Literality of Scriptures

[James_Erikkson]

[SIGN][/SIGN]I would be happy to field any questions you may have. I am a scientist, well versed on both evolution and creation theories, I have a MA in theology, and I believe in the literal translation of Gods word in Genesis. I have found that all historical (that is factual) and observable science suggests not only intelligent design but that the earth is relatively young. This same science also rejects evolution on all levels and stages (cosmic, stellar, chemical, geologic, organic, macro) except for the natural process poorly called “micro evolution” which shouldn’t be considered evolution in the first place. I will also declare that the theory of evolution (or theistic evolution) has proven to be a very dangerous world world view both spiritually and practically.

I’ll be happy to field any questions on the issue with anyone, however, I’m not looking to waste my time debating closed minded individuals who argue only on shallow platitudes. There are plenty of other people here willing to do that. I look forward to your questions.

 

[edwest2]

[SIGN][/SIGN]I would be happy to field any questions you may have. I am a scientist, well versed on both evolution and creation theories, I have a MA in theology, and I believe in the literal translation of Gods word in Genesis. I have found that all historical (that is factual) and observable science suggests not only intelligent design but that the earth is relatively young. This same science also rejects evolution on all levels and stages (cosmic, stellar, chemical, geologic, organic, macro) except for the natural process poorly called “micro evolution” which shouldn’t be considered evolution in the first place. I will also declare that the theory of evolution (or theistic evolution) has proven to be a very dangerous world world view both spiritually and practically.

I’ll be happy to field any questions on the issue with anyone, however, I’m not looking to waste my time debating closed minded individuals who argue only on shallow platitudes. There are plenty of other people here willing to do that. I look forward to your questions.

I would like your thoughts on the following individual regarding his data:

haltonarp.com/bio

What are your thoughts on superluminal motion of objects in space?

Can you briefly explain why you believe the theory of evolution or theistic evolution “has proven to be a very dangerous world world view both spiritually and practically.”

Thank you,
Ed

 

[NightFisher]

Ignatius: I listened to a couple of shows and they reaffirm what I had already thought, but I am not sure they would help with a serious debate with a fundamentalist who had already heard and/or rejected such arguments. I will listen to some more and see if they help. I appreciate the resources, and it is always my goal do be charitable. Thank you!

TheLeastOfThese: I would agree, but I did not want to say that…

Can you briefly explain why you believe the theory of evolution or theistic evolution “has proven to be a very dangerous world world view both spiritually and practically.”

I second this.

I want to be clear here. Let’s just define evolution right now. In the broadest sense, evolution is change over time. Anyone can see this. Cities evolved. The Church has evolved. The Grand Canyon evolved.
In the biological sense, evolution is the change in allele frequencies of a population over time (just changes in the proportion of different forms of genes). This does not mean good change or bad change. This does not mean that a population is better or worse for the change. It just means that it changes. (Natural selection is a different concept.) To a person who does not believe in God, these changes would seem random. To those who accept that God created (and creates) everything, we understand that this is truly not random, but we do not always have the ability to understand such things.
This is part of what faith actually is, right? I cannot test whether or not God exists. I cannot measure God. I cannot fully understand God right now. But I still believe that He exists and directs our world with infinite care and wisdom. This is why faith and science cannot conflict. Science cannot explain something that is not testable, measurable, or definable. This does not mean that something does not exist. It just means it is outside of the realm of science.
At the same time, God allowed us to create methods so that we could understand His creation to some extent, however limited our understanding might be. Who am I to discredit a principle, if the science behind said principle is sound? If it were to come to my attention that every study made some critical error, then I would have to investigate. That is why science exists–nothing can be proven with science, only disproven. Until that occurs, then it seems a logical choice to accept the explanation that makes the most sense, as long is it does not conflict with God (which again, it shouldn’t).
One can accept the theory of evolution and still hold that Adam and Eve were the first parents, with the first mortal bodies that had immortal souls from God, from whom we all descended. For more on this, I would direct interested parties to Ignatius’ post, which has some resources that can explain this in more detail.

I know that was long, but hopefully it was coherent. Thank you all and God bless!

