FlySwatter
Member
"God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."
How are you equating the "heavens" with the sky?
If atheists get accused of taking verses out of context, how do we know fundamentalists making those accusations aren’t doing the same as well?
- Thread starter Romanov2488
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."
How are you equating the "heavens" with the sky?
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The Genesis narrative disproves pagan concepts that was common throughout the ancient world.
But you don't explain how preexisting matter got there in the first place. This is magical creationism, not biblical or scientific creationism.
Your "sequence of statements" is based on a 3000 year old manner of writing history. "The earth was. The waters were." is a private interpretation that ignores the various means of expression used by ancient writers.
Science proves our solar system is NOT the center of the galaxy. Had the Pope hastily accepted Galileo's theories, science would later prove the pope wrong. It appears you make the same mistake as Galileo, using theories to disprove what he thought the Bible says. Besides, there was no big fuss when heliocentrism was presented to the Church by Copernicus some 100 years earlier.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.
Unfortunately, throughout Church history, there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.
From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.
From an earthbound perspective, "The earth was. The waters were." is NOT the focus of Genesis 1.
The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense. This is why you make the same mistake as Galileo.
During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.
Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
The Galileo Controversy
The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings and is not infallible.
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
You got that wrong too.
Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (r. 1605-1621). The pope turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.
At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.
Tortured for His Beliefs?
In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture, nor after a harsh imprisonment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “imprisonment” when he reported to the Tuscan king: “The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another” (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); “he has a servant and every convenience” (letter, April 16); and “the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible” (letter, June 18).
While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used. The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.
As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of “witches” subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, “the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof.”
Infallibility
Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.
No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility:
(1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter;
(2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and
(3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproven theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
A non-sequitur fallacy. You seem to be demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit yours, making the same mistake as Galileo.
“Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159).
The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.
Last edited:
the.reverent.atheist
Member
the.reverent.atheist
Member
I take it that you are using the New International Version. Here's how the Revised Standard Version has it:
You should be aware that the New International Version was commissioned by the Evangelical churches of America as a reaction to the Revised Standard Version. Evangelicals were outraged that the RSV did not preserve the Septuagint's rendition of Isaiah 7:14, among other horrors.
And God called the firmament Heaven.
(Genesis 1:8, RSV)
You should be aware that the New International Version was commissioned by the Evangelical churches of America as a reaction to the Revised Standard Version. Evangelicals were outraged that the RSV did not preserve the Septuagint's rendition of Isaiah 7:14, among other horrors.
FlySwatter
Member
I'm not a fan of people picking out specific versions to claim a point. If there is truth then it will be spread across the majority of Bible versions.
However even in your chosen RSV we have a difference.
Gen 1:1 refers to the "heavens" - plural, no capitalisation
Gen 1:8 refers to "Heaven" - singular, capitalised
The "heavens" are thus a multiplicity of something whatever the term refers to. Heaven is a noun, and a location.
Also worth noting that Gen 1:1 dos NOT say "In the beginning God created the firmament and the earth"
Verse 9 goes back to the plural term:
"Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place,"
Not "let the waters under Heaven be gathered together"
Then verse 14:
"And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night;"
So the firmament is a part of the "heavens" not the heavens themselves. Thus if God named the firmament "Heaven" then "Heaven" is a part of the "heavens", not one and the same.
More confirmation that the "heavens" and the firmament are not one and the same
Psalms 19:1
"The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork."
Sirach 43:8
"The month is named for the moon,
increasing marvelously in its phases,
an instrument of the hosts on high
shining forth in the firmament of heaven."
the.reverent.atheist
Member
The Genesis narrative disproves pagan concepts that was common throughout the ancient world.
But you don't explain how preexisting matter got there in the first place. This is magical creationism, not biblical or scientific creationism.
Your "sequence of statements" is based on a 3000 year old manner of writing history. "The earth was. The waters were." is a private interpretation that ignores the various means of expression used by ancient writers.
Science proves our solar system is NOT the center of the galaxy. Had the Pope hastily accepted Galileo's theories, science would later prove the pope wrong. It appears you make the same mistake as Galileo, using theories to disprove what he thought the Bible says. Besides, there was no big fuss when heliocentrism was presented to the Church by Copernicus some 100 years earlier.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.
