Was the world created in 7 days?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer;2280378. The characters are fictions - sin:

Not Catholic teaching.

I don’t think the Church has anything to say about haggises either - that does not make them irrelevant or immoral or dangerous or non-existent. That the CC does not say a thing, does not make it wrong to say - whether one is talking about sheep’s intestines, or the interpretation of Genesis.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree with that.

I think the idea we evolved form apes and this ape/man thing was given a spirit is ludicrous.

No more so than the equally ludicrous idea that a Jewish carpenter is God. And St.Paul has a lot to say in 1 Corinthians 1 about “the folly of the Cross”.​

As for the idea that water can have the effect of cleansing the soul of its impurity - the word “ludicrous” is completely inadequate. Yet we believe these things * and others which are equally ludicrous *- so why is that so hard ? The same God is behind both them, & it. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It’s not fuzzy at all. At one moment the ape/man has no human soul, so he’s not a human being. The next moment he does and he is. Nobody argues that the human soul evolved.

I’m sure there were loads of bacteria in the dust-man of Genesis, but nobody says the point at which that life became human life is fuzzy.

Honestly, I don’t care if God used dust to create us, or dust-bacteria-mice-apes to create us. But I think we head down a disasterous road (one that Fundamentalist Christianity has gone down full speed, to its great harm) if we deny actual scientific evidence. If even we Christians think that faith and science are incompatible, how can we ever hope to convert the secular world?

 

[Sixtus]

Zooey said:

riginally Posted by Orogeny
Why don’t you believe in 6 24-hr days? That is what Genesis says.

No; it says 6 “yoms”. Yom= period of time with a definite start & end.

Sixtus said:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ok - so the secular world is with you on creation - Big Bang theory - slimy organism crawling out of the muck eventually becomes Ape becomes man over billions of years.

Yep - they agree with you. Actually, you agree with them.

So what? Do you really think now the secular world is going to believe Jesus fed 5,000 with a couple loaves & fish? Will they believe he walked on water? He died on a cross, was dead for 3 days and rose again? That it’s ACTUALLY Jesus Christ in a cracker? Where is your scientific proof? The secular world will demand scientific evidence - just like they demand scientific evidence for creation.

Two things are bing confused here ISTM:​

1. Realities which science has, in principle & in reality, no competence to pronounce on

Example - the existence of God, & whether or not God is at work in creation

1. Realities which science is, in principle competent to pronounce on, even if does not always do so

Example - whether rats carry plague

Astronomy is irrelevant to the Ascension - the Ascension is a fact of the supernatural order not of the natural order; & science is competent to pronounce only on the latter.

So it can pronounce on the natural order - & on all natural aspects of things that are also supernatural. So astronomy is irrelevant to the Annunciation - but it is not at all irrelevant for discussing the meaning of St.Matthew’s passage about the star & the Magi in Matt. 2

Astronomy is irrelevant to Matt 2, if the passage is not talking about a star seen by real Magi - that is, if the passage is a literary creation composed in order to show, in the form of an inspired fiction, that the star in Numbers 24.17 is a sign of the Kingship of Jesus. As that is a literary question, astronomy would have nothing to say in such a case.

What is clear, & not in doubt, is that all of the Bible is inspired by God; including the parts that are myths. With its inspiration - which is a purely dogmatic question - neither literary criticism as a means for understanding the Bible, nor the sciences, have anything to do. Equally, dogma cannot pronounce on either of them: the three are, in principle, & usually in actuality, quite separate. There is some overlap - as in the study of the meaning of Matthew 2 - but the three are independent even so, & none should be sacrificed to any of the others. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m sorry you don’t find the evidence convincing. There is a lot of info on the links I gave you.

