Replies

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6?

Why do Catholics and Orthodox reject the plain, literal meaning of Genesis 1-11?

Genesis 1 is plain? Hm.

So I’d be able to consult, say, many different authorities in the Talmud and get the same exact opinions on it then, eh? ;)

For one thing, the words of Jesus are those of a man talking to other men. The language of Genesis is that of myth even if it aims to debunk myth

Why do Catholics and Orthodox reject the plain, literal meaning of Genesis 1-11?

Because it is written in a different style than the rest of the Books of the Bible. Genesis is more in the style of Gilgamesh, whereas the Gospels are more in the style of biography. We don't read an ancient creation story and take it the same way we would read a more contemporary biography. Same thing with Genesis and the Gospels.

It should be noted, however, that some Catholics do take it literally, and this is not ruled out either. There is no doctrine in the Church, officially, on how accurate Genesis 1-11 is, if taken literally. But generally the Church teaches that it should not really be read as history or as science, but theologically.

Plus, again, we go back to tradition and look at the early Church Fathers, and they were in dispute on this. Some took it literally, some theologically. St. Augustine, for example, is an early Church Father who argued strongly that it should not be read as a history or science text, but rather as revelatory of theological truths.

St. Augustine (A.D> 354-430) wrote on this topic in his book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. This quote comes from a translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"

I'm with St. Augustine on this one.