The Accuracy of Scripture

Catholic Culture ^ | 12/05 | James Akin

[Nosterrex]

The problem is the employment of Higher Criticism rather than the Historical-Grammatical approach. The problem you raise about Genesis is compounded by the fact that Jesus and St. Paul believed in the historicity of Genesis. In fact, the whole institution of marriage is determined by Jesus’ reference to the marriage of Adam and Eve. St. Paul refers to the hierarchy of man and woman based upon Genesis. If you are puzzled by how we should interpret Genesis, maybe following Jesus’ approach would be best.

[Salvation]

Very good article. I’m sure I will re-read it several times to digest all the information.

Thanks.

[Salvation]

The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study

CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)

Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[kosta50]

"The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired."

Provided the a priori dogmatic assertion that God authored the Bible is correct, which is by no means a proven fact.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[presently no screen name]

assertion that God authored the Bible is correct, which is by no means a proven fact.

Believe that at your own risk. Calling God a liar is not wise. Read about the rich ruler - he thought he knew it all. Luke 16:19-31

[bdeaner]

Jesus and St. Paul believed in the historicity of Genesis.

Chapter and verse, please, and let's discuss it.

In fact, the whole institution of marriage is determined by Jesus’ reference to the marriage of Adam and Eve.

Yes, but Adam and Eve are in the second Creation narrative, which taken on a literal level, contradicts the first Creation narrative.

In the first account of Creation (Genesis 1:25-27), the humans were created after the other animals. But in the second account (Genesis 2:18-19), humans were created before the other animals.

Also, in the first account of Creation (Genesis 1:27), the first man and woman were created simultaneously. But in the second account (Genesis 2:18-22), man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

Obviously, these passages were not meant to be taken literally, or else they would not contradict each other when taken literally.

I do however believe in Adam and Eve. In fact, research in genetics traces all DNA back to a single man and woman living in Africa. We actually have scientific proof that all of humanity originates from the same two people. This scientific, empirical evidence, in addition to the narrative of Adam and Eve, do not contradct Jesus' teachings on Genesis, nor St. Paul's, but rather supports it.

[Nosterrex]

There is not a contradiction between the two chapters. The first gives an overview of creation, but second focuses upon the creation of Adam and Eve. It’s late here, so I’ll discuss it more tomorrow, and I will give you the verses for which you asked although they are not hard to find.

[bronxville]

Bookmark for an enjoyable read tomorrow. Thanks bdeaner.

[bdeaner]

I realize there are ways to interpret the Creation stories so that they don't seem to be so contradictory, but the fact remains, they do appear on first glance to not quite square up together. And there are other Scriptures outside of Genesis that directly contradict the Creation account, if taken literally -- again, we can touch on this tomorrow with further conversation. But those contradictions are more serious and more difficult to explain away.

I am not worried about these criticisms, however, because I think the literary style of the Creation story in Genesis lends itself to a non-literal, symbolic and allegorical interpretation moreso than a literal one, and taken as such, is completely harmonious with contemporary physical sciences. Indeed, the physical sciences overwhelmingly support the belief in a Creation, and in ways that are in complete comformity with the infallible teachings of the Church.

Moreover, the Intelligent Design argument, which flows from a non-literal reading of Genesis, can be shown to provide very difficult problems for atheists such as Dawkins, as is demonstrated in books such as Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's Answering the New Atheism and the Barr text I already cited, among others. Catholicism can hold its ground against science on the very terms of science. And this shows me, in a very convincing way, that we should probably let theology be theology -- and that means a more deductive approach -- and let science be science -- which takes a more inductive approach -- and they will round each other out, and come together harmoniously in the end if we can have the patience to let them do their thing on their own terms.

[bdeaner]

I realize there are ways to interpret the Creation stories so that they don't seem to be so contradictory, but the fact remains, they do appear on first glance to not quite square up together. And there are other Scriptures outside of Genesis that directly contradict the Creation account, if taken literally -- again, we can touch on this tomorrow with further conversation. But those contradictions are more serious and more difficult to explain away.

I am not worried about these criticisms, however, because I think the literary style of the Creation story in Genesis lends itself to a non-literal, symbolic and allegorical interpretation moreso than a literal one, and taken as such, is completely harmonious with contemporary physical sciences. Indeed, the physical sciences overwhelmingly support the belief in a Creation, and in ways that are in complete comformity with the infallible teachings of the Church.

Moreover, the Intelligent Design argument, which flows from a non-literal reading of Genesis, can be shown to provide very difficult problems for atheists such as Dawkins, as is demonstrated in books such as Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's Answering the New Atheism and the Barr text I already cited, among others. Catholicism can hold its ground against science on the very terms of science. And this shows me, in a very convincing way, that we should probably let theology be theology -- and that means a more deductive approach -- and let science be science -- which takes a more inductive approach -- and they will round each other out, and come together harmoniously in the end if we can have the patience to let them do their thing on their own terms.

[Iscool]

I do however believe in Adam and Eve. In fact, research in genetics traces all DNA back to a single man and woman living in Africa.

