Augustine on literal interpretation of Genesis/OT

  • Thread starter Thread starter IbnFiktur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course there is no peer review papers disproving the Bible. Just like there is no peer review paper disproving the activities of Zeus or the Olympians.Why would there be?

However, concerning the age of the universe, the way it developed, and how life develops, science indirectly undermines young earth creationism as a rational world-veiw, and thus, in so far as one accepts science, it disproves any interpretation of the bible that doesn’t correlate with the scientific evidence.
Then you have you have not read what the Church teaches about the age of the universe, or the age of the earth.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Then you have you have not read what the Church teaches about the age of the universe, or the age of the earth.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed
If the scientific activity is finding physical evidence that the world is older that 4,000 or 6,000 years why wouldn’t it be true? Why place the Scriptures in conflict with the physical evidence? As far as I know, Science has not pin pointed the exact age of the Universe or the Earth either. They use calculations, tests, and obersvations of nature to determine the age of the world. Maybe for this reason they use estimates for the age (i.e. by saying approximately). As science progresses, and their testing abilibites etc. improves, scientists may find the physical evidence that will let them determine the exact age of the Universe. Maybe they’ll find it was younger than earlier information made them believe, it might be older. Who knows? Until then, they keep at it. Why would you expect the Church to establish what the actual age is if it is also paying attention to the physical evidence that science finds?

The Bible is intended for the soul. It is not intended to explain physics or geology or how the Universe works. Why then do people insist on placing it in conflict with the physical evidence? Why are you so persistent is placing the Church and the Bible in conflict with Science? Please help me understand your point of view.
 
Is religion invented by man? Our Catholic religion was not created by Jesus. in this way?
Our Catholic Religion was established by Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

Chapter 14, Gospel of John

Example. Chapter 6, Gospel of John
 
Is religion invented by man? Our Catholic religion was not created by Jesus.
Our Catholic Religion was established by Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

Chapter 14, Gospel of John

Example. Chapter 6, Gospel of John
 
Then you have you have not read what the Church teaches about the age of the universe, or the age of the earth.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed
Just because the Church hasn’t infallibly declared something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The Church hasn’t infallibly declared that the moon revolves around the Earth, but I am quite certain that it does.
 
Our Catholic Religion was established by Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

Chapter 14, Gospel of John

Example. Chapter 6, Gospel of John
Ahhh…I see, He taught them how to pray and the sacrament. He was teaching them how to worship, to practice their faith. And being God, He taught them the perfect way to worship. Thanks for helping me see that!!! All other religions before were founded by men. But not the Catholic religion, it was founded by the God/Man Himself.
 
Then you have you have not read what the Church teaches about the age of the universe, or the age of the earth.
I don’t understand why you have come to this conclusion?
"The Time Question

"Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago."
In other words the church does not teach a literal interpretation of genesis as a core theology and never has done.

In other words young earth creationism is bogus in so far as it is presented as a Christian teaching, and always has been bogus.

Peace,
 
In other words the church does not teach a literal interpretation of genesis as a core theology and never has done.
There are 50 chapters in the book of Genesis. How many would be considered core theology of the Catholic Church?

Genesis 1: 1 is basic Catholic theology because God is the Creator.

In addition, core theology or basic foundational Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, Original Sin, and the need for a Divine Redeemer flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.
😃
 
There are 50 chapters in the book of Genesis. How many would be considered core theology of the Catholic Church?

Genesis 1: 1 is basic Catholic theology because God is the Creator.

In addition, core theology or basic foundational Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, Original Sin, and the need for a Divine Redeemer flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.
😃
The Church interprets some aspects of Genesis as literal but not some. Creation, Adam, and the fall are literal. What is not literal is the 6 days of creation, the garden, Adam falling by eating the forbidden fruit. Physical evidence shows world took longer to create than six days, from our perspective at least. The garden could be a symbol that our relationship with God was a beautiful thing. The Church has no idea what Adam actually did to bring on the fall. Am I off base? I think the posts are speaking about a literal 6 days. I remember my earliest catechism book from childhood explained that word used for day could also be interpreted as epochs and that epochs could represent any number of years. The argument for a literal six days as we understand it (24hrs) is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Oh yeah, didn’t God tell a prophet that 1,000 of our years equals one day for Him or something like that. But even this is symbolic for something else. So If God said it took Him 6 days to create the world, was it by His reckoning of what a day is and not our 24 hr day?
 
