Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
You should probably read the article, as well.I believe in taking a plain reading of the Bible and what does it say? Like you said the Bible was written by many different authors saying many different things. Does that mean we have to take every word literally? No. If something isn't to be taken literally then it is obvious. When Isaiah says that the trees will clap their hands should we take it literally that trees have hands? That is obviously no. The Bible has literal, symbolic, and poetic writings in it, it's not one or the other, it is all.
The creation story is not peotry or symbolism, it is written in narrative form. When it says that God created the heavens and the earth, what could that symbolise? I know of nothing. There is nothing in the creation story that could symbolise evolution. It all says with a plain reading that God created all the animals. We also see that in scientific evidence with the cambrian explosion where whole animals came into existence at one period of time. We see that the fossil evidence doesn't support all this slow changes over millions of years.
Particularly relevant:
One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is modernistic, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations--in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation--are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. "I believe in God the Father Almighty" becomes a chronological issue, and "Maker of heaven and earth" a technological problem.
A "plain reading of the Bible" does great disservice to both text and reader. Genesis is a masterfully crafted myth, rich with beauty and profound meaning. The fact that the symbolism is more complex than a represents b does not negate the fact that it is symbolism.