Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: vladimir998

Of course the option you mention is a possibility. But I think if we get in a debate over the examples I gave you, it would deflect from the real issue at hand — which is the simple matter of whether Genesis should be read literally, even we it flies in the face of everything the natural sciences have discovered about the known universe. I do not see the justification for reading Genesis as a science text — that’s my issue.


30 posted on 07/26/2009 2:06:50 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: bdeaner

You wrote:

“Of course the option you mention is a possibility. But I think if we get in a debate over the examples I gave you, it would deflect from the real issue at hand — which is the simple matter of whether Genesis should be read literally, even we it flies in the face of everything the natural sciences have discovered about the known universe. I do not see the justification for reading Genesis as a science text — that’s my issue.”

I understand what you’re saying. And here’s my problem with it:

1) All of the Bible must be read literally - that is Church teaching. Now, having said that, I understand that someone can quibble over whether all literal meanings must be understood or interpreted in their must literal sense. Those are actually two different issues.

2) You wrote: “even we it flies in the face of everything the natural sciences have discovered about the known universe.”

The Natural Sciences have discovered exactly NOTHING. Scientists make discoveries, not sciences. Scientists are people and are perfectly capable of errors. When you speak of “natural sciences” making discoveries, you make it sound as if a field of science is a god-like being capable of deliberate thought and discovery. People make science. They also make mistakes.

3) “I do not see the justification for reading Genesis as a science text — that’s my issue.”

I think this is a false premise. Isn’t it entirely possible to read Genesis as literally true without reading Genesis as a science text? When I read John 6 literally - as the Church says I must - I do not get bogged down in scientific issues over the transformation of matter from one substance to another. Do you? I think it is simply a false premise to say that one must read Genesis as science in order to read Genesis literally. I can read the gospels as literally true without reading them as historical documents in the ususal sense we use that term today.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp


32 posted on 07/26/2009 2:24:35 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson