The first thing I am seeing is a belief in Creationism. I have only tried two churches in the 2 months since I rededicated my life. Both churches interpret the Bible as the literal history of the planet. They believe that Man was created as we are now, that there was no evolution. I respectfully disagree.
However, there is something of an issue with my disagreement. Now, I am making an assumption here, but it seems that people may think that my lack of belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible implies that I lack true belief, or that I am still in some sort of rebellion against God.
First of all, I do not feel in conflict with God. I feel I am following His lead. I feel He is working in my life, and I humble myself to His Majesty. However, I do think that believing the Bible as entirely literally accurate is intellectually lazy.
I have no doubt that the Word of God is 100% true. Allow me to stress that statement. I have no doubt that the Word of God is 100% true. However, the Word of God is not the same as the words of God. Please take note of the distinction.
The Word of God is His Divine Message to us. It is a Message of Salvation from Sin, a Message of Love. The actual words are a means of delivering the Message, but they are not The Word in the way it was meant to be understood.
Allow me to illustrate. The Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ was the Word of God made flesh:
John 1:14 (New International Version)
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Does this mean that Jesus was made from words and sentences? No, that is absurd. That passage does not make sense if you are speaking of the Word as just words and sentences. However, if you see that Jesus is the physical embodiment of a revelation of the nature of God, then it rings true.
The stories in the Bible, especially in the early Old Testament, were not meant to be taken literally. Whoever the scribe who wrote Genesis was, could he have understood the complex processes that God set in motion to craft the world as it is? NO. Could he create a metaphorical story to explain things? Yes.
Looking at some of the Bible as metaphor and some as history, the question is asked, how do we tell the difference? This was the question asked of me. I explained my belief that the Creation Story, Noah and the Ark, the Tower of Babel, these are metaphors. I was asked how do I tell the metaphors from what I believe are actual history, such as the reign of King David?
The argument I received was since we cannot draw a distinct line between metaphor and actual fact, then we must take it to be literal, otherwise, the actual Truth in the Word could be ignored as metaphor. I refute this.
I believe that the planet is billions of years old. I believe that man evolved from a primitive life form. I believe in God, and in His Word. These are not exclusive of one another.
I also believe that in order to read and understand the Word, we cannot blindly assume it is all literal fact. We must be more sophisticated in our understanding. It is imperative that we be able to understand the context in which the texts were written. To quote author Karl Giberson,
"The early chapters of Genesis do not read like history. They have a different sort of character to them. People who read Hebrew and understand the ancient Near Eastern worldview, and the cosmology that informed it, have given us ample reasons why you would not read Genesis that way, even if you weren't worried about reconciling it with a billion-year-old planet."
God gave us tremendous capacity for sophisticated thought, why would He ask us to suspend that ability when dealing with His Word? I believe in science, geology, and evolution, yet I still believe in God, in His ability in our lives. I believe in Sin. I believe in Christ.
I do not begrudge anyone who believes in the Bible as literal history. However, I do think that is a lazy attitude to take. God gave us great capacity for reason and logic. I do not think that we should suspend that when we are trying to be close to Him.
1 comment:
A true believer in religion doesn’t need proof, faith is enough for them. In fact, a lack of faith and a desire to see empirical truth is seen as a severe failing of character by the faithful.
Conversely, a follower of science finds it difficult to conceive of how someone could simply not want to understand something. The very act of surrendering to a higher power rather continuing the quest for knowledge is incomprehensible to the follower of science.
Multiple beliefs can exist together in different people, different places and in different ways; it is where you and you alone draw the line that you will find they can, will and do exist.
Keep up the Blogs,
Your Friend of Many Different Views
Post a Comment