Creation, Noah, Jonah, and Fundamentalist Interpretations of Scripture

[edwest2]

It’s really not even about evolution. It’s about setting up religion as the enemy of science. That’s the danger here. If we assent to that invalid premise, then when folks find something that confirms a scientific assertion that seems to conflict with religious belief, they naturally assume that where science is right, religion must be wrong. So, the answer is to refuse to concede that invalid premise.

Can you assert a literal 6-day creation? If you wish. Can you insist that all must agree? Certainly not. And, moreover, since the Church does not teach it as true, one may not insist that all of Scripture be treated literalistically.

How would you ever be able to disprove such an assumption? Perhaps by looking at the numbers of millennials abandoning the faith? Yep; those statistics are out there.

I’m watching it all. Simple request: show me some Church teaching.

Millennials is a meaningless word.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

So, what about the particular Bible stories mentioned in this thread? Noah’s Ark? Jonah swallowed by a whale? What about when reason, or more specifically scientific reasoning, seems to conflict with a “face value” historically factual reading/interpretation of the text? Should we even bother trying to reconcile opposing interpretations to find the truth? Does it even matter whether individuals, or the Church as a whole, chooses one or another interpretation, literal/factual vs. figurative?

Protestant denominations have split over this. There are some Lutheran and other Protestant denominations where membership, or at least ordained leadership, requires assent to the proposition that the flood in Noah’s day was literally a global deluge, and that Jonah literally survived being swallowed by a whale.

Other denominations allow for greater variety of interpretations. But in those denominations, the mere discussion can sometimes annoy some people. Might it be better to just avoid such discussion? Why bother exploring the interface of science and religion, especially if we’ve already agreed that we can disagree, and that the Church is not going to enforce one particular view?

I can’t say it better than Pope Francis says it:

"The Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed the importance of scientific research for human life and health. The Church not only accompanies you along this demanding path, but also promotes your cause and wishes to support you. The Church understands that efforts directed to the authentic good of the person are actions always inspired by God. Nature, in all its complexity, and the human mind, are created by God; their richness must be studied by skilled men and women, in the knowledge that the advancement of the philosophical and empirical sciences, as well as professional care in favour of the weakest and most infirm, is a service that is part of God’s plan. Openness to the grace of God, an openness which comes through faith, does not weaken human reason, but rather leads it to move forwards, to knowledge of a truth which is wider and of greater benefit to humanity. "

OK, that’s fine for a practical, applied science like cardiology. But what does that have to do with “Nature, in all its complexity,” with the whole range of the “philosophical and empirical sciences” ?

It’s all connected. It’s all of a piece. There are many examples besides this one.

“Evolutionary medicine” is a fiction. A bias. It has no practical value.

Ed

 

[Harry123]

Pffft, yes its dangerous to take the bible at its word. How could you possibly take God as his word? What a daft concept.

Its much more spiritually enriching to believe we were once monkeys with tails and swung from trees. We should put that on the stained glass windows of churches.

 

[mikekle]

So, what about the particular Bible stories mentioned in this thread? Noah’s Ark? Jonah swallowed by a whale? What about when reason, or more specifically scientific reasoning, seems to conflict with a “face value” historically factual reading/interpretation of the text? Should we even bother trying to reconcile opposing interpretations to find the truth? Does it even matter whether individuals, or the Church as a whole, chooses one or another interpretation, literal/factual vs. figurative?

Protestant denominations have split over this. There are some Lutheran and other Protestant denominations where membership, or at least ordained leadership, requires assent to the proposition that the flood in Noah’s day was literally a global deluge, and that Jonah literally survived being swallowed by a whale.

Other denominations allow for greater variety of interpretations. But in those denominations, the mere discussion can sometimes annoy some people. Might it be better to just avoid such discussion? Why bother exploring the interface of science and religion, especially if we’ve already agreed that we can disagree, and that the Church is not going to enforce one particular view?

I can’t say it better than Pope Francis says it:

"The Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed the importance of scientific research for human life and health. The Church not only accompanies you along this demanding path, but also promotes your cause and wishes to support you. The Church understands that efforts directed to the authentic good of the person are actions always inspired by God. Nature, in all its complexity, and the human mind, are created by God; their richness must be studied by skilled men and women, in the knowledge that the advancement of the philosophical and empirical sciences, as well as professional care in favour of the weakest and most infirm, is a service that is part of God’s plan. Openness to the grace of God, an openness which comes through faith, does not weaken human reason, but rather leads it to move forwards, to knowledge of a truth which is wider and of greater benefit to humanity. "

OK, that’s fine for a practical, applied science like cardiology. But what does that have to do with “Nature, in all its complexity,” with the whole range of the “philosophical and empirical sciences” ?

