On interpreting the Bible

Christians and creationists are literally miles apart - Letters - www.smh.com.au: "The Bible can be read in at least three ways. There is the literal interpretation, where the words are interpreted without due regard to historical context or literary genre.

There is the metaphorical interpretation, in which readers take whatever "spiritual" message they want from the Bible and consign all the other stuff to "metaphor".

Then there is the reading of the Bible historically, that is, the way historians read any ancient text, whether by Aristotle, Julius Caesar or the apostle Paul.

The key question in historical interpretation is: what was the ancient author getting at and how would the message have been heard by the people of the day? Due attention is given both to historical context and to literary genre. So most historians are confident Jesus never intended us to believe in an actual "good Samaritan"; the character is simply a literary device in one of his parables.

On the other hand, historians are equally confident the writers of the New Testament really wanted us to believe the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. We might choose not to accept the claim but the claim itself cannot be consigned to metaphor - not without reading the Bible unhistorically.

Modern readers must not be fooled into accepting the literal-metaphorical alternatives. The Bible is to be read like any other historical document, with due attention to its forms and intentions. Then, once you have figured out what the author wanted you to think, ask yourself: do I accept this message? That's when things really get interesting.

The Reverend Dr John Dickson, Roseville, January 17."