Myths and fairy tales ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
patg said:
Dei Verbum specifically states that one must consider the literary form and context of the story as an aid to understanding. The story of the couple in the garden is clearly a symbolic myth.
Click to expand...
Hello Patg,
Code: 
         "To a Jew, **a symbol is** Reality distilled'  (Herman Wouk}
God bless,
John :highprayer:
 
John_oxios said:
Hello Patg,
Code: 
         "To a Jew, **a symbol is** Reality distilled'  (Herman Wouk}
God bless,
John :highprayer:
Click to expand...
be that as it may,the point is are the couple in the garden a myth - to give you a big big clue so that you dont get it wrong "did Christ die because of a myth - twinc
 
SugarMagnolia said:
I wish I could attend one of your seminars. From your posts here, I’m sure I would learn a lot. If you have any recommended readings, I’d be interested. As I am gradually making my return to Catholicism, I especially need to read the work of those who see Catholicism as compatible with scientific truth. I’ve read the late Stephen Jay Gould and a little of E. O. Wilson, so I know that returning to the faith doesn’t mean I have to start rejecting scientific facts and start believing in talking reptiles.
Click to expand...
SugarMagnolia, thank you for your kinds words. There are occasional conferences on evolution and Catholic thought, like the one I attended at the University of Notre Dame last November, in Indiana. The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) meets annually in August, and this year will meet in Washington, D.C. There are usually a number of talks on evolutionary themes, although most ASA members are not Catholic.

Some good books include the following:

Deane-Drummond, Celia. Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009.

Delio, Ilia. Christ in Evolution. New York: Maryknoll, 2008.

Edwards, Denis. The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1999.

Genet, Cheryl, et al., eds. The Evolutionary Epic: Science’s Story and Humanity’s Response. Collins Foundation Press, 2009.

Hess, Peter M. J., and Paul L. Allen, *Catholicism and Science: a Greenwood Guide. * Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008.

Hewlett, Martinez, and Ted Peters. Can you believe in God and evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.

McMullin, Ernan, ed. Evolution and Creation. University of Notre Dame Press, 1985.

Miller, Keith B. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1999.

Ó Murchú, Diarmuid. Ancestral grace: meeting God in our human story. N.Y.: Maryknoll, 2008.

Józef Mirosław Życiński, God and evolution : fundamental questions of Christian evolutionism translated by Kenneth W. Kemp and Zuzanna Maslanka.
Washington, D. C. : Catholic University of America Press, 2006.
 
SugarMagnolia said:
Unlike Protestatism, the Catholic Church has always had an appreciation for the poetry of the Bible, so there’s no precedent for reading scripture literally. I have not even studied Catholicism extensively and I know this.
Click to expand...
Clearly you haven’t studied Catholicism extensively, SugarMagnolia, because what you claim to “know” is simply not true.

Poetry and allegory do not preclude a literal reading. In fact, the literal sense has always been pre-supposed.

Here’s the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909:
Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls? – Reply: In the negative to both parts.
Click to expand...
Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? – Reply: In the negative.
Click to expand...
Please note, that the replies to those two questions are in the negative, meaning that the it cannot be taught that those chapters of Genesis do not contain real history, but rather fables, and furthermore, the literal historical sense of those chapters cannot be called into question.

Also from the Pontifical Biblical Commission:
Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied? – Reply: In the affirmative.
Click to expand...
See, the allegorical interpretation pre-supposes the literal historical sense. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

So, your assertion that there is no precedent in Catholicism for reading Scripture literally, is simply false.
 
twinc said:
be that as it may,the point is are the couple in the garden a myth - to give you a big big clue so that you dont get it wrong "did Christ die because of a myth - twinc
Click to expand...
Christ would (and did) die for humanity. Humans have an immortal soul. Whether we got it from millions of years of evolution, we don’t know, but, we do have an immortal soul and inalienable rights as endowed by our Creator. We’re better than animals and we have cognitive thought. We sinned in some way against God by becoming less than human. God came to save humanity.

