That IS exactly the point and that is what the literalists miss.They are so dead dead set on it being exactly as written(not factoring in the culture of the time and it’s way of writing) that they lose the bigger picture.They forget not every piece of writing is a narrative and they were wont to wax poetical(the poetry sections of the bible are often the oldest) our ancient ancestors.Hard facts and chronology were not their cup of tea.
I always read Lewis to say that Christianity is the ultimate myth, the one that all other myths presage . . . I’d be interested in a citation. Always willing to learn!Someplace C. S. Lewis writes that while he does not have a professional knowledge of theology, he does have such knowledge of mythology. It is his professional opinion that Christianity is among the poorest of myths, therefore must be something else. If you want myths he recommends the Norse myths.
I picked up the fact that there are two different accounts of creation in Genesis by reading it.
The first few chapters, up through the Fall, have always been some of my favorites. The insight into what they mean is from my priest.No, no, no. Genesis is not scientifically flawed, because Genesis is not a scientific text. That’s like saying a beautiful painting is flawed because it isn’t a photograph. Why should it be a photograph? It’s a painting, and it’s a good one.
the only conclusion is you have been reading the wrong books or conclusions as it seems is also the case with your priest, I also used to do this once,earlier on,but not anymore - earlier in life my priest told me "now dont be bothering your head,“just say an Our Father,a Hail Mary and a Glory Be and everything will be alright” - maybe I should have taken his advice instead of bothering anyone here,perhaps some may wish I had - jimcI picked up the fact that there are two different accounts of creation in Genesis by reading it.
Hard facts and chronology,it seems,are certainly not the cup of tea of those with their own conjectures and phony facts and way out ,weird,wacky explanations and conclusions rather than the obvious and correct ones.God,it seems,did not allow that what was simply understood by the simple people of yesterday would not and could not simply be simply and obviously understood by the simple people of today.It seems this is the case in some cases - twinc
now just try the first account in the world at large and the second account as in the garden of Eden - still only one creation account - btw Genesis 2:7 says “and the Lord God[had]formed man of the slime of the earth” etc and 2:8 says "and the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning : wherin He placed man whom He [had] formed - jimcI picked up the fact that there are two different accounts of creation in Genesis by reading it.
Your very good at doublespeak aren’t you.And what hard facts and chronology?Weird and wacky? a talking snake is not weird or wacky?A tree of Knowledge of Good and evil not a little odd?Obvious and correct one- oh yeah the literalist intepretation- that doesn’t take in history or culture or language differences into consideration in order to understand it correctly.What the hay! 3000 year difference(or more) between the writing of Genesis and modern times and people still insist on reading Genesis like it just rolled off the presses. Sorry but if you did that with other ancient writings you’d seriously screw up the depth of meaning of what was being said. Taking Genesis literally just misses most of the meaning beyond the mythos.
you totally miss it and screw it up and then blame me and others and God - other ancient writings do not have God as author.Of course snakes can talk and so can donkeys or at least appear to do so - no problem.Tree of good and evil - no problem either following the rule of interpretation"literal unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise - it seems that after they ate the fruit they did in fact come to know good and evil and hid themselves etc - so why accept way out,weird and wacky alternatives - twinc
It appears you are unable to understand or make use of the phrase “dictate otherwise”.
The onus of proof for the deviation from the literal or obvious lies with the deviator - of course here we must ask why this persistent urge to deviate from the obvious,reasonable and saner original - twinc
There is actually quite a bit of excellent Catholic scholarship out there on this very subject, written by theologians and biblical scholars…you could certainly avail yourself of this information if you have genuine interest.
I realize that this comment was not meant for me, but I thought I’d chime in, in the hopes that you, twinc, might gains some insight into a viewpoint other than your own. For me, the contradictions (I realize that you do not see or acknowledge them as such) in the Genesis story interfered with my faith. To me the literal understanding seems unreasonable. Understanding them in a way other than the literal is part of what allows me to have faith. And I don’t see that as a bad thing.
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.
note well this just does not apply to twinc as a cradle to grave Catholic - twinc
QUE?
I don’t have any problem with the deviation and neither does the Church or the many eminent scripture scholars I have studied. We must ask why you have a persistent urge to deviate from the obvious,reasonable and saner interpretation accepted by non-literalists. I think you would strongly benefit from reading a couple of books used in many Catholic adult education scripture courses: "Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know", by Ronald Witherup S.S. and “And God Said What?” by Margaret Ralph.
Que pasa?QUE?
He refers to himself in the third person! Oy vey!
Juliamajor, is that like waitresses who address the table in the second person? “Are we ready to order yet?”He refers to himself in the third person! Oy vey! I guess the only good Catholic is a twinc Catholic