Z
Zenkai
Guest
Well, your posts seemed as if they were insinuating that you knew physics and he didn’t.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Magisterium has never taught that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are to be understood in an entirely literal manner. And it is an open question as to whether we should understand the story of the Flood to be entirely literal, entirely figurative, or a mix of figurative and literal elements. My position is the latter.
Pope Benedict XV:
"Jerome says that all interpretation rests on the literal sense, and that we are not to think that there is no literal sense merely because a thing is said metaphorically, for ‘the history itself is often presented in metaphorical dress and described figuratively.’ "
My view is that the story of Noah and the Flood is an historical event, but one that is described figuratively and metaphorically in some of its elements.
"53. On this point he [St. Jerome] makes the wise remark that we ought not to desert the path mapped out by Christ and His Apostles, who, while regarding the Old Testament as preparing for and foreshadowing the New Covenant, and whilst consequently explaining various passages in the former as figurative, yet do not give a figurative interpretation of all alike. In confirmation of this he often refers us to St. Paul, who, when ‘explaining the mystery of Adam and Eve, did not deny that they were formed, but on that historical basis erected a spiritual interpretation, and said: “Therefore shall a man leave,” etc.’ "
(Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus)
So, some of the elements in OT stories are literal, and others are figurative. It is a mix of figurative and literal elements, not wholly one or the other. This is particularly true in the stories from Genesis 1 to 11.
Pope Benedict XV:
"Jerome says that all interpretation rests on the literal sense, and that we are not to think that there is no literal sense merely because a thing is said metaphorically, for ‘the history itself is often presented in metaphorical dress and described figuratively.’ "
My view is that the story of Noah and the Flood is an historical event, but one that is described figuratively and metaphorically in some of its elements.
"53. On this point he [St. Jerome] makes the wise remark that we ought not to desert the path mapped out by Christ and His Apostles, who, while regarding the Old Testament as preparing for and foreshadowing the New Covenant, and whilst consequently explaining various passages in the former as figurative, yet do not give a figurative interpretation of all alike. In confirmation of this he often refers us to St. Paul, who, when ‘explaining the mystery of Adam and Eve, did not deny that they were formed, but on that historical basis erected a spiritual interpretation, and said: “Therefore shall a man leave,” etc.’ "
(Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus)
So, some of the elements in OT stories are literal, and others are figurative. It is a mix of figurative and literal elements, not wholly one or the other. This is particularly true in the stories from Genesis 1 to 11.
E
edwest2
Guest
I disagree. Genesis 1-11 are picked apart here constantly, almost always siding with the non-literal interpretation and I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I was taught the the waters covered the entire earth in religion class. As Catholics, we should remind ourselves that God can and does do things that cannot be affirmed by science. One more miracle is needed to elevate Pope John Paul II to sainthood in our time.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Your opinion is tenable, but it is not doctrine. It is an open question how much of Genesis 1 to 11 is literal, and how much is figurative. However, I will say that not all of it can be taken figuratively. Adam and Eve must have existed, and must have fallen from grace; the dogma of original sin depends on it.I disagree. Genesis 1-11 are picked apart here constantly, almost always siding with the non-literal interpretation and I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I was taught the the waters covered the entire earth in religion class. As Catholics, we should remind ourselves that God can and does do things that cannot be affirmed by science. One more miracle is needed to elevate Pope John Paul II to sainthood in our time.
So I would say that the events of Genesis 1 to 11 are history, with some literal elements, but also some figurative elements in the description. For example, Adam and Eve were created miraculously by God, they fell from grace by sinning, but their sin wasn’t eating fruit – that is a figure for the sin of disobedience to God out of pride.
Similarly, the Noah story is literal history, but with some figurative descriptions of the events. That is my opinion on this open question.
O
Oxford_Cleric
Guest
Inspiration is indeed more than simple human enthusiasm, but isn’t it also more subtle than mere divine dictation? Moved by the Holy Spirit, men did the best they could with what they had at the time to communicate God’s message, which I believe in this case was not a scientific account of the depth of the water or the precise area it covered, but rather the intensity of the divine displeasure against sinful man.I was taught it was a global flood. This topic is brought up here on a regular basis, and the more it is, the less and less I’m inclined to believe any scientific connection - and believe me, I’ve read all the previous attempts to explain away the global flood as a local/regional event.
The Bible was not - not - written by a bunch of guys who heard a few stories. We are explicitly told that the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration meaning something more valuable than 'I wrote my story because I was inspired by something I read or heard."
The global flood event exists in almost all previous cultures, which suggests that it was not a local event.
Peace,
Ed
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
If God is incapable of doing things that transcend the natural order like flooding a world without a comet or ice caps melting or whatever, then why believe that Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead? Obviously these are very hard to explain scientifically, so why would the flood necessarily be explainable by science if it was truly an act of God?
Somehow it feel like people place God into a box and when He just doesn’t fit there it must all be myth. How is it that bread turns to flesh like in Lanciano? Doesn’t that prove with God all things are possible, even things science cannot explain?
Somehow it feel like people place God into a box and when He just doesn’t fit there it must all be myth. How is it that bread turns to flesh like in Lanciano? Doesn’t that prove with God all things are possible, even things science cannot explain?
F
Farsight001
Guest
No one is trying to say that God is incapable. But miracles and such are, by their nature, not scientific. Our issue is with people trying to pass of physically impossible events as science.If God is incapable of doing things that transcend the natural order like flooding a world without a comet or ice caps melting or whatever, then why believe that Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead? Obviously these are very hard to explain scientifically, so why would the flood necessarily be explainable by science if it was truly an act of God?
Somehow it feel like people place God into a box and when He just doesn’t fit there it must all be myth. How is it that bread turns to flesh like in Lanciano? Doesn’t that prove with God all things are possible, even things science cannot explain?
E
edwest2
Guest
Your statement represents something imaginative, and is presented as if it were based on something the Church teaches.Inspiration is indeed more than simple human enthusiasm, but isn’t it also more subtle than mere divine dictation? Moved by the Holy Spirit, men did the best they could with what they had at the time to communicate God’s message, which I believe in this case was not a scientific account of the depth of the water or the precise area it covered, but rather the intensity of the divine displeasure against sinful man.
“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.