He writes:
I’ve got sort of a followup question to the one somebody asked you about Abraham in a recent NCR article of yours. It’s about how to read Genesis 1-11. I’ve heard that Catholics tend to read those chapters as containing figurative language, and I noticed that one commenter in the article said that Catholics take them as allegorical. I’ve been increasingly struggling with how to read those chapters myself recently, and I was wondering if you could help me.
I’ll give it a whack, though I’m not a bible scholar. Just so you are forewarned.
In the case of Creation and of Adam and Eve, I’ve got a pretty good idea of what it means to read them as containing figurative language.
The Creation account affirms that God made the universe and everything in it, living and not living, though not in a way that attempting to force it into a literal interpretation would indicate. I agree with this, and I believe that the literary framework of the Creation account indicates that this is how it’s meant to be read.
We’re on the same page so far.
Ditto for the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall. The story tells us that God made man in His image, initially in a state of sinlessness, but that under Satan’s influence, man disobeyed Him and fell from grace. To say that the story is figurative means that the Fall is a real historical event that really happened to the first man God made in His image, but that the particular trappings of the story aren’t literal. Again, I believe there’s internal evidence in the story that this was meant to be the case, such as the way that it refers to “the” serpent instead of “a” serpent, and from the way that the serpent talks. And the Messianic prophecy at the end of the story undoubtedly uses figurative language. Obviously, Satan didn’t literally strike Christ’s heel like a serpent, and Christ didn’t literally crush Satan’s head as if he were a serpent. It figuratively predicts Christ’s total defeat of Satan by suffering and dying on the cross.
Yep. I agree.
But after that, I’m just not sure what it means to say that Genesis 1-11 should be seen as using figurative language.
I don’t know that the Church says much about Genesis 1-11 using figurative language. The passage in the Catechism is only addressing the story of the fall in Genesis 3:
CCC 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. 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.
That’s not to say that Gen 1-11 doesn’t use figurative language (though I think “figurative” is a misleading term for moderns since we tend to hear “fictional” when categories like “fiction” and “history” are not present to the minds of ancient writers as they are to ours in telling origin stories. It’s vital that we learn to ask the right questions of the text and I’m not confident many moderns (including myself) know how to do that with reliability. But we are certain we know what the ancient writer was getting at and so tend to come to hasty and wrong conclusions.
For instance, what does it mean in the case of Cain and Abel? That they weren’t really an animal keeper and vegetable grower respectively? That they weren’t really the direct sons of the first pair of humans in God’s image? That they didn’t exist at all? And in the latter case, how can the story be true with figurative language rather than just false?
I seen nothing in Catholic teaching requiring to accept the historicity or non-historicity of Cain and Abel. My own inclination is to suspect there is a historical backdrop to the story (and to most of the stories of the patriarchs). But I’m also aware that the Hebraic concept of corporate personality also exerts influence on the way this story is told. What I mean is this: consider another patriarch less notable these days:
Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. (Genesis 4:20-22)
Notice how the sacred writer thinks here: He is not asserting a direct genetic parentage, as though every tent dweller on earth is the physical descendant of Jabal, every musician on earth is a direct physical descendant of Jubal, and every person skilled in metallurgy is a direct physical descendant of Tubal-cain. But these patriarchs are seen as the adoptive archetypes and fathers of all those who do these things. Similarly, Cain and Abel (whatever the historical background to the story) become the archetypal father of farmers and shepherds and the mutual hostility between them. I don’t think we have to choose between a historical background and the layers of meaning the story tellers impart to the tale. The whole point of the four senses of Scripture is that Cain and Abel can have a literal sense and more than literal senses too. And these can extend far beyond the hostility of farmers and shepherds to a recapitulation of the fall. Indeed, major movements of Genesis 1-11 can best be understood, in my view, as a retelling of the Fall story again and again. Genesis is, after all, the prelude to the *main* story of ancient Israel: the story of the Exodus. And in that story too, God brings a new creation out of water (the waters of the Red Sea), establishes a race of priest kings, and is confronted by an act of rebellion (the Golden Calf) that radically damages their communion with him and results in massive ripples of destruction that echo down the ages.
And then there’s the Flood. Does figurative language merely mean that it was a local event? That it wasn’t universal to all of mankind but only that which Noah knew? That there was no flood, no Noah, no ark, no animals, and no Shem, Ham, and Japheth? And again, in that case, how can we say that the story was figuratively true rather than just false? And how do we understand Jesus when he refers to his Second Coming as being “as in the days of Noah” and Peter when he refers to the Flood as proof of God’s judgement? And are there any internal aspects to the story that indicate how it should be read?
The Church’s basic rule of thumb in reading scripture is to be read first—but not solely—for the literal sense: that is, what is the author trying to say, the way he is trying to say it, and what is incidental to the assertion. As the Catechism puts it, ““All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal” (CCC 116). At the bare minimum, I think the author is asserting there was some kind of flood that wiped out what he would call “the world”. We are not in any way obliged to think that means “the globe”. Depending on how ancient this tradition is and how small the human race was, a world-destroying flood and a local one can be one and the same. Certainly we know there were some epic floods in antiquity. Also, I’m not persuaded that the author of Genesis is interested in trying to argue that, say, the ancestors of the Sioux or Chinese were obliterated. He seems to me to have in view a very small geographic area and is interested only in the fortunes of the people in that area. I could be wrong, of course, and I submit my opinions to wiser heads than mine. But primarily what seems to interest the author of Genesis is the story of the covenant family. So, again, I have no problem with a historical background to figure like Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But I’m skeptical that the question “Is this historical?” would have been intelligible to the author of Genesis. The story is too loaded with meaning for him to merely be a newpaper account. I would call it “super-historical” rather than unhistorical: a kernel of something that actually occurred, but also lensed through the memory of whole people and seen in light of their experience of God (recall that it’s all written down after the Exodus).
And finally, the Tower Of Babel. Does saying that it uses figurative language mean that there was no tower, no confusion of languages, etc? And again, how do we distinguish figurative from false, and what internal aspects to the story are there to indicate how we should see it?
