I'm assuming that everyone will agree that at some point you must draw a line between what parts of the Bible you accept as literal and which you presume to be metaphor. Obviously, people draw this line at different places. I personally know fundamentalist xians who will argue till they are blue in the face that evolution does not occur. I also know xians who accept evolution without compromising their faith. I mentioned this to a fundie co-worker recently, and she couldn't imagine a xian accepting evolution.
So this got me thinking, where and how do xians make this division? Does this position change? Has your faith ever been threatened by shifting your position?

I thought Christianity was about the New Testament & the Nicene Creed, is believing old Hebrew Folk tales a requierment? Just Curious.

I've taken a middle position on the relation between evolution and my faith. I think it basically doesn't matter for these reasons-

1) It's not the basis of my faith- I don't try to turn the argument on its head and try to prove the veracity of Christianity from the assumed inerrant truth of words in the Bible.

2) Evolution has little or nothing to do with the core Christian confession. With an obvious exception in Galileo, the state of the natural sciences has had very little to do with Christian belief. I mean that the church on the whole has not anathematized people for these reasons. And I do think a position that made an accurate working knowledge of quantum physics the basis of salvation would have few legs to stand on.

If some denomination made Young-Earth Creationism part of their test for Christianity, I wouldn't follow them down that road. They would be missing the point of Christ's message, atonement, and example, and passing judgment on matters of dispute, IMHO.

"Man judges the outward appearance; but God looks at the heart." What is science if not judgments based on outward appearances, whatever we can sense and make pop and evaporate and so on? I think passing judgment on the natural sciences is something best left up to natural scientists, while Christians avoid putting their scientific presuppositions in the mouth of God.

3) There is no basic conflict between evolution and my faith. Darwin's original tacked-on philosophical position at the end of the Origin of Species was that perhaps this was the naturalistic mechanism by which God ran the cosmos (an explanation taken up with great fervor by the Deists). I see no reason to suppose why the Christian need not adopt such an approach. Perhaps it looks like a dodge, because "the Bible says differently" than I have claimed here...

And that brings me to your first question, about how Christians try to decide whether or not something in the Bible is meant literally or meant as a metaphor. After all, I suppose, if I were allowed to be arbitrary, I could say that the creation account in Genesis is a metaphor while the crucifixion of Jesus is literal. But people who disagree with Christianity could equally well say that the Genesis account is literal and the crucifixion accounts are metaphorical. So, the arbitrary method doesn't work for me or for them- with the same inputs, it leads to equal and opposite conclusions.

What method then? There is a very old one called the four senses of Scripture, still practiced by the Roman Catholic church, I believe, which says that all the scripture has a literal sense and three metaphorical senses (the allegorical, moral, and anagogical). Early Christians found many many "types" in the Hebrew Scriptures, which were (they thought) veiled references to events in the NT and NT theology. I think Origen was particularly famous for doing that kind of exegesis.

There is a little control here- defined methods... if you want a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, it had better fit in this rubric somehow. On the other hand, it is very very broad. One passage of Isaiah might provoke different exegetes to produce opposite interpretations for the same Scripture again. Each metaphor might be grounded in the topical world of the commentator. I'm sure there are other problems, but those are just a few.

My solution to this quandary is to treat the Bible like any other book, and not ask it to mean more than it means. First and Second Kings are meant to be read as history, so read them as history. Do not ask them for didactic theology. You will be disappointed. Psalms are just that- poetry, prayer, devotion. Try to read them for scientific facts where there are metaphors and you may be disappointed. One example: Psalm 91:7, where "A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you" does not literally mean that eleven thousand people will fall though you do not fall. It is not meant to be a foretelling of future events. Instead, the ten thousand following the one thousand is a Hebrew literary convention, of which many parallel examples abound.

What kind of book is Genesis, and what kind of stories are its creation accounts? Genesis 1, IMHO, is a highly stylized and poetic account. It is not history, nor meant to be read as such! It is a poem, and there are numerous literary devices to suggest so. Contrast it with the Genesis 2:4ff. account of the creation of Adam etc. This is more straightforward prose, but it still seems intentionally literary rather than "purely" historical.

So, I don't take a "purely" historical view of Genesis 1. Perhaps I could make a distinction by saying that I believe the Genesis 1 account is a true portrait of what God is like, if not dry and didactic in its geological details? That seems to be one way to explain the "conflict."

