Genesis

[Khalid]

With all due respect, I think someone representing CA would have a firmer understanding of what we’re to believe than any of posters.
Here is another reply from CA to this question:catholic.com/quickquestions/did-people-really-live-for-900-years-as-described-in-genesis

I am bound by faith and duty to correct error whenever I see it - even if it comes in a book with imprimatur, and the Lord knows I have seen egregious errors receive the imprimatur - and I am bound by logic and the law of non-contradiction to make sure a given theology or hermeneutic is self-consistent. I do not correct from myself (or, at least, I do not intend to, but we are fallen), but instead attempt to correct from the sources of Catholic dogma - the Bible and church pronouncements.

Catholic Answers is a valuable organization, especially for dealing with Protestant and Mormon/JW cult attacks on our religion (which is what it was founded by Mr Keating for, in the first place). But Catholic Answers is not infallible, no more infallible than me or you: it is made up of fallen laymen, and a few clerks regular (such as Fr Serpa), just like ourselves, none of which are the Pope speaking ex cathedra or an ecumenical council. Argumentum ad auctoritas carries weight when the authorities are, in this, descending order: 1. Pope proclaiming doctrine, 2. Ecumenical Council doing the same, 3. Bible, 4. Fathers and Doctors. Now, if we have none of those authorities, we must rely on lesser and more fallible and less holy sources, such as reason.

In the latter case, this is more of the binding of logic than the binding of correction. If the toledot are “literary constructs”, interpreting the Bible is nigh-hopeless, because they have none of the hallmarks of anything but genealogy. But one can make a (poor) argument from parallelism that they’re poetry - but ideas are not repeated with different words, they’re repeated verbatim. The Protestant exegete DA Carson deals with this in his book Exegetical Fallacies (intermediate knowledge of Hebrew and Greek syntax required). Now, do the toledot structure the entire book of Genesis? It is likely that they do: but they are not themselves literary constructs for that reason, any more than Matthew being structured around five discourses of Jesus makes the discourses literary constructs.

Now, if one takes the four/five dogmata of creation (there are four, not three, one and two often get folded together):

1. Creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)
2. Creatio ab initio temporis (creation from the initialization of time)
3. Monogenesis by real, historical first parents Adam and Eve
4. Original sin which we inherit committed by those first parents.
5. Creationism (of the soul [each soul is created by God], as opposed to traducianism [soul is at least partially inherited])

I don’t see how you can fit any other interpretation in to Genesis: the doctrine of monogenesis from two first parents (stated in the Catechism and more clearly and dogmatically in Divino Afflante Spiritu, I believe) eliminates any possibility for evolutionary development, notwithstanding the non-dogmatic statements of later popes. The inerrancy of Scripture is stated also very clearly both in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and confirmed in the first paragraph of Divino Afflante Spiritu. According to a decent essay in the back of the New Jerome Commentary (Essay 65, paragraph 5, pp. 1032f: Inspiration), Dei Verbum “Clearly…intended to recapitulate traditional teaching on inspiration…In this regard, Vatican II’s statement on inspiration concurs with the views of many evangelical Christians.”

Now, if evolutionary development is discounted, there is no reason not to believe in extreme longevity except for incredulity. I separate the fifth dogma out because it has no real connect with the previous four, and doesn’t seem to have been entered to rebut traducianism, but to provide a stop-gap measure against the “assured results of modern science”.

Now, what is harder to believe? That Adam lived nearly a millennium, or that Jesus Christ died and rose again? And resurrected Lazarus. And Paul resurrected the boy who fell out of the window. So on. Now, is it harder to believe that life can continue for indefinite periods, or, that once it is terminated, it can be re-instated? (Neither, for with Christ, all things are possible.)

But, where does it stop? There’s a good example, I believe, in Howard van Till, the foremost defender of theistic (deistic) evolutionism, what he liked to call “fully gifted creation perspective”: he apostatized.

We must come with all humility and meekness to the word of God, as the Word said: "Unless ye become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. We must come as little children to the Father, and believe what he tells us; and we must come as little children to our Holy Mother Church, and believe, as St Ignatius Loyola said: “If the Church proclaims to be black what my eyes perceive to be white, I must join with the Church and proclaim it to be black”, and as the Word again said: “he who heareth you, heareth me: if a man will not hear you, let him be unto thee as the heathen and publican.”

 

[Khalid]

The relevant paragraph from Divino Afflante Spiritu, which quotes Pascendi Dominici Gregis and confirms what it said, and calls it a “solemn definition of Catholic doctrine” pronounced by a Pope (that is, infallible teaching of the Church, what Ott would likely classify as fides ecclesiastica):

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.”

 

[edwest2]

The relevant paragraph from Divino Afflante Spiritu, which quotes Pascendi Dominici Gregis and confirms what it said, and calls it a “solemn definition of Catholic doctrine” pronounced by a Pope (that is, infallible teaching of the Church, what Ott would likely classify as fides ecclesiastica):

The simple reply to those who say no is: are you a theologian? Honestly, one would think that some consider Fundamentalist to be a dirty word, or following that emotional opinion, the world will suddenly be taken over by Fundamentalists. Give it a break. If God can create the Universe out of nothing, and man began to degenerate, along with the rest of Creation after the Fall, what is the big fear? That The God Who Did Nothing In The Old Testament will return to His Place as the God who did what is written in the Old Testament? That science, which contains no knowledge regarding God, the soul, or the resurrection, is a “greater” god?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Faith1960]

I am bound by faith and duty to correct error whenever I see it - even if it comes in a book with imprimatur, and the Lord knows I have seen egregious errors receive the imprimatur - and I am bound by logic and the law of non-contradiction to make sure a given theology or hermeneutic is self-consistent. I do not correct from myself (or, at least, I do not intend to, but we are fallen), but instead attempt to correct from the sources of Catholic dogma - the Bible and church pronouncements.

Catholic Answers is a valuable organization, especially for dealing with Protestant and Mormon/JW cult attacks on our religion (which is what it was founded by Mr Keating for, in the first place). But Catholic Answers is not infallible, no more infallible than me or you: it is made up of fallen laymen, and a few clerks regular (such as Fr Serpa), just like ourselves, none of which are the Pope speaking ex cathedra or an ecumenical council. Argumentum ad auctoritas carries weight when the authorities are, in this, descending order: 1. Pope proclaiming doctrine, 2. Ecumenical Council doing the same, 3. Bible, 4. Fathers and Doctors. Now, if we have none of those authorities, we must rely on lesser and more fallible and less holy sources, such as reason.

In the latter case, this is more of the binding of logic than the binding of correction. If the toledot are “literary constructs”, interpreting the Bible is nigh-hopeless, because they have none of the hallmarks of anything but genealogy. But one can make a (poor) argument from parallelism that they’re poetry - but ideas are not repeated with different words, they’re repeated verbatim. The Protestant exegete DA Carson deals with this in his book Exegetical Fallacies (intermediate knowledge of Hebrew and Greek syntax required). Now, do the toledot structure the entire book of Genesis? It is likely that they do: but they are not themselves literary constructs for that reason, any more than Matthew being structured around five discourses of Jesus makes the discourses literary constructs.

Now, if one takes the four/five dogmata of creation (there are four, not three, one and two often get folded together):

1. Creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)
2. Creatio ab initio temporis (creation from the initialization of time)
3. Monogenesis by real, historical first parents Adam and Eve
4. Original sin which we inherit committed by those first parents.
5. Creationism (of the soul [each soul is created by God], as opposed to traducianism [soul is at least partially inherited])

I don’t see how you can fit any other interpretation in to Genesis: the doctrine of monogenesis from two first parents (stated in the Catechism and more clearly and dogmatically in Divino Afflante Spiritu, I believe) eliminates any possibility for evolutionary development, notwithstanding the non-dogmatic statements of later popes. The inerrancy of Scripture is stated also very clearly both in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and confirmed in the first paragraph of Divino Afflante Spiritu. According to a decent essay in the back of the New Jerome Commentary (Essay 65, paragraph 5, pp. 1032f: Inspiration), Dei Verbum “Clearly…intended to recapitulate traditional teaching on inspiration…In this regard, Vatican II’s statement on inspiration concurs with the views of many evangelical Christians.”

Now, if evolutionary development is discounted, there is no reason not to believe in extreme longevity except for incredulity. I separate the fifth dogma out because it has no real connect with the previous four, and doesn’t seem to have been entered to rebut traducianism, but to provide a stop-gap measure against the “assured results of modern science”.

Now, what is harder to believe? That Adam lived nearly a millennium, or that Jesus Christ died and rose again? And resurrected Lazarus. And Paul resurrected the boy who fell out of the window. So on. Now, is it harder to believe that life can continue for indefinite periods, or, that once it is terminated, it can be re-instated? (Neither, for with Christ, all things are possible.)

But, where does it stop? There’s a good example, I believe, in Howard van Till, the foremost defender of theistic (deistic) evolutionism, what he liked to call “fully gifted creation perspective”: he apostatized.

We must come with all humility and meekness to the word of God, as the Word said: "Unless ye become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. We must come as little children to the Father, and believe what he tells us; and we must come as little children to our Holy Mother Church, and believe, as St Ignatius Loyola said: “If the Church proclaims to be black what my eyes perceive to be white, I must join with the Church and proclaim it to be black”, and as the Word again said: “he who heareth you, heareth me: if a man will not hear you, let him be unto thee as the heathen and publican.”

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[Khalid]

The simple reply to those who say no is: are you a theologian? Honestly, one would think that some consider Fundamentalist to be a dirty word, or following that emotional opinion, the world will suddenly be taken over by Fundamentalists.

Heh - and many of them could probably answer “yes”, as could I.There are more eminent theologians who disagree with them; and more eminent ones who agree. There are lesser theologians who disagree; and lesser theologians who agree.

That’s the danger in leaving the Church to the theologians - the kind of geometrical fragmentation seen in Protestantism. At the heart of all theology that is not merely memorization and repetition of the Fathers, and the compilation of catenae (although catenae and the Fathers are most excellent in their own right) is an act of private interpretation: for some things, and for all things for a while, these ratiocinations may be within the realm of theologoumena, theological opinions or differences that are accepted. But, what sets the Church apart is the Church: in the end, all theologians must submit their conjectures and systems of theology to her judgment. Some are judged and found wanting (and consigned to the realm of heresy); some are adjudged adequate (and remain in the realm of theologoumena); some are adjudged to be exemplary, extraordinary, and exceeding superior (and are elevated to preferred teaching, or to the realm of dogma, as being more forceful and exact elucidations of the deposit of faith*): these become the Doctors, such as the great Saint, Thomas Aquinas for Thomism; Leo the Great for the Chalcedonian Definition; Athanasius the Great for the defense of Trinitarianism; and the others.

We are entitled to an opinion only in accordance with the facts and the faith. No further. Now, that a matter has not been specifically spoken on, some will say that it is indeed the very definition of a theologoumenon; but, if a certain conclusion necessarily follows by deduction from matters which have been spoken on, the latter, by the laws of logic, is of equal authority to the first. I have demonstrated here that this is one such, most of all by the simple statement that the allegorical or symbolical interpretation of a given statement can not be true if the given statement is not true**, much as was all the more so conclusively demonstrated in your thread on mind, by many individuals, least of which was myself, that “mind” is not a function of “brain” (although we drew our proofs from philosophy alone, and did not quote dogmatic pronouncements).

Theologians should be interpreting the Bible, though, not exegetes - for, as the introduction to the Brazos Theological Commentary says, “We have enlisted theologians to commentate upon the Bible…for war is too important to leave to the generals.”

*See John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine
**Most of the rest of my first duplex of posts were expanding on and qualifying this statement with reference to literary features and context, and giving examples thereof.

 

[Dolezal]

I just want to thank Khalid for his insights. I do not agree that he is merely stating his opinion, but is using common sense and reason in light of our faith. It seems obvious that the recorded lifespans are not stated figuratively but as plain fact. They are not what St. Augustine called in his “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” “obscure passages”, nor are they “at variance with the perceptions of our rational faculties”. A figurative reading is here not necessary and does not provide a better explanation.

How Catholics can easily believe in miracles, naturally (but not logically) impossible occurrences, but have a problem with accepting the long lifespans of the Patriarchs, which are not necessarily naturally impossible*, is beyond me. (*The internal organs of turtles, for example, do not seem to deteriorate. They can, in theory, live as long as Adam if not felled by disease or accident.)

My own theory is that Adam and his early descendants were closer to the original state of the world, which allowed for longer lifespans. No one dies of old age, we succumb to diseases and organ failures. The various diseases that affect us must have evolved over a period of time. But, in any case, there is no need for a figurative reading.

 

[Faith1960]

I just want to thank Khalid for his insights. I do not agree that he is merely stating his opinion, but is using common sense and reason in light of our faith. It seems obvious that the recorded lifespans are not stated figuratively but as plain fact.

Maybe it seems obvious to you, but it isn’t obvious to all of us. Do you take every word of Genesis literally? Do you believe that Eve was literally formed from the rib of Adam?

 

[Khalid]

Frankly, of course. Adam was formed out of nothing, or, more accurately, out of dust, to which we all return. The universe was formed out of nothing - existence was called in to existence from non-existence, from a “when” when it is incorrect to speak of “when”, as time did not exist - time itself was called in to existence from eternity, or from not-time. But I had to use a time word to describe that - no human language can possibly express what was “before” time! The closest even God can come when using our language is, “In the beginning, God created…” and “In the beginning was the Word”. Compared to that, the creation of Eve seems quite prosaic, and quite describable and conceivable.

Now, if existence can be called forth from non-existence, something we can’t even comprehend, certainly a woman can be called forth from the rib (it may have been a cell, or bone marrow, or whatever) of a man, something that we can visualize and can even think of by analogy (mitosis, cloning, etc.).

Genesis also states - with all of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry - that we are created in the Image and Likeness of God. That’s dogma; it’s incredible, and much harder to wrap one’s head around. And it is much less literally stated; it is stated from within a poetical literary construct. As Pascal said: “Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature; but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him: a vapor, a drop of water is enough to kill him. But even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe knows nothing of this.”

It seems that more of your (and modern society’s) trouble with accepting some statements and not others that are even more incredible is twofold: the overwhelming scientistic worldview that Westerners are inculturated with (I’m not speaking of Darwinism here, which is but a symptom, but the entire bias engendered through the false philosophy of materialism and its concomitant religion, scientism: it is the creation myth of that religion), and the false idea of “non-overlapping magisteria” - the more “spiritual” a given part of the Bible is, no matter how hard it is to believe, the more it can be accepted, as long as it doesn’t come anywhere near to tip-toeing across any area where a High Priest (read: Scientist) may dare to make a pronouncement.

Thus one ends up forcing oneself in to a “god of the gaps” position, as one scrambles to re-interpret the Bible through the “assured findings of modern science” (actually a philosophy and system of first principles), or was so immersed in the materialist-scientistic worldview to begin with that one read it in to the Bible wherever possible, unconsciously avoiding any possibility of contradiction with science, but giving rise to massive amounts of internal inconsistency in religion.

“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”; the more “earthly” something is, since our experience is with the earthly, and the further it is outside of that experience, the harder it is to believe. But for heavenly things, since we have no experience of them, we can believe anything. I repeat again what our Lord said: “Verily [Amen] I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Little children trust what their Father tells them, and obey; they listen to their mothers; all the more so for our perfect Heavenly Father, and for our infallible holy mother Church.

Otherwise, and for some (notable in the Christian intelligentsia and in many books of apologetics), the explanation is such: that it easier to believe that the universe was created out of nothing, because we believe science hasn’t or can’t speak on it; we believe it’s more possible for Jesus to rise from the dead, because science can neither prove nor disprove it; we believe physical, visible, and temporal man is the image and likeness of the immaterial, invisible, and eternal God; but, we can’t believe in a young earth, or Eve’s creation, or the veracity of Genesis, or Noah’s Deluge, or the Tower of Babel because we believe - often mistakenly - that science can speak on them.

We are ashamed of a young earth and a big flood - earthly things which we can conceive of - but not ashamed of the universe being called in to existence from nothing, and a dead man coming back to life - that dead man being the perfect, eternal, immaterial, and immutable God who pitched himself a tabernacle of flesh and dwelt amongst men, as a man, who, emptying himself, made himself of no repute, taking upon him the likeness of a slave, and being obedient to his Father, the same immutable, eternal, immaterial, and perfect God, but a different hypostasis thereof, even unto death on the Cross, who sacrificed himself, the immutable suffering, so that his creation, man, could be reconciled to him. Did I mention that this same man was the one who existed “before” time (there was no “before” time existing not) and called all that exists in to existence from non-existence? - heavenly things which are so sublime as to beggar the mind.

As Paul wrote to Timothy: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

[Khalid]

Erratum to correct possible material heresy: When I say “the immutable [experiencing] suffering”, I am using hyperbole. Christ suffered in his human nature: the divine nature is of course impassible. I am not a Patripassian, monophysite, or a denier of God’s eternal attributes.* (But I am fallen, so I can lapse in to material heresy, as can we all, except by the leave of the Holy Spirit; only by that same leave are we prevented from formal heresy.)

This is an excellent thread, by the way - keep 'em coming.

*Or an Open Theist or a Spongian who denies some of God’s characteristics: I am for the most part a Thomist at the crossroads of the Neo-scholastic (Lagrangian), Existential (Gilsonian), and Analytical (Haldanean) schools, leaning towards the Neo-scholastic, and not a Molinist (not that it has anything whatsoever to do with this thread). I attempt to build by house upon solid rock, and stand with one foot on the rock that is the word of God, and the other on the Rock on which the Word of God built his Church: I attempt, but can and do stumble and trip. Any errors are solely mine, and can be corrected be recourse to recourse to the writings of St Thomas and the dogmatic declarations of the Church. (I scared myself with that one, not realizing I wrote something that could be called heresy until my third proofread!)

On the internet, we have time to explain and justify ourselves like that. I’m not sure if real life would be better or worse without it.

 

[Dolezal]

Maybe it seems obvious to you, but it isn’t obvious to all of us.

Why is a figurative reading necessary?

Do you take every word of Genesis literally?

No. If I did I would not have quoted from “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” by St. Augustine. For example, how did God say “let there be light”? Did he use syllables by the sound of his voice? Obviously not, God is a necessary object and not composite. If there were syllables and sound, he must have spoken through caused contingent objects. Which would explain why he did not say, “let there be heaven and earth”. And what was the light? The sun and the other stars did not exist. Why was the sun caused if this light was sufficient to make day? Was it a spiritual light? The illumination of intellectual creatures, as St. Augustine suggests? And I can go on, pointing out difficulties with a literal reading.

Do you believe that Eve was literally formed from the rib of Adam?

Yes, of course. There is no need for a figurative reading, unless it is necessary (logically, or because it is not compatible with scientific insights) or provides a better explanation.

 

[grannymh]

The real point is that Genesis 2: 23 confirms that all humankind descended from two, real, sole, fully human parents. “Man discovers woman as another “I,” sharing the same humanity.” (CCC 371) God is responsible for the human nature of Eve.

 

[juliamajor]

Maybe it seems obvious to you, but it isn’t obvious to all of us. Do you take every word of Genesis literally? Do you believe that Eve was literally formed from the rib of Adam?

Stick to your guns. go to the catechism start at the section on scripture and read through it. I believe that granny has an article number. That’s the only opinion you should worry about because it has real authority behind it.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

[grannymh]

Stick to your guns. go to the catechism start at the section on scripture and read through it. I believe that granny has an article number. That’s the only opinion you should worry about because it has real authority behind it.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

The only CCC “scripture” paragraph I use for Adam and Eve is the paragraph specifically devoted to Original Sin and our original Adam. This is CCC 390 which assumes that we have the common sense to learn about Adam’s human nature, etc., in paragraphs 355-421 plus the cross-references in the margins. In real life, not every word in the first three chapters of Genesis needs to be taken literally. What must be taken “literally” are the Catholic doctrines which describe human nature, the relationship between Adam and his Creator, the equality of men and women, original sin, the necessity of a Messiah, and some others which escape me at this hour.

In an above post, I referenced CCC 371 because it is one of the paragraphs which refers to Eve. However, to understand the context, one should read CCC 369-373.

One thing to remember is that the realm of Catholicism is faith and morals and not the realm of the material/physical universe. Of course Catholics, including high ranking clergy, can study the material/physical world and form theories about it. But these theories are not on the same level as Catholic doctrines on the eternal spiritual world.

Most of the time, the world of science and the world of Catholicism do their own thing as a benefit to society. However, there are times when scientific theories intersect or collide with some basic Catholic doctrines. We need to remember that God is the Creator of the material/physical world.

Divine Revelation trumps!

Blessings for your Christmas,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Gorgias]

The relevant paragraph from Divino Afflante Spiritu, which quotes Pascendi Dominici Gregis and confirms what it said, and calls it a “solemn definition of Catholic doctrine” pronounced by a Pope (that is, infallible teaching of the Church, what Ott would likely classify as fides ecclesiastica):

Hold on a second, though!

Unless I misunderstand you, it seems that you’re using this quote to prop your assertion of literal historical accuracy. That’s not what your quotation is asserting, though! Rather than asserting complete historical accuracy, it’s making a refutation if a completely opposite claim: that there is no historical truth to be found in the Scriptures (that is, that the only truth to be found is in matters of faith and morals).

Although Divino is defending against the claim of a lack of the presence of historicity, it is not making a claim of arbitrary or absolute historicity, which is how you seem to want to make use of it…

Later in this very document, we read:

Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis

and further:

Nevertheless no one, who has a correct idea of biblical inspiration, will be surprised to find, even in the Sacred Writers, as in other ancient authors, certain fixed ways of expounding and narrating, certain definite idioms, especially of a kind peculiar to the Semitic tongues, so-called approximations, and certain hyperbolical modes of expression… Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients

 

[Khalid]

I’ve read the document - I don’t believe the sections you quote militate at all against anything I have said; I find the entire document congruent, or at least allowing, to the expositions I have drawn forth.

You are partially (not fully) mistaken as you admitted could be possible: I was not using the document specifically to bolster my particular exegesis (which may be in error, no matter how certain I am of its veracity and congruency with historic Christian and Catholic teaching), but in an attempt to establish that the Church does indeed teach plenary inspiration: to establish a foundation, if you will, for my exegesis (which requires plenary inspiration to make sense), but not to defend the building built upon that foundation.

 

[juliamajor]

I’ve read the document - I don’t believe the sections you quote militate at all against anything I have said; I find the entire document congruent, or at least allowing, to the expositions I have drawn forth.

You are partially (not fully) mistaken as you admitted could be possible: I was not using the document specifically to bolster my particular exegesis (which may be in error, no matter how certain I am of its veracity and congruency with historic Christian and Catholic teaching), but in an attempt to establish that the Church does indeed teach plenary inspiration: to establish a foundation, if you will, for my exegesis (which requires plenary inspiration to make sense), but not to defend the building built upon that foundation.

But you cherry picked your quote. Context, context, context. Or you don’t get the true reading of the document.

 

[grannymh]

Regardless of historical and/or scientific information…

**…**regarding the first three chapters of Genesis, (Adam and Original Sin) the Catholic Church (which has existed since Pentecost when the promised Advocate arrived), continues to use Divine Revelation as the base for Catholic doctrines.

Historical and/or scientific information comes from humans. Divine Revelation comes from God.

But since the members of the visible society of the Catholic Church are humans, there is an established protocol for determining Catholic doctrines. This protocol relies on the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Source: Chapter 14 of the Gospel of John). This protocol requires humility, a rare virtue in contemporary history.

 

[Khalid]

But you cherry picked your quote. Context, context, context. Or you don’t get the true reading of the document.

I picked the quote that was relevant, with paragraph number, to establishing that the Catholic Church teaches as dogma the plenary inspiration of the Bible. That is what the document teaches. I was not quoting the document to bolster my exegesis, but to show that it was consonant with the faith - as, I said, to establish a foundation - and, indeed, demanded by the dogmatic teaching that “the Bible is inspired and inerrant in all its parts”. Now that quote I just used is cherry-picked and without context, and can be twisted in to a dogmatic declaration in favor of my exegesis; the quote as it was presented was given plenty of context (the entire paragraph).

The document nowhere says anything about Adam, Eve, the Noachian Flood, the Tower of Babel, or a Young Earth; therefore, I could not use it to bolster my specific interpretation of Genesis 1-11: I could only use it to establish that “the Bible is inspired and without error in all its parts”, and then, with that settled, go on to construct an argument for my hermeneutic (the historico-grammatical) as returning the correct results in this situation, and my specific exegesis being consonant with said hermeneutic, and the hermeneutic and exegesis being consonant with (and I believe demanded by) the teaching of plenary inspiration. Now, DAS doesn’t teach the historico-grammatical method; but it does not disallow it, and, indeed, is the only way to determine the historical, literal, “author’s intention sense” (i.e. what the original audience would have understood, what the author was trying to get across) of the passage.

