Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc7.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ln63fac
From: ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 6 Literal Days?:Parables vs Science Re to Rick Frey
Message-ID: <149@sdcc7.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 00:47:56 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc7.149
Posted: Sat Nov  2 00:47:56 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 05:39:27 EST
References: <627@dicomed.UUCP> <45@noscvax.UUCP> <732@whuxl.UUCP> <739@whuxl.UUCP> <340@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 47
Xref: linus net.religion:7736 net.religion.christian:1529
Summary: Literal interpretations of the Bible.

In article <340@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
> I am not sure of Rick Frey's point about problems with taking words
> in the Bible literally.  
>  
> Rick, I hope that people who say they believe in the "literal truth of
> every word in the Bible" will answer your question.  The argument in my
> original article was that it is ludicrous to take the Bible as literal
> scientific truth, that its value lies in its wisdom not its literal truth.
> Specifically I was pointing out that belief in the "literal truth" of Gen 1
> leads to the refusal to believe that the Earth moves around the Sun.
> Moreover that the accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other
> in the order of events as they recount them for creation.
>    tim sevener whuxn!orb

I guess that's what I deserve for trying to make a point by example instead
of by strict statements.  The whole point I was making is that your supposedly
'literal interpretation' of the Bible is the problem here.  Unfortunately I'm
not adequately equipped, but the problem (to be exact) is the 'literal meaning
of the Hebrew word used for day.  The whole point I made in my article is that
words can be used to mean differant things and words can be used to convey part
of the imagery they represent without implying a literal correlation to the 
object in comparison (i.e.  I am the bread of Life.)  Scientific, literal truth
means taking a text the way it is supposed to be read and not forcing some 20th
century, English word literal meaning on it.

Now, before you scream too loudly, I completely agree adn admit that tons of
people abuse to all heck this fact that the Bible has to be interpreted.  But
so what?  Does that mean that it's correct meaning is no longer interpreted?
The Bible (as does all language) needs to be understood in context, in the 
spirit of what it's trying to say and (in as much as possible) the original
language and cultural setting of the writing.

One last attempt at an example.  The English word day can mean:

  1.  24 hour period
  2.  The period of light (approx 12 hours)
  3.  A 'day's work' or approx 8 hours.
  4.  Sleep the 'day' away or some quantity of time extending from the morning
      into the early afternoon.

And these are just the few I could think of in our extremely calendar oriented
specific, scientific, western culture.  Think about a group of people who at
best hoped the sun was coming up tomorrow and had to tell the seasons by stars
and the path of the sun and not by their Casio chronograph.

				Rick Frey