Old Testament

[AlanFromWichita]

My original question was not regarding creation, however. It was regarding later Bible stories such as Cain and Abel, Noah’s Ark, and the Tower of Babel. Must we take them as literal history, as metaphor, or as parable. I would especially like to know if the Catechism has anything to say on the subject.

I’m pretty sure we can answer at least the question about Noah by comparing Genesis 6:18-19, to Genesis 7:2-3.

If you can make a case for those being literally true with contradicting each other, than it is possible it could be literal. If you cannot, the it cannot be literal, at least in any way we humans have understanding the literal meaning of any written words.

Alan

 

[Third_Day]

=Boo0295;7649784]Regarding the interpretation of the creation story in the First Book of Moses, this very website tells us what Catholics must believe on the subject:

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

To summarize it, we must believe (1) that God created the universe out of nothing, and that (2) Adam and Eve were the first people. We can believe in evolution as espoused by Darwin, but we must believe that the souls of Adam and Eve were spontaneous creations by God and that is what made them the first people.

I wouldn’t go that far to say we can believe in evolution as espoused by Darwin. I think the answer from this website is misleading. They only quote from part of Humani Generis 36 and leave out something important. Here is the entire paragraph:

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] **Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now **and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

Here is what Catholic Answers posted:

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36

IMO all Pius XII is allowing is “research and discussion.”

And on the issue of creation, we must take into account the words of Pope John Paul II:
You can read JPII’s entire speech here.

WHere does John Paul promote evolution or anything like it?

My original question was not regarding creation, however. It was regarding later Bible stories such as Cain and Abel, Noah’s Ark, and the Tower of Babel. Must we take them as literal history, as metaphor, or as parable. I would especially like to know if the Catechism has anything to say on the subject.

The Church teaches the bible is without error. We are to read the literal meaning first. Jesus and Peter mentions Noah and the flood, Hebrews mentions Cain and Abel, not sure about Babel but I would take it literally

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The word “literal” actually has different meanings, depending upon the context. The Church teaches:

“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.’ [St. Thomas Aquinas, *STh I, 1, 10, ad I]” (CCC 116).

This does not mean that one ought to interpret something meant to be figurative by the Sacred Author as though it were not figurative, which is often what people mean by “literal” interpretation, which Catholic theologians have called a “fundamentalist” or “literalist” interpretation.

In order to uncover the ***literal *sense **“one must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. “Let your loins be girt”: Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms (“Be ready for action”).” [Pontifical Biblical Commission, *Interpretation of the Bible in the Church]

I have a two-volume book by St. Augustine called The Literal Meaning of Genesis - A Commentary in Twelve Books. It is a detailed commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis. I’ve only read parts of it thus far but I recommend it for those curious as to how St. Augustine grappled with uncovering the “literal” sense of Scripture, and by “literal” I mean in the sense which the Catechism describes. See St. Augustines commentary here: Vol 1 and Vol 2.

 

[Third_Day]

Alan, thanks for your response on Geocentrism. I think you are being overly critical of Sungenis and his answers with Alec. I just finished reading it and I think he did a great job of presenting his position. You should go back and re-read it and see if you are still as critical.
Concerning the Michelson-Morely experiment. Keep this is mind. This was expected by all the scientists to prove that the earth moves. This was no small experiment. This was a major event and when it failed Einstien was forced to create his theory of relativity to explain the failure.

All the detatils of the experiment, along with dozens of others, are in Galileo Was Wrong. that I hope you get around to reading.

 

[Third_Day]

=AlanFromWichita;7650112]I hear what you’re saying. At this point I neither agree or disagree with it because your point depends on the literal sense of Genesis, which I am calling into question.

Genesis 6:19-20: Of all other living creatures you shall bring **two **into the ark, one male and one female, that you may keep them alive with you. Of all kinds of birds, of all kinds of beasts, and of all kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you, to stay alive.

Genesis 7:2-3: Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate; likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female. Thus you will keep their issue alive over all the earth.

So what did God say? “…**two of each **shall come into the ark with you…”
OR
“… likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female…”

That’s why I asked how 1 can be the same as 7. If you can explain to me, in a way I can understand, how both accounts can be true, then I’ll give you one of these: :bowdown:

Sorry but I just don’t see the problem. In Genesis 6 it is emphasizing male and female according to it kind. In Genesis 7 clean and unclean are emphasized, That may not be what you are talking about so please clarify.
You might want to look at another translation. In Genesis 6 yours is missing “according to its kind” which is a reference to species. Two of every species.
The Greek word used there in Genesis for "kinds’ is genos1085 genos {ghen’-os} from 1096; TDNT - 1:684,117; n n 1) kindred 1a) offspring 1b) family 1c) stock, tribe, nation 1c1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people 1d) the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort

Of course my question sounds absurd if you believe that Genesis is literal, but I don’t blame you for asking for clarification. I’m a 52 year old cradle Catholic and I didn’t know about this particular contradiction – the first time in my life that I’ve noticed that Gen 7 talks about 7 pairs, was just on February 15, when the account from Genesis 7 was included in the first reading for the daily Mass.

