brf@link.UUCP (Bruce Fowler) (03/27/85)
A recent query to the Net: > ... many of the creationists seem to insist that sections of the bible > are to be taken literally. My question is, what parts are metaphors, > what sections should be taken as metaphors, and WHY? > Mainly, I would like to know why genesis is taken literally, and why > it is not considered a metaphor. ... Why, indeed? An excellent question. And why Genesis in particular? There are hundreds of other equally fascinating creation myths in the literature of the world. The answer lies in the basic theological underpinnings of Christianity. The explanation is simple enough, and should be kept in mind by those of you attempting to pursue this discussion on the level of a scientific debate. It has to do with the concept of "Original Sin". Let's read the story in the words of an earlier contributor. (Sorry, I didn't preserve any of the names that by rights should be attached to these quotes.) > ... As the account goes, when Adam sinned, he died. His death was > a spiritual death with a physical death to follow. Christ came to > redeem mankind from sin and the effects of sin, which is both deaths. > Death is a seperation, physical death is seperation from the body, > and spiritual death is seperation from God. God says "The wages of sin > is death". Since the entire human race was in the loins of Adam at the > time of his sin, this means the death of the entire fallen, human race. If Genesis is not literally true in the discussion of Adam and Eve and their "fall from grace", then there is no need for Jesus to come to Earth and redeem mankind from that "original sin". Given this line of reasoning, Jesus is the real victim of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. If we aren't damned by original sin, our need for a "savior" is considerably diminished, and a large chunk of Christian doctrine is potentially threatened. This is made even more clear by the Creation Research membership statement which reads in part: > "4. Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who > accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special > creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent > Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a > Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can only come thru > accepting Jesus Christ as Savior." I hasten to point out that many (perhaps the majority) of Christians are not threatened by this argument and would find their faith quite satisfactory if Genesis were thrown out altogether. Those are not the ones attracted to the Creationist camp. It is worth noting that the origin of plants and animals is of only passing theological interest. It wasn't too many years ago that most bugs and such were explained by "spontaneous generation", a sort of continual Creation, without any apparent conflict with Genesis. Bruce Fowler ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ "The Twilight Zone - Love it or Leave it..."