Unfortunately, throughout Church history, there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.
From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.
From an earthbound perspective, "The earth was. The waters were." is NOT the focus of Genesis 1.
The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense. This is why you make the same mistake as Galileo.
During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.
Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
The Galileo Controversy
The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings and is not infallible.www.catholic.com
I hardly know where to being in responding to the above. You have turned most of what I said upside down. Here's one of your comments:
That's true-- I made no attempt whatsoever to explain how the preexisting matter appeared. I was merely commenting on what the author actually said. It is the author who believed in the preexistence of the substance of the earth and the waters. That's what the second sentence of the creation story means. And most unfortunately for all of us the author never explained where the preexisting matter came from. Bummer. You have somehow got it into your head that I share the ideas and thoughts of the author of the fairy tale. I DON'T. So stop accusing me of believing something that I NEVER ONCE said I personally believe.
Here's another comment:
True, Galileo's understanding wasn't totally correct. Like both Copernicus and Kepler he assumed that the sun was at the center of the universe. But so what? That doesn't change the fact that Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo were all correct that the earth does in fact move! The 3 Psalms I cited state that the earth cannot move. That is the exact opposite of what the combined studies of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo showed. So what the Psalms say was contradicted by observations made in the time of Galileo. What the Psalms say is wrong. You cited the following from the Catholic Catechism:
The example of the Psalms cited by the Pope clearly show that the above quote is simply not true.
You seem to be implying that the Church should never make any pronouncements about science until every last detail has been utterly nailed down. The fact that our galaxy rotates on its own axis and that our solar system is some 25,000 light years from its center wasn't known until the 20th century-- 300 years after the time of Galileo. Are you suggesting that the Pope should have waited another 300 years before finally acknowledging that the earth moves just because Galileo wasn't TOTALLY correct?
You said there was no big fuss when Copernicus introduced the idea of helocentrism. You're overlooking the fact that Copernicus didn't release his book for publication until the very last year of his life because he was afraid of how it would be received. You're omitting the fact that the introduction to his book, which was not written by Copernicus, stated that his book was presented as speculation, not as fact, because the publishers were afraid of what the Church's reaction would be. And you're neglecting the fact that Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake in 1600 for his terrible, horrible, awful speculation that there might be life on other planets in other parts of the universe. Even such very tame speculations at the time could get you killed.
Yet another comment:
Kepler proved that the Ptolemaic theory was wrong in every significant respect. Ptolemy said that the planets move in circular orbits with circular epicycles. Kepler proved that the planets move in elliptical paths with no epicycles. Ptolemy said that the planets move with uniform circular motion-- by which he meant that they move with constant velocity within their circular paths. Kepler proved that the planets speed up and slow down on their elliptical paths. And most importantly Kepler proved, using both actual observations of the planets and a very sophisticated mathematics, that the sun is at one of the two focii of each planet's elliptical path. (Newton was later to show that it is actually the center of mass of the sun-planet system that is located at one of the focii.) Geocentrism had been thoroughly and resoundingly disproved by Kepler. Does it matter that it was Kepler who definitively proved that the Psalms are incorrect, rather than Galileo? NO! Galileo's relationship to the Church was never the point. The 3 Psalms cited by the Pope were the point.
the.reverent.atheist
Member
Those are all valid observations. I won't press the point further.
My interpretation of the first paragraph-- that it is an introduction, not a description of events that occurred prior to Day 1-- is unchanged. But you are entitled to your own interpretation.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Because there was NOTHING. You can't explain how preexisting matter appeared, so your claim about preexisting matter even existing has no rational basis. Worse, it's an assault on God's sovereignty. You are proposing a pre-creation, non-created creation, which makes no sense. God is Creator with no need of props.
You reduce Him to a craftsman relying on "preexistent matter".
Yea, right, by forcing 2300 A.D. English literalism to fit a 3000 year old style of writing history, that was never read or meant to be literal until the 16th century.
Preexisting matter is a fairy tale you personally believe.
"What the Psalms say is wrong" if you're an arrogant scientist pretending to be a scripture scholar.
The Pope cites scripture correctly. I explained phenomenological language that you either fail to understand or ignore it all together.
To avoid scams. When any given phenomenon occurs that effects a lot of people, the Church sets up an investigative committee to rule out con jobs, and they happen all the time. But no scientist will declare a miracle, they can only say they have no explanation.
No, you are, and your question is stupid. The Pope lets scientists do their job, and theologians do theirs.
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Official website of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican. Located in the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican Gardens since 1936.
In a minor astronomical work, Commentariolus, not printed during his lifetime, he first proposed a heliocentric theory of cosmology, placing the sun at the center of the solar system. This led many of his friends to request that he publish his findings. Among these were Cardinal Schonberg of the Roman Curia, Bishop Giese of Culm, and the future Pope Paul III. Schonberg insisted that Copernicus publish his material in the interest of science.
A young Lutheran scholar, Rheticus, left his chair of mathematics at Wittenberg (where, in 1517, Martin Luther had posted his 95 theses on a church door) to work with Copernicus in Poland and to prepare the scientist’s manuscripts for publication–an early example of ecumenical cooperation. A summary of Coper-nicus’s findings was released, and it met with tremendous hostility from Protestant theologians; there was no such general hostility from Catholics. Rheticus was barred from returning to his post at Wittenberg.
At the insistence of Clement VII the material was expanded into the great work of Copernicus’ career, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), which officially proposed a sun-centered theory to the world. The printed book, dedicated to Clement’s successor, Paul III, reached Copernicus just hours before his death on May 24, 1543.
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 in the Campo de’ Fiori in Rome — but not for the reasons most people think.
Some people would have us believe that Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was executed because of his scientific beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. His theological opinions certainly didn’t help his case at his trial but even they didn't condemn the man. In fact, his canonical trial lasted for seven years — if not a record, it’s at least notable — so his was hardly a kangaroo court or star chamber decision. Rather, it was a thorough and methodical court case that was extremely lenient of a fractious and incalcitrant individual.
For the seven years Bruno was on the run, the Catholic Church and the Dominicans urged him to reconcile himself and yet he refused even though he had previously begged to do exactly that multiple times prior to his arrest. Bruno wasn’t tortured as part of his trial and, in fact, was treated fairly and maintained as good a standard of health as could be expected for the 17th century — otherwise he would have never withstood seven years of imprisonment. If his prison conditions were as bad as people think they were, Bruno would have lied and acceded to the court’s demands simply to escape his situation.
At best, people greatly exaggerate Bruno’s martyrdom to science. At worst, it’s completely false and an absolute lie. In reality, Bruno didn’t promote Copernicus’ scientific work. Instead, he denigrated his heliocentric model, which had already gained popularity amongst contemporary Jesuit astronomers, but not by Protestant thinkers. Bruno advocated for a Neo-Platonist Hermeticism, more akin to a gnostic mystery cult than to actual science. In his Natural Philosophy, the sun became the “Monad of Monads” around which the universe revolved. Oddly, Bruno also insisted that all suns also possessed planets that were populated by sentient creatures. But if this were true, he would have to admit that each star was its own Monad of Monads around which the entire universe also revolved, which isn’t logically consistent, let alone physically possible. Bruno isn’t a scientist but more like more accurately portrayed as Shakespeare’s gnostic magician Prospero from The Tempest than it did the more empirically-based science of the much earlier St. Albert the Great (1193-1280) — an actual scientist.
As to Bruno being judged on his theological views, he was not only excommunicated by the Catholic Church but by the Swiss Calvinists, the German Lutherans and the English Anglicans as well. He, apparently, was generally unliked wherever he went. In modern parlance, Bruno was a “mean cuss.”
Keen insight into Bruno’s personality can be gotten from his 1584 publication entitled Cena delle ceneri (i.e., “Ash Wednesday Supper.”) When he visited Oxford University with the hope of being allowed to lecture there, he was refused. This infuriated him so much, that it prompted him to publish the above manuscript in which he attacked the Oxford professors, saying that they knew more about beer than about Greek. In reality, though Bruno had some interesting insights into Aristotle, he barely had any grasp of the pre-Socratic philosophers but his ego was bruised and thus lashed out.
Bruno later moved to Paris and made several attempts at reconciling with the Catholic Church, all of which failed because of his refusal to accept a specific, imposed condition — namely, that he should return to his order. If he truly hated the Church, why did he hope to be reconciled with it time and time again? If the Church wanted him dead, why did it welcome him back into the fold and ask him to remain a priest?
To be clear, neither the Catholic Church nor the Dominicans ever charged him with heresy. Rather, it was a peevish, superstitious secularist, Venetian patrician Giovanni Mocenigo, who hoped to learn Bruno’s “magical secrets” and who lied to the Inquisitor’s Office, accusing him of heinous things. In 1591, Bruno went to Venice at Mocenigo’s invitation in the hope that Bruno would teach him his famed mnemonic system, which he had plagiarized from Ven. Raymond Llull. When Mocenigo realized that Bruno’s incredible memory was a matter of diligent study rather than “magic,” and thinking his money would have been better spent elsewhere, he falsely denounced Mocenigo to the Venetian Inquisition.
Throughout his trials, Bruno took refuge in the principle of the “two-fold truth” or what moderns would call “talking from both sides of your mouth.” He claimed that the errors imputed to him were held by him “as a philosopher and not as an honest Christian.” This was a lie as he had already been excommunicated by every Protestant denomination, including all of the heretics thought were heretical, by the time of his arrest. Second, he made his living by specifically decrying and attacking Christians, Christianity and the Catholic Church.
The Truth About Giordano Bruno
Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 in the Campo de’ Fiori in Rome — but not for the reasons most people think.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
What is the difference between “creator” and “craftsman”? The one who creates bestows being itself, he brings something out of nothing—ex nihilo sui et subiecti, as the Latin puts it—and this, in the strict sense, is a mode of operation which belongs to the Almighty alone.
The craftsman, by contrast, uses something that already exists, to which he gives form and meaning. This is the mode of operation peculiar to man as made in the image of God. In fact, after saying that God created man and woman “in his image” (cf. Gn 1:27), the Bible adds that he entrusted to them the task of dominating the earth (cf. Gn 1:28). This was the last day of creation (cf. Gn 1:28-31). On the previous days, marking as it were the rhythm of the birth of the cosmos, Yahweh had created the universe. Finally he created the human being, the noblest fruit of his design, to whom he subjected the visible world as a vast field in which human inventiveness might assert itself.
God therefore called man into existence, committing to him the craftsman's task. Through his “artistic creativity” man appears more than ever “in the image of God”, and he accomplishes this task above all in shaping the wondrous “material” of his own humanity and then exercising creative dominion over the universe which surrounds him.
With loving regard, the divine Artist passes on to the human artist a spark of his own surpassing wisdom, calling him to share in his creative power. Obviously, this is a sharing which leaves intact the infinite distance between the Creator and the creature, as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa made clear: “Creative art, which it is the soul's good fortune to entertain, is not to be identified with that essential art which is God himself, but is only a communication of it and a share in it”.(1)
That is why artists, the more conscious they are of their “gift”, are led all the more to see themselves and the whole of creation with eyes able to contemplate and give thanks, and to raise to God a hymn of praise. This is the only way for them to come to a full understanding of themselves, their vocation and their mission.
www.vatican.va
The craftsman, by contrast, uses something that already exists, to which he gives form and meaning. This is the mode of operation peculiar to man as made in the image of God. In fact, after saying that God created man and woman “in his image” (cf. Gn 1:27), the Bible adds that he entrusted to them the task of dominating the earth (cf. Gn 1:28). This was the last day of creation (cf. Gn 1:28-31). On the previous days, marking as it were the rhythm of the birth of the cosmos, Yahweh had created the universe. Finally he created the human being, the noblest fruit of his design, to whom he subjected the visible world as a vast field in which human inventiveness might assert itself.
God therefore called man into existence, committing to him the craftsman's task. Through his “artistic creativity” man appears more than ever “in the image of God”, and he accomplishes this task above all in shaping the wondrous “material” of his own humanity and then exercising creative dominion over the universe which surrounds him.