A better question to ask would be: Why does the Church acknowledge Adam & Eve as saints? Could a myth be a saint? …But, even then, let’s say our first parent’s weren’t named “Adam” & “Eve”, but, only that is a representation of our first parents. This still holds that in the beginning of human history, there were humans that started it all.
 
twinc said:
secular scientists and secular state school teachers and schools would, it seems,accept and teach that Adam and Eve,Noah,Global flood etc are myths and fairy tales.Should,or would or could Catholic, scientists,teachers or schools also accept and teach this - any comments - jimc
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion, the appropriate teacher regarding Adam and Eve is the Catholic Church.

The official Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

One can also put Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
Triumpha said:
Clearly you haven’t studied Catholicism extensively, SugarMagnolia, because what you claim to “know” is simply not true.

Poetry and allegory do not preclude a literal reading. In fact, the literal sense has always been pre-supposed.

Here’s the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909:

Please note, that the replies to those two questions are in the negative, meaning that the it cannot be taught that those chapters of Genesis do not contain real history, but rather fables, and furthermore, the literal historical sense of those chapters cannot be called into question.

Also from the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

See, the allegorical interpretation pre-supposes the literal historical sense. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

So, your assertion that there is no precedent in Catholicism for reading Scripture literally, is simply false.
Click to expand...
This material is from a century ago.
 
StAnastasia said:
SugarMagnolia, thank you for your kinds words. There are occasional conferences on evolution and Catholic thought, like the one I attended at the University of Notre Dame last November, in Indiana. The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) meets annually in August, and this year will meet in Washington, D.C. There are usually a number of talks on evolutionary themes, although most ASA members are not Catholic.

Some good books include the following:

Deane-Drummond, Celia. Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009.

Delio, Ilia. Christ in Evolution. New York: Maryknoll, 2008.

Edwards, Denis. The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1999.

Genet, Cheryl, et al., eds. The Evolutionary Epic: Science’s Story and Humanity’s Response. Collins Foundation Press, 2009.

Hess, Peter M. J., and Paul L. Allen, *Catholicism and Science: a Greenwood Guide. * Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008.

Hewlett, Martinez, and Ted Peters. Can you believe in God and evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.

McMullin, Ernan, ed. Evolution and Creation. University of Notre Dame Press, 1985.

Miller, Keith B. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1999.

Ó Murchú, Diarmuid. Ancestral grace: meeting God in our human story. N.Y.: Maryknoll, 2008.

Józef Mirosław Życiński, God and evolution : fundamental questions of Christian evolutionism translated by Kenneth W. Kemp and Zuzanna Maslanka.
Washington, D. C. : Catholic University of America Press, 2006.
Click to expand...
St Anastasia, Thanks for the reading list. 🙂
 
StAnastasia said:
Julia, I just taught a seminary course on the history of the science - religion relationship. Ten of the students were Protestant, and while none of them were biblical literalists themselves, they indicated that a lot of people who become Catholic (and some who post on Catholic Answers) bring their biblical literalist baggage into our church when they convert to Catholicism.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Hi,
Its what they know, what was drilled into them, you can’t take a lifetime of teaching and flip it in say the 7 or 8 months of RCIA, it takes time its a wonder that they came to the Catholic Church, leaving friends and family behind.
Besides who doesn’t have baggage?
Even Catholics will disagree to disagree, we got our liberals, Latin Rite onlyists, women who want women priests … etc… etc.

God Bless,
John :highprayer:
 
Moscati said:
Just for information’s sake . . . when I first began to study biology, I was amazed at how rather like Genesis the arc of the evolutionary story, as scientists understand it, really is. It begins with an Earth that is literally formless and void, with no life–just heat. “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”–the prevailing theory is that the very first organisms came from the seas.

“The Lord God made man out of the dust of the ground”–at a molecular level, we’re all just dust, rearranged. (The thought always occurs to me on Ash Wednesday–‘for dust you are, and to dust you shall return’). There’s less contradiction, even if one chooses to be more literal in their interpretation, than a lot of people realize.
Click to expand...
Hi Moscati,
Nothing more humbling than hearing those words, However, Biblically Chaos comes out from the Sea. Man is of the ground.
God created the Chicken and the egg simultaneously, there is no mixing of the kinds.
" In the beginning, He created them male and female" (Matt19:4)

Dust is the most useless particle of all creation, and from that dust God breathes his greatest Creation, in His own image.

