f you do not believe Adam and Eve were real people, then do you believe....m

that God created the earth? That there was a world-wide flood? That the children of Isreal were slaves in Egypt? That Esther was made a queen? That Job went through all of his trials? That David had an affair? That part of the book of Daniel, and most of Revelation are symbolic? That Jesus was the Son of God? That Jesus rose from the dead? That He can save us from sin and take us to heaven?

If you believe any or all of these things, then how can you not take Genesis literally? The Bible says these things happened. If you believe part of the Bible, why not believe it all? Aside from the parts that are obviously symbolic, because they say basically that, why do you doubt any of it? Why believe any of it, if part of God's word is not true? If you don't take all the Bible as truth, then how do you decide what's real, and what's not? If the parts that specify they're symbolic aren't the only symbolic parts, how do you decide what else is? Don't try to be logical. God's love for us is not logical, yet you believe in it, right? Why does he love us, when we are so horrible to him? Why would he give his ONLY SON for us, when we treat him the way we do? Could you give up your child for someone who hates you? That is not logical. That, to me, is far more illogical than believing that the entire human race came from just two people.

.

In answer to your first paragraph...

yes, no, maybe, no opinion, no, maybe, mumble, yes, yes, and mumble; in that order. Note that mumble is a technical computer-programmer's term meaning "you have worded the question in a way that renders the answer undefined".

I don't doubt any of the Bible. I accept it all as inspired, conveying a message of complex layered meanings, any of which may at the appropriate time help in bringing me into a closer relationship with God. It comprises multiple literary forms, including poetry, mythic history, novels, dynastic history, hymnody, and others. None of the literary forms it contains is commensurate with a modern western history text, and it is an abuse of the original text to treat it as such.

The Bible is not a single document. It is a set of documents -- in fact, a set of sets of documents, differently compiled by different Christian groups. You say, if you believe part of the Bible, why not believe it all? Yet, I warrant, you do not believe the book of Judith or Tobit... do you? Roman Catholics don't accept the books of Esdras, although Anglicans do. Jerome did not accept the book of Didache, although second-century Christians did. Luther did not accept the book of Hebrews or Revelation. Some third-century Christians accepted the Gospel of Thomas, but some did not. Finally, most protestants accepted the sixty-nine books in the translation sponsored by the protestant King of England, simply because he had the financial resources to publish the edition and put it into the hands of the majority of protestants; and they accepted it without asking too hard how the decision was made which books to include and which to leave out. I mention this because Biblical literalism rests firmly on that very question *not* being asked. If you do ask it, how do you answer it? By claiming that the King James version was inspired over other translations or collections, as some literalists do? If so, where in Scripture do you find reference to the King James version, or to the 69-book canon?

I don't have to *try* to be logical. God made me that way. I won't deny the gift of a sharp mind and skeptical thinking, or try to turn those off. I won't close my eyes for fear of asking a question God can't handle. Scripture teaches us to examine everything.

The creation myth in Genesis is beautiful. It teaches us about God's personal love; that we are animated by God's own breath within us, that God would kneel and do manual labour in the red river-clay to mold us with God's own hands rather than just bringing about our existance by fiat as with all the other animals. As long as this speaks powerfully to me of God's care, why do you care whether I point out that a literal unitary "Mother of Mankind" requires an abrogation of currently-observed genetic behaviour?

If you require a literal interpretation to believe, feel free -- my eight-year-old provided the out for you. But do understand that many critical thinkers are alienated from Christ by the inference that they will have to choose between belief and intellect. For them, the suggestion that they should stop being logical is a stumbling block -- one that literalists often unwittingly throw in their way; followed by bemusement as to why they "choose" not to accept Christ. Now -- hold on to your hat -- Christianity is *NOT* about the bible. It's about Christ. And if your insistance on Biblical Literalism comes between someone and Christ, it's not *Christ's* work you are doing thereby.

I know I worded the above pretty strongly, and I hope *you* aren't offended, since you did ask for the answers. I felt that you put words in my mouth by suggesting that I pick and choose from scripture or put myself in judgement over God by demanding that God's actions be "logical; and that you asked me to defend, or apologise for, my (orthodox) views.

I do understand that literalists believe the bible to be inerrant and literally factual; that they consider "factual" and "true" to be synonyms; that by "the Bible" they mean the 69-book canon; that they consider the inerrancy of the bible to take precedence over academic or critical analysis; that some extend these claims specifically to a single translation based on the claim that translation is "inspired"; that for some believing or disbelieving the Bible is equivalent to accepting or rejecting Christ; that literalists generally come from congregationalist sects or denominations that emphasise personal reliance on scripture and therefor there are wide variations in the individual beliefs and understanding of biblical literalists. Is there more to understand?

