C
Cruikshank_s
Guest
I read in another thread that the Church now teaches that the flood and most of Genesis didn’t actually happen. It’s myth. What’s the traditional stance??
- Status
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
A lot of different faiths and cultures have the same general story of the flood with a few different qualities here and there. Many Christians generally believe to be a unique faith or unique Church. Perhaps that is the reason why they debunked the flood story; because with the story, it makes the Church seem equivalent to other cultures.
That’s what I’m thinking.
I’m pretty sure that a lot of Catholics (Christians, in general) believe in the flood story, though.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
G
Genesis315
Guest
Members in the Church are free to hold and express that opinion, but there is nothing definitive as to that interpretation.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
do you have a citation for the claim that the Church teaches Genesis is a myth?
please provide it so we have some solid ground for debate
also please define the word “myth”
F
Freshman88
Guest
We certainly don’t believe in the whole “young earth” phenomenon, if that’s what you’re asking.
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
Please provide a source for your claim. To the best of my knowledge, the last magisterial decree on Genesis 2-11 was from the PBC in 1948:
The question of the literary forms of the eleven first chapters of Genesis is more obscure and more complicated. These literary forms do not correspond exactly with any classical category, and are not to be judged according to Greco-Latin or modern literary forms. Hence the historicity of these chapters can neither be denied nor affirmed simply, without undue application to them of the norms of a literary form under which they cannot be classed. It then, it is admitted that in these chapters history in the classic and modern sense is not found, it must also be confessed that modern science does not yet offer a positive solution to all the problems of these chapters. . . . If anyone should contend a priori that their narratives contain no history in the modern sense of the word, he would easily insinuate that these are in no sense of the word historical, although in fact they relate in simple and figurative words, which correspond to the capacity of men who are less erudite, fundamental truths with reference to the economy of health, and also describe in popular manner the origin of humankind and of an elect people. (D2303, Letter of the Secretary of the Biblical Commission to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris, January 16, 1948)
The CCC describes Genesis 1 as a liturgical poem (CCC 1079).
God bless,
Fr. Boyd
N
NewPerspective
Guest
My question would be, under what pretense would it make any sense for the word of the Living God to begin allegorically? The Creation account and the rest of Genesis is literal and is consistently confirmed by even secular science to be accurate as it pertains to a young earth view as it is produced by the literal interpretation of the account. The earth is between 6,000-10,000 years old. I not only believe this, with the help of brilliant men of God like Kent Hovind and John Lennox, both of which I recommend as authors to look into, I know that a young earth is scientifically accurate. The 66 book Bible will always be the quick and powerful and authoritative Word of the Living God that He will preserve from generation to generation forever regardless of what “the church” has to say about it. God bless you guys and open your eyes to the leaven in the lump that is religion, or falsely so called.
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
It is the unanimous consensus of the Fathers that there are many allegorical elements in Genesis. Allegory is not the same as myth, and allegory does not preclude historical accuracy. I think you are confused about terminology.
Since you mention 66 books, you are declaring yourself to be a Protestant. For Catholics, we consider the teaching of the magisterium, along with the Sacred Tradition, to be indispensable to the correct understanding of the Bible. Some Catholics do, indeed, believe in a young earth and are permitted to do so. Others accept the approximately 5 billion year age given by science, and they are permitted to do so. The Fathers of the Church, most notably St. Auguistine, do not insist on a 24-hour reckoning for the account the six days of creation given in Genesis 1, for with God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. (cf 2 Peter 3:8)
God bless,
Fr. Boyd
Code:
It is indeed an arduous and extremely difficult task for us to get through to what the writer meant with these six days, however concentrated our attention and lively our minds. The question is: Did those days pass, and now with the seventh added do they find themselves repeated, not of course in reality but in name, as times unroll? In time as a whole, after all, many days come which are like the ones that have passed, but none returns as the same identical day. So then, did those days just pass? Or else, while these which are known by their names and number run on day by day in the course of time, do those days of creation abide in the current state of things? (St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IV, 1)
Now these ordinary [24-hour] seven days, which are unfolded and folded up again by the rotation of light from heavenly bodies, bear a kind of shadowy resemblance to those primordial days, and remind us to investigate those days in which the created spiritual light was presented with all the works of God through the perfection of the number six. (St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IV, 35)
Now, clearly in this earth-bound condition of ours we mortals can have no experimental perception of that [eternal] day, or those [primordial] days that are named and numbered by the repetition of it. (St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IV, 27)
Someone is going to say, “Why is practically everything hidden still in a heap of questions? Affirm some of the many meanings you have argued can be understood.” To which I reply that I have happily reached this very food: namely that I have learned that we should not hesitate to give the answers that have to be given, in line with the faith, to people who make every effort to discredit the books our salvation depends on. So we should show that whatever they have been able to demonstrate from reliable sources about the world of nature is not contrary to our literature, while whatever they may have produced from any of their volumes that is contrary to this literature of ours, that is, to the Catholic faith, we must either show with some ease, or else believe without any hesitation, to be entirely false. And we should so hold onto our mediator, in whom are stored up all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge (Col 2:3), that we are neither seduced by the chatter of false philosophy, nor frightened out of our wits by the superstitions of false religion. And when we read in the divine books such a vast array of true meanings which can be extracted from a few words, and which are backed by sound Catholic faith, we should pick above all the one which can certainly be shown to have been held by the author we are reading; while if this is hidden from us, then surely one which the scriptural context does not rule out and which is agreeable to sound faith; but if even the scriptural context cannot be worked out and assessed, then at least only one which sound faith prescribes. It is one thing, after all, not to be able to work out what the writer is most likely to have meant, quite another to stray from the road sign-posted by godliness. Should each defect be avoided, the reader’s work has won its complete reward, while if each cannot be avoided, even though the writer’s intention should remain in doubt, it will not be without value to have extracted a sense that accords with sound truth. (St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IV, 21)
B
brigid12
Guest
I heard a big news story quite a few years ago that someone had discovered what they believed to be the Ark. Has anyone heard anything about that?
