Calling Out TNHarley: Should the 1st Eleven Chapters be Read Literally or Allegorically

[ding]

Maybe ding will find someone who spoke of algorithms that didnt get condemned by the church

"...For Catholics, rather than being a literal explanation for the origin of life, Genesis 1 teaches key information about God’s nature..."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zkk3rwx/revision/1#:~:text=For%20Catholics%2C%20rather%20than%20being,be%2C%20and%20he%20is%20omnipotent.&text=Creation%20also%20highlights%20God's%20transcendence

.

 

[TNHarley]

Where is your evidence that the Church believed in a literal interpretation, TN?

Its called, "the Bible"
Its called, "history"
Its called, "the only example you can apparently find got his views CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH"
Now, are you going to try harder, or do i need to keep hitting you in the noggin with my debunk-a-meter, over the exact same debunked garbage?

 

[ding]

Where is your evidence that the Church believed in a literal interpretation, TN?

Its called, "the Bible"
Its called, "history"
Its called, "the only example you can apparently find got his views CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH"
Now, are you going to try harder, or do i need to keep hitting you in the noggin with my debunk-a-meter, over the exact same debunked garbage?

Where is your evidence?

Here's some more of mine.

How do Catholics understand the creation account of Genesis and evolution? - Catholic Straight Answers

In an address to a recent meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), the Holy Father commented on the subject of evolution and recognized the progress of science in explaining the origins of life and the process of creation. … Continued

catholicstraightanswers.com

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe ding will find someone who spoke of algorithms that didnt get condemned by the church

"...For Catholics, rather than being a literal explanation for the origin of life, Genesis 1 teaches key information about God’s nature..."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zkk3rwx/revision/1#:~:text=For%20Catholics%2C%20rather%20than%20being,be%2C%20and%20he%20is%20omnipotent.&text=Creation%20also%20highlights%20God's%20transcendence

.

That link means nothing.

 

[TNHarley]

Where is your evidence that the Church believed in a literal interpretation, TN?

Its called, "the Bible"
Its called, "history"
Its called, "the only example you can apparently find got his views CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH"
Now, are you going to try harder, or do i need to keep hitting you in the noggin with my debunk-a-meter, over the exact same debunked garbage?

Where is your evidence?

Here's some more of mine.

How do Catholics understand the creation account of Genesis and evolution? - Catholic Straight Answers

In an address to a recent meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), the Holy Father commented on the subject of evolution and recognized the progress of science in explaining the origins of life and the process of creation. … Continued

catholicstraightanswers.com

ah 1996. Didnt even glance over that link

 

[ding]

Maybe ding will find someone who spoke of algorithms that didnt get condemned by the church

"...For Catholics, rather than being a literal explanation for the origin of life, Genesis 1 teaches key information about God’s nature..."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zkk3rwx/revision/1#:~:text=For%20Catholics%2C%20rather%20than%20being,be%2C%20and%20he%20is%20omnipotent.&text=Creation%20also%20highlights%20God's%20transcendence

.

That link means nothing.

The error in question is based on biblical literalism. This belief, which came about post-Reformation, is the idea that all of Scripture is to be taken literally (except John 6) and that includes the six-day creation account. This has never been the Catholic reading of Genesis precisely because the Church acknowledges that Scripture is a library of complementary, but different, genres; all of which are divinely inspired. Bishop Robert Barron elucidates:

Genesis: Is Catholicism at Odds with Science?

There is a battle raging in our culture between science and faith. This battle is centuries old, as various philosophers and theologians have sought to divorce faith and reason. The Catholic Church has stood firmly in the middle of this battle, calling for a ceasefire. Faith and reason are meant...

catholicexchange.com

 

[TNHarley]

Cant find even one more ancient that spoke of allegories? Not one? hehe

 

[ding]

Cant find even one more ancient that spoke of allegories? Not one? hehe

"Once of the most important principles of Catholic Biblical interpretation is that the reader of the Scriptural texts must be sensitive to the genre or literary type of the text which he is dealing. Just at it would be counter-intuitive to read Moby Dick as history or “The Waste Land” as social science, so it is silly to interpret, say “The Song of Songs” as journalism or the Gospel of Matthew as a spy novel. In the same way, it is deeply problematic to read the opening chapters of Genesis as scientific treatise." Bishop Robert Barron

 

[TNHarley]

Cant find even one more ancient that spoke of allegories? Not one? hehe

"Once of the most important principles of Catholic Biblical interpretation is that the reader of the Scriptural texts must be sensitive to the genre or literary type of the text which he is dealing. Just at it would be counter-intuitive to read Moby Dick as history or “The Waste Land” as social science, so it is silly to interpret, say “The Song of Songs” as journalism or the Gospel of Matthew as a spy novel. In the same way, it is deeply problematic to read the opening chapters of Genesis as scientific treatise." Bishop Robert Barron

He said that in 2011. Holy fuck you are boring.

 

[ding]

Where is your evidence that the Church believed in a literal interpretation, TN?

Its called, "the Bible"
Its called, "history"
Its called, "the only example you can apparently find got his views CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH"
Now, are you going to try harder, or do i need to keep hitting you in the noggin with my debunk-a-meter, over the exact same debunked garbage?

Where is your evidence?

Here's some more of mine.

How do Catholics understand the creation account of Genesis and evolution? - Catholic Straight Answers

In an address to a recent meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), the Holy Father commented on the subject of evolution and recognized the progress of science in explaining the origins of life and the process of creation. … Continued

catholicstraightanswers.com

ah 1996. Didnt even glance over that link

How are we to interpret the Genesis creation account?
Genesis is a theological work. It is meant to teach us about Divine truths and realities. It does not teach us the time it took to create the universe in any literal sense. What it does teach us is that we are made imago Dei, we are body and soul, God spoke the universe into being through a sheer act of love, the world is intelligible, and creation is not divine. For Catholics, the central truth of Genesis is that God created us to love and be in communion with Him. We can see that the universe is good and intelligible, therefore, we can study and come to know and understand it through science, philosophy, art, music, theology, and any other human pursuit. The universe, through its beauty and grandeur, reveals to us that God is good and gratuitous in His giving. Genesis tells us about the supernatural beginning of the universe, not the scientific timeline for the beginning of the universe.

Genesis: Is Catholicism at Odds with Science?

There is a battle raging in our culture between science and faith. This battle is centuries old, as various philosophers and theologians have sought to divorce faith and reason. The Catholic Church has stood firmly in the middle of this battle, calling for a ceasefire. Faith and reason are meant...

catholicexchange.com

 

[TNHarley]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.
Im down for the bull ring anytime. I would just come better prepared

 

[ding]

Cant find even one more ancient that spoke of allegories? Not one? hehe

"Once of the most important principles of Catholic Biblical interpretation is that the reader of the Scriptural texts must be sensitive to the genre or literary type of the text which he is dealing. Just at it would be counter-intuitive to read Moby Dick as history or “The Waste Land” as social science, so it is silly to interpret, say “The Song of Songs” as journalism or the Gospel of Matthew as a spy novel. In the same way, it is deeply problematic to read the opening chapters of Genesis as scientific treatise." Bishop Robert Barron

He said that in 2011. Holy fuck you are boring.

"...The Catholic Church does not take the creation account in Genesis literally. Science has clearly shown that the universe is billions of years old. Genesis is not meant to give a real-time play-by-play of God’s first six-days working on creation. Rather, it is meant to teach us about who God is and how he operates within the universe. Creation is born of a gratuitous act of love, not violence and retaliatory violence. Human beings as “embodied spirits” are rational creatures made for love with an ultimate end of communion with the Beatific Vision..."

Genesis: Is Catholicism at Odds with Science?

There is a battle raging in our culture between science and faith. This battle is centuries old, as various philosophers and theologians have sought to divorce faith and reason. The Catholic Church has stood firmly in the middle of this battle, calling for a ceasefire. Faith and reason are meant...

catholicexchange.com

 

[ding]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.

What the Early Church Believed: Creation and Genesis

Fundamentalists claim that—until recently— the only acceptable view of Genesis was that the earth was created in six days, but this was not always the case.

www.catholic.com

 

[ding]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.
Im down for the bull ring anytime. I would just come better prepared

Crusading for Peace Through Truth | Saint Dominic's Media

The Saint Dominic’s Media Book Collection Compendium of the Catholic Catechism on Freemasonry (10-Pack) $40.00 Buy now Catholic, Traditional & Black: In Anthology and Discourse $12.35 – $22.95 Buy now The Father $12.50 Buy now The Catholic Catechism on Freemasonry $14.95 – $29.95 Buy now The...

www.saintdominicsmedia.com

 

[ding]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.
Im down for the bull ring anytime. I would just come better prepared

"...As early as 410 A.D., then, the greatest of the Western Church Fathers was telling us that the Book of Genesis is not an astrophysics or geology textbook. Augustine himself was a kind of evolutionist, speculating that God's creation of the cosmos was an instantaneous act whose effects unfolded over a long period..."

How to Read the First Chapter of Genesis

The first chapter of Genesis remains a great stumbling block for the modern mind. Charles Darwin himself discarded a mild Protestant faith when he con...

www.catholiceducation.org

 

[ding]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.
Im down for the bull ring anytime. I would just come better prepared

"Some Christians believe that the Bible stories, including the Genesis account, should be taken literally. This means that the biblical accounts are to be taken as fact, ie that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, and that no alternative or scientific theory is considered.

This view is not one that is promoted by the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that the Bible accounts and stories have to be understood within the time that they were written. The authors of the biblical books had limited knowledge of science and the world, so the Genesis account was their way of trying to explain what they believed.

The Church interprets the Genesis account alongside science and reason to try and understand the key message – that God is responsible for the creation of the world. Science may be able to explain how the universe was created, but Christians believe that religion explains the reason it was created..."

Literal and non-literal understanding of the Bible - Creation - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - WJEC - BBC Bitesize

Explore what the Catholic Church teaches about Creation and the role and place of humanity within it with BBC Bitesize Religious Studies (WJEC).

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[ding]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.
Im down for the bull ring anytime. I would just come better prepared

 

[ding]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.
Im down for the bull ring anytime. I would just come better prepared

 

[ding]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.
Im down for the bull ring anytime. I would just come better prepared

"The first three chapters of Genesis teach fundamental truths about God, Creation, and mankind; but neither the Book of Genesis nor the rest of the Bible were meant to instruct us on matters of natural science. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in 1893 in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus,

“The sacred writers … did not intend to teach mankind these things, that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe … . Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language or in terms that were commonly used at the time … .” 1

Figurative or symbolic ways of understanding scriptural passages go back to the very beginnings of the Church and indeed are used extensively in Scripture itself. It is clear, for example, that the “sacred writers” who composed the first chapters of Genesis could not have meant them to be read in a narrowly literal way, for chapters 1 and 2 contain two different creation accounts that disagree in obvious ways in matters of detail..."

Society of Catholic Scientists

If you're a practicing Catholic and a natural scientist who supports the purposes of SCS, we invite you to apply.

www.catholicscientists.org

 

[ding]

This thread is obviously over. Lets recap.
Ding claims the church has always read Genesis in allegory. Of course, they didnt. None of the other books, either.
Ding backs up his claim with ONE ANCIENT and his beliefs got condemned. Ding gets mad and starts quoting recent shit.
This thread is over. Ding, you lost. BIGLY.
Im down for the bull ring anytime. I would just come better prepared

"...Several of the greatest theologians and commentators of the early Church, including Origen (c. 184 – c. 253) and St. Augustine (354 – 430), read many of the things in the creation accounts of Genesis in highly symbolic ways. To take just one example (but a very important one), they did not even understand the “Six Days” of creation to be an actual sequence of time. Rather, they held that the universe was created in an instant, followed by a gradual and natural process of development through the unfolding of potentialities which God originally implanted in it at creation, and which existed in “the very fabric, as it were, or texture of the elements… [requiring only] the right occasion actually to emerge into being.” 2 St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian of the Middle Ages, agreed. St. Thomas admitted that the idea of a temporally successive creation was more commonly held and was “superficially more in accord with the letter” of Scripture, but said that he preferred St. Augustine’s interpretation because it was more “in accordance with reason.” 3.."

Society of Catholic Scientists

If you're a practicing Catholic and a natural scientist who supports the purposes of SCS, we invite you to apply.

www.catholicscientists.org