Here, I think there is obviously a historical background: the ziggurats of Babylon. But again, the question of newspaper accuracy is not present to the mind of the sacred writer. With the Tower of Babel there is a whole theological background the sacred author is communicating. Note, for instance, the genealogies leading up to the story. The purpose of a genealogy in Genesis is to act like a sort of zoom lens: the genealogy tells you where the story is going to go and who it is going to follow. In the case of the sons of Noah, something utterly unique happens: the story is going to follow the firstborn son rather than some younger son. That’s different, because typically in the Old Testament, God winds up chosing some younger son for his blessing, a thumb in the eye of primogeniture and a reminder that God is sovereign and not bound by tribal traditions. However, in the extremely rare case of Shem, the blessing remains on the oldest son. So the sacred author signals this by giving the genealogy and placing Shem last rather than first, because that’s where the story is going to go since Abraham is a descendant of Shem.
Now “Shem” means “Name”. That’s why God is called “HaShem” (the Name) rather than Yahweh in Jewish piety. You use a respectful euphemism rather than simply blurt the Holy Name out loud. Names are massively significant in scripture and in this case part of what is being communicated here is that the covenant blessing passed down to the human family from Adam through Noah resides with Shem. That matters because the Hamites (envious sons of Ham) who build the Tower of Babel inaugurate the process in language that is loaded with theological significance: “Come, let us make a ***name*** for ourselves.” In other words, the Tower of Babel is an act of human pride and rebellion (the Fall replayed yet again), and charged with much more significance than merely the fact that big towers were, in fact, built in Mesopotamia. The literal sense and the theological meanings are deeply fused in such a narrative. It’s not “figurative” in the sense of “fictional”. But neither is it intended to be modern history either. The biblical author has different fish to fry than meeting our modern canons for writing history.
I’ve been struggling with these issues for a long time, but it’s sort of coming to a head for me as I have just had a son, and I wonder what I should teach him. I don’t want to feel like I’m lying to him if I tell him that such things as the Flood happened, but I also can’t get over the discomfort of feeling that teaching a part of Scripture, as apparently understood by Jesus himself, could be a lie, as it seems to make God a liar. I just don’t know how to deal with this. Any help you can give me would be deeply appreciated.
You can take it to the bank that Jesus is neither deluded nor a liar. However, “approaching the traditions of Israel by some other route the the rules of modern historiography” is not the same as lying.
I hope that helps.
Comments
Post a Comment
Regarding the Flood I have always found it interesting how many cultures have a flood narrative. It would suggest (to me at least) that whatever this event was it clearly impacted a large number of cultures.
St. Augustine’s book, De genesi ad literam (On the literal meanings of Genesis) is instructive here. He asks, inter alia, what it means to say “evenining and morning, the nth day” for a sphere, where it is always evening and morning somewhere. He also notes that light was created before the sun and asks whether this might have been some other kind of light or whether it was symbolically “the light of the world” or something else. There is often more than one purely literal way of reading.
In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul says: ?Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic. ?And he explains the statement in Genesis, ?And they shall be two in one flesh,?as a great mystery in reference to Christ and to the Church.
If, then, Scripture is to be explained under both aspects, what meaning other than the allegorical have the words: ?In the beginning God created heaven and earth??
Yes, with all those flood myths I think it possible for a massive flood to have happened in the past. What made me even more curious, however, is the fact that besides 3 “main” flood narratives I know - which are the Bible story of Noah, the Greek Deucalion myth and the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh myth there is one more that caught my attention. Apparently there is an Aztec myths about multiple worlds (can’t remeber the exact number, but I think that there were 4 of them) that existed one after another, every one of them ruled by anothed deity. According to the myth, the last world before ours is said to have been destroyed in a great flood. I’m wondering whether it has something to do with European and Middle-Eastern flood narratives or not. Because if the answer is yes… well, the flood must have been really massive.
Read Ezekiel 31. What exactly are the “trees” in the Garden of Eden?
There are also the Chinese and Japanese flood myths- neither one of which used a boat to survive (the Chinese waterproofed a cave, the Japanese used their floating village technology which is still in use for fishing villages on the Inland Sea). I’m also familiar with the Kwakiutal/T’Chinook flood myth- which is like the Aztec but can be interpreted to blame high technology for melting the polar ice cap (there a pair of brothers, out with their families in great canoes fishing, survived- and landed at Jowadainoo on the British Columbia Coast at the foot of Whoop’Tzu, the noisy mountain- a village that has been in existence for at least the last 10,000 years).
But may I make a suggestion that all the flood stories *might be local* despite their world-spanning claims, for the very reason that the original writers only knew a local community?
“If, then, Scripture is to be explained under both aspects, what meaning other than the allegorical have the words: ?In the beginning God created heaven and earth??”
This is one reason why I reject the notion that Creation is something from nothing. Chicken/Egg discussions I think miss the point. In my experience, Creation is more about bringing order to what might previously have been seen as being chaotic.
That’s funny, Eric Bohn- I just re-read a 4 year old posting from Mark on that very subject:
http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html
Eric:
Except that creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is a dogma of the faith.
So it is with EVERY theory of creation. They are all dogmas of faith in the end, because nobody has the space to recreate the universe in a laboratory.
I just don’t think there’s anything in the text that would lead an honest inquirer to any conclusion other than the author intended to convey an historical event. The author gives such exact measurements of space, size, and time throughout and he insists emphatically that all human beings—all the descendants of our first parents—excepting the eight in the ark were wiped out; utterly destroyed. That all societies in the world have in their cultural memory a great flood myth would rather serve to vindicate the true historicity of the Genesis account. Incredulity aside, there is simply no reason to narrow the scope of what is written to be less than an account of what really happened. Further, both Jesus and Peter use the flood and Noah’s survival as a type that looked forward to a future reality. Though the sign and the thing signified aren’t the same, it’s nevertheless true that in order for something to be a sign pointing to something else the thing doing the pointing has to be a real thing. The bronze snake was a real bronze snake, wasn’t it? The passage out of bondage and into the promised land through water was a real passage through water, wasn’t it?
There just isn’t anything in the text, nor in traditional interpretations of that text, to indicate that the inspired author isn’t describing a real new beginning for the whole human race. Alternatives must be read into the text. They can’t legitimately be read out of it.
To me, reading 1-11 in the literal sense still makes the most sense, even if it may be the hardest to believe, for some. Albeit a literal reading makes for some mystery on some points. Personally, I don’t have a problem with accepting a little mystery.
We can wonder all day long how what is really the Body and Blood of Christ can still appear to be the things they previously were but still believe with total faith that the appearance is one thing and the reality another. That’s a way bigger mystery than wondering how a flood could have covered the whole earth, for instance, or that God made the world in 6 days each of 24-hr duration [assuming that is what the text is saying].
Granted in the case of what we call transubstantiation we are obliged to believe that, and in the case of the meaning of Gen. 1-11 we are not obliged to believe in a literal sense of the reading. But it is still reasonable to do so, to my mind.
I tell my son what I believe in this regard and it is no big deal. Maybe the problem for your interlocutor is that he hasn’t investigated the possibility that the literal reading might be the correct one. Since we are free to believe in the literal reading or not in this case, I think one is obliged to investigate rather than assume it can’t be literally true. There is plenty of literature available to make the case for the literal truth of 1-11.
People always like to quote St. Augustine on this question but his opinion in this particular regard is more speculation than anything and doesn’t discount the possibility of a literal meaning.
In the history of the Church, how to read Genesis 1-11 wasn’t a big issue as far as I can tell, until the 1950’s. At that time the Angelic Pastor wrote an encyclical warning against an uncritical acceptance of new scientific origin theories.
Because of the enormously publicized Galileo incident Catholics are always afraid to be perceived as being against the progress of science. Surely we would be wise to choose our battles with science. But that doesn’t mean we should be afraid to think for ourselves especially about things pertaining to the Faith just because our conclusions might be in opposition to what Science today claims is Absolute Truth [and which, we know by experience, tomorrow is thrown into the fire, by later conclusions of science].
It’s pretty clear that Genesis has some figurative intent right from the beginning, when there are two accounts of the creation of Adam and Eve. The best discussion of Genesis that I’ve come across is actually in JPII’s Theology of the Body, though it’s a little dense and takes some work to get through. (Before someone wisecracks like my parents about TOTB being a Catholic “kama sutra”, especially in these earlier parts it’s more about what it means to be a person in relation with God and others, and Genesis takes a prominent role in the discussion.)
1. There are not two “creation myths.” Gen 2 et seq. is written in mythic style, complete with culture heroes and genealogical explanations for the current-at-time-of-writing tribal/ethnic relationships. It was clear that the Hebrew tribes (Israel, Judah, Edom, and Moab) were closely related to one another and that the Arabs were also close-but-more-distant. So, Esau and Ishmael and other progenitors.
.
Gen 1, otoh, is a sophisticated poem written much later, Bellarmine thought by the scribe Ezra circa the return from Exile. It has none of the hallmarks of mythic writing; but it does have a refrain:
“And God saw that it was good;
Eve and morn the nth day.”
And it also has the typical Hebrew parallel structure. It envisions God ad a craftsman, perhaps a carpenter. What work is worthy of such a craftsman? The “whole ball of wax,” the “lock, stock, and barrel”; that is, “the heaven and the earth.” So…
Day 1. Turn on the light in the workshop.
Day 2. Rough carpentry on the heavens.
Day 3. Rough carpentry on the earth.
Day 4. Fine carpentry on the heavens.
Day 5. Fine carpentry on the earth.
Day 6. Finishing touches; piece de resistance
Day 7. Kick back and open some brewskies; i.e., honor the Sabbath.
The poem is thus a way of telling the Jews that Sabbath-keeping (by which they had maintained their tribal identity even in exile) was so important that God himself had done so. It was likely intended as a sort of Prologue to the entire Book, and so was appended to the beginning of the first scroll.
.
2. @Ted Seeber. Creation has nothing to do with the beginning of the space-time continuum. Thomas Aquinas famously assumed that the world was eternal in his “Five Ways” and addressed the issue directly in his essay De aeternitates mundi (“On the eternity of the world.”) Even if some sort of proto-matter always existed, the plain fact is that it could not have given itself existence. Existence Itself is logically prior to the particular existences of any individual thing; and Existence Itself proves to have some interesting attributes.
Can you suggest a way to think about the ages of the people in Genesis? So-and-so lived a couple of hundred years, had children, then lived another five hundred years, then died. As we go through Genesis, people’s reported ages get less, but they’re still longer at the end than anyone we’ve ever seen.
Historicity of Genesis:
Mt 23:35 “That upon you may come all the just blood that has been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.”
This was from no better scholar than a carpenter; no degree, no turned-around collar. But this next is from an educated man, an M.D.:
Luke 3 “And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years: being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat ... who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.” The next is from a mere fisherman; you can safely ignore it:
1 John 3:12 “Not as Cain, who was of the wicked one and killed his brother. And wherefore did he kill him? Because his own works were wicked: and his brother’s just.” But THIS guy is a real scholar of religion:
Rom 5:14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.”
1Cor 15:22,45 “And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive ... The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.”
1 Tim 2:13,14 “For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.”
Heb 11:4, 12:24 “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh ... and to Jesus the mediator of the new testament, and to the sprinkling of blood which speaks better than that of Abel.”
Heb 11:7 “By faith Noe, having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house: by the which he condemned the world and was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith.” Now, from another fisherman (although I’ve heard that some call him Pope):
1 Pet 3:20 “Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water”
2 Pet 2:5 “And spared not the original world, but preserved Noe, the eighth person, the preacher of justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” One last bluecollar type:
Jude 14 “Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord comes with thousands of his saints”
All of these spoke- and wrote, for the public record- as if Genesis is history.
Think moons not years, and Base Factoral five (Fingers, Hands, Hands of Hands). Methusalah works out to be around 87-89 years old, depending on how you translate the Hebrew.
John Woolley writes: “through Genesis, people’s reported ages get less, but they’re still longer at the end than anyone we’ve ever seen.”
Adam was built to last ... well, just how long was he supposed to live? There’s a clue in Gen 2: “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat. For in what day soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death.” The conclusion I draw from this is: ‘If you obey me, you’ll live forever.” Paul confirms this: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” Rom 5:12 And it was later promised in Rev 21:4. “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.”
