Genesis - fact or fiction?

[thinkandmull]

The “reason” is that the Church, Deo gratias, has acted with great wisdom before the scientific discoveries regarding “evolution”, which is one of the issues addressed by Humani Generis. While some extremist Christian groups simply reject the corpus of scientific evidence as nonsense and declare that God shaped man from dust and woman from the man’s rib, the Church is infinitely more prudent in discerning the delicate boundary between faith and science, and it is in this very complex context that we can understand the wording of the Holy Father.

I have no issue whatsoever in believing that the Almighty creator of the universe could have done all things as described in the first parts of Genesis…however, there are issues that cannot be ignored, evidence that is under the eyes of all, and they cannot be allowed to stand as an exclusive or, otherwise we would make the most grave mistake of letting our adversaries take something that is for the greater glory of God and misrepresent it as sword to strike against His Church. That would be far from wise, and the Church is wisdom.

For the rest, I underscore the post by davidv with the quote of the Catechism about the different senses of Sacred Scripture.

We are not extremists. We acknowledge that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture” and that “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 105). However, we also learn that “to interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words”, and “in order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current” (CCC 109-110).

I have confronted quite a few atheists who strike at us by taking random quotes from the Sacred Scriptures and trying to confront us with the “you take it literally” argument. Truth is, things are far more complex.

Now, there are some truths which the Church teaches as certain:

• The first man was created by God (de fide)
• The whole human race stems from one single human pair (sententia certa)
• Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment (de fide)
• Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God (de fide)
• Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil (de fide)
• Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent (de fide)
• et cetera

De fide statements are infallible, and to deny them is heresy.

Sententia certa statements are theologically certain statements. According to Humani Generis and Lumen Gentium, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly.

Thus, while one can most definitely discard the thought that anything in the Sacred Scriptures is “fiction” or “myth”, we can state that they are facts, however described in many different ways - just like our Lord revealed the Kingdom of God in many different parables, and it is a fact that the Kingdom is like that, though those descriptions are not literal depictions of the Kingdom.

So we believe Humani Generis because of Humani Generis’s authority? That’s like saying you believe in God because of the Bible, and in the Bible because of God: the famous logical circle spoken of by Descartes. When non-infallable documents contradict the Bible, Catholics shouldn’t give in to the modernism. This Rock magazine has unfortunetly done that with regard to God’s homicidal commands in the Old Testament, forgetting that God is the Lord of Life, and that St. Paul accepted the sacrafice of Isaac as reality.

“to interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words”, and “in order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current” (CCC 109-110).

Their is little tangible use for these paragraphs (“modes of feelings”?? huh?), although they are not erroneous strictly speaking. A denial of the truth of the Bible is rampant, and the emphasis of these kinds of paragraphs can be harmful. It is possible that the “days” of Genesis really meant “ages”, but that makes sense, making the creation story more immediate, instead of seeming to drag on for centuries… Joshua did not stop the sun in the sky, but that is what it seemed to be. But once you say actual accounts are poetical or whatever, you have destroyed the whole idea of a book inspired by God

“Truth is, things are far more complex.”

Why would God give us a book that is complex enough when taken at face value, than multiply it the confusion beyond comprehension such that when the Bible says “he did such and such”, it really means “it would have been mystically cool if such really happened, by we don’t know”…

 

[R_C]

So we believe Humani Generis because of Humani Generis’s authority? That’s like saying you believe in God because of the Bible, and in the Bible because of God: the famous logical circle spoken of by Descartes. When non-infallable documents contradict the Bible, Catholics shouldn’t give in to the modernism.

I do not see any contradiction, nor do I think that the Holy Father would contradict the Sacred Scripture. And we believe in the teachings of Humani Generis because of the authority of who wrote it, not because of the Encyclical - which is itself not binding in the sense that, per se, is not considered an ex-cathedra teaching. That is not to say that we should take non-infallible teachings to a greater extent than they should…but they reveal a greater truth, and we cannot dismiss it as nonsense, because they are written by someone with authority…and I will personally accept his opinion over that of others.

