Previously, I was a very strict literalist when it came to the bible. I used the slippery slope argument that if one part was not real and factual, we would end up having a pick and choose theology. However, my study of history and how people/events are passed down has shown me that in fact, while a particular may not be in itself truth, the whole can be. This fits very nicely with the "full inspiration" of the scripture -- and is why proof-texting is so weak.
In the matter of creation, we have stories that were orally passed from one generation to the next. It is a very convenient method to break creation into periods of "days" for the "rising" and the "setting" of the sun have always marked a period that could be recognized as a day. (For those true science-minded, I realize the sun neither rises nor sets, and that some portions of the earth might have the equivalent of six-month days...but, I hope you get my drift). Picking apart the language of the choice of the word day makes no sense. I will use another story as a backdrop for this:
Is the person in the Da Vinci's Last Supper painting a man or a woman? Is it John or Mary as some hypothesize. We could study the facial features, we could study the pose -- the result? Who cares. Da Vinci was not there! He is not an eye witness painting an artists sketch as in some courtroom. He frankly could have painted any features/details in that he wanted. What we see is how the artist pictured it in his mind.
So, back to creation. The story of creation was passed down orally for many generations before it was written. So, to make the account more easily committed to memory and able to be retold, a certain poetic license had to be exercised. Which came first light or darkness? I contend light -- look at the sun, darkness occurs when the sun is obscured. Without something to obscure the sun from view, we would naturally have light... But, I digress. Man was created on the first day? Ummm, no. The second? Again no, so frankly how do we know if God created the heavens or the earth first? Well, only because as the story was passed down, it was determined that it was significant to place them in that order... Let's assume it was how God related it to Adam, and how he related it to his descendants -- it is important not how it was done, but, how it was recorded -- that is the truth we are to take away.
Did it really take God six days? Why not six seconds? Well, there was no truly accurate measurement for a second (maybe they used 1-Mississippi or something). So, it became a definable period of time for the story -- 1 day (later determined to be one revolution of the earth -- funny, when it was discovered that the earth rotated around its own axis as well as the sun, math did not change, but was confirmed! -- this contradicts those who say that science would fall if the earth was discovered to not be old).
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that we must recognize the bible as a record. It is accurate in that it was meant to record the relationship between God and man. The interesting thing is that many have through the years doubted the bible. Some would hold up certain passages and say, "See not true." It might be verses about a place or an event. Yet, discoveries are made that consistently show the bible to be an accurate record of a people.
Do I have a point? Not sure. I have journeyed from literalism to a deeper view of the bible. Is it simply a photograph that catches the sun and the figures represented? Or, is it a beautiful poem that captures the heart of God and his yearning to be closer to us -- his creation? James Thomas Flexner wrote in "Washington: The Indispensable Man" that once the myth of Washington was removed, we would more fully appreciate the man that Washington was and his true greatness. How much more so this is true of God!
When we see how God has so jealously sought to have a relationship with us -- with me; I am awed that the creator of the universe has so sought my worship! When I realize that the story of the bible is not man struggling to be close to God, but, God seeking his creation's fellowship -- I understand that the story is so much deeper than did the earth come into being in 144 hours, or was it for me to fall to my knees upon to worship My Creator
3 comments:
Thanks for directing us on NazNet to your post. I resonate with your journey.
Peace,
James
I'm curious to know what it was that prompted you to reconsider your literalist views of the Bible.
Daniel, in response to your question about what prompted me to reconsider -- three primary factors influenced me.
1) Coming to the realization that a dogmatic defense of a literal creation story was hindering my witness. In that I mean that it was placing the burden of proof on me to defend the work of God. I am a poor example to follow in that pursuit. God does not need me defending him. He seems perfectly capable of doing that on his own. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying God did not create the earth in six literal days -- I just don't believe it should be my focus to defend that at the cost of another missing the point. The point is not how, but who and why. With a fellow Christian, I might even continue to argue that the world could have been created in six days, or seconds. But, to an unbeliever, this seems to argue over what time we should get together, versus where we are going.
2) It does not change my position on the WHO of creation. And, the how is insignificant. Even if the wildest claims of scientifically-referenced evolution were true, would that prove that God did not exist? To me, no. There are far more factors that lead me to the logical conclusion of God than creation. Creation is not so much a block in the wall of proof as it is a factor leaned against the wall. If it was removed, the wall would still be there. I accept creation because of God, not God because of creation.
3) The realization that the bible was written within a context. The fact that the bible has survived so many years within its present form is miraculous. Findings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls continue to reaffirm the accuracy of our scripture. However, it must be remembered that the bible was written from a variety of sources and within a variety of frameworks. Items such as the lineages of Jesus served specific purposes within their time, to view them with only a 21st century perspective really does a great disservice to them. We must remember that portions of scripture exist for various reasons and purposes. Losing sight of that really forces too many mental gymnastics to support the truth of scripture. Within the proper views based on context, we achieve a far richer and accurate view of the inspiring work of the Creator with his creation.
Hope this helps -- again, the journey is not complete. I am still very literal in some instances, I just posit that literal can mean accurate to the meaning, not the words.
Post a Comment