Now, if Adam was ‘built to last’ as they say, isn’t it logical his offspring would have been long-lived as well? Note also that the lives got much shorter on average after the Flood, which drastically changed the world’s climate. Finally, Moses could write “Our years shall be considered as a spider: The days of our years in them are [70] years. But if in the strong they be [80] years: and what is more[,] of them is labour and sorrow.” Psalm 90 Doesn’t that apply to our day as well?
Also, by following this reasoning we’re in agreement with several prophecies like Ps 37:29. “But the just shall inherit THE LAND, and shall dwell therein for EVERMORE.” Verse 28 is a preview of Armagedon: “For the Lord loves judgment, and will not forsake his saints: they shall be preserved for ever. The unjust shall be punished, and the seed of the wicked shall perish.” As in Pro 2:21,22, bad guys destroyed; good guys left with their and original sin taken away; what’s to stop us from living forever on a restored earth? It’s what God wants. “So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it.” Isa 55:11 And Isa 45:18 “For thus says the Lord that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth, and made it, the very maker thereof: he did not create it in vain: he formed it to be inhabited. I am the Lord, and there is no other.”
Does this help?
Mark Shea writes: “Except that creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is a dogma of the faith.”
And a dogma of Scripture, as well. At least if scientists are correct in saying that E=MCsq is a ‘reversible reaction’: “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these things: who brings out their host by number, and calls them all by their names: by the greatness of his [energy] not one of them was missing.” Isa 40:26
This is M=E/Csq; do the math for even a small amount of M!
Interesting question. If the flood was merely a local event, why would Noah build a huge ark? In the time it took him to do that, he probably could have walked to Australia.
Both Local and The World are very relative terms. One interpretation of a “local” event is a major connection between the Mediterranean and the Persian gulf- covering EVERYTHING in between. Wouldn’t have meant much in Australia or even Mexico, but would have easily been the ENTIRE known world to the Sumerians.
What if the universal flood of myth and epic took place before the “out of Africa” dispersion? What if all these variant myths describe, in the context of the faith/history that has developed since, what is, in fact, a universal experience? What if Aztec, Inuit, Mongolian, Hebrew and African are in fact pointing to the same “local” event?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm
What if the “literal” sense of Scripture is NOT what a bunch of 20th-century (or 17h-century) literalists THINK it is ???
There’s also a Celtic flood myth.
On what authority does the protestant not take John 6 literally? On what authority does the Catholic take it literally? Since historically, not saying recently, the Church faithful and saints have never taught anything but a literal sense, not to mention that all the NT references take it in a first sense to be literal, I would be wise to lean heavily on the literal, unlike every liberal, until the Church deems it necesarry to dogmatically declare otherwise for reasons that at this point simply don’t exist. MACRO-Evolution reads much more like mythology than the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Just like it is heresy NOW to speculate on whether Mary was a virgin, I believe it will be heresy in my life to continue to speculate that Adam, the perfect first man was anything other than made, not evolved, made in a moment in perfection in every way conceivable for an embodied spirit. Add to that, that Eve was made from Adam, not evolved. No human ancestors and no non-human, human ancestors, period. But for now you can look stupid and speculate while not being a heretic.
@Ted Seeber If the ages are really that off, then so are other dates, and the so-called Great Flood, written to have lasted 40 days, wouldn’t have even made four.
Having been on an RCIA team some years back, the new Pastoral Associate (a Nun)for the parish was assigned leadership for the RCIA by the Pastor. In the very first RCIA meeting, she announced to all the potential incoming new Catholics: “You do not need to believe the first 11 Chapters of Genesis.” I found her statement ridiculous and astounding as if she did not wish to offend any newcomers. We know the Genesis account was written (by Moses) inspired by the Lord. Did Moses invent these stories? If we believe the entire Bible to be inerrant and Holy Spirit inspired and there is no account of Jesus saying the Torah had errors, why would we ever cast doubt upon what is written? As I think back about what the Pastoral Associate announced by stating the group did not have to believe any of Genesis 1-11, the logical next question is: WHAT ELSE about the Bible do I not have to believe?
R.C. and others write about various flood stories. I once read that only one culture doesn’t have one- Egypt, maybe? (So that one is “outvoted” for believers, right? :-) )
Also, in a Chinese restaurant in the US I saw a picture of eight people on a small ‘boat’ which were the “eight immortals” of a flood story.
Egypt has the story of the Pharoah Tem, who had a veritable FLEET of ships surviving the flood.
Sam. writes: “Great Flood, written to have lasted 40 days”
The building of the ark took some decades, it seems. The rain lasted 40 days; the waters didn’t drain away for some months. Gen 6 & 7
The event also set a pattern for God’s later use of supernatural disasters:
a) He observes gross misbehavior.
b) He sends warning(s) via spokesmen. (2 Pet 2:5)
c) He furnishes a way out.
d) He allows time for repentance [lit. a mental turn-around].
e) He lowers the boom.
Many see such a pattern repeating in our day. If so, some questions suggest themselves:
Is there now such gross misbehavior on a worldwide basis?
Is there a ‘Peter class’ operating today?
Do they furnish a way out? [Corollary: How many Arks did Noah build?]
Has the posited preaching been going on long enough and widely enough for ‘all Godly ones to attain to repentance’?
Who closed the door of the Ark?
BTW the testword is “question59”. AN OMEN!! AN OMEN!! :-)
Ted Seeber: I didn’t know that. TUVM
@Doug Granted, the waters remained 150 days according to the last verse of Genesis 7; however, this still translates to the assertion that enough rain to cover the earth 15 cubits above the highest mountain fell less than four days, and that the length of time that the water was on the earth was only a few weeks at the most.
I suppose I’m bringing this up because it seems that if one is to read this part of Genesis literally, one should take at face value the lengths of years in order to keep the events consistent with the way they’re described. Taking a 900-years-plus Methuselah means taking a Great Flood that by the Bible’s own account does not deserve that name. On the other hand, if one is to read this figuratively, then one does not need to try and account for surprisingly long lifespans by natural means at all.
God endowed mankind with a fertile imagination. Most elements of dreams, myths, legends, and tall tales are simply familiar experiences exaggerated for effect. Imagine a really big man and you get a giant. Imagine a really big lizard and you get a dragon. Imagine a really big flood and you get The Flood that Destroyed the World.