With loving regard, the divine Artist passes on to the human artist a spark of his own surpassing wisdom, calling him to share in his creative power. Obviously, this is a sharing which leaves intact the infinite distance between the Creator and the creature, as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa made clear: “Creative art, which it is the soul's good fortune to entertain, is not to be identified with that essential art which is God himself, but is only a communication of it and a share in it”.(1)
That is why artists, the more conscious they are of their “gift”, are led all the more to see themselves and the whole of creation with eyes able to contemplate and give thanks, and to raise to God a hymn of praise. This is the only way for them to come to a full understanding of themselves, their vocation and their mission.
Letter to Artists, (April 4, 1999) | John Paul II
FlySwatter
Member
I didn't think I was particularly interpreting anything. Just pointing out plain English and the structure of the verse which very clearly make a distinction between the "heavens" and the "firmament" and "Heaven". Can you not address those points? Are you so intellectually invested in what you think is an error and slam dunk failing of the RC doctrine that you're not open to debate? Do you need your theory to be right that badly ? Why is that?
the.reverent.atheist
Member
@Illuminator said:Because there was NOTHING. You can't explain how preexisting matter appeared, so your claim about preexisting matter even existing has no rational basis. Worse, it's an assault on God's sovereignty. You are proposing a pre-creation, non-created creation, which makes no sense. God is Creator with no need of props.
You reduce Him to a craftsman relying on "preexistent matter".
Yea, right, by forcing 2300 A.D. English literalism to fit a 3000 year old style of writing history, that was never read or meant to be literal until the 16th century.
Preexisting matter is a fairy tale you personally believe.
"What the Psalms say is wrong" if you're an arrogant scientist pretending to be a scripture scholar.
The Pope cites scripture correctly. I explained phenomenological language that you either fail to understand or ignore it all together.
To avoid scams. When any given phenomenon occurs that effects a lot of people, the Church sets up an investigative committee to rule out con jobs, and they happen all the time. But no scientist will declare a miracle, they can only say they have no explanation.
No, you are, and your question is stupid. The Pope lets scientists do their job, and theologians do theirs.
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Official website of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican. Located in the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican Gardens since 1936.www.pas.va
In a minor astronomical work, Commentariolus, not printed during his lifetime, he first proposed a heliocentric theory of cosmology, placing the sun at the center of the solar system. This led many of his friends to request that he publish his findings. Among these were Cardinal Schonberg of the Roman Curia, Bishop Giese of Culm, and the future Pope Paul III. Schonberg insisted that Copernicus publish his material in the interest of science.
A young Lutheran scholar, Rheticus, left his chair of mathematics at Wittenberg (where, in 1517, Martin Luther had posted his 95 theses on a church door) to work with Copernicus in Poland and to prepare the scientist’s manuscripts for publication–an early example of ecumenical cooperation. A summary of Coper-nicus’s findings was released, and it met with tremendous hostility from Protestant theologians; there was no such general hostility from Catholics. Rheticus was barred from returning to his post at Wittenberg.
At the insistence of Clement VII the material was expanded into the great work of Copernicus’ career, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), which officially proposed a sun-centered theory to the world. The printed book, dedicated to Clement’s successor, Paul III, reached Copernicus just hours before his death on May 24, 1543.
Psalm 93:1 says:
If I understand your point about phenomenological language correctly the above reflects the perspective of persons living on earth. From the point of view of a person standing on the surface of the earth, there is no wind blowing constantly in one direction-- so it would appear that the earth is not spinning on its axis. From the point of view of someone looking up into the sky the sun and the moon and the planets move across the sky independently of the fixed ground below. So from that perspective the Psalm isn't at odds with the scientific observation that the earth does in fact move, since it only reflects the apparent immobility of the earth, not its actual motion in 3D space.
