F
Faith1960
Guest
What does DAS stand for?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL…! Khalid used this acronym to refer to the document he’d quoted, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and I just picked up his usage…
E
edwest2
Guest
P
PeterK
Guest
Like Juliamajor said, that’s the great thing about being Catholic, no, I personally do not believe the ages related in the genealogies are historical facts. however, I have no problem with the larger point concerning the common ancestry of mankind traceable to a single pair of parents.
I find it interesting that most biblical literalists I know possess two or moe coats!
Peterk
I find it interesting that most biblical literalists I know possess two or moe coats!
Peterk
K
Khalid
Guest
I only possess one coat, and it’s ratty. What has that to do with anything?
In any case, it seems that in this thread, on this forum (which is, admittedly, quite conservative in general), Catholics are about evenly split on the Genesis question.
Gorgias: I was using DAS to established plenary (full and complete) inspiration: that means not that there is some historic truth in the Bible, but whenever the Bible speaks, it is truth: it is inspired in every word, whether this has to do with history or salvation. This does not mean it is a science book or a history book, but it equally means whenever it touches on those matters, it speaks the pure and unadulterated truth.
The first 11 chapters of Genesis have no hyperbole or metaphor in them, except, possibly, “the image of God” (which is taken literally as a dogma). If we can not determine from the characteristics of the text whether the author was speaking in a hyperbolic manner, which, in Genesis, we can not - it has no indication of hyperbole (noun: 1.obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”) and every indication of narrative history - we must, as I’ve said, throw up our hands and throw away the Bible, resigned to the fact that we can never understand it. Or, we must use God’s general revelation (science, which produces brute facts which are interpreted in to propositional statements through a philosophical framework) to “correct” the Bible whenever it seems to contradict it, making the Bible merely a human document, a mirror for our beliefs and the Weltgeist of our time.
To do otherwise than to interpret the Bible according to the Spirit and according to the Letter, is to do just that - to make it a mirror for our latest theories, and infinitely-malleable mirror, whereas it loses any normativity and becomes even moreso a stumbling-stone and laughing-stock to both the Greeks and the Jews.
We know a good deal about Biblical and later Hebrew. We know how the Greeks took Hebrew, especially in the hyper-literal LXX Pentateuch translation, of ca. 250-200 BC. And none of these give any hint of anything other than literal, narrative history - there is not a clue according to any interpretation, according to any translation, according to any literary construct, or rule of grammar - indeed, all of these criteria demand it to be taken as the author intended it, the only sense we can discover - which is, in this case, literal. (Notwithstanding John Walton’s attempt at a “Cosmic Temple” cosmogony in The Lost World of Genesis One.)
We have an unbroken chain of interpretation for at least the past 2,250 years, of which, until the deist/atheist scientists Lyell and Darwin came along, were never questioned: and it is impossible that men who hated the God of the Bible would give us the only possible “key” to understanding it, after men had misinterpreted it for millennia. Now, even professed Christians demand that the Bible be twisted, reinterpreted, redefined, and whisked away through rhetorical sleight-of-hand to be in accord with the “assured results of modern science”. When one weds science to theology today, one is a widow tomorrow.
Why, as I’ve mentioned (and not been engaged with) stop at Genesis 11? Science and “modern historiography” says it is just as impossible that God became man, that he was raised from the dead, that God spoke to men, that the Bible was inspired, that prophets foretold the future, that the Universe was created out of nothing, etc. etc. etc. as much so - indeed, even more so - than something such as extreme longevity, a big flood, or a functionally-aged universe (like the wine which was old, although Jesus had created it moments before).
Christ himself said that Adam and Eve were there “from the beginning of creation”, not in its last milliseconds on a year-long timescale. God wrote with his own finger “For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Jude says Enoch was “the seventh from Adam”. Paul said that Adam was “the first man”. All of soteriology hinges on this fact.
Even Luke implies the extreme longevity of the Patriarchs:
We believe that existence came in to existence from non-existence, and that God became man, and that all men bear the image and likeness of God, yet we do not believe the prosaic historical details that God chose to share with us?
In any case, it seems that in this thread, on this forum (which is, admittedly, quite conservative in general), Catholics are about evenly split on the Genesis question.
