B
BibleReader
Guest
I don’t have the time to address each of the posts here, now, but I will. Pazienza.
- Status
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I don’t see the consequences as so dire.
To me, just because something is not historical, doesn’t mean it cannot be part of the tapestry.
The Bible is full of parables and figurative language. Why can’t Adam and Eve be one of those parables? The lessons and the reality of human nature can be completely mapped into Genesis such that it forms a basis of our understanding, whether or not it was historically true. It’s like taking quotes from Shakespeare to explain current realities.
Mathematics was designed by humans, and people use it all the time to describe realities that may or may not ever have existed, but which tell us something about the way numbers behave. Funny, though, we are very opinionated at times at to what is the “truth” behind mathematics. Well, really there isn’t any but there are axioms and there is a system that most people agree is consistent, if confusing.
In other words, I can believe in mathematics without caring whether I have the historically accurate stories of the personal lives of the inventors of it. Really if math were invented by an anonymous author it doesn’t really make it less valid. My faith is such that the reality of the truths revealed by the Gospel is not limited by our understanding of whether there is physical historicity behind it.
There are several levels of intimacy with the written Word. The most shallow is the literal level, where we discuss what was actually said and what it meant. Deeper levels on intimacy progress through allegorical, straight through to Divine Union. Instead of looking at the Bible as a cookbook for good works, contemplatives look at it as a student workbook for transforming oneself so that we experience true union with Christ. It is when someone begins to experience these deeper forms of union with the Holy Scriptures that one loses interest in the historical accuracy compared to their enthusiasm about what affect this Word can have on their soul. The Word of God is like a beautiful lover that you need only to enjoy and become totally united, and really it may be fascinating but not necessary to know the details of her biological functions unless you are her doctor. Arguing about whether her bright eyes are from her dad or mom, while intellectually fascinating, is counterproductive and divisive when debated as to its literal truth.
Alan
G
Ghosty
Guest
Alan: While I agree with you about the need to look at Scripture in a deeper way, and that literalistic reading does not always meet this requirement, I do think there is a flaw in your logic.
Let’s take, for example, the Crucifixion. There is much figurative use of language in the story, much symbolism, but the story itself is still entirely true. In fact, if it weren’t true we’d have a serious crisis of faith. Without the Crucifixion, we have no Christianity, plain and simple. For all its symbolism and creative storytelling, we must accept the events as real in order to accept the faith.
Adam and Eve are a similar example, as the story is a melding of figurative story elements, symbolism, and real history. If the story is NOT real, then we have a very serious problem. One of these problems is that sin is a personal act, not a corporate one. A group can’t sin, but individuals can. The Catechism even describes this act as a personal sin, not a symbolic story about sin in general. To reduce it to a mere “cautionary tale” eliminates the personal nature of sin, and it eliminates our human connection to Original Sin as described by Paul. This is not the story of the “Good Samaritan” in which symbolic people commit symbolic sins, all in the interest of teaching. In this case, the sin in question has a very real and tangible effect on all of humanity, such that the death of Christ is required to repair it. If they were simply storybook characters, Paul could not have said “through one man sin entered the world.” We are obligated to take as historical truth those things that have a very real historical consequence; Adam and Eve were real, the six day creation was not necessarily. Rendering the Fall as symbolic steals away the meaning of much of the rest of Scripture, and can’t be squared with a Christian understanding of the Messiah.
Let’s take, for example, the Crucifixion. There is much figurative use of language in the story, much symbolism, but the story itself is still entirely true. In fact, if it weren’t true we’d have a serious crisis of faith. Without the Crucifixion, we have no Christianity, plain and simple. For all its symbolism and creative storytelling, we must accept the events as real in order to accept the faith.
Adam and Eve are a similar example, as the story is a melding of figurative story elements, symbolism, and real history. If the story is NOT real, then we have a very serious problem. One of these problems is that sin is a personal act, not a corporate one. A group can’t sin, but individuals can. The Catechism even describes this act as a personal sin, not a symbolic story about sin in general. To reduce it to a mere “cautionary tale” eliminates the personal nature of sin, and it eliminates our human connection to Original Sin as described by Paul. This is not the story of the “Good Samaritan” in which symbolic people commit symbolic sins, all in the interest of teaching. In this case, the sin in question has a very real and tangible effect on all of humanity, such that the death of Christ is required to repair it. If they were simply storybook characters, Paul could not have said “through one man sin entered the world.” We are obligated to take as historical truth those things that have a very real historical consequence; Adam and Eve were real, the six day creation was not necessarily. Rendering the Fall as symbolic steals away the meaning of much of the rest of Scripture, and can’t be squared with a Christian understanding of the Messiah.
- Status