The rest of my writing was in large part an attempt to establish that the other senses of Scripture are meaningless without the “literal”, or, more correctly, historico-grammatical or “author’s intention sense” being true. Now we debate what the author means; the majority of even professed Christians don’t debate what the author means, but deny the truth of what is accepted that he means. (Both Young Earth and Liberal exegetes agree with my interpretation of Genesis presented here; conservative exegetes who try to reconcile the Bible with the atheistic presuppositions of materialist science by re-interpreting the Bible using bits and pieces of a secular framework, so that there supposedly is “no contradiction between them”, disagree with me. Indeed, there can be no contradiction between science properly interpreted and the Bible properly interpreted; I am only challenging that it is the Bible that has been misinterpreted historically, and instead vehemently and loudly declare that the empirical facts have been horribly misinterpreted by modern naturalist scientists in trying to force observations of a theistic universe in to an atheistic framework.)

If the Church didn’t teach plenary inspiration, then, it is correct to say that the authors were doing nothing but inventing myths under “artistic inspiration” for “spiritual benefit”. (I had used this in my previous post; lest someone actually say they were myths outright - the majority of people I debate this with do - I had to establish that such an interpretation could not be accepted by the Church.) Once plenary inspiration is established, we can get down to the hard work of actually arguing over interpretations, and which interpretations make sense and are consonant with plenary inspiration, etc.

Remember, when quoting a document, one has to choose how to quote it, and how to cite it. I could have just said, “DAS ¶1”; if everyone writing a technical book had to quote in full the entire books they were quoting - the broadest context possible - even the most basic and introductory treatise would be an entire library’s worth of volumes.

Grannymh:

Indeed, especially amongst the secular scientists of our day.

Now, we’re way, way off topic. Can’t we get back to debating the interpretation of Genesis?

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh:

Indeed, especially amongst the secular scientists of our day.

Now, we’re way, way off topic. Can’t we get back to debating the interpretation of Genesis?

Because Genesis has 50 chapters, some distinctions have to be made between the first three chapters and the following 47 chapters.

First, there are scientific issues involved in these three initial chapters. What must be realized is that natural science is limited to the material/physical world. Thus, natural science can be considered secular in that it cannot, by definition, address the spiritual world. In addition, scientists as sincere people can be either secular or religious or somewhere in between.

Second, when it comes to the Catholic doctrines inovlved in these three initial chapters, not only does a “quote” have to be placed within the context of the document; but, more importantly, the entire document has to be placed within the protocol for formulating Divine Revelation as individual Catholic doctrines.

Third, in order to get a clearer idea of how to interpret the remaining 47 chapters of Genesis, one has to first list the proper basic Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, the distinguishing characteristics of Original Sin, the necessity for reconciliation between God and humankind, and the “mystery” of Jesus Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

I picked the quote that was relevant, with paragraph number, to establishing that the Catholic Church teaches as dogma the plenary inspiration of the Bible.

Hmm… correct me if I’m wrong,but I don’t think that anyone had challenged the assertion that, within the Bible, there exist writings that are historically accurate. So, you quoted this document in order to establish an uncontested point? ok…

The document nowhere says anything about Adam, Eve, the Noachian Flood, the Tower of Babel, or a Young Earth; therefore, I could not use it to bolster my specific interpretation of Genesis 1-11

And that’s where my quote from DAS - citations to which you chose not to respond - comes in. In a section discussing advances in historical knowledge, it explicitly mentions that earlier writers - including the Fathers themselves (!) - were subject to the interpretive errors that a lack of accurate historical information can cause. Need I mention that the traditional interpretation of the span of years of the patriarchs is a literal one?

Not only does DAS speak to the ways that traditional attempts to assert historicity in early Genesis fail,but also, it provides an alternative hermeneutic approach that we might use here: the contemporaries of the inspired writer were wont to use hyperbole and other idiomatic expressions. Moreover, DAS warns against ignoring this approach, lest we misunderstand Scripture, or even lead others into scandal (when they look at hyperbole that some assert is literal, and as a result, they mistakenly conclude that there’s error in the Bible!)