Subject: Genesis Creation, a practical example? |
Bible Note: There has never been, to my knowledge, a universally accepted, absolute standard promulgated for the art of separating biblical literalism from biblical symbolism. But there are nevertheless some guidelines that have served biblical scholars well for many centuries. The one that comes foremost to mind is that the Bible should be approached, insofar as possible, in an objective manner, with a mind that has been cleansed of pre-conceived notions and bias. We run into all manner of problems when we seek to "prove" the validity of our own deeply ingrained ideas by the Bible. It should of course be that we lay aside our vanity and thus make room for God's truth to finds its way into our hearts and minds....... If, for example, I have bought into the Darwinian lie of evolution, I am quite unlikely to view the first few chapters of Genesis as anything but a fairy tale of pure folklore told by an ancient people who didn't know any better. If I am unwilling to accept no concept but naturalism, it is incumbent upon me to invent ways to explain away any and all accounts of miracles, because miracles involve supernaturalism. If I believe that sin is a man-made idea that has no basis in reality, the idea of the need for a Saviour is at once preposterous...... This objective approach to Scripture, to be sure, is not being offered as a cure-all panacea for all difficult passages, but it is solid ground on which to take the first step...... Context is another. If, for example, Jesus' saying that His disciples should engage in going about the grisly business of gouging out their own eyes is clearly out of step with the body of His other teachings (and it is), then we are wise to read the passage for what it clearly is and was meant to be: a conscious, deliberate exaggeration designed to drive home the truth of His message. But to view the passage in this manner is not wild interpretation. It could hardly be called interpretation at all. It is in reality mere understanding of the plain sense and the point of the passage..... Jesus referred to Himself variously as being bread, door, and vine. Yet no school child would likely have any problem in understanding that Jesus was never a physical piece of bread or a door or a vine...... Not even the most severe of fundamentalists would argue that the parables were anything other than fictional accounts of the commonplace whose purpose is merely to illustrate truth, not to relate a true event...... By and large, the Bible is a factual account of God's dealings with the human race. If we keep this fact as a premise, the variations of poetic justice, allegory, parable and symbolism will, in most cases, present far fewer interpretative challenges. ...... Above all, the most fruitful means at our disposal for rightly dividing the word of truth comes, not from our resolute mind, but from our bended knee. It is only when we go to God in prayer, and petition Him to let the Spirit guide us into all truth, that we have any real assurance of understanding truly what God is saying to us through His word. --Hank |