Is Genesis Narrative or Metaphor? - Page 3

Wannabee · #81 (**permalink**) 09-29-2007, 11:44 PM

Creation cannot be proven scientifically because of the reasons stated. Even the simplest hypothesis must be observable. However, it can be proven historically because history is based on circumstantial evidence. There is more circumstantial evidence for the verity of the Genesis account being literal than for any other theory (proven throughout this thread).
However, as edifying as this is, the testimony of Scripture is all that is needed. As has been stated, the language is clear.

weinhold · #82 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 05:05 PM

Seth, I should begin by affirming your previous statement that science can neither prove nor disprove the factuality of Genesis. I don't think I emphasized it enough in my last reply to you.

I can see why you would inquire about miracles in your follow-up reply. I affirm the reality of miracles, though I think the bifurcation between natural and supernatural might be as confusing as it is helpful. At least on some level, the sovereignty of God makes "natural" and "supernatural" synonymous. After all, aren't "natural" processes governed by God just as much as anomalies? You see what I mean.

But your point remains: can't we just say that the creation event was miraculous and leave it at that? To me, that answer is very satisfying. But I would stop short of calling it "factual," since that word might bring with it the connotation that it is quantifiable. So perhaps all the difference between our perspectives is word choice, which I hope is not too wide a gap to overcome.

weinhold · #83 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

As I read these arguments back and forth it seems as though Weinhold is saying that Genesis cannot be proven "scientifically" because to do that it would have to be, (A) observed and (B) reproducable, and since it was not observed, it was a story handed down for several generations then put to paper by Moses, and it obviously cannot be reproduced there is no "scientific" way of prooving the events in Genesis. Wienhold is not saying that these events did not happen nor that they are not true. He is saying that it is given to us in the form of a "true" story.

Weinhold, is this an accurate assumption, or am I way off?

Erick, that sounds about right.

weinhold · #84 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 06:05 PM

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?

weinhold · #85 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 06:42 PM

I have probably already posted enough for today, but I had a passing thought that I wanted to share. I think the crux of our debate (which I am thoroughly enjoying, by the way) is our definition of truth. If one demands that truth be factual, then my reading of Genesis just doesn't compute. But as I have said before, I don't think truth needs to be factual, and as evidence I plead with readers of this thread to scroll back and read Tennyson's "The Eagle" again. While those encyclopedic facts might be useful in a narrowly technical sense because they provide information about eagles, Tennyson's poem gives readers access to an eagle's ontological essence. This is what I think Genesis does; it gives readers access to the essence of the creative act.

gene_mingo · #86 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 08:17 PM

This has been an interesting discussion. While I have hesitated to make any comments, I have some questions for Paul Weinhold.

Well, maybe comments and questions.

My first question is...

Can you please point to an example of the truth being non factual? Besides your opinion of the Genesis narrative. You have cited a poem by Tennyson. It is a nice poem, but is not the truth. It is merely an artistic description of a bird by a man. I honestly fail to see how his opinion can be considered the truth.

Would you please define what you mean when you use the word truth?

Would you please define what fact means to you?

lol. It is a multiple part question. Sorry. My mind starts running off in all direction when i think about this.

I stand really firm on this point. The truth is always factual. Facts are subject to the truth. If your facts don't point to the truth then your facts are wrong. True facts always point to the truth. The absence of facts does not make the truth non factual. Let me give you an example of this. Thousands of years ago men thought the earth might be round. Even though science at the time was set in the flat earth theory. The men who thought the earth was round told a truth. The earth is round. Even if they could not scientifically prove their statement, that didn't change the truth of the statement. We know that it is a fact the earth is round. It has always been a fact that the earth is round. Regardless of what was provable with scientific examination.

Ok, now you need to convince me that I am wrong. This is a big challenge, seeing how your other arguments really didn't budge my position much.

All in all I have really enjoyed this thread.

weinhold · #87 (**permalink**) 10-02-2007, 02:11 AM

Josh, thanks for jumping into the discussion. I was glad to read your reply because it gets right to the heart of what I've been trying to say all along, and so hopefully this time I will communicate with greater clarity and persuasion. The central point of contention, as you point out, is our definition of terms. You (and others) assert that fact=truth; I assert that fact is a species of truth. I should not be surprised at your equating of fact and truth; it is, after all, the common usage of the term: There are facts and there are lies. Any dictionary would indicate agreement with your definition in at least one of its entries, probably more. So I concede the general usage of the word, and accept the necessary task of defining the way I am using "fact."