I do not read the King James version of the Bible, because it was translated by men who were biased. They worked for the king, and translated accordingly. I do know of the books that are included in the Catholic Bible, but have never read them, so I have no opinion of them. I would be willing to read them, however. I will try to repond to any questions you ask in the future, as far as I know or can find the answer.

Now, then, you believe God created the heavens and the earth, correct? That is what Genesis 1:1 says. So you take that literally. Do you then take Genesis 1:2 literally? If so, when does it become myth? If not, how can you take 1:1 literally? It is inconsistent to take Genesis 1:1 literally, but say the whole of Genesis is symbolic. How do you decide what is real, and what is myth?

I'm reassured to hear that you are open to accepting all of these as "Bible". That is consistent with insisting that one believe the "whole" and with not having a reason to limit the "whole" to 66. But be warned, it is a slippery slope. Just as you are trying to force me to declare a line between what I accept, as you call it, "literally" and what I accept as mythic truth; wherever you draw the line between what writings are "in" and what are "out", someone <me, if no-one else does it--g> will pull up a related document and ask why you don't believe that one. If Tobit is in, why no Esdras? If Esdras, why not the Shepherd of Hermes? If Hermes, why not the Nicene creed and other statements of the first Nicene council? If Nicea, why not Thomas? If Thomas, why not Shakespeare?

I am also reassured that you do not ascribe to King-James-Version-Only-ism. But all bible translators are fallible men, all have their own biases, and for the most part they get paid by someone. Zondervan and Oxford University Press also have their own agendas (two name two of the most popular bible publishing houses). Denominational translators such as the Watch Tower society, obviously reflect the doctrinal bias of their denomination. So what bible can you not discount as the result of biased men? Torah, of course, if you read Hebrew; but what of the New Testament? Even the most ancient texts in the original Greek show variant wordings: which one of the variants do you take literally?

You believe it is important to take Genesis literally, so that you have a solid foundation for your faith. But my faith is not founded on the Bible. It is founded on a personal relationship with God. I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth because that is consistent with God as I know "Him". I know God by spending time with God in prayer and meditation (including meditation on Scripture, which is not dependent on taking Scripture literally). I know that this "Other" with whom I am spending time is God, because older Christians bore witness to me of who God is; and my experience of the Other is consistent with their witness. The ways in which older Christians (and Patriarchs) witness to me include personal encounter, art, poetry, Tradition, and their witness as recorded in the Bible. This is the God who befriends fallible, limited humans; and through our fallibility allows our efforts to suffice. The Biblical witness to God is also fallible and human, but it too suffices.

In the same vein, your 5-year-old probably shows some of the same traits you do. That is where the Theory of Evolution starts. Yet though you accept that, you are not constrained to accept the entire Theory of Evolution, because agreeing with a high-level statement is not the same as agreeing with a detailed mechanistic description. In the same way, I can agree with the high-level description that God created the Heaven and the Earth, without agreeing that Genesis 1-3 is the engineering manual describing God's methodology.

Or, consider that the phrase "I believe in God the Father Almighty" is the first line of the Nicene Creed. (Credal statements have greater historicity than the Bible, and much greater historicity than the doctrine of literal inerrancy.) You accept the first line of the Nicene Creed, but I do not assert that you are thereby constrained to accept all of the three historic creeds.

Furthermore, I have said all along that I accept Genesis as Mythic Truth. I accept Genesis 1.1 as Mythic Truth, too. In high-level vague statements, the distinction between Mythic Truth and literalism vanishes. I suggest that you lack the grounds to decide that my acceptance of Genesis 1.1 is "literal" rather than "mythic" -- so this is another case of putting words into my mouth.

Give my regards to your dh, and tell him an utter stranger on the internet considers him to be a perspicacious gentleman<g>. However, I have some experience of aggressive conservatives trying to force me to abandon my own personal experience of Divine for theirs. I no longer allow that behaviour to offend me, even when -- as has happened <g> -- they call me a tool of Satan whom God will spit out of God's mouth on the day of judgement. Please understand that the second-hand experience of a stranger on the internet cannot convince me to over-ride my own direct experience of the Divine. If you live with that, if you are really interested in understanding my perspective beyond the goal of changing it, then I am content to continue the discussion.