This is a sort of weak position though. Again it seems like a dodge. Some Christians take the step of interpreting the stylized account of Genesis 1, claiming rightly that its "days" correspond to time periods rather than literal days (and there are parallel examples in other literature in the Scriptures). I have seen an argument that the order of the days is not necessarily terrible, that the order of organisms and so on can be defended. I'm not sure how far I would take this personally.

My personal favorite is that the order in Genesis 1 is based on the sequential creation of certain spaces, followed by the sequential creation of the organisms that go in those spaces. Here there is not a chronological order, but instead a poetic symmetry.

After that digression-

4) There is no basic conflict between the Genesis 1 account and the facts of geology, biology, etc., as I point out above.

To conclude-

I see all this evolution vs. Christianity talk as a false conflict. People were Christians before and after Einstein, Newton, and Copernicus, as am I.

Thanks for the time-
Dan

I see I forgot to add...

Yes, when I was first investigating the position I wondered just how far I could push the envelope with this and retain my faith. It was stressful. Of course, it was a great relief to know that basically secular standards of reading a work in context will work in harmony with my more moderate position on the natural sciences:

I am not a biologist, but am curious about how far the evolutionary position can be defended. At the same time I see no reason to doubt the methodology of natural science, like peer review, repeated trials, and so on. It gives good inductive results (limited by the quality of information available).

I also realized I forgot to mention part of my position, in response to whether or not it is necessary to believe old Hebrew folk tales. One of the oldest misconceptions about Christianity (c.140 AD) is that Christianity need not depend on our grow out of the Judaic revelation. Marcion excised portions of what are now the New Testament writings to show that it did not in fact depend on YHWH (he thought YHWH was an evil wrathful god). So he cut out some of Paul's arguments from Hebrew prophecy, references to the Law as a positive thing in Romans, and so on. If anything, the Jewish belief is the wellspring for Christian belief, or the tree to which the Christian branch is ingrafted.

So, naturally, I agree that the Judaic revelation is a revelation of the one true God. I disagree with their interpretations where my presuppositions differ from theirs (my presuppositions are driven by the historical resurrection of Jesus), but other than that I agree that God has revealed himself to them in many times and places which are truthfully attested to in the Jewish Scriptures. That truth is not entirely contained in long lists of facts, and never could be. Reading the works in the Scriptures for what they are (as they meant themselves to be understood) is a significant step in the right direction.

So, I affirm the truthfulness of the Hebrew Scriptures, as did Jesus according to the NT authors.

Cheers,
Dan

DanLewis:
Thank you very much for the detailed well thought out response. I agree with your last statement that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I think the "conflicts" between the two arise when they are confused. I live in an area with many fundamentalist xians and these are usually the ones I end up in religious discussions with. I've tried several times to explain that religion and science do not necessarily conflict, but being an atheist, I have difficulty communicating this to them.
I have another question, however. What influences you decisions on what you DO accept as literal? In particular, I'm referring to miraculous or supernatural events. Is there a point where you find you can no longer question and must simply accept on faith alone?

I can only sympathize with you! How about this: revelatory religion begins where science ends, because science attempts to explicate all that is trapped inside the box of this natural universe, as far as we can observe it, while revelatory religion claims that a hole has been poked in the box and light is streaming in. So, I don't see them as mutually exclusive. I wouldn't be surprised if the light from outside the box shed light on goings-on inside the box, but I might be surprised if the scientific tools that allow us to explore to the edge of the box started reporting information about the outside. This, IMO, is what the naturalist assumption tends to do: make science tell the story that outside the box, there is nothing worth talking about. Science really can't tell that story. Philosophical naturalism is necessary, and in the end it's only as valid as long as it fits the facts. It is subject to a higher value: it must be proved by history. I explain below.

Well, let me answer your question by remarking that there is no definitive case against miracles other than the dogma that they do not happen. "All else is evidence, dispute and judgment," as Charles Williams points out. As I see it, the naturalistic assumption precludes that anything non-natural has ever happened. Too often, I have seen the prima facie argument that if there is a miracle attested, it didn't really happen. That is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and so I reject it.