Let's start by surrounding the term with a cluster of modifiers and see if that helps:

Fact: mathematical, quantifiable, statistical, scientific, technical, logical, empirical, rational, analytic, literal

"Fact" is a word born in the Renaissance and reared during the Enlightenment. In my understanding, equating it with "truth" implicitly limits our idea of reality to the narrowly naturalistic perspective that emerged from Enlightenment skepticism. Now Josh, I certainly know that you do not mean to imply all this when you equate fact with truth, but nevertheless I think the word carries that baggage with it. If we blithely accept factuality as the only type of truth, then we will live out the lament of William Faulkner: "There are no longer any problems of spirit. There is only one question, 'When will I be blown up?'" By expanding the definition, I am trying to acknowledge those spiritual realities that we seem to have lost during the modern era. Reality is more than statistics, more than sense perception, more than what can be quantified.

Given this fuller definition of reality, which I have been calling "truth" (perhaps reality would be better?), I hope that you will see the point Perrine and Arp are making about eagles. Tennyson's poem is not just the artistic description of a bird; it is a mode of knowledge, every bit as valid (I think more valid) as an encyclopedia article. As Perrine and Arp argue, factual data about eagles leaves us feeling

Quote:

"a little disappointed, as though we had grasped the feathers of the eagle but not its soul. True, we have learned many facts about the eagle, but we have missed somehow its lonely majesty, its power, and the 'wild grandeur' of its surroundings that would make the eagle a living creature rather than a mere museum specimen. For the living eagle we must turn to literature."

And it is not just literature that provides this mode of knowledge. All forms of art communicate this type of nonfactual truth: painting, sculpture, music, dance, drama, architecture, Etc. Art is not just beautiful; it is true.

Ok, well that's a start. Glad to have you on board!

sastark · #88 (**permalink**) 10-02-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weinhold

Seth, I should begin by affirming your previous statement that science can neither prove nor disprove the factuality of Genesis. I don't think I emphasized it enough in my last reply to you.

No problem.

Quote:

I can see why you would inquire about miracles in your follow-up reply. I affirm the reality of miracles, though I think the bifurcation between natural and supernatural might be as confusing as it is helpful. At least on some level, the sovereignty of God makes "natural" and "supernatural" synonymous. After all, aren't "natural" processes governed by God just as much as anomalies? You see what I mean.

We actually had an interesting discussion about miracles in one of my classes last night. I agree with what you say above: What is "miraculous" to us is not so to God. He is above natural processes and is not bound by them. God does not "break" any natural laws when he acts in what we perceive as a "supernatural" way. God's ways are not our ways.

Quote:

But your point remains: can't we just say that the creation event was miraculous and leave it at that? To me, that answer is very satisfying. But I would stop short of calling it "factual," since that word might bring with it the connotation that it is quantifiable. So perhaps all the difference between our perspectives is word choice, which I hope is not too wide a gap to overcome.

Now that I understand how you are using the word "fact" ("emperically true"), I agree. I do suppose, however, that if one wanted to press the point, one could argue that we do have a witness to the creation act, who is God himself. Of course, we cannot recreate creation, so it is still not scientific (in that it cannot be verified through reproduction of the "experiment"). But, as you and I already agreed, it is true.

I continue to enjoy this discussion immensely.

gene_mingo · #89 (**permalink**) 10-02-2007, 09:11 PM

Paul,
Thank you for your timely answer. I do believe our disagreement is partly with definitions of the terms truth and fact. I think you have added some terms to the word fact that are not required to be used to define it. Thats ok with me. At least it gives me a better understanding of your point.

I will go back to the poem of the eagle. You seem to place a strong bit of your argument on that.

First lets examine your quote.

Quote:

"a little disappointed, as though we had grasped the feathers of the eagle but not its soul. True, we have learned many facts about the eagle, but we have missed somehow its lonely majesty, its power, and the 'wild grandeur' of its surroundings that would make the eagle a living creature rather than a mere museum specimen. For the living eagle we must turn to literature."

Words like, majesty, grandeur, and power, are all descriptions based on the persons opinion of the eagle. This is not a truth about eagles. I happen to live in an area where eagles nest and have been watching them most of my life. First off eagles, when hot, will poop down their legs to cool off. This is not the actions of anything i would describe as majestic. Eagles are smaller than the vultures that live here, not so grand imho. I have seen eagles run off by sparrows. This leads me to believe that they are not so powerful. I would describe eagles in another way completely. These types of descriptions are subjective human expressions. You have to agree with the writers opinion of the subject. This is not truth. The poem by Tennyson is the same as above. I have to agree with his opinion about eagles for them to be valid. I agree that the poem can pass a kind of knowledge, but knowledge is not truth either. I hope this helps you understand my point better.

