Friday, March 04, 2005

 

All the angst over what is historical and what isn't in the bible seems a bit beside the point, doesn't it? Do I treat Genesis 1 differently than Luke 9? No. It's all inspired. Is it my business whether God chooses to teach through a story or through a historical occurrence?

• • • • •

Comments:
Well the Gospels are certainly crucial in the sense of accepting Jesus did die, rise and that the miracles attested are true. But my understanding is the Church only requires Adam & Eve be accepted as actual historical figures; by the historicity of Genesis 1 I'm talking about matters like whether a day is 24 hours and whether it forbids some kind of evolution. My understanding is that the Church has given its okay to evolution at least the Pope has (I know you don't accept evolution).

I bring this up because many of the study notes for my New Jerusalem bible say things like, "this really didn't happen" (I'm talking the OT now). Even the most orthodox Catholic Scripture study I can find (Orchard's Commentary, from the early '50s) says that the Flood wasn't universal but limited to a geographical area. I've been reading TAN's "Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture" and it seems to worry more about applying lessons than in historicity. It's refreshing!
 
Found this:

"The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modern fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science."

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html
 
My understanding is that the Pope doesn't have a problem with evolution. So I guess at least I'm in not so bad company.
 
Post a Comment

Desperately Seeking Retirement
   
..a situational comedy
 
Atom Feed
 


Powered By Blogger TM