 

[James_Erikkson]

Hello and thank you for your comment. Sorry if this reply is late. the forum was undergoing maintenance and didn’t see your message until a few moments ago. I see that you have submitted a link but I will be honest and say that I don’t know whether I will read it. Instead I would like it if you do the research, summarize your findings, cite the source and ask your question. This is what I would ask any of my students to do as well so please don’t take offense. I am happy that you find an interest in the subject and that you are open-minded.
Anyway, when you talk about Superluminal objects, I believe you are referring to the recent neutrino study conducted in a Geneva physics lab a few years ago. Neutrino’s are neutrally charged particles and they are almost “massless”. there has been some recent tests that indicate that these Neutrino’s are Superluminal or faster than the speed of light! Amazing stuff!
Interestingly, when creation scientists in the 1970s proposed that objects could possibly travel much faster than light they were attacked for their alleged ignorance. Now, plenty of scientists have no problem with this idea. On a slight tangent, evolution scientists have even proposed that light was much faster in the past in an attempt to rescue the big bang theory from the horizon problem.
Today, there are scientists that believe, including the individuals that conducted the experiment, that more testing should be conducted to validate this into a new discovery. The reason is that it flies in the face of observable science and laws of physics. Many of the observable physical constants that describe our world depend on the constancy of these certain values.
The problem I have with this that I am confused why from all of the subjects we can talk about, why this one? Superluminal objects is a very new and not yet understood phenomenon. Also, the relevance to the evolution vs creationism debate or the young/old earth theories has somewhat escaped me.
Let me help out by giving a little direction. In keeping with the topic I feel we should first introduce this subject with a quick discussion in biblical theology… Only then can we can have take a more systematic theological approach.
That said, may I suggest that if the theory of theistic evolution is correct and the earth, as well as the universe was created over millions of years, then the foundations of Scripture is wrong because the theory puts death, disease and suffering before the fall of man… A fundamental precept in basic Christian orthodoxy that I believe must be ignored if one was to believe in an evolution of any kind.
In addition, God describes to Moses in the book of Genesis each DAY of creation. The Hebrew word for day is “yom”. It is true that this word can mean either a 24 hour period or it can mean a length of time. This word is admittedly ambiguous… that is until you put a number in front of it. At that point it is unmistakable that it means a 24 hour period… Day 1, Day 2, etc… Based off of just this we can assume if evolution is correct that either the Bible is wrong, God is wrong, or God could not adequately communicate His message to Moses. This is just a couple things in Genesis that you can either ignore or consider to be inaccurate. Therefore, if the Bible is historically inaccurate, then how should one be expected to believe in the accuracy of its theological principles? Logic would indicate that those theological principles are wrong as well.

Some may argue this by quoting Peter when he says “…A day is like a thousand years” (2 Pet 3:8). This one verse would seem like a contradiction but as we all know in this forum…God doesn’t contradict Himself. Therefore, I believe there is an answer to this by reading the full verse in 2 Peter and by looking at it contextually. By examining the rest of the verse, it states “… and a thousand years as one day“. So, we could also conclude that God can cram what may naturally take thousands, or millions of years to create in one day… The last part alone seems to cancel out the argument… maybe or maybe not. However, further examination into the context of this passage reveals that Peter was specifically concerned with the 2nd coming of Jesus and tells us that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time. He is not limited by natural processes and time. That said, I don’t believe this verse has anything to do with defining the days of creation. When looking at Genesis we see that the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.
Now I won’t be dogmatic and tell you that I am absolutely right but I believe God does not contradict His own Word and I believe my stance is reasonable based off of an extensive exegesis in biblical theology. The added bonus of science which supports creationism and the literal translation of the Bible is just icing on the cake.
Lastly, Christians can continue to discuss evolution until we all turn back into monkeys (joking) but if we just look at Jesus as He validates the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, created in the beginning (Mark 10:3) and as He also taught the inerrancy of every single word in the Bible (Matt 22:29-33), we could only trust in the literal interpretation of His word as it is given in Genesis.

 

[Gorgias]

That said, may I suggest that if the theory of theistic evolution is correct and the earth, as well as the universe was created over millions of years, then the foundations of Scripture is wrong because the theory puts death, disease and suffering before the fall of man…

No, that’s not the case. I’m presuming that you’re arguing this point from the perspective of 1 Cor 15:21 (“since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being”) and Romans 5:12 (“just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned”); is this the case?