A tenable form of metaphysical naturalism proves that miracles have not happened on other grounds than the assumption that miracles do not happen. Here, the philosophy is subject to and driven by actual data (subjective though they are)- the observations of people.

As far as what miracles I accept and do not accept, I admit that I have a far higher regard for the miracles in the Old Testament than, say, a faith-healer healing someone today. That regard is driven by Jesus' regard for the Old Testament and its miracles (as I understand his position, and I realize there are a lot of questions to be begged at this point, like his historicity, etc.).

I think it is safe to say that if he did not believe in those miracles, I would probably not. I don't consider that blind faith, exactly. I certainly have a lower threshold to the possibility and plausibility of miracles having happened than a naturalist. I consider that an inference from my belief in the resurrection, a plausible miracle IMO.

As for the main miracle, the resurrection, all is evidence, dispute, and judgment. My claim is that the box has been punctured there, and so there is a mighty debate about it. I find no point in that debate where I must take a fact on blind faith (although I find myself studying to try and catch up in the various disciplines that can shed light on the event).

In direct answer to your question, I believe in miracles I have no direct evidence for, like the plagues in Egypt, because they (and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures) were found trustworthy by Jesus.

So, I find a link here to my earlier post- in the sense that they mean to be read, the Scriptures are trustworthy. So, perhaps some miracles are meant to be taken historically, and some are meant allegorically or something. These are still trustworthy documents, but I must decide how literal the document is that Jesus trusted.

I don't think that in that way my beliefs in those miracles are rendered untrustworthy. I merely rest on the veracity and qualification of Jesus.

Thanks for your interest...
Dan

Ah, this is a very good question, and as an evangelical Christian, one I've had to struggle with in the past as well. I'm going to pretty much ignore the issue of whether or not the first few chapters of Genesis should be taken literally, whether creation or evolution is true, etc.--because science isn't my fortee (which is why I'm on this forum and not "Creation/Evolution").

There is no simple answer to the broad question, "What parts of the Bible do we take literally and what parts are metaphorical?" A better question might be, "How we do interpret Scripture based on its literary type, genre, author's intent, etc.?" Because the Bible is a collection of ancient, complicated works of literature, I recommend Robert H. Stein's "Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible" as well as another book (with several authors) on the OT entitled, "Cracking Old Testament Codes"--not to be confused with that Bible Codes mess of a couple years ago!

Anyway, I've read the former and found it VERY helpful. I just ordered the latter and plan on reading it sometime in June. Hope this helps you out some.

Andrew

[This message has been edited by Andrew Anderson (edited May 25, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Andrew Anderson (edited May 25, 2001).]

Thanks for your replies. If anyone else cares to answer, I want to stress that this is not a question on the evolution/creation debate. I just used that as an example because its an issue that I personally run into over and over.

Thanks again for you help. I agee with you that science has its limits. As you say, the realm of science lies inside the box ( to continue your analogy). As a naturalist, I believe there is no "outside the box". But I agree with you that this is a religious statement based on my "religion" of naturalism and the presuppositions it entails. Science has no place or hope of determining the "truth" of either of our beliefs. You have your reasons to believe and I have mine. Our different world views mean that we will probably never agree on what lies "outside the box."
I think there is another way to approach "miracles" than either accepting them or outright denying that they happen. I believe that everything has a natural explanation but I don't pretend to believe that we know these explanations. I think things actually occur that may appear miraculous or supernatural only because we don't have the knowledge to explain them rationally.

I'd say by contrast that I claim my world-view is true for reasons you can understand, and that we can agree, even though our world-views are different.

Whether or not the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ happened in history is a falsifiable question. The answer to that question does not, however, depend on my world-view, or on some presupposition of the truth of Christianity that you, unfortunately, do not share.

So, at least for me, my Christianity is driven by a historical fact. So I guess my a priori assumptions about that fact are that humans exist and can use their reason to interpret sense data, and can discover what has happened before by shared standards of historical investigation. I suppose there are a lot of other details we might fill in, like humans can understand written communcation, etc., but that's the basic world-view I approach these questions from.

Of course, there is a metaphysical argument about why it matters that somebody comes back from the dead in history, but that is a different stage of the Christian question.

How do you justify your world-view? Do you have assumptions? Can these change or be falsified?

Interested in these things,
Dan