The fact that a culture has a Great Flood myth does not prove that they actually experienced such a flood, any more than the fact that early settlers in New York told stores of a headless horseman proves that an actual decapitated rider once existed.
Hi, Ye Ole Statistician:
“It was clear that the Hebrew tribes (Israel, Judah, Edom, and Moab) were closely related to one another and that the Arabs were also close-but-more-distant. So, Esau and Ishmael and other progenitors.”
Are you saying that Esau and Ishmael, and the events of their lives, were made up by the writer to account for the relationships between the Hebrews, Edomites, and Arabs? Or just that the focus of the story was placed on them because of the author’s interest in the relationships of the tribes?
> We know the Genesis account was written (by Moses) inspired by the Lord.
Genesis has traditionally been attributed to Moses, but I don’t think we “know” that or that it’s a binding teaching of the Church that Moses wrote it.
> If we believe the entire Bible to be inerrant and Holy Spirit inspired and there is no account of Jesus saying the Torah had errors, why would we ever cast doubt upon what is written?
Genesis only contains “errors” if you interpret it as purporting to be a literal, historical account. But that begs the question.
Genesis certainly contains vital truths about the origin of the world, of mankind, of sin, and of God’s plan for our eventual salvation. If it conveys those truths in a figurative, allegorical way, if that’s what the divinely inspired author intended to convey, then it cannot be said to contain any errors.
> Are you saying that Esau and Ishmael, and the events of their lives, were made up by the writer to account for the relationships between the Hebrews, Edomites, and Arabs?
Jesus often “made up” parables to teach us important lessons. Might the stories of Genesis serve a similar function, as parables designed to teach us truths about God, faith, and salvation history?
Parents often tell their children fairy tales that teach important moral lessons. Might not God the Father have used myths and legends to teach His children certain truths, truths that they were not yet ready to fully understand, and would not fully understand until in the fullness of time He sent His Son?
@Joseph Stanko: The interesting element of Genesis is that sin first enters the world when Satan strikes “doubt” in the heart of Eve with: “Hath God said . . .?” If one doubts the literal accuracy of Genesis (as written), men today are also doubting God’s word to be fully accurate. It is the sinful pride of men who would contend “I’m too intelligent and sophisticated to believe these events really happened as described.” If one believes God is trustworthy, is not His entire word true,—or only partly? And as for Moses writing of Genesis, the Pharisees as well had plenty of doubt. Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.”
@Joseph Stanko: Are you a New Age Catholic? You seem to have plenty of doubt with your list of hypotheticals.
@New Observer- Accurate is a funny word. Like Appropriate, it has no meaning other than to bash other people’s opinions and behaviors with.
What was accurate for Moses, is not what would be accurate to Richard Dawkins.
@Ted Seeber: Then your disagreement is not with me, your disagreement is with God’s word. If you do not accept the premise of the Bible as inerrant truth the discussion will not be productive. The Lord’s “opinion” is the gold standard. Anything Dawkins has to say pales in comparison.
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has written several “popularized” accounts of his work, notably “A Brief History of Time”. He uses the work of many astronomers’ observations that distant galaxies seem to be moving away from us; and the more distant the galaxy, the more rapidly it is receding.
After years of debate and other investigations, the general conclusion is that ALL GALAXIES can be projected backward in time - somewhere between 13 and 16 billion years - to a single, incredibly massive and hot point source. This material was published in the 1970s.
Following publication of his theories, Hawking attended an international meeting in Rome and was greatly disturbed to discover that the Catholic Church had no problem with his (and other astronomers/cosmologists) conclusions that the known universe originated at a specific time and place. Hawking’s parents were aggressively atheistic, and taught their son that the Church was anti-science, and throughout history was always wrong.
The explanation, for a primitive people, of the creation event, while not detailed as to the mass of the universe or the incredibly high temperature of that mass at the instant of creation is given in Genesis as “And God said, ‘Let there be light! And there was light.’”
Works for me.
TeaPot562
> Are you a New Age Catholic?
I’ve certainly never called myself such, but you’d have to define what you mean by the term before I could give you a definitive answer.
Jesus often “made up” parables to teach us important lessons. Might the stories of Genesis serve a similar function, as parables designed to teach us truths about God, faith, and salvation history?
Yes, I think there’s figurative language in parts of Genesis (particularly in the opening chapters). However, the notion that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and the patriarchs of the 12 tribes, the slavery in Egypt and Exodus, etc were all intended to be taken as parables all along is flatly absurd.
@The Deuce, I was referring specifically to Genesis 1-11, the topic of this discussion.
Here’s what the intro to Genesis from the NAB (as posted on the USCCB web site) says:
How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation-flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological.
Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Genesis&ch;=
Joseph, do you not find the USCCB website posting both remarkable and astounding? They ask: “How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Genesis 2-11? Excuse me, isn’t that their job? They tell us that Catholics are not to spin our own interpretation but to rely upon the Magisterium as the teaching authority of the church. With this definition on the USCCB website, it is apparent the inspired writings of Moses cannot be trusted (as written). Logically, on this precedence, the inspired writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel can also not be trusted as well. Nimrod might not have existed and Nebuchadnezzar never ate grass like a goat. Accordingly, the USCCB is saying nothing may have happened as it is written. I find their posting nothing more than theological elitism. It is deceptive and leads people to doubt the written word of God.
@New Observer, to clarify, the text I quoted is not merely a web site posting, it is from the text of the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE). I couldn’t find the Imprimatur online, but my printed copy of an older edition of the NAB has a Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle.
An no, I do not find it remarkable and astounding. You are free to dismiss it as theological elitism if you wish. I do not consider myself more knowledgeable in matters of faith and the proper interpretation of scripture than our bishops, the successors to the Apostles.
I read it as literally as any Protestant - I don’t believe this has been condemned by the Church. I waver between young-earth and progressive creationism, generally tending towards progressive creationism, depending on whether I currently think original sin corrupts our science or our exegesis more thoroughly.
Contra many outsiders, the Church tends to be incredibly non-dogmatic on scriptural exegesis, allowing a range of opinions from over the spectrum. That is, I believe both young-earth creationism and theistic evolutionism are opinions to be held within the range of allowed theological dissent or difference when reading the creation accounts.
