Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Why adhere to the literal interpretation of Genesis rather than a methaphorical one?
What in Genesis itself suggests that it is meant to be interpreted literally? There are clearly passages in the Bible that are meant to be interpreted metaphorically such as when Jesus says I will make you fishers of men, he clearly didn't intend for his disciples to go chasing around potential converts with fish nets.
If you're someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy shouldn't you want to go with the interpretation of the Bible that conforms to a scientific understanding of the world? If you were someone who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and your interpretation of it conflicts with scientific facts wouldn't it make sense to conclude that it's your interpretation that is wrong, as opposed to the Bible or science. (Note if you're not a believer in biblic inerrancy, then you may conclude that it's the Bible that's wrong. But that's not mainly who I'm addressing this question too.)
I'm going to venture a psychological explanation for this: anthropocentrism. The creation science crowd is mainly interested in preserving anthropocentrism, man as a special creature in the universe endowed with divine gifts and endowed with special dignity. It is less the idea that Darwinian evolution conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible that they find offensive. It's more that they want to retain the view that somehow man is a special creature separate from other creatures and was specially created by God, different from other creatures. That is what really upsets them about Darwinian evolution. You can see it in their rhetoric about how they mock the man idea of a man evolving from a monkey and all their predictions about how morality will disintegrate if evolution is taught.
Techlike...agreed that if you're starting from a beginning point of zero experience of religion, then anthropocentrism logically leads you away from religion.
But if you're raised in a religious tradition where you are told that man's dignity derives from his creation by God with a special place in the universe, then you are liable to view Darwinian evolution as anti-anthropocentric and threatening to your view of your own self worth.
I'm trying to understand why evangelicals would adhere to a literal interpretation when mainstream Christianity has long since accepted evolution as compatible with their religious beliefs. It seems to me that this psychological explanation is most plausible and it also fits in with all their rhetoric about belief in evolution leading to the moral degradation of man.
Frankie...I'm urging the metaphorical interpetation because that is consistent with the scientific explanation of evolution and the time scale of life on earth. My belief is that when a particular interpretation of the Bible or anything else for that matter conflicts with accepted scientific understanding there ought to be a strong bias towards concluding that our interpretation is in error.
As well, this probably has something to do with the nature of interpreting texts. When people have a strong view of what some text means, they often aren't able to see that it's an "interpretation". They just view it as speaking for itself. It's only by being exposed to conflicting views that they become cognizant of their view as an intepretation that can be viewed multiple ways.
5 Answers
- NowpowerLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
When it obviously didn't happen the way the Bible describes, it makes sense to review your assumptions.
- Uncle ThesisLv 71 decade ago
Why adhere?
Because our exemplar, Jesus, adhered to a literal point of view.
He spoke of Adam as a real person.
Matthew 19:4 is a direct quote from Genesis 2:24.
Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give lineage from Jesus to Adam.
Shall I believe all people referred to are real except the last one?
1 Corinthians 15:45-47 has Paul referring to Adam and Jesus.
If one was metaphorical, so was the other.
Was Jesus metaphorical?
- FrankLv 71 decade ago
What makes you believe that it should all be taken as a metaphor? After all, that part came long before Jesus spoke in parables so no-one who had only the old testament as scripture would have thought as you do.
I agree that parts of scripture are not literal but it is usually very clear that that is so, therefore, when there is no reason to think that something is metaphorical I'd say it's literal, whereas you would see things the opposite way round.
- 1 decade ago
That's a goofy explanation. And anthropomorphic intent would probably steer you away from Christianity right at the start.
But why have ANY opinion of what is indifferent in terms of Christian belief. Being a Christian involves maintaining maybe 3 things about Genesis -- and that is it.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- E PLv 71 decade ago
And what would be the means by which one correctly interpreted the metaphor?
The knowledge of God begins, literally, with the book of beginnings.
