Fundamentalism and the Bible

[Michael_G]

The geological evidence precludes a conclusion that there was a world-wide flood at any time in earth’s history. There may have been a fairly catastrophic flood that was localized however. You must distinguish between literal and literalism. Literal means that we attempt the discern the writer’s actual meaning and purpose in what he wrote. Literalism is a belief that every story every fact stated in the bible is actually true, and that everything is written directed by God. Catholics do not believe in this fundamentalist approach to scripture. There is much in Genesis for instance that is simply not true factually. Recent popes have agreed.

Michael G[/B]

the argument that fossils only occur by rapid buriel stands, the fact that multilayers can be layed down overnight and in a matter of days such as from Mt St helens stands, fossils do not occur by gradual buriel over eons of times, this stands**
**

more geologic evidence for global flood, the fact that we have millions of dead things perserved as fossils in fossil grave yards burried in multiple layers all over the earth. numerous sites with trees sometimes up right, sometimes turned upside down which is what happens to trees which are water logged buried straight up and down through layer after layer of rock layers to the height of the tree, numerous examples throughout the world. To say that we do not have any evidence is plainly false…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

you have stated many times that you have learned that noah is just a story from catholic catechical classes, RCI, Catholic theologins in Catholic Universities, you are apparently contradicting yourself.

**Of course I am not. Where do you think these people got the notion in the first place? from science which negated the possibility of any worldwide flood. This view has been adopted in catechical material, RCIA material and so on. **

Well are you going to call Etwn and Father John Echert fundamentalist, and committing intellectual suicide very interesting indeed. " By the way your position which supports noah as just a stroy and does not include the possiblity that Noah is a realy global flood just as it literaly states is really contray to Catholic Teaching. Since you hold one view as absolute, and the church leaves the question at least open, makes your position one of intellectual suicide

**I suspect they are fundamentalists. I’ve not seen anything out of ETWN other than the extreme conservativism. That’s been well known for years. I know little about Fr. Echert. There are some vry conservative folks around. And I suggest that what I state is in no way against Church teaching. The Church still allows those folks to believe in literalness if they wish. I don’t claim that my position is the Church’s sole position. As I said, it allows for either, but just as clearly the Church acknowledges the truth of the former. Nice try though. **
. Answer by Fr. John Echert on 06-26-2002:
Though it has been popular in some circles to doubt the historicity of the account of the Flood in the time of Noah, I personally accept this as an historical reality. One argument which has been attempted against its historicity has been that there are ancient accounts of floods to be found among other peoples; however, rather than discounting the reality of the Flood I view this as corroborative. In other words, the presence of multiple accounts of some incredible flood in ancient times would argue in favor of such an occurrence, rather than assume they all borrow upon each other.

**He states its his personal opinion. and agrees with what others and I have said, some localized flood probably accounts for the multiplicity of the stories. No one in that time could of course have any concept of what the “world” actually entailed. **
One thing I look to in affirming the historical existence of figures of the ancient past is to look to the New Testament wherein many of the ancient figures and episodes are affirmed by Jesus and various sacred writers. This, in itself, lends great credibility to the historicity of the matter. For instance, regarding Noah, I note eight references in the NT, such as follows:"

**Attestation by later historical figures means very little. There is no suggestion they are mentioning these "events’ for their reality. They are clearly mentioned for their theological significance. There is no reason to give them any additional significance given that in 30 CE or thereabouts nothing significantly new had been learned about the size or shape of the earth. **

.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

number one the argument that fossils only occur by rapid buriel stands, the fact that multilayers can be layed down overnight and and in a matter of days such as from Mt St helens stands, fossils do not occur by gradual buriel over eons of times, this stands. The other info is debatable from a scientific perspective. Yes the mountain were probably flat at one time, what caused them rise up.

**You cite no proof, only opinion. You cannot simply make assertions…I suspect your only proof is creationist nonsense and you obviously don’t want to include it. this is not an issue, you are free to believe as you need to, given it appears to threaten your faith if it isn’t so. **

Here is what scripture tells us Gen Chap 7n that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the **windows of the heavens were opened.
**12: And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

**I know what scripture says. It is of no scientific import. **

Water from underground burst forth, quite possibly so much water burst up from the ground as to radically change the landscape, raising up mountains, while other land droped to form equally deep vallies all in a matter of days. The windows of the heavens were opened (windows, multiple heavnes??)

Yep, nice speculation. why no 6 million angels all throwing pitchers of water from heaven? It’s has as much likelihood of proof as what you assert and speculate upon.

Gen 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens…6: And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7: And God made the** firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.** And it was so. There are some who believe in essence their were two water layers above the earth, with a radically different one one layer of heavy midst, or possibly cloud cover and a water canopy which covered the entire globe. All this water from a bove and massive release of water bursting from underground causing land to rise and mountains to spring up, and major vallies to be created would equal a world wide flood which would not disapte until all the water ran off the high ground into the vallies i.e. Ocean vallies. Platonics now made present as portions of the earth break apart from the water springing forth from the depths of the earth. Radical climate changes overnight, Now I cannot prove this scenerio anymore than you can disprove it, I cannot disprove your theory anymore than you can prove it as absolute fact. So Noahs flood in book is stalemate, except that the NT confirm, and it then takes more proof to just toss it out the window.

**Oh but I can prove mine and you have not presented one reputable scientific proof to the contrary. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

more geologic evidence for global flood, the fact that we have millions of dead things perserved as fossils in fossil grave yards burried in multiple layers all over the earth. numerous sites with trees sometimes up right, sometimes turned upside down which is what happens to trees which are water logged buried straight up and down through layer after layer of rock layers to the height of the tree, numerous examples throughout the world. To say that we do not have any evidence is plainly false…

You still have presented zero evidence to the contrary while I have presented you with 3 rather impeccable sites from respected scientific organizations. There are countless other International organizations as well. If your arguments had any merit whatsoever, the scientific literature would contain it. It does not. The Church allows you to believe such outlandish stuff because it recognizes that some folks have very weak faith systems that require them to find comfort in the Bible as a field manual for life. It is the same with my beloved godmother.She could never believe that God is not a man, and who on God’s earth would argue with an 85 year old woman who has been faithful all her life.?

 

[juliamajor]

Michael_G:
Okay- so since you believe in the entire story of Noah(never mind there is ample evidence of a flood story that predates the bible one) and it’s completely true how about the science of the time that the world is an upside down bowl with little windows that let rain and other elements in.Or the literal floodgates that held the enormous amount of waters from under the earth. I’m not talking aquifers- 'im talking ocean amount of water- besides when you argue little points of scripture you miss the entire point of the story- and that is what is important. IT’S A STORY THAT HAS A MORAL &THEOLOGICAL POINT- it was never meant as science or history.Faith should not depend on the details of a story- and Genesis is full of mythic stories-not a dirty word-.Etiological stories that tried to tell the folks of the time -where they came from and the origin of the universe AS THEY SAW IT. The most important part of Genesis is Abraham and how the Chosen People were Chosen- Why were they chosen and what what impact does that have on the whole world of men-.

 

[Michael_G]

**Oh but I can prove mine and you have not presented one reputable scientific proof to the contrary. **

Scientific proof requires it to be observable, since we do not observe mountains being created from flat lands platonics or not it is not science, published in science magazines does not make it science unless it can be observed and tested so you do not have the proof you need.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Scientific proof requires it to be observable, since we do not observe mountains being created from flat lands platonics or not it is not science, published in science magazines does not make it science unless it can be observed and tested so you do not have the proof you need.