7 pairs of clean animals male and female.
What Moses wasn’t to take was 10 males and 4 females or 10 females and 4 males.

Please give this careful consideration. Personally I have yet to come up with any reasonable explanation other than that Genesis is, in fact, figurative. I’m with you that we cannot see God as schizophrenic, though I do find the following scriptures at least a little bit comforting:

I just don’t see the problem

 

[AlanFromWichita]

7 pairs of clean animals male and female.
What Moses wasn’t to take was 10 males and 4 females or 10 females and 4 males.

I just don’t see the problem

Then I ask what Gen 6:20 means by “Of all kinds of birds, of all kinds of beasts, and of all kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you…”

How do we reconcile “two of each shall come into the ark …” with “take with you seven pairs …” in Gen 7:2?

Does 7:2 not say 7 pairs of each? Does 6:20 not say two of each? Whether that is 2 pairs of two of each species, I don’t understand how those two things can be true at the same time.

Still waiting to give you a :bowdown: or a :newidea:

;)

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan, thanks for your response on Geocentrism. I think you are being overly critical of Sungenis and his answers with Alec. I just finished reading it and I think he did a great job of presenting his position. You should go back and re-read it and see if you are still as critical.
Concerning the Michelson-Morely experiment. Keep this is mind. This was expected by all the scientists to prove that the earth moves. This was no small experiment. This was a major event and when it failed Einstien was forced to create his theory of relativity to explain the failure.

All the detatils of the experiment, along with dozens of others, are in Galileo Was Wrong. that I hope you get around to reading.

I am well aware and dubious of scientific bias, but I am equally dubious of religous bias. Both kinds of bias have the same effect – they alter the claimed results of an experiment.

Just as there are people invested in maintaining the status quo, others are just as invested in discover an exception to the status quo – and try to make a name for themselves publishing it.

You cannot claim that Alec has an agenda, but Sungenis does not. In Sungenis’ world, he knows something that most of us don’t. If he wishes to live in an enlightened world, he must do the enlightening. Now what if he’s wrong? He has to retreat, he is now the joke of all those he thought he knew more than, and his mission to enlighten the world with his insight is canceled.

That doesn’t prove bias, but he certainly is invested in Being Right, and to claim otherwise is naive.

That said, my criticism of Sungenis has nothing to do with his personal motives. He told a falsehood – that he had proven claims that he had not, in fact, proven. He is willing to publicly chastise Alec using false claims. Whether he did so willfully is beside the point – the result is the same. You cannot trust that his conclusions logically follow from his premises.

I’m sorry if you can’t see it or if I didn’t explain it well enough.

Alec made no claim that the sun was sitting still within the universe. Sungenis said that the sun is, in fact, moving within the universe. Therefore, says Sungenis, Alec is wrong. Having claimed to prove a point that he failed to prove, he ran a distraction pattern by claiming that Alec is obviously – because after all, doesn’t he have reason to be?

In and of itself, that one example is sufficient to cast doubt on anything Sungenis claims.

And I can tell that without having to presume I know whether he’s biased. If he wasn’t biased to some degree, then he’s not human.

Alan

 

[Third_Day]

=AlanFromWichita;7650699]Then I ask what Gen 6:20 means by “Of all kinds of birds, of all kinds of beasts, and of all kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you…”

In Genesis 6 your translation is missing “according to its kind” which is a reference to species. Two of every species.
The Greek word used there in Genesis for "kinds’ is genos
1085 genos {ghen’-os} from 1096; TDNT - 1:684,117; n n 1) kindred 1a) offspring 1b) family 1c) stock, tribe, nation 1c1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people 1d) the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort

Genesis 6 is focusing on male and female of every species.

How do we reconcile “two of each shall come into the ark …” with “take with you seven pairs …” in Gen 7:2?

Does 7:2 not say 7 pairs of each? Does 6:20 not say two of each? Whether that is 2 pairs of two of each species, I don’t understand how those two things can be true at the same time.

Geneis 6 is simply saying:
You are to bring into the ark male and female of all living creatures to keep them alive with you.
Genesis 7 then gives more details

I think you are hung up on the word “each” which isn’t in the Greek from what I can tell. It says 2 from every genos male and female.
What you are reading is a translation from Hebrew to Greek to English. A lot can be lost in a translation. Hebrew and Greek are completely different from English.