Re; Genesis as Metaphor

[Chad32]

I kind of had that view growing up. I never tried to say that evolution was wrong. It's not like the idea of lifeforms changing over time disproved god or whatever, and I always accepted it. I know there are smart religious people who know how the world goes around. I'm just an atheist because I don't like Yahweh, and the more I learn about the origins of biblical stories, the more it sounds like just another mythology on par with Zeus, Odin, Osiris, and such.

[Tonus]

I think that the concept of the original sin may be why there are still so many who take Genesis as a literal telling of actual events. Otherwise the implications make for even more questions and more interpretations and more complicated explanations to fill the new gaps in the new scenarios and make them compatible with the rest of the Bible.

I think that without the Adam/Eve/Serpent scenario you don't have a clear plot point where the need for a redeemer is outlined and promised by god. This would, IMO, completely sever the NT from the OT, as it seems to me that the only real thread that keeps them together is the idea that mankind was lost without the redemptive sacrifice of a promised messiah.

[Chad32]

Yeah, The Adam and Eve story is probably the most important when it comes to christianity, since it centers around someone needing to die for our sins. Still, it's a hard story to take literally. It's also hard to accept it as just that I deserve punishment for something I had nothing to do with.

Some people like to think the apple was sex, though the need for sex is what drives any species to survive. That seems to make less sense than the two becoming more knowledgeable and less child-like.

[Tonus]

I agree that it works much better metaphorically, primarily because it is written that way; nearly everything in the story is a symbol of some sort, from the people to the props to the actions they take. Taken literally, the story becomes awkward and has too many plot holes to be acceptable as something that actually took place.

But the redemption promise is very specific, and the story is regarded as literal in the NT. Paul explains that Eve was deceived, not Adam. Paul tells us that just as sin was introduced to the world through the actions of one man, redemption would be delivered through the actions of one, er... god-as-man. And so on. It has to be literal, doesn't it? Was Paul drawing the metaphor out even farther, or was he ignorant of the true story? So much for divine inspiration, then.

[Chad32]

I heard once that it's a metaphor for the agricultural revolution.

[Minimalist]

"You're not meant to take it literally" they will laugh,

Correct....it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I believe that the OP may have been referring to my exchange with Will Wheeton earlier this morning.

I wasn't actually trying to infer any sort of correct way to read genesis, I was merely pointing out that him interpreting the genesis story through his own interpretation was an affront to effectively every other Christian who also uses non-/literal interpretations for their own personal meaning.

Naturally this was lost on him, but that's mainly because he was a hypocrite in that he couldn't agree that any other interpretation of the genesis myth was equally as valid as his as none are backed by any sort of evidence (be they literal or non-literal).

If it was not about my exchange, please disregard

---

Christians I've met over here (UK) don't really take much of the bible literally.
"You're not meant to take it literally" they will laugh, when say you ask about Hell.
"How you decide which parts are literal?" you may ask.
"It's obvious" will be the reply.

The advice seems to be "Read the Gospels first, they're the good bits". They don't seem to want you to start at Genesis, even though this is the normal way to read a book.

Aka, cherry picking. Always good for a laugh.

[Chad32]

Pretty much everyone in the more civilized places have to cherry pick. You can't keep slaves and drown people for trying to lead people away from christ. Jesus says it's better to tie someone to a millstone and throw them into the river than let them lead someone astray, but you tell that to a judge in the US after you drowned a bunch of people, and you'll go to prison.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Pretty much everyone in the more civilized places have to cherry pick. You can't keep slaves and drown people for trying to lead people away from christ. Jesus says it's better to tie someone to a millstone and throw them into the river than let them lead someone astray, but you tell that to a judge in the US after you drowned a bunch of people, and you'll go to prison.

I agree, but that's entirely their problem, not ours. If they choose to take any of their biblical text literally, then they need to define the distinction between the literal and non-literal and, further, explain why we should give a shit about any of it.

Case in point, wheat this morning indicated that the bible shows the universe is 13.7b~ years old, despite the fact it doesn't anywhere, especially not in Genesis. It effectively requires him to make stuff up by using contemporary reasoning and bolting it onto the original claim (that the universe was created in 6 days). That's fine, but he didn't understand when we retorted that his interpretation is no more valid than the literalist perspective, which effectively renders his apologist argument moot.

[Minimalist]

So...some people reject the idea of talking snakes and world covering floods... but then profess to accept the idea of a dead jew coming back to life.

Why should we take any of you seriously?