Posted on 11/11/2014 6:20:08 AM PST by Alex Murphy
As I said before, I know many traditional Catholics who are creationists; they just aren’t members of FR.
“Young earth creationism implies that God deliberately set out to deceive us, since all relevant scientific disciplines tell us that the earth is very old.”
This is a non sequiter. Just because scientists tell you that they believe the earth is very old does not mean that God set out to deceive us, if the earth is actually young. It could be that the scientists have misinterpreted the evidence, or that the scientists have not found all the relevant evidence to make a proper determination. Only dishonest scientists would claim that their pronouncements on the age of the Earth are a certainty, after all, their estimates are both inexact and continually subject to revision.
“I don’t know of any Catholics who believe in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.”
There are really no Christians at all who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis or any other book of the Bible. It’s a straw man created by critics of fundamentalism because it is much easier to knock down than actual methods of interpretation that are in use.
Then you have the opportunity here to bear witness to the fact that not all Catholics are evolutionists . . . if you will take it.
I just bore my witness about the truth of Creationism. I’m not your little Catholic puppet at your beck and call.
I have bigger fish to fry than Creationism. I have a Pope Gone Protestant that’s much more dangerous.
Which parts of the book of Genesis is allagory?
And you have a nice evening too, bless your li'l ole heart!
I have bigger fish to fry than Creationism.
Yes, creationism does seem to be very low priority even for Catholics who believe in it. After all, it's only the inerrant Word of G-d. No need getting too worked up over something like that. You might attract the wrong crowd to the Catholic church. We don't want any trailer trash around here!
I have a Pope Gone Protestant that’s much more dangerous.
At least you know he'll never be a Protestant creationist.
No, as a Catholic, I have hope, not despair. And one my hopes is that both you and Francis become Catholic creationists. You won't regret it.
Been there. Done that. Was told to get out of the church. Did so.
Everyone seemed to be happy after that.
“Which parts of the book of Genesis is allagory?”
Your question implies a false choice, which is exactly what the critics of this imaginary “literal interpretation” want.
The choice is not between something being read “literally” and something being an allegory. First of all, there are many other styles of writing in the Bible besides allegory, so there is no binary choice at all. Second, even those styles which are historical and non-allegorical in nature include non-literal terms, such as metaphors, figures of speech, hyperbole, etc.
When the critics of creationism (and sometimes other doctrines, as is the case with atheists) say “literal interpretation”, what they mean is that you must read every single word literally. Nobody does that. Yet, if they pretend that Christians try to do that, then it is very easy to critique such a method. We shouldn’t fall for their trap.
Except God.
Don’t be afraid of the literal when it should be literal. The creation account can be read as literal with no problem.
“The creation account can be read as literal with no problem.”
Of course, some things in the Bible must be read literally, but my point is that there is no “literal interpretation” of Scripture, since any such method would be an abject failure before it got past the first few chapters of Genesis.
Take for example, this verse:
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen. 2:17)
If we read it literally, then we would expect them to drop dead within 24 hours of eating the fruit. Continue on a few verses, and we see them eat, then continue to live for many years. So, a literal reading of this verse creates a contradiction.
Or take this verse:
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:15)
A literal reading of this verse would be that there is hatred between a talking serpent (it’s literal after all) and Eve, and between the serpent’s sperm and Eve’s ovum. The serpent will bruise Eve’s head, and Eve will bruise his heel (apparently, talking serpents had legs and feet at that time, since we are reading literally).
Or, how about this verse:
“And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Gen. 6:13)
A literally reading of this verse says that all flesh is at an end already, by this point in the story, as God is going to destroy it all (without exception, because we are reading literally). So, what is the point of arguing over interpretations of Scripture? The “literal reading” has told us we are both already dead!
There are methods which attempt to interpret the sections of the Bible according to the intent of the author, so where the author wrote in a literal sense, it is interpreted literally. Those are sound methods, but this imaginary “literal” method is just a straw man trap.
I do understand what you are trying to say and I agree with you. I think we were talking two different literals. When you get to the level you just described I see your point.
“I think we were talking two different literals.”
Yes, I think so too, that is kind of the point I wanted to make. When a lot of Christians say “I read the Bible literally”, they do not mean what theistic evolutionists, liberal theologians, or atheists mean when they use the term. It opens us up to attack based on that confusion of terms.
Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not literal...
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
It happened...It was literal...
“It happened...It was literal...”
If that is true, then we’re all dead and there is no point in arguing further.
You exampled the verse Gen 2:17 last night. In fact they did "surely die". What is death? It's separation. The verse can be literally interpreted if you understand the meaning of the Hebrew words
Then you referenced Gen 3:15. You thought seed meant sperm and ovum. That is not what the Hebrew word meant. It meant descendants or offspring. So again the verse can be interpreted literally.
Now in Gen 6:13 again with the word "destroy". The Hebrew word again means to spoil, corrupt or ruin. God said "an end of all flesh has come before me". It's obvious that He contemplated ending it all but He found Noah and his family worthy of saving. He did however send the flood which spoiled all the land and destroyed most of the life on earth.
Sure there are places in scripture that are allegory or can not be interpreted literally but not as much as people think. Allegorising more of scripture than should be is dangerous and leads to false teaching. Simply taking the English translation and our current understanding of those English words is not the way to understand scripture and it's meaning.
“Simply taking the English translation and our current understanding of those English words is not the way to understand scripture and it’s meaning.”
Yes, but this is exactly what our enemies try to hold us to. It’s plainly a ridiculous way to interpret Scripture, but that that is method that they ascribe to us, tell others that we practice (inconsistently), and then ridicule us for. By using their terminology, we unwittingly reinforce their tactic.
Enemies are going to be enemies Boogieman. If God doesn't open their eyes they won't be opened no matter what we say. It's those whose eyes have been opened by God that we will reach with the truth. I don't worry one lick about what those whose eyes are blinded say or think. On the other hand if we project doubt about what scripture says we risk leading those whose eyes have been opened astray or into doubt.
>>By using their terminology, we unwittingly reinforce their tactic.<<
To those it's not going to matter what "terminology" we use. They are going to find fault no matter what we do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.