I think one reason that those opposed to the science “speak plainly” and those who support the science tend to speak technically is that the science is technical and the position of the one opposed to science, at least in the context of a forum like this, is more effective if details are not used. Blanket statements like “there is no evidence for macro evolution” rely on the fact that most people who read these forums don’t have a technical background to question the statement. At the same time, it makes the person making the statement sound like perhaps they do. While that may or may not be the case, the person who replies cannot just come back with “yes there is” unless there is something to back up that position. I know, I have tried that approach and I always end up having to give a technical reason for my position.

I think one of the reasons we have these disagreements is that many people seem to not understand that science isn’t easy or intuitive. If one asks for scientific evidence, the answer will very likely be in a form that requires a bit of scientific background to understand. That is unfortunate, but it is also necessary. It is obviously easier to state that there is no evidence for macro-evolution than it is to give the evidence in a non-technical way. For example, you say you don’t find any of the evidence compelling and yet you don’t give a scientific reason to oppose it.

A lot of this is true - by analogy - of Biblical interpretation. There are sound reasons, which have nothing to do with “modernism” or the like, that make a good deal of what the Fathers say (& the Patristic age lasted from about 100 to about 750) of purely historical interest. It’s not boasting, but a fact, that far more is now known about the material & spiritual background to the Bible - including Genesis 1 - than was known to the Fathers. For several excellent reasons: the rise of archaeology being one. And this has its effects upon the understanding of the Bible. Papal letters about the Bible aren’t written in a vacuum. Unfortunately it is easier to upset the ideas people are used to having about the Bible, & so to uset the people, than to explain briefly & convincing & adequately why it is that an interpretation of Genesis 1 as a myth is neither intellectually nor doctrinally objectionable.​

St.Thomas Aquinas did not think he had to agree with St. Augustine on every last detail - & neither did St.Augustine. So why more recent students of the Bible, theology, etc., have to, is not clear. The 13th century Scholastic authors who commented on Genesis 1, like their predecessors in the 4th century, did so with the help of the science of their time (as did Aquinas); so why it is wrong for Christians now to do the same thing, using the science of theirtime, is not clear.

 

[look3467]

Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Spiritual understanding comes only from God. Fear, meaning respect or acknowledgment of God,is the beginning of the receiving of spiritual knowledge.

Knowledge then and understanding due to experience, hopefully develops into wisdom in application.

Gods bible, though riddled with mystery words and stories, can only become real when the spirit gives understanding.

It is a puzzle with wonderful pearls of words, pictures and stories that explain the wonder that is God.

We have but to earnestly and with sincerity of heart seek and ask for wisdom.

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Science is something that has already had an origin, but left for our discovery.

God can be seen in all of it, if one was looking for it.

A very simple example is an egg: Shell=Father, white=Holy Spirit and yoke=Jesus.

The Father is the creator of the universe, the yoke is His representation (Life) of the Father and the white is the representative of the Holy Spirit.

All three parts make up one egg. One God.

Peace>>>AJ:heart:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But what does the Word of God mean to a Catholic?

That it is inspired by God, canonical, & true.​

To an Evangelical it means that it is 100% true. NOT a myth. Adam & Eve - true - real people. Noah - real guy - built the ark.

OK - Judges 9 - Jotham’s parable: Did the trees really set about choosing a king ? The words of the parable say very clearly that they did. Trees do not have kings - they do not have any kind of rulers; or any political or social institutions at all.​

IOW - the word “king” means what it does in human societies, where kings have been found. It is applied to the trees, which don’t have kings in reality, for the sake of the political argument Jotham is making. He talks about kings because they were part of the reality of society in the Book of Judges. The parable is a fiction, making a political point, by speaking of trees as though they were people, with the political arrangements that people (such as Jotham) were familiar with.

The Bible is Divine - it is also fully human. So it uses myth, fiction, argument, parable, poetry, prose, metaphor, allegory, exhortation, rebuke, letters, & so on, just as men do. What it does not do is treat all truth as “truth of fact” - because truth comes in parables too; & in other kinds of writing in the Bible.