Ah, and the translation “When God began to create”, first introduced by Moses Maimonides, popularized by Moffatt, and spread by the NJPS, and regularized by the NRSV, is not optimal (cf. Brueggemann’s Interpretation of Genesis, pp. 29-30; Wenham’s Genesis 1-15, p. 81; Mathew’s Genesis 1-11, p. 64; contra Sarna, Alter, and Walton), as the Bible does not teach creation from chaos or that matter is co-eternal with God as the Mormons teach: it teaches creation from nothing (Is 46:10, 2 Mac 7:28). “Mighty wind” is outright incorrect when translating from either Hebrew (ruach elokim), Greek (pneuma ho theos), or Latin (spiritus Dei), according to even a basic Hebrew or Greek grammar or analytic lexicon (Kohler-Baumgartner, Brown-Driver-Briggs, BDAG): “elokim” can not mean “mighty” as an adjective (it can mean “God”, “Judge”, “Chief”, “Mighty/Strong One”, or even “gods” according to some of the crazier academics), and “pneuma ho theos” as occurs in the inspired Septuagint is even more perspicuous on this point.
Ah, and the translation “When God began to create”, first introduced by Moses Maimonides, popularized by Moffatt, and spread by the NJPS, and regularized by the NRSV, is not optimal (cf. Brueggemann’s Interpretation of Genesis, pp. 29-30; Wenham’s Genesis 1-15, p. 81; Mathew’s Genesis 1-11, p. 64; contra Sarna, Alter, and Walton), as the Bible does not teach creation from chaos or that matter is co-eternal with God as the Mormons teach: it teaches creation from nothing (Isiah 46:10, 2 Maccabees 7:28).
“Mighty wind” is outright incorrect when translating from either Hebrew (ruach elokim), Greek (pneuma ho theos), or Latin (spiritus Dei), according to even a basic Hebrew or Greek grammar or analytic lexicon (Kohler-Baumgartner, Brown-Driver-Briggs, BDAG): “elokim” can not mean “mighty” as an adjective (it can mean “God”, “Judge”, “Chief”, “Mighty/Strong One”, or even “gods” according to some of the crazier academics), and “pneuma ho theos” as occurs in the inspired Septuagint is even more perspicuous on this point (BDAG).
Joseph Stanko:
“@The Deuce, I was referring specifically to Genesis 1-11, the topic of this discussion.”
Okay, but the question you were answering was about Esau, Ishmael, and other founders of tribes.
FWIW, those notes are pretty terrible. For one thing, they go whole hog for the JEPD hypothesis throughout, without so much as a suggestion that it might not be the case, which is kind of odd considering that it originated from liberal 19th-century Protestants. Again with Daniel later on, no consideration is even given to the possibility that it might be authentic. The authorship of John by John is summarily dismissed, and so forth. I know it’s on the USCCB website, but I question the degree to which all those views are actually endorsed by the Catholic church.
@Ted Seeber: Then your disagreement is not with me, your disagreement is with God’s word. If you do not accept the premise of the Bible as inerrant truth the discussion will not be productive. The Lord’s “opinion” is the gold standard. Anything Dawkins has to say pales in comparison.
1. Dawkins does not write about the science of cosmology. He writes about evolutionary biology specifically.
2. Starting with a collection of bronze age myths is not comparable to using the scientific method; instead look at nature and start asking questions. Religions start with an answer and force question to fit. For example, how old is the earth? The scientist starts looking at nature and breaks it down into subsets of questions and develops sets of testable hypothesis to tease out understandings. Theists run to a book of gibberish and backs into a series of contradictory explanations like “old earth” creationism and geocentrism and other arguments from antiquity. The desert tribes that wrote the stuff that became the bible had minimal knowledge of nature.
3. As Richard Feynman pointed out years ago, your creation myth is just to small for a universe that is so kuch biggers than the ancients could imagine. The observable universe is running without a magic guy, we can watch it happen now with instruments and an understanding of things like spacetime.
4. Nothing observable supports the various magic guy explanations of the world’s cultures from history, the genesis myth just happens to be a cornerstone of the prevailing western religions. In Asia, for example, it has no traction beyond a few converts.
You are free to believe what you want, but your book is useless for understanding the reality of nature. Debating the details of genesis misses the fact that it makes no sense when you add the knowledge accumulated in the last 200 years.
I don’t think that anyone mentioned the fact that the ancient church in Alexandria was a great theological center in the early Church. They were very fond of allegorical interpretatins of the Bible. This is significant since they had a long Jewish tradition and were close to the age of the Apostles. If the allegorical approach later fell generally into disuse, maybe it is time to dust it off. In any event, there is always the Magisterium to keep the discussion within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
@dch- My problem is wiith your definition od inerrant truth specifcally. It allows for no growth in humanity. Dawkins and Feynan are idiots; as is any fundametalist regardless of what they are fundamentalist about. The Universe is not so simple.
The Popes edited and compiled the Bible. With the light of human reason AND the Bible, they preach theistic evolution and a created from nothing universe. Even Hawking claims that in the beginning was the Law of Gravity…I wonder if he knew he was paraphrasing the Gospel of John?
@Joseph Stanko: It’s a problem for me. Do you not see the conflicting viewpoints between what the *Bishops* say versus what *Jesus* (Himself) says? Simply because someone in the Vatican wearing a collar saying “This” is true or “that” is true when it contradicts God word always needs to be questioned. No, I do not see myself (as you say) more knowledgeable that the “successors” of the Apostles. Yet, these guys are still men while Jesus is Christ, the Son of God. Men are fallible. Do you not think Bishops are immune to attack from Satanic deception? Satan’s oldest trick since the Garden is to plant seeds of doubt (and as with Eve)—to doubt what God “hath” said. It is ironic that when Jesus was also under attack by Satan 3x in the wilderness, each time Jesus (the author of Scripture—the Living Word Himself) countered Satan with Scripture to wit: “It is written . . . ” It has always come down to this as Jesus asked the Apostles at Caesarea Philippi: “Whom do MEN say that I am?” And then He asks, “But whom do YOU say that I am?” For those who respond that Jesus is, in fact, the Son of God, it’s a no brainer. You accept His literal word as inerrant. Remember, Jesus did not edit and say anything in the Torah was *written* incorrectly. For how could anything be written incorrectly? He authored the Torah through the inspired writers. The Torah was not written by the thoughts of men, but by God’s thoughts placed inside men. It is common to find the prophets writing “Thus saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel . . . ” *Men* do not write like that.
