• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

St. Augustine on allowing science to inform how we read Scripture

mjperson

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2005
6
2
✟3,037.00
Faith
Catholic
I've always thought that this thinking was summed up beautifully by St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if
any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents
as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vance
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
mjperson said:
I've always thought that this thinking was summed up beautifully by St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if
any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents
as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

I had not read that from Aquinas, thanks!
 
Upvote 0

Paul-martin

Active Member
Aug 16, 2004
310
3
43
✟458.00
Faith
Christian
bevets said:
Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. On Christian Doctrine 1.41

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University

Is there a way to make flashing letters? People seem to be missing the point.

Then i ask you!, do they belive in god?, also if those professos can intapretat teh bible, so good, why can't they tell us all the secrets of the bible?
 
Upvote 0

bevets

Active Member
Aug 22, 2003
378
11
Visit site
✟581.00
Faith
Christian
bevets said:
Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. On Christian Doctrine 1.41

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University

Is there a way to make flashing letters? People seem to be missing the point.

Jet Black (Atheist) said:
It appears to me to be nothing more than a refutation of the day age or localised flood arguments where they claim to base themselves on a literal intperpretation of scripture. It doesn't suggest that the meaning of the story as a whole however is not metaphorical.

Tomk80 (Atheist) said:
Nope. You have not yet made a case that Genesis was not meant allegorical. If the writer meant Genesis to have an allegorical meaning, it should be read allegorical, according to your quote. You have as of yet not provided any reasons for us not to view Genesis as originally meant to be allegory.

Nathan David (Atheist) said:
We get the point but that doesn't make the point right. James Barr may very well be wrong about what the writers of Genesis intended to convey (I think he is) and he is definitely wrong about what other professors think.

Ledifni (Atheist) said:
That so? And who might that be? I didn't see anyone miss the point; in fact, I saw a number of people understanding the point and disagreeing with it. Is it your opinion that to "get it" one must agree with your position?

This is a curious group to be concerned with proper biblical interpretation. Most atheists I have met LOVE to cite passages from The Skeptics Annotated Bible. They want everyone to know that the Bible is nothing more than the product of primitive, scientifically ignorant men. Here they have a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to rehash this cherished theme once again: A clear case that the original audience actually believed 'six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience'. Surely they would jump at the opportunity to shout this news from the mountaintops! Normally, they would. But something more important than Bible bashing is at stake this time. Evolution is the holy of holies for atheists -- without it their hatred for
God seems much less 'rational'. Everything they hold dear has been built on the 'scientific' mythology which has erased our Creator. So they come to the aid of their embattled bible believing bretheren. Will this new found concern for biblical accuracy last beyond Genesis 9? Not if they hope to remain good atheists.

But let us return to the damning quote from James Barr. Not only has he offered his considerable expertise (which happens to be in the ONLY relevant field for this topic), he compounds the embarrassment: He tells us that this is the consensus of people who ACTUALLY READ hebrew. Certainly there have been creative interpretations that may seem convincing to people who are not hebrew experts (and WANT to believe). These interpretations deserve just as much consideration as any other crack pot theory.

Stay tuned. More straining at gnats is sure to follow.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Bevets, you show that you not only did not get what Barr was talking about when you blindly quoted him, but that you are dodging what he REALLY said. I am happy that you are at least speaking for yourself, but given the substantive nature of your post, maybe you are right just to remain a lean, mean, quoting machine!

Oh, and thanks Nathan.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Oh yeah, the high and mighty bevets trots down to the masses and speaks to them

[/sarcasm]

bevets said:
This is a curious group to be concerned with proper biblical interpretation.
Not so much proper biblical interpretation, but very much proper interpretation of the quotes you use, something you clearly do not do. By the way, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. There is a definite difference.

Most atheists I have met LOVE to cite passages from The Skeptics Annotated Bible. They want everyone to know that the Bible is nothing more than the product of primitive, scientifically ignorant men. Here they have a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to rehash this cherished theme once again: A clear case that the original audience actually believed 'six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience'.
Nope, a clear case of you not understanding your own quote. You see Bevets, your quotes do not tell us that the passage is meant literally. The only thing the quotes tell us is that days in the passage should be read us such. The only thing your quotes tell us is that days means 'days' and not 'long periods of time'. However, an allegorical reading of genesis is still allowed by the passage.
Surely they would jump at the opportunity to shout this news from the mountaintops! Normally, they would. But something more important than Bible bashing is at stake this time. Evolution is the holy of holies for atheists -- without it their hatred for God seems much less 'rational'. Everything they hold dear has been built on the 'scientific' mythology which has erased our Creator. So they come to the aid of their embattled bible believing bretheren. Will this new found concern for biblical accuracy last beyond Genesis 9? Not if they hope to remain good atheists.
Bevets, stop your rant. Everything you are presuming about me in this passage is wrong. Why don't you end your stupid rant and actually address the criticism.

