Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84808 | ||
The meaning of Adam and Eve. A consensus seems to be expressed about the literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. As a Christian who believes the Bible is God's inspired word, I would like to present another interpretation. There are, in fact, many Bible-believing Christians who interpret these chapters differently. I find that the opening chapters of Genesis contain a mythic language that suggests we are not to interpret these texts within the "scientific/rationalistic" mode. The language moves away from mythic writing, and into much more concrete history, with the story of Abram and Sarai. It is easy to get hung up on questions of "who married who" etc, and get distracted from the real meaning of the passage. The God-given story of Adam and Eve tells us essential things about what it means to be human. That's why Adam's name isn't a proper name, but a generic term meaning "man." It tells us, for instance, that all humans are of one family, from all races cultures. It tells us that men and women are made in God's image. It tells us about how God intended intimacy between humanity and God, but we chose rebellion instead. It tells us about the relationship between men and women, and the communal character of being human. The expulsion from the garden speaks to our sense of loss and alienation in the world -- and also about the discipline of work and toil. There are so many profound themes wrapped into these short chapters. We don't need to know what literally or scientically happened, to embrace this Word as foundationally true. Focusing on difficulties in literal interpretation prevents us from getting to the substantive meat that can feed our souls. I would suggest that there is a danger in using a literal lense on these passages of scripture. If we claim mythic passages as literal, we lose credibility when we claim other difficult passages are literal. The language of the resurrection accounts, for instance, talk about witnesses and proofs, specific places and times. It is clear that the gospel writers and early Christians believed the resurrection to be a historic, literal occurance. If we sully our credibility with Genesis, it makes it harder to make the case for the resurrection. I do not intend to be divisive or difficult. Instead, I hope that we can allow for some diversity in the reading. In fact, I don't want to discuss the "literal vs. mythic" issue -- but rather, to shift the emphasis to "what does this text say to us, anyway?" Peace. |
||||||
2 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 84810 | ||
Avoid allegorizing the Bible "Avoid spiritualizing or allegorizing the Bible. This is that which gives to the Bible some kind of mystical meaning. In other words, what is on the surface is not the meaning, but what is hidden becomes the meaning. This is very popular. Allegorizing means to say that the historical meaning is not the real meaning, and in fact may be nothing but a fabrication. The historical meaning is not the real meaning, the real meaning is the spiritual meaning hidden beneath the surface. "And once you say that something in the Bible is an allegory, that is, it is only a symbol of the reality, you have just made it impossible to know what that reality is because if that reality cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?" (from the radio message: "How to Study Your Bible: Interpretation" by John MacArthur on Grace to You broadcast) |
||||||
3 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84885 | ||
Genres in the Bible. I think most students of the Bible agree that there are different genres and modes of communication in the Bible. To say that one section is myth, another is allegory, and another is history in no way reduces the authority of the Book. In fact, to flatten out these differences is to misinterpret them. Yes, this does become difficult (who said truth was easy?) Perhaps we don't know the genres, or the cues to how they shift. It is easy to say that the Psalms are poetry, Kings is history, etc. --- but it gets trickier because genres change within individual books. For example, Paul uses hymns in his writing -- which is beautiful, powerful, and provides us with a glimpse of the faith of the earliest Christians. I am not suggesting something beyond the "normal understanding of language." I'm sure we both shudder to see books that "reveal a secret code revealed in the Bible that predicted 9/11." But we do use language in complicated, subtle ways all the time --- why wouldn't the Bible? Look at the complicated theories people work out to explain the literal interpretations. I find the mythic reading less cluttered, and more straight forward --- more akin to "the normal understanding of language." But "straightforward" is not the criteria for Truth either. We need to read the text closely, study the history and the genres, and pray. And commit to live by what we learn. |
||||||