It’s all connected. It’s all of a piece. There are many examples besides this one.

Keep in mind, ANYTHING is possible to God, if he wanted Jonah to survive in the belly of a whale for 3 days, then he CAN accomplish this, no matter what our scientific laws say, God is not bound by our laws or any laws for that matter…

When we start doubting because it sounds a little too bizarre or impossible, that is the enemy at work imo.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m watching it all. Simple request: show me some Church teaching.

My gut feel is that you’ll find the answer in Ratzinger’s “In the Beginning”. There, he laments the present culture’s infatuation with technology (and, by extension, with science). In holding up technology as the idol of the present age, we devalue creation, Ratzinger asserts. Along the lines of the present conversation, the implication is that, if we hold up ‘science’ as the prime arbiter of ‘Truth’, then we lose the ability to champion God’s Word, likewise, as Truth. As a result, those who want to play the ‘either-or’ game must conclude that, if science is Truth, then religion is not-Truth.

It makes for a poor argument to just point you to a book and say “find it yourself!” – and I’ve castigated others on these forums for exactly the same approach – but I don’t have the time at the present to go back and research and find the appropriate references. (Sorry…) Nevertheless, you ask for “Church teaching” – at the moment, given my time limitations, I can only point you to the best example that comes immediately to mind… and I’m hoping you don’t take issue with me offering homilies by Ratzinger…

Millennials is a meaningless word.

As Fr Z loves to say: “B as in bull”…

“Millenials” is an apt description of a particular demographic. In fact, in the present discussion, it’s not only apt, but highly relevant! Take a look at that demographic, and tell me: do you really think that the downturn in religious belief and practice, as measured against recent generations, is “meaningless”? No – it’s highly significant, and it’s important to realize that a sea-change is occurring… :sad_yes:

 

[edwest2]

My gut feel is that you’ll find the answer in Ratzinger’s “In the Beginning”. There, he laments the present culture’s infatuation with technology (and, by extension, with science). In holding up technology as the idol of the present age, we devalue creation, Ratzinger asserts. Along the lines of the present conversation, the implication is that, if we hold up ‘science’ as the prime arbiter of ‘Truth’, then we lose the ability to champion God’s Word, likewise, as Truth. As a result, those who want to play the ‘either-or’ game must conclude that, if science is Truth, then religion is not-Truth.

It makes for a poor argument to just point you to a book and say “find it yourself!” – and I’ve castigated others on these forums for exactly the same approach – but I don’t have the time at the present to go back and research and find the appropriate references. (Sorry…) Nevertheless, you ask for “Church teaching” – at the moment, given my time limitations, I can only point you to the best example that comes immediately to mind… and I’m hoping you don’t take issue with me offering homilies by Ratzinger…

As Fr Z loves to say: “B as in bull”…

“Millenials” is an apt description of a particular demographic. In fact, in the present discussion, it’s not only apt, but highly relevant! Take a look at that demographic, and tell me: do you really think that the downturn in religious belief and practice, as measured against recent generations, is “meaningless”? No – it’s highly significant, and it’s important to realize that a sea-change is occurring… :sad_yes:

I’ve studied Demographics for decades. I used to buy a magazine devoted to the topic. Do you want to know how many different ways people use lemons? I know. The current religious breakdown of the US? I know. Millennials is a nonsense word that belongs with other nonsense words created by a bunch of really bored people.

Other examples include Yuppies, DINK (Double Income No Kids), Empty Nesters, the Me Generation, Generation X, Generation Y, etc.

Thanks for the reference. I have one for anyone who is interested.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Sea change? No. Millennials are not fish floating in a tank all by themselves. They have friends, a propaganda machine called the media, and family. They are not bacteria under a microscope.

Ed

 

[cfauster]

Keep in mind, ANYTHING is possible to God, if he wanted Jonah to survive in the belly of a whale for 3 days, then he CAN accomplish this, no matter what our scientific laws say, God is not bound by our laws or any laws for that matter.

