#27 Genesis Post #7

Here’s a re-write of my original reply. Kind of. I’m of course cheating a bit, because now I know your response to those arguments. I’ll try and respond to both. As usual, this is going to be frustrating for both of us. You, apparently, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and I do not. Therefore, as in all of these discussions, it comes back to degrees of faith.

So, initially in response to N.T. Wright’s beautifully written, but ultimate obfuscation of the word “literal” (perhaps I’m just not clever enough) I posted the Merriam-Webster definition of the word:

LITERAL:

a : according with the letter of the scriptures (Curious that the most common usage is in reference to scripture...yes, I'm being snarky.)

b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual <liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo>

c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literaltruth>

d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a veryliteral man>

2

: of, relating to, or expressed in letters

3

: reproduced word for word : exact, verbatim <a literaltranslation>

I certainly understand that you were stating that the language in Genesis 1 and 2 is plausible on two levels; concrete and metaphorical. There’s no need to say “metaphorically referring to concrete things” as that is understood to be the definition of metaphorical.

Your well researched and well written dissertation on the Hebrew word for “day” is illuminating. Like so much of language, ancient and modern, the context, the user and the hearer/reader offer as much weight to a given word as anything. This is both frustrating and liberating. Ah, the dualities of life!

In the end, I do understand your thoughts on the veracity or literalness of the language in the Creation story. You made your point well and I understood. I promise!

However, I still feel unanswered for this reason; though you have managed to reason out your thoughts quite lucidly most Christians have very little understanding of these details. Furthermore, from an academic viewpoint this is more of a literary analysis than a factual analysis. Which is a problem.

The reason that’s problematic is that the layperson interprets these writings in such a simplistic manner that it then clouds their understanding of science; biology, natural selection, paleontology, geology, cosmology, and to an even greater yet more subtle extent, psychology. They begin to look at facts as "propaganda from the "Liberal Elite"", whoever the heck that is.

As I’ve mentioned, as a believer I never took the Genesis creation story literally. There was no need for me to do that and maintain my faith. In my view, God was greater than a two chapter explanation of the origins of life.

My concern over this literal interpretation held by most believers is that it has a dumbing down effect on society. The museum in Kentucky that puts dinosaurs frolicking about the outskirts of Eden is an affront to wisdom, knowledge and, in my view, even faith. 

The mountain of evidence that points to the evolution of human beings from progenitor primates flies in the face of these Creation stories. I readily concede that evolution and natural selection DO NOT preclude a Creator. Not in the least. They do however show these stories in a very different light. These stories are, just that, stories. As man developed language, tribes, traditions, and myths, in order to make sense of it all, these stories evolved along with him. This is not a denigration of these myths. Merely an acknowledgement of what they are. There is no shame in these stories. Nor does their implausibility make the existence of God implausible. However, holding onto these myths as if one’s faith depends upon it seems sophomoric to me. Both intellectually and spiritually.

Which brings me to the real point I’m trying to get too....

But I digress. One thing at a time, as you say.