Gorgias: I was using DAS to established plenary (full and complete) inspiration: that means not that there is some historic truth in the Bible, but whenever the Bible speaks, it is truth: it is inspired in every word, whether this has to do with history or salvation. This does not mean it is a science book or a history book, but it equally means whenever it touches on those matters, it speaks the pure and unadulterated truth.
The first 11 chapters of Genesis have no hyperbole or metaphor in them, except, possibly, “the image of God” (which is taken literally as a dogma). If we can not determine from the characteristics of the text whether the author was speaking in a hyperbolic manner, which, in Genesis, we can not - it has no indication of hyperbole (noun: 1.obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”) and every indication of narrative history - we must, as I’ve said, throw up our hands and throw away the Bible, resigned to the fact that we can never understand it. Or, we must use God’s general revelation (science, which produces brute facts which are interpreted in to propositional statements through a philosophical framework) to “correct” the Bible whenever it seems to contradict it, making the Bible merely a human document, a mirror for our beliefs and the Weltgeist of our time.
To do otherwise than to interpret the Bible according to the Spirit and according to the Letter, is to do just that - to make it a mirror for our latest theories, and infinitely-malleable mirror, whereas it loses any normativity and becomes even moreso a stumbling-stone and laughing-stock to both the Greeks and the Jews.
We know a good deal about Biblical and later Hebrew. We know how the Greeks took Hebrew, especially in the hyper-literal LXX Pentateuch translation, of ca. 250-200 BC. And none of these give any hint of anything other than literal, narrative history - there is not a clue according to any interpretation, according to any translation, according to any literary construct, or rule of grammar - indeed, all of these criteria demand it to be taken as the author intended it, the only sense we can discover - which is, in this case, literal. (Notwithstanding John Walton’s attempt at a “Cosmic Temple” cosmogony in The Lost World of Genesis One.)
We have an unbroken chain of interpretation for at least the past 2,250 years, of which, until the deist/atheist scientists Lyell and Darwin came along, were never questioned: and it is impossible that men who hated the God of the Bible would give us the only possible “key” to understanding it, after men had misinterpreted it for millennia. Now, even professed Christians demand that the Bible be twisted, reinterpreted, redefined, and whisked away through rhetorical sleight-of-hand to be in accord with the “assured results of modern science”. When one weds science to theology today, one is a widow tomorrow.
Why, as I’ve mentioned (and not been engaged with) stop at Genesis 11? Science and “modern historiography” says it is just as impossible that God became man, that he was raised from the dead, that God spoke to men, that the Bible was inspired, that prophets foretold the future, that the Universe was created out of nothing, etc. etc. etc. as much so - indeed, even more so - than something such as extreme longevity, a big flood, or a functionally-aged universe (like the wine which was old, although Jesus had created it moments before).
Christ himself said that Adam and Eve were there “from the beginning of creation”, not in its last milliseconds on a year-long timescale. God wrote with his own finger “For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Jude says Enoch was “the seventh from Adam”. Paul said that Adam was “the first man”. All of soteriology hinges on this fact.
Even Luke implies the extreme longevity of the Patriarchs:
From the beginning, God created them male and female…If I have told ye of earthly things, and ye do not believe, how shall it be that ye believe when I tell ye of heavenly things?..Unless ye be as little children, ye shall not enter in to the Kingdom of Heaven.
We believe that existence came in to existence from non-existence, and that God became man, and that all men bear the image and likeness of God, yet we do not believe the prosaic historical details that God chose to share with us?
G
grannymh
Guest
Personally, I learned Catholic doctrines before opening a Bible. That gives me peace in my Catholic faith.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hm… then, perhaps, I do have a problem with your take on DAS. But, as you say, let’s get back to the subject at hand…
Not true. There are matters of history on which the Bible speaks, which are not matters on which it speaks inerrantly. There are matters of science on which the Bible speaks, but this does not imply that the Bible’s take on science is inerrant. To claim otherwise is to misunderstand the Church’s teaching on Scripture.
Gen 6:6 – God doesn’t ‘regret’; this is a metaphor, an anthropomorphism that’s used to introduce the notion of the flood story.