No one at my old church would ever suggest that Genesis wasn’t how it happened. They may disagree over what a “day” means - or new earth vs. old earth - but they would all nod in agreement that the Creation happened just as it is written because God’s word is true.

(some) Catholics scoff at that. I was told over & over again that SCIENCE refutes Genesis. Like what kind of stupid idoit are you… EVERYONE knows that evolution is now FACT.

but then I’m told I’m welcome to believe Genesis if I want… right. Except I stand here alone. Oh wait, I’m standing with the other fundamentalist fools.

Yes, “God’s Word is true” - but that of itself does not tell us much. Car manuals are true too; so is a map; so is a tax return (one hopes !) - but there is more to the message of the Bible than truth as accuracy of detail. Christ is the Truth of the Bible - all else is secondary: we are saved by Christ, not by Judges 9 or Genesis 1. Salvation is through Christ, not through the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9. Redemption is by Christ - not by the Exodus. These things have their place - & it is not one of equality with Him.​

As for post 241: no, that’s not a stretch - some posters used to be Evangelicals. Perhaps more to the point, is this: the comparison fails, because the CC does not equate

• the truth of the Bible
  with
• truth understood as truth of fact.
  So
• a fiction can be true; which why there are true fictions in the Bible: they are a human way of speaking, which can be used to communicate God’s Word.

 

[look3467]

That it is inspired by God, canonical, & true.## OK - Judges 9 - Jotham’s parable: Did the trees really set about choosing a king ? The words of the parable say very clearly that they did. Trees do not have kings - they do not have any kind of rulers; or any political or social institutions at all.​

IOW - the word “king” means what it does in human societies, where kings have been found. It is applied to the trees, which don’t have kings in reality, for the sake of the political argument Jotham is making. He talks about kings because they were part of the reality of society in the Book of Judges. The parable is a fiction, making a political point, by speaking of trees as though they were people, with the political arrangements that people (such as Jotham) were familiar with.

The Bible is Divine - it is also fully human. So it uses myth, fiction, argument, parable, poetry, prose, metaphor, allegory, exhortation, rebuke, letters, & so on, just as men do. What it does not do is treat all truth as “truth of fact” - because truth comes in parables too; & in other kinds of writing in the Bible. ## Yes, “God’s Word is true” - but that of itself does not tell us much. Car manuals are true too; so is a map; so is a tax return (one hopes !) - but there is more to the message of the Bible than truth as accuracy of detail. Christ is the Truth of the Bible - all else is secondary: we are saved by Christ, not by Judges 9 or Genesis 1. Salvation is through Christ, not through the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9. Redemption is by Christ - not by the Exodus. These things have their place - & it is not one of equality with Him.

As for post 241: no, that’s not a stretch - some posters used to be Evangelicals. Perhaps more to the point, is this: the comparison fails, because the CC does not equate

• the truth of the Bible
  with
• truth understood as truth of fact.
  So
• a fiction can be true; which why there are true fictions in the Bible: they are a human way of speaking, which can be used to communicate God’s Word.

Very well put! Shows wisdom in understanding.

Peace>>>AJ:heart:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Show me one text book where it says “science: the study of God’s creation.”

You are naive and ignorant if you do not believe that there is an inherent conflict between science and God.

How can can there be an “inherent conflict between science & God” ? Between God, & the gifts He has given us to understand the world which He has created ?​

Take a poll… let’s see how many people on these boards believe that there is/is not a conflict between God and science. I say the vote would be overwhelmingly that there is/can be a conflict.

“can be” =//= “is”.

Numbers are irrelevant to truth; if people think there must be a conflict, an “inherent conflict”, then one wonders where they think computers come from, or a thousand other things we take for granted, from the clothes we wear to the the alarms we use to wake us up. None of these would be possible, let alone actual, without a host of scientific processes & technologies.

Science is not only perfectly legitimate - it is a very good thing, an astonishing achievement. That it can be, has been, & is often hideously abused, does not make it any less worthwhile. What hasn’t ? All that shows is that sinful man is well able to spoil what God gives him; but it does not make the gifts evil or valueless.

Science cannot explain supernatural things in a Godly way, like: souls, resurrection, heaven, Eucharist, angels, etc… When it cannot explain them, it primarily assumes that they really do not exist. I have never seen a text book say “we cannot explain this, thus it is assumed to be of divine origin.”

You’re confusing​

• the limits which are proper to the methods of the sciences
  with
• the points of view which individuals are capable of bringing to them.
  So:
• It’s possible to study US history with an anti-US bias.
• It’s possible to study US history with a pro-US bias.
  The attitude is not in the subject matter, nor is it required by it - it is in the student. The subject studied, does not require that it be studied with either set of attitudes. This is true of History, of the sciences, of Biblical Criticism.

These subjects do require intellectual competence - for someone with no talent for physics to study it would be absurd. Those with a talent for the sciences ought to study them; why waste the talent one has ?

The sciences are not competent to talk abou the supernatural - that is not within the limits of their methods. A chemist could analyse a consecrated Host - he would not find God in it. His instruments are not able to detect God, because God is not related to reality in the way that matter is.

That’s not a confict?

None at all - it’s a pseudo-conflict, the kind that arises when people trespass into territory which is outside the limits of what their own discipline equips them to study. Which is how scientists sometimes make themselves look silly .​

Don’t even get me started on science and abortion. What about stem cell research? How about cloning?

Science, almost inherently, tries to find a natural way to explain things so that they can leave God out of the picture. My assumption is that there are few scientists that dualy hold a orthodox Christian (let alone Catholic) faith and a determined pursuit of the sciences. It is a rarity.

The sciences deal with the natural order - of course they use natural explanations . God is not within the natural order, so science takes no account of Him or the supernatural. That’s not the same as setting out to exclude Him of set purpose - “God talk” is out of place in science. To appeal to the supernatural, when this is unnecessary, is bad science, & bad theology too.​

Science is not simply a way of explaining the creation (as we call it, though others don’t) - it is a way which works with a particular set of methods: that is, one that relies on being able to control both the data, & their interpretation. God is God - He cannot be controlled; a lab specimen, can. So God (& the supernatural), precisely because they cannot be controlled, have to be left out. Besides, one of the proofs of the validity of science as an enterprise is that its method is common to Christians (such as John Polkinghorne) & atheists (such as Peter Singer): that’s why there is no Evangelical science, or Catholic science, Baptist botany, agnostic physics, or Marxist cybernetics: science is a fully “ecumenical” enterprise. As there are so many divisions in the world, that is surely a good thing.

You try to fit God in a box made for science… but He doesn’t fit nicely. It is like you give science a capital (S) and God a lower case (g).

 

[myfavoritmartin]

<< Psalm 90 >>
New American Standard ©

---

BOOK 4

God’s Eternity and Man’s Transitoriness.

A Prayer of Moses, the man of God.

1 Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.
3 You turn man back into dust
And say, “Return, O children of men.”
4** For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
Or as a watch in the night. **
Scripture seems to hint at more than the literal 7 days…

 

[buffalo]

## I don’t think the Church has anything to say about haggises either - that does not make them irrelevant or immoral or dangerous or non-existent. That the CC does not say a thing, does not make it wrong to say - whether one is talking about sheep’s intestines, or the interpretation of Genesis.

I have quoted the relevant Catechism passages in the past yet you still seem to deny the fact of our original parents.

** How to read the account of the fall**
[390](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/390.htm’) 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.264 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.265

 

[Sixtus]

What’s a haggis got to do with 'the world being created in 7-days? Have I lost the plot?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer;2280638:

I have quoted the relevant Catechism passages in the past yet you still seem to deny the fact of our original parents.

How to read the account of the fall

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.264 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.265## I’ve affirmed what that paragraph teaches, several times It does not forbid one to say that:

• A & E = fiction
• Fall of man = all too actual fact
  I have no hesitation in affirming every syllable of that paragraph. That is not the same as affirming belief in the historical actuality of the two persons who are a male adult human called Adam, & a female human adult named Eve - there is no reason that I know of, doctrinal or other, that requires a Catholic to believe they existed.

If you want to call the first sinners by those names, go ahead But AFAICS, there is no compelling reason in or out of the Bible to do so. If “The Flintstones” had been divinely inspired, the same lesson could be taught; in fact, inspiration (in the sense the word has as applied to the composition of the Biblical books) may not be needed for teaching the lesson of Genesis 1-3 or 1-11: the grace of revelation might be

If they had been called Bilbo & Frodo, that would not affect the fact of human alienation from God - but at least no one is likely to require Christians to believe in the historical character of two hobbits invented by an Oxford professor. A & E are no less characters in a story which is not true as a relation of historical fact - it is true, not as history, but as theology. A story is the mode of what is told - the
content of the telling, is the bad news of sin. (In fact, this is just part of the meaning - that is BTW, & not unimportant).

The difference between Genesis 1-3 & the fictions of Tolkien or the parables of the Bible, seems to be that people seem to think that because Gen.1-3 occurs in a book which is sacred, it must be really historical. But why ? Is the Parable of the Two Sons in Luke 15.11-32 historical ? Does it have to be historically factual, in order to supply a true lesson about God & man? Who thinks so ? A & E is equally a fiction - it is not so obviously a fiction in its form, & in much of its content, as the parable. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What’s a haggis got to do with 'the world being created in 7-days? Have I lost the plot?

LOL - no. That was just an example of something the Magisterium does not pronounce upon, as there is no need for it do so.​

Do those who constitute “the Teaching Church” ever eat haggises ? I hope so - it might do them a power of good.

Actually, a haggis would be a very good “world-egg” - there ought to be a creation myth about how all things came from within the Primeval Haggis. ##

 

[buffalo]

## I’ve affirmed what that paragraph teaches, several times It does not forbid one to say that:

• A & E = fiction
• Fall of man = all too actual fact
  I have no hesitation in affirming every syllable of that paragraph. That is not the same as affirming belief in the historical actuality of the two persons who are a male adult human called Adam, & a female human adult named Eve - there is no reason that I know of, doctrinal or other, that requires a Catholic to believe they existed.

If you want to call the first sinners by those names, go ahead But AFAICS, there is no compelling reason in or out of the Bible to do so. If “The Flintstones” had been divinely inspired, the same lesson could be taught; in fact, inspiration (in the sense the word has as applied to the composition of the Biblical books) may not be needed for teaching the lesson of Genesis 1-3 or 1-11: the grace of revelation might be

If they had been called Bilbo & Frodo, that would not affect the fact of human alienation from God - but at least no one is likely to require Christians to believe in the historical character of two hobbits invented by an Oxford professor. A & E are no less characters in a story which is not true as a relation of historical

fact - it is true, not as history, but as theology. A story is the mode of what is told - the
content of the telling, is the bad news of sin. (In fact, this is just part of the meaning - that is BTW, & not unimportant).

The difference between Genesis 1-3 & the fictions of Tolkien or the parables of the Bible, seems to be that people seem to think that because Gen.1-3 occurs in a book which is sacred, it must be really historical. But why ? Is the Parable of the Two Sons in Luke 15.11-32 historical ? Does it have to be historically factual, in order to supply a true lesson about God & man? Who thinks so ? A & E is equally a fiction - it is not so obviously a fiction in its form, & in much of its content, as the parable. ##

The names are not as important as the fact they existed.

1. •           The                 first man was created by God. (De fide.)

   •           The                 whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

   • Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)

   •           Adam                 received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all                 his posterity. (Sent. certa.)

