That’s not true. I don’t think you are using the word “metaphorical” correctly. The opposite of historical is ahistorical not metaphorical. Figurative language can be used to describe history and to write non-fiction. Literal language can be used to tell stories that aren’t true. Understanding a text is indeed about understanding the intention of the producer of the text. The Bible is not a text that just means what you as a reader think it should mean. It’s message needs to be contextualized, understood in its context and then recontextualized and applied to the the reader’s context. But the way we do that is not by labelling everything that isn’t a historical fact “metaphor.” Metaphors can be identified and described and they do specific things with language and mental mappings. Metaphor doesn’t mean something that doesn’t comport with historical fact.
Sounds as if “metaphorical” here is being used to mean: fanciful, fictional, primitive understanding uninformed by science. My chief objection is the insistence that what is greater than us must nonetheless conform to the understanding we can generate based on the knowledge base we’ve been able to acquire by way of science. Science is great and useful but I don’t think that is the understanding to expect from the Bible. I would have expected it to have more to say about who we and God are and why we are here.
There is Rabbinical tradition that when discussing the Torah, you don’t ask whether it is true or not, you ask why was it written that way? When you find a Scripture that claims that a star moved across the sky and settled over a house, you shouldn’t say, “that is a lie, and I don’t believe it.” You should ask, why was it written that way? In my opinion, it was written that way as a metaphor to describe something of great importance to the world, the existence of a Savior sent by God into the world for all humanity.
Welcome! Thank you for your thoughts.
Hm; when I talked to my daughter at age 4 about the sun rising, was it a metaphor? I don’t think I can call it that–yet that is what Denis Lamoureux would call accommodation, I think. The sun doesn’t rise–we turn toward it–yet I was accommodating to my daughter’s lack of scientific knowledge. The rabbinical tradition is valuable, yet they did not have the tools to historically assess validity.
I look forward to your thoughts and insight. Thank you.
Why must it be either?
The writers are trying to express what they know and understand. It is not allegorical or metaphorical to them. It is just what they see and understand. There is no need to overcomplicate or overanalyse. We just need to see what they see and take it from there.
Richard
No it was written that way because that is what it looked like. And that is how it was interpreted by the visitors from the East.
RIchard
Where do miracles fit in that dichotomy?
Of course you shouldn’t say, “it’s a lie.” But metaphor has a definition. It is the use of one concept to describe or explain another concept via mental mappings of two conceptual domains. “The stars are diamonds on the velvet sky” is a metaphor. “The stars moved across the sky” is phenomenological language describing what is observed from an earthly vantage point, but there is nothing metaphorical about it. Stars refer to stars not some other concept. The stars moving refers to their perceived change in location over time, not something else. “The stars are diamonds on the velvet sky” is not automatically “a lie” because it isn’t literal. It is true for anyone who has a the appropriate conceptual frames to understand the metaphor. Stars appear tiny and sparkle in the night sky, which is the deep color of black velvet. It’s metaphorical imagery that comports with reality.
Because the words we use to label features of texts in order to analyze them have meanings, and the meaning of metaphor and the application of that label to a feature in a text has nothing to do with historicity. It doesn’t serve the goal of communicating about texts to use analytical labels to mean whatever you want.
Why do we need to label texts?
And don’t you think that we can overanylise?
If a thing looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and behaves like a duck it is probably a duck.
Genesis is about creation. It is looked at from a layman’s point of view. The Bible assumes that God exists which automatically puts it in opposition to science as a whole. The story of creation is a necesary prequel to the rest of the book, but it does not have to be any more than that.
In the beginning God that is what matters. Not how but who…
The how is a story told to children. So is The Garden of Eden. You can draw some theology out of it but that is not the point. Israel needed some ancestors. Enter Adam and Eve.
Genesis 1 is art. It is rhythmic, it has a chorus, it is easy to learn or recite. And it establishes the Sabbath. Most of the content is padding based on simple observation. There is no science here.
The Garden is a story with fantasy elements and a winge against the unfairness of the world that gives pain and weeds without justice or provocation. So it provides both! God wandering around as a giant? Talking serpents? Magical Trees? Where is the science or reality in any of it? Why must it be overanylised with metaphors about killing animals to creating clothes and one single mistake being punished for eternity.? Is that the God we proclaim? You know the one who lashes out at the first sign of dissent or disobedience?
