Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

[Stripe]

I sort of intuitively buck an the very idea of thinking that we can explain such things. I don't mind it in terms of the mental exercise and I understand that you'll never answer questions that you don't try to answer but at the end of the day, there may very well be an insufficient amount of information with which to determine any definitive answer to such questions.

For example, it is just as possible as any other explanation that God created the universe in the state we see it in now. The statements in the bible about God stretching out the heavens might give an indication about something that actually happened but it is also possible that such statements are actually be just poetic language. Whether He actually stretched anything out or not, there wouldn't have been much purpose in creating objects in the sky that we would never have any opportunity to see. God does say explicitly that the Sun, Moon and Stars are there for signs. A sign that you can't see is pretty worthless, right, so if that's what God had in mind then He would have created them in such a way that we can see them. Whether that creation is conducive to scientific scrutiny is a different question. It certainly seems to be at least to some degree but there comes a point where we have to acknowledge that some things may not be knowable to us and that the answer, "I don't know." is as valid as any other.

Yeah, there is definitely a point at which the only rational response is "God did it."

However, wee haven't gotten there yet with the starlight problem I don't think.

 

[Clete]

Yeah, there is definitely a point at which the only rational response is "God did it."

However, wee haven't gotten there yet with the starlight problem I don't think.

I love that you caught that I was alluding to the 'God did it' objection that atheist often throw around.

Every time I hear it, I want to say, "Well, yeah! He did do it!"

Anyway, whenever someone tries to explain these sorts of things, I always think of the miracles that Jesus performed. Do you think there's a scientific explanation for the processes involved in turning water into wine or some way we can explain how God rose Lazarus from the grave after having been dead long enough to stink up the place? Surely, no one would even make an attempt to do so and I sort of feel the same way about God's creation of the universe.
Having said that, you may well be right about the starlight problem. I think it would be cool to find something definitive on the subject and if everyone thought about such things the way I do, we'd never find it.

 

[Right Divider]

I love that you caught that I was alluding to the 'God did it' objection that atheist often throw around.

Every time I hear it, I want to say, "Well, yeah! He did do it!"

It is pretty funny since their alternative is "Nobody/nothing did it!".

 

[Stripe]

I love that you caught that I was alluding to the 'God did it' objection that atheist often throw around.

Every time I hear it, I want to say, "Well, yeah! He did do it!"

LOL. Yeah. And then:

"But HOW did He do it?"
"He spoke." :|

It's like these people can't read.

 

[Idolater]

I've read much of what Flannery O'Connor wrote, including a large volume of her correspondence.

I only read A Good Man is Hard to Find, for school, decades ago. I had no idea from that (I certainly don't remember it anyway) that she was Christian, and it just wouldn't have registered that she was Catholic, and I only recently learned just how faithful a Catholic that she was.

It's always nice to find these people from history as a new Catholic, like G.K. Chesterton for example, J.R.R. Tolkien, and others who were equally faithful Catholics. It's inspirational and motivating, encouraging.

She had the kind of Catholic sense that no matter how gritty things get, the opportunity for grace is always present, and that all of us, whether we realize it or recognize it or not, have a yearning for the divine.

I'd agree with her, I think anthropology would say the same thing. It seems very obvious if you look at us as a species. Apes like bananas, and we're obsessed with deity.

I've had my doubts over the years, yes. I still struggle with some Church teaching.

You're in very good company.

But I've been Catholic longer than you've been alive

Literally no reason to condescend to me rn.

, and I will stay a Catholic.

Peace to you.

There is no other kind of Christianity for me.

Same.

I'm not the best Catholic

Who is.

, but I don't have to be.

Yes; agreed. We're really not called to be the best Catholics. I even doubt that anything less than a Saint in Heaven could even be a best Catholic lol.

I hope that helps you with your "doubt."

afaik it's something like 70% of Catholics who believe the Eucharist is just symbolic and not actually the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus, His Real Presence. Bishop Barron (I'm sure you know of him, he's in your neck of the woods, Santa Barbara maybe?) recently said this is the single biggest trouble in the Church (in America) today. I posted Mme. O'Connor's quote just because it's not just the bishops who think it's important.

But do note that I paid you a compliment in saying that you're consistent in your Biblical interpretation. There's nothing wrong with being consistent, and there is objectively something wrong with being inconsistent.

Peace to you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Exactly. Best wishes to you in your conversations in this thread, I specifically asked how the earth could be in shadow (to have evening on that side) without the light being fixed in one place, and didn't get a useful answer.

Maybe an analogy will help.

Think of light as a pool of water.