The Church interprets some aspects of Genesis as literal but not some. Creation, Adam, and the fall are literal. What is not literal is the 6 days of creation, the garden, Adam falling by eating the forbidden fruit. Physical evidence shows world took longer to create than six days, from our perspective at least. The garden could be a symbol that our relationship with God was a beautiful thing. The Church has no idea what Adam actually did to bring on the fall. Am I off base? I think the posts are speaking about a literal 6 days. I remember my earliest catechism book from childhood explained that word used for day could also be interpreted as epochs and that epochs could represent any number of years. The argument for a literal six days as we understand it (24hrs) is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Oh yeah, didn’t God tell a prophet that 1,000 of our years equals one day for Him or something like that. But even this is symbolic for something else. So If God said it took Him 6 days to create the world, was it by His reckoning of what a day is and not our 24 hr day?
Adam let his trust in God die in his heart and abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. In that sin, Adam preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned his Creator. Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396-400.

While Adam’s disobedience is not described in minute by minute details, it is very clear that the original act shattered Adam’s relationship with God.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/396.htm
 
Adam let his trust in God die in his heart and abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. In that sin, Adam preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned his Creator. Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396-400.

While Adam’s disobedience is not described in minute by minute details, it is very clear that the original act shattered Adam’s relationship with God.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/396.htm
Yes, that’s what I meant that the actual physical act/disobedience is not known so the Church has no official teaching to explain it. The only thing I’ve heard expressed by priests is that whatever Adam did, it deserved death as the fair punishment or something or other.
 
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” ~ Pope John Paul II

And from his Fides et Ratio, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know Himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”

It would seem that there is a synergistic benefit to be gained by studying and attempting to understand both religion AND science. Maybe?

God Bless! 🙂
 
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” ~ Pope John Paul II

And from his Fides et Ratio, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know Himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”

It would seem that there is a synergistic benefit to be gained by studying and attempting to understand both religion AND science. Maybe?

God Bless! 🙂
Synergistic is an excellent descriptive word.👍
 
There are 50 chapters in the book of Genesis. How many would be considered core theology of the Catholic Church?

😃
Thats for you to work out. Look at the evidence. Study Judaisms actual history and literary customs and vocal traditions. Take into consideration the discoveries of science, and draw an honest conclusion that doesn’t erroneously presuppose that genesis is a history book in the modern sense of the word.
 
Augustine clearly argues that the opinions of scientists regarding the natural world should be respected, and that scientific findings about the natural world should not be considered contrary to scripture, but rather that OT scriptures should be interpreted figuratively.

A little background here: At this point in the Confessions Augustine is writing about a time in his twenties when he was a member of a heretical group called the Manichees. He began to doubt the validity of this heresy when he discovered that they were making claims contrary to what the scientists of his day had discovered about the natural world. Emphasis mine:
…I then kept in mind many true conclusions which they [the scientists] had drawn from creation itself, and I saw that these could be verified by calculation… I then compared them with the assertions of [the Manichees], who had written voluminously (and incoherently) on these subjects. What I read there was confirmed neither by any rational account of solstices and equinoxes and eclipses, nor by anything else of this kind that I had learned from books of secular philosophy. I was simply bidden to believe, and what I was required to believe did not correspond to the rational explanations I had worked out and discovered by my own observations; in fact there was a wide discrepancy.
Ok, so here we have Augustine beginning to doubt this heresy based on empirical, scientific observation and the study of scientific works written by others. Indeed, in that last bolded sentence he implicitly condemns the way that the Manichees asked him to believe things that were clearly falsified by empirical observation of the natural world. In fact he directly condemns the founder of Manichaeism for preaching about the natural world in such a false way when he clearly knows nothing about it:
Obviously, Mani might have been thoroughly conversant in scientific truths, even if a stranger to piety. In fact, however, he was ignorant of them, but he still had the effrontery to teach them…
In fact, Augustine claims that it was nothing short of “providential” that Mani got so many scientific facts wrong, since that allowed many people who would have been led astray into this heresy to label it as a falsehood:
It was providential that this man talked so much about scientific subjects, and got it wrong, because this gave people who had truly studied them the chance to convict him of error.
Ok, so what we can gather from the above is basically that Augustine believes that empirical, scientific study is an effective way to evaluate the truths of the natural world, even if it is not sufficient in and of itself to find the ultimate truth, which is God. Now let’s turn to Augustine’s own conversion to Christianity.

Initially, Augustine rejected Christianity for a similar reason that he was beginning to doubt Manichaeism… some of the scriptures appeared to him to make no sense, and were incompatible with a rational account of the natural world. He only began to respect Christianity as a possibly truthful belief system, however, when he heard St. Ambrose discuss Old Testament texts in a figurative rather than a literal sense:
…I realized that the Catholic faith… was in fact intellectually respectable. This realization was particularly keen when once, and again, and indeed frequently, I heard some difficult passage of the Old Testament explained figuratively; such passages had been death to me because I was taking them literally.
Augustine here indicates that it is downright harmful (or, in his words, “death”) to interpret the Old Testament literally. He further indicates that this is not how St. Ambrose interpreted them at all.

