Genesis 1:16

Status
Not open for further replies.

JeffreyLloyd

Ave Maria, Gratia plena!
Supporter
Mar 5, 2003
19,896
1,066
Michigan
Visit site
✟53,491.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

Bill Nye got booed in Waco, Texas for pointing out the Moon doesn't actually give out any light, rather it just reflects the light from the Sun.

While this happened a few years ago, it's getting a lot of play right now and my friend just emailed me about it. My first reaction was to point out that Genesis was never meant to be a science book and shouldn't be taken literally.

You agree or disagree?
 

Gwendolyn

back in black
Jan 28, 2005
12,340
1,647
Canada
✟20,680.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Genesis isn't a science book.

Throughout our history, though more for us when we didn't have strong science, people have taken Genesis as a science book and have fallen short... Galileo got in trouble with the Vatican for promoting Copernicus' heliocentric model of the universe... but it turns out he was right.

There isn't a conflict between faith and science, but many people want to create one. God gave us these brains, and I'm sure He fully intended us to use it. Yep, there are some theories out there that are a bit of a stretch - but in the end, God is the author of all, and the two (faith and science) work in tandem.
 
Upvote 0

NewMan99

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity
Mar 20, 2005
5,642
1,009
Earth
✟18,235.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Galileo got in trouble with the Vatican for promoting Copernicus' heliocentric model of the universe... but it turns out he was right.

Actually it was a bit more complicated than that. He got into trouble primarily for drawing (incorrect) theological conclusions based on his (correct) belief in heliocentrism, and then obstinately refusing to submit to the authority of the Church when called on it. Also - it should be noted that Copernicus was sponsored by the Church when he came up with the heliocentric theory - and was lauded greatly and loudly by the Church for it.

But yes - you are right - the Bible is not a science textbook and was never intended to convey scientific facts, per se.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMDG
Upvote 0

NewMan99

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity
Mar 20, 2005
5,642
1,009
Earth
✟18,235.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Catholic position is very clear: There are no errors in the Bible. Now, this DOES NOT mean that everything in the Bible is scientifically or historically or literally accurate. And that is because some books (or sections of books) in the Bible do not intend to be scientifically, or historically, or literally accurate. Rather, inerrancy is based upon intent. If a book intends to be poetic or symbolic, or not scientific or not literal, then one cannot accuse it of being "wrong" by scientific or literal standards. For, the books of the Bible consist of many different forms of literature --history or history through the lens of theology (e.g. the Gospels), subjective letters (e.g. the Epistles), poetry (e.g. the Psalms), symbolic, apocalyptic literature (e.g. Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel). And so, a Biblical book is inerrant (without any errors) based on what the intent of the book is. For example, if a book intends to be poetic (like the Psalms) and says something like "God set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved," well, one cannot justly accuse it of "scientific error" because we know that (scientifically) the earth does "move," as it rotates and revolves around the sun. Simply put, the inspired Psalm did not intend to present literal, scientific fact, but was speaking poetically in this instance; and, in terms of its poetic intention (to celebrate the awesome power of God as Creator), it did not make any error. See the distinction? A book can only be "in error" if it fails to do what it intends to do.
 
Upvote 0

Gwendolyn

back in black
Jan 28, 2005
12,340
1,647
Canada
✟20,680.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Actually it was a bit more complicated than that. He got into trouble primarily for drawing (incorrect) theological conclusions based on his (correct) belief in heliocentrism, and then obstinately refusing to submit to the authority of the Church when called on it. Also - it should be noted that Copernicus was sponsored by the Church when he came up with the heliocentric theory - and was lauded greatly and loudly by the Church for it.

But yes - you are right - the Bible is not a science textbook and was never intended to convey scientific facts, per se.

Thanks, NewMan. I knew I was missing some of the story. :)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.