B
buffalo
Guest
Go back to the Hebrew and commentary for a better understanding.
- Status
G
goout
Guest
Not a very good diversion on your part.goout:
Go back to the Hebrew and commentary for a better understanding.
K
kapp19
Guest
Humani Generis talks about evolution. That’s about the best you get - but it is pretty helpful.
K
kapp19
Guest
The burden of proof is the other way around, actually… If it is a defined point of protology that a serpent spoke you will have to provide the document. (Hint: it does not exist.)
B
buffalo
Guest
The document is called Genesis, part of the Bible.
B
buffalo
Guest
Read it in its entirety. Bottomline - OK to study evolution but Church will make final decision.
K
kapp19
Guest
Hi there,
No - it is not acrobatic at all. Quite the contrary, it simplifies everything. Do you really think that the taxonomy of biology is anything other than a way to understand how living things are connected with each other? There could be other ways… those ways could be less useful, or more useful, depending on the circumstances.
I sense hostility regarding the point of revealed protology - as if the talking snake were a “gotcha” or something… it’s not.
Let’s say I take a literalistic reading of the episode… (I won’t say either way.) Fine - you’ve “got me” - there is a talking serpent. Later on, we will also see a talking donkey, with Balaam. Okay? If you mean to say that supernatural things don’t interfere with nature, or something modernist like that, well, that’s a different question than whether Genesis is reconcilable with evolution.
No - it is not acrobatic at all. Quite the contrary, it simplifies everything. Do you really think that the taxonomy of biology is anything other than a way to understand how living things are connected with each other? There could be other ways… those ways could be less useful, or more useful, depending on the circumstances.
I sense hostility regarding the point of revealed protology - as if the talking snake were a “gotcha” or something… it’s not.
Let’s say I take a literalistic reading of the episode… (I won’t say either way.) Fine - you’ve “got me” - there is a talking serpent. Later on, we will also see a talking donkey, with Balaam. Okay? If you mean to say that supernatural things don’t interfere with nature, or something modernist like that, well, that’s a different question than whether Genesis is reconcilable with evolution.
K
kapp19
Guest
You seem a bit overly defensive… and you are not winning anyone to your point of view with your sarcasm - which is founded on what seems to be a rather simplistic view of the nature of revelation through Scripture, as if it were out of the question of whether symbolic language could be even remotely possible.
I am not contending, by the way, that your actual opinion on the point is wrong - only that it is not binding in the way you presume.
I am not contending, by the way, that your actual opinion on the point is wrong - only that it is not binding in the way you presume.
B
buffalo
Guest
From the Catechism:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
[116] The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117] The spiritual sense . Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense . We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense . The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge , “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
[119] "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
I am aware of these - and other senses too, classically used, such as by Augustine (especially, in this case, the aetiological); there is still some lack of consistency in the usage as far as I can tell (I have read that the Fathers had no fewer than FIFTEEN different categories in use - which were not well organized/harmonized…) Not sure what your point is. Is it about the literal sense? How many hours do you have to talk about that? (I am not a biblicist, but I have worked around this issue a bit.)
You will repel souls from Christ by insisting on your own private opinion about the need for a literalistic/strict historical interpretation of these passages as Catholic doctrine. So… I would not recommend it.
You will repel souls from Christ by insisting on your own private opinion about the need for a literalistic/strict historical interpretation of these passages as Catholic doctrine. So… I would not recommend it.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
“All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
I cite the constant teaching and understanding. It is not my opinion.
K
kapp19
Guest
Of course they are. But you demonstrate with that argument that you don’t understand what is at issue. The question is “what is the literal sense really, and how do we detect it for the sake of the plenary sense”? You will find pretty much no major Catholic biblicists - of any era - who say that the 21st century way of reading history written by recent authors is how we should read the Torah - or some other books. That is quite a modern idea, and it is quite foolish.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is what the inspired author intended to convey and how we have understood it and taught it from the time written plus Tradition and protection of the Holy Spirit… Scripture did not just fall from the sky and we have to figure it out through a modern lens the very first time.
