One of the most controversial stories in the Bible is the story of the first humans – Adam and Eve. And the controversy exists for good reason. The saga of the first couple, the first family, contradicts itself almost immediately.
Genesis implies that Adam and Eve were the first humans ever. Yet, when their son Cain is banished, he is marked so that no one should kill him, and he settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Immediately, the question arises – if Cain is one of the first offspring of the first man and woman, who are these “people” who might harm him? Where did they come from? Immediately after his banishment, reference is made of Cain’s wife and their offspring. Again, where did Cain’s wife come from?
Some have argued that Adam and Eve had many more children than were mentioned, and they married their siblings, thus beginning the rise of the human race. If our logic filter is of any value, we need to reject that explanation. Unless Eve was churning out babies like litters of puppies, this is not a feasible account.
So, where does that leave us in our effort to justify logic and the Bible? Have we hit an insurmountable roadblock to our efforts to build faith?
If we are to find an acceptable balance between logic and the messages of the Bible, we need to step back a bit and recognize the Bible as a complex collection of documents.
As time goes on and we view the Bible as one piece of a vast historical puzzle, we can see that the books that comprise the Bible are a combination of history, fables, prophesy and a revelation of God’s ultimate plan for humankind.
From that wider perspective, when these contradictions arise, we can reframe our question. Instead of asking, “is this story true?” we might ask “is this truth?” And there is a difference.
Each of us has had the experience of reading or hearing a story that contains a moral or ethical message or lesson. Once we have absorbed the content of that story, we have one of those “ah-ha” moments as we realize the purpose of the story. What we don’t do is challenge whether the story is actually true or not.
We accept the truth of the message as the lesson to be learned.
If we apply this same manner of thinking toward Bible stories, we realize that it is the “truth” revealed that is important – not necessarily the validity of the details. In fact, we can now realize that a symbolic story can promote the “truth” just as easily as an accurate accounting. A symbolic story might even be a more powerful medium that a dry description of events.
Ah-ha!
When we apply that logic to our belief in the Bible, we can suspend our doubts and embrace the truth of the message.
We know that the books of the Bible were written by a variety of individuals. Each of those individuals had the gift of free will. Each of those individuals had to record their message using the language and understanding of their time in history. And ultimately, all of these messages were subject to the whims and opinions of those who would later translate the original texts into the language we understand today.
If God used these individuals as tools to convey His message to mankind, is it possible that He allowed or even orchestrated a degree of confusion to encourage each of us to see beyond the story and to meditate and absorb the truth of the message?
Can we then see that truth is God’s ultimate message? – a truth that surpasses what is true.