You can take analytics too far. And IMHO that is often the case with Scripture. I am not extolling literalism but there is a limit.
Richard
I agree with you there, but still be must be careful with language, for words have meaning, and if we are to communicate effectively, we must agree on those meanings or else it is futile and we might as well be with Alice in Wonderland.
Then how would you interpret the part of exodus when moses threw his staff down and it became a snake?
You mean when he did the same trick as the Pharaoh’s magicians only better? LOL
Well I don’t think Moses was a magician. So I think it most likely that it was God’s trick rather than Moses’. If Pharaoh’s magicians could do such a trick then don’t you think God could do the same but better? Was God so less clever and capable, so that while the magicians could do it without breaking the laws of nature, God could not?
Perhaps the real question is how God can do anything in the world without breaking the laws of nature? The laws of nature are not causally closed. Most events are quantum events and science has proven are not determined by pre-existing conditions (not within the premises of the scientific worldview). In other words they seem to be random, and the laws of nature only constrain them to obey the probability distributions. Therein lies an immense freedom for God to influence the course of events without altering the law of nature.
Obviously I don’t know how God did that trick. Heck, we don’t really even know how Pharaoh’s magicians did their trick. We can only guess … and you can look up how others have done that trick.
But… I very much doubt that God turned the universe inside out just to impress Pharoah… that would be like using a nuclear bomb to stop an ant. It is ridiculous.
I think suggesting that God is any kind of trickster is opening up a can of very nasty worms.
Richard
Well i found this older article talking about it:
I don’t agree with your use of “trickster” (with the implication of being something bad) any more than I agree with @beaglelady 's use of con man. It is hypocritical because such uses would apply to most priests and religious people, claiming things which no scientific measurements would agree with.
Heck, the use of tricks would apply to the experts in most human activities including mathematics, engineering, cooking, sports, etc… which also employ all kinds of tricks in order to do their work better than the novice. Trickster is often defined as someone with a great deal of intelligence or secret knowledge. I would much more strongly object to the implication that God is an ignorant blundering imbecile.
Would we think badly of a parent who would trick their children into eating healthy foods or into doing things which improve their work at school. I would not – quite the opposite. It would think far worse of the heavy handed parent who blindly uses threats and only ends up making things worse. Give me the clever God over the swaggering bully God any day.
I think the objection is the implication of deceit. Tricks are deceit. Sleight of hand is deceit. Telling white lies is deceit. The reason some people insist on Genesis 1 is because they see anything else as deceit. The ideal of God is truth, justice … not deceit.
But, God is amoral in human terms and maybe from His perspective there is no deceit. Who am I to question God?
The fact is God did it first and the Egyptians were trying to say that it was just a trick. The eating up was supposedly to show that God is superior to any magician, but does it show that the change was not a trick? I think the jury is still out on that one
Richard
The story of the conflict between Moses (God) and Pharaoh is a complicated one because I think it is questionable whether God really wanted Pharaoh to give in and let his people go (at least not by the end of the story). It says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, which I take to mean God pushed his “button’s” to make Him react that way. So I get the message that God was manipulating events in order to make a point in the historical record for all to see. Trying to get your own with God is very foolish. And I don’t think it is because God has to have own way, but simply because God knows best.
This is generally thought as being Biblical commentary. That is, doing what we are told not to and imposing an action or ideal onto God. Paul does it when he claims God has somehow forced his people to reject Him so that He (God) can save a remnant
I think we are on dodgy ground to suggest that God did anything to encourage pharaoh’s resistance. It makes for good storytelling but it doesn’t really put God in the best light.
Modern theology does not encourage the notion of God manipulating. Perhaps we have to take some of the Old Testament commentary with a pinch of salt? The God of the Old Testament is not the same character as the God of the New Testament (and Christianity)
(Or maybe you think I am overstepping the mark here?)
Richard
I believe that sin damages our free will and makes us easy to manipulate. I see no reason why God shouldn’t take advantage of this for the improvement of the human condition.
But you know this gives me considerable insight with regards to your reaction to evolution. For me evolution is a perfect fit with what I see God doing in the Bible. If you are going to toss all the things the Bible says God did then your rejection of evolution make more sense.