Old Testament

[Boo0295]

Are Catholics bound under pain of heresy to take all Old Testament stories literally?

I understand we are to take Adam & Eve, Noah and the Flood, Abraham and Issac, and Moses’ stories literally, but what about the Tower of Babel and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[puzzleannie]

no, we are not
we are told to begin with the literal meaning when interpreting scripture, but to ignore the spiritual meaning beneath the literal is to deny Christ himself.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I understand we are to take Adam & Eve, Noah and the Flood, Abraham and Issac, and Moses’ stories literally, but what about the Tower of Babel and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

That’s opposite of what I thought. My kids were taught in high school, that the books of Genesis and Revelation are not supposed to be taken literally but figuratively.

Alan

 

[Third_Day]

Are Catholics bound under pain of heresy to take all Old Testament stories literally?

I understand we are to take Adam & Eve, Noah and the Flood, Abraham and Issac, and Moses’ stories literally, but what about the Tower of Babel and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Scripture should always be taken literally first. Only if there is sufficient reason to do otherwise should we take it as symbolic. All scripture has many layers of truth.
I take Genesis literally as did the Church Fathers. Scripture says the earth was created in six days, why believe otherwise? Science claims to have disproved scripture yet what they teach is all theory.
Scripture says the flood covered the entire earth. Why believe otherwise?
Scripture says the earth does not move, the sun rises. Why believe otherwise? Science has been unable to prove the earth moves though they have tried.
Scripture says there was a tower of Babel and God caused confusion by creating different languages. What justifible reason is there to doubt?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You are at liberty to believe Genesis literally, but as a engineer and scientist-wannabe, I take exception to the statements you are making about science. IMO they are cliches that I’ve heard mentioned often by staunch Protestants, and a few Catholics.

First, “all they teach is theory” might seem to the uninformed to suggest that we don’t know anything at all. That isn’t the case, though. Well, as certain as the earth itself exists, we have theories that haven’t been proven, but they may do a perfect job of explaining the actual behavior of physical objects to at least the degree of refinement that we can measure in any way. Then that serves as a baseline until we find a way to measure it more closely and add limitations to the theory, and/or extend the theory to explain, or at least describe, the behavior in a more refined way.

The best example I can think of is the theory of gravity. It is not a “proven law” that gravity really exists, but few sane people will assert that it does not. The fact that it is officially a theory makes it no less able to be analyzed and predicted every single time we’ve ever tested it. When we were able to analyze things that moved at the speed of light, we were able to extend the usefulness of the theories with Einstein’s work.

With the claim that science has been unable to prove the earth moves around the sun, there is absolutely no concrete meaning behind that statement. Whether you say the earth is stationary is more a matter of philosophical debate and/or creating contrived definitions, than scientific fact. Scientists tend to embrace whatever available theory is the simplest one, that explains and/or predicts behavior of real world objects.

Therefore, if we model the sun as the center of the solar system, then all the planets go around in in nearly perfect ellipses, and from what we know about gravity and momentum and they way that all works, everything makes perfect sense. OTOH, if one places the earth as the center, then that means that all the other planets and the sun act in bizarre, unexplainable ways with turns and twists that don’t correlate to anything but are a testament to the fact that you have chosen a reference frame that does not make a useful model of the situation. You may believe that God, every single day, causes the heavenly bodies to engage in a bizarre, quirky dance. One can believe that happens, or one can consider the model that the entire civilized world uses, using the sun as the reference point and now everything goes in smooth, elegant paths that are entirely and simply predictable.

If we had no knowledge of the spatial relationship between heavenly bodies, which is what your empty statement – that science cannot prove the earth moves – attempts to convey, we would never have been able to put a man on the moon or send a space probe to Mars or to faraway planets as we have. I know people who do this for a living; I even had a job offer to work for the engineering department that designed the Voyager space probe. These people aren’t bungling idiots. Not to mention if they were you wouldn’t have a computer to be reading this on now.

Alan

 

[Fidelis]

Catholic Answers apologist Tim Staples answers this question in a short video found here:

Is Genesis to be understood figuratively?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic Answers apologist Tim Staples answers this question in a short video found here:

Wow; that just about sums it all up, and very nicely. Thank you, Tim Staples, for the commentary, and Fidelis, for the link.

