Fact and Fiction in Scripture

[LittleLes]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 16 2005, 11:18 AM']Debated and refuted

You have absolutely no new material.
[right][snapback]613303[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You constantly make these claims when you cannot disprove the facts. But you don't present any evidence to the contrary. Only the claim that its been "refuted." But, of course, it hasn't.

[Brother Adam]

I wish I had time to argue this right now, but alas the formation of the embryo in the first 4 weeks call my time. So instead I leave you with one of the best encyclicals written on evolution and creation:


HUMANI GENERIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING
TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html"]Worth a Read [/url]

Edited June 16, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Brother Adam]

And Sarah, while the Bible was not dictated it was not authored by man alone, this is heresy. There is a specific dual authorship in play that you may want to look up in the catechism. To use the excuse that "God did not dictate it" says that you want to find errors in scripture. They are not there. Scripture is infallible, and that means the first three chapters of Genesis are infallible as well.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:39 AM']Response:

"Catholics are required to believe."  Really?  But that has changed so frequently.

For example, do you realize that Catholics no longer have to believe that it is the will of God that Lutherans be burned at the stake as heretics?

But its still on the books.
[right][snapback]613260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


But First generation Lutherans-- those that imbrace the heresy of Luther after being members of the Church and then activly promoting such abomidable lies should be executed( I seriously doubt the Church ever prescribed any particular form of execution, if you have a document please provide it) Although this would have been and should be done by the secular authorities notthe Church Herself.

[quote]33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."[/quote]

This does not say that Heritics should in fact be burned or that burniing is preferable or required, it says that it is heretical to declare that it is agianst the will of the holy spirit thatthey be Burned, that it was agianst the Will of God. And certianly it is heretical to say such a thing. This does not mean that you must agree withhte choice only that you cannot say such a punishment is contrary to Gods Will. Those are not the same thing.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Didacus]

God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are infaillable. In that I trust. But I've always been a little scheptical when it came to the ground crew.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 12:11 PM']But First generation Lutherans-- those that imbrace the heresy of Luther after being members of the Church and then activly promoting such abomidable lies should be executed( I seriously doubt the Church ever prescribed any particular form of execution, if you have a document please provide it) Although this would have been and should be done by the secular authorities notthe Church Herself.
[right][snapback]613349[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response,

I'm kind of against killing someone because I don't agree with their religious beliefs. And I think God would be too. Remember, I'm one of his secret agents (see earlier post).

But Aquinas thought it was OK as did Pope Leo X. See Exurge domine, already quoted.

And the Church cannot get out of responsibility for burning heretics because it had the civil authorities do it, any more than someone can avoid responsibility for murder because they hired a hitman.

LittleLes

[Didacus]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 11:58 AM']I wish I had time to argue this right now, but alas the formation of the embryo in the first 4 weeks call my time. So instead I leave you with one of the best encyclicals written on evolution and creation:
HUMANI GENERIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING
TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html"]Worth a Read [/url]
[right][snapback]613335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Good reading.. thanks for the link.

hummmm... what do you make of this quote though? (from your link)

"This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."

OPf aprticular note the section "...in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation..."

???

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 11:12 AM']The Encyclical
"Providentissimus Deus"

Given by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII
November 18, 1893

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."

So it is not possible for error to co-exist with inspiration. Following this logically then, if error can be demonstrated, what may we conclude about the inspiration of the Bible?

I don't think may people take Pope Leo XIII's claim very seriously anymore, but it, too , is "still on the books."

Sorry Kilroy (see, I remembered) and hot stuff.
[right][snapback]613298[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I take it very seriously, error does not exist in the Scriptures, not any error, what is Historical and what is not has nothing to do with what is True and what is not, There are 2 stories of Creation, everyone knows it, I assure you that Pope Leo XIII knew it as well, he is not Claiming that the Earth was created twice and that Adam was created twice, he is not Claiming that the Stories of creation are Historical. He is declaring that they are True which is a very differant thing. They are Free from error in what they teach, they where not written as Histrical documents and make no claim to be so. You really must learn to differintiate between what a document says and what you want it to say or perhaps what you have been told it says.

[Technicoid]

Hi, LittleLes.

Let's go back to that [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=34782&st=0"]posting[/url] you used to support an alleged change in positions. Specifically, you posted

[quote]III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative. [/quote]

You then followed with

[quote]Moreover there is this from the Papal writing of Pius X "Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae" 1907:

"Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions."

In sum, Catholics are all "bound in conscience" to accept that Eve was literally tempted the devil in the form of a serpent.[/quote]

I find it interesting that you post these two passages and posit this conclusion. If someone actually went out to find this document to which you refer, they'd discover something quite different than the conclusion you suggest.

Here's the entire section from [i]The Replies of the Biblical Commission[/i].

[quote]I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: [b]the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification? [/b]
Answer: In the negative to both parts.

III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.

[b]IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.

V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.

VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.

VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.[/b]

VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative. [/quote]

For anyone who wants to read the context of the section, see [url="http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/pbc.htm"]http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/pbc.htm[/url].

So, to summarize,

I. The exegetical methods that were under analysis by this commission and used to [b]dismiss[/b] the literal and historical sense of the first three chapters do not have a solid foundation.

II. We cannot [b]dismiss[/b] these chapters as being solely "fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine" or "allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality" or "legends in part historical and in part fictitious [b]freely composed[/b]" and claim that the events and acounts are not actual. That is, we can't say they're solely didactic writings.

III. We can't [b]assume[/b] that the literal historical sense is [b]in doubt[/b].

IV. We can defend opinions that conform to the understanding of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church concerning the three chapters. That is, if the Fathers or Doctors made reference to allegorical senses of these passages, we can defend those statements "without prejudice to the judgement of the Church." If they made reference to the historicity of these passages, we can also defend those statements.

V. We do not always have to understand each and every word in its literal sense.

VI. Accepting that the chapters are literal and historical, we can also interpret them in an allegorical or prophetic sense.

VII. We do not have to read the chapters with a mind toward scientific precision but can understand it as an expression of "popular notion" in the idioms and modes of communication in use at the time of their composition.

So what was your intent when you posted only those two passages without the context in which to make an informed decision about them? Is this how you always quote material, or was it an oversight on your part? Given your conclusion

[quote]In sum, Catholics are all "bound in conscience" to accept that Eve was literally tempted the devil in the form of a serpent.[/quote]

you must've either misread what you posted, or you must be inviting us to misread it.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Technicoid

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 12:20 PM']Response,

I'm kind of against killing someone because I don't agree with their religious beliefs. And I think God would be too. Remember, I'm one of his secret agents (see earlier post).

But Aquinas thought it was OK as did Pope Leo X. See Exurge domine, already quoted.

And the Church cannot get out of responsibility for burning heretics because it had the civil authorities do it, any more than someone can avoid responsibility for murder because they hired a hitman.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]613362[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What you may or may not be agianst has absolutly no bearing on whether or not it is correct or what God wills. I personally believe that Green is the most atractive color, does God believe it to be so, I don't know, but my belief on the subject has no bearing on whether he does or does not. God wills the absolute annilation of untruth, as He is Truth and all that is untrue is Contrary to Him. So, the destruction of all Untrue religions would coincide with His Divine Will. Now many would argue that that destruction should take place through peacful conversion and dialogue, but that doesn't mean that other methods are contrary to the Divine Will.


The Church did not " hire the Civil authorities to kill anyone, The Church never required heretics execution, that being said they did hand them over knowing that would be their fate and therefore are as you say responsable for that. Of course I don't see it as a problem so... whats your point?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 12:33 PM']What you may or may not be agianst has absolutly no bearing on whether or not it is correct or what God wills. I personally believe that Green is the most atractive color, does God believe it to be so, I don't know, but my belief on the subject has no bearing on whether he does or does not.  God wills the absolute annilation of untruth, as He is Truth and all that is untrue is Contrary to Him. So, the destruction of all Untrue religions would coincide with His Divine Will. Now many would argue that that destruction should take place through peacful conversion and dialogue, but that doesn't mean that other methods are contrary to the Divine Will.
The Church did not " hire the Civil authorities to kill anyone, The Church never required heretics execution, that being said they did hand them over knowing that would be their fate and therefore are as you say responsable for that. Of course I don't see it as a problem so... whats your point?
[right][snapback]613375[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The point is basicly that the church is a killer. There is no reason why a person should not be allowed to live freely and believe in what they choose to. Your post summarizes the evils of zealots whom kill and seek dominance in the name of their mythical God. Luckily we have become far more civilized today. I dont see why an almighty God could not remove those unbelievers without the help of lunatics.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:21 PM']Good reading.. thanks for the link.

OPf aprticular note the section "...in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation..."

???
[right][snapback]613363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense". The tree that our parents ate from has metaphorical ramifications, we use it all the time, but t'was a tree none the less.

[Brother Adam]

"Luckily we have become far more civilized today"

Athiesm does not 'protect' man from stupidity. It has in fact been shown to enhance it. The lack of respect for the dignity of each person to live as their own free beings has been violated by athiesm far more than any religion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 12:51 PM']"Luckily we have become far more civilized today"

Athiesm does not 'protect' man from stupidity. It has in fact been shown to enhance it. The lack of respect for the dignity of each person to live as their own free beings has been violated by athiesm far more than any religion.
[right][snapback]613391[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

True. And note that atheistic Communist governments have murdered far more people than Christian governments.

Th idea that the world will become all nice and peaceful if we all just embrace atheism is a lot of garbage.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 12:49 PM']"do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense". The tree that our parents ate from has metaphorical ramifications, we use it all the time, but t'was a tree none the less.
[right][snapback]613385[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You see, I read that paragraph and I understand that the first three books of Genesis are methaphorical in nature. The metaphore pertains to history, sure, I can accept that, but it remains a metaphore. Metaphores can be stretched quite a bit from factual truth.

Adam and Eve could metaphorically represent a group of persons, whose's story is told from two central characters?

Maybe the serpant was just a metaphore for Eve's thoughts and there was no serpant at all, but the story was "adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured" by using "simple and metaphorical" language; aka the story was given a snake as a metaphore so it would be easier to understand for the people of the time.