False Interpretations (ritual, Darwin, Earth, tradition, soul)

[Victor]

At least MSNBC see's it:

So it's not surprising that, down to the present day, fundamentalist Christians have been suspicious of Darwin and his works—or that in the United States, where 80 percent of the population believe God created the universe, less than half believe in evolution. Some believers have managed to square the circle by mapping out separate realms for science and religion. "Science's proper role is to explore natural explanations for the material world," says the biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian. "Science provides no answers to the question 'Why are we here, anyway?' That is the role of philosophy and theology." The late Stephen Jay Gould, a prolific writer on evolution and a religious agnostic, took the same approach. But, as Dawkins tirelessly observes, religion makes specific metaphysical claims that appear to conflict with those of evolution. Dealing with those requires some skill in Biblical interpretation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10118787...wsweek/page/3/

[Mr Spinkles]

I think those with the most skill in Biblical interpretation interpret it pretty much the same way they would interpret Beowulf, the Iliad, or Gilgamesh: poetic (and often inspiring) folklore derived from oral tradition, some elements of which are historical (some people, places--some events) and revised over a number of centuries; not a "metaphor" or some other literary devicewhich "really" meant evolution over billions of years.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

I think those with the most skill in Biblical interpretation interpret it pretty much the same way they would interpret Beowulf, the Iliad, or Gilgamesh: poetic (and often inspiring) folklore derived from oral tradition, some elements of which are historical (some people, places--some events) and revised over a number of centuries; not a "metaphor" or some other literary devicewhich "really" meant evolution over billions of years.

As long as it wasn't made official, the number of interpretations are limitless. The interpretation was left open.

~Victor

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Victor

As long as it wasn't made official, the number of interpretations are limitless. The interpretation was left open.

I doubt that when it was written down anyone thought there was a need to make "official" the proper "interpretation". Any "interpretation" that infers evolution, the big bang, etc. in Genesis is simply projection on the part of a modern audience.

It would be like saying that the war between the Titans and the Greek pantheon of gods was really a metaphor for the well-known violent beginnings of the universe...no, sorry, the Greeks didn't know about the beginning of the universe, any similarity between their creation story and the scientific explanation is coincidental. The same is true of the ancient Israelites.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." -George Bernard Shaw

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

I doubt that when it was written down anyone thought there was a need to make "official" the proper "interpretation". Any "interpretation" that infers evolution, the big bang, etc. in Genesis is simply projection on the part of a modern audience.

This is a principal error MS. Never have I read the Vatican insist on ONE interpretation.
What comes out of them are teachings, not interpretations of one verse.
What makes you think the writers were perspicuous? Of course further clarification was needed. That should be obvious. Have you read read this article?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...452#post276452

~Victor

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Victor

This is a principal error MS. Never have I read the Vatican insist on ONE interpretation.
What comes out of them are teachings, not interpretations of one verse.
What makes you think the writers were perspicuous? Of course further clarification was needed. That should be obvious.

No, it is not obvious at all that any "further clarification" is needed. What's obvious is that modern readers are trying to resolve their paradigm that Genesis is more than primitive folklore with their knowledge of modern scientific facts by projecting their own meanings onto the text. The following seems pretty clear:

Originally Posted by Genesis (KJV version)

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The text is quite clear: plants and even the Earth itself were created before the stars, Moon, and the Sun were made--of course we know the exact opposite is true, the Sun formed long before the Earth, and the Moon was there long before plants and grasses and fruit trees evolved.

It is folly to assume that the "meaning" of a text must be true, and then proceed to try to "interpret" it based on what is known today to be true (but wasn't known back then). Take, for example, the following Shinto creation story:

Of old, Heaven and Earth were not yet separated, and the In and Yo 1 not yet divided. They formed a chaotic mass like an egg which was of obscurely defined limits and contained germs.

The purer and clearer part was thinly drawn out, and formed Heaven, while the heavier and grosser element settled down and became Earth.

The finer element easily became a united body, but the consolidation of the heavy and gross element was accomplished with difficulty.

Heaven was therefore formed first, and Earth was established subsequently.

Translated by W.G. Aston, Nihongi (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1896)

from: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCJAPAN/CREAT1.HTM

I could see so many ways in which apologists for Shintoism could twist this passage into supporting modern cosmology. With enough imagination/rationalization/projection, one could literally interpret it to be compatible with any sort of cosmology imaginable. All you need is the "right interpretation". It's the same with the prophesies of Nostre Damus.

Originally Posted by Victor

Have you read read this article?

Originally Posted by Victor

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...452#post276452

~Victor

Yes. Have you read Deut's response to it?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

No, it is not obvious at all that any "further clarification" is needed. What's obvious is that modern readers are trying to resolve their paradigm that Genesis is more than primitive folklore with their knowledge of modern scientific facts by projecting their own meanings onto the text. The following seems pretty clear:

Does 30,000 + denominations not make it obvious MS? I do not know why you think “resolutions” to biblical interpretations is a modern phenomenon. It is absolutely ancient. Why do you think they held Councils? Clarification was always needed.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

The text is quite clear: plants and even the Earth itself were created before the stars, Moon, and the Sun were made--of course we know the exact opposite is true, the Sun formed long before the Earth, and the Moon was there long before plants and grasses and fruit trees evolved.

How many times must one say that man used his own faculties to pen truths about God? What is it about that you don’t get? Seriously MS.
In 1950, Pope Pius XII addressed the question of man's origins more specifically in his encyclical *Humani Generis*. With a few terse paragraphs, he set forth the Church's position, which we may summarize as follows:
1. The question of the origin of man's *body* from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.
2. Catholics must believe, however, that the human *soul* was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
3. All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans.So, from the Catholic point of view, the scientific questions of evolution are largely left open to debate.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

It is folly to assume that the "meaning" of a text must be true, and then proceed to try to "interpret" it based on what is known today to be true (but wasn't known back then).

Who is doing that? The Catholic Church has NO official position on areas of science. It never has.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

I could see so many ways in which apologists for Shintoism could twist this passage into supporting modern cosmology. With enough imagination/rationalization/projection, one could literally interpret it to be compatible with any sort of cosmology imaginable. All you need is the "right interpretation". It's the same with the prophesies of Nostre Damus.

Various interpretations are permitted in RC theology. What is important is doctrine and tenets of the faith. It seems you have a bigger issue with it then us.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Yes. Have you read Deut's response to it?

Which one exactly?



~Victor