I have seen the same question posed by three very different people in the past few days, so I thought I might use this more public forum to answer it. The most recent catalyst for the question was an NPR piece on the controversy over the historicity of Adam and Eve. In my segment of the program, I compared that controversy about Adam to the Galileo Affair, suggesting that Christians are now facing a challenge like that created by the motion of the earth in the 17th century.
The motion of the earth was threatening in 1633 when Galileo was on trial. The Bible was quite clear that the earth was fixed and said so in so many words: "The earth is fixed and cannot be moved" wrote the Psalmist with unfortunate clarity in chapter 93. And there were theological issues. The earth-centered universe made theological sense. If humanity was the focus of God's creation, then it followed that the earth would be located in a special place. In the worldview of the times, however, the center of the universe was special in that hell was located there. Things improved as one moved out toward the stars, in the general direction of heaven, and away from the earth.
Reluctantly, and with much egg on its face, the Church eventually made peace with Galileo and the motion of the earth. The last holdout was the ultraconservative Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, which finally capitulated just over a century ago, almost three centuries after Galileo's infamous trial.
The controversy over Adam and Eve is much the same. There are biblical references to Adam and Eve that, if taken literally, suggest they were real people. But these references are no more compelling than those made by the Psalmist to a fixed earth. And Adam essentially disappears from the Old Testament after his brief cameo in the Garden of Eden. The real issue, however, is theological. St. Paul, in the New Testament, speaks of Christ as a "Second Adam," undoing the damage created by the first Adam. If we don't have Adam to explain where sin came from, then Christianity supposedly collapses. The intertwined biblical and theological problems of the Adam controversy are strikingly analogous to their Galilean predecessors. The Adam issue is more significant, however, since it deals with humanity and connects to Christ.
These questions are complex and beyond what I want to address in this piece. What I do want to address is a much easier question that keeps coming up about biblical interpretation. The biblical references to the fixed earth and the first couple require interpretation. You cannot simply read a book like the Bible -- you have to read it through complex filters to properly understand it. The most obvious such filter is that of language. The story of Adam and Eve originated as a Hebrew oral tradition, which is a long ways from an English prose translation. And there are more complex filters related to culture, author intent, literary form, historical setting, anticipated audience and so on.
Application of these filters leads many readers to conclude that the biblical story of Adam and Eve was never intended to be read as literal history. The world "Adam" for example, is the generic Hebrew word for "man." "Eve" means "living one." The story is about a couple with the improbable names "Man and Living One," who reside in a magical garden and take walks with God in the evening. It is far from obvious that this should be read as literal history.
But how do we decide which parts of the Bible should be read literally? This question is often posed with an "Aha! I have got you" exclamation, as though the inquisitor is certain it cannot be answered. Jerry Coyne, in his endless quest to discredit all things religious, put it like this in a recent blog:
"Sophisticated" theologians who urge a non-literal reading of the Bible always put themselves in a bind. And it is this: if the Bible is not to be read as a literal account of the truth, then how do we know which parts really are true, and which parts are fiction or metaphor? Nobody has ever found a convincing way to winnow the true from the metaphorical, and so it becomes an exercise in cherry-picking.
Less triumphalist versions of this same question were posed to me by a radio listener this morning and a former student yesterday on my Facebook wall. And I think the answer is straightforward, even simple:
The Bible is not a book. It is a library -- dozens of very different books bound together. The assumption that identifying one part as fiction undermines the factual character of another part is ludicrous. It would be like going into an actual physical library and saying "Well, if all these books about Harry Potter are fictional, then how do I know these other books about Abraham Lincoln are factual? How can Lincoln be real if Potter is not?" And then "Aha! I have got you! So much for your library."
Acknowledging that the Bible is a library doesn't do all the hard work for us, of course. But recognizing this at least lets us avoid the so-called slippery slope where a non-literal approach in one place somehow compromises a literal approach in another.
Follow Karl Giberson, Ph.D on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gibersok
The bible and belief in God is something that must be taken on a measure of faith. The believer may start believing because of the facts he as gathered, but the rest, the unknown and invisible aspect, they have to take by faith. The same can be said of a scientist. Scientists gather their information and believe y is related to x - but can never be absolutely sure of it. Only relatively sure-, so they take it on faith that they have approached things from every angle. After all, their experiments have proven to a certain degree, that they can be correct to a certain degree. But it is the unknowable that always plagues us.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/08/27/news-to-note-08272011#five
Finally,someone stated that in simple terms.
Also,this book is full of metaphors,so it shouldn't be read literally.
The bible is an antiquated version of morale values that have no longer any relevance to today's society
Religion should be a personal thing. One's own need to believe in some sort divine being, why does it have it come with the most outrageous, idiotic, moronic, narrow minded medieval rules and forms of punishments.
People that have taken a step back can see how wrong and prejudice and in many ways evil the bible truly is .
Mindless sheep that let them selves being led by lies, ignorance, prejudice and old white men that enjoy being in power.... People wake up already !
WHAT CRAP..... it's a collection of not very well written 1600 hundred year old fantasies.
These were books that were collected and then put into the larger "Book". They represent the religious ideas of those who compiled the Bible. We have Jerome thank for translating and editing the finished product. Read it with care. Read it with prayer. Read it for understanding the mystery of the Divine but don't read it as a modern science or modern history book.
Ah yes, the salad bar Christians.
I will take a little of this, no faith required there.
However, I want no part of that.
That would require something more than I can; see, understand, am willing to submit to.
Submission is an act of Love.
There is nothing weak about it.
It takes great strength.
More than I have ... at this time.
Please excuse my errors at the key board.
Christ worked with His hands.
It is never really said that He was a carpenter, as we know one.
There were not a whole lot of trees in that area. He most likely worked with mud, most of the time.
Marduk was the god of Babylon. He was depicted as a serpent with legs (a dragon: Satan, the adversary). He tempted Eve to accept the fruit of eternal life (the code of H.). The code differed fm the Judaic cvt. Consumption of the fruit would mean a distortion of justice, not eternal life.
Eve consumed the fruit and persuaded Adam to do so as well. Their being cast out of the garden represented being cast out of a society with a better law into competition with a society where they were destined to be mistreated.
The story also represents an advocacy for the transition to monogamy for the leadership.
All of the Bible is true.
Man's interpretation is not accurate.
I saw "The Passion" ... a Chinese take off.
It was trying to translate;
Hebrew to Chinese ...
Then,
Chinese to English.
I kept trying to figure out what, "Nail Him fast," meant.
That was their interpretation of "Crucify Him".
When I figured out that was what they meant ... I laughed.
I think all the others there still hate me :(
Yes, the latter is a mathematical probability. One can stubbornly choose to believe it, too. Yet the more I learned about science, the more I'm amazed by the incredible order existing throughout the universe. How precarious is life on earth in the midst of all hostile forces of the universe? How incredible are the mechanisms of a simple human muscle? Do you really think all this order has no design? Look up in the night time sky, are you not struck by the beauty of it all - can you really believe from your heart that this majestic view is the result of random laws of physics?
I'm looking to argue with anyone who believes differently than myself. I'm just sharing what I think, from a scientific view of religion.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm