W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
it makes protestants really angry
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
You can lay out the farely well the sequence of events.
One can take a measuring tape and curl it back onto itself. As we look at it it is about 1" diameter. As we uncurl it we now see it us 12 feet long and marked with graduations. If we live on mark 1" what do we see?
B
buffalo
Guest
They have to be reasoned out illuminated by Revelation. There can be a third answer.
B
buffalo
Guest
What? - modern archaeology affirms the Bible everyday.
D
DavWan
Guest
Some interesting Church statements from Denzinger:
The Historical Nature of Sacred Scripture *
[From the reply of the Biblical Commission, June 23, 1905]
The question:
1980 Whether the opinion can be admitted as aprinciple of sound exegesis, which holds that the books of Sacred Scripture which are held to be historical, either in whole or in part sometimes do not narrate history properly so called and truly objective, but present an appearance of history only, to signify something different from the properly literal and historical significance of the words?
The answer(with the approbation of Pius X) :
In the negative, except in the case, however, not readily or rashly to be admitted, where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgment, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words.
______________________–
The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis *
[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]
2124 Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?–Reply: In the affirmative.
2128 Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?–Reply: In the affirmative.
We can see here that we are not bound to hold the six days were literal here. Moreover it is permitted to investigate whether certain things were intended to be understood as history or not.
However, we cannot say that Genesis 1-3 was merely fable or myth:
2122 Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls?–Reply: In the negative to both parts.
It seems to me that a view of evolution which respects the teaching of the Church cannot be seen as contradictory to Scripture.
The Historical Nature of Sacred Scripture *
[From the reply of the Biblical Commission, June 23, 1905]
The question:
1980 Whether the opinion can be admitted as aprinciple of sound exegesis, which holds that the books of Sacred Scripture which are held to be historical, either in whole or in part sometimes do not narrate history properly so called and truly objective, but present an appearance of history only, to signify something different from the properly literal and historical significance of the words?
The answer(with the approbation of Pius X) :
In the negative, except in the case, however, not readily or rashly to be admitted, where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgment, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words.
______________________–
The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis *
[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]
2124 Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?–Reply: In the affirmative.
2128 Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?–Reply: In the affirmative.
We can see here that we are not bound to hold the six days were literal here. Moreover it is permitted to investigate whether certain things were intended to be understood as history or not.
However, we cannot say that Genesis 1-3 was merely fable or myth:
2122 Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls?–Reply: In the negative to both parts.
It seems to me that a view of evolution which respects the teaching of the Church cannot be seen as contradictory to Scripture.
B
buffalo
Guest
It wouldn’t be:
Here are the points of intersect with regard to the origins of man:
All descended from Adam and Eve, Eve came from Adam, bodily immortality, preternatural gifts, freedom from irregular desire, freedom from illness, infused knowledge, etc…
E
edwest2
Guest
Science cannot account for Miracles. So clearly, the work of God falls outside of science’s ability to study.
Peace,
Ed
D
DavWan
Guest
Well I agree. My main concern was addressing the issues of those who believe evolution contradicts the Bible, demonstrating what the Church requires in the view of the Bible.
Personally, I don’t think Science and Religion are enemies. Rather when a scientist goes beyond the limits of science and seeks to speak on the existence of God, that is the problem. Philosophy, not science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Agreed, faith and reason cannot be opposed. Science is a subset of reason.
And that is what is known as evolutionism.
R
rossum
Guest
Modern archaeology affirms parts of the Bible every day. Modern archaeology also affirms parts of Homer. We have the remains of Troy, Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos and many other places mentioned in Homer. The archaeology does not affirm the existence of Zeus, Apollo and the other gods mentioned in Homer. Archaeological comfirmation is useful, but can only get you so far. Much of what is claimed for the Bible is not confirmable by archaeology.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Baloney - the first attack on the reliability of the Bible came from those claiming there was no evidence for cities and people. This pretty much has been trashed and the historical things are being verified. It eliminates this sort of attack.
E
edwest2
Guest
Much? How much?
amazon.com/Stones-Cry-Out-Archaeology-Reveals/dp/1565076400/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2_rdssss0
If the starting assumption is that not much is confirmable, then people sometimes trust that statement without looking for themselves. There is also a publication titled Biblical Archaeology Review.
bib-arch.org/
Peae,
Ed
D
DavWan
Guest
While I like BAR, people who are unfamiliar with it should be aware of its approach. It is not Archaeology from a Biblical assumption, but rather archaeology from the perspective of the lands and persons of the Bible. Because they largely write from a scientific perspective, some readers have taken offense because some non-Christian Archaeologists have questioned Biblical claims.
Keeping this in mind, the magazine can be fascinating. The only reason I dropped my subscription was because of delivery issues.
A
anon5216
Guest
It affirms that certain cities mentioned actually existed.
When creating myths, the authors would, of course, connect locations people were familiar with into the stories. It doesn’t make the stories true.
Archaeology has shown that the exodus never took place as described.
Also, the stories of Joshua conquering Canaan have been shown to be ancient propaganda.
More of the Old Testament is exposed as political propaganda under guise of religious myth all the time.
Think about the parable of new wine in old wineskins.
The old Jewish scriptures are old wineskins.
They never should have been included in the Christian canon.
R
rossum
Guest
As you say, parts of the Bible are historical and have been verified. I do not have a problem with that. What you cannot do is to extend the use of historical verification to cover the non-historical parts of the Bible.
Homer was based on real events and included real cities in his stories. Some historical parts of Homer have been verified. That historical verification does not extend to cover Zeus and the other gods.
You are trying to stretch archaeology to cover things where archaeology cannot help you. Archaeology can tell you that people used to believe in Zeus; it cannot tell you whether Zeus actually exists.
rossum
C
Contarini
Guest
Because it isn’t a matter of faith.
I’m not sure the Catholic Church is concerned with “world view.” It’s concerned with revealed truth. There are many “world views” compatible with the truths of Christianity.
Why is that relevant? Numbers are not theologically impressive.
That’s not relevant. The Catholic Church doesn’t condemn things unless they believe that the ideas in question contradict some truth of the Faith.
Edwin
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
“Ignorance of scriptures is ignorance of God” -St. Jerome
B
buffalo
Guest
What are the non-historical parts of the Bible?
B
buffalo
Guest
Source?
D
DavWan
Guest
Who has proven this? When? What Scientists recognize this “discovery”?
- Status