I think I understand you. When I said that I look at the world. I am speaking physical and psychological conditions of the world. My biblical worldview informs me that sin is the reason, the fall of creation.
And I would largely agree with you on the topic of sin, though I don’t think it’s always clear how that plays out. But when you say you do not interpret the Bible by looking at “secular science,” (not sure there is such a thing) I have to wonder whether any of us are truly capable of doing that. Do you mean that when you read a verse like Ecclesiastes 1:5 (Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again.) which clearly states that the sun is the one that moves, there is no part of your mind that tells you that we know the sun isn’t actually the one that does any “hastening”? Do you think it’s wrong to take scientific knowledge into account when reading a verse like that?
1 Like
“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world.”–Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
If we are speaking about heads in the sand, how do you justify your flat denial of centuries of science?
1 Like
So you are saying that this fall of creation occurred billions of years ago?
sin is not always clear? Please expand
You are saying, if evolution never existed. You, a believer would still see Genesis not as a literal historical account? I find that very hard to believe
Ecclesiastes as the rest of the bible is written from a human perspective. The author writes only what he observes and understands, but we are talking about Genesis, in which men were not around to observe anything. God is the author.
I am not Roman Catholic, and by the Council of Trent I, myself would be an anathema for believing it is by faith alone and not by works.
I do not deny science as a whole, since most of the modern scientific discoveries were by creationists scientist; Isaac Newton arguably the greatest of them all. I only argue against any evolution science or any science based off of evolution
That is what you are saying. I said the fall occurred in the garden of eden
I mean that different perspectives attribute different things to sin. For example, I’m not convinced that my gut bacteria dying, or fish dying are necessarily caused by sin (otherwise I’m in trouble for having fish chowder last night!), while I understand that many in the YEC perspective see that differently. I don’t mean to go off-topic here – I still very much agree that sin is why people are fallen, and our sinful hearts have caused us to mess things up terribly down here.
I’m not sure that’s what I said… if evolution never existed I think we’d live in a very different world.
Are you saying Genesis is somehow more authoritative than the other books? [Edit: And if so, where do we draw the line between books we should read in light of modern science and books we should not?] I mean, the Old Testament is full of people writing about things they’ve never personally observed – prophecy, visions, etc. I believe that God must have steered the authors in the right direction in their writing, and therefore the creation account is how he wanted it.
1 Like
Some of the early church fathers insisted that Genesis not be taken literally. So I count myself in good company. And evolution doesn’t enter into the reasons why.
1 Like
The Old Earth Creationists deny evolution happened, but don’t see Genesis as a literal historical account the way you do. How do you explain their existence?
Interestingly I want to be in good company of the truth
No, that is not what I am saying about Genesis. I am saying that when the bible says God created the sun on the 4th day. He created the sun on the 4th day, since only God could know that.
Because they are old earthers basing a belief off of evolution. They may not believe in evolution directly but they indirectly believe in it, because it was the science of evolution that opened the door to the world being much older, since evolution needs billions of years to even be valid
You need a better grasp of history.The idea that the earth was old started way before Darwin.
4 Likes
But when God through Solomon says the sun hastens back to its resting place (i.e. revolves around the earth), that isn’t something only God could have known?
2 Likes
If you are arguing that earthquakes and tsunamis only started a few thousand years ago, then you are arguing against geology which is not based on evolution. You are flatly denying a lot of science.
Also, the only reason you appear to reject evolution is because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible. Is that correct?
Earthquakes and tsunamis have been around for billions of years. So how do you explain this?
I would argue that it is not biblical.
Scripture establishes that there is a knowable pattern to Creation (Luke 12:56). In Job 39:26, God rhetorically asks Job is if was his understanding that the hawk “soars and spreads his wings towards the south”. One could argue that this is reading anachronistically but due to your strict literalness, then God’s mechanistic understanding regarding Creation allows both animal flight and behaviour.
Scripture does not delve in mechanistic descriptions (Leviticus 26:4 and many others)
Scripture simplifies concepts and there are adjustments for original audience and human condition (1 Kings 7:23, Matt 19:8)
Scripture’s proper interpretation requires Holy Spirit guidance and proper teaching (John 6:63, 2 Peter 3:16)
Your main objection to this is by way of slippery slope and false dichotomy. Ultimately concluding with the notion that allegorically or any abstract way of interpreting Genesis (only because it’s author is more directly God apparently because He is relating only what He has seen and this never happens anywhere else in the bible that contradicts this point).
The very goodness of Creation somehow excludes evolution due to its contradiction to God’s character (which you later define that goodness is defined by what He does so how then would evolution be against His character) yet God himself describes his involvement in the life and death of (Psalm 147:9, Psalm 104:21).
Furthermore in Job, God proudly relates his creatures including their offensive and defensive mechanisms regarding predation and their niche. Why would God be proud and boast about this if it was merely the result of sin and humans breaking Creation as you have put it.
You also suggest that theodicy is largely solved by Godidit or Falldidit and then disregard a large swath of science because of the presuppositions that you have and due to a very specific part of the
involved scientists’ beliefs.
I do not think that this is searching for the truth.
6 Likes
Indeed. Example: Is not the story of the Good Samaritan a parable? But nowhere in the passage does the writer say that this was a parable. And the events of the story are quite plausible and mundane on the face of it: Jerusalem, Jericho, the road between, the presence of bandits, travelers both Jew and Samaritan, etc. As such, it would seem that in Wookin_Panub’s view, we are required to say that this was not a parable. I suppose instead, on that view, we are required to believe that it was a piece of news - maybe something that had happened a week before and was being talked about in the marketplace. And yet, throughout all of Church history, almost everyone has always interpreted the story as being a parable. And furthermore, the Church has always managed to draw-out a lot of truth from it - despite it being, through Wookin_Panub’s lens, a falsehood that makes Jesus to be a liar. That’s absurd of course, and the reasons why are not very much different than what has been discussed in this thread.
2 Likes
Not to mention the parable where the rich man is holding a conversation with Abraham across a chasm that separates heaven and hell. I guess since we need to see such stories as literally true, then those in Heaven will be able to contemplate their friends and neighbors across the chasm and observe their suffering. Oh joy!
Jesus gives no warning that “Oh - by the way this is only a parable, so it is a lesser form of truth that you need not take seriously since it doesn’t literally happen.”
[clarifying edits]
2 Likes