Posted on 05/21/2006 11:08:58 PM PDT by dangus
Recently, the "Vatican Astronomer" made statements which have scandalized Protestant and Catholic believers alike. I believe the wording of his statement was gravely poorly chosen, but I would like to explain the meaning of this statement. I beg the religion moderator license, for this does pertain partly to an existing thread, but I thought the content of this message went beyond the purview of that one thread, and embraces several hot topics in Christianity, including, believe it or not, the Da Vinci Code.
John prefaces his letters with a message from his entire community, a message which sums up the entirety of the gospel, and, in a sense, the entire gospel:
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have looked upon with our own eyes and touched with our hands concerns the Word of Life
“For the life was made visible, we have seen it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made visible to us
“What we have heard and seen, we now proclaim to you, so that you may have fellowship with us, for our fellowship is with his Son, Jesus Christ.
“We are writing this so that our joy may be complete.”
Herein, the preachers of the Word of God to the Nations proclaim that what they preach is what they have seen with their own eyes.
On the one hand, there were the gnostics, whom Dan Brown falsely credits with inventing his sham religion, who believed that through spiritual purification, the Holy Spirit would inform them of the truth regarding history, and the nature of the relationship between God and Man.
On the other hand were the catholics. Herein “catholic” means universal. They believed that God had revealed himself through history by becoming Man, and by guiding historical events. Truth was objectively knowable by anyone who was willing to hear of this truth.
The gnostics wrote their scriptures based on what they believed they were inspired to write. The catholics wrote their scriptures based on what they had heard and seen with their own eyes, through public revelation. Private revelation may take place, according to the catholics, for surely the early church had prophets and visionaries. But the faith was based on public revelation, and nothing of subsequent private revelation was necessary for salvation. (Yes, Protestants, we Catholics are free to disbelieve in the details of the message of Fatima or Lourdes. Such private revelations are accepted by the Church only if they are deemed to be in full accord with the pre-existing teachings of the Catholic Church.)
The role of inspiration, to the catholics (and note I’m shifting between capitalized and uncapitalized senses of this word!) was in the interpretation and explication of this public revelation. In other words, God saw to it that Man would learn the correct messages and meanings of his revelation in history by guiding Man through the action of the Holy Spirit to understand his will through these events.
The notion that God dictates words as words within a human language to humans to be written down as public revelation, therefore, is pagan, and alien to the ancient catholic faith. This is not to assert that the ancient catholic faith denied that the Earth was created in 144 hours. But it is important that what was considered essential to the faith was not the historicity of the events, but what the events meaned to contemporary man.
Thus, it was non-controversial when a description of the Heavens was stated that lacked the firmament. The present description of a round Earth with no firmament and no columns beneath it were simply accepted, even long before it was demonstrated to be true. Likewise, when Copernicus described the Heavens in such a way which contradicted the notion that the stars merely moved around in the sky directly above the Earth, there was neither controversy there. What created controversy was when Galileo used Copernicus’ suppositions to make claims against the morals of the Church, and the relation of Man to God.
Regardless of how fundamentalist/literalist apologists now read statements of the firmament and pillars and the abyss that is the sea, it must be conceded that these constructs were not historically how the church had interpreted such verses. Nor is there any historical record of the church disseminating the new understandings in the face of the old understandings being disproven.
It may very well be that the origin of the universe which modern astronomy now points to is merely an illusion, and that the Earth was created in 144 hours. But there are, however, several critical points which must be made regarding this:
* the appearance of a history which conflicts with 144-hour creation exists, and is not the mere invention of God-hating atheists.
* no man lived who could recount the ancient history, and gnosis is antithetical to catholicism
* without recourse to reason, faith becomes an emotionalist and subjective experience, of no greater validity than pagan religions
* the requirement that scientists suspend their reason and blindly accept what is contrary to their observation is a burden added to their faith
* far from contradicting Christian principles of cosmology, science is confirming several beliefs which most Christians fail to recognize are unique to the Judeo-Christian belief system: that there is a single creative force, that the universe had a moment of creation (at least until one subdivides time into such infinitessimal units that time itself no longer exists, which only demonstrates that time itself was created.), and that the universe explains its own existence in that it is consistent with its own laws but exists as it only through an infinitely improbable fluke (and yes, Hawking’s anthropomorphic universe is well-established to be nonsense by now.)
The Christians who selected the canon did not do so based on the popularity of the book with Christian communities which were guided by the Spirit. It did so on the basis that the books were attested to as having been established by eye-witnesses or under the authority imparted by the apostles, who were themselves eyewitnesses. The chosen books were also consistent with the traditional doctrines of the church, and had a univsersal purpose. (One book, the Didache, was believed to have been authored by the apostles, but its audience was limited to pastors.)