Gen 8:1 – God doesn’t ‘forget’ his creatures, and therefore, doesn’t ‘remember’ them suddenly. This is hyperbole.
I would suggest that these are sufficient counter-examples to disprove your claim.
On the other hand, the seeming fact that you can’t see anything other than narrative history implies neither that there’s no indicate of hyperbole nor that we have no hope of understanding the Bible…
Certainly not! You’re claiming that there are only two options: a literal approach that we take as true or a literal approach that we take as false. That’s clearly not the Catholic Church’s approach to Scripture!
Yes, some will make this claim. They’re wrong.
Aah – so there’s a third choice (to take an interpretative stance)? OK – but this does not imply “infinite malleability”. Rather, each successive generation, drawing upon its knowledge and discoveries, more perfectly understands Scripture. True, some fall off into the ditch and go the “mirror” route; however, that they do so doesn’t invalidate the approach, but only their use of the approach. It’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools…
Georges Maitre might disagree with you on that one…
Bah. Rather, when one asserts the nullity of the relationship of science and theology today, one makes himself illegitimate tomorrow…
What an odd statement. Because God acted within creation, we’re not allowed to think that Scripture can be anything but literal? C’mon…
J
juliamajor
Guest
Did YHWH walk in the garden in the cool of the evening? Did he literally make clothes for Adam and Eve? If you see God the Father as anything than pure Spirit then that is troublesome.
G
grannymh
Guest
It is not at all troublesome for people who know
Catholic doctrines and accept them.
In regard to the concept of God walking in a “garden”,
The Catholic doctrines you are missing are:
- God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and visible.
- God created human nature as an unique unification of both the material world *and *the spiritual world.
3.God is a personal God in that He has the power to communicate with His humans. - Humans have an intellective, rational soul which enables us to know and love God.
5.God calls each human person to share in His life through knowledge and love.
The Catholic doctrines you are missing are:
1.God is all powerful.
2. God is not limited or restricted by the material/physical world.
3. God did not abandon the first humans after the freely committed Original Sin.
4. God promised a Messiah.
5. Human nature was not totally destroyed.
G
grannymh
Guest
**Correction to post 49 **
- God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
F
Faith1960
Guest
That’s my understanding as well.Hm… then, perhaps, I do have a problem with your take on DAS. But, as you say, let’s get back to the subject at hand…
Not true. There are matters of history on which the Bible speaks, which are not matters on which it speaks inerrantly. There are matters of science on which the Bible speaks, but this does not imply that the Bible’s take on science is inerrant. To claim otherwise is to misunderstand the Church’s teaching on Scripture.
P
PeterK
Guest
Exactly, the inerrancy of the bible does not extend to every recorded detail. It applies to matters of faith and morals not the number birthdays celebrated or concubines consummated. In uncertain passages the church will guide.
Peterk
Peterk
K
Khalid
Guest
I numbered your points as best I could divide them for ease of reference. I won’t be able to hit all nine in this post, I think. I’d like to ask up front that you expand upon especially:Hm… then, perhaps, I do have a problem with your take on DAS. But, as you say, let’s get back to the subject at hand…
1Not true. There are matters of history on which the Bible speaks, which are not matters on which it speaks inerrantly. There are matters of science on which the Bible speaks, but this does not imply that the Bible’s take on science is inerrant. To claim otherwise is to misunderstand the Church’s teaching on Scripture.
2Gen 6:6 – God doesn’t ‘regret’; this is a metaphor, an anthropomorphism that’s used to introduce the notion of the flood story.
Gen 8:1 – God doesn’t ‘forget’ his creatures, and therefore, doesn’t ‘remember’ them suddenly. This is hyperbole.
I would suggest that these are sufficient counter-examples to disprove your claim.
3On the other hand, the seeming fact that you can’t see anything other than narrative history implies neither that there’s no indicate of hyperbole nor that we have no hope of understanding the Bible…
4Certainly not! You’re claiming that there are only two options: a literal approach that we take as true or a literal approach that we take as false. That’s clearly not the Catholic Church’s approach to Scripture!
5Yes, some will make this claim. They’re wrong.
6Aah – so there’s a third choice (to take an interpretative stance)? OK – but this does not imply “infinite malleability”. Rather, each successive generation, drawing upon its knowledge and discoveries, more perfectly understands Scripture. True, some fall off into the ditch and go the “mirror” route; however, that they do so doesn’t invalidate the approach, but only their use of the approach. It’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools…
7Georges Maitre might disagree with you on that one…
8Bah. Rather, when one asserts the nullity of the relationship of science and theology today, one makes himself illegitimate tomorrow…
9What an odd statement. Because God acted within creation, we’re not allowed to think that Scripture can be anything but literal? C’mon…
(7), so I might get the book in which it is written (and see if yet someone else can try to prove that the Fathers were not young-earth, and not fail). I will admit that even if he could open the door, it could not be proved to my satisfaction by any mortal means (I am a creationist and a creationist I will stay). But, if the door could be opened, I would be much happier, in the sense that I could admit that other rational individuals could see the evidence differently, without feeling the need to bash my head against every brick wall in sight.
Now, let’s continue:
(1) I reject this categorically. Whenever the Bible it speaks, it speaks inerrantly: every single word is inspired and spoken by God. There are no “obiter dicta” which are not inspired or can be in even the slightest error due to their distance from matters of faith and morals: the Holy Spirit is the author of it all. There is no other way to interpret paragraph one of DAS, which confirms and reiterates paragraph ? of PD. Half of my time interpreting the Bible is an attempt to prove the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books are compatible with reality, and sometimes failing. This is my greatest affinity to formal heresy, which, on the deuterocanonical books, in contravention of the canons of Trent on the canon, I do sometimes cross into.
However, we may be speaking past each other here, on the points of inspiration and inerrancy.
(2) Your point is taken. As it was written, I was incorrect. Let me now attempt to reformulate more precisely my hermeneutic here: Anthropomorphisms are not strictly metaphorical or hyperbolic. They are a class unto themselves. They have nothing in the text that implies they are counterfactual; they are stated simply and plainly. The only way we know they are to be taken a certain way is due to the Church telling us so*, under the Providential incorporation of Platonist and Plotinist concepts of God in to the Judaeo-Christian framework. (I suppose you are aware that many exegetes believe the “J source” who wrote this passage intended for God to be thought of physically, like all of the other tribal gods.) Mormons take this to an extreme, as they have a hatred of Platonism, and believe it is a corruption of Christian doctrine, and not a help to it. I would say that some of the anthropomorphic actions - walking with Adam and such - are theophanies. The emotional states are condescensions - but there is no way to tell this from the text itself, only from reading later theological developments and later canonical materials in to the text. Admittedly, this is a difficult place.
*Is this the crux of your argument? That the Church somehow has taught infallibly that Genesis 1-11 is not literal?
I have an idea where you may be going, and that my response to point (2) in toto is of the same type you’d make against my view, essentially, attempting to argue for the providential incorporation of the supposed findings of modern science; this is a completely different debate, but it would be one that is worth having in its own right.Continued below
K
Khalid
Guest
(3) I rely not on myself here (although I see no hyperbole) - now, let me state this more accurately, I see no hyperbole or metaphor in the main great controverted passages, those of the creation, fall, flood, and Tower of Babel, except for the creation of man in the image of God which has every indication of Hebrew poetry - but on every commentary in existence; I refer you to the Continental Commentary (Westermann); the NIV Application Commentary (written by John Walton, nonetheless, who dissents from this view in his book, The Lost World of Genesis One); to Anchor; to the New American Commentary; to the Brazos Theological Commentary; to the International Critical Commentary; to the Keil and Delitzsch commentary on the Old Testament; to the New International Old Testament Commentary; and others. All exegetes agree with me on this point, that, “on the whole” (including the main narratives of contention), the original author intended his writings to be read as narrative history, and believed his writing was factual, not metaphorical statement of religious truth.
CC-Westermann, Anchor, and NAC speak on this subject most eloquently and precisely. Failing page numbers, it’s usually spoken of in the first few pages of the first book (they are multiple-book sets even for Genesis alone) as that’s where the narrative begins. I’ll dig out page ranges from NAC and Westermann if you desire; Anchor is currently not in my possession. J Sarfati makes a 200-page low- to semi-technical and valid case for it as well in Refuting Compromise, first division, 2011 expanded edition (beginning-to-intermediate knowledge of Hebrew syntax required to evaluate his arguments). Virtually the entire book of Coming to Grips with Genesis (Mortensen and Ury, Eds.) deals with one or another topic dealt with here, although on a much higher level. It can be had for $20 on Amazon; I recommend thou readest it.