Alan

 

[Third_Day]

=AlanFromWichita;7643983]You are at liberty to believe Genesis literally, but as a engineer and scientist-wannabe, I take exception to the statements you are making about science. IMO they are cliches that I’ve heard mentioned often by staunch Protestants, and a few Catholics.

Alan, I appreciate what you are saying but obviously I disagree. I am not here to debate this issue.
I had always believed like you do unitl I read two books. *Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right *by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett and *The Doctrines of Genesis A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins *by Father Victor Warkulwiz who has a PhD. in physics and worked in the aerospace industry before becoming a priest. I have spoken to Father Warkulwiz via e-mail and he supports Geocentrism as scientific fact.

 

[Third_Day]

Catholic Answers apologist Tim Staples answers this question in a short video found here:

I heard Tim give that answer and I mailed him a copy of *The Doctrines of Genesis A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins *by Father Victor Warkulwiz. I hope he takes the time to read it.
Tim is in error to say that the Catholic Church is moving away from a literal interpretation of Genesis. Father Warkulwiz book is based on a lecture he gave in Rome 2002 at the International Catholic Symposium on Creation.
Tim is in error to say that the Catechism states that Genesis is to be taken symbolically. Nowhere does it say that. The Catechism says that the words God “worked” and God’ rested" are symbolic.
All the Fathers of the Church who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. The consensus of the Fathers on Creation is no different than their consensus on the Eucharist and that one is born again in Baptism

 

[Faith1960]

no, we are not
we are told to begin with the literal meaning when interpreting scripture, but to ignore the spiritual meaning beneath the literal is to deny Christ himself.

What about this: Douay-Rheims Bible
[And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life]

 

[Fidelis]

Tim is in error to say that the Catechism states that Genesis is to be taken symbolically. Nowhere does it say that. The Catechism says that the words God “worked” and God’ rested" are symbolic.

Here are the quotes from the Catechism. I think people can judge for themselves what they clearly say:

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. 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. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”

**390 **The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

All the Fathers of the Church who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. The consensus of the Fathers on Creation is no different than their consensus on the Eucharist and that one is born again in Baptism.

Tim did address this in the video.

 

[Third_Day]

=Fidelis;7644636]Here are the quotes from the Catechism. I think people can judge for themselves what they clearly say:

Yes, let’s look at it

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. 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. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Where does the Cathechism say the 6 days are symbolic?

Tim did address this in the video.

Tim admits that the Church Fathers believed in six literal days of creation but then makes the claim that we know better today.( my words not his). Tim is basically saying that science knows better than what the Church has always believed.
Tim will point out how the Church Fathers had a consensus on other matters
so why go against them on this?
We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

 

[Crumpy]

First, there are many threads on this subject and you may find out a lot more by searching on Genesis,creation, literal or the like.

Second, I call your attention to the term that Judaism has used for a long time, about the first five books of the Bible – Torah which means “instruction.”

Modern Judaism inherits and relishes the Torah as the center of its faith, but the modern commentaries reflect the latest historical-critical (name removed by moderator)ut as well as common science and studies of the writings of the ancient Middle East – which cast obvious doubt on the scientific explanation.

Likewise, check the New Testament at 2 Tim 3:16-17 which says (RSV-2CE) “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work.”

The emphasis again is on teaching or instruction, not history or science.

The modern term used elsewhere is “virtual.” We don’t have the scientific evidence to validate Genesis, but we treat it “virtually” that is, as if everything was exactly that way. Our interest is the revelation of God and truths that God is communicating thrugh those words. As the Second Vatican Council said in its Dei Verbum document, we must read the Bible with faith. That’s the only way to understand it properly.

Read and meditate on Psalm 1, for a picture of the man of God, who meditates day and night on His word.

 

[Third_Day]

=Crumpy;7644684]Likewise, check the New Testament at 2 Tim 3:16-17 which says (RSV-2CE) “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work.”

The emphasis again is on teaching or instruction, not history or science

.
ALL scripture is the inspired Word of God and that would include Genesis. Don’t leave out Tradtion which teaches a literal interpretation of the Genesis Creation account. The Church Fathers were very good at bible commentary.

