If Genesis is Metaphorical, what's the metaphor?

please define the other factors. because brian has already ruled out factuality. so what if your rhyme happens to be true, in some respect? i'm not convinced they're different.

i see not imitation. i see several references to real places and events. but that's a different matter. and since genesis was written several hundred years after those events, i think your question has been answered. i am utterly convinced that god has nothing to do with the bible. however, i am unable to rule out satan's role, as the key test of MY faith has been understanding the bible.

When I say style is not the sole arbitrator, I am permitting that it might be a factor, however, I am not personally convinced that literary style has to result to making something unhistorical or unscientific.For example: American Pie and Vincent, by Don McLean.I decline to define the other factors, I am testing your thread, not proposing my own.When people ask if the Bible is historical, I don’t believe that they’re asking if it was written in some specific literary style.Let’s consider at a non-written example. Say we find a cave of prehistoric drawings. Even with highly stylistic art, certain things may be learned, types of animals know to them, perhaps dress, and other aspects of their lives.Your premise in message 8 would seem to be that Genesis is not written in a historic style. I would suggest that chronological stories are a historic style (this happened, then this happened, and oh wait, before this happened, I just remembered this other thing did).From message 47. Why must date keeping be a requirement for a history?I am not sure I follow, are you saying that in order for something to be historical it has to have no mistakes of a certain type or types?If a child tells a parent of his play day and it included some interspersed fantastical elements about his imaginary friend would the account be non-historic?Without a doubt there is useful history in Genesis, though perhaps not of the sort most would be looking for.

ok. let's take american pie.clearly a song, not trying to be history. now suppose it was really written about wolfgang amadeus mozart. not only would it be 400 years out of date, but it would be completely anachronistic. there wasn't even an america then, for it to be called american pie, and mozart was from the wrong country.this is the problem we have with genesis. it's at least 600 years out of date, full of anachronisms, and generally records the events with improper national origins. yes, but if they were drawn by 18th century frenchmen playing a joke, what would we learn from that?of course, we can learn something fro, anything. and just about anything can have historical value to it. but that does not make it a history. and being a history does not make it history. ask a high school history teacher ifyou really have to remember the dates for the test.the historical style for the period and region generally has to do with the reigns of kings:

quote:

---

1Ki 14:25 And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, [that] Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem:

---

that's a date marker. it's not as good as a definitive calendar, and it sometimes takes a little while to figure when something occured, but that is how almost every culture in the region wrote their histories at the time.is there any such verse in genesis?order does not dictate history. every story has order. no, but being filled with mistakes, and more importantly contradictions, is a good indication that historical accuracy was not the primary goal.for instance, in the recent movie "king arthur" which was billed as striving for historical accuracy, it showed arthur and his knights riding into battle on horses. they could do this because they had stirrups. stirrups were not invented until several hundred years after the life of the real arthur, and so high ranking roman soldiers would ride to the battle on their horses, but get off to fight. this was actually THE deciding factor at the battle of hastings in 1066. had the anglo-saxons had knowledge of stirrups, they might not have lost to the norman invaders. (this is actually the origin of tolkien's rohirim, btw)minor faux pas. but that's ok. they wanted to make a good movie, and nobody really cared. but my mother, with a masters in classic roman and greek literature, caught it, even if no one else did.now compare that to le morte d'arthur and other "knight in shining armor" stories of arthur. how historical do you think those are? written after the fact, with absolutely no basis in the real history?now, what about genesis, and camels? it tells us a lot about the society that collected it and wrote it, but very very little about the time it's set in.

quote:

---

Why can't we embrace the divine on a current daily practicality much as the people may have actually done way back when?

---

because with our current knowledge he sounds made-up and your christian breathen can't burn me to death for saying so.

Who is the "our" group that you are referring to?

It would be interesting, to me at least, to know what kind of faith you actually have, considering that it isn't in the classical image that we have of the God of the present day christian church.I'm curious to know how that perspective can change with the knowledge that you apparently have.This is not meant as criticism, just a request for clarification. As I am off-topic, (if you don't want to answer me on this thread) could you just refer me to a thread and message posted by you on this matter?

hmmmm.come to think of it. that's like saying shakespear didn't write everything we think he wrote just cause his name wasn't ever spelled the same. the language wasn't yet streamlined so it wouldn't be.hmm.

just because billions of people think that sadam hussein had something to do with september 11, should we treat such arguments as close to the truth?

so that's what her degree is in. jesus. she must be a pain to have around

addendum to arach's post.even ask your photo history prof if dates will be on the test. even in the history of art, a photograph could not POSSIBLY be taken in any other year than the one it was. art moves too quickly. so does time. world war one could not possibly have started any earlier than it did. just a year prior, there was a different kaiser in germany and bismark was still in office. adolph hitler could not possibly have been elected any later than he was. public opinion would have shifted left.dates are absolutely important.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-06-2005 00:26 AM

we so failed that exam. lol.and yes, that's what my mom's degree is in. classics. and yes, she is a pain to have around. but that's not really related to having a masters in classics.

the differences in the bible go a little beyond spelling. you know that, you were in the class with me.and besides, there is debate as to the authorship of shakespeare.

The song is also historical and biographical.Initially inspired by his memories of the death of Buddy Holly in 1959, ‘American Pie’ is autobiographical and presents an abstract story of Don McLean’s life from the mid 1950s until when he wrote the song in the late 1960s. It is almost entirely symbolised by the evolution of popular music over these years and represents a change from the lightness of the 1950s to the darkness of the late 1960s. This is also very symbolic of changing America during this era.http://www.don-mclean.com/americanpie.aspIn his 2000 'Starry Starry Night' video, Don says: I'm very proud of the song. It is biographical in nature and I don't think anyone has ever picked up on that. The song starts off with my memories of the death of Buddy Holly. But it moves on to describe America as I was seeing it and how I was fantasizing it might become, so it's part reality and part fantasy but I'm always in the song as a witness or as even the subject sometimes in some of the verses. Don McLean (from his website).Are you familiar with the concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources? American Pie is not a primary source of the death of Buddy Holly, it is however, as far as I know a primary source of how Don McLean felt about death at the time he wrote the song.Note: In my earlier post I titled one of his songs as, Vincent when the song is titled, Starry Starry Night. While Starry Starry Night is a song, it is also Don McLean’s biography of Vincent Van Gough.Some of the issues you raise, problems with anachronisms, intent of authors, when the stories were written down, and later redactions are questions that anyone should be asking about any materials they review.I do think you overrate intent. Yes, intent to defraud or mislead should be watched out for, however, the primary intent of a work need not be to convey history for it to do so. The primary intent of the history and discovery channels is not to convey the most correct factual information. I have my doubts that is even their secondary, or tertiary goal. The primary intent might be to get a good grade, sell lots of books, acquire fame, and on and on.Often things are not either or, and can have more than a single intent or purpose. I think if you read Brian’s posts again, you’ll see he’s conveying the argument that inaccuracies of the type found in Genesis can’t constitute proof that everything in Genesis must be said to be invalid.

yes i know. but it's something to think about.