This is further reinforced when he once again tells of the positive effects of Ambrose’s teachings on his life:
I was often delighted to hear Ambrose often asserting in his sermons to people, as a principle on which he must insist emphatically, the letter is death-dealing, but the spirit gives life. This he would tell them as he drew aside the veil of mystery and opened to them the spiritual meaning of passages which, taken literally, would seem to mislead.
From all this, I think we can conclude the following things:

-St. Augustine believed that the study of the natural world was an effective means of finding truth, and that a true faith will not reject scientifically proven theories.
-The issue of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament is not a new phenomenon, nor a result of the Enlightenment; rather, the issue was discussed even in the early Church. Which leads to my next point…
-Both St. Ambrose and St. Augustine reject the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and reject the notion that science should be discarded in order to make a literal interpretation work.

Thoughts?
Re-reading this fine exposition of St. Augustine, there are some interesting scientific and/or logical points for discussion.

First. St. Augustine is referring to the “natural world”. Question – is his meaning of “natural world” the same meaning used in the 21st century?

Second. The conclusion points to an interesting extrapolation from rejecting a literal scientific interpretation of Genesis to rejecting the entire Old Testament. Question – What is St. Augustine’s reasoning for this? (Scientifically or analytically, this would refer to St. Augustine’s evidence obtained from his observation of materials and methods.)

Third. I have seen a reference to St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism.
Comment – Without checking out Pelagianism, it seems that St. Augustine was well versed in the first three chapters of Genesis. Question – is that comment accurate?

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
Re-reading this fine exposition of St. Augustine, there are some interesting scientific and/or logical points for discussion.

First. St. Augustine is referring to the “natural world”. Question – is his meaning of “natural world” the same meaning used in the 21st century?
This points to the fact that St. Augustine’s knowledge of the 21st century is nil. Therefore, it is unrealistic to attempt applying his comments to the 21st century intersection of science and Catholic faith.
Second. The conclusion points to an interesting extrapolation from rejecting a literal scientific interpretation of Genesis to rejecting the entire Old Testament. Question – What is St. Augustine’s reasoning for this? (Scientifically or analytically, this would refer to St. Augustine’s evidence obtained from his observation of materials and methods.)
Apparently, there are no comments on this. Therefore, one can conclude that St. Augustine’s comments are limited to the specific items he mentioned and they do not apply to the entire Old Testament.
Third. I have seen a reference to St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism.
Comment – Without checking out Pelagianism, it seems that St. Augustine was well versed in the first three chapters of Genesis. Question – is that comment accurate?
Apparently, there are no examples…

Personally, I believe St. Augustine knew the first three chapters of Genesis backward, forward, and inside out. He knew the literal Catholic doctrines.🙂

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
Scientist have a irresponsible way of dealing with things that are out of the reach of a direct experiment. Nobody bets his pension plan on their assertions in such matters.
Wrong about the age of the world by 4 billion years? “Sorry…”
Did they really said that their estimates are free of error? No.
Do they change their opinions every now and then?Yes.
Did many of them lie in their statements for various reasons?Yes.
On one side there is the Churchm responsible in declarations, on the other side are the scientist which are unaccountable.
What do you think st. Augustine would say to them scientists?
 
This points to the fact that St. Augustine’s knowledge of the 21st century is nil. Therefore, it is unrealistic to attempt applying his comments to the 21st century intersection of science and Catholic faith.
I wholeheartedly disagree. We may as well discard the entirety of Confessions, or any work by anyone not written in this century, if this is the case. These issues aren’t confined to a specific time period. Augustine rejected a certain set of religious beliefs because they contradicted empirical observation.The parallel is evident. He furthermore struggled with literal interpretations of the OT, and suggested that this was a harmful lens with which to view the Hebrew Scriptures (with which he was intimately familiar). His writings suggest that Ambrose felt the same way.

I don’t see how the issue of what century we’re in matters to these broad, overarching points regarding Augustine’s general outlook and modes of interpreting scripture.
Therefore, one can conclude that St. Augustine’s comments are limited to the specific items he mentioned and they do not apply to the entire Old Testament.
I never said that Augustine rejects all of the OT as figurative. However, he does not specifically identify particular parts that are confusing to him. He simply says that some passages had been “death to him” because he was taking them literally.

As a matter of small details: Augustine was not rebutting Pelagianism in the passages I’ve cited, but rather Manicheism.

Overall, it is obviously impossible to conclude precisely what Augustine might have felt about the specific “science/faith” debate that is going on in today’s world. However, by reading his writings, I think Christians can get a sense for what is overarching methodology for reconciling the two was. I believe I have outlined that methodology in rather general terms in previous posts. The point here is not to debate the specifics of evolution, etc, but rather to consider how early Christians dealt with similar issues in their own search for truth. That is, after all, what Confessions is: Augustine’s search for truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top