The modern term used elsewhere is “virtual.” We don’t have the scientific evidence to validate Genesis, but we treat it “virtually” that is, as if everything was exactly that way

.
There is no scientific evidence to validate or invalidate the Genesis account of creation so why not stick with the inspired word of God?

Our interest is the revelation of God and truths that God is communicating thrugh those words

.
Yes, the truths

As the Second Vatican Council said in its Dei Verbum document, we must read the Bible with faith. That’s the only way to understand it properly.

Yes, with faith that the Word of God is true.

Read and meditate on Psalm 1, for a picture of the man of God, who meditates day and night on His word.

Absolutely

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan, I appreciate what you are saying but obviously I disagree. I am not here to debate this issue.
I had always believed like you do unitl I read two books. *Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right *by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett and *The Doctrines of Genesis A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins *by Father Victor Warkulwiz who has a PhD. in physics and worked in the aerospace industry before becoming a priest. I have spoken to Father Warkulwiz via e-mail and he supports Geocentrism as scientific fact.

You have to be kidding me, that “geocentrism is a scientific fact.”

Geocentrism is a point of view. It’s a choice of reference frame. And it happens that choosing earth instead of the sun, just for in our solar system (never mind the universe) causes the issue of mapping the motion of the heavenly bodies as they “revolve around earth” to be several orders of magnitude more complicated than it would have been. When the earth was thought to be flat, it is not surprising that it seems the rest of the world dances around us. After all, save for earthquakes, we do not feel a sense of motion standing on this earth. Einstein showed why we could not feel that motion.

There is no “true” set of coordinate axes that exists in the universe. Any reference frame used by man is of man’s choosing. Not to mention there is no such absolute as “moving” or “not moving” unless it is compared to a reference frame that may be fixed at a heavenly body or may not. If you choose to fix a reference frame in a static position relative to the earth, such as at the center of the earth (unless you believe the earth is flat, in which case it has no center ) then, by definition, the earth will not move with respect to the chosen reference frame. That is like seeing a creature, giving it a name, and then telling everybody that you proved the creature is one of them. It isn’t about proof or natural truth; it’s about a human decision about what to call it. Similarly if you say, “all calculations shall be done with the earth as the reference frame,” then you are creating computational nightmares for anybody who wants to map the motions of the heavenly bodies or send a space probe to one of them, but you have the right to look at it that way.

You say you don’t want to debate the issue, but you don’t mind throwing out reckless, derogatory, controversial, inflammatory, and downright rude statements about science and then when called on it say, “I’m not going to argue,” and then cite some obscure books.

If you can’t or don’t intend to give some explanation as to how you believe it is so that geocentrism “is a scientific fact” then you might consider withdrawing those comments. Your opinions about science are over and above your answer the question of whether you believe Genesis literally, so the only purpose they serve is to append a few random, unsupportable insults without adding to the discussion at all.

I’ve read a few books, too, and I’ve studied physics, and I’ve done calculations like those I’m talking about. So that’s at least as good as your reading two books and getting an email.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

… 337 … 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.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Where does the Cathechism say the 6 days are symbolic?

Right there in paragraph 337 as you quoted… 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.

How you read that sentence to mean, “Scripture documents the work of the Creator literally and precisely how it actually happened, which is in a succession of six days …” is entirely baffling to me.

If you can make statements that are obviously incorrect about the Catechism, which is something we all have access to and can verify without any speck of doubt what it says, then how can anybody believe your assertions that you know better than science because you read something we can’t see here and analyze how you may have changed its meaning in your interpretation.

Tim admits that the Church Fathers believed in six literal days of creation but then makes the claim that we know better today.( my words not his). Tim is basically saying that science knows better than what the Church has always believed.

I didn’t notice that he referenced science, specifically, as the reason we know better today.

If he had, though, I have two questions for you.

a) Did the church ever believe that the earth was flat at any time in her history?
b) Do you believe the earth is flat and the notion of people standing upside down of where we are is truly absurd as some of the early saints wrote?

If your answer to b) is yes, then there is little hope for meaningful discussion.

…
All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

Then why does the Catechism state that the account of six days of work is symbolic?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

While I’m awaiting a response, I have one more thought I’d like to share.