   •           Our                 first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression                 of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

   •           Our                 first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of                 the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

   •           Adam's                 sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by                 descent. (De fide.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The names are not as important as the fact they existed.

1. • The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   • The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   • Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   • Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   • Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   • Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   • Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

1. • I don’t think I am contradicting Trent or the CCC.
     Where is the emphasis in those definitions:
   • 1. On the existence of a first man ?
   • 2. Or, on the doctrinal content of Gen. 1-3 ?
   • 3. Or, on both ?
   • 4. AFAICS: on 2.
     I don’t know. What is clear, is that definitions, like other theological theses, cannot be applied (or not without comment) to situations for which they were not intended. If a controversy has not arisen, a definition which was not made with it in mind cannot be used to settle it.
   1. Trent was held before the rise of modern methods of Biblical scholarship, when the validity of the age-old interpretation of Gen. 1-3 as talking about a first human pair was taken for granted. That they were as solidly historical as Pres. Reagan or Mrs Thatcher would be to us, was, AFAIK, not an issue. There was no compelling reason to doubt the existence of A & E in a garden in Eden at the very beginning of the existence of the human race.
   
   2. That is no longer the case - because
   • modern methods of Biblical scholarship
   • the rise of archaeology
   • the recovery of cultures older than that of the Chosen People
   • the rise of philology
   • the means to have a fuller understanding of the background to the Bible
   • the recovery of various ancient literatures
     have all helped to transform the study of the Bible.
   3. This is not a criticism of (say) the Fathers, it is not a way of saying that they were clueless idiots with nothing to say that is worth listening to. Not at all: it does mean that modern interpreters of the Bible have many helps to its interpretation which they - & most generations until recent times - simply did not have.
   
   4. And these have not left the understanding of the Bible unaffected. The Flood is one example of this; apocalyptic is another. If the infancy narrative in Matt 2 is a theological construction, & not history, then so be it: modern scholarship does not hinder Jesus from being born; it does not prevent His being virgin-born; it does not prevent His being God. Neither does the non-existence of a first pair prevent His being Our Saviour from the tyranny of sin, death, & the devil. It is hard to see why the scholars should be blamed for the illogic of those who think otherwise.
   
   5. The Fathers of Trent could not read hieroglyphics - does that oblige Catholics living at or since the time they were deciphered, to avoid doing so ? St. Jerome & St. Augustine, like all generations since AD 74/5, had no way of knowing about Sumerian, much less of learning it: must Catholics living since it was deciphered be as unknowing ? Pius X had no way of knowing that in 1929 it would be possible to recover large numbers of Canaanite texts - are Catholics to ignore them, now that they are available ? Is it not far better to use these helps, & all others, in order to understand the Bible more accurately ?
   
   6. If a dogma is true, a Babylonian tablet or Egyptian hymn is not going to upset it (though it may fill it out). It seems like a lack of faith to suggest (if anyone does) that the use of these things - of which most Christians in the past were not in a position to take any notice - is going to destroy any dogmas. Dogmas are not timeless - an awful lot has happened since Trent, which is why people don’t have exactly the same presuppositions about the Bible as were usual in the 16th century. And Catholics in 2500 will probably have different ideas from ours: one hopes they will understand the Bible far better than we are able to.

 

[patg]

And Catholics in 2500 will probably have different ideas from ours: one hopes they will understand the Bible far better than we are able to.

Amen! You are right on once again!

 

[buffalo]

• I don’t think I am contradicting Trent or the CCC.
  Where is the emphasis in those definitions:
• 1. On the existence of a first man ?
• 2. Or, on the doctrinal content of Gen. 1-3 ?
• 3. Or, on both ?
• 4. AFAICS: on 2.
  I don’t know. What is clear, is that definitions, like other theological theses, cannot be applied (or not without comment) to situations for which they were not intended. If a controversy has not arisen, a definition which was not made with it in mind cannot be used to settle it.