(4) Please expand on this: for now I would say you demonstrably mistaken, and that this is shown by a foundational law of non-fuzzy logic: the excluded middle. If a statement is made, it is either true or false.
(5) My program has been to attempt to show that those who make the first claim that you make, are logically inconsistent if they do not continue to the second, that the Bible, or, at least the first chapters, are mirrors for the fashion of the day. It seems I have failed in your case: I ask that you read my posts - all of them - once more with this in mind; but I do understand that argumentation (not truth) is “person-relative”: what works for one man, what argumentation he views as conclusive, has as much to do with the man, as it does with whether the argument is formally valid (note, that this is applied by analogy, as I have given, I believe, one partial syllogism in all of these writings; I have argued in the “debate” style, not in the “summa” style). I would say to those who you say are wrong, that they have followed the laws of reason and have eliminated self-inconsistencies: they have taken your views to their logical and ultimate conclusion.
(Aside: we must be ware, when we expound and teach, that our systems are airtight, for, if they are not, and we notice not contradiction within them, our students surely will, and they are likely to take our inconsistent views to their logical end; we must be sure this end is not a rejection of a fundamental of the faith, that is, apostasy.)
(6) See above: it has been my project to show that only one hermeneutic (interpretive stance) is consistent with the whole of scripture and leads to a self-contained and consistent system of interpretation, namely, one that is a super-set of the interpretations I have given here (which are but a small sub-set of it). I have named this by name: the historico-grammatical method, and have demonstrated that the other three senses of Scripture do not exist, if the historical/literal sense does not exist or is false.
(7) See first post: cite it and let me buy the book to read. I would ask you look in to Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision by Seraphim Rose if you want to know where I’m coming from (Dr J Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, also has a chapter on it). Also, the first essay in Coming to Grips With Genesis (Drs Terry Mortensen and Thane Ury, Eds.) is excellent for this point. Note that neither of these men would interpret exactly the same way I do, as they all have some inconsistencies:
Space limit: (8) and (9) to be dealt with in another post, the former being dealt with in an essay (as it is an interesting, complex, and involved field) and the latter not really rebutted, because it really isn’t rebuttable; I read it as a non sequitur. If you would like to rephrase (9) in such a way that it makes more sense to me, I would be willing to tackle it, as I have shown.
CC-Westermann, Anchor, and NAC speak on this subject most eloquently and precisely. Failing page numbers, it’s usually spoken of in the first few pages of the first book (they are multiple-book sets even for Genesis alone) as that’s where the narrative begins. I’ll dig out page ranges from NAC and Westermann if you desire; Anchor is currently not in my possession. J Sarfati makes a 200-page low- to semi-technical and valid case for it as well in Refuting Compromise, first division, 2011 expanded edition (beginning-to-intermediate knowledge of Hebrew syntax required to evaluate his arguments). Virtually the entire book of Coming to Grips with Genesis (Mortensen and Ury, Eds.) deals with one or another topic dealt with here, although on a much higher level. It can be had for $20 on Amazon; I recommend thou readest it.
(4) Please expand on this: for now I would say you demonstrably mistaken, and that this is shown by a foundational law of non-fuzzy logic: the excluded middle. If a statement is made, it is either true or false.
(5) My program has been to attempt to show that those who make the first claim that you make, are logically inconsistent if they do not continue to the second, that the Bible, or, at least the first chapters, are mirrors for the fashion of the day. It seems I have failed in your case: I ask that you read my posts - all of them - once more with this in mind; but I do understand that argumentation (not truth) is “person-relative”: what works for one man, what argumentation he views as conclusive, has as much to do with the man, as it does with whether the argument is formally valid (note, that this is applied by analogy, as I have given, I believe, one partial syllogism in all of these writings; I have argued in the “debate” style, not in the “summa” style). I would say to those who you say are wrong, that they have followed the laws of reason and have eliminated self-inconsistencies: they have taken your views to their logical and ultimate conclusion.
