by jimwalton » Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:08 pm
We have to interpret the Bible according to the intent of the author. The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. WE have to take each text the way it was intended to be taken. We're not stuck with all or nothing: all literal or all non-literal. It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author.
> For example, we know that the Genesis story isn't literal according to our current understanding of cosmology
Oh, it could be. I subscribe to what is being taught and written about by Dr. John Walton ("The Lost World of Genesis 1"). His theory about Genesis 1 & 2 is that they are about how God ordered creation (functions and roles) rather than about material creation (how they came to be). This perspective still believes God is the creator, but that Genesis 1 & 2 are not the narrative of material creation. Instead, Gn. 1-2 tell us why we are here, what our role and function are for being here. This theory allows science to be all that it can discover, wherever truth is found, but only the Bible can tell us the purpose behind it all, something science can't answer. I find his theory quite convincing, and very possible a more literal understanding of the text than the traditional view. Here's a brief breakdown:
Day 1: the light and dark function to give us day and night, therefore TIME
Day 2: the firmament functions to give us WEATHER and CLIMATE
Day 3: The earth functions to bring forth vegetation: plant life and AGRICULTURE
Day 4: The heavenly bodies function to mark out the times and seasons
Day 5: The species function to fill the earth, creating the circles of life, the food chain, and FOOD.
Day 6: Humans function to subdue the earth and rule over it: God's representatives on the earth, scientific mandate, responsible care of the planet.
Day 7: God comes to "rest" in His Temple, meaning that He comes to live with the humans He has made and to engage them in daily life, to reveal Himself to them and be their God.
> the Adam and Eve story contradicts what we know about evolution
Again, it's possible to believe in the accuracy of the Adam & Eve story as well as their historicity if we see Genesis 1 & 2 as being about function rather than material creation. In Genesis 1 & 2, Adam and Eve are being told about their function (rule the earth and subdue it, serve as God's priest and priestess [Gn. 2.15]). We learn that they are ontological equals, that they function in relationship with God, and we are subjects of God's blessing. There's nothing in the text that contradicts evolutionary theory. Adam and Eve aren't necessarily the first hominids or the first humans, but rather the text portrays them as archetypes (not allegories or metaphors) of all humans. We don't have to choose between the Bible and science.
> Noah's ark is physically impossible and there's insufficient evidence for a global flood
Here is one of the places the biblical text uses hyperbole. It wasn't a global flood. What does "all" mean, when Genesis talks about "all the earth" being flooded? In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.
Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.
There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global".
> We therefore know that the Bible is not entirely accurate and factual.
Ah, wrong conclusion. We have to discern what parts of the Bible are literal, and what parts are music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, or simile. It's usually pretty straight-forward to figure it out. But we can still easily consider the Bible to be entirely accurate and factual.
> What justification do we have for believing the core tenets of Christianity - original sin, the divinity of Jesus, etc. - are factual, despite this?
Because Adam & Eve were historical people who represented the whole of humanity even if they weren't the first hominids, so original sin is still easily in the cards. The divinity of Jesus is established by his actions, his teachings, and the inspired interpretations of the theological explanations of his life and teachings. So we have plenty of justification of believing the core tenets.
Let's talk some more.