1. Trent was held before the rise of modern methods of Biblical scholarship, when the validity of the age-old interpretation of Gen. 1-3 as talking about a first human pair was taken for granted. That they were as solidly historical as Pres. Reagan or Mrs Thatcher would be to us, was, AFAIK, not an issue. There was no compelling reason to doubt the existence of A & E in a garden in Eden at the very beginning of the existence of the human race.

2. That is no longer the case - because

• modern methods of Biblical scholarship
• the rise of archaeology
• the recovery of cultures older than that of the Chosen People
• the rise of philology
• the means to have a fuller understanding of the background to the Bible
• the recovery of various ancient literatures
  have all helped to transform the study of the Bible.

3. This is not a criticism of (say) the Fathers, it is not a way of saying that they were clueless idiots with nothing to say that is worth listening to. Not at all: it does mean that modern interpreters of the Bible have many helps to its interpretation which they - & most generations until recent times - simply did not have.

4. And these have not left the understanding of the Bible unaffected. The Flood is one example of this; apocalyptic is another. If the infancy narrative in Matt 2 is a theological construction, & not history, then so be it: modern scholarship does not hinder Jesus from being born; it does not prevent His being virgin-born; it does not prevent His being God. Neither does the non-existence of a first pair prevent His being Our Saviour from the tyranny of sin, death, & the devil. It is hard to see why the scholars should be blamed for the illogic of those who think otherwise.

5. The Fathers of Trent could not read hieroglyphics - does that oblige Catholics living at or since the time they were deciphered, to avoid doing so ? St. Jerome & St. Augustine, like all generations since AD 74/5, had no way of knowing about Sumerian, much less of learning it: must Catholics living since it was deciphered be as unknowing ? Pius X had no way of knowing that in 1929 it would be possible to recover large numbers of Canaanite texts - are Catholics to ignore them, now that they are available ? Is it not far better to use these helps, & all others, in order to understand the Bible more accurately ?

6. If a dogma is true, a Babylonian tablet or Egyptian hymn is not going to upset it (though it may fill it out). It seems like a lack of faith to suggest (if anyone does) that the use of these things - of which most Christians in the past were not in a position to take any notice - is going to destroy any dogmas. Dogmas are not timeless - an awful lot has happened since Trent, which is why people don’t have exactly the same presuppositions about the Bible as were usual in the 16th century. And Catholics in 2500 will probably have different ideas from ours: one hopes they will understand the Bible far better than we are able to.

So God’s Revelation is confusing to us? We are sort of gnostic because we now have unlocked the secrets in the Bible. I don’t buy it.

When speaking of the infancy narratives it is important to understand that at Pentecost the Apostles were infused with knowledge they didn’t have.

They were instructed to put down what they have heard and seen. Again the lens of modernism strikes again.

And…archaeology has verfified the Bible over and over.

You are contradicting even current Catholic teaching by your claim about our first parents. They also had preternatural gifts. Eve came from Adam. Your scholarship has to throw away much too much. This approach is a slippery slope.

 

[CarlosG]

So God’s Revelation is confusing to us? We are sort of gnostic because we now have unlocked the secrets in the Bible. I don’t buy it.

God’s Revelation can certainly be confusing to us. Obviously this thread is a testament to that. Even the Church Fathers did not agree on this issue and this was before the advent of ‘modern secularism’. Many many parts of the Bible can be taken out of context as verified by all the atheists quoting a few verses and hoping to discredit the Bible veracity, they are not easy exigetes sometimes and can be “confusing”. Many parts can be mysterious such as the trinity. We are not semi-gnostic because we believe in a Triune God are we?

It could be argued that re are RE-discovering what was already known to be the case by the ancient jewish text writer of Genesis. It could be argued that God is helping us settle the matter once and for all rather than there be a gulf in our Chruch.