Michael of course we do. Every mountain range is either rising or falling, as they have done from time immemorial. We observe plate techtonics every moment, and we have instruments that measure the drift. If you knew anything about what you are attempting to speak you would know there are scholarly peer reviewed literature that abound both nationally and internationally. This information is not just published in “magazines” although it can in a few, but is reported in scientific journals and actual books used in classrooms across the world. I have given you more proof that any rational person could want from several highly known scientific institutes and websites. Believe what you CHOOSE, but it aint the facts, its your private fantasy world.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Okay- so since you believe in the entire story of Noah(never mind there is ample evidence of a flood story that predates the bible one) and it’s completely true how about the science of the time that the world is an upside down bowl with little windows that let rain and other elements in.Or the literal floodgates that held the enormous amount of waters from under the earth. I’m not talking aquifers- 'im talking ocean amount of water- besides when you argue little points of scripture you miss the entire point of the story- and that is what is important. IT’S A STORY THAT HAS A MORAL &THEOLOGICAL POINT- it was never meant as science or history.Faith should not depend on the details of a story- and Genesis is full of mythic stories-not a dirty word-.Etiological stories that tried to tell the folks of the time -where they came from and the origin of the universe AS THEY SAW IT. The most important part of Genesis is Abraham and how the Chosen People were Chosen- Why were they chosen and what what impact does that have on the whole world of men-.

That is always the sadness to me. People get bogged down in this rigid need for unerrancy as if it were the only life ring in the ocean and they must hold on or drown. The book becomes the thing to be worshiped instead of the a record of faith crossing thousands of years and the enormously wonderful wisdom to be gained from it. We can no longer compare one vision of God from another, but are required to twist and frantically “interpret” all parts into a coherent whole which is never coherent at all. Thus we lose again so much. There are a thousand ways to examine these texts, and with each one we gain another glimpse of another part of the life and faith and trust and love, and how man reconciled himself with God and with his brother.

The fundamentalist unerrancy would force us to a rigid one time only definition of what did happen and what it means. It turns a rich lively text, free to be interpreted with each generation new and afresh with meaning for today, into a cold hard sterile stone of rules and admonitions that are doggedly pursued with stubborn blinded eyes. It is so very Pharisidic.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Fundamentalism regarding the bible is wrong and if a Catholic does it then the Catholic is wrong.

That does not mean that there are some truths in the bible that are Fundamentally, literally, actualy, factualy, and historicaly true.

Stating that as a fact and stating that it is possible for a Catholic to state that there are are such truths in the bible does not make that person a Fundamentalist!

The error comes if someone states that such truth are the Whole Truth!

Some things in the bible are allegorical. Some things aren’t to be taken literally. The parables on some levels should not be taken literally even though the truths they teach are real.

But some of the details and some of the literal things that the bible teaches are literally ture.

That shouldn’t bother anyone.

I never have been able to understand the literal only people

Or

the people that have an extra-biblical explanation for things the bible does literally say that they have trouble believing.

Jesus Rose from the Dead!

I believe that!

It amazes me that anything else the bible would say would be hard for a person to believe.

Now I’m not saying that evrything the bible says is literally true–I am saying that the mindset that if something the bible says is hard to believe

Therefore it couldn’t have really happened and shouldn’t be taken literally

That whole mindset is wrong!

 

[Michael_G]

Michael of course we do. Every mountain range is either rising or falling, as they have done from time immemorial. We observe plate techtonics every moment, and we have instruments that measure the drift. If you knew anything about what you are attempting to speak you would know there are scholarly peer reviewed literature that abound both nationally and internationally. .

Meadow
Just because one can demonstrate that mountains are rising or falling does not mean you can extrapolate out that a region went from a flat piece of land to a great mountain, this has not been observed and therefore is speculation, conjecture, a belief, faith etc.

Michael G[/B]

[file:///C:/1C/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](file:///C:/1C/showthread.php?p=3084709#post3084709)

more geologic evidence for global flood, the fact that we have millions of dead things perserved as fossils in fossil grave yards burried in multiple layers all over the earth. numerous sites with trees sometimes up right, sometimes turned upside down which is what happens to trees which are water logged buried straight up and down through layer after layer of rock layers to the height of the tree, numerous examples throughout the world. To say that we do not have any evidence is plainly false…

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow [file:///C:/1C/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](file:///C:/1C/showthread.php?p=3069283#post3069283)
What you refer to is what is today mountains was yesterdays flatlands. Also, there were localized floods in various parts of the globe over the eons.

