Board index ‹ Bible

[Shiny Captain]

This question has several related parts:

First, do you take the entire bible literally? If not, how do you decide which parts to?

IF you don't take the garden of eden story literally (and I would say there's pretty overwhelming evidence that's not true) but do take the story of Jesus' death and ressurection literally, then what was Jesus dying for? Because he seemed to think he was dying for adam's original sin.

[jimwalton]

I think "literal" is a problematic word that doesn't contribute to our understanding or conversation, and that's sort of the premise of your question.

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. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

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. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

Having said that, on to your questions. Do I take the story of the Garden of Eden "literally"? I would say that there's NO evidence, small or overwhelming, that the story's not true. Let's talk about what the Bible does say. It presents Adam and Eve as historical figures, but not necessarily as the first and only hominids. How does that change both your question and your assumptions about "overwhelming evidence"? See, we need to discuss this stuff instead of jump to conclusions based on (1) inadequate interpretations of Scripture and (2) evidence that doesn't exist or is arguing against a case that is not being made. Suppose Adam and Eve actually existed in space-time history, but not the way traditionalists teach about them in Sunday School. Suppose they weren't the first, or the only, hominids. Suppose the Garden of Eden was an actual place, but not a magical place, as some skeptics and critics misunderstand. I still don't like the word "literal". The story could easily be true, along with the historical narrative of Jesus' death and resurrection. (The evidence of his death is almost incontrovertible, and the evidence for his resurrection is substantial.) Then what was Jesus dying for? The sins of humanity, brought to humanity by the disobedience of Adam.

But we obviously need to talk more. You have some assumptions that I am challenging. Write back and we can talk.