Quote:

"If we blithely accept factuality as the only type of truth,"

I think you are missing my point. Facts don't make truth. Truth makes facts.

If we redefine what truth means then i agree that subjective human expression would be a type of truth, but then truth is subject to human opinion. If truth is subjective to human opinion, then the new definition of truth can't be applied to the truth of the word of God. God's word is not subject to human opinion.

Personally I don't see any truth outside of the word of God. Everything else is human perception.

I am really enjoying this discussion. Thank you for your patience in this matter. I can be very stubborn about things.

weinhold · #90 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 02:27 AM

Josh, I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I read of your experience with eagles. You certainly have a different understanding than Tennyson, one that I would say is informed more by the facts of your own experience with eagles than with their ontology, which is what I think Tennyson is trying to encounter in his poem. You see, I think that it is the factual perspective that science brings to eagles which prevents us from experiencing their majesty, nobility, grandeur, etc. If this is true of eagles, it is even more true of human beings, for we know all too well that the facts of humanity mitigate against any qualitative claim we might make for ourselves. But your perspective on eagles, however humorous, probably necessitates my picking another poem with which to make my point, and I am glad to do so, especially after enjoying a moment of levity.

Before I offer another poem, however, I should mention that you make a good point about truth. I should clarify that I do not believe that truth is subjective; the truth is one just as God is one. But saying 2+2=4 is a very different type of statement than Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro”:

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.

The first operates wholly within the abstractions of logic and arithmetic symbolism, while the other is analogical, forming a contemplative image through juxtaposition. Both are true, but they are very different modes of knowledge. Pound’s poem is a very simple simile, which we might simplify even further using the familiar SAT formula: “A is to B as C is to D,” (A:B::C: D)

Faces:Crowd::Petals:Black Bough

So with Pound we gain a true statement, embodied within natural and cultural images and also embodied within language.

So now here is another poem. It's one with numbers in it, but they don't operate like 2+2=4. Tell me what you think of it (anyone else feel free to join in as well). Aren't there truths in it that are not factual?

Quote:

For the first twenty years, since yesterday
I scarce believed thou couldst be gone away;
For forty more I fed on favours past,
And forty on hopes that thou wouldst they might last.
Tears drown'd one hundred, and sighs blew out two;
A thousand, I did neither think nor do,
Or not divide, all being one thought of you.
Or in a thousand more, forgot that too.
Yet call not this long life; but think that I
Am, by being dead, immortal; can ghosts die?

Looking forward to continuing our conversation, Josh.

weinhold · #91 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sastark

I continue to enjoy this discussion immensely.

Seth, I was glad to read of our consensus about Genesis, and I am also continuing to enjoy the discussion.

gene_mingo · #92 (**permalink**) 12-08-2007, 03:42 PM

Sorry about the delay in my response. Things have been busy at my house.

Quote:

You certainly have a different understanding than Tennyson, one that I would say is informed more by the facts of your own experience with eagles than with their ontology, which is what I think Tennyson is trying to encounter in his poem.

My description of eagles is just as valid as Tennysons'. Ontology is based on personal experience. If you want I can write a short poem to address my point..

Quote:

the truth is one just as God is one.

There is only one truth as there is only one God. The truth only comes from God.

Quote:

But saying 2+2=4 is a very different type of statement than Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro”:

And yet neither of those are the truth. 2+2=4 is a factual statement, but not the truth. We should never look to math for the truth.
2+2=4.
2+2≄4.
Both the above statements are factual based on the mathematician's experience, but neither are the truth. Just as in poetry. It is a fact that the poem is a description of the writers experience, but it is not the truth.

I don't think that you can change my mind with any amount of poetry. Poetry is subjective to the authors personal experience. You might agree with the description of that experience, but agreement with a description of a experience is not the truth.

Anyway,
sorry for the delay.

Josh

weinhold · #93 (**permalink**) 12-08-2007, 04:27 PM

Hey Josh, I'm glad we connected after a hiatus in the conversation. Unfortunately, my schedule will require yet another pause before I can post a response. This next few weeks is very stressful for me, since I am finishing up my graduate coursework and taking comprehensive exams. But stay tuned, brother, because I'd like to continue our conversation when all that is complete. Sorry for the delay; I wish I had more time! Thanks for your response, and I look forward to continuing the thread. ~PW