God created the pool of light, and it originally didn't "flow," it had no directionality, and so there were no shadows. "Light" had not been "separated" from the "darkness," yet. Then God made it so that it only flows in one direction initially, and anything that it encounters blocks the flow, and since it moves so fast, it's unable to fill up the space behind whatever object it encounters without something to reflect light into the "darkness" (the place where light is not).

This analogy isn't anywhere near perfect enough to account for the two-way vs one-way speed of light problem, but should at least give you a mental image of what it was like prior to when God created the stars, and "attached" (for lack of a better word) light to them.

Before God set the stars up to be light sources, He created light, then made it so that objects could cast shadows, and so "separated" light from the darkness.

To excerpt someone else's words (not that I condone anything in the article, which seems to be over-spiritualizing things):

The word translated ‘divided’ in Genesis 1:4 is the Hebrew, ‘badal’ meaning, ‘to divide, separate, distinguish, divide asunder, make separate God divided (separated) light and dark. He split the two and said ‘light’ is on that side, ‘darkness’ is on the other side. He made a division between the light and the dark and He only defined one of them as good (light). In other words He made a clear dividing line between what is light and what is dark, so that there would be no confusion. He did not leave them mixed, overlapping or muddled.

God Separated the Light from the Darkness - From These Shores

In Genesis God separated the light from the darkness. We need to do this in our own belief system in order to understand the true character of God

fromtheseshores.com

 

[Idolater]

Maybe an analogy will help.

Think of light as a pool of water.

God created the pool of light, and it originally didn't "flow," it had no directionality, and so there were no shadows. "Light" had not been "separated" from the "darkness," yet. Then God made it so that it only flows in one direction initially, and anything that it encounters blocks the flow, and since it moves so fast, it's unable to fill up the space behind whatever object it encounters without something to reflect light into the "darkness" (the place where light is not).

This analogy isn't anywhere near perfect enough to account for the two-way vs one-way speed of light problem, but should at least give you a mental image of what it was like prior to when God created the stars, and "attached" (for lack of a better word) light to them.

Before God set the stars up to be light sources, He created light, then made it so that objects could cast shadows, and so "separated" light from the darkness.

To excerpt someone else's words (not that I condone anything in the article, which seems to be over-spiritualizing things):

The word translated ‘divided’ in Genesis 1:4 is the Hebrew, ‘badal’ meaning, ‘to divide, separate, distinguish, divide asunder, make separate God divided (separated) light and dark. He split the two and said ‘light’ is on that side, ‘darkness’ is on the other side. He made a division between the light and the dark and He only defined one of them as good (light). In other words He made a clear dividing line between what is light and what is dark, so that there would be no confusion. He did not leave them mixed, overlapping or muddled.

God Separated the Light from the Darkness - From These Shores

In Genesis God separated the light from the darkness. We need to do this in our own belief system in order to understand the true character of God

fromtheseshores.com

He didn't have to create light; He is light.

 

[JudgeRightly]

He didn't have to create light; He is light.

The fact is that He DID create light.

Scripture says so.

Thus, that makes Him the Source of light, not light itself.

 

[Right Divider]

He didn't have to create light; He is light.

So why would He say "Let there be light"?

 

[Idolater]

What?

I don't see ANY connection between what I said and pantheism.

Explain it to me.

Based on your declaration that space isn't a thing. If for all intents and purposes all space has always existed, then that's why I'm asking what is the difference between this idea and pantheism? We know and believe that God has always existed, but if space also has always existed, then space therefore shares the property with only God, of permanent, eternal existence. This to my mind makes space basically God (along with light). And I don't see any Scripture that would support that notion (as opposed to light).

Light does not require space to exist.

 

[Idolater]

The fact is that He DID create light.

Scripture says so.

Thus, that makes Him the Source of light, not light itself.

I have a Scripture that says otherwise. So the Scripture which you're alluding to cannot mean what you're insisting it means. God did not create Himself. The light He created cannot be the same light that He is. Yet, He is light (per Scripture).

 

[Clete]

Based on your declaration that space isn't a thing. If for all intents and purposes all space has always existed, then that's why I'm asking what is the difference between this idea and pantheism?

If I tell you that space does not exist, where do you get that I'm saying that it has always existed? It hasn't ever existed!

Space is an abstraction. It is not a thing that exists ontologically. It is an idea. We use the concept to discuss where things are relative to other things. That's it!

We know and believe that God has always existed, but if space also has always existed, then space therefore shares the property with only God, of permanent, eternal existence. This to my mind makes space basically God (along with light). And I don't see any Scripture that would support that notion (as opposed to light).

Space does not exist. Problem solved.

Light does not require space to exist.

Yes, it does. Anything that exists exists somewhere. That idea - "somewhere" - is what space is.

