Glenn wrote
>>Thus, I have real theological difficulty having God tell us things that are
>>not factually true without clearly marking it as a parable.>>
>
>Jim Bell replied:
>
>>As I've explained, you must take the text as it is, and Genesis 1 is
>"clearly
>>marked" as different in style from the rest of the Bible. You don't deny
>this.
>>But, inexplicably, you do deny that one's hermeneutic must be flexible as a
>>result. This is inapt.
I find this discussion quite remarkable: Glenn, who accepts an ancient
earth and evolution defending a very literal interpretation of Genesis v.
Jim who does not accept evolution defending a more sophisticated literary
analysis of Genesis. Both people I have come to respect quite a bit too,
so mind you this is not intended to be a slam at either.
>
>Jim Bell further wrote:
>>Your Aristotilean mind is playing tricks on you. You set up "fact" as
>>objective/verifiable, and then apply the law of "either/or." The fallacy is
>in
>>your major premise, as I've explained.
Point well taken. Aristotelian logic does not work well with Hebrew literature.
>>
>
Glenn replies
>O.K. for the sake of argument, I will agree with you here. I am hopelessly
>Aristotelian and need to be sent to a re-education camp. Genesis 1 is to be
>taken allegorically. Let's see.
>
>Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
>
>It is allegorical. God really didn't create the Heavens and the earth. Gee,
>then what is all the fuss about?
Okay. This is what I want to respond to. Glen may be indulging in a bit
of sarcasm here, but his statement illustrates a view that seems common
among YEC's, a view that I don't understand. That view seems to equate
allegory with fiction. If it's allegorical it ain't so. My Webster's
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary's definition of allegorical includes: 2.
Having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a
sacred text. (The first definition is just "having the characteristics of
allegory"). IOW declaring a passage allegorical doesn't necessarily mean
that the literal sense is false. It just means that the passage carries a
spiritual meaning that transcends the literal words. I'm totally in
agreement with Glenn that it's possible to use (or perhaps misuse)
allegorical interpretation to excise the concrete meaning from the text,
and I'm as opposed to that as he is. But the allegory = lies paradigm
seems to me to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
>
R. C. Sproul even characterizes the early chapters of Genesis as
poetic(it's in his book "Knowing Scripture". I can find the exact
quotation if you'd like.) He does not by that mean that the literal sense
of these passages should be ignored, but he doesn't want the spiritual
meaning to be lost either. While we shouldn't read the Bible the way the
world does, there are useful things about understanding literature that we
learned in high school and college literature courses, which we should use
when appropriate.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)