M
MGEISING
Guest
I have a question for our separated brothers and sisters who read the bible literally. How would you interpret the two very different creation stories … literally?
Thank you.
Thank you.
- Status
P
patg
Guest
I’m wondering if you have a special reaon for addressing this to “separated brothers and sisters”? If you look at many of the discussions here you will see that very many of the catholics take things quite literally. Look at the discussions on Inerrancy, Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, the nativity, etc. and you will see people insisting that the church requires you to believe everything in the bible is literal history.
A
amarkich
Guest
You did not even provide an appropriate answer to those of us (including the Church Fathers and all the Saints throughout history) who believe that the two are not contradictory. You need to read up on some Catholic teaching pre-1965 to see that the Church has constantly taught, at least through Tradition, that the Bible is historically accurate. This has been affirmed in various statements.
T
Tom_of_Assisi
Guest
Since the Catechism teaches that everything in Sacred Scripture is literally true, I assume you are a Protestant. You are aware–are you not–that you Protestants are the ones who seperated from the Church not vice versa.
I’m glad you are reading material from a Catholic forum…hopefully soon you can be reunited with us.
M
MGEISING
Guest
Hi: 
I think you two need to settle down … I never indicated what either of you are accusing me of … I know many Catholics that aren’t aware of two creation stories … as well as many protestants.
It was a question for people (all faiths really) to think about. We also must not forget - that we as Catholics read the bible contextually as well. If you take a verse out of context, it is pretext as Scott Hahn says …and that is very very important … and the bible never contradicts itself …that is a very true statement.
Peace,
mgeising
I think you two need to settle down … I never indicated what either of you are accusing me of … I know many Catholics that aren’t aware of two creation stories … as well as many protestants.
It was a question for people (all faiths really) to think about. We also must not forget - that we as Catholics read the bible contextually as well. If you take a verse out of context, it is pretext as Scott Hahn says …and that is very very important … and the bible never contradicts itself …that is a very true statement.
Peace,
mgeising
M
MGEISING
Guest
Tom of Assisi:
I am definately not a protestant …
Peace,
Moe
You guys kill me … and you know what happens when one assumes.
I am definately not a protestant …
Peace,
Moe
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
The two versions need to be viewed as metaphors for the Creation, not as literally true. As metaphors they contain incontrovertible truth. The first version asserts that Creation began with a burst of light (the Big Bang?) and continued over several periods of time (Evolution?).
The rib sequence in the second story is not scientifically likely, but why should it be when you consider the state of science at the time Genesis was written? What is important is that the narrator is affirming the primacy of power in the male, which was a tradition world wide, not just among the Jews.
The rib sequence in the second story is not scientifically likely, but why should it be when you consider the state of science at the time Genesis was written? What is important is that the narrator is affirming the primacy of power in the male, which was a tradition world wide, not just among the Jews.
P
patg
Guest
You also need to read up on some Catholic teaching post-1943 to see that the Church currently teaches that the Bible contains myth, legend, and various other literary forms which are not meant to be historically accurate. This has been affirmed in various statements.
M
MGEISING
Guest
Excellent answer!
J
Jav1
Guest
This is my First post here… still reading and learning and and I always consider myself more of a student than a teacher.
The Bibles and teachings I have read indicate different types of scripture stories, (poetic, prophetic and historical). The two creation stories (like most parables), I thought were considered poetic… not prophetic or historical, but useing easily understood language towards teaching a concept or ideal, as opposed to a literal fact.
The Bibles and teachings I have read indicate different types of scripture stories, (poetic, prophetic and historical). The two creation stories (like most parables), I thought were considered poetic… not prophetic or historical, but useing easily understood language towards teaching a concept or ideal, as opposed to a literal fact.
M
MGEISING
Guest
Jav1 - that is my understanding as well.
A
Asimis
Guest
There is only one creation account and that is while still taking it literally. See here:
upper-register.com/other_studies/framework_interpretation.html
That aproach solves the apparent contradictions and also does not distorts the text.
J
jdnation
Guest
Genesis 1 and 2 aren’t different. Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1 in more detail. The ‘contradictions’ aren’t contradictions at all. There is no problem taking them literally. This has been brought up several times in past threads.
The Church may teach that there are different book in the Bible, some mythical and fictional. But it doesnt tell you which ones. If we were just left to decide, one could decide Genesis is mythical, one could decide Exodus is mythical, one could even decide the Gospels are mythical! The important thing to keep in mind is to decide how the writers of the various books intended their subject matter to be. According the scholars and Hebrew language experts, Genesis is presented as historical record. The only reason people have a problem with it and think it’s a myth is because they are trying to compromise it with science interpreted through naturalist philosophy.
You may decide for yourself what you believe. But those choosing to take it literally are not shown to be in error, they are simply approaching it with a different philosophy of origins.
The Church may teach that there are different book in the Bible, some mythical and fictional. But it doesnt tell you which ones. If we were just left to decide, one could decide Genesis is mythical, one could decide Exodus is mythical, one could even decide the Gospels are mythical! The important thing to keep in mind is to decide how the writers of the various books intended their subject matter to be. According the scholars and Hebrew language experts, Genesis is presented as historical record. The only reason people have a problem with it and think it’s a myth is because they are trying to compromise it with science interpreted through naturalist philosophy.
You may decide for yourself what you believe. But those choosing to take it literally are not shown to be in error, they are simply approaching it with a different philosophy of origins.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Genisis was authored (composed) long before it was redacted (written down.) It was passed by word of mouth from generation to generation.
In the process, slightly different oral versions developed. When it was finally written down the redactor (writer) dealt with the slightly different versions by simply including them all.
There are also slightly varing versions of Noah bringing the animals into the Ark (two-by-two, and seven pairs of each clean beast and one pair of each unclean beast.)
There are three versions of Abrahan claiming Sarah is his sister – and the last version is attributed to Issac.
In the process, slightly different oral versions developed. When it was finally written down the redactor (writer) dealt with the slightly different versions by simply including them all.
There are also slightly varing versions of Noah bringing the animals into the Ark (two-by-two, and seven pairs of each clean beast and one pair of each unclean beast.)
There are three versions of Abrahan claiming Sarah is his sister – and the last version is attributed to Issac.
- Status