For example...
God exists over here and He created light over there.
Light exists over here and it doesn't exists over there.
My right arm is on the desk and my left foot is under it.
"over here", "over there", "right", "on", "left", "under" are all words and phrases that communicate to you something's location relative to something else.
That's space. That's all space is. It is nothing other than a concept. It does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

And everything I just said applies to time as well. Just as space is concept so also is time. Time is just the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I have a Scripture that says otherwise. So the Scripture which you're alluding to cannot mean what you're insisting it means. God did not create Himself. The light He created cannot be the same light that He is. Yet, He is light (per Scripture).

He is light in an analogous sense. He isn't talking about the sort of light you see with your eyes but about the kind of "light" that comes on when you understand something. God is the Logos not the light bulb!

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

 

[Idolater]

If I tell you that space does not exist, where do you get that I'm saying that it has always existed? It hasn't ever existed!

Space is an abstraction. It is not a thing that exists ontologically. It is an idea. We use the concept to discuss where things are relative to other things. That's it!


Space does not exist. Problem solved.


Yes, it does. Anything that exists exists somewhere. That idea - "somewhere" - is what space is.

For example...
God exists over here and He created light over there.
Light exists over here and it doesn't exists over there.
My right arm is on the desk and my left foot is under it.
"over here", "over there", "right", "on", "left", "under" are all words and phrases that communicate to you something's location relative to something else.
That's space. That's all space is. It is nothing other than a concept. It does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

And everything I just said applies to time as well. Just as space is concept so also is time. Time is just the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

Clete

Setting aside time (as that is a whole other ontological ball of wax imo).

What I agree with is that if you have a point (I mean a Euclidean point, not a point in an argument), then you could conceive of that point as being somewhere, except and only except, if there is literally nothing else in existence. In that exceptional case, then your point would be, in our parlance, everywhere and nowhere at once, since there is nothing else. And since I'm talking about a Euclidean point, this point itself also takes no space, by definition.

So what if God, Who is light, and Who has always existed, basically was always in His complete existence a Euclidean point, and in this point existed all deity, and He is light, so also all light existed but all only just "within" (figurative language since "within" kind of requires space) this, point.

Then you really have no space, since as you say, space is basically demonstrated through comparison between two points. If there's only one point, then there's no space, or at least, there's no space necessary.

Obviously this goes beyond our ability to truly conceive, I think. What on Earth does "no space" even mean? idk. But logically, just taking the meaning of terms at face value, if there is just one single solitary Euclidean point, and nothing else, then space just isn't required for that point to exist, and in all His fullness.

What do you think?

 

[Idolater]

He is light in an analogous sense. He isn't talking about the sort of light you see with your eyes but about the kind of "light" that comes on when you understand something. God is the Logos not the light bulb!

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

I get the allegorical and symbolic and figurative meaning of that Scripture. I just don't think that 1st John 1:5 is allegorical, symbolic or figurative, because it doesn't have to be. Plus, it seems rather matter-of-fact.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, it's called logical consistency--something that truth-despising, logic-despising, Bible-despising loons like yourself refuse to ever have any part of.



to understand that Bible-despisers like Arthur Brain have nothing but their cherished falsehood and nonsense--their repetitive ravings--to hand out, and to allow rationally-thinking people to know that raving Bible-despisers like Arthur Brain need never to be taken seriously or expected to present an argument.



What allegory?



Remember, what you erroneously and reflexively call "science" is merely your beloved Darwinismspeak, so your standard prop of calling such falsehood and nonsense "science" and "actual science" is only ever going to be swallowed by boobs as dumb you make yourself out to be.



Here, as usual, you're merely reasserting your claim that the earth is a lot older than 6-10,000 years, with no attempt to support, and no hope of supporting it with any fact(s).



it is merely falsehood and nonsense that you are conditioned to erroneously calling "science".



all other Bible-believers, without exception. But what's that to lying Bible-despisers like you and @annabenedetti?



Stop being an idiot. We're not going to stop believing the truth, even if raving, Bible-despising clowns like you continue on with your pathetic spectacle of lying and tantrum-throwing.

Tantrum throwing?

Oh wow, the irony...

 

[Arthur Brain]

I can't put it any better than that!

Really? A corn on the cob could have come up with something better but still, if that's the bar and all...

 

[Right Divider]

Really? Low bar then...

Cry all that you want. You've done nothing to prove your idea.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Cry all that you want. You've done nothing to prove your idea.

I'm not crying dude, I think it's kinda hilarious in some ways...

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not crying dude, I think it's kinda hilarious in some ways...

What's funny is what you think is funny, that's funny.