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
Ahhhh, yes, here we go. What the inspired author intended to convey… That’s it. Can an author intend to use a symbol? The sense of the letter itself could in fact reduce entirely to this… Unless we are supposed to rip out the hearts of children in order to enter the Kingdom of God (because unless you acquire the heart of a child…)
The fact is that “the literal sense” is not a clear category - it is just as clear as the parts, namely, intention and language and inspired authorship. I will not go into all the questions here… But you seem to think that the “literal sense” of the text is actually the same as a “literal positing of fact external to the text based on the plain meaning of the words.” Not the case. The spiritual senses must rest on the literal sense, because, well, what else would they rest on? You have to know what the words actually mean in the sentence you find them in, in the context of the whole passage - and even in the context of all of Scripture.
Your claim that this is some “new” way of reading Scripture is, well, just not correct. See above, where an atheist pointed you to Augustine, who would not be happy with your insistence… Many souls are lost because of this kind of talk. Your opinion is not the Catholic Faith, though it is not opposed to it either. Enough.
You might find this article on Thomas as an exegete to be a good read… I’m being sincere:
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/Taqandss.htm
The fact is that “the literal sense” is not a clear category - it is just as clear as the parts, namely, intention and language and inspired authorship. I will not go into all the questions here… But you seem to think that the “literal sense” of the text is actually the same as a “literal positing of fact external to the text based on the plain meaning of the words.” Not the case. The spiritual senses must rest on the literal sense, because, well, what else would they rest on? You have to know what the words actually mean in the sentence you find them in, in the context of the whole passage - and even in the context of all of Scripture.
Your claim that this is some “new” way of reading Scripture is, well, just not correct. See above, where an atheist pointed you to Augustine, who would not be happy with your insistence… Many souls are lost because of this kind of talk. Your opinion is not the Catholic Faith, though it is not opposed to it either. Enough.
You might find this article on Thomas as an exegete to be a good read… I’m being sincere:
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/Taqandss.htm
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Did you read the article referenced?
“Patristic and medieval exegesis, of which St. Thomas is but one more or less typical example, has been out of favor for some time, especially among Scripture scholars. One does hear a few rumblings from time to time that scholars have been premature and over zealous in their rejection of such a rich and varied tradition.”
To appease science on must do violence to scripture.
According to your thinking the Holy Spirit allowed error for such a long time and only in modern times has started to correct it. Nonsense.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Of course they didn’t know the scientific reasons. It would be the height of foolishness to read scripture as if they did know. But that’s what we have. People do read it as an accurate description of the ‘creation’ process. And whales become fish to try to fit it into a narrative that makes sense to those who read it thus.
And lo and behold, out come all the fundamentalists to repeat ad nauseum the same tired arguments I have had the misfortune to read in very many other threads. I have stopped discussing it with most of them. It’s certainly a waste of my time writing anything and a waste of time anyone reading it.
I always look for common ground when discussing any matter when it’s difficult to find agreement. But there is none when the other person thinks the planet is less than 200 generations old. Where on earth do you look for any commonality when presented with claims like that?
Good luck to anyone who wants to discuss it. I’ve more productive things to do with my time.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Humani Generis is about as official as you have…
Whereas,
It does not block science’s continuing efforts to an as of yet → definitive answer…
it does acknowledge that YES Adam&Eve are indeed the first parents of humanity
Last edited:
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
F
Freddy
Guest
Are you being purposely obtuse?Freddy:
The polarised argument yet again.
Why can God not create evolution.
Creationism and evolution are completely different processes. God could have used either one. Please select your favourite method. He’s involved in both.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Stop thinking in a polarised fashion There is no law that says its an either / or process. There are 2 chapters where the creation of all things is described, one much older then the other. There is also a conversation between Job and God about creation.
Lets not get into a debate about what day means or time.
God created all things. That includes the evolution of things, if we take that away from God and say
‘well you cannot create evolution’
we are trying to be greater then God.
- Status