AdamSK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,952
Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne
- Thread starter zooterkin
- Start date
AdamSK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,952
The more I look into the historical treatment and commentary on Genesis, the more I agree with this contention. It does appear that literalism of the kind we see today is a rather uniquely modern evangelical phenomenon.
I addressed the question of that apparent phenomenon in my addendum to #189. I wrote
In my view, the concept of literalism became clearly defined following the Enlightenment, with the rise to significant prominence of non-literal interpretations necessitated by modern science's refutation of the content of the canonical texts. Before that, the concept was not current: not because literalism was unknown, but - to the contrary - because it was (more or less) universal, and therefore had no specific name or definition.
May I have your comments on that?George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
Shane has been hit by to many cricket balls
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
I say that humans modified monkeys to make gods.
AdamSK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,952
We know this is not the case, because when we actually take a look at pre-Enlightenment treatments of Genesis, all of them are debating about WHICH non-literal way to treat the text. NONE of them assume a literal reading. Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Thomas Aquinus, Hilary of Poitiers, Philo -- all of them discuss Genesis 1, and not one of them assumes it to be a literal, historical day-for-day account of events.
So the problem with the idea that everyone held the literal view prior to the Enlightenment is that the evidence we have is for the exact opposite.
Can you give citations or references to passages of works by these authors which you think I ought to consult to convince myself of the truth of your view? I note you state that ALL pre-Enlightenment comments on Genesis are non-literalist, and that NONE of them take any other view.
In addition to "literal", you insert "historical day-for-day account of events". Does this have any special significance?
Last edited:
AdamSK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,952
Soon. I've dug most of these up myself over the years but I don't keep the references on hand.
You make it sound like "non-literalist" is a single view. No, it's many dozens of very different views. All I'm saying is that I've not encountered a single one that treats it the way the YECs do, as a literal historical day-to-day account of events.
Some of the early Church Fathers' accounts can be loosely described as "literal" in that they take most of the description as literal events but just add gaps or stretch out the time scale. So saying "non-literal" without any other qualification is probably overstating, which is why I added the additional descriptors.
I know that there was a strong literalist movement within academic circles going back to Roman times. The most serious persecution of nonliteralists started with the Reformation. However, there were brush fires all along.
I don't know when the 'Enlightenment' is supposed to have started. However, I thought the Protestant Reformation came before the Enlightenment.
Biblical literalism was well established by the Reformation. The Protestant movement got deeply into Biblical literalism even before the Catholic Church. Martin Luther tried to get Copernicus arrested before he found out that Copernicus was dead !
of the differences between Protestants and Catholics at first was that academics in the Roman Catholic Church did not take Genesis literally. The Jesuit society of the Catholic Church was founded with the idea of bringing science in line with fundamental Christianity.Protestants persecuted Kepler and his mother because of Kepler's heliocentric theory. The Bible seems to imply the earth is standing still. So it had to be standing still.
The Jesuits took a literalist view of the Bible from the beginning of their order. They were placed in charge of all official science education in Catholic countries. The Jesuits established their network of colleges by 1553. Their basic mission was to dispel all religious dissidence through science education. Therefore, I would say that the church took a very literalist approach to the Bible by 1553.
The trial of Galileo is the easily the most famous conflict between Biblical literalism and science. The Jesuits clearly made a literalist stand by 1633.
I am taking some of this from the following book:
Amir Alexander, 'Infinitesimals: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory Shaped the Modern World' (Scientific American, 2014).
Many Jewish scholars were literalist before Martin Luther was born. Jews did not have the political power to persecute anybody. Many of the discussions in the Talmud are clearly in defense of the literal interpretation of Genesis. However, there were discussions going back to 900 AD where heliocentric theory was refuted. Some Jewish scholars, like some Christian scholars, took a softer approach toward literalism.
I am taking the Jewish material from dimly remembered books and articles. However, anyone who goes to Hebrew school will remember some of the Talmudic interpretations of the Bible. Most Rabbis took the story in Genesis quite literally. A lot of the fantastic tales in the Talmud are really apologetics, meant to explain some inconsistency in the Bible. This goes back to early medieval times.
So clearly there were JudeoChristian scholars who believed the Bible quite literally going back to the start of Christianity itself. The Moslems, of course, always maintained that the Bible was not literally true. However, they believed in the literal truth of the Koran. The Koran evidently does not make as many questionable assumptions on the motion of the earth. However, there is other nonscientific 'facts' presented in the Koran.
I would say that Biblical literalism probably lost some popularity late in the Enlightenment. Biblical literalists clearly started to sound of after 'Origin of the Species' by Darwin was published. However, the only reason it gained traction is because there was already common belief in the literal truth of Genesis. The literalist backlash against Darwin started almost right away.
Religious literalism has been sounding off since the beginning of religion. The whole idea of sacred text is to present 'truths' which a religious community must adhere to.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
In other words, as demonstrated by the Catechism, the argument is not "whether" there are "literal bits"; but which bits are "literal"...
I'm not sure about that. I am unhappy with these qualifications. Look at this.
Catechism of the Council of Trent
... He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years (Gn.1:14). He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety . . .
The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them ... He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures . .
Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassible, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. Man’s soul He created to His own image and likeness (Gn. 1:26); gifted him with free will, and tempered all his motions and appetites so as to subject them, at all times, to the dictates of reason. He then added the admirable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals. By referring to the sacred history of Genesis the pastor will easily make himself familiar with these things for the instruction of the faithful
... He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years (Gn.1:14). He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety . . .
The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them ... He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures . .
Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassible, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. Man’s soul He created to His own image and likeness (Gn. 1:26); gifted him with free will, and tempered all his motions and appetites so as to subject them, at all times, to the dictates of reason. He then added the admirable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals. By referring to the sacred history of Genesis the pastor will easily make himself familiar with these things for the instruction of the faithful
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Trent.php under heads "Formation of the Universe" and "Production of Man". The words I have set in Bold show that the Council of Trent accepted Genesis as true in respect of the acts of creation it enumerated, and recommended Genesis to teachers engaged in the instruction of the faithful.
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
I think you guys are drifting just a bit. When I made the original post I included a passage from the New Testament that shows the "rib" extended metaphor was already commonly known and taught to be a symbol of marriage. The context there was to extend that already well known metaphor for marriage to include a lesson against divorce as well. "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
So for context the "always" certainly applies to before the earliest beginnings of Christianity. You can in fact say that this "always" was taught as metaphorical in the context of Christianity since this is presented as a direct quote from Jesus Christ. Also, the Jewish population had no problems understanding this teaching. Certain other new teachings of Christianity they did have problems understanding, but not this metaphor and symbol of marriage. That implies this goes back long BEFORE Christianity even existed. In reading the text, seems obvious to me at least it goes back all the way to the time of the original text. Some might disagree, but it seems fairly obvious that any rational person couldn't help but understand the "rib" text is a metaphorical allegory and not literal.
So for context the "always" certainly applies to before the earliest beginnings of Christianity. You can in fact say that this "always" was taught as metaphorical in the context of Christianity since this is presented as a direct quote from Jesus Christ. Also, the Jewish population had no problems understanding this teaching. Certain other new teachings of Christianity they did have problems understanding, but not this metaphor and symbol of marriage. That implies this goes back long BEFORE Christianity even existed. In reading the text, seems obvious to me at least it goes back all the way to the time of the original text. Some might disagree, but it seems fairly obvious that any rational person couldn't help but understand the "rib" text is a metaphorical allegory and not literal.
Last edited:
Does the fact that rib was used as a metaphor for the indissolubility of marriage mean that Christians didn't believe that Eve was created from a rib? One can easily imagine that God created Eve in that fashion to make a point about marriage, but that is still perfectly consistent with belief in the literal truth of the event.
Other example. Jesus was born in "Bethlehem" to establish his credentials as a Davidic Messiah. Does that mean that Christians don't believe that he was literally born there?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
It is interesting that you think that is what you did.
I suggest you attend North Phoenix Baptist Church this Sunday, and, in fornt ofthe congregation of ~3000 attendees, procalim that " Eve was made form Adam's penis as a metaphor for the sanctity of marriage."
Let us know how it goes.
Then you might consider addressing the actual issue: how do you (or anyone else) distinguish the bits that are "clearly metaphor"? Why is there so much disagreement? Why do you think so many Southern Baptists oppose even the concept of evolution by natural selection? Why do you suppose the Catechism dogmatically states that Adam & Eve were unique, identifiable, historical individuals?
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Fixed that for you.
In the usual way, presumably: by declaring opinion as fact.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
So, in your authoritative opinion, which xian beleifs are "[irrational]", and how are the faithful to distinguish them?
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
The context of this thread is the evolution of Man. And I have already stated multiple times the way to figure out the rational explanation is with Science. In this case specifically the rational explanation is Modern evolutionary synthesis.
YEC is the irrational explanation and one I don't hold. Another irrational explanation is the ancient aliens theory presented in the OP. I don't hold that one either.
Last edited:
1. Factually Incorrect...
“For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."
Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266–2276, 2007.
Down to 77% right quick. That ='s 690 million Base Pairs, roughly 227 Large Books!
The 97% fiasco (Still no 98%) was conjured from DNA Hybridization in the 80's along with "Walk Like an Egyptian" from the Bangles.
Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99–121.
2. Begging The Question: where'd you get Genes?? Start here...
Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...
"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.
Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?
It's 'No Part' in Science:
Similarities, Correlations, Comparisons, Statistics: isn't Science. Science is in the business of validating/Confirming then explaining "Cause and Effect" Relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables so as to make "Predictions"....it's called "Hypothesis TESTING".
What 'theory'?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
Stereotype Fallacy.
'Scientific Consensus' is a contradiction of terms (Married Bachelor). The Scientific Method was birthed to eradicate: Consensus/Majority/Votes/the loudest voices/"Just So" Stories et al, because they are based on Subjectivity; whereas, The Scientific Method is Objective, Empirical.
Just spit-balling..."a priori" adherences to fairytale "Just So" Stories so as to obfuscate personal accountability for how they conduct their lives.
“The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.” --- Julian Huxley
There surely is a PENALTY for not Towing the Company Line; SEE: "Expelled" et al.
regards