OK, so let's see how this works with respect to the story of the creation. Following is a table that compares the timeline of the creation as derived from the studies of science to the timeline in the bible:
| Year | Event | Bible Day |
| 0 | Big Bang | N/A |
| 100,000 | Recombination: The universe has sufficiently cooled that the first atoms are formed | N/A |
| 100,000 | The newly formed atoms emit the Cosmic Background Radiation | 1 |
| < 1 billion | Creation of the first stars | 4 |
| 1 - 2 billion | Creation of the Milky Way galaxy | N/A |
| 9.12 billion | Creation of the sun | 4 |
| 9.18 billion | Creation of the earth | N/A |
| 9.22 billion | Creation of the moon | 4 |
| 11.62 billion | First eukaryotes | N/A |
| 12.52 billion | First multi-celled organisms | N/A |
| 13.085 billion | First complex (marine) life | 5 |
| 13.287 billion | First land plant | 3 |
| 13.282 billion | First land animals | 6 |
| 13.565 billion | First bird | 5 |
| 13.71985 billion | First Homo sapiens | 6 |
| 13.72 billion | Present day | N/A |
As I read the above table I discern the following:
a) The time periods as derived from science for each of the key events listed above are nowhere near a 24 hour period of time.
b) The science time periods aren't even of a consistent time span.
c) The sequence of events as listed in the Bible Day column is all jumbled up.
I interpret these observations to mean that the story of creation could not possibly be true, regardless of one's geographical perspective. So phenomenological language is irrelevant. This I think clearly proves that it is indeed possible for statements in the Bible to be completely at odds with known scientific facts.
What exactly is your interpretation?
the.reverent.atheist
Member
More info on the interpretation of Genesis 1:8:
King James version:
New Catholic Bible:
Revised Standard Version:
New International Version:
So it would appear that it is the NIV that is the outlier. But consider the following, from the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition:
I must confess that I did not realize there was such a diversity of translations. My bad. The last translation, from the New Revised Standard Version, is closest to my own reading of the text.
If the author had intended the first paragraph to describe events that took place during the first day, wouldn't he have begun the story with something like the following?
In the beginning God said "Let there be earth, and waters filling the deep..."
But he did not start the story in that manner. I believe that he didn't do so because the first paragraph was simply an introduction, not a description of any actions taken by God. That's how it is represented in the New Revised Standard Version. I think it is a perfectly natural reading of the text and that it is completely compatible with common notions about the creation that were circulating at the time.
I'll offer this compromise-- that my reading of the text is no less valid than the view that God created the universe from nothing. How's that?
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
This clearly proves you are resistant to any explanation of phenomenological language and oblivious to a style of writing used 3000 years ago. The Bible contains some science, but it is not a science book. You offer no "scientific facts" supporting preexisting matter by any renowned cosmologist, and here you are arguing from a science of your own making, just like you argue from God of your own making.
God created the universe out of nothing. That makes more sense than you reducing God to a craftsman who needs props. That is NOT an omnipotent God. God made man in His image, you make God in your image with an unscientific opinion and claim science is on your side. You are a slave to a ridiculous literal approach to Genesis which is not far removed from the fundamentalist approach that you fail to see.
Your reading of the text is INVALID because your view of God is flawed. You think that 21st century English trumps a manner of writing used 3000 years ago that tries to explain where we came from.
Your reading of the text is INVALID because you borrow certain principles from a fundamentalist ideology that is not biblical and you are not aware you are doing it.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I meant to ask about your name, particularly the reverent part. Very provocative name and you are nice, intelligent addition to this comunity.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
This is such a critical point! Thank you for making it.
In my study of Atheist critique, they invent a standard designed to fail the Bible. A common ploy is to hold the text to overly literal, scientific proclamations.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No. You are imposing your take on what the author actually said. God is the Creator of everything, expressed at the time as "Heaven and Earth."
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE
Fundamentalists’ interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the Word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details.
But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. Fundamentalism is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.
Fundamentalism interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment, it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis. The actual term "fundamentalist" is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, New York, in 1895.
At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism":
- the verbal inerrancy of Scripture,
- the divinity of Christ,
- his virginal birth,
- the doctrine of vicarious expiation and
- the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ.
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the Word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But their way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of his approach might say.
For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The basic problem with Fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the Incarnation itself.
As regards relationships with God, Fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human language and that this Word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.
For this reason, Fundamentalism tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the Word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.
It pays no attention to the literary norms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations. Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.
Fundamentalism often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalists often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day.
By the same token, it fails to take account of the "re-readings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself. In what concerns the Gospels, Fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).
At the same time Fundamentalism neglects an important fact: the way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the gospel itself.
continued...
Last edited:
Similar threads