@dch who wrote: “You are free to believe what you want.” Yes, we are. And so are you. Isn’t it a great country?
@New Observer- the problem is in your definition of inerrant truth. What the Bishops say today is 100% in keeping with what Jesus said and what Moses wrote in the book of Genesis, it’s you who are interpreting the three as being different.
@Ted Seeber: Please clarify your comment. I am only reading what the Bible says concerning Genesis. There is no “personal” interpretation on my part. Does your hypothesis also include other people and events in the OT as well, or only that pertaining to Genesis?
@New Observer- NO human being, of any sort, can read any text without bringing with them the background and bias of their education and background. There is no such thing as “no personal interpretation” at all, unless it is “objective interpretation from a given school of thought”.
My hypothesis is that, as copyright owners of the Bible so to speak, the Mother Church is the school of thought we should go to for all Biblical interpretation. As such, we must accept the doctrine of infallibility: that when speaking as one body, the Magisterium, both living and stretching back into the primordial past, of the Holy Sees of Peter and Moses, is the very definition of “Revealed truth” and therefore consists of the basic assumptions and definitions we must use when interpreting scripture.
Therefore you are not allowed to come up with some post-modern skeptic version of what revealed truth does and does not cover, for you are not qualified. Nor are you allowed to just “read what is written” with no knowledge whatsoever about the people or cultures that wrote it, for that way also leads to error- the error of thinking that you understand the idioms, meanings, axioms, and assumptions of a culture several thousand miles away and several thousand years in the past. We can’t even judge a culture 30 years ago with justice, what makes you think we’ve got enough in common with Moses (or more likely, the multiple generations of unwritten oral tradition that his in-laws taught him in the Sinai Desert, combined with the creation myth of Siris, Osiris, and Set) to understand the first sentence of the book of Genesis?
What arrogance you’re showing! But it’s not surprising, given the influence that scientific and religious fundamentalism has had on American Culture.
@Ted Seeber: Arrogance? Hardly. By your comments then no one should even bother reading the Bible for fear of getting the wrong interpretation. You’re saying the literal word (as written) cannot be trusted without the Magisterium saying “X” is true, but “Y” is maybe not so true. John 17:17 says: “Thy word is truth.” Where is the arrogance in accepting “Thy word is truth?” Unless, of course, when it’s not. It is only the pride of men who would deny God’s truth.
@New Observer: “By your comments then no one should even bother reading the Bible for fear of getting the wrong interpretation. “
That’s the reason for imprimaturs, catechisms, and actually PROCLAIMING scripture at the Catholic Mass rather than reading it. In other words, exactly what Christianity did for the first 1500 years it was around.
“You’re saying the literal word (as written) cannot be trusted without the Magisterium saying “X” is true, but “Y” is maybe not so true.”
It’s far worse than that. It’s more like “A, B, C, D, E, F and G are true (depending on the type of truth you are talking about) but given our 2000 years worth of study as a school of thought; J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are not so true, and the bibliography and historical records for why that is so are freely available to whomever wants to study them in detail.”
And thus it’s far simpler to say “Because the Magisterium says so” even though the full discussion and debate of the last 2000 years is readily available.
“Where is the arrogance in accepting “Thy word is truth?” “
The assumption that you know the meanings of the words “Thy”, “word”, “is”, and “truth” and are interpreting them the same way as a translator working for King James of England did, or the same way St. Jerome translating into the Latin did, or the same way Mark meant them when writing down those words for Peter, or the same way Peter meant them when remembering Christ’s quotes 20 years after Christ’s crucifixion, or the same way Jesus meant them.
That’s a hell of a lot of human error that could be inserted into “Thy word is truth”, but it doesn’t make the original statement any more or less true or truthful, nor does it impinge on the inerrancy of scripture as the Magisterium has taught it.
“Unless, of course, when it’s not.”
Truth isn’t truth, as long as it has been touched by a finite and fallible human brain. The second it enters human ears, it is no longer truth.
“It is only the pride of men who would deny God’s truth.”
Yep. Exactly my point. Arrogance.
I just re-read the beginning of Genesis the other day and “saw” these scriptures in a new light and some questions arose in my mind….things that I had never thought about because I was reading the words “literally”. First of all, when it says that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th…how long was a day?? Couldn’t it have been hundreds, thousands, etc. years instead of being 24 hours as we know it? Scientists have always said that the world is much older than what they originally thought it to be. Secondly, when the flood occurred, I agree that it probably was an occurrence the whole world over, but the writer only knew about what was happening in his little corner of it.
I’ve always questioned where does the dinosaurs fit in?? Where they part of God’s original creation and he destroyed them with the flood(s)? What about all the talk about “aliens” visiting from other planets to give technology to other cultures like the Myans, etc. and building so many structures around the world that they claim couldn’t even be built with today’s technology (the Pyramids, for example)? What about all the cave drawings of “giants”? Where did all these people go?
I don’t believe in this “alien” visitation for a minute but I wonder if all the other things were actually here during Noah’s time and they were destroyed in the floods. The Bible speaks of tribes that were giants. Couldn’t they be the source of the drawings? Maybe the Myan’s were here and their “clock” stopped at 2012 because the floods destroyed them.
I say…stop analyzing all of it and just take it on faith and read it literally :)
> Okay, but the question you were answering was about Esau, Ishmael, and other founders of tribes.
A fair point, I stand corrected. I got a bit sloppy there.
> I know it’s on the USCCB website, but I question the degree to which all those views are actually endorsed by the Catholic church.
Again it’s not just on the web site, I believe that text also appears in the printed edition of the NABRE. I don’t think the Church has ever said Catholics MUST accept these views, I agree with Chrysostom that the Magisterium permits a wide range of views from Young Earth Creationism to the allegorical interpretations popular among many of the early Church Fathers as James mentions.