If so, your argument doesn’t hold up. If you’re arguing that the references to ‘death’ here refer to the death of any living thing (which it seems you must be, since that is the only way that these verses would conflict with any theory of evolution), then there are significant rebuttals that you would have to defend against. First, in the 1 Cor quote, Paul speaks of the “resurrection of the dead.” If ‘death’ here refers not only to man, but also to animal and vegetable life, then ‘resurrection’ must likewise. Are you asserting that, in the new heavens and new earth, every plant and every animal that ever lived will be resurrected? That doesn’t square with orthodox Christian belief – it is the fact that humans were created “in the image and likeness” of God that points to their resurrection, and likewise, that Jesus’ sacrifice was for them (and not for all the animals that ever lived).

You’re in worse shape with the citation from Romans. Paul asserts that death comes to all “inasmuch as all sinned.” This makes perfect sense if Paul means “all [humans],” but if you want to suggest that the origin of plant and animal death is Adam, then you need to demonstrate (Scripturally, I’d assume, given your perspective) how plants and animals sin.

Thanks for attention to these rebuttals!

 

[James_Erikkson]

Hello Gorgias, I welcome the question. However, how can you be so sure? You emphatically refused the exegesis I provided but you did not provide any exegesis of your own. The post you commented on was a study in biblical theology and your argument is based on your world view and not on scripture. I say this not to humiliate but to respectively point out. The scripture is sharper than any two edged sword so my statement stands and I won’t argue this, however I will be happy to answer your questions.
In regards to your question on what Scripture I am referring to… no I was not referring specifically to those verses you cited in 1 Cor or in Romans but the account God had provided us in Genesis, however, you are exactly right in that the verses you provided does indeed speak of death entering the world after the fall of man which supports a young earth creation. Thank you for including those.
In regards to your very good question on the resurrection and whether plants and animals are included. You are right that Christian orthodoxy concludes that plants and animals are not included in the spiritual resurrection, however, I never covered this in my last post. It is a rather long discussion so excuse my brevity.
First, there are three aspects of human death in Scripture. Firstly, there is spiritual death, which is alienation from God (Genesis 3:8; Ephesians 2:5; 4:18). Secondly, physical death (Genesis 2:17; 3:17–19;Romans 5:12–14; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22) which is separation of the soul from the body and finally, the “second death” (Revelation 20:14), which occurs at the end of the age.
One reason why Genesis 1 demands that there was no death before Adam rebelled is the vegetarian diet prescribed both to man and animals in Genesis 1:29–30 ruling out any carnivorous behavior before the fall. There are objections to this, however, as some believe that if plants were eaten then this would have brought about the death of the plants. However, Christian orthodoxy would conclude that since man ate plants then plant death cannot be an issue or a consequence of human sin, even though plants did die (Lennox 2011, p. 78). This overlooks the fact that plants are not looked upon as being “alive in biblical Hebrew or in second Temple Jewish literature” (Kennard 2008, p. 169).
Plants neither feel pain nor die in the sense that animals and humans do. Plants are also not described as “living creatures” as humans, land animals, and sea creature are (Genesis 1:20–21, 24 and 30;Genesis 2:7; Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis 9:10–17), and the words that are used to describe their termination are more descriptive such as “wither” or“fade” (Psalm 37:2; 102:11; Isaiah 64:6). Simply stated, if we think of man having a body, soul, and spirit, animals have a body and soul but no spirit. Plants on the other hand have a body but no soul or spirit. I won’t go further with that comment but just let you think about it.
Because of the fall of man, sin entered the world. Today, death and disease are reality of the world we live in but it was not so in God’s perfect creation. People often ask why death exists in the world if there is a loving God, and many simply assume that death is a natural part of life. However, this has not been the belief of the church for much of its history. The orthodox Christian understanding that you introduced dealing with the origin of death has been commonly understood in terms of the “Fall” of mankind found in Genesis 3. Death was brought about as a result of Adam’s disobedience to the command of God in Genesis 2:17. Vos states:
On the basis of these words the belief of all ages has been that death is the penalty of sin, that the race became first subject to death through the commission of the primordial sin (Vos 1975, p. 36). I hope I was able to answer your questions. Thank you for reading.

 

[James_Erikkson]

Hello nightfisher. One important point is that you are confusing the word “evolution” in its most basic sense and the theory of evolution. Two totally different things. You did point out that the Grand Canyon “evolved”. This falls under what would be considered geologic evolution which I find relevant and particularly interesting. Can you explain your position further. Just as a heads up I will declare that all scientific evidence at the canyon suggests the earth is young and there was a flood.

 

[edwest2]

Hello and thank you for your comment. Sorry if this reply is late. the forum was undergoing maintenance and didn’t see your message until a few moments ago. I see that you have submitted a link but I will be honest and say that I don’t know whether I will read it. Instead I would like it if you do the research, summarize your findings, cite the source and ask your question. This is what I would ask any of my students to do as well so please don’t take offense. I am happy that you find an interest in the subject and that you are open-minded.

The reason is that it flies in the face of observable science and laws of physics. Many of the observable physical constants that describe our world depend on the constancy of these certain values.
The problem I have with this that I am confused why from all of the subjects we can talk about, why this one? Superluminal objects is a very new and not yet understood phenomenon. Also, the relevance to the evolution vs creationism debate or the young/old earth theories has somewhat escaped me.
Let me help out by giving a little direction. In keeping with the topic I feel we should first introduce this subject with a quick discussion in biblical theology… Only then can we can have take a more systematic theological approach.
That said, may I suggest that if the theory of theistic evolution is correct and the earth, as well as the universe was created over millions of years, then the foundations of Scripture is wrong because the theory puts death, disease and suffering before the fall of man… A fundamental precept in basic Christian orthodoxy that I believe must be ignored if one was to believe in an evolution of any kind.
In addition, God describes to Moses in the book of Genesis each DAY of creation. The Hebrew word for day is “yom”. It is true that this word can mean either a 24 hour period or it can mean a length of time. This word is admittedly ambiguous… that is until you put a number in front of it. At that point it is unmistakable that it means a 24 hour period… Day 1, Day 2, etc… Based off of just this we can assume if evolution is correct that either the Bible is wrong, God is wrong, or God could not adequately communicate His message to Moses. This is just a couple things in Genesis that you can either ignore or consider to be inaccurate. Therefore, if the Bible is historically inaccurate, then how should one be expected to believe in the accuracy of its theological principles? Logic would indicate that those theological principles are wrong as well.

Some may argue this by quoting Peter when he says “…A day is like a thousand years” (2 Pet 3:8). This one verse would seem like a contradiction but as we all know in this forum…God doesn’t contradict Himself. Therefore, I believe there is an answer to this by reading the full verse in 2 Peter and by looking at it contextually. By examining the rest of the verse, it states “… and a thousand years as one day“. So, we could also conclude that God can cram what may naturally take thousands, or millions of years to create in one day… The last part alone seems to cancel out the argument… maybe or maybe not. However, further examination into the context of this passage reveals that Peter was specifically concerned with the 2nd coming of Jesus and tells us that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time. He is not limited by natural processes and time. That said, I don’t believe this verse has anything to do with defining the days of creation. When looking at Genesis we see that the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.
Now I won’t be dogmatic and tell you that I am absolutely right but I believe God does not contradict His own Word and I believe my stance is reasonable based off of an extensive exegesis in biblical theology. The added bonus of science which supports creationism and the literal translation of the Bible is just icing on the cake.
Lastly, Christians can continue to discuss evolution until we all turn back into monkeys (joking) but if we just look at Jesus as He validates the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, created in the beginning (Mark 10:3) and as He also taught the inerrancy of every single word in the Bible (Matt 22:29-33), we could only trust in the literal interpretation of His word as it is given in Genesis.

To answer your question, the argument put forth is that the universe is billions of years old. This idea is based on observations that suggest we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away, or to put it another way, it took billions of years for that light to reach us. Superluminal motion of objects in space suggests that some galaxies are moving away from us at speeds faster than light.That is why I mention the apparent observation of objects judged to be farther away being detected in the same proximity of objects known to be much closer. The bottom line? How do we know how old the universe is, and how do we know how old the earth is? This is used as ‘evidence’ that the earth is billions of years old. Not young as you mentioned.

Scripture is clear that God stretched out the heavens. I propose that the galaxies could have been placed in their current positions by God in a very short period of time.

biblehub.com/job/26-7.htm

And the days were a period of time equal to 24 hour days but during which, God violated the ‘laws’ of physics and arranged the heavens by His will in that time period. This would make Scripture true, a rapidly created earth and the rapid placement of objects that are far away, occurring in the Scriptural time-frame since God can do this.

Best,
Ed

 

[Gorgias]

Hello Gorgias, I welcome the question. However, how can you be so sure? You emphatically refused the exegesis I provided but you did not provide any exegesis of your own.

That’s because I was refuting your point.

The post you commented on was a study in biblical theology and your argument is based on your world view and not on scripture.

I would disagree; it was firmly Scripturally based, given its emphasis on 1 Cor and Romans. It is also at odds with your world view, of course… but that doesn’t mean it’s not Scriptural…

I say this not to humiliate but to respectively point out.

No humiliation here.

The scripture is sharper than any two edged sword so my statement stands and I won’t argue this, however I will be happy to answer your questions.

Umm… your statement stands, even though there’s Scripture that contradicts it? Umm. Yeah.

you are exactly right in that the verses you provided does indeed speak of death entering the world after the fall of man which supports a young earth creation. Thank you for including those.

My pleasure; yet, the entry of death into the world after the fall of man does not support young earth creation. It simply identifies that, after God created man – which is not required by these texts to have happened only 6000 years ago – spiritual death (as you point out) enters the world.

One reason why Genesis 1 demands that there was no death before Adam rebelled is the vegetarian diet prescribed both to man and animals in Genesis 1:29–30 ruling out any carnivorous behavior before the fall.

I presume you interpret this to mean that carnivores were plant eaters prior to the fall? That God changed their nature and their diet? After all, in Genesis 3, we see that the ground is cursed on account of Adam and his sin… but not animal life. If God gives green plants to animals to eat, but there is no specification that this changes at some point, how do you assert the time in which this happens? Do you have a Scriptural citation (and not, as you so blithely refer to my response, simple ‘biblical theology’) to support your answer to this question?

There are additional problems with your assertion. What are all the creatures in the seas given to eat? After all, they’re not included in the grant of green plants; therefore, there’s no Scriptural reason to presume that the great carnivores of the oceans aren’t carnivores from the very beginning. And if so, then we cannot suggest that all wildlife was strictly herbivore from the beginning. And therefore, there was ‘death’ prior to the fall.

many simply assume that death is a natural part of life. However, this has not been the belief of the church for much of its history. The orthodox Christian understanding that you introduced dealing with the origin of death has been commonly understood in terms of the “Fall” of mankind found in Genesis 3. Death was brought about as a result of Adam’s disobedience to the command of God in Genesis 2:17. Vos states

If you want to convince a Catholic on the basis of Scriptural interpretation, you would do better quoting an Early Church Father than a 20th-century Protestant theologian. Just sayin’…

I hope I was able to answer your questions.

Sadly, no. You seem unwilling to deal with the implications of the Scriptural citations I provided to you.

 

[James_Erikkson]

edwes, I would like to know your thoughts on the exegesis and hermeneutics I provided.

Also, please note that the idea of an old earth scenario is not based merely on the age of starlight but this just one of many scientific conclusions based off of people’s worldview.

Question, do you know how they measure the distance of stars from earth? Don’t worry about researching

 

[James_Erikkson]

Georgias I don’t understand your comments. You did not provide anything biblical to refute. You only provide your thoughts as talking points. I answered the specific questions you asked. Yet, you retort back with in an aggressive and rude tone indicating that your world view has been challenged and you have no firm grasp of the subject in question to provide any thoughtful discussion. It is a completely normal response in your case but one I refuse to entertain. I will welcome any thoughtful discussion on your part in the future but until then. Goodbye

I recommend that you try and answer the dilemmas of evolution that are introduced within the exegesis of Genesis and the hermeneutics lesson I submitted… You may be able to do that by asking someone else to help you.

 

[Gorgias]

Georgias I don’t understand your comments. You did not provide anything biblical to refute.

Let me speak more simply, then:

You claim that there was no death of any kind prior to the fall of man, correct? As proof of that assertion, you point to the grant of green plants as food to animals. So, I point to the same passage, noting out that this dietary assignment only applies to wild and tame animals on the earth and birds of the air; it does not apply to the creatures of the sea. Therefore, I’m asking you: are you saying that the carnivores in the sea were originally herbivores? And, if this is your claim, do you have Scripture to back it up? And, finally, if you do not, then can we not presume that the carnivores in the sea were carnivores from the beginning? And therefore, can we not conclude that your assertion that animal death entered the world only following the fall of man is a flawed interpretation?

Simple questions, James. I don’t know how to make them any simpler.

 

[NightFisher]

Hello nightfisher. One important point is that you are confusing the word “evolution” in its most basic sense and the theory of evolution. Two totally different things. You did point out that the Grand Canyon “evolved”. This falls under what would be considered geologic evolution which I find relevant and particularly interesting. Can you explain your position further. Just as a heads up I will declare that all scientific evidence at the canyon suggests the earth is young and there was a flood.

My apologies, I do not get on here every day to respond.
If you read further in my last post, I explain the biological theory of evolution. I started broadly in order to funnel down to my point.
-Change in allele frequencies of a population over time.-
If ‘enough’ allele frequency change has occurred, we consider the new population a new species. The definition of a species is variable, but “whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” God created the creatures. Man named every creature (except himself I suppose). This does not mean that man’s form did not evolve, because all forms are God’s creation. But at some point, God did create man with an immortal soul, and the first two humans were Adam and Eve. And the story continues. This still does not contradict evolution.
I hope I did not do myself a disservice with this post, as I did not spend as much time on it as I would have liked, but I have other obligations to attend to. I am curious to keep reading the responses as they have been insightful.
If we really wanted to take this thread a different direction, but related to the question, we could talk less about the validity of scientific principles, and more about why or why not all of scripture should be taken literally. I think I would enjoy both conversations honestly. I wish all a good night and God bless!

 

[edwest2]

My apologies, I do not get on here every day to respond.
If you read further in my last post, I explain the biological theory of evolution. I started broadly in order to funnel down to my point.
-Change in allele frequencies of a population over time.-
If ‘enough’ allele frequency change has occurred, we consider the new population a new species. The definition of a species is variable, but “whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” God created the creatures. Man named every creature (except himself I suppose). This does not mean that man’s form did not evolve, because all forms are God’s creation. But at some point, God did create man with an immortal soul, and the first two humans were Adam and Eve. And the story continues. This still does not contradict evolution.
I hope I did not do myself a disservice with this post, as I did not spend as much time on it as I would have liked, but I have other obligations to attend to. I am curious to keep reading the responses as they have been insightful.
If we really wanted to take this thread a different direction, but related to the question, we could talk less about the validity of scientific principles, and more about why or why not all of scripture should be taken literally. I think I would enjoy both conversations honestly. I wish all a good night and God bless!

There is no Biblical evidence that man’s form did evolve. Pre-humans are not mentioned.

Peace,
Ed

 

[NightFisher]

Yes, I wondered if that would be the fault of my last post. But does that mean that it is not so? This brings us back to the question: Is the Bible meant to be taken completely literally? Are there not things, even in Christian faith, that we accept, even though they are not explicitly written in the Bible? (I might have an example or two…)

 

[edwest2]

Yes, I wondered if that would be the fault of my last post. But does that mean that it is not so? This brings us back to the question: Is the Bible meant to be taken completely literally? Are there not things, even in Christian faith, that we accept, even though they are not explicitly written in the Bible? (I might have an example or two…)

The Senses of Scripture are defined by the Catechism:

"The senses of Scripture

"115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

"116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

"117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

"118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

"119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89"

To the first question: Were there previous forms prior to true human beings?, Pope Benedict tells us science cannot answer that question.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_n.htm

The Church has made definitive statements regarding certain questions that only appear to have no connection to the Bible or Tradition.

Peace,
Ed

 

[NightFisher]

Well I think we have covered this part of the CCC already. I have been trying to present my case without the help of too many other resources, but I did a quick search to see if I could find something to help me describe what I am trying to say and why it is not in opposition to Scripture. It seems that I might be misusing the term literal, or at least conveying it in a different sense. If we are saying that we read Scripture as it was intended by the author and that is called literal, then by all means, I suppose that I (think I) do this. If we mean literal as being taken word for word by those specific terms, then my dilemma still stands. I suppose the issue then becomes: How do we know what the author intended?
Additionally, this is well and good when discussing with Catholics; however, non-Catholics obviously do not accept the same authority.
In terms of science not being able to prove that prior forms existed, I quite agree; science cannot *prove *anything. We can never measure or understand all of the variables that have an effect on a process or system. But does that mean that we should discount logical theories? Catholics are free to believe in the evolution of form (whether human or other organism), which I don’t think discounts God at all. I think it just shows us more of His immense wisdom and plan. Here is a quote that I found helpful. (I had a lot more to say, but I could not think how to best state or present my thoughts in a coherent manner.)

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa,** the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments**. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.”
— Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1995), p. 50.

 

[edwest2]

Well I think we have covered this part of the CCC already. I have been trying to present my case without the help of too many other resources, but I did a quick search to see if I could find something to help me describe what I am trying to say and why it is not in opposition to Scripture. It seems that I might be misusing the term literal, or at least conveying it in a different sense. If we are saying that we read Scripture as it was intended by the author and that is called literal, then by all means, I suppose that I (think I) do this. If we mean literal as being taken word for word by those specific terms, then my dilemma still stands. I suppose the issue then becomes: How do we know what the author intended?
Additionally, this is well and good when discussing with Catholics; however, non-Catholics obviously do not accept the same authority.
In terms of science not being able to prove that prior forms existed, I quite agree; science cannot *prove *anything. We can never measure or understand all of the variables that have an effect on a process or system. But does that mean that we should discount logical theories? Catholics are free to believe in the evolution of form (whether human or other organism), which I don’t think discounts God at all. I think it just shows us more of His immense wisdom and plan. Here is a quote that I found helpful. (I had a lot more to say, but I could not think how to best state or present my thoughts in a coherent manner.)

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa,** the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments**. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.”
— Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1995), p. 50.

I take strong issue with the word prove as regards to science. For example, the general public takes certain scientific statements as 100% true - the word prove doesn’t matter. It becomes the truth - period. Science said so is the idea being constantly marketed. Another example: Don’t know what causes gravity? So what? I can drop objects all day and demonstrate it. I know how hard to throw a basketball to hit the inside of that little hoop from a certain distance. Evolution involves two realities. One is scientific but the other reality is integral to it.

The other problem is that scientists are still blundering badly about the human genome. First, junk DNA is found to not be junk. It’s not evidence of leftover DNA we needed in the past that just got shut off as we allegedly developed. It is now linked to certain diseases. Recently, scientists discovered a second code “hidden” in DNA.

How do we know what the author intended? It is the job of the Church to authentically interpret Scripture and convey that to the public. Human development and any scientific observations are subject to the final judgment of the Church as to how they apply, or don’t apply. In other words, some scientific information is valuable and consistent with Divine Revelation while other information or textbook teaching goes beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Some people don’t know that.

In the case of hominids or alleged pre-humans, can it be said with reasonable certainty that they were nothing more than animals like the apes and monkeys that exist today?

Best,
Ed

 

[NightFisher]

I take strong issue with the word prove as regards to science. For example, the general public takes certain scientific statements as 100% true - the word prove doesn’t matter.

This is because society (and even many scientists) has (have) a poor understanding of what science actually means and what it’s limitations are. This is why educating the public is so essential. Scientific theories do not equal truth. They represent a possible explanation. They can always change. That is the beauty of science, as it is dynamic and changes with more evidence.

The other problem is that scientists are still blundering badly about the human genome.

Just because not every single brick is put into place, does not mean that the building will fall. Will it be shaky for a while? Yes. Does it have the opportunity to fall? Yes. Does that mean that it disproves the building can stand? No.

It is the job of the Church to authentically interpret Scripture and convey that to the public.

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor* Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points*… Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” Pope St. John Paul II: Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
–There is more in which Pope St. John Paul II discusses the limits, etc. of the theory, and how we should still be open to the Gospel. Just so you know I’m not trying to take anything out of context.

“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

“Scripture presents the work of the Creator **symbolically **as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337).

In the case of hominids or alleged pre-humans, can it be said with reasonable certainty that they were nothing more than animals like the apes and monkeys that exist today?

This I never said.

Again, I do not deny the necessity or infinite ability of God. I accept that if He wanted to create everything exactly as it is written in Genesis, He had/has (using the correct tense is difficult when discussing God) the ability. I hope that someday I will know how everything was created by God, although at that point, will it matter? I guess I am not so obsessed with the idea that it will draw me away from things that really matter. I just dislike the close-mindedness of certain individuals and groups. (I don’t mean anyone here necessarily, as obviously you have researched and have legitimate concerns and personal justifications for the topic. Not everybody can say the same however.)

 

[edwest2]

What concerns me here is the constant desire to “educate” the public about this. Why not quantum theory or electrical theory or any other theory? I firmly believe it is due to the fact that some want their origin and final end to be caused by nothing and that they are responsible to no one for anything, much less God/gods/social standards.

From Communion and Stewardship:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Peace,
Ed