A denial of the truth of the Bible is rampant, and the emphasis of these kinds of paragraphs can be harmful. It is possible that the “days” of Genesis really meant “ages”, but that makes sense, making the creation story more immediate, instead of seeming to drag on for centuries… Joshua did not stop the sun in the sky, but that is what it seemed to be. But once you say actual accounts are poetical or whatever, you have destroyed the whole idea of a book inspired by God

I do not contest this, but I do not think there is such a denial in the wise interpretations of the Church. And it may be equally harmful to insist to take everything literally. The teachers of the law did this, and the Lord was very clear in showing that this was not always the correct behavior, though He emphasize that He did not come to abolish the Scriptures, and that even the smallest sign of the Scriptures would be fulfilled. I do agree that the risk we take, when not being extremely prudent, is to forget that the Bible is the Word of God. However - and we see this throughout the Gospels - many things which by their nature cannot be expressed by human tongue or discerned by human mind had to be written down in a way that was accessible and understandable.

Why would God give us a book that is complex enough when taken at face value, than multiply it the confusion beyond comprehension such that when the Bible says “he did such and such”, it really means “it would have been mystically cool if such really happened, by we don’t know”.

**Quien sabe? “God’s thoughts are not our thoughts”. When the Lord speak of the Bread being his body, there is absolutely not a doubt that He means it literally - though under the species, as we now describe it using new words, of bread - but when the Apostles write that “we are members of the body of Christ”, it is rather obvious that there is a mystical layer to this truth. Equally, when God gave the manna to the people in the desert, though this was literally the bread coming down from heaven, Christ explained that in itself it was a mere prototype of Himself, the living bread. As for why the confusion, there is an actual explanation:

**As God says in the Scriptures,

 

[Gorgias]

gxensen:

I forget what book, but in one of Ratzinger’s books, he mentions how one of the gospels is not credible or reliable as a source of knowledge, for Jesus Christ’s life.

You forgot which book because Pope Benedict said no such thing.

Actually, in the first volume of “Jesus of Nazareth”, Ratzinger talks about the “quest for the historical Jesus”. As I recall, he notes that the intent of the Gospels isn’t to present a historical account of the person of Jesus; rather, the intent is that a person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God wants to convince others of this truth. So, Ratzinger asserts, the Gospels aren’t meant to be strict histories of Jesus’ life (as we 21st century folk understand the way history is written).

So, both davidv and gxensen are right: the pope said something, but it wasn’t that the Gospels aren’t ‘credible’ or ‘reliable’…

 

[thinkandmull]

R_C:
In answer to your arguments:

“And we believe in the teachings of Humani Generis because of the authority of who wrote it”

Humani Generis itself was the first encyclical to defend its own authority, but with fallable authority which is not greater than the Word of God.

“The teachers of the law did this, and the Lord was very clear in showing that this was not always the correct behavior”

There is no parallel here. It is one thing to take a rule, such as working on Sunday, too far. It is anything altogether to say “well, the Bible said that happened, but it meant it poetically, to give us a certain feel for some hidden truth, ect.” Modernism is rampant in the Church. If you read the Church Fathers and Doctors, I am sure you will never find them claiming that the we are not to take the Bible literally. St. Cardinal Bellarmine was so fervent in rejecting the modernist approach that he believed Galileo was a heretic, “just as if he had denied that Isaac was Abraham’s son” (I paraphrase).

Pointing out that the sun doesn’t scientifically move is something entirely different then claiming Eve really didn’t eat an apple. Such modernism is the same as saying Joshua didn’t exist

 

[SuperLuigi]

The Bible must be accepted literally because otherwise the whole system unravels. You can’t call a book the objective Word of God than start making excuses. Unfortunately, this basic logical argument isn’t fully realized by so many Catholics nowadays; even the Pope in one of his past books says that the Flood may never have truly happened. By that logic could not one argue that one or more or all of the Gospels are non-literal?

One thing I find interesting about Genesis is 3:1 “Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made.” Therefore animals, before the fall, had some form of reason (maybe the same amount we now have); amd conscience too (3:14)

I would urge against such rigid interpretations. There is a lot of symbolism used in the Bible, and logically so, because the masses back then were not terribly educated and the idea was to make the message simple.

The problem with literal Biblical interpretation can be seen in some Protestant denominations where they struggle with things like so-called “gay marriage” because Jesus didn’t literally say He was against it, but we can infer from the symbolism in say Song of Songs or the “man shall not lay with man and woman and with woman”.

There is no evidence whatsoever that earthly animals were self-aware in science or in Catholic doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

The Bible has different “senses”, but as the CCC says, they are all based on the literal, and the others can and have been abused.

But, ‘literal’ means “what the author intended” – it doesn’t necessarily mean ‘literalistic’ or ‘fundamentalist’. If the author intended an allegory or metaphor, then that’s the ‘literal’ meaning…

 

[grannymh]

Looks like most people do not understand how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth. :sad_yes: