Why Literal Interpretation Doesn't Work For Me

[Kathianne]

I respect those with a different perspective, but this for me is a clear reasoning that I share:


http://youtu.be/UVsbVAVSssc

One of several the issues separate the Catholics and Protestants. For all the separations though, more serious make us all Christians.

[Noir]

That man has a fantastic voice lol, agree and disagree with plenty of what he said.

The most obvious being his pretence that the god of Genesis was passive/non-violent, how he created the world in a non-aggressive manor, by speaking etc. failing to then mention the mass slaughter of all life bar those on the Ark, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah etc.

[Kathianne]

That man has a fantastic voice lol, agree and disagree with plenty of what he said.

The most obvious being his pretence that the god of Genesis was passive/non-violent, how he created the world in a non-aggressive manor, by speaking etc. failing to then mention the mass slaughter of all life bar those on the Ark, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah etc.

Delve a bit deeper, the email is there. I'm certain he'll keep the debate private.

Personally I remember him mostly as a geeky kid, put down lovingly by his brother. 'Lovingly means, 'geez, you gotta be kiidding me!' regarding his religiousity. Seems time has proven them both qualified for their life goals.

[revelarts]

I respect those with a different perspective, but this for me is a clear reasoning that I share:


http://youtu.be/UVsbVAVSssc

One of several the issues separate the Catholics and Protestants. For all the separations though, more serious make us all Christians.

Ok, that was an interesting take.
But you Know, In MOST Mainline Protestant Churches they would Nod their heads up and down that Genesis is not Science or literal as well. They may or maynot put forth the "interpretations" he's - laid upon - drawn from the text but they would start in the exact same way.
So you've got more in common with them on that point than you seem to think.

But In the pews and leadership of some denominations you'd have a different take.

On his 1st comment in general, that people look a genesis and think it one thing but it is another. that's often and correctly said of the whole Bible. But I think he'd a agree that NOT ALL of the Bible is theology, poetry or myth.

I'd Guess he believe that a real, not theological, Jesus rose from the dead.
There are some protestant and Catholics churches that frankly do not believe Jesus arose bodily from the grave.
I'd Guess he and you believe there were some real life men in the Bible maybe Abraham and David and real prophets who said something. And a real person named Peter.

But I don't know of any literalistic Christians that don't understand some parts of the Bible as metaphor or poetry , the Psalms is a Song and poetry book, there are many parables and fables that are expressly presented as such. However the question comes in, where do we step off and begin assuming parts of the Bible are NOT literal when they seem to be presented and taken as such by the writers and other writers that follow. There seems to be some parts that are -Both/And-. But some areas that are very subtle and mysterious that make it a toss up almost, other areas not so much it seems to me.

[Kathianne]

Ok, that was an interesting take.
But you Know, In MOST Mainline Protestant Churches they would Nod their heads up and down that Genesis is not Science or literal as well. They may or maynot put forth the "interpretations" he's - laid upon - drawn from the text but they would start in the exact same way.
So you've got more in common with them on that point than you seem to think.

But In the pews and leadership of some denominations you'd have a different take.

On his 1st comment in general, that people look a genesis and think it one thing but it is another. that's often and correctly said of the whole Bible. But I think he'd a agree that NOT ALL of the Bible is theology, poetry or myth.

I'd Guess he believe that a real, not theological, Jesus rose from the dead.
There are some protestant and Catholics churches that frankly do not believe Jesus arose bodily from the grave.
I'd Guess he and you believe there were some real life men in the Bible maybe Abraham and David and real prophets who said something. And a real person named Peter.

But I don't know of any literalistic Christians that don't understand some parts of the Bible as metaphor or poetry , the Psalms is a Song and poetry book, there are many parables and fables that are expressly presented as such. However the question comes in, where do we step off and begin assuming parts of the Bible are NOT literal when they seem to be presented and taken as such by the writers and other writers that follow. There seems to be some parts that are -Both/And-. But some areas that are very subtle and mysterious that make it a toss up almost, other areas not so much it seems to me.

Bringing it forward:


http://youtu.be/OtwB59JPuvM

[revelarts]

Kath you brought this up soo. I'm assuming you don't mind some commentary.
As far as the above goes much of what your friend says is great , and sounds a lot like one of my favorite christian writers Dr. Francis Shcaeffer's critique of culture. He wrote of the failings of capitalism and marxism as well, in the 70's and 80's. They are on the same page there. I've adopted a version of the position on the board here in a few post myself, in the phrase "Raw Capitalism has no moral check".

there's a lot of good in what he says there.

but i wonder how he gets there if Genesis and other areas of the Bible are only Myth as he says in your 1st youtube post.


I think this one place where the atheist joke of the flying spaghetti monster makes a point.
If Genesis is just myth, then it really has no force in reality. He mentions OTHER myths of the day and says Genesis is better. well that's just a mater of opinion isn't it? If it's not true in any real sense. is it really any better than Batman? One could derive many theological "truths" from just about any story. Nearly any myth will do.
I don't know where you or he decide parts of the Bible are real. but either way without Genesis being rooted in some reality it is JUST another myth. Slap any meaning on you want it's not real.

