To those who believe in a literal 6 day creation

[itinerant1]

One Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, on the rocks, please.

This is how we make 'em:

1. We take the juice from one bottle of that Ol’ Janx Spirit.
2. Pour into it one measure of water from the seas of Santraginus V.
3. Allow three cubes of Arcturan Mega-gin to melt into the mixture (it must be properly iced or the benzene is lost).
4. Allow four litres of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it.
5. Over the back of a silver spoon float a measure of Qalactin Hypermint extract.
6. Drop in the tooth of an Algolian Suntiger.
7. Sprinkle Zamphuor.
8. Add an olive.
9. Drink . . . but . . . very carefully . . .

Now, hold on tight to your head because you are going to feel like you just got mugged.

 

[James_Least]

You don’t appear to be very familiar with or well-grounded in Scripture. Biblical writers often use figurative language, allegory being just one type.

Bless you.

This is not about nuances of poetic license. God said what He meant–meant what He said.

Consider: “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.” See also: “All of our righteousness is as filthy rags”.

Jesus taught spiritual things using parables.

John, the Apostle gave insight: John 3: "Marvel not what I say unto you; you must be born again.’’ Nicodemus, a master teacher of Israel, a right, and most reverend doctor of theology, had not a clue. Many masters today have not a clue.

This is about spiritual discernment. Scripture is just another book in the library without spiritual discernment. The KEY is being born again.

A little child can understand.

Where will we be in 100 years?

 

[PeterK]

The basic reason the Genesis Account of Origins is allegorized, fantasized, and any of the other "izes’ is because it disagrees with the wishful thinking(?) of those who seem to be followers of one: Charles Darwin–revised to neo-Darwinism. It probably goes back to Nimrod–maybe even to Cain, who tried to change the blood offering to an herb offering.

It matters not how much one spins this issue, they all cannot be right. The Scripture only is reliable.

If one cannot depend on the veracity of the Book of Genesis, how can one depend on the veracity of the Gospel? Maybe it is all allegory.

“Let God be found True and every man a liar”

Peace,

James Least

And subsequent posts … …

James,
We’re just not making a connection. So maybe some clarification will help.
This is a Catholic sponsored website and forum, and the majority of contributors to this particular thread are Catholic. That being said, if you are not aware already, Catholics do not hold to a ‘scripture alone’ mandate. We also believe in what we call Sacred Tradition. (And please, if you want to discuss this point - start another thread.)

Catholics generally do not hold that the truth of the entire Bible stands or falls on any one verse or phrase. For example, let’s say if, IF, it was determined that one verse in one book was not true and indeed showed that the author had the ‘wrong’ idea about some minor thing - like believing rain comes from “windows” in the firmament which open and shut (and not clouds) - does this then mean Jesus did not rise from the dead? No! Of course not. It would be stupid to think so. The ‘one-verse-wrong = whole-Bible-wrong’ idea is what is wrong. (And please, if you want to discuss this point - start another thread.)

Next, this particular thread has focused its attention to a very specific portion of scripture; Gen 1.1-2.3. Regarding this specific collections of verses, the question is this; 'do we have to accept the plain straight-forward narrative in these verses as being literally true and then consequently, historical fact?

Obviously, and this is the grist for much conversation in this thread, to hold these verses as historical fact is not compatible with many current scientific ideas. This is a tough thing for some to discern and reconcile - and that’s why were discussing it - it helps us to do so.

Finally, and most important, you don’t have to ‘preach’ to us. If you don’t agree with some idea just simple say, ‘I don’t see it that way,’ and then proceed to explain why - all the while trying to focus on the specific scripture verses we are discussing. Condemning everyone who doesn’t see it your way as “liar” is not a very convincing approach for any side of the discussion.

I, for one, am genuinely interested to know if you believe the account reported in Gen 1.1-2.3 is absolute historical fact. I suspect you do, but I’ll let you say it. Then I would want to know how you make sense out of certain details in the narrative that seem kind of odd to me, etc., etc. Then, voila! We are having a civilized discussion where we can actually learn something from each other. Is that too much to ask in a venue labeled ‘forum’?

PeterK

 

[Crumpy]

What does the Catholic Church teach? The Bible tells us that scripture is not for private interpretation.

Peace,
Ed

Really. Yes, I know that. So, you just open the Bible and read it and set it down, end of discussion. You walk out of Mass when the priest starts a homily, because you know you’re just going to hear this priest’s opinion, right?

One of the biggest religious industries has been to unlock the meanings of scripture.

In Judaism, there is the Talmud and then other major collections of writings to understand the meaningn of scripture and to resolve apparent conflicts in scripture e.g. when two commandments are in conflict.

As a fellow Catholic, you know where to go to get the final, absolute, never-to-be-revised understandingn of scripture? and, where do you go for that?

MY catechism gives rules for interpretation, MY Vatican II Council said the scripture is an ENDLESS source of inspiration, MY Church’s Pontifical Biblical Commission wrote a guide in the early '90s for interpreting scripture, giving examples of the pluses and minuses of different forms of bible interpretation. MY last two popes are quoted as saying that it may be important even not to ignore 2000 years of collective Jewish wisdom on scripture interpretation.

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary published in the early '90s says that there are relatively FEW official teachings of the Church on scripture, less than 1% of scripture has been so unlocked.

To be completely serious, how do you know that YOUR interpretation of that Bible verse is not just your own interpretation? I don’t think the Church has officially interpreted that verse, as a matter of fact.

What did Peter mean when he wrote that?

 

[edwest2]

Really. Yes, I know that. So, you just open the Bible and read it and set it down, end of discussion. You walk out of Mass when the priest starts a homily, because you know you’re just going to hear this priest’s opinion, right?

One of the biggest religious industries has been to unlock the meanings of scripture.

In Judaism, there is the Talmud and then other major collections of writings to understand the meaningn of scripture and to resolve apparent conflicts in scripture e.g. when two commandments are in conflict.

As a fellow Catholic, you know where to go to get the final, absolute, never-to-be-revised understandingn of scripture? and, where do you go for that?

MY catechism gives rules for interpretation, MY Vatican II Council said the scripture is an ENDLESS source of inspiration, MY Church’s Pontifical Biblical Commission wrote a guide in the early '90s for interpreting scripture, giving examples of the pluses and minuses of different forms of bible interpretation. MY last two popes are quoted as saying that it may be important even not to ignore 2000 years of collective Jewish wisdom on scripture interpretation.

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary published in the early '90s says that there are relatively FEW official teachings of the Church on scripture, less than 1% of scripture has been so unlocked.

To be completely serious, how do you know that YOUR interpretation of that Bible verse is not just your own interpretation? I don’t think the Church has officially interpreted that verse, as a matter of fact.

What did Peter mean when he wrote that?

Oh brother. Have you been reading the amateur Scripture interpretations posted here? Where everything in Genesis is symbolically symbolic and it does not record what God actually did? I suggest you read the encyclical Humani Generis, and visit the Library here on Catholic Answers. It will be more helpful than the imaginative efforts being posted here.

Humani Generis refers to the Old Testament as a sealed book. See Part 23:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)