew, yet, that Genesis 1 was impossible bullshit.

Meanwhile, an allegorical interpretation fits perfectly in the hermeneutics and logical consistency of Genesis 1.

No, it doesn't. What cato said.

[Pandas United]

Is it wrong to believe our hermeneutics can get better as time goes on?

No, that just means people are realizing how false the "Word of God" is as time goes on.

Is it wrong to take a verse and try to read it in the genre we believe it was supposed to be? This isn't concordism. Why on earth would anyone take a poetic/metaphorical verse, and try to read it as a science book?

But who is it up to to say that certain parts are metaphorical and some are not? You? Why isn't the story of Jesus metaphorical? It doesn't make any actual sense, but he's a good role model. Maybe it's a fictional prose work to teach people to be kinder to one another. He didn't even exist.

I mean, do you really believe if the author of Genesis' intent was to write about the mechanics of creation, he would have made the mistake of saying God created light on the first day before He created the sun or the stars on the fourth day?

I believe he was uneducated in terms of astrology (like everyone in the time period in which he lived), and started a fictional story that would go on to control the minds of people for thousands of years. Because nobody knew, yet, that Genesis 1 was impossible bullshit.

Meanwhile, an allegorical interpretation fits perfectly in the hermeneutics and logical consistency of Genesis 1.

No, it doesn't. What cato said.

I'd appreciate it if you responded to my whole post, CSJ. Knit-picking certain parts seems like extremely dishonest dialogue.

You said it's not allowed for our hermeneutics to get better. But I think this is just you trying to do anything to not allow any room for leeway in interpretation. Like I said, this is concordism. Our interpretation of what scripture is really saying should naturally get better as time goes on.

Who is it up to to determine if a verse is metaphorical or not? The writing determines it. One can tell whether a verse is being poetic and trying to portray an allegorical underlining meaning, or if the writer is trying to write something that is literal historical narrative. Trying to have this fundamentalistic approach to scripture is horribly flawed. Why isn't the story of Jesus metaphorical? Because it obviously a historical account for Jesus' life. Anyone that reads it can tell.

And no, your objection to the writers "ignorance" is not a legitimate objection. They knew where light came from. They weren't blind.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I'd appreciate it if you responded to my whole post, CSJ. Knit-picking certain parts seems like extremely dishonest dialogue.

I take out the redundant parts.

You said it's not allowed for our hermeneutics to get better.

Where did I do that?

Who is it up to to determine if a verse is metaphorical or not? The writing determines it. One can tell whether a verse is being poetic and trying to portray an allegorical underlining meaning, or if the writer is trying to write something that is literal historical narrative. Trying to have this fundamentalistic approach to scripture is horribly flawed. Why isn't the story of Jesus metaphorical? Because it obviously a historical account for Jesus' life. Anyone that reads it can tell.

Oh, yes. Obviously. You can just tell these things, right? Is that why there are hundreds of sects of Christianity, all divided by how they interpret the Bible? I guess it's not that obvious what's metaphorical and what isn't. Also, there's no proof the so-called historical account of Jesus is true. Hell, you don't know if Jesus even existed. The story of Jesus Christ is written like a fictional story. Jesus is the main character. Is the story of Harry Potter real too? It's written awfully similar to an historical account.

And no, your objection to the writers "ignorance" is not a legitimate objection. They knew where light came from. They weren't blind.

What? Of course it's a legitimate objection. They thought the Sun revolved around the earth, dammit. When did I say they didn't know what the sun was? I'll tell you this, they didn't understand astrology. Period. Their ignorance is the primary reason Genesis was written. Because they had no earthly clue how the hell they got there. So they made up some crap, and that held people over for a while.

[Pandas United]

I take out the redundant parts.

Sorry, if you can't respectfully answer my entire post, it shows me that it's not worth my time to engage in dialogue with you. Not to mention the tautological nature of your last two posts.

Cheers

[Ben Davis]

---

Hi Pandas, sorry to press you on a derail but I have to point out that the bible was always meant to be taken literally. Why do you feel that you are able to reinterpret the bible in such a way?

---

The Bible was always meant to be taken literally? Really? So when Jesus said in John 10:7-9- "So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

We should interpret that as in Jesus is a literal door right? He is literally composed of wood, hinges and a knob or latch, right?

Or in Isaiah 59:1- "Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear." Isaiah is saying that God literally has limbs; God is composed of arms, ears and other physical attributes? Well that seems awfully anthropomorphic.

In short, no. The Bible contains several different styles of writing. Fundamentalistic approaches to scripture of purely literalistic reading is horrible hermeneutics.

Apologies, I was unclear and mis-spoke so I'll correct my question. The creation story in Genesis was meant to be taken literally. On that basis, why do you feel that you are able to reinterpret the bible in such a way?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

How was the Sun created on the fourth day if the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day? Four days wouldn't pass without the Sun.

I had read the Bible for decades and never thought of this, to be perfectly frank.

Uh, God can make light for twelve hours then dark for twelve hours with or without the sun. Duh.

This is why I (and I suspect many others) find these kind of 'debates' extremely tiring. It's because when a corner is reached and the logic of the believer falls short its automatically trumped by magic.

Its like the word "duh" just wipes away the whole debate because obviously magic is the answer.

It's tiring, so ill agree, it's all magic, and all the holes in the reasoning can be ignored because one can imagine it away with the swish of a wand.

[Doubting Thomas]

Yeah, that's why you can never win an argument with theists. They always play the magic card for a trump. I personally consider the argument won if they have to resort to that.

[Cato]

I take out the redundant parts.

Sorry, if you can't respectfully answer my entire post, it shows me that it's not worth my time to engage in dialogue with you. Not to mention the tautological nature of your last two posts.

Cheers

Pathetic. This is like walking into a foyer and simultaneuously dropping your wallet and shitting on the floor. People will obviously tell you to clean up your shit without mentioning the wallet. Your reaction to this is to cover your ears and proclaim that you won't clean up the shit until somebody addresses the dropped wallet.

[Tonus]

Yeah, that's why you can never win an argument with theists. They always play the magic card for a trump. I personally consider the argument won if they have to resort to that.

There are two fall-back positions that effectively end any argument. One is "god can do anything" and the other is "you cannot judge god" (often stated as "who are you to say that god can't do that?"). Which is just another way of saying "god did it, and you can't prove he didn't."

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yeah, that's why you can never win an argument with theists. They always play the magic card for a trump. I personally consider the argument won if they have to resort to that.

There are two fall-back positions that effectively end any argument. One is "god can do anything" and the other is "you cannot judge god" (often stated as "who are you to say that god can't do that?"). Which is just another way of saying "god did it, and you can't prove he didn't."

I always enjoy "you can't know god's will [or a similar facet]", despite the fact that that statement precludes that idea because you've already made a claim of knowledge about god in the same statement. I know not all theist do this, but a few I've come across on the Internet who propose this idea have the retort to right over their heads. Oh well, can't win 'em all I guess.