But he repeats a few times that God did create the world. How does he know that? He says Genesis is a myth. so Zeus may as well have made it, or it could be eternal and all the prophets and Paul, Peter and Jesus who repeated the story/idea of God as creator and Adam from Genesis didn't Know any better, as we "know" today.
It's just a story to get us thinking about creating with our words? and "peace" and the like. Not reality.


I've got a feeling I'll get no reply to this. But i hope you see my point. In short.
He says -asserts- Genesis is only myth Adam and Eve are only myth. but then goes on to say God DID create and we should pay attention to the stories anyway because they teach ...something important... and he's got a few ideas of what they might be.

[Kathianne]

Kath you brought this up soo. I'm assuming you don't mind some commentary.
As far as the above goes much of what your friend says is great , and sounds a lot like one of my favorite christian writers Dr. Francis Shcaeffer's critique of culture. He wrote of the failings of capitalism and marxism as well, in the 70's and 80's. They are on the same page there. I've adopted a version of the position on the board here in a few post myself, in the phrase "Raw Capitalism has no moral check".

there's a lot of good in what he says there.

but i wonder how he gets there if Genesis and other areas of the Bible are only Myth as he says in your 1st youtube post.


I think this one place where the atheist joke of the flying spaghetti monster makes a point.
If Genesis is just myth, then it really has no force in reality. He mentions OTHER myths of the day and says Genesis is better. well that's just a mater of opinion isn't it? If it's not true in any real sense. is it really any better than Batman? One could derive many theological "truths" from just about any story. Nearly any myth will do.
I don't know where you or he decide parts of the Bible are real. but either way without Genesis being rooted in some reality it is JUST another myth. Slap any meaning on you want it's not real.

But he repeats a few times that God did create the world. How does he know that? He says Genesis is a myth. so Zeus may as well have made it, or it could be eternal and all the prophets and Paul, Peter and Jesus who repeated the story/idea of God as creator and Adam from Genesis didn't Know any better, as we "know" today.
It's just a story to get us thinking about creating with our words? and "peace" and the like. Not reality.


I've got a feeling I'll get no reply to this. But i hope you see my point. In short.
He says -asserts- Genesis is only myth Adam and Eve are only myth. but then goes on to say God DID create and we should pay attention to the stories anyway because they teach ...something important... and he's got a few ideas of what they might be.

See the title of the thread. The Catholic Church has never held a literal view of the Bible, with the exception of Christ's words reported in the Gospels. There will always be that difference with Catholics and literal Protestant religions. That's just facts.

I don't have to resay what Fr. Barron said, he did a fine job. ;)

[revelarts]

See the title of the thread. The Catholic Church has never held a literal view of the Bible, with the exception of Christ's words reported in the Gospels. There will always be that difference with Catholics and literal Protestant religions. That's just facts.

I don't have to resay what Fr. Barron said, he did a fine job. ;)
I have very little understand of how Catholic heirachery works or how Catholicism decides what it's historical positions were but
Again Kathianne MOST mainline protestant churches do not have a literal view of the Bible.
Sadly most gave it up during the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Protestant Churches are more varied than i think you give them credit for. While , as you say most Christians hold some views in common, but by definition protestantism is not monolithic. At least not in th sense you seem to mean.

But as far as what the RCChurh has believed in that past About Genesis, I thought that, at least a one point, there were some popes and such that did believe it had some historical merit. I found this, after not to much looking, i have NO IDEA of it's accuracy. For all i know it may be made up or Rejected by the Council X, or the Bishop of Y therefore it doesn't apply or Cardinal Z who wrote it may be a heritic or an outcast I don't know. what do you think?


...Praestantia Scripturae, Pope St.Pius X The summary of the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission are the following,
1. The first three chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet objectivae realiti et historicae veritati respondeant), no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. D 2122
2. In so far as it is a matter of facts, which touch the foundation of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), the literal historical sense is to be adhered to. Such facts are, inter alia, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time, and the special creation of humanity. D 2123
This literal historical view of Genesis is not only limited to the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, but it was reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis. Pius XII reiterated the ancient traditional belief the Church the Adam and Eve are not just a mere symbol of a certain number of people but are truly historical characters.
When, however, there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. Humani Generis No.37
Even if it is a unanimous teaching of the Church that Genesis must be taken in a literal historical sense, yet there are even Catholic authors who do not hesitate to criticize the literal sense of the Genesis account. Such is a case when a Catholic apologist refuted Protestant arguments using a liberlistic view of the Sacred Scripture.
Lingid sa kaalaman ng marami wala ng modernong iskolar ng Biblia ang tumatanggap sa Genesis 1-11 bilang isang literal o makasaysayan pangyayari. Dahil dito, naniniwala ang my akda na ang pag-iwas sa makabagong pamamaraan ng pagsusuri ay katumbas na rin ng pagmamaliit o pagtuya sa likas na kakayahan ng mga dalubhasa. Araling Pambiblia Para Sa Mga Dinedebateng Katoliko, footnote no.28, page 27
Translation:
Unknown the the knowledge of many, there are no more modern biblical scholar that accepts Genesis 1-11 as literal and historical event. Because of this, the author believes that avoiding to utilize the modern method of is equivalent to degrading the ability of the scholars.
The logical flaw to this kind of reasoning is 1.) It assumes that all Biblical scholars nowadays no longer accept Genesis 1-11 as a historical event, 2.) It assumes that the collective opinion of Biblical scholar is the final authority in interpreting the Sacred Scripture. However this is not the case, even if we assume that all Biblical Scholar nowadays no longer accept Genesis as literal historical event, yet it does not invalidate nor change the traditional and orthodox stand of the Church. They can bark all day long but the Church will not change what Sacred Tradition laid down for us. And the collective opinion of Biblical scholar is not above the Magisterium (reread Prestantia Scrpturae) it is subject to the judgment of the Magisterium. We are not oblige to submit to the opinions and findings of the Biblical scholars but we are oblige to submit to the decrees of the Church. We can contradict and criticize scholars but we cannot reject, attack and criticize the decrees of the Magisterium.
Modern day theologians sided with the Church regarding the issue whether Genesis is historical or myth.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was asked the following question: “May one question the literal historical sense of these chapters [Genesis 1-3] when they deal with facts that touch the fundamental points of Christian religion?. . . The answer was “The literal historical sense may not be questioned.” The accounts of these events in Sacred Scripture are NOT MYTHS or LEGENDS, or MORALIZING FABLES, but HISTORICAL NARRATIVES in the LITERAL SENSE. [B]Faith Seeking Understanding, page 198, Charles Belmonte (my emphasis)
The Catholic Bible Dictionary also clarifies that the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission regarding the creation account may not be questioned or doubted.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission enumerated nine “narrated facts” in Genesis whose “literal and historical meaning” should not be questioned: 1. The creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; 2. The special creation of man; 3. The formation of the first woman from man; 4. The unity of the human race; 5. The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; 6. The divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; 7. the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; 8. The fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; 9. The promise of a future redeemer. Catholic Bible Dictionary, page 308, Ed. Dr. Scott Hahn...


http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/2011/11/book-of-genesis-historical-or-myth.html



http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1901-2000/genesis-is-history-not-myth-11630691.html (http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/2011/11/book-of-genesis-historical-or-myth.html)


On June 30, 1909, the Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission agreed. It issued a decree interpreting the first chapters of Genesis as history, not myth. With the backing of Pope Pius X, the Commission declared that certain truths must be held no matter what the latest scientific theories claim to the contrary. These unarguable points are:

That God created all things at the beginning of time;
That man was specially created;
That the first woman came from the first man;
That all humans are of a single original race;
That our first parents lived in a happy state of justice, integrity, and immortality;
That God gave them a command to test their obedience;
That they disobeyed the divine command at the instigation of the devil who took on the form of a serpent;
That our first parents fell from their state of innocence;
And that they were promised a future redeemer.

Evangelical Christians (http://www.christianity.com/) would agree with these basic points.
(http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/2011/11/book-of-genesis-historical-or-myth.html)

[revelarts]

Wow, There's a pretty robust Catholic v Catholic discussion about the very video you posted. And Fr Barron's comment about Adam.
I havn't read it all but I get the impression that there's more than one way to look at it within Catholicism.
And some Do indeed believe that the RCChurch teaches a historical Adam.
-as many protestants do-.


http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/09/defending-literal-historical-adam-of.html

[Kathianne]

Wow, There's a pretty robust Catholic v Catholic discussion about the very video you posted. And Fr Barron's comment about Adam.
I havn't read it all but I get the impression that there's more than one way to look at it within Catholicism.
And some Do indeed believe that the RCChurch teaches a historical Adam.
-as many protestants do-.


http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/09/defending-literal-historical-adam-of.html

and that's just the thing Rev, the Catholic Church has always had robust debates within itself. Change 'too quick' or without discussion seems to cause much angst, Vatican II for example. More recently the changes in the responses.

Both of these are cosmetics to a degree, trying to 'get it right' for understanding and ecumenicism. Really, that is one of the things about the Church, it truly does want universality. Comes with the name. Nothing 'hit' the Church like the schism with the East and the Reformation. Every since, trying to get it right.

Yet, not at the cost of losing what it gained and 'saved' during the Middle Ages. Not quite as much is said about the likely rewriting of parts of the Bible during those hundreds of years, deleting much about women and incorporating some gnostic teachings. BTW, King James versions kept those changes. Just another bit that makes me not a literalist.

Too many believe that the RCC church teaches that the Pope is 'infallible' in areas where it's just not true. The scope of 'infallibility' is narrow, to the extreme.