Africa??? Well I thought Eden included the area around the Fertile Crescent...Who'd a thought Adam and Eve were Africans...

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“In the first account of Creation (Genesis 1:25-27), the humans were created after the other animals. But in the second account (Genesis 2:18-19), humans were created before the other animals.”

That’s not how it comes across to me. It seems to me that the Divine Author is simply reminding the reader that He created animals out of the earth. It doesn’t say anything about time.

“Also, in the first account of Creation (Genesis 1:27), the first man and woman were created simultaneously. But in the second account (Genesis 2:18-22), man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib.”

Again, to me it doesn’t come across that way. In Gen. 1:27 we are merely told that God created man and woman. In Gen. 2, we have a more detailed description of that creation. We do this in conversation all the time. If I say, “I was born in New York, went to grad school in California and married in Canada,” someone can say you married when you were born? You went to graduate school when you were a baby? No one says that, however, because we know how conversational comments work in reality according to time.

“Obviously, these passages were not meant to be taken literally, or else they would not contradict each other when taken literally.”

I don’t see any contradiction there. It seems to me that Genesis 2 was just a greater detailed version of Genesis 1.

[bdeaner]

The fertile crescent in the Near East is not all that far from Africa. Current evidence has traced human ancestry all the way back to a single Eve which they trace to Ethiopia.

We'll have to see how the data unfolds.

Theology is deductive -- we start with basic, immutable principles, and then we draw inferences. Science is inductive: we start with the evidence and see if it matches current theories, or see if we need to modify our current theories. These are two different ways of thinking, but can and do converge on a single Truth. But that takes patience to work out, and to some extent much is still a mystery.

[Tax-chick]

If you are puzzled by how we should interpret Genesis, maybe following Jesus’ approach would be best.

Jesus, St. Paul, St. Peter ... I find their example persuasive, myself.

[bdeaner]

I should be clear that in Genesis there are in fact no contradictions, only apparent contradictions. The question is whether those apparent contradictions are more consistently resolved by reading the text in a literal way only, or by seeing reading it allegorically and/or symbolically. Or, there is a third option, which is that the text can be read on all of these levels.

Ronald Witherup gives the example of Genesis 1-2, which most scholars view as two separate stories of creation written by different authors in different time periods. "Most biblical scholars accept Genesis 1 as originating around the sixth century B.C. with a group of scribes who were concerned about the preservation of the liturgical traditions of the Jews (thus the concern for the seven-day schema of creation and the notion of the sabbath). Genesis 2, on the other hand, originates from an earlier, more primitive tradition dated to around the tenth century B.C. Fundamentalists, however, do not view the two stories as separate, the first one (Gen 1:1-2:4) being poetic and the second one (Gen 2:4-25) being more anthropomorphic, i.e., describing God in very human terms as a divine sculptor who forms the first human being out of dust. For fundamentalists, this is not a second story of creation but merely 'further detail' about the story of creation. This makes the differences in the accounts only apparent rather than substantive." (Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, p. 26).

These narratives, dating back to the times that they do, were written in a style the people of that time could understand. If those accounts had been written, for example, in terms of modern physics, no one could have believed it, nor grasped it cognitively, because it would have been far too alien to the culture of that time.

For example, in Genesis 4:9, God asks Cain about the whereabouts of his brother, and then in Genesis 18:20,21, God goes to see what is happening. Yet, later Scriptures from a more mature civilization, teach us that God is everywhere and sees everything (Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24). Are these contradictions? Absolutely not. God is everywhere and does see everything, but for earlier civilization, it was necessary for cognitive understanding, that the narrative include a more anthropomorphic depiction of God, because they could use analogies to other human beings in order to understand what is in principle a mystery. I do believe in an actual Cain and Abel, but also believe that the account of the story should not be read as an exact account of history, as for example a textbook on the Civil War we read in school. It's a different kind of storytelling which the people of that time could comprehend, which contains immutable, theological truths. Historical writing as such did not yet exist.

[bdeaner]

2 Peter 3:8
8But, 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.

Taking Peter on his authority, we should be cautious about interpreting Creation as being a sequence of seven 24-hour days.

[Tax-chick]

I was referring to St. Peter’s discussion of the Flood.

However, statements such as the one you’ve quoted are one reason I don’t bother to get overly worked up about the question. I choose to take a certain interpretation, but I’m not going to have a cow if I find I’m wrong, and it doesn’t bother me that people disagree.

[Iscool]

"Most biblical scholars accept Genesis 1 as originating around the sixth century B.C. with a group of scribes who were concerned about the preservation of the liturgical traditions of the Jews (thus the concern for the seven-day schema of creation and the notion of the sabbath). Genesis 2, on the other hand, originates from an earlier, more primitive tradition dated to around the tenth century B.C.

I haven't done the math but the 'scholars' I read claim that if you add the numbers up; ages of the people in the genealogical record in the scriptures, it puts Adam and Eve on the earth about 6000 years ago...