Well the flip on that is that in Isa, 45:18 "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

The question is? if the Earth is formless what happened? And I’m not particularly a Douay Rheims quoter, but it says,

6 But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

God bless,
john:highprayer:
 
John_oxios said:
God created the Chicken and the egg simultaneously, there is no mixing of the kinds. " In the beginning, He created them male and female" (Matt19:4)
Click to expand...
Not exactly:

"Evolution states that species change over time via mutation and selection. Since DNA can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg. In this light, both the egg and the chicken evolved simultaneously from birds who weren’t chickens and didn’t lay chicken eggs but gradually became more and more like chickens over time.

However, a mutation in one individual is not normally considered a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl. Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
 
Hi back, John 🙂

Your thoughts/objections aren’t very clear to me. I’m sorry.

You ask, “If the Earth is formless, what happened?”

If the Earth is formless . . . nothing has happened yet. That’s the point.

I really don’t think “dust” vs. “slime” makes a difference to the meaning of the passage. I prefer ‘dust’, since it’s what’s used in the liturgy. Slime Wednesday doesn’t have the same ring. 😃
 
StAnastasia said:
Not exactly:

"Evolution states that species change over time via mutation and selection. Since DNA can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg. In this light, both the egg and the chicken evolved simultaneously from birds who weren’t chickens and didn’t lay chicken eggs but gradually became more and more like chickens over time.

However, a mutation in one individual is not normally considered a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

**The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another **closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence **suggests **that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl. Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
Click to expand...
Hello Anastasia,
Sorry, I don’t buy it. God created Man and women, and the animals on the sixth day, it may not be a literal six days… But God created them Male and female. I’m not from Missouri but I’ve been there, so Show me otherwise.
The Bible is about witness, not theory.

The key to this theory is “WAS believed”,
It takes faith to believe… please Show me fact, Science is based on facts not belief, all of a sudden to disprove creation science finds faith, the greatest hypocrisy of all.

Suggest: to mention or introduce (an idea, proposition, plan, etc.) for consideration,
to call (something) up in the mind through association or natural connection of ideas
To simply suggest something it doesn’t need to be based in fact.

I like this one, “Evolution states…” **An unproven theory **now states ‘Fact’

God bless,
John :highprayer:
 
Moscati said:
Hi back, John 🙂

Your thoughts/objections aren’t very clear to me. I’m sorry.

You ask, “If the Earth is formless, what happened?”

If the Earth is formless . . . nothing has happened yet. That’s the point.

I really don’t think “dust” vs. “slime” makes a difference to the meaning of the passage. I prefer ‘dust’, since it’s what’s used in the liturgy. Slime Wednesday doesn’t have the same ring. 😃
Click to expand...
Hi Moscati,
Not objections, just another point. Based on Isa 45: 18, ("…He is God) who formed the Earth and made it (He established it; He did not create it a Chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!) [NRSV]

We take Genesis 1:1, there is something there, which darkness covers and His spirit swept over… Its a Chaos
Its already there, but something of Catastrophic Cosmic Proportion happened to turn it into chaos, i.e.perhaps a war in the Heavens and the fall of the angels. the fall of the angels. And that Chaos is never beyond God’s control… He made good out of Chaos.
Try one of Vernon J.McGee study books, from his radio show in the sixties
This is the 2nd book in the Series Can’t find the first book, in GGenesis 1-15, he tears up the theory of Evolution, he also mentions about what some of the theories are as to how the Earth becomes a void.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/078520282X/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

You might be able to hear his radio shows via Sky angel network, or local radio stations.

God Bless,
John :highprayer:
 
John_oxios said:
Hello Anastasia, Sorry, I don’t buy it. God created Man and women, and the animals on the sixth day, it may not be a literal six days… But God created them Male and female. I’m not from Missouri but I’ve been there, so Show me otherwise.
Click to expand...
Shall I assume there are no university science departments where you come from? I know there are some in Missouri, for I have friends who teach at Washington University and Saint Louis University (Catholic). Neither institution has a Department of Young Earth Biology or a Department of Literal Biblical Interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top