SpiritMeadow[/B]

You still have presented zero evidence to the contrary while I have presented you with 3 rather impeccable sites from respected scientific organizations

on one hand you acknowlege scientific evidence for multiple catstrophic floods over eons of time but deny that it may also be evidence for a global flood, this is not rational. By the way if Noah had a local flood why did God tell him to build an ark why not tell him to simply move…

Michael G[/B]

[file:///C:/1C/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](file:///C:/1C/showthread.php?p=3079591#post3079591)
Exactly. These so called scholars that people want to rely on that declare Noahs flood as a make believe story, are the same scholars who are stating that Mathew never wrote the gospel of Mathew, that John the evangelist is not the author of John, we see this in the New American Bible, nothing but hogwash it is, they are out to destroy the credibility of the written word and centuries of 1,900 years of Catholic teaching. Turn the church into mush and you get mush.back.

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow [file:///C:/1C/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](file:///C:/1C/showthread.php?p=3069283#post3069283)I am not at all sure that they are the same people at all. The stuff about Matthew and John have nothing to do with this particular argument.
Originally Posted by **SpiritMeadow **I suspect they are fundamentalists. I’ve not seen anything out of ETWN other than the extreme conservativism.

The stuff about matthew and John have nothing to do with?? Of course it does, it has to do with Pius XII warning on the modernist thinking, those who reject Noahs flood those who deny that Mathew did not write Mathew are in the modernist camp versus tradition of 1900 years from Christ— EWTN etc. Destroy the tradition of the Church and one ultimately is seeking to
destroy the Church.

Since no one here can go back to Noahs time, it is outside of science, and science has not disproven Noahs flood. All is speculation and conjecture when denying Noah and the flood

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Meadow
Just because one can demonstrate that mountains are rising or falling does not mean you can extrapolate out that a region went from a flat piece of land to a great mountain, this has not been observed and therefore is speculation, conjecture, a belief, faith etc.

**Of course they can. You are simply woefully unaware of what science can and cannot prove. The facts have been presented to you. You have still provided zero evidence to the contrary. You may call it whatever you wish, it is a fact. Your head in the sand attitude changes nothing. **

on one hand you acknowlege scientific evidence for multiple catstrophic floods over eons of time but deny that it may also be evidence for a global flood, this is not rational. By the way if Noah had a local flood why did God tell him to build an ark why not tell him to simply move…
**That is because scientists are also clear that while there have been floods as there always are, it is imipossible for their to have been a worldwide flood. The SCIENTIFIC evidence prohibits such a conclusion. I cannot address why God didn’t tell Noah to just move, since you clearly have no idea what we are talking about at this point by the mere suggestion of such a ludicrous statement. We are saying the story is A STORY and not history. **

The stuff about matthew and John have nothing to do with?? Of course it does, it has to do with Pius XII warning on the modernist thinking, those who reject Noahs flood those who deny that Mathew did not write Mathew are in the modernist camp versus tradition of 1900 years from Christ— EWTN etc. Destroy the tradition of the Church and one ultimately is seeking to
destroy the Church.

**You might try reading what later popes have said. Both Benedict and JPII have stated quited clearly that the creation stories are allegorical and not historically accurate. JPII acknowledges and discusses at length the 2 creation stories, their relative dates of origin, when they were actually reduced to writing, and that they reflect 2 different writing groups. We are not discussing Matthew The folks who tell you about Matthew are called biblical scholars. The people who tell you about flooding geologically are called geologists or scientists. . No one is trying to destroy the church, rather we seek to make sure that some folks don’t pass off this fictional interpretation as Church Teaching which it is not. Only those of weak faith are frightened of the truth. **
(Michael says:
Since no one here can go back to Noahs time, it is outside of science, and science has not disproven Noahs flood. All is speculation and conjecture when denying Noah and the flood)

**You have so little understanding of science it really is impossible to explain things to you. Science need not go back in time to understand geology. We could know nothing of gravity if that were true, or much of anything. Your wildly inaccurate and naive assertions only make your arguments appear the sillier. Please learn a tiny bit of science. It’s embarassing to read this. **

 

[Michael_G]

)

Originally Posted by Michael G
*Meadow
Just because one can demonstrate that mountains are rising or falling does not mean you can extrapolate out that a region went from a flat piece of land to a great mountain, this has not been observed and therefore is speculation, conjecture, a belief, faith etc.