I agree. God can use what the Bible most often calls signs and wonders, what we now usually call miracles. The Resurrection is perhaps the most important, and if God can do that, certainly God can cause the Jonah story to happen. Jesus even referred to the Jonah story as an archetype for what He would experience.

The Ask an Apologist answer remains one of the best I’ve seen re. Jonah.

I especially appreciate the distinction Keating makes between the two approaches when taking it literally:

“Strictly literal interpretations of what happened to Jonah actually come in two forms … One … would be a purely natural explanation of the episode. The other literal interpretation is that Jonah … survived only because of a positive miracle …”

Of the two literal interpretations, I think the miracle works better.

Trying to explain how it could have happened naturally .… not as well.

In any case, I also appreciate this part of the Keating quote:

"The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a “great fish” is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholics are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view…”

 

[Jocko_VT]

Thanks, cfauster. Very nice.

That link provides some reading suggestions, too!

I do wonder, still, what would be an example of a fundamentalist or literalistic interpretation that would not be acceptable.

 

[goout]

I agree. God can use what the Bible most often calls signs and wonders, what we now usually call miracles. The Resurrection is perhaps the most important, and if God can do that, certainly God can cause the Jonah story to happen. Jesus even referred to the Jonah story as an archetype for what He would experience.

The Ask an Apologist answer remains one of the best I’ve seen re. Jonah.

I especially appreciate the distinction Keating makes between the two approaches when taking it literally:

“Strictly literal interpretations of what happened to Jonah actually come in two forms … One … would be a purely natural explanation of the episode. The other literal interpretation is that Jonah … survived only because of a positive miracle …”

Of the two literal interpretations, I think the miracle works better.

Trying to explain how it could have happened naturally .… not as well.

In any case, I also appreciate this part of the Keating quote:

"The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a “great fish” is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholics are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view…”

Perhaps the greatest miracle of all is this:
God can save mankind without being restrained to a book.
He can also save mankind without our proving it, documenting it, understanding it or explaining it.

That how miraculous God is.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve studied Demographics for decades. I used to buy a magazine devoted to the topic. Do you want to know how many different ways people use lemons? I know. The current religious breakdown of the US? I know. Millennials is a nonsense word that belongs with other nonsense words created by a bunch of really bored people.

OK… so, let’s see if I understand your argument: I buy magazines; I know statistics; and gosh-darn-it, ya’ll should just believe what I say.

Yeah. That’s convincing.

OK – let’s frame it up another way: based on your extensive knowledge, are 21-to-35-year-old American Catholics practicing their religion? Does their practice of the faith differ at all from the way their parents (who are now in their 40s and 50s) practiced their faith in that age range? Does it differ from the way their grandparents did?

Sea change? No. Millennials are not fish floating in a tank all by themselves.

No, but they will be, and soon. We can use information gleaned from their practices now – as compared to data from previous generations – to extrapolate and predict what things will look like in another ten to twenty years from now.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Perhaps the greatest miracle of all is this:
God can save mankind without being restrained to a book.
He can also save mankind without our proving it, documenting it, understanding it or explaining it.

That how miraculous God is.

I’m intrigued by the fact that God could do all that he wishes to do without violating the laws of nature that he created.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m intrigued by the fact that God could do all that he wishes to do without violating the laws of nature that he created.

On one hand, it’s pretty amazing, but on the other – after a bit of reflection – it makes perfect sense!

After all, they’re his laws of nature, and it’s his will we’re talking about! (As humans, we might have a hard time sticking to a plan or a budget that we create, but as God… well, let’s just say that his books always balance and (with apologies to the A-Team) his plans always come together!))

 

[StephieNorthCo]

On one hand, it’s pretty amazing, but on the other – after a bit of reflection – it makes perfect sense!

After all, they’re his laws of nature, and it’s his will we’re talking about! (As humans, we might have a hard time sticking to a plan or a budget that we create, but as God… well, let’s just say that his books always balance and (with apologies to the A-Team) his plans always come together!))

Agreed. There was an answer, I think yesterday, on Carholic Answers Live relating to this. It went along the lines of the fact that G-d could be glorified if he chose to snap His fingers and everything happened. However, He chose to make us from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. Therefore the stars were created and thru their explosion, the higher elements could be created, which could the form the building blocks which then lead to life. How much more glorious and magnificent is that? A lot more was given, but you get the idea. I think Jimmy Akin provided that. But all that glory is lost in a literal 6+1 day creation cycle.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[cfauster]

Thanks, cfauster. Very nice.

