Genesis/Literal Interpretation

[Orogeny]

This is irrelevant because I am not an atheist. I believe in more gods than you do.

Now that made me chuckle!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No, I am living under an old knowledge, older than Christianity - Buddhism.

We agree. That is precisely what I said in my post: “I made everything”.

This is irrelevant because I am not an atheist. I believe in more gods than you do.

You have missed the point of my post. Even if God had wanted to explain the full details of how He created the world, the ancient Hebrews did not have the background knowledge or even the vocabulary to understand what He would have told them. It is probable that we ourselves lack enough background knowledge and vocabulary to understand all of the details. God spoke at a level His audience could understand. Giving the full detail would have been as useless for Him as to have given an advanced University level lesson to the reception class in a kindergarten. Saying “I made everything” summarised His point well and at a level His audience could understand.

rossum

All of which fits in beautifully with the Christian belief in the Incarnation, & with the notion that God deals with His People by condescending to speak with them in ways adapted to their understanding. That in turn underlines the gradual character of revelation - it is given slowly, in doses the recipients can “take”, not all at once - that would be as sensible as giving a toddler a curry or a chop & a coffee or a whisky.​

 

[rossum]

All of which fits in beautifully with the Christian belief in the Incarnation, & with the notion that God deals with His People by condescending to speak with them in ways adapted to their understanding. That in turn underlines the gradual character of revelation - it is given slowly, in doses the recipients can “take”, not all at once - that would be as sensible as giving a toddler a curry or a chop & a coffee or a whisky.​

Which goes to show that we should not treat Genesis as if it was a precise science textbook. It is not, and was intended to fill a different role. Those who see Genesis as the equivalent of a science textbook are not interpreting it correctly.

rossum

 

[Fox]

I don’t take the Genesis story chronologically.

 

[edwest2]

To rossum -

“We” should refer to Christians only. Genesis describes things God actually did. It would be incorrect for Christians to put science first and the Bible second.

I would like to remind everyone reading this that the current atheist slogan is: The Bible tells us why, not how." They obviously don’t believe that’s true since Evolutionary Psychology is making it a point of telling the public Why. Your genes are god. Your genes choose, not you. You are the product of an uncaring universe that did not have you in mind. You brain is simply an expression of matter, nothing more. All of this is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

As Pope Benedict has stated, we must go beyond science to other areas of reason that we still need to get the full answer.

The full answer is this: If some sort of evolutionary process occurred, God was a direct causal agent. Further, no evolutionary process could have occurred without God as a direct causal agent.

Science is not the whole answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

To rossum -

“We” should refer to Christians only. Genesis describes things God actually did. It would be incorrect for Christians to put science first and the Bible second.

That last sentence misconceptualises the issue - Genesis is completely valueless as a science text, for the good & adequate reason that it is a religious text. Religion is worthless as a scientific instrument - which is why it is not employed as one. Scientific methods don’t depend on the religious choices of those who engage in them: are we are to believe that their results vary according to whether they are Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics or atheists ?​

I would like to remind everyone reading this that the current atheist slogan is: The Bible tells us why, not how."

As it is not clear what is being referred to, that slogan is meaningless.​

If it refers to the creation narratives in Genesis, it’s no more than the truth. Truth does not become untrue when uttered by an atheist, nor does nonsense become sense when uttered by Catholics or other Christians: it remains nonsense.

They obviously don’t believe that’s true since Evolutionary Psychology is making it a point of telling the public Why. Your genes are god. Your genes choose, not you. You are the product of an uncaring universe that did not have you in mind. You brain is simply an expression of matter, nothing more. All of this is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

As Pope Benedict has stated, we must go beyond science to other areas of reason that we still need to get the full answer.

The full answer is this: If some sort of evolutionary process occurred, God was a direct causal agent. Further, no evolutionary process could have occurred without God as a direct causal agent.

Agreed​

Science is not the whole answer.

Peace,
Ed

Neither is religion - not even ours. And to understand the created world, we cannot stay in the Bronze Age or be satisfied with Bronze Age texts - no matter how venerable.​

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

First real post! Time to inject my two cents into one of these lovely discussions.

The creation account from Genesis cannot be any kind of million or billion year time period, and here is why. God created the world in six “days”, correct? Adam was created on the sixth day, and obviously lived through the seventh day and beyond. If these “days” were million year time periods, then Adam would have lived much much longer than 930 years, which is how long Genesis says he lived.

I’ve never heard that before. Dude, you rock.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The creation account from Genesis cannot be any kind of million or billion year time period, and here is why. God created the world in six “days”, correct? Adam was created on the sixth day, and obviously lived through the seventh day and beyond. If these “days” were million year time periods, then Adam would have lived much much longer than 930 years, which is how long Genesis says he lived.

That won’t work, either. God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, and yet he lives on for many years after.

Unless times in the Creation account are figurative, this would be logically absurd.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually Catholic teaching has consistently been “common descent”. From Adam and Eve that is.

Not surprisingly, some of the same evidence that is used to show common descent of humans has shown common descent of all living things.

As Pope Benedict XVI remarked.

 

[veggieSDA]

I’ve heard some groups promote the idea that God created Adam and Eve first, then created other people. I find no biblical basis for this.

But lets say for two seconds that we AREN’T all descended from Adam… we are still all descended from Noah.

 

[edwest2]

That last sentence misconceptualises the issue - Genesis is completely valueless as a science text, for the good & adequate reason that it is a religious text. Religion is worthless as a scientific instrument - which is why it is not employed as one. Scientific methods don’t depend on the religious choices of those who engage in them: are we are to believe that their results vary according to whether they are Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics or atheists ?​

As it is not clear what is being referred to, that slogan is meaningless.​

If it refers to the creation narratives in Genesis, it’s no more than the truth. Truth does not become untrue when uttered by an atheist, nor does nonsense become sense when uttered by Catholics or other Christians: it remains nonsense.