Originally Posted by **SpiritMeadow *****Of course they can. You are simply woefully unaware of what science can and cannot prove. The facts have been presented to you. You have still provided zero evidence to the contrary. You may call it whatever you wish, it is a fact. Your head in the sand attitude changes nothing. **
%between% %between%

Tell me something since you are so bent on telling me that I am somekind of a complete idiot, just what makes you think you know it all, do you have a science degree, if so in what field???

 

[inthecloud]

Please somebody post John Henry Newman sermon on Darwin.
He was more advanced that many people living today.

 

[PaperMoon]

Okay- so since you believe in the entire story of Noah(never mind there is ample evidence of a flood story that predates the bible one) and it’s completely true how about the science of the time that the world is an upside down bowl with little windows that let rain and other elements in.Or the literal floodgates that held the enormous amount of waters from under the earth. I’m not talking aquifers- 'im talking ocean amount of water- besides when you argue little points of scripture you miss the entire point of the story- and that is what is important. IT’S A STORY THAT HAS A MORAL &THEOLOGICAL POINT- it was never meant as science or history.Faith should not depend on the details of a story- and Genesis is full of mythic stories-not a dirty word-.Etiological stories that tried to tell the folks of the time -where they came from and the origin of the universe AS THEY SAW IT. The most important part of Genesis is Abraham and how the Chosen People were Chosen- Why were they chosen and what what impact does that have on the whole world of men-.

But if you think everything in Genesis was just stories and not real events, how do you know the story of Abraham was real and not just stories to tell a point. That’s the problem,. To me, to start to say some parts of the Bible were just stories puts everything in the bible in question because how do you differenciate which parts are “just stories” and which parts are facts. It makes no sense to me. And like the other poster said, since Hebrews 11 mentions the faith of Noah during the flood right along with the faith of other people in the Bible, it puts the other things mentioned in Hebrews in jopardy if you say the flood did not really happen. And like someone said if the flood was not worldwide all God had to do was tell Noah to move! LOL! It doesn’t make sense to start saying certain things in the Bible were just stories because then you have to question everything else. What about the virgin birth was that “just a story?” After all science says it’s impossible for a virgin to have a baby (without today’s technology) just like science says they think the flood was not worldwide so why believe the Bible over science in some instances then turn around and believe science over the Bible in other instances? It makes no sense. I can understand the church leaving it open as to whether it was worldwide or not, but for someone to say flat out it was not worldwide and did not happen at all, that’s dangerous thinking.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Tell me something since you are so bent on telling me that I am somekind of a complete idiot, just what makes you think you know it all, do you have a science degree, if so in what field???

**I have done no such thing. Clearly you are quite intelligent. You do however, it seems to me have a desire for the facts to be as you desire them to be. I have no such desire. i simply follow the evidence. There is simply no reason to disregard tens of thousands of scientists over 150 years in multiple disciplines who all use the evolutionary model successfully in their work. This is a world wide belief. There are a few hundred creationist “scientists”. Most are not scientists in the field of evolutionary biology. Many admit fully they only went to college to get a degree so they could promote creationism with "authority’. I believe that the vast number of creationists are so by desire and certainly not because the evidence is there. There simply is no credible evidence. Creationism creates no testable hypothesis and predicts nothing. It is a theological belief, and nothing more. I hope I have not offended you to the point of complaining again that your’re being picked on. I certainly don’t intend that. I assume anyone here is basically of normal intelligence. Some however, choose to ignore their intelligence. **

But if you think everything in Genesis was just stories and not real events, how do you know the story of Abraham was real and not just stories to tell a point. That’s the problem,. To me, to start to say some parts of the Bible were just stories puts everything in the bible in question because how do you differenciate which parts are “just stories” and which parts are facts. It makes no sense to me.
**I understand your basic concerns, but unfortunately it does not change the facts that several Popes now agree that evolution was the model chosen by God to develop life on this planet. While you are free to disagree with the Church on this issue, I fail to understand why you would wish to. There is simply nothing incompatible with evolution and God. **

And like the other poster said, since Hebrews 11 mentions the faith of Noah during the flood right along with the faith of other people in the Bible, it puts the other things mentioned in Hebrews in jopardy if you say the flood did not really happen.
**No it does not do this. What is important always is the theological truth, not the actual historical truth. **

And like someone said if the flood was not worldwide all God had to do was tell Noah to move! LOL! It doesn’t make sense to start saying certain things in the Bible were just stories because then you have to question everything else.

