B
buffalo
Guest
A Divinely inspired author has an incorrect worldview?
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
And not a single one of them is scientific evidence as I mentioned in my previous post.
So, you accept the bible and other non-scientific books as scientific evidence. That definately explains why you don’t understand (ahem) accept evidence for evolution!
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
Never said that. I have consistently maintained that Revelation is true. Science will have to fit with Revelation, not syncretism. Faith and reason cannot oppose. In these books there is science. I agree that they are not proof texts of scientific emperical experiments. But they do shed light on science. They have to as science is contained in truth. As in my previous example of the wind blowing is scientific. It meets the criteria of observation. To discount the ability of the divinely inspired sacred writers to put into writing their observations I think is foolhardy.And not a single one of them is scientific evidence as I mentioned in my previous post. So, you accept the bible and other non-scientific books as scientific evidence. That definately explains why you don’t understand (ahem) accept evidence for evolution!
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)
- Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4). Dei Verbum
O
Orogeny
Guest
Shedding light on science is not scientific evidence. Which was my original point. I agree that revelation is true and doesn’t need to be changed to fit scientific observations. That is why I say there was no global flood. The evidence is clear. It can’t contradict the truth. The Church teaches that some scripture is allegorical. Since the science is so clear that a global flood didn’t occur, the flood of Noah is a clear case of allegorical scripture.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
There was a flood - global or local (as the world was known then) is the question.
The question is whether the sacred author was intending to convey the local or global aspect. He definitely intended to convey there was a literal flood, an actual event.
O
Orogeny
Guest
There was no global flood.
Was there a local flood? Local floods happen all the time, so that is possible, but understand that if that is the case, then the story still has problems because a local flood would not kill all living things.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
J
Joe_Gloor
Guest
It is not necessary that there was an actual flood, global, local or catastrophic for the Scripture to be true.
If you read the account in the Bible as I did this morning it is apparent that the flood story is inserted into the text describing Noah and his children.
Gen 6:9-10 This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Gen 9:19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
S
steveandersen
Guest
We can agree that some sort of flooding occurred
While Ryan & Pitman’s work (supoorted by Ballard’s field work) points to a possibly catastrophic flood, it is my understanding that Abrajano’s work in the Sea of Marmara doesn’t support it. link
Morton also has an opinion on this (disagreeing with Ryan) but it doesn’t appear to be as scholarly so take with salt (no pun intended…really).
So the best we can say right now about the Black Sea is that the ancient shoreline is now underwater. We really can’t say anything about the speed at which it happened and thus whether it would qualify as catastrophic or not
I’m looking forward to more work in the area.
P
patg
Guest
Its really too bad Paul VI couldn’t make up his mind or couldn’t make himself take a definitive stand on the issue. He encouraged a relatively new direction and sanctioned a more modern approach but he left it for someone else to come right out and say that you don’t have to believe it’s history. He included the traditional views you quoted and then admitted the holes in them by clearly stating that the literal meaning is often not the real intent of the author:
However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
Based on the above recommendations, we can stop arguing about the misplaced literal belief in historicity of the flood, the creation/garden myths, the gospel infancy narratives, etc. and discover the meaning and intent of the authors.
B
buffalo
Guest
Together with Tradition
He doesn’t hesitate at all to affirm the following:
Dei Verbum
- Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
- Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
P
patg
Guest
Yeah, you can find something in Dei Verbum to support almost any view of scipture interpretation. I look at it like this:
- The literal, historical view has been the norm for thousands of years. When people didn’t know much and seldom questioned the church, that view was good enough.
- Dei Verbum repeats much of that view. This part of the document isn’t really significant because it is just rehashing what everyone already knew.
- Dei Verbum then makes the radical statements in the two paragraphs I quoted. This opened up the floodgates to fresh ideas and opportunity for vastly increased understanding. Church scholars were finally able to express the ideas that many of us knew must be true - that truth is taught quite well in stories which are pure fiction.
R
Rustyxcv
Guest
Greetings all! WHEW!!! Where to begin???
– I know that the history contained in the first 11 chapters of Genesis is literally true. It was remembered and recorded by Noah’s fathers (who lived it) and handed down by Noah to his sons and eventually included in the history of the early Hebrew people compiled by Moses.
– The track record of those who take a revisionistic “scientific” approach to these and other preserved ancient writings has been so dead wrong so many times in the past that I have no reason to believe that they are on track at all with their SPECULATIONS about these or any other ancient writings.
– It was common accepted FACT in scientific historical circles that the ancient city of Troy was mytholiogical and that the story of the Trojan Horse was pure confabulation. Then, lo and behold, the ruins of the ancient city of Troy were found on the coast of western Turkey right where they were supposed to be (was it by the German Schleiermann???).
– In O.T. “scientific” historiography, the Hittites were PROVEN to be purely mythological, an allegorical literary conceit to stand for Israel’s ancient foes in general. Then, lo and behold, their ancient capital city was unearthed, their writings and artifacts discovered, and clear references to them found in other ancient sources. “Oooops! Well, we didn’t mean that they were ACTUALLY mythological, we only meant that the evidence seemed to suggest that perhaps, maybe they MIGHT be mythological.”
– And so it goes, time after time, with one “scientifically” proven “error” in the Bible after another, being shot in the foot by more complete archaeological, philological, and cultural discoveries.
– More later.
–Blessing to all! --Rusty
– I know that the history contained in the first 11 chapters of Genesis is literally true. It was remembered and recorded by Noah’s fathers (who lived it) and handed down by Noah to his sons and eventually included in the history of the early Hebrew people compiled by Moses.