Agreed​

Neither is religion - not even ours. And to understand the created world, we cannot stay in the Bronze Age or be satisfied with Bronze Age texts - no matter how venerable.​

Genesis records things God actually did. Your obsession with the Bronze Age is without value or relevance.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That won’t work, either. God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, and yet he lives on for many years after.

Unless times in the Creation account are figurative, this would be logically absurd.

It’s also possible that two different stories are involved - or, that that sort of thing, which to us may seem to be a discrepancy, did not seem so - or did not seem important - to the editor of those chapters of the book.​

Either way, Adam dies - & the human race is not immortal. Which may be far important than what looks like a discrepancy.

 

[ASD]

The problem with it is that the VAST MAJORITY OF Church Fathers didnt hold this view. Only Origen, and maybe Augustine .(althought there is some dispute about Augustine) The rest all took Genesis literally.

(1) I don’t read Genesis literally at all. (2) However, I think you’re making a very interesting point.

Like this: On the one hand, we’re the Apostolic Church, we have inherited the deposit of faith, & all that. On the other hand, today we approach many aspects of our faith differently than Christians did for 100 generations.

So, my version of your excellent question: How can an understanding of the Bible & tradition that wasn’t accessible to about 95 generations of Christians possibly be the right one?

And my answer: Maybe we shouldn’t be so dismissive of Origen & Augustine. True, they’re only two authors. But, (1) they’re giants; & (2) who knows how many people who weren’t authors have agreed with them over the generations?

So, I prefer to put it like this:

No, I don’t read Genesis literally, like a science textbook. I don’t think it’s a book about nature. And I don’t think it’s a history book. I think it’s a book about God. So, in general, I prefer Augustine’s approach.

I think that has nice, solid feel to it.

Regards, ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Joe_Keenan]

I am not Christian so you may ignore my comments if you wish.

The Jewish day is defined as lasting from sunset to sunset. As you correctly pointed out, not all the ECFs understood Genesis literally:“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars?” - Origen
How can there be a day (sunset to sunset) if there is no sun? This is a good indication that “day” is not to be taken literally here. It is also worth pointing out that Saint Augustine thought that 144 hours was far too long, and said creation was instantaneous. Again not a literal interpretation.

In Genesis 1 we are told that the order of creation was plants, animals then man (and presumably woman). In Genesis 2 we are told that the order of creation was man, plants, animals, woman. This is a good indication that we are not to take the details of the story too literally. Does the story of the Prodigal Son lose its impact if we discover that there never were actually any such people as Hiram K Prodigal of Main Street, Nineveh and his son Wayne Z Prodigal, address unknown?

Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally. He said “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” [Mark 10:6] On a literal interpretation of Genesis this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, between 132 and 144 hours after the beginning and secondly with Eve being made after Adam, there was a time when there was male and not female. If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

Although not strictly part of Genesis, there are passages in the Bible that are not obviously flagged as non-literal but are nevertheless agreed by all Christians not to be taken literally. An example is: “And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep, that are lost of the house of Israel.” [Matthew 15:24] Does any Christian interpret this literally, that Jesus only saves sheep and not humans? Yet this passage is not flagged as a parable. Given that the Bible contains some non-literal passages that are not obviously flagged as non-literal then it is allowable that there are other such passages elsewhere.

rossum

Nice post, but your signature is a self refuting proposition. If there is no absolute truth, your statement is wrong, it after all is assumed to be correct, no?

 

[The_Barbarian]

It’s also possible that two different stories are involved - or, that that sort of thing, which to us may seem to be a discrepancy, did not seem so - or did not seem important - to the editor of those chapters of the book.​

Either way, Adam dies - & the human race is not immortal. Which may be far important than what looks like a discrepancy.

Adam was never immortal. God alludes to this, when He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal.

 

[rossum]

Nice post, but your signature is a self refuting proposition. If there is no absolute truth, your statement is wrong, it after all is assumed to be correct, no?

A statement can be true, but not be Absolute Truth.

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:
There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[Joe_Keenan]

With all due respect, the statement:

“The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.”

Is an absolute statement, it is not open to nuance or qualification. The statement avers, “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth” in doing so it declares itself as an ultimate truth, see the first four words in the statement, the first four words falsify/exclude the next six. Using upper caste U and T is meaningless in context, ultimate allows for no qualification, and qualification indicating a lessening in degree, thus making it not ultimate .

Never heard of the other guys.

 

[rossum]

I’ve never heard that before. Dude, you rock.

Think about it more carefully. We do not know when in the day Adam was created. If a thousand years is a day then I was born yesterday (1952) and am alive today (2008) because the ‘day’ changed in 2000. That does not make me 2,000 years old. The argument is weak.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Adam was never immortal. God alludes to this, when He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal.

1. 
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)

 

[TMC]

It seems to me that scripture is meant to convey to man certain theological and moral truths.

It was not meant to be a historical or scientific text book.

i.e. Genesis is about the fact that God created everything out of nothing. Not about how he did so.

We wouldn’t understand the how of it anyway.

Chuck

I remember someone (maybe N.T. Wright?) saying that the problem modern people have with much of Scripture, especially Genesis, is that modern Westerners are raised to look at everything like a science text book (this is my mangling of his thought, not his words). That is, we think every statement must be evaluated like it was a scientific hypothesis to be tested - but the ancients understood deeper truths. His point was that thousands of years ago a debate over the details of the so-called “facts” of Genesis would have seemed childish because they pale in both wonder and importance beside the truths being communicated.