RE: To Christians who aren't creationists
May 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2012 at 2:51 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
@Ryft and @ChadWooters
Again, thanks for sharing your interesting understanding of the creation accounts. I don't have time right now to address all your points but there is one that is really bugging me and if I can get it answered, then maybe the conversation will go along better.
Ryft, you said in the other thread that it is important to understand the Bible as it was meant to be understood by the original readers. In other words, your trying to look at it not in the eyes of 2000 years of theology, but in the eyes of the audience who first received it.
Keeping this in mind, you also talk about how clearly the creation story is symbolic. It wasn't meant to be taken as a literal scientific account. It seems to be that your reasoning is that symbolism and literalism are exclusive. If an account is has lots of symbolic imagery, then it wasn't meant to taken as if anything in the account actually happened in history. But would the first readers have made this distinction?
Symbolism is not necessarily exclusive to literalism. An action or object in a story may have lots of symbolic imagery, but it doesn't necessarily mean that said action or object wasn't meant to be taken as actually occurring.
Let's say that whoever the first recipients were read the creation story understanding it with all the temple symbolism the way you think it was meant to be taken. Do you think that the Jewish readers back then would go "Look at all this symbolism about God, the earth as temple, and man. Isn't it beautiful? But remember, this is all just symbolism. The earth really isn't a temple. The sky really isn't made of metal. God probably did it this way: [insert whatever would been considered as the literal origins of earth back then]."
Are you saying that the first readers really did not look at the sky and think it was metal? Did they not really think of the earth as having four corners with angels at each end? Did they really not think of the earth as being the center of the universe?
If you say that it doesn't matter whether the first readers really thought of the earth and the sky that way, as long as they recognized the symbolism, then you're violating your principle of understanding the text the way the original readers took it.
To summarize: show me that the creation story was meant to be taken symbolically but not also literally.
Again, thanks for sharing your interesting understanding of the creation accounts. I don't have time right now to address all your points but there is one that is really bugging me and if I can get it answered, then maybe the conversation will go along better.
Ryft, you said in the other thread that it is important to understand the Bible as it was meant to be understood by the original readers. In other words, your trying to look at it not in the eyes of 2000 years of theology, but in the eyes of the audience who first received it.
Keeping this in mind, you also talk about how clearly the creation story is symbolic. It wasn't meant to be taken as a literal scientific account. It seems to be that your reasoning is that symbolism and literalism are exclusive. If an account is has lots of symbolic imagery, then it wasn't meant to taken as if anything in the account actually happened in history. But would the first readers have made this distinction?
Symbolism is not necessarily exclusive to literalism. An action or object in a story may have lots of symbolic imagery, but it doesn't necessarily mean that said action or object wasn't meant to be taken as actually occurring.
Let's say that whoever the first recipients were read the creation story understanding it with all the temple symbolism the way you think it was meant to be taken. Do you think that the Jewish readers back then would go "Look at all this symbolism about God, the earth as temple, and man. Isn't it beautiful? But remember, this is all just symbolism. The earth really isn't a temple. The sky really isn't made of metal. God probably did it this way: [insert whatever would been considered as the literal origins of earth back then]."
Are you saying that the first readers really did not look at the sky and think it was metal? Did they not really think of the earth as having four corners with angels at each end? Did they really not think of the earth as being the center of the universe?
If you say that it doesn't matter whether the first readers really thought of the earth and the sky that way, as long as they recognized the symbolism, then you're violating your principle of understanding the text the way the original readers took it.
To summarize: show me that the creation story was meant to be taken symbolically but not also literally.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