This thread gives a perfect illustration of why I thank God for the “separation of church and state” principle that so many Fundies – and even Catholics – would like to do eradicate.

Alan

 

[Third_Day]

=AlanFromWichita;7644785]You have to be kidding me, that "geocentrism is a scientific fact."Geocentrism is a point of view. It’s a choice of reference frame.

Heliocentrism is also a point of view. It has never been proven by any experiment.

And it happens that choosing earth instead of the sun, just for in our solar system (never mind the universe) causes the issue of mapping the motion of the heavenly bodies as they “revolve around earth” to be several orders of magnitude more complicated than it would have been

.
If you have an open mind I suggest you read the two books I have suggested. Until then you are basing your opinion on a very biased source.

You say you don’t want to debate the issue, but you don’t mind throwing out reckless, derogatory, controversial, inflammatory, and downright rude statements about science and then when called on it say, “I’m not going to argue,” and then cite some obscure books

.
I’m not qualified to debate the issue but until you read the books that I have suggested you are not qualified to debate the issue either. All you could offer are assumptions based on theory. Those are not “obscure books”. I can tell from your comments that your mind is closed on the issue.

I’ve read a few books, too, and I’ve studied physics, and I’ve done calculations like those I’m talking about. So that’s at least as good as your reading two books and getting an email.

That’s great that you have read a few books and studied physics. Dr. Bennett who co-wrote *Galileo Was Wrong *not only studied physics but has a PhD in physics. Father Warkulwiz also has a PhD in Physics and worked in the aerospace industry and worked for the CIA specializing in ballistic missile systems. Scientists that believe in Geocentism are not idiots. They are willing to be criticized for their beliefs. Are you willing to study the other side?
Will you read *Galileo Was Wrong the Church Was Right *and The Doctrines of Genesis and then make up your mind?
Dr. Sungensis also has a DVD on a lecture that should interest you. He also has a DVD that includes both volumes of his book and it includes computer animation comparing the Geocentrism and Heliocentrism models.

 

[Third_Day]

=AlanFromWichita;7644829]Right there in paragraph 337 as you quoted… 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.
.

How you read that sentence to mean, “Scripture documents the work of the Creator literally and precisely how it actually happened, which is in a succession of six days …” is entirely baffling to me.

Why should it be “baffling?” Notice that the passage does not say “Scripture presents the work of the creator symbolically as “a succession of six days.” If it said that you would have a point. But notice where the passage places the quotation marks. It is on “works” and “rests”. That is what the Catechism is saying is symbolic. God does not “work” or “rest”…

If you can make statements that are obviously incorrect about the Catechism, which is something we all have access to and can verify without any speck of doubt what it says, then how can anybody believe your assertions that you know better than science because you read something we can’t see here and analyze how you may have changed its meaning in your interpretation.

Because Scripture and Tradition teaches a literal six days of creation the Catechism cannot say otherwise and you are the one who is changing its meaning.

I have two questions for you.

a) Did the church ever believe that the earth was flat at any time in her history?

No. There were men who held that view. Show me a consensus of the Fathers that said the earth was flat. Show me where the Church officially held that position.

b) Do you believe the earth is flat and the notion of people standing upside down of where we are is truly absurd as some of the early saints wrote?

What Church Father wrote anything like that?

If your answer to b) is yes, then there is little hope for meaningful discussion

.
You act as though the Church Fathers were a group of bungling uneducated idiots.
Hopefully you will read the books and watch the DVD. In the meantime start here with this from John Salza’s Scripture Catholic website.
scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

Let me ask you these questions.
Do you believe that man evolved from lower life forms?. Science teaches this as a fact not as a theory.Do you go with Scripture and Tradition or science?
Do you believe in the “big bang?” If so, where is the proof?
Which “theory” of the creation of the moon do you hold to? Fission, capture, formation with Earth as a double planet or collision?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Heliocentrism is also a point of view. It has never been proven by any experiment.

So if they are both a point of view, then why do you say that heliocentrism is wrong, and the geocentrism has been “proven as a scientific fact?”

Oh, I’m open to new ideas. I find them fascinating, even if they seem wacky at first.

That said, I’m a slow reader and there are other things already in the waiting list for me to read. You’ve read the books. Is there not something from them you can summarize, or share, or are there snippets of them online you can point us to?

If you have an open mind I suggest you read the two books I have suggested. Until then you are basing your opinion on a very biased source.

To what biased source do you refer?

I’m not qualified to debate the issue but until you read the books that I have suggested you are not qualified to debate the issue either. All you could offer are assumptions based on theory. Those are not “obscure books”. I can tell from your comments that your mind is closed on the issue.

If you are not qualified to debate it, then how are you qualified to make the assertion that the vast majority of the world’s scientific community is wrong – and that to disagree with you is to have a closed mind?

That’s great that you have read a few books and studied physics. Dr. Bennett who co-wrote *Galileo Was Wrong *not only studied physics but has a PhD in physics. Father Warkulwiz also has a PhD in Physics and worked in the aerospace industry and worked for the CIA specializing in ballistic missile systems. Scientists that believe in Geocentism are not idiots. They are willing to be criticized for their beliefs. Are you willing to study the other side?

I’m waiting. Tell me one fact or experimental result or even theory that supports what you are saying.

With your comments, I wonder if you are suggesting the the vast majority of scientists who do not believe in geocentrism are idiots?

Now, just because 100,000 people believe one thing and 10 believe the opposite, doesn’t make the 100,000 right. It does place some burden of proof on the 10 to do more than make statements disparaging the beliefs of the 100,000, if they want anybody outside their circle to even consider taking them seriously.

Will you read *Galileo Was Wrong the Church Was Right *and The Doctrines of Genesis and then make up your mind?

I’d love to, but I’m afraid it’s low enough on priority that I probably won’t any time soon.

Dr. Sungensis also has a DVD on a lecture that should interest you. He also has a DVD that includes both volumes of his book and it includes computer animation comparing the Geocentrism and Heliocentrism models.

OK, to meet you part way I did some searching on YouTube and other places via Google and found a web site about the book “Galileo was Wrong.” From there I navigated to a site where there was a critique by Dr. Sungensis of a work by an Alec MacAndrew regarding geocentrism.

I read maybe a third of the argument, from which I got at least a taste of the exchange.

It was actually interesting reading, and I tried to see it Dr. Sungensis’s way, but frankly the way he argued in the parts I read, were not very convincing at least from my engineering perspective. Like he would take something MacAndrew said, and apply it in a way that MacAndrews didn’t intend, by failing to recognize MacAndrew’s own limitations on his own statements.

Alec: Newton reasonably approximated the solar system as an isolated system of bodies (this is not strictly true, but the forces and influence of the rest of the universe on relative motions within the solar system are vanishingly small on the scale of years).
…
R. Sungenis: If that is true, then why does modern physics believe that the sun revolves around the Milky Way galaxy at the tremendous speed of 500 miles per second in order to escape the gravity at the center of the Milky Way? If the “forces and influence” is so “vanishingly small,” then the sun (and consequently our “solar system”) should be affected very little by a neighboring group of stars. But the truth is, our “solar system” is so greatly affected by those stars that the sun has to travel at break neck speed to avoid crashing into the center of the Milky Way.
And we are also told by modern science that the Milky Way itself is revolving around even greater systems of galaxies, and so on and so one. The bottom line is this: there is no place in the universe that is unaffected by the gravity of the stars, and this gravity is not “vanishingly small,” otherwise, modern science could not say that smaller systems are being forced to revolve around larger systems.
The real truth here is that Alec needs to plant in the reader’s mind the idea that our Sun-Earth system is an “isolated system,” as he wants to call it, for then he can succeed in applying Newtonian mechanics and making it work for heliocentrism (or whatever non-geocentric system Alec believes in). But the fact is, the Sun-Earth system is not “isolated.” How could it be “isolated” if it is this very system that Alec believes travels at 500 mps because of the tremendous pull from the center of the Milky Way? That’s hardly an “isolated” system. But without the “isolated system” as his foundation, Alec’s case to disprove geocentrism is futile.

This example, all by itself, is enough to discredit the way Dr. Sungenis argues his points. Either he is so blinded by his biases and his predetermined conclusion, or he’s simply dishonest in the way he argues. It’s one or the other. For the sake of non-scientists reading this, I’ll elaborate.

(continued)