Subject: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? |
Bible Note: Myth, Genesis, Paul. Hello Kat. Please understand that, when I say myth I don't mean "falsehood" or "fairytale". God's myth is as different from the myths of other cultures, as the authority of Biblical history is different from reading human historians. I believe the opening chapters of Genesis are authoritative --- what the meaning of the text is true, but not to be taken literally. It is pretty hard to know what Paul meant, when we only have his words. Someday, we'll be able to ask him face to face. If Paul understood the story of Adam and Eve as mythic, he would still write the same passage --- just as I would say "with Adam and Eve, humanity entered into sin." Since I allow this story to shape my entire view of human nature, and humanity's relationship with God, I speak the language of the myth. I don't need to double-think about it --- I embrace the story as the truth about people. When Paul says, "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me..." (Galatians 2:20) he is not saying that Paul has been crucified --- yet it is true that he has "died to himself." So we accept his language as a powerful metaphor. But we don't fear that people we say that Christ's crucifixion is a metaphor, do we? So just because one part of a passage is literal doesn't mean the other part is. The same with the passages you quoted. I would further add that, until the last few hundred years, people blended mythic thinking and analytic thinking much more fluidly. I think our concern with literal reading has only been so intense since the "Enlightenment" advanced empiricism as the only way of knowing truth. So, in a way, taking the early accounts of Genesis literally is adopting the enlightenment's criteria for truth. I don't mean to cloud the issue. It's just that I find taking the opening passages of Genesis literally clouds the issues for many people -- and we spend our time talking about DNA and incest and theories that can't be proven. I find it clearer to say: "I won't trouble with those controversies -- I will diligently seek what the text says about God's plan for us." Other people responding to my post have suggested that I must be an evolutionist. I don't really know either way --- but I do know it is complicated. The universe does seem to be very old --- and I can either react to that by saying "No, that's not what Genesis says." --- or I can say "Wow, IF that's true, then God's creative power is so fantastic!" --and get on with the gospel. In University, a Christian students group set up a debate about creation and evolution. As convincing as either side was, the impression I left with was, "both sides are missing the point." I would put that kind of debate in the "how many angles on the head of a pin" category. I left wondering how many could have been reached with the gospel -- even using the same passages. If Christian's can't agree on how the passage should be read scientifically (6 days, metaphorical days, mythic, etc) then the scientific reading doesn't make a great evangelistic tool. I think the different streams of Christians do, however, agree on the inspiration, importance, and meaning of the passages. Embrace the meaning. |