That link provides some reading suggestions, too!

I do wonder, still, what would be an example of a fundamentalist or literalistic interpretation that would not be acceptable.

Two general categories come to mind:

1. If the kind, style, type, form (I can’t recall the correct term) of the particular Bible text was intended to be figurative, then I suppose a literal interpretation would be unhelpful and probably miss the point of the text.

Of course, it’s not always obvious whether the writer of a text intends figurative or literal interpretation. Fortunately, in many cases the same essential meaning comes through regardless; I think that’s true with the Jonah story.

1. If an interpretation, figurative or literal, is clearly incompatible with objective truth, then at minimum such contradiction suggests double-checking to see if an alternative interpretation is warranted.

With the Jonah story, I don’t see any evidence to rule out a literal interpretation, because a miracle could have been performed without leaving any physical evidence for later investigation.

The Noah story, on the other hand, is different. I’m not talking about remains of the Ark being found or not; if it existed, one would not necessarily expect to have it survive to be found today.

No, I’m talking about results of a global deluge being found or not. God could have submerged the whole Earth in a global flood, but if that’s what God did, apparently God followed up with more miracles to hide the evidence. To me, taking that approach would get into very complicated waters (no pun intended) theologically and philosophically, let alone scientifically.

So the question often is not whether God can do something (yes, God can), it’s whether God chose to do something a particular way.

Sometimes it doesn’t really matter. Sometimes we can never know even if we would like to know. But sometimes there is abundant evidence pertinent to the question.

For example, there is abundant evidence that our solar system (including the Earth) is a few billions of years old. Certainly God could have made it all just a few thousand years ago, instantly, with apparent but not real age, with apparent but not real exploding supernovae millions of lights years away, etc. Again, I’m not a fan of the “apparent age” or any similar kind of approach envisioning God tampering with evidence.

There remains one more valid way to interpret the Bible such that the Earth is only a few thousands of years old: admit that the interpretation is not supported by evidence, but hold to it regardless. Few people do this, however. For whatever reason, human nature instead is to ignore, deny, obscure, distort, fabricate, etc. the evidence. People don’t consciously do it, usually. More often it’s passive.

For example, I think the answer Karl Keating gave (quoted in my previous post) is the best I’ve seen for the Catholic position on how to interpret the Jonah story. And yet, even he innocently propagated the story about a British mariner who survived being swallowed by a whale. Historian Ted Davis doggedly investigated, and convincingly concludes that the story was fabricated (the other link provided in my previous post).

The internet, like media before the days of the internet, abounds with such misinformation. Sometimes people who take the trouble to check out such stories are suspected as being unbelievers. Not necessarily. Ted Davis (and I) believe God can perform miracles.

Again, the Ask and Apologist answer remains a good one, in this case re. Noah’s flood.

 

[edwest2]

I’m intrigued by the fact that God could do all that he wishes to do without violating the laws of nature that he created.

God violates the laws of nature all the time, up to the present. Miracles from God, that violate the laws of nature, are usually required for a human being to be declared a saint.

Martyrdom is the other way, but that person’s life is also examined.

Ed

 

[goout]

This is a great talk by Bishop Barron.
youtube.com/watch?v=qj0V7JhMJ3w
He address fundamentalism throughout.

Out of step biblical interpretations simply give the Church’s enemies fuel.

 

[edwest2]

Two general categories come to mind:

1. If the kind, style, type, form (I can’t recall the correct term) of the particular Bible text was intended to be figurative, then I suppose a literal interpretation would be unhelpful and probably miss the point of the text.

Of course, it’s not always obvious whether the writer of a text intends figurative or literal interpretation. Fortunately, in many cases the same essential meaning comes through regardless; I think that’s true with the Jonah story.

1. If an interpretation, figurative or literal, is clearly incompatible with objective truth, then at minimum such contradiction suggests double-checking to see if an alternative interpretation is warranted.

With the Jonah story, I don’t see any evidence to rule out a literal interpretation, because a miracle could have been performed without leaving any physical evidence for later investigation.

The Noah story, on the other hand, is different. I’m not talking about remains of the Ark being found or not; if it existed, one would not necessarily expect to have it survive to be found today.