Was the Genesis story historical? There is strong evidence that the Genesis story emerged gradually from the Mesopotamian peoples. But it is entirely false to characterize it as merely one version of a pagan legend. The fact is that Moses' people held such a legend to be historical. Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, taught history in such a way as to reveal a myriad of profound truths. For the purpose of establishing moral doctrine, the historicity of the Genesis story is irrelevant. I am NOT saying it is not historical! I'm ONLY saying the historicity of it is irrelevant!
This does NOT place on a slippery slope to the liberal Christians who dismiss the bible and question core Christian beliefs. We know that the gospel is historical, for Paul, Luke and John tell us it is. We know the Acts of the Apostles to be historical. Therein lies the birth, life, death, resurrection and promise of our Savior, and confirmation of all the doctrines which such liberals have rejected.
But not all books of the bible are written as histories. And yet, again, this fact does not mean that they are false, fictional, errant, or limited in their meaning on our lives.
>> a message which sums up the entirety of the gospel, and, in a sense, the entire gospel: <<
*smacks head*
A spell chech and Grammatik cannot correct stupidity. I mean to say:
a message which sums up the entirety of the gospel, and, in a sense, the entire BIBLE:
ALSO the Vatican Astromoner you mention made a controversal statement on Papal infalliability. But he is a jesuit I believe so what can you do lol.
Not to get to much into this debate but in the Catholic bible in the book of Judith, a book that protestants dont accept, we contend that what is happening there is basically a story but with a meaning and thus inspired. So I can see your point
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Ping to read later
There is a Bible I have--I think the NAB, that has that graphic of the "Hebrew" conception of the world in it, with a solid-wall firmament and the pillars beneath it above sheol.
I don't know from the Hebrew conception, but now having read more ancient cosmology I think that we are being *woefully* underserved by modern exegetes who are quick to dismiss the ancients' view of the world as silly and disproved by modern cosmology.
I don't have the book in front of me, but Augustine's treatise On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis shows a very modern understanding of the firmament. From my memory, he didn't believe in a solid firmament at all, but held to the ancient (and correct) notion that the earth was graded from lighter substances down to heavier substances. He tries to answer the question--how can water be above the firmament when water is heavier than air? He answers--and this could be pulled straight out of a modern meteorological textbook--that water may be heavier than air but water *vapor* is much lighter, as shown by the fact that steam rises. He cites the fact of clouds, and said that people who have climbed mountains have entered into the clouds and said that they were composed of a fine mist.
It is in this sense, Augustine says, that the waters above the firmament are separated from the water below. I frankly don't know where modern exegetes got the idea that the ancients thought the firmament was solid--except from the Latin firmamentum. But Augustine certainly didn't hold to that idea: he seems to envision it as our modern atmosphere.
Also, I'd like to point out that the ancients definitely believed in a round earth. They postulated an opposing landmass--the Antipodes, that balanced out Eurasia--but they incorrectly asserted that between the two was an impassable barrier. Augustine actually spends some time criticizing the idea that there are people on the other side of the world (based on the premise that one couldn't get there). Though he did in the end leave open the possibility--he just said that if they were humans living there, they had to be descended from Adam.
"Was the Genesis story historical? There is strong evidence that the Genesis story emerged gradually from the Mesopotamian peoples. But it is entirely false to characterize it as merely one version of a pagan legend. The fact is that Moses' people held such a legend to be historical. Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, taught history in such a way as to reveal a myriad of profound truths. For the purpose of establishing moral doctrine, the historicity of the Genesis story is irrelevant. I am NOT saying it is not historical! I'm ONLY saying the historicity of it is irrelevant!"
This sounds a whole lot like the "Rather Defense" to the spurious President Bush National Guard records. The documents may be fictitious but the substance contains truth.
Your argument seems to leave the foundation of the Decalogue resting on sand (myth).
You posited, "Your argument seems to leave the foundation of the Decalogue resting on sand (myth)." While you may feel more comfortable in such dismissal, the 'argument' is sound. Is it possible and even likely that a 'myth' found in every culture in one form or another across the globe is based in the teaching of the elders who received the story from their elders, on back to those who knew of the events by divine revelation? To rest something upon sand is an exercise in futility, eventually. That a creation story exists in every culture smacks of something far more substantial than futility.
I see posters using this verse out of context. If this verse applied, then it would mean creation took place in 6,000 years, something you wouldn't accept either.
