If Genesis is Metaphorical, what's the metaphor?

I've often heard of people claiming that Genesis is not to be taken literal and that it is to be taken as allegorical, metaphorical, or whatever you want to call it. If this is indeed the case, what exactly is the metaphor?In large part, Genesis is written in a historical atmosphere. It is not poetical like the Psalms, and while it may use literary device it is not written in that sort of setting.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 02-21-2005 21:50 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum. I have taken the liberty of deleting a minor comment to admins from the original post. Yes, this is adequately focused. Thanks for a potentially interesting topic.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 02-21-2005 21:51 AM

Well, Genesis is not one story or even written by one author. It has several different stories and often several several versions of the same story. That means there is not one tale but rather an anthology.So I guess the next question is which of the stories in Genesis wouold you like to discuss first?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi, Burk, dunno about a metaphor, but I always thought Genesis was a result of the author thinking, 'If I get them to swallow this, I am home-and-hosed with the rest of the book'.

Jar
Lets start with the creation account

Okay. There are two totally different accounts in Genesis. Is it okay if at least initially we just kinda lump the two together and try to address them as though they were one? Then, after we get that out of the way perhaps we can return and look at them seperately to see what different tales they are telling and what led to their creation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would be interested to see a single model that adequately deals with the two stories within the one framework.My own view is that they are radically different; both in literary style, in the kinds of indirect "symbolic" (for want of a better word) associations intended by the writer, and in the intended theological lessons. This is a good reason for having them both! They are (IMO) dealing with quite different subjects, and so both are needed.In my opinion, neither one is fundamentally about explaining origins in time. Both use a creation account as a literary device to consider some specific theological themes.Very roughly... the first creation account is a form of poetry, or at least highly stylized prose, that is primarily aimed at developing and defending monotheism in contrast to polytheism.The second creation account is more a form of parable or legend, with a strong allegorical aspect not present in the first account. Tree of life? Tree of knowledge? The author could hardly be more explicit in invoking allegory if he tried! The primary teaching focus here, I suggest, is the problem of evil and moral responsibility.Cheers -- Sylas

no, genesis is not written in a historical style. compare it to kings or chronicles. those are traditional hebrew (philosophical) histories.genesis is something else: a collection of tales.we can observe that it's a collection by noting different styles, different names for god, and conflicts. for instance we know that genesis 1:1-2:4 and genesis 2:4-3:1 are two separate accounts. it's also pretty obvious to pick out where the noah story is broken.i'll give you a specific example of what genesis is. have you heard the story of george washinton cutting down the cherry tree? chucking the silver dollar across the delaware? benjamin franklin getting electrocuted with a kite? suppose i were collect a bunch of stories about our founding fathers. we all know them, and most of us know that most of the stories aren't even true. but they ARE a part of culture. and we still tell them to kids, even after knowing they're ficticious.now if i lived in jerusalem in 600 bc and collected stories about the founding fathers of judah and israel, i'd have genesis. the only bits that could even be construed as historical are the genealogies, and those are probably largely tradition and nothing else.as for genesis being metaphorical, sometimes it is. you can read genesis 2/3 as the birth of conciousness. you can read the tower of babel as an attack on nebuchadnezzar. and the stories probably ARE about those things to some degree. but the stories are mostly VERY straightforward. they usually have a point, and it'll usually even say what the point is.genesis 2 is about the origin of marriage: "and that is why a man leaves his parents and cleaves to a woman..." etc. a lot of the stories in the torah are etiologies: origin myths. the reasons why we do thing we already do.genesis 3 is full of etiologies. it tells why snakes have no legs and smell with their tongues, it tells why the jews lived in a desert, and it tells why women have a painful childbirth (and experience emotional pain raising children as well).most people who say "genesis is metaphorical" are saying that because they have to blur the lines a little to fit their pseudo-belief in the bible with their belief in evolution. genesis does not match the real world, kids. and more importantly, it was never meant to.

Of course there are parts of The Book of Genesis that are historically plausible, it isn't entirely unhistorical.Brian.

I don't believe you can find a single way to deal with the two Genesis stories as one when you look at the details. However, it's likely that many reading this thread have always approached Genesis as one single consistent tale without even considering that it is a compilation.The issue of two mutually exclusive tales of Creation in Genesis will be new to them and somewhat disturbing. For that reason, I wonder if the two could be considered one in a very loose framework to examine the general question of Creation Stories in Society?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Call me a little slow but could you, just for explanantions sake, give us an overview if what those two genesis stories are?It's not that I don't know them, I would just like to see how they are viewed in the current context of this thread.Thanks.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

I'll leave how to approach the creation stroy(s) up to the board. For me personally, there is one author and a single creation story in Gen 1 supported/extended (the word I'd like to use escapes me for now, but these will have to do) in Gen 2. When Gen 2 is read in the context of Gen 1 there really isn't a large difference in my opinion. However, that's a topic for another thread. For now, I'd simply like to stay on what exactly the metaphor, if there is a metaphor, the creation story(s) represent.

The stories were written down over two and a half millenia ago; the stories probably developed over a long time period before that. Long, long ago in a basically forgotten culture. Although some of the symbolism and intent may be obvious, the exact meanings of much would have been forgotten long ago.

The later Genesis Creation story is actually the earlier. It is from a time when the big question was trying to define what differenciates mankind from the other animals? It deals with man's place in relation to the animals, with the nature of good and evil and how come we screw up, with what happens when when we do screw up.The later tale (actually the one that comes first in Genesis) is from an entirely different voice and deals with a whole different subject. The story in Genesis 1 is aimed more towards building the franchise. It's from a much later period and is more involved in distinguishing Judaism from other competing local religions.Both use the metaphor of creation as a tool. Both borrow heavily from other traditions and cultures. Neither was ever meant to be a literal description of creation. That was simply the literary device used to deliver other messages.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As far as I know, Genesis isn't metaphorical, simply misunderstood and underappreciated. True one can establish metaphorical as well as moral parallels but to state that it is a metaphor in itself is taking the book in the wrong direction.Genesis is part of the pentatauch, ascribed to Moses. Naturally he didn't recieve what is in it just through divine inspiration. Moses as we all know was brought up in Egypt, and by Egyptian standards was what we would call a highly respected scholar.He was taught by the best that Egypt had to offer. As for his Hebrew heritage, he had forty years in the desert to acquaint himself with Hebrew custom and lore. This is a man who spent most of his life learning in one way or another.Now, my question is what is divine inspiration?As the word states, it is inspiration that is human in outlook but with divine guidance.Moses may have borrowed similar and even opposing stories from a series of different sources, whether they be Hebrew, Egyptian, Cimmerian, Hittite, Babylonian or Persian.It doesn't matter that these stories, many of which survive to the present day, were borrowed by Moses to compose the Pentatauch (specifically Genesis), what is important is that he was guided in the choices he made by Gods divine inspiration.As has been referenced here, many of these stories are what we call Morally instructive stories or parables but even we know that legends are most times based on a kernel of truth. Why should it be surprising that God influenced Moses choice not only for metaphorical, symbolistic value but for factual accounts as well?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.