S
Stranger on the Street
Guest
"The Bible is meant to be read on many levels - some literal, some poetic, and some symbolic."
I once came across this statement in an introduction to the Bible, and I believe that any non-fundamentalist Christian would agree with it. The stories of Genesis, the Great Flood, Jonah, and other stories that cannot be reconciled with science are thus explained as "poetry" or "symbolism." And here is where the problem lies. At what point can you draw the line and distinguish the literal from the poetic? How do you know that the resurrection was not just symbolism? In other words, if you cannot literally accept some Biblical stories because they are scientifically absurd, how can you literally accept the equally unscientific stories of Jesus's miracles and resurrection, among other things? Essentially, you're saying, "I'm going to reject these things as literal because science has shown otherwise, but I'm going to believe these other things that science can't disprove."
I once came across this statement in an introduction to the Bible, and I believe that any non-fundamentalist Christian would agree with it. The stories of Genesis, the Great Flood, Jonah, and other stories that cannot be reconciled with science are thus explained as "poetry" or "symbolism." And here is where the problem lies. At what point can you draw the line and distinguish the literal from the poetic? How do you know that the resurrection was not just symbolism? In other words, if you cannot literally accept some Biblical stories because they are scientifically absurd, how can you literally accept the equally unscientific stories of Jesus's miracles and resurrection, among other things? Essentially, you're saying, "I'm going to reject these things as literal because science has shown otherwise, but I'm going to believe these other things that science can't disprove."