**As I explained, to suggest God could have made it simpler is to misunderstand completely. If its a story, then its not God speaking in the first place. It’s man attempting to understand from his primitive place how he came to be. He did the best he could. Now we know better is all. **
What about the virgin birth was that “just a story?” After all science says it’s impossible for a virgin to have a baby (without today’s technology) just like science says they think the flood was not worldwide so why believe the Bible over science in some instances then turn around and believe science over the Bible in other instances? It makes no sense.
**There has never been a time when virgin births were considered normal. However, this is in the area of miracle and not susceptible of scientific proof. It remains matter of belief. **

I can understand the church leaving it open as to whether it was worldwide or not, but for someone to say flat out it was not worldwide and did not happen at all, that’s dangerous thinking.

**There is nothing dangerous about it. One need not have an acutal worldwide flood to understand that a theological statement is being made here about man’s unwillingness to live as God wished and desired. The Church does not look at these events in a literalistic sense. That is a protestant way of viewing scripture, and most of them don’t even use this type of inerrency in their doctrine either. It tends to be only found among proddie fundies, and we are not either of those. **

 

[PaperMoon]

Fundamentalism regarding the bible is wrong and if a Catholic does it then the Catholic is wrong.

That does not mean that there are some truths in the bible that are Fundamentally, literally, actualy, factualy, and historicaly true.

Stating that as a fact and stating that it is possible for a Catholic to state that there are are such truths in the bible does not make that person a Fundamentalist!

The error comes if someone states that such truth are the Whole Truth!

Some things in the bible are allegorical. Some things aren’t to be taken literally. The parables on some levels should not be taken literally even though the truths they teach are real.

But some of the details and some of the literal things that the bible teaches are literally ture.

That shouldn’t bother anyone.

I never have been able to understand the literal only people

Or

the people that have an extra-biblical explanation for things the bible does literally say that they have trouble believing.

Jesus Rose from the Dead!

I believe that!

It amazes me that anything else the bible would say would be hard for a person to believe.

Now I’m not saying that evrything the bible says is literally true–I am saying that the mindset that if something the bible says is hard to believe

Therefore it couldn’t have really happened and shouldn’t be taken literally

That whole mindset is wrong!

I agree with tis post. Also, when you said you believe Jesus rose from the dead, yes I do too, but what about the so called recent scientific evidence where they claimed to have found Jesus’ bones? That’s the same kind of so called forensic evidence & things people use to say they don’t believe the flood really happened. So if someone listen to science and so called scientific evidence in one are, where does it stop? If someone will believe so called scientific evidence concerning the flood and think that proves it wasn’t world wide or that humans evolved and that Genesis 1 was not real or true or was just allegory then where does that leave them concerning the resurrection of Jesus when there’s so called scientific evidence? See, where does it end? And why believe scientific evidence over the Bible in some things and not in other things? That’s wishy washy weak faith to me. Either believe the Bible is true or don’t believe it but don’t be wishy washy inbetween and pick & choose. I believe everything the Bible says, not in the literal fundamentalist way but I definately believe everything in the Bible is more than just allegorical stories. Some of the Bible events may have some allegory in it, but to dismiss whole stories all together as allegorical, that I can’t do. The antichrist will/does exist, he may not literally have 7 physical heads, that’s symbolic but he does exist and will rise up in the end times for example. But disbelieving certain Bible stories based on so called scientific evidence can be dangerous because what will science claim next is so called not true about the Bible? Jesus is/was the Son of God born of a virgin and died for our sins and rose up bodily 3 days later. Period. It is possible for science to be wrong why do people put so much faith in science over the Bible.