– The track record of those who take a revisionistic “scientific” approach to these and other preserved ancient writings has been so dead wrong so many times in the past that I have no reason to believe that they are on track at all with their SPECULATIONS about these or any other ancient writings.
– It was common accepted FACT in scientific historical circles that the ancient city of Troy was mytholiogical and that the story of the Trojan Horse was pure confabulation. Then, lo and behold, the ruins of the ancient city of Troy were found on the coast of western Turkey right where they were supposed to be (was it by the German Schleiermann???).
– In O.T. “scientific” historiography, the Hittites were PROVEN to be purely mythological, an allegorical literary conceit to stand for Israel’s ancient foes in general. Then, lo and behold, their ancient capital city was unearthed, their writings and artifacts discovered, and clear references to them found in other ancient sources. “Oooops! Well, we didn’t mean that they were ACTUALLY mythological, we only meant that the evidence seemed to suggest that perhaps, maybe they MIGHT be mythological.”
– And so it goes, time after time, with one “scientifically” proven “error” in the Bible after another, being shot in the foot by more complete archaeological, philological, and cultural discoveries.
– More later.
–Blessing to all! --Rusty
B
buffalo
Guest
Archeology continues to prove the Bible.
B
buffalo
Guest
One must remember the document was not written in a vacuum. And that newer documents have been wrtten. They all must be viewed together.
Can you give me a list of these stories that were pure ficton?
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
J
Joe_Gloor
Guest
Well, that only proves that science is willing to be corrected based on evidence - something the fundamentalist are not.
R
Rustyxcv
Guest
Further observations–
– While I know that the first 11 chapters of Genisis are literally true, I do not believe that they are to be interpreted literalistically. We don’t have to sift them with a finer comb than we sift other historical passages in the O.T.
– I refer specifically to the poster farther up the string who objected that there were too many species to fit two of each on the ark. Well, Noah didn’t use our modern taxonomy. He preserved two of each KIND of animal, not two of each of our modern species. And, since he was preserving them from a FLOOD of water, he certainly didn’t have to bring on the ark all the creatures that live in the water (or down in the mud) and could survive the flood on their own.
– He only needed two horses, from which all our modern species of horses, zebra, etc., have descended; two cows, from which all our modern species of cattle, buffalo, oxen, etc., have descended; two butter-cups (how many THOUSANDS of plant species are direct descendants of the butter-cup!) and so forth.
– As for the terrible carnivores, the Bible does not specify that he brought voracious full-sized adults on board. Two lion cubs and two tiger kittens would have done quite nicely and been eminently manageable. The large dinosaurs are like our modern alligators and crocodillians, the older they are, the bigger they get. They just keep growing larger and larger the longer they live. Two small juveniles from each of these would do just fine. What did these eat? They were on the ark for over a year . . . my guess is that there would have been PLENTY . . . of rabbits (lol!) to eat after that time.
– The brevity and the terseness in the Biblical account should not mislead us. Noah was a very intelligent and skilled man. It took him many years to build and provision the ark. Rest assured that it was very well-equipped to serve the purpose it was designed for.
– Nor should we be deceived by the cutesy and incorrect drawings we see in children’s books (and cartoons, like the delightful one posted here!). Noah’s ark was NOT a boat. It did not have a keel or a prow. It was not designed to be navigable. It was a long, broad flat “chest” – very big, it was three storeys high; intended simply to float freely and level when lifted by the flood waters.
– Blessings to all! --Rusty
– While I know that the first 11 chapters of Genisis are literally true, I do not believe that they are to be interpreted literalistically. We don’t have to sift them with a finer comb than we sift other historical passages in the O.T.
– I refer specifically to the poster farther up the string who objected that there were too many species to fit two of each on the ark. Well, Noah didn’t use our modern taxonomy. He preserved two of each KIND of animal, not two of each of our modern species. And, since he was preserving them from a FLOOD of water, he certainly didn’t have to bring on the ark all the creatures that live in the water (or down in the mud) and could survive the flood on their own.
– He only needed two horses, from which all our modern species of horses, zebra, etc., have descended; two cows, from which all our modern species of cattle, buffalo, oxen, etc., have descended; two butter-cups (how many THOUSANDS of plant species are direct descendants of the butter-cup!) and so forth.
– As for the terrible carnivores, the Bible does not specify that he brought voracious full-sized adults on board. Two lion cubs and two tiger kittens would have done quite nicely and been eminently manageable. The large dinosaurs are like our modern alligators and crocodillians, the older they are, the bigger they get. They just keep growing larger and larger the longer they live. Two small juveniles from each of these would do just fine. What did these eat? They were on the ark for over a year . . . my guess is that there would have been PLENTY . . . of rabbits (lol!) to eat after that time.
– The brevity and the terseness in the Biblical account should not mislead us. Noah was a very intelligent and skilled man. It took him many years to build and provision the ark. Rest assured that it was very well-equipped to serve the purpose it was designed for.
– Nor should we be deceived by the cutesy and incorrect drawings we see in children’s books (and cartoons, like the delightful one posted here!). Noah’s ark was NOT a boat. It did not have a keel or a prow. It was not designed to be navigable. It was a long, broad flat “chest” – very big, it was three storeys high; intended simply to float freely and level when lifted by the flood waters.
– Blessings to all! --Rusty
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
God did create the world.
There was a literal Garden of Eden.
There was a literal flood that wiped out everyone, save eight.
There was a literal n Ark.
There was a literal Soddom and Gommorah and it was destroyed by God.
The Bible is true both literally and allegorically.
There was a literal Garden of Eden.
There was a literal flood that wiped out everyone, save eight.
There was a literal n Ark.
There was a literal Soddom and Gommorah and it was destroyed by God.
The Bible is true both literally and allegorically.
- Status