I do think that the fact that the Church has granted the introduction I cited the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur means that the Church has certified there is nothing in them contrary to the Faith, and that therefore a Catholic MAY hold these views.
@Ted Seeber Keep rocking the aurea mediocritas. You’re doing it eloquently. :)
@The Deuce, it’s not just on the web site, I believe that text also appears in the printed edition of the NABRE. I don’t think the Church has ever said Catholics MUST accept these views, I agree with Chrysostom that the Magisterium permits a wide range of views from Young Earth Creationism to the allegorical interpretations popular among many of the early Church Fathers as James mentions. I do think that the fact that the Church has granted the introduction I cited the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur means that the Church has certified there is nothing in them contrary to the Faith, and that therefore a Catholic MAY hold these views.
“@dch- My problem is wiith your definition od inerrant truth specifcally. It allows for no growth in humanity. Dawkins and Feynan are idiots; as is any fundametalist regardless of what they are fundamentalist about. The Universe is not so simple.”
You obviously don’t know who Richard Feynman was. He died in about 1987. Definitely not an idiot, he is the guy who got the Nobel for physics for his work in Quantum Eletrodynamics. Go look it up. He is right next to Einstein in history. Very cool dude by the way, just look on YoYouTube.
<sigh>... I see this thread has degenerated into another silly “religion vs. science” flame war. The vast majority of Catholics, and the vast majority of Americans, believe in both science and religion. Reason and faith are complementary, while either in isolation tends toward fanaticism.
@dch- “You obviously don’t know who Richard Feynman was. He died in about 1987. Definitely not an idiot, he is the guy who got the Nobel for physics for his work in Quantum Eletrodynamics. Go look it up. He is right next to Einstein in history. Very cool dude by the way, just look on YoYouTube.”
Oh, I know who he was- but many idiots have savant abilities, and the Nobel prize committee also gave Obama the peace prize, so the entire organization can be safely disregarded as being connected to reality at all.
@Robert Jones-“As Laplace said” One sociopath quoting another sociopath makes for just more sociopathy.
“Science is not about proof - you know nothing about science.”
Science is the search for the mind of God by observing His Creation. Without God, Science doesn’t exist at all.
“Says one who has belief without evidence.”
I have two million years worth of archaeological evidence of various forms of theism. I have 6000 years worth of eyewitness evidence of the same. But you, in your irrationality, have redefined the word “evidence” so that you can safely ignore it all, as if it never existed, merely because of a bigotry and hatred of any mention of God.
“There is no such thing as a “soul” in reality.”
Says the certified insane man.
“THAT is mere wishful thinking - a god delusion. But you are correct - my comments will soon be deleted by Mark Shea so that they will no longer appear in this website’s non-“reality”.”
Then how am I quoting from them?
“Shouldn’t you report me to Homeland Security before the “evidence” disappears?”
Oh, I’ve been getting e-mails about it all along- and Homeland Security records EVERYTHING that crosses the backbone anyway. No worries there- the Internet is forever.
“But in my defense, I do not advocate bombing churches.”
Yeah, you just happen to share the same philosophy as those who do- kind of like a Muwahiddun just supports individual jihad as the sixth pillar duty of Islam, but doesn’t really want to wear a vest of dynamite to blow up infidels. Sociopathy is sociopathy, and can change at any moment.
“And many others have advocated the end of faith - that is only a “thought-crime” in your opinion. It is not against the law in the US.”
There are many things that are not against the law in the USA, that are wrong.
“And heretics should be burned at the stake?”
Before 1802. Currently, I suggest medication to start with, and if the insanity cannot be medicated away, then for the protection of society from irrational philosophies, life in solitary is a reasonable sentence. The ability to arc weld means we can now build a totally escape-proof cell that has triple trap doors for food and waste.
“What an interesting idea - every Sunday I will go to a different church and “actively seek out” religious people (especially children) and point out that their faith is irrational. I will make the children cry and the adults will throw stick and stones.”
Or you just come to the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER, and do the same thing from the comfort of your living room. Ain’t cyberspace fun?
“And you can see how effective my approach is - I have simply made you angry - I have not given you the slightest doubt that your faith represents reality. You simply reject that thought and call me insane.
No, you don’t make me angry. You fill me with pity- which is why I urge you to take your medication so that you may return to some form of sanity.
“I an “happy” to be rational”
But you are NOT rational. You quote irrational philosophers, you deny evidence, you are very careful to avoid any hint that might burst your little bubble world. But you’ve failed.
“and you are “happy” to be irrational.”
But I am rational. I quote rational philosophers, I accept evidence while understanding bias, I have the entire universe where you just have a small subset of what you can personally create.
“Neither of us require drugs to improve out happiness or modify our behavior.”
The very fact that you see “happiness”, which is an emotion felt only by the insane because they have created their own world, as a goal, is proof of your sociopathy, likely encouraged by the heresy of Americanism.
“Perhaps you will grow up some day.”
Growing up means learning to deny short term happiness for long term gain. I see no sign that you have any idea how to do that at all.
“Note that all of my previous comments have now disappeared.”
Once again, then how did I quote them? Irrationally insane, like every other atheist on the Earth, denying what exists.
You know, I am very reluctant to wade into controversial subjects, but I feel that I have something important to add to the initial inqirer: You are well advised to learn everything you can about the historical, stylistic, and contextual background of these scripture texts. Then, approach them as the living word of God - directed to your own individual life. Biblical texts have the unique advantage of gaining from scrutiny and study. But their ultimate goal is to communicate to the reader an insight into the ineffable God. I think you will find that, not only are these texts true, but true in a way that no other literature can match. Good luck!
In the 16th century, Pascal adopted the allegorical approach in the Pensées (559)
”We do not understand the glorious state of Adam, nor the nature of his sin, nor the transmission of it to us. These are matters which took place under conditions of a nature altogether different from our own, and which transcend our present understanding.
The knowledge of all this is useless to us as a means of escape from it; and all that we are concerned to know, is that we are miserable, corrupt, separated from God, but ransomed by Jesus Christ, whereof we have wonderful proofs on earth.”
None of his many opponents ever suggested this was other than orthodox
Apologies - I should have said 17th century for Pascal (1623-1662)
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.