 

[PaperMoon]

**I have done no such thing. Clearly you are quite intelligent. You do however, it seems to me have a desire for the facts to be as you desire them to be. I have no such desire. i simply follow the evidence. There is simply no reason to disregard tens of thousands of scientists over 150 years in multiple disciplines who all use the evolutionary model successfully in their work. This is a world wide belief. There are a few hundred creationist “scientists”. Most are not scientists in the field of evolutionary biology. Many admit fully they only went to college to get a degree so they could promote creationism with "authority’. I believe that the vast number of creationists are so by desire and certainly not because the evidence is there. There simply is no credible evidence. Creationism creates no testable hypothesis and predicts nothing. It is a theological belief, and nothing more. I hope I have not offended you to the point of complaining again that your’re being picked on. I certainly don’t intend that. I assume anyone here is basically of normal intelligence. Some however, choose to ignore their intelligence. **

I understand what you’re trying to say, what bothers me is that you are saying this based on what science and so called scientists say though. If science did not claim evolution was real then you would believe Genesis 1, if science did not say that a world wide flood did not happen then you would believe the flood was worldwide right? So what will you do now that scientists are claiming to have evidence of Jesus’s bones, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdeline or other various women He supposedly married, or that there’s evidence that Jesus supposedly had a son etc. Will you stop believing He really rose form the dead based on what scientists say, or will you believe Jesus was married & had kids because science says so? See what I’m saying? You could use the same reasoning that those in the Bible were just using the allegory of a virgin birth or that Jesus did not really rise bodily form the dead or whatever excuses to explain it away all based on what science claims. People had no problem believing in the worldwide flood, or in creation of Genesis 1 until scientists came along claiming their scientific evidence. So 50yrs form now if they say they have Jesus’ bones and that Jesus was married with kids long enough and hard enough will you start to doubt the literacy of those biblical truths too? If you can accept the virgin birth as a miracal then why can’t you accept creation and ythe worldwide flood as a miracle too then? That kind of thinking is what also leads some to say they think Soddam & Gamorah was just “allegorical” and the people were just “supersticious” concerning homosexuality and did not understand it “like we do now” but now scientists try to claim people are born that way or whatever, if they say that long enough and hard enough will you also cave in to that too and believe them over the Bible and just tell yourself well it was all allegorical. See what I mean. With that reasoning science can have you doubting everything about the Bible and thinking any and everything in the Bible was just allegorical to cover up the fact that you may lack the faith to believe in what the Bible says in the face of what mankind and this world system says.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I understand what you’re trying to say, what bothers me is that you are saying this based on what science and so called scientists say though. If science did not claim evolution was real then you would believe Genesis 1, if science did not say that a world wide flood did not happen then you would believe the flood was worldwide right?
**Yes i am saying it based on what scientists (not so-called ones, but actual ones) worldwide tell me. I most probably would believe in Genesis as written if I did not know better. I assume I have a brain for a reason. I assume that my mind is part of what it means to be made in God’s image. So if the world exists in a state that seems discernable by our senses, then I assume that’s how it is. Otherwise I must presume God wants me to assume that even though it is different. That makes the only “winners” those who blindly adher to the bible while ignoring what their senses tell them. I don’t view God like that. I am also saying it because the Vatican essentially agrees as well. **

So what will you do now that scientists are claiming to have evidence of Jesus’s bones, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdeline or other various women He supposedly married, or that there’s evidence that Jesus supposedly had a son etc.
**I know of no evidence proclaimed by any scientist to any of these things you allude to. **

Will you stop believing He really rose form the dead based on what scientists say, or will you believe Jesus was married & had kids because science says so? See what I’m saying?
**Science attempts to define and explain the real world. It cannot address things like resurrection because these are supernatural things not amenable to scientific inquiry. Whether Jesus was married has nothing to do with science. It could only be in the perview I would guess of history perhaps. **
You could use the same reasoning that those in the Bible were just using the allegory of a virgin birth or that Jesus did not really rise bodily form the dead or whatever excuses to explain it away all based on what science claims.
**I assume there are some people who try to make all of it nothing but fable. But I would assume those folks are atheists and believe that evidence or not. The Virgin birth again is not a scientific inquiry, because it clearly belongs in the supernatural realm.Science only addresses physical phenomenon and seeks to understand and explain it. **

People had no problem believing in the worldwide flood, or in creation of Genesis 1 until scientists came along claiming their scientific evidence.