No, I’m talking about results of a global deluge being found or not. God could have submerged the whole Earth in a global flood, but if that’s what God did, apparently God followed up with more miracles to hide the evidence. To me, taking that approach would get into very complicated waters (no pun intended) theologically and philosophically, let alone scientifically.

So the question often is not whether God can do something (yes, God can), it’s whether God chose to do something a particular way.

Sometimes it doesn’t really matter. Sometimes we can never know even if we would like to know. But sometimes there is abundant evidence pertinent to the question.

For example, there is abundant evidence that our solar system (including the Earth) is a few billions of years old. Certainly God could have made it all just a few thousand years ago, instantly, with apparent but not real age, with apparent but not real exploding supernovae millions of lights years away, etc. Again, I’m not a fan of the “apparent age” or any similar kind of approach envisioning God tampering with evidence.

There remains one more valid way to interpret the Bible such that the Earth is only a few thousands of years old: admit that the interpretation is not supported by evidence, but hold to it regardless. Few people do this, however. For whatever reason, human nature instead is to ignore, deny, obscure, distort, fabricate, etc. the evidence. People don’t consciously do it, usually. More often it’s passive.

For example, I think the answer Karl Keating gave (quoted in my previous post) is the best I’ve seen for the Catholic position on how to interpret the Jonah story. And yet, even he innocently propagated the story about a British mariner who survived being swallowed by a whale. Historian Ted Davis doggedly investigated, and convincingly concludes that the story was fabricated (the other link provided in my previous post).

The internet, like media before the days of the internet, abounds with such misinformation. Sometimes people who take the trouble to check out such stories are suspected as being unbelievers. Not necessarily. Ted Davis (and I) believe God can perform miracles.

Again, the Ask and Apologist answer remains a good one, in this case re. Noah’s flood.

I was taught, in Catholic school, that all these events actually happened as written. And they have been talked about to death, or near death, here.

The CIA has a photo labeled “Ararat Anomaly.” It definitely shows something near the frozen peak of this mountain in Turkey. For national security purposes (it would be a great vantage point), the Turkish government is wary about allowing anyone going up there for a look. However, I have seen scale models that have been built according to the measurements given in the Bible. They are seaworthy and the design could handle large waves.

As far as the “God covered up the evidence” or whatever, do we have evidence Jesus rose from the dead? Or gave sight to the blind? Or raised others from the dead?

Human nature wants the truth. That’s why a lot of everyday people use their own time and money to investigate things on their own. There are books with all kinds of examples. I was always taught history should be about the truth. That’s why I study history. I don’t go in believing, I want to watch, so to speak, the process in action and how it finally turns out. I’ve been fortunate to locate a few things about World War II that have added to a very large puzzle of missing pieces.

Take the media today. Do most people go in expecting nonsense? Half-truths? Outright lies? Sadly, too many take it at face value unless it’s obviously outrageous. Human beings are too caught up in being lazy intellectually. They want to be entertained. TV news is called “info-tainment” for a reason. Every day, death, killing, death, killing, death killing, followed by sports and weather and big smiles. And the occasional “nice, aw, isn’t that nice?” story to break the cycle. Except when national elections come around, then it’s as much truth and dirt you can throw season.

Research is hard. It takes time.

As far as “evidence,” well, it can be distorted as well. I have to search multiple sources, sometimes in other languages, to get leads or documents I’m looking for. I can then go check on those sources through other means.

Ed

 

[cfauster]

As far as the “God covered up the evidence” or whatever, do we have evidence Jesus rose from the dead? Or gave sight to the blind? Or raised others from the dead?

No, and we should not expect evidence to be available for those examples. They, like the Jonah story, would not leave any evidence.

I contrasted those situations with situations where we do have pertinent evidence.

 

[edwest2]

No, and we should not expect evidence to be available for those examples. They, like the Jonah story, would not leave any evidence.

I contrasted those situations with situations where we do have pertinent evidence.

I doubt a lot of it, especially the age of the earth and of the universe. I didn’t before but I’ve found a few good leads. Assuming is no longer an option as I learn to be a better researcher, and while the internet is not the best source, it can provide leads. That’s why I have a number of books with real names of real people. A few of whom I am in contact with. I always take bob6879 with a grain of salt. I cannot prove his existence. With real books and real names, my chances are much better.

Ed