Alright, we’ll tackle these one at a time. We’ll start with number 1. I asked if you believed the Creation Story in Genesis was literally true and if so, which version you preferred; chapter 1 or chapter 2. I’ll put your answers verbatim to alleviate any suspicion that I’m putting words in your mouth:
ALAN-Yes, I believe the story to be literally true.
Having said that, I think there are literary elements that may be literal events/items described with metaphorical referents and there may be metaphorical elements with literal referants as well.
Jace- Well, that’s nice, but also malarkey. It is either literally true or it is not literally true, as a historical account. Now I’ve heard these metaphysical arguments before; Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and every other religious persuasion always have these metaphysical arguments to fall back on. (Although one imagines the crashing sound gets annoying after a while). This is a linguistic game that wouldn’t pass muster in most mainstream seminary programs.
ALAN-"Day" could be seen as metaphorical language denoting a literal span of time. The Tree of Knowledge is a literal tree but certainly with a metaphorical referent. Some would interpret "day" literally. I really don't know and I think the conversation misses the point. Genesis isn't about "when" and "how." It's about "who, what, and why." Anyway, I see room for discussion on interpretting the date issue. Most of the arguments assume that time is constant, which it isn't.
Jace- Well, I’m certainly relieved that you see “room for discussion” on the time line! While I have no real understanding of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (and even less of Special Relativity) I won’t argue that time is constant. I will argue that it certainly puts the readers of Genesis, pre-Einstein, in a bit of a bind. To say nothing of it’s author/s. And yes, let’s go ahead and address that the vast majority of Biblical scholars ascribe chapters 1 and 2 to different authors.
ALAN-I do not see anything incongruent between the two versions in chapter 1 and 2. Rather, I see the same story from two different perspectives. Chapter 2 is, from the beginning focused upon the creation of mankind. Chapter 1 seems to have a bigger picture view. We have four different gospels offering four different perspectives on the same story about Jesus as well.
Jace- Well, if you don’t see the two versions as different chronologically I’m at a loss. In chapter 1, man is created last, after the flora and fauna. In chapter 2 Adam is created first, before the flora and fauna. As an allegorical story there is nothing wrong here. As a historical document the same cannot be said.
The historical value of these two stories (Ch.1-2) may not be germane to your personal faith (and I can certainly respect that), but it is still hugely significant.
As we have discussed in this forum before, the Church has been anti-science since it’s inception. Yes, yes, they eventually come along; the Earth is round, indeed we aren’t the center of the Universe, maybe medicine isn’t the devils work, etc. However, they are always decades or even centuries late. One of the root reasons for this lies in the literal interpretation of obvious allegories and metaphors.
There is a museum not far from my home in Nashville where one will find lovely dioramas of dinosaurs and humans. Together. At this museum they will explain to you how “Natural Selection” is not “Evolution”. (Which would undoubtedly have Charles Darwin rather perplexed). My point is that conflating the “mysteries” of Faith with the evidence of science is bad for you. It demeans faith and it sullies science.
So, we educate our children with bad science and, to add insult to injury, we engender an unnecessary literalism to faith.
Why does this persist with the mountain of evidence that the Earth and it’s life are beyond ancient even by scriptural standards? Because if the Genesis stories are not a“literal” history then it could be easily asserted that the following books of the Bible have certain aspects decrying historical veracity.
No comments:
Post a Comment