(Aside: we must be ware, when we expound and teach, that our systems are airtight, for, if they are not, and we notice not contradiction within them, our students surely will, and they are likely to take our inconsistent views to their logical end; we must be sure this end is not a rejection of a fundamental of the faith, that is, apostasy.)
(6) See above: it has been my project to show that only one hermeneutic (interpretive stance) is consistent with the whole of scripture and leads to a self-contained and consistent system of interpretation, namely, one that is a super-set of the interpretations I have given here (which are but a small sub-set of it). I have named this by name: the historico-grammatical method, and have demonstrated that the other three senses of Scripture do not exist, if the historical/literal sense does not exist or is false.
(7) See first post: cite it and let me buy the book to read. I would ask you look in to Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision by Seraphim Rose if you want to know where I’m coming from (Dr J Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, also has a chapter on it). Also, the first essay in Coming to Grips With Genesis (Drs Terry Mortensen and Thane Ury, Eds.) is excellent for this point. Note that neither of these men would interpret exactly the same way I do, as they all have some inconsistencies:
Space limit: (8) and (9) to be dealt with in another post, the former being dealt with in an essay (as it is an interesting, complex, and involved field) and the latter not really rebutted, because it really isn’t rebuttable; I read it as a non sequitur. If you would like to rephrase (9) in such a way that it makes more sense to me, I would be willing to tackle it, as I have shown.
K
Khalid
Guest
Errata: let me add, in case I seem dishonest, those exegetes I am aware of that contradict me and the consensus of exegetes (although, they contradict me and other exegetes only on Gen 1, not on 2, 3, 5, or 9-11):
- (Possible agreement) I believe von Rad, in his volume reprinted in the Old Testament Library, agrees with me as well (so I have been told, but I have not seen myself).
- (Possible contradiction). I believe Berit Olam contradicts me (so I have been told, etc.).
- (Contradiction) Walton’s Lost World of Genesis One categorically contradicts me insofar as Gen 1 alone (not the other parts of the accounts), but his “cosmic temple” theory has been shown to have great (although they have not been shown to be categorically insurmountable) difficulties. His line of exegesis, distilled to its essence, relies on reading the literary forms of Atra-Hasis and Enuma Elish in to Genesis, basically conflating ANE creation myths due to superficial similarities and that they’re all from the ANE.
- (Contradiction) Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue contradicts me categorically, but his “framework hypothesis” (again, for Gen 1 alone) has been shown to have absolutely insurmountable difficulties (i.e. the supposed “frames” or days don’t even match up on a half-close examination, although it does not twist the grammar of Genesis 1, unlike day-age and gap theories).
G
grannymh
Guest
My apology for cherry picking the above from your post 54.
The “created in the image of God” is the truth in the Catholic doctrines on human nature. Thus, I am not sure about the phrase that these words have "every indication of Hebrew poetry–
My difficulty is that “Hebrew poetry” could be the proper means of describing the indescribable. Or “Hebrew poertry” could refer to something symbolic and not the literal truth that we are created in the “image of God”. Man in the image of God comes from the fact that our human nature is an unque unification of both the material world of decomposing anatomies *and *the spiritual world of a rational soul capable of knowing and loving our Creator Who is a Pure Spirit.
Please clarify your approach to Genesis 1: 26-27. Thank you.
K
Khalid
Guest
My very point is the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God is dogma (and I fully believe and accept it, and the authority of the Church to proclaim dogma), but that it is stated much less literally than the other truths presented in Genesis 1 - in fact, it is the only poetic section in the entire chapter. This is under the assumption that poetry is generally a poor place to find literal doctrine, as it tends to be filled with metaphor (witness the use of poetic passages of the Bible that speak from a geocentric perspective against the Copernican theory). “We have a dogma from the one section of poetry in the entire chapter, but ignore all of the factual, non-poetic narrative history in the rest of it”, is what I was to say, as a kind of quasi-reductio ad absurdum.
