Subject: Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not |
Bible Note: God would be setting us up for an unhealthy case of self-delusion if we had no objective reliable verifiable basis to believe HIM! Your post asked the key question to the understanding of the Gospel. What I think we all likely agree on again of course, is that all forms of communication known such as; art, parables, literature, music, etc. are only understood in the context in which they appear, namely as a portrayal of reality or an artistic vignette of reality. Therefore, even these forms of communication leave us a continual connection with time-space-dimension history. A parable does not purport to have literally happened, but it is mere folly to ever tell one if it has nothing to do with characters and truths we (could) know from our observation of reality which we gain from our contact with historical events (reality). This observation of reality always happens in time, like the momments in real time invested in my writing and in your reading this. Don’t you think any form of artistic communication’s value is completely dependent on its plausibility? Jesus taught in parables which can only be understood and valued in-so-far as they are a picture of reality. For this to happen these must be understood in their historical context. The characters must seem real and the parts (props, and backdrops) that set the story must make sense (and be consistent) for the day they were told -- and Praise God they do! If these don't fit into the era or the cultural milieu of the day then we legitimately claim irrevelance. Art is not art if it doesn't define the culture in some way -- at least in some very implied manner. So the “form” of truth telling is important because it again comes back to the issue of truth. Is a thing true or is it not true? No form of communication is deviod of an attachment (dependence) to reality. Since we cannot have one (art) form of communication without time and space reality, then we must rely on the historical method as being the root of interpretation. Without it there would be no other intelligible forms of communication. The first four chapters of Genesis is a great example of history -- we can relate to it just as surely as we can relate to Shakespeare’s character sketches. The point of contact feels different because the art of Shakespeare is so suited to the human emotion (which emotion is only legitimized by the skill of the artist to value reality) whereas an account of history such as Genesis makes no attempt to create a direct emotional contact. The difference of the two forms will hopefully not cause us to draw a hard line of contrast that creates in us a contempt for one while holding to the other. If you want to read the latest and extraordinary material about this go to: http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/theology/articles/easter.html Read the article there on "Easter Unbelief" |