[Zionist Conspirator]

He was up on Genesis which is what bdeaner cited him for.

He invoked Augustine after observing that Genesis "reads like Gilgamesh." Thus it isn't Augustine's authority alone he was invoking but nineteenth century comparative mythology.

No. Everything in the Bible has a literal meaning, but that doesn’t mean they are to be taken ONLY literally.

In just over ten years on this forum I have never said that the Bible is to be taken "only" literally. Now who is conflating? Biblical literalism and sola scriptura are two completely separate things, though some Catholics apparently can't help confusing the two--hence the hostility to any insistence on the literal historical truth of Genesis. Just because every verse in the Torah has four (or even seventy, or even more) interpretations doesn't mean that it didn't also happen literally as written!

Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I’m not wasting my time to check because

Because it's not important in Catholicism. After all, we don't want to sound like "those people." Let's bend over backwards for the "gays" but if someone has trouble accepting modern Biblical criticism, well then, he isn't intellectual enough for the Catholic Church. I wonder how Catholic theologians would react if science ever discovered a "literalist gene?"

So there you are conflating two DIFFERENT things again as if they were the same. Transsubstantiation is not the same thing as LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS.

Both are totally contrary to "natural law" but are asserted by the Catholic bible. Yet only one actually happened--or it's only really important whether one of them actually happened.

No. Again you’re saying one thing is the same as another.

If they're both part of the authentic Bible they are the same thing. If one of them isn't, then its part is not the Word of G-d. I can admit this with my rejection of the nt, but liturgical chr*stians can't let the "old testament" go. They've based their entire religion on it, even if they've since branded it mythology!

And I reiterate again--you (and others) have in the past (not in your last post) accused me of making stuff up. Believe me, you can't make stuff like this up!

I believe it and so does my priest.

And yet here you are, arguing with me, because even though you believe it to be true, it's not that important whether all Catholics believe it! So there are priests who recite prayers citing events they believe happened, and other priests who recite prayers that cite what they believe is mythology, but apparently it doesn't matter. All Catholics must agree on the literal interpretation of John 6, but when it comes to Genesis and the events that allegedly made chr*stianity necessary . . . well, that's up to you!

Also, Genesis offers no time specific chronology of creation. It offers a sequence of events. If there was a time specific chronology then there would be specific time references and yet we only get “In the beginning...”

Here, my friend, you are very, very wrong! The ancient Sages constructed the chronology of Genesis long ago and it may be found as an appendix in almost any printed Rabbinic Bible. They did this from the birth and death dates of the first 26 generations (ten from Adam to Noach, ten from Noach to Abraham, and six from Abraham to Moses)--the equivalent of the numerical value of G-d's Name. And from this we have the current year number 5769 which the Lubavitcher Rebbe claimed is not merely a claim of truth but a Halakhah. For that matter, I could direct you to a traditional Jewish chronology online if you were interested.

And you're arranging for a Creation seminar with the Kolbe Center? Why, if it's not that important? Why don't you tell Hugh Owen that while you interpret Genesis literally you don't think it's really that important? Maybe if it's not that important you should just forget about the whole thing. In fact, if it's not that important, why are you trying to arrange a seminar with the Kolbe Center at all? You seem somewhat conflicted.

Face it--the Catholic/Orthodox antipathy to the historicity of the Hebrew Bible is a form of theological anti-Semitism, exactly on a par with the alleged supersession of the Biblical rituals with chr*stian ones and of the Holy Temple by the church. What other explanation is there?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“He invoked Augustine after observing that Genesis “reads like Gilgamesh.” Thus it isn’t Augustine’s authority alone he was invoking but nineteenth century comparative mythology.”

You said he did so because of transsubstantiation. You were wrong. Period.

“In just over ten years on this forum I have never said that the Bible is to be taken “only” literally. Now who is conflating? Biblical literalism and sola scriptura are two completely separate things, though some Catholics apparently can’t help confusing the two—hence the hostility to any insistence on the literal historical truth of Genesis.”

(sigh) I never once mentioned sola scriptura anywhere in this thread. Not once. Not once anywhere. Now you’re implying I did. I’ve told you not to do this before. Why do you keep doing it?

And here you do it again:

“And you’re arranging for a Creation seminar with the Kolbe Center? Why, if it’s not that important?”

That is the second time you have falsely accused me of not believing it is important. I never said that. Why do you keep saying I said things I never, EVER said? I have told you about this on more than one occasion. I don’t mind you arguing with me, but can’t you actually deal with what I said, rather than invent things I never said?

“Why don’t you tell Hugh Owen that while you interpret Genesis literally you don’t think it’s really that important?”

And here we go again: When did I ever say it was no important? I never said that. Why are you making things up?

“Maybe if it’s not that important you should just forget about the whole thing.”

And there we are again. That has to be at least the fourth time now you have falsely accused me of saying it isn’t important. I corrected you the first time you did it and yet you’ve now done it three more times in just one post. Why do you keep making up things?

“In fact, if it’s not that important, why are you trying to arrange a seminar with the Kolbe Center at all? You seem somewhat conflicted.”

No, see a confused person would falsely accuse someone of saying something that he has never said. Oh, wait, you’ve done that now five times. FIVE TIMES.

ZC, if you’re going to keep inventing things out of thin air and calling Catholics anti-semites because they dare to disagree with you, then what’s the point of posting to you?

[bdeaner]

Zionist Conspirator, you misunderstood my comments on Genesis. I believe without doubt that Genesis is an inspired Biblical text and without theological error whatsoever. The question, rather, is how it should be interpretation hermeneutically. The style of the text is different than the Gospels, I said. The style of Genesis is similar to creation myths such as Gilgamesh, but I would never agree with a statement that Genesis is "plagiarized" from Gilgamesh. The point is that the STYLE of Genesis is similar to Gilgamesh -- it is a creation narrative -- but Gilgamesh is not an inspired Scripture and does not possess the theological truths that are authoritatively present in Genesis. In contrast to Genesis, the STYLE of the Gospels are not of biography. These different styles, both containing theological truths that are inspired and without error, nevertheless lend themselves to different hermeneutic rules of interpretation.

When in doubt, Catholics go to tradition to answer these thorny questions. Tradition thoroughly supports the Real Presence doctrine, as grounded in Scripture. The Church Fathers, and the Magisterium, are undecided on the scientific and historical merit of Genesis, but they are without doubt about the fundamental, theological truths revealed in Genesis.

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on "The Divine Act of Creation" and "The Divine Work of Creation":

-- God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
-- The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
-- The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
-- God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
-- God has created a good world. (De Fide)
-- The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
-- God alone created the world. (De Fide)
-- God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
-- God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
-- The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
-- Man consists of two essential parts -- a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
-- Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
-- Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
-- The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
-- Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
-- Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
-- Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)



These truths are without question, revealed by Genesis.

But was the earth created in seven days? Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

Incidently, Augustine of Hippo lived from 354 to 430 AD. He was not a 16th century German -- not by a long shot. But he and his contemporaries disagreed on this same issue. I however side with Augustine on this point, and that is all well and good, because Augustine also believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, without theological contradition, himself.