Bible Question:
I agree that we probably could not come up with a method that would work 100 percent of the time. However, I think that a process that could tell 95 percent of the time would be good enough for me. I like your ideas of combining things, however, let's take a look at a specific example and see how it would apply. Genesis as a book would I guess fall under your category of Gospel (historical narrative), and therefore we would assume that it was literal unless noted otherwise. Then if we look at the Creation story, we discover that it is written in the form of ancient poetry, and doesn't make a lot of sense literally. It would seem that this method would tell us that it was meant to be figurative, yet you and I both believe it is literal. How do we reconcile this? |
Bible Answer: Greetings Sir! Genesis 1-2 is a good example of where the subjectivity comes into play! It is not obvious that the Creation account is a form of poetry. The assumption is made that Gen. 1 is a form of poetry because of the use of days. I can see where it could be considered poetry. But, Gen. 2 definitely doesn't read like poetry. It reads more like narration. So, assumptions have to be made. Personally, I don't view Gen. 1 as poetry as much as I view it as an accomadation to our human limitations. It is obvious that God doesn't give us every detail about creation in Gen. 1. He seems to give us a very poetic rendering of what He did. But, this doesn't necessarily mean that He didn't actually create the universe in six days. To me though, it is clear that Gen. 2 is historical, and not poetic in the least. Gen. 2 seems to mandate that Gen. 1 be taken literally. Any form of evolution cannot be harmonized with the creation of Adam and Eve in Gen. 2. p.s. - You would have to pick the hardest example! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |