Science and Religion

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think you missed my point. The first two chapters of Genesis give differing and conflicting accounts of creation, pointing up the idea that, as AGDee says, maybe, just maybe, they are not to be taken literally.

Maybe. But why is it okay to say that about creationism, but it's NOT okay to say that other parts of the bible are not to be taken literally?

For example - premarital sex and homosexuals.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

Maybe. But why is it okay to say that about creationism, but it's NOT okay to say that other parts of the bible are not to be taken literally?

For example - premarital sex and homosexuals.

You have to read the Bible in the original languages and understand the cultures to know what was intended. Most people reading the Bible have no clue about the nuances throughout because they can only read the Bible as if it were written for their time and place. But, that's why we have scholars. Do you know the difference between tall tales, historical fiction and a historical textbook in 2008? Probably so. Ancient writers would have known the difference among their genres as well even if the average American today does not.

ETA: Regarding our misunderstanding of culture/language, for instance, the term commonly translated as "carpenter" for Jesus is probably not an accurate translation, but we've sure jumped on that bandwagon. It's more likely his father was a general handyman rather than a wood crafter.

And, even worse, in the King James version of the Bible, females were referred to as him/his due to the culture in which that version was written. Most other Bible versions have corrected it, but think about how many people believe that the King James version in English was breathed onto the pages by God him/herself. When you think about how enormously significant it was for women to be in positions of authority - which meant they had money, land, etc. - is huge in thinking about how Christianity got to where it was then.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

Maybe. But why is it okay to say that about creationism, but it's NOT okay to say that other parts of the bible are not to be taken literally?

For example - premarital sex and homosexuals.

There already have been some good answers. The only one I would add is this: passages of the Bible regarding sexuality and the moral code are set forth as laws or commands. The creation story is just that -- a story. So, the question to be raised in whether to take it literally is "is it factually, historically correct."

As I am trying to teach my kids, a story does not have to be true to be True.

BTW, I have yet to meet anyone who really, completely takes the entire Bible literally, even among those who claim to do so.