Quote:
Originally Posted by Narnian  I see a lot of talking past each other on the thread here as people are raising points that others seem to be ignoring.
For example I believe that Daniel Ritchie has raised a good point about Exodus 20 that raises the question in my mind of what the rest of scripture says about the activities in Genesis (JohnOwen007 I think has attempted to address it but I think it deserves more investigation from a systematic viewpoint).
JohnOwen007 I believe has raised legitimate questions about the creation narrative and whether there are elements that cannot be taken literally that nobody has addressed yet.
Let's put our heads together and look at our hermaneutic. Should all of scripture be taken literally? If not, then what are the guiding principles we should use to determine when it is parable, prose, history or allegory. This, in my mind, is where the real disagreement lays.    |
You are correct that some of us have been raising points that others are ignoring. I have twice referenced a statistical analysis of the verbal patterns in Genesis by a Hebrew scholar that militates AGAINST taking it figuratively. It is not a matter of whether any section of the Bible needs to be interpreted figuratively but was GENESIS 1-11 intended to be interpreted figuratively?
Interpreting "literally" means taking a text in its normal reading according to its genre. A poem is interpreted as poetry and symbolism; a metaphor or similie is taken figuratively; a narrative intends to speak "narratively" or historically. The "literal" method is a cipher for the "grammatical-historical" method.
My postings in this thread so far have referenced the use of "yom" (day) in the Hebrew Bible (considered contextually and in terms of word statistics), the admitted presence of anachronistic language in ALL statements about creation (including those by Big Bangers), the use of Exodus 20:11, and several other points.
Obviously the theological concern of Genesis was not to teach science, it was to affirm that God and God alone created and he did it without the machinations of intermediaries such as recorded in the Babylonian and other near eastern creation myths.
However, that does not mean that we can dismiss the accuracy of its teaching. What we allow in Genesis will come back to bite us in the New Testament. Saying that God really does not mean what he says in Genesis 1 will set you up for some very painful collateral arguments on everything from the role of women to the ordination of gay persons. Get into the habit of allowing that the Bible
does not really mean what it says in Genesis in a narrative passage and you will be surprised at how difficult it is to argue with progressives suggesting that it
does not mean what it says in Romans 1, or 1 Timothy 2, or even John 14:6.
Having been raised in a mainline denomination, I can remember the assault on Genesis as a child, followed by numerous other issues thereafter. For me and my house, we like the former motto of
Answers in Genesis: "Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse."