Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnV  I read Genesis as part of God's revelation of Himself, from which I may be instructed in my faith. When I say I believe Genesis, it is more than saying I believe it is a true nonfactual story. It is more than admiring the beauty of what it says. It must include believing what it says for the factual truth it conveys. If Genesis is metaphor, then we have no idea of what truth it actually portrays to us. |
John, I don't think I would use the term "metaphor" to describe
Genesis as a whole, since I think of metaphor as a specific trope employed in language. For example, "I see what you mean" is a metaphor we use so frequently that we fail to recognize it: sight is perception. Nevertheless, I would say that Genesis is a true
story, and that we most certainly have access to the truth it conveys. For instance, God's creative speech that created the world
ex nihilo is most certainly true--it really happened!--but I would not call it factual. How would one quantify it? Can it be scientifically observed? Etc. As I wrote to Seth, I think our difference of opinion centers upon semantics, and I hope it is not too great a gap, despite your closing comments:
Quote:
|
Nor, then, is it in any way meaningful to call Genesis a true story without any demand to whether the account is factual. Either way, whether metaphor or non-factual story, it is meaningless to me, even if you still make a claim to believing it as true. The only way it is meaningful to me is if it tells me a true and factual account. Otherwise the content of Genesis goes into the second or third categories, and therefore outside the requirements of faith.
|
By the way, I don't think that my reading of
Genesis is outside the requirements of faith. Where is it held that your reading of
Genesis is a requirement for belief?