A
adstrinity
Guest
The one thing I want to know about the people who believe Geneisis to be literal, and I used to be one of them, but, how do YOU, personally, rectify the belief in Lillith, which is Jewish myth, before Eve, not found in the Bible?
What Ark? Covenant Ark or Noah’s Ark?
P
patg
Guest
Do you deny that God is capable of using fiction as a vehicle for revelation? That fiction is often a better way of explaining things that are beyond the capabilities of the author to understand?
A biblical myth is an imaginative story that uses symbols to explore a realty beyond our comprehension. The author who chose to explore these questions does not have the option of giving a historical explanation. He doesn’t know a historical explanation. The term “myth” is not a synonym for “false”; the genre of myth does not define the truth or falsehood of a story.
F
Freshman88
Guest
The pretense is the Church. The Church fathers and early Christianity certainly interpreted the bible with allegory, especially the book of Genesis. Anyone can interpret Scriptures, we can use many methods, the bible itself does not tell us how we should interpret it. Thus we look to the Church because She is the conduit and guardian of orthodoxy. Want to understand the Bible as the first Christians did? Easy, go read the pre-Nicean fathers.
Anyway, I believe this forum has a rule about proselytizing Catholics.
B
brigid12
Guest
Noah’s Ark. The “find”
was pictured, in black and white film, perched atop a mountain, as I remember.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
The Church believes Genesis is mostly myth, but myth is not equivalent to mythological as modernists seem to believe. It is quite different.
P
ProVobis
Guest
And on the 7th day, God rested.
We still believe that, don’t we? That’s handed down thinking, isn’t it?
We still believe that, don’t we? That’s handed down thinking, isn’t it?
C
Cruikshank_s
Guest
Cool! Thanks for all the responses. To clarify: I believe in an old earth. Because much like Father said " for with God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day." Mainly, what I’m looking to hear is if the Church prior to 1962 and currently today taught/teaches that Noah, Jonah, Enoch, Elijah, Job and the rest to whom outlandish and miraculous things happened were real actual living men whose accounts are real. For instance, does the Church still teach that Noah really built an ark and that jonah really did survive in the belly of a whale?
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
F
Freshman88
Guest
I myself have problems with this specific rationalization because I think it’s clear that the original Israelite author had every intention to have “one day” to actually mean “one day”. Instead I like to recall the remarks of Origen who explained logical inaccuracies as an attempt by the author to draw us to an even higher understanding of the Scriptures. These passages are meant to reveal cosmic and theological Truths and were never meant to be a scientific explanation for the existence of life, especially since the Scientific method or theory wouldn’t exist until thousands of years after Genesis’ creation.
Instead I think we have to reject any attempt to read the Genesis account with a scientific mind, because it is clear that the author never intended Genesis to be a scientific treatise, but to explain cosmic truths.
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
The Roman Church does not have on her calendar any Biblical figures from Adam to Abraham, but the Roman Martyrology does include Elias (July 20), Jonah (Sept. 21) and Job (May 10). However, many Eastern Churches do include Biblical figures prior to Abraham: on the Sunday before Christmas, the Churches which follow the Byzantine rite celebrate the Memory of all the Fathers who were agreeable to God, from Adam to Joseph. While the canonization process that is usually regarded as infallible was not used in declaring any Biblical figure a saint, the liturgy is considered a component of the living Tradition (CCC 1124). When Holy Mother Church celebrates the feast of particular saints, She is affirming their existence and holiness. By including a saint in the liturgical calendar or in the Roman Martyrology, Holy Mother Church is saying that you can safely pray to him to intercede for you to God.
Regarding “outlandish” miracles, St. Jerome warns, “I am aware that some will be incredulous that a man should be preserved three days and three nights in the belly of a whale, to which the shipwreck had led him; these people are either believers or non-believers: if they are believers, they are obliged to believe much greater things.” And St. Jerome is right. Let’s face it, the resurrection of the dead is pretty hard to believe unless you have faith! Why should such a small matter as God preserving Jonas in the belly of the whale disturb you?
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
Then how do you account for the fact that the Jewish concept of a day is implicitly tied to the sun (evening to evening; cf Ps 104: 19), yet the sun was not made until the fourth day? It is clear that the intention of the author was not to describe six ordinary days, for he surely would have included the creation of the sun and the moon on the first day if that were his intention.
I think it is for statements such as theses that Origin and his heretical teachings were condemned by an Ecumenical Council.
However, I think we are more or less in agreement here. I would add this, though. The infallibility of Sacred Scripture cannot be restricted only to matters of faith and morals. While the Bible is not a history text, teaching history for the sake of history, or a
science text, teaching science for the sake of science, nevertheless, when the Bible reports a matter of history (e.g., the exodus from Egypt, prophecies of the future, or the Resurrection of the Lord) or science (e.g., God created the universe from nothing, or miracles; e.g., Joshua 10:13 --the sun stood
still, or a miraculous healing from the Gospels), it does so in an infallible way. This teaching is found in the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XII. Pope Leo XIII, in his
encyclical On the Study of Sacred Scripture, stated, “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, ‘not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known
as known.’”
- Status