In this case, it does describe the indescribable. Some places, such as many in Job and the Psalms, it describes the indescribable using metaphorical language. Even the “image of God” is metaphorical language: God has no image, he is spirit. Theologians still don’t know exactly what it means, only that it sets us apart from everything else but the angels (“and he breathed in to the man the breath of life, and he became a living soul”): does it refer to our spirit? to our soul? to our intellect? to our rational faculties? to our subsidiary dominion over nature? Most definitions of the “image of God” are in essence this: “The image of God is what makes man man.” Followed by a bit of speaking on speech, and maybe a discussion of rationality here or there.
The other parts of Genesis 1 describe the describable.
Poetry is often used in the Bible to describe the indescribable using metaphorical language. But, sometimes, that metaphorical language is just that: poetry, and metaphor, used to describe a truth in hyperbolic terms, such as “the earth is established upon its foundation, and shall never be moved”. The earth moves physically, but only in the way God wills it. Or, “he has hung the earth on nothing”: an apt poetical descriptor of Earth “floating” in space. When we take true poetry and concretize it, as some of the Aristotelian physicists did in defense of Ptolemy’s cosmology, we can run in to trouble: bad exegesis and bad science. It would be equivalent to saying, that, since man is the very “image and likeness of God”, God must therefore be physical like a man, or that God must be the image of man (the law of identity), which is patently incorrect.
We are much safer when taking factual statements, propositions, and narrative history in a literal fashion, than we are when trying to distill some literal description of reality from a poetical description of it. Only the Church, in her wisdom, can ultimately pass judgment on any interpretation, or can infallibly distill a literal fact from poetry. But, here, as I have shown, the “image of God” is not a literal fact: it is a poetic description of the indescribable and unimaginable. Likewise, I have asserted (although not demonstrated, assuming it to be common knowledge) that the rest of the chapter was filled with propositional statements (“And God said, Let there be light, and there was light”) and narrative history (“In the beginning, God created…evening and morning…the book of the generations of heaven and earth”).
(The “characteristic of Hebrew poetry” are mainly one: repetition of the same idea using different words. There are a host of subsidiary characteristics, such as the use of acrostics, as well. In Gen 1:26f, the repetition of ideas with different words is “image” and “likeness”: “Let us create man in our own image, after our likeness…God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him”, and “him” and “them”: “in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”. This is not a controversial statement, and is indicated in virtually every modern translation of the Bible, such as the NASB, NAB/RE, NKJV, etc., by setting Gen 1:26f as verse, and the rest of the chapter as prose.)
And please note that it’s not cherry-picking unless you do it with an ulterior motive and attempt to play one part of a statement or work against the statement or work as a whole! By definition, quoting a passage verbatim, and then asking the author to elucidate it, can not be cherry picking.*
*Disregarding some extreme examples that could be engendered through the dishonest and extreme use of ellipses, such as distilling “Have you stopped beating your wife?” from a report on domestic violence, using an ellipsis after mostly every word.
In this case, it does describe the indescribable. Some places, such as many in Job and the Psalms, it describes the indescribable using metaphorical language. Even the “image of God” is metaphorical language: God has no image, he is spirit. Theologians still don’t know exactly what it means, only that it sets us apart from everything else but the angels (“and he breathed in to the man the breath of life, and he became a living soul”): does it refer to our spirit? to our soul? to our intellect? to our rational faculties? to our subsidiary dominion over nature? Most definitions of the “image of God” are in essence this: “The image of God is what makes man man.” Followed by a bit of speaking on speech, and maybe a discussion of rationality here or there.
The other parts of Genesis 1 describe the describable.
Poetry is often used in the Bible to describe the indescribable using metaphorical language. But, sometimes, that metaphorical language is just that: poetry, and metaphor, used to describe a truth in hyperbolic terms, such as “the earth is established upon its foundation, and shall never be moved”. The earth moves physically, but only in the way God wills it. Or, “he has hung the earth on nothing”: an apt poetical descriptor of Earth “floating” in space. When we take true poetry and concretize it, as some of the Aristotelian physicists did in defense of Ptolemy’s cosmology, we can run in to trouble: bad exegesis and bad science. It would be equivalent to saying, that, since man is the very “image and likeness of God”, God must therefore be physical like a man, or that God must be the image of man (the law of identity), which is patently incorrect.
We are much safer when taking factual statements, propositions, and narrative history in a literal fashion, than we are when trying to distill some literal description of reality from a poetical description of it. Only the Church, in her wisdom, can ultimately pass judgment on any interpretation, or can infallibly distill a literal fact from poetry. But, here, as I have shown, the “image of God” is not a literal fact: it is a poetic description of the indescribable and unimaginable. Likewise, I have asserted (although not demonstrated, assuming it to be common knowledge) that the rest of the chapter was filled with propositional statements (“And God said, Let there be light, and there was light”) and narrative history (“In the beginning, God created…evening and morning…the book of the generations of heaven and earth”).
(The “characteristic of Hebrew poetry” are mainly one: repetition of the same idea using different words. There are a host of subsidiary characteristics, such as the use of acrostics, as well. In Gen 1:26f, the repetition of ideas with different words is “image” and “likeness”: “Let us create man in our own image, after our likeness…God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him”, and “him” and “them”: “in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”. This is not a controversial statement, and is indicated in virtually every modern translation of the Bible, such as the NASB, NAB/RE, NKJV, etc., by setting Gen 1:26f as verse, and the rest of the chapter as prose.)
And please note that it’s not cherry-picking unless you do it with an ulterior motive and attempt to play one part of a statement or work against the statement or work as a whole! By definition, quoting a passage verbatim, and then asking the author to elucidate it, can not be cherry picking.*
*Disregarding some extreme examples that could be engendered through the dishonest and extreme use of ellipses, such as distilling “Have you stopped beating your wife?” from a report on domestic violence, using an ellipsis after mostly every word.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Suggest you read “does God have a body.?” Under “read " section. Search"God anthropomorphic”.It is not at all troublesome for people who know
Catholic doctrines and accept them.
In regard to the concept of God walking in a “garden”,
The Catholic doctrines you are missing are:
In regard to the concept of God making “clothes”.
- God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and visible.
- God created human nature as an unique unification of both the material world *and *the spiritual world.
3.God is a personal God in that He has the power to communicate with His humans.- Humans have an intellective, rational soul which enables us to know and love God.
5.God calls each human person to share in His life through knowledge and love.
The Catholic doctrines you are missing are:
1.God is all powerful.
2. God is not limited or restricted by the material/physical world.
3. God did not abandon the first humans after the freely committed Original Sin.
4. God promised a Messiah.
5. Human nature was not totally destroyed.
God is pure spirit.
C
cargau
Guest
The historical nature of the flood story does not depend on any specific interpretation. The stories of the first 11 chapters of Genesis deal with the recurring theme of God’s relationship to man and man’s relationship to his God. Over and over this theme is depicted as blessing, sin, punishment and mercy.
The ANE text of Gilgamesh is one of many flood stories that were written long before the Noah story. THe Hebrew people (in captivity when Genesis was written) would have been familiar with these myths. The writer simply chose to convey a re-origin of the Gilgsmesh myth.
The ancient world did not use myths as fictional stories but rather as a literary style to portray theological realities within a culture. We see it in Scandanavian, Roman, Greek, Babylonan and other cultures. God’s chosen people would not only have heard of Gilgamesh but would be very comfortable with the literary usage of mythology.
Also, superimposing the story of Noah over the Gilgamesh myth helped the people to see the harsh distinctions between the nature of the understanding of the two theologies.
J
juliamajor
Guest
ALSO NEW ADVENT articles on anthropomorphism and anthrpomorphites aka audians, a heresy.It is not at all troublesome for people who know
Catholic doctrines and accept them.
In regard to the concept of God walking in a “garden”,
The Catholic doctrines you are missing are:
In regard to the concept of God making “clothes”.
- God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and visible.
- God created human nature as an unique unification of both the material world *and *the spiritual world.
3.God is a personal God in that He has the power to communicate with His humans.- Humans have an intellective, rational soul which enables us to know and love God.
5.God calls each human person to share in His life through knowledge and love.
The Catholic doctrines you are missing are:
1.God is all powerful.
2. God is not limited or restricted by the material/physica
3. God did not abandon the first humans after the freely committed Original Sin.
4. God promised a Messiah.
5. Human nature was not totally destroyed.
- Status