**I’m not sure of that. There is some reason to believe certainly that the early hearers of these tales, long before they were written down during Samuels time, never took them literally but regarded them as they may well have been meant as stories to instill theologically important information. But assuming you are correct, that would be no different than that people believed the earth was flat until scientists showed them evidence that it was round. Of course many disputed that for a very long time. I believe the Church may have as well. No one seriously does today, and we don’t see that as any threat to faith. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So 50yrs form now if they say they have Jesus’ bones and that Jesus was married with kids long enough and hard enough will you start to doubt the literacy of those biblical truths too?
**You seem to be saying that because we might find out things that would make us uncomfortable we shouldn’t do science or history. While that is an answer, surely humanity wouldnt be far past the cave had we adopted your theory. **

If you can accept the virgin birth as a miracal then why can’t you accept creation and ythe worldwide flood as a miracle too then?
**Because there is overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary. You ask me to discard my mind and blindly follow a book. The Church does not ask me to do so nor require me to do so. **

That kind of thinking is what also leads some to say they think Soddam & Gamorah was just “allegorical” and the people were just “supersticious” concerning homosexuality and did not understand it “like we do now” but now scientists try to claim people are born that way or whatever,

**Perhaps we are seeing what you truly fear now. I see that you deny the evidence that homosexuality is a genetic condition? Why is that? The church certainly doesn’t deny this. **

if they say that long enough and hard enough will you also cave in to that too and believe them over the Bible and just tell yourself well it was all allegorical. See what I mean.

**Yes, I see what you are afraid of. But that is not a good reason to ignore the truth. No one is suggesting that we throw out the bible you know. **
With that reasoning science can have you doubting everything about the Bible and thinking any and everything in the Bible was just allegorical to cover up the fact that you may lack the faith to believe in what the Bible says in the face of what mankind and this world system says.

**As I’ve said, you misunderstand science when you think it speaks to most of the bible. It does not. Actually it speaks to very little of it. **

 

[StevenFrancis]

The essence of what is being conveyed in each passage, in the way it was inspired to the author, is literal, however not literalist. Language at the time of authorship must be considered. Idomatic phrases, etc. There is much detail we don’t know, and are not privy to, because it was not important to God for the purposes of the text. For instance, how long was a God/day during creation? Some points are made quite concretely. If it’s important to establish the principle imparted, details are given. It was important for people to understand the enormity of the Ark, for instance, so actual dimiensions are given.

It was explained to me that throughout the bible we are given just exactly as much detail as we need in order to glean the meaning intended by God, and NO MORE, or NO LESS. Pay attention to what is written. That is what the focus is on.

There is no narrative to speak of regarding Jesus childhood. Aside from his being found preaching in the temple, there was nothing important to be learned from the events of his childhood. Nothing that God deemed compelled to inspire the authors to commit to written word.

One more thing that helps, is that while the OT books are the inspired Word of God, the authors still only wrote in such a way as the people of that time in history could understand. The OT books had a distinct audience. The books were intended for Jews still awaiting liberation, to help them keep alive their important and significant historical events with the Creator, to document their laws and form a basis of their morals and ethics, to document the progression of their covenantal relationship with God, and finally to phrophesize the coming of Emmanuel, (the Lord among us), and inspire them to prepare the way for His incarnation. Once the Word of God became flesh, then the responsibility of the passing on and keeping of the Word became a divinely initiated duty of the Church estabished on earth by Jesus. The task of singular interpretation regarding morals and ethics lies in the magesterium of the Church, so that it remains stable and faithful regardless of the whims and mores of an ever changing societal world, and the instability and flux of her languages and means of communication.

I know…impossibly long way of saying “other”.

Peace be with you,

Steven