The Holy Torah was written by HaShem before the Creation and then dictated to Moses letter for letter. This is the ancient and unchanged tradition of Israel since Mt. Sinai. And Hebrew is not a "human language" at all, but the Divine language. The first thing created was the Hebrew 'Alef-Beit and from these letters everything else was created. This is one reason the Torah begins Berei'shit bara' 'Eloqim 'et (see this). Thus Divine dictation of the Holy Torah is the original, ancient, and unchanged understanding of how the Torah was revealed to Moses and Israel. To dissent from this is to dissent from Tradition and makes any such dissident a hypocrite when he calls for the acknowledgement of "sacred tradition."
I do not dispute that Divine dictation is un-chr*stian; it is. But it is not pagan. It is Jewish. I suggest that dangus join me in inviting all Biblical Fundamentalists to leave chr*stianity (with its pagan incarnationism and trinitarianism) behind and acknowledge the true, pure, and authentic Holy Tradition which was given to Israel and which non-Jews participate in by forsaking all other religions to live by the Seven Noachide Laws.
PS: I wish to add here that ignorance of the Divine dictation of the Torah is one example of how unknown the Jewish religion actually is. Why don't Jews disseminate Jewish teachings to the non-Jewish world more widely rather than merely attacking or endorsing chr*stianity?
PPS: The Torah was dictated letter for letter from the Mouth of G-d to Moses, who wrote it down. The Nevi'im (prophetic books) were written in prophetic visions, which is one step below dictation. The Ketuvim (Hagiographa) was written under Ruach HaQodesh (Divine inspiration), which is a step below prophetic visions, but even books written under Divine inspiration can relate events that have not yet happened.
As long as Catholics disseminate this outright blasphemy, I find myself unsympathetic to the situation they are now in with regard to the "J*sus seminar" and the DaVinci Code.
Middah keneged middah (measure for measure).
How can the argument be sound when the preamble to the Decalogue is an eyewitness testimony to God speaking directly to Moses and saying,
Exd 20:1 "And God spake all these words, saying, I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
Exd 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Dangus said, "This does NOT place on a slippery slope to the liberal Christians who dismiss the bible and question core Christian beliefs. We know that the gospel is historical, for Paul, Luke and John tell us it is. We know the Acts of the Apostles to be historical. Therein lies the birth, life, death, resurrection and promise of our Savior, and confirmation of all the doctrines which such liberals have rejected" because these were
eyewitness" accounts and yet you argue the six day creation is not, even though Moses relates an "eyewitness" account with God in which God says it is so. In fact, the whole Sabbath structure is based on this account and Jesus authenticates it by not setting it aside but giving it the full meaning of the Sabbath.
You can't divorce the six day creation fact from the Sabbath commandment. Do you really think the God, at Sinai and later, Jesus are just authenticating a pagan creation myth?
But you have not dealt with the statements in Genesis 1 that say there was a morning and an evening.
Obveously it should be rewriten to say there were mornings and evenings.
Please send God a post and ask him to correct his tense and plurals.
A 'pagan creation myth'? If dictated to Moses directly, would you expect God to use terms from Physics of our day? The fact that simile is used doesn't necessarily make it a myth. How well do you think Moses or his people then would have understood the term quark? On what basis would a big bang be decribed to primitive (by our science standards) people? Read John chapter 14, where Jesus answers Philip in the only language Philip can understand at his time ... and realize that Jesus spoke knowing the deepest facts of the universe but speaking to a man of very limited background. What Jesus said to Philip would sound like a circular description, yet in this age I can make a pretty good explanation of what Jesus said to Philip but I would use more advanced terminology than Philip would ever be able to grasp yet you or anyone reading my explanation will quickly 'get it'. You see mythos, I see practical description.
Good post. The astronomer chose his words poorly, it's doubtful english is his first language.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.
"You see mythos, I see practical description"
Are you then saying that God told Moses He created all in six days?
I wasn't present when God dictated the passages. I will tell you this, however, I don't choose to argue whether Moses understood six days to mean six cycles or six earth rotational days, or something else entirely. I am more than capable of trusting God to convey what he wants Moses and US to understand whether in perfect scientific explanation or in simile and metaphor. Are you saying that unless perfect proofs are presnted to you, you will not choose to believe God?
This is an old theory. It is not a very good one, however.
Even leaving aside the modern restoration of the language, Hebrew changed significantly over the centuries. Internal evidence from the Semitic languages indicates that it is descended from the parent proto-Semitic language, spoken in the 4th millennium B.C.
It would seem reasonable to assume that God told Moses He created in six normally understood days since He next told him to rest on the seventh. If He meant cycles or a thousand years there would have had to be delivered a he-- of a lot of manna on that sixth day.
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.