But let us return to the damning quote from James Barr. Not only has he offered his considerable expertise (which happens to be in the ONLY relevant field for this topic), he compounds the embarrassment: He tells us that this is the consensus of people who ACTUALLY READ hebrew. Certainly there have been creative interpretations that may seem convincing to people who are not hebrew experts (and WANT to believe). These interpretations deserve just as much consideration as any other crack pot theory.

Stay tuned. More straining at gnats is sure to follow.
Yes, he tells us that people who follow a day-age interpretation are wrong. He does not tell us that people who view the passage allegorically are wrong. You still have not addressed this point, care to do so now?
 
Upvote 0

bevets

Active Member
Aug 22, 2003
378
11
Visit site
✟581.00
Faith
Christian
bevets said:
Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. On Christian Doctrine 1.41

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University

Is there a way to make flashing letters? People seem to be missing the point.

Vance said:
Yes, there is an ongoing debate on whether "yom" means day or "age" within the text. This, of course, has no impact on whether the text should be read figuratively. If a poet wants to write a figurative poem about a family, he may use the figure of a tree to do that. Every time he uses the term "tree" he is, indeed, INTENDING that the reader use this word in the sense of a literal, growing tree, and not in some other definition of that word (IS there another definition? Sorry, may be a bad analogy).
But just because the poet wants you to use the literal meaning of tree when reading the text doesn't mean the poem is about a literal tree. It is about a family.

bevets said:
But let us return to the damning quote from James Barr. Not only has he offered his considerable expertise (which happens to be in the ONLY relevant field for this topic), he compounds the embarrassment: He tells us that this is the consensus of people who ACTUALLY READ hebrew. Certainly there have been creative interpretations that may seem convincing to people who are not hebrew experts (and WANT to believe). These interpretations deserve just as much consideration as any other crack pot theory.
Stay tuned. More straining at gnats is sure to follow.

If the author had not wanted readers to think this was poetry, how could He have been more specific? If someone told you the resurrection was 'poetry' (not literal: i.e. '3 literal days but its a POEM'), what would your response be?
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
bevets said:
If the author had not wanted readers to think this was poetry, how could He have been more specific? If someone told you the resurrection was 'poetry' (not literal: i.e. '3 literal days but its a POEM'), what would your response be?
That the resurrection account is clearly an eye-witness account, while the genesis-account clearly has a poetic structure (especially in Hebrew).

Again, you are missing the point of the quotes you posted entirely. It is not directed against an allegorical interpretation, merely against a day-age interpretation. How you can miss that is beyond me.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Jet Black said:
regardless of whether Bevets is right or wrong about Genesis, He is wrong about what Barr says about genesis.
Indeed. Which I find odd about creationist quoting in general. You would say that if you would try to use quotes to support your position, you would take care not to misrepresent the person quoting it. However, among creationists this all in a day's work, as Bevets demonstrates here.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What Tom said, in both of his last two posts. Barr is saying nothing about whether it should be read figuratively or literally, only that the author uses "yom" in the 24-hour sense. I agree with this entirely. I think the author was using "yom" in the 24-hour sense. The way a poet would be using "tree" in the natural, branch and leaf, sense even when using that "tree" to refer to a family.

The structure and style of both of the Genesis creation accounts, while different, are both very much in the neareastern literary tradition. They have the same epic/mythic language and structure that we see in Sumerian, Hittite and Egyptian literature (not to mention many of the exact same details throughout Genesis). We know that these cultures did not view these stories of their past as literal history, although they considered them "true" accounts of their past. We, with our modern, empirical minds, really struggle with this concept because we associate historicity with "true" accounts of the past. In ancient times, they had no idea of being able, or even wanting, to tell about such things with historical accuracy. They passed down the stories that conveyed what they believed truly reflected the nature of their past, of origins, etc, in more general and evocative terms. This is shown by the fact that they often had two overlapping and conflicting accounts they told simultaneously. They both could not historically accurate, since they contradict each other in some obvious points, but they told them both side by side and believed them both. To them, they were both "true" in a sense we just don't "get" today.

Not surprisingly, we have the same thing happening in Genesis, two overlapping and, in a number of areas, conflicting, accounts. Yet, they told them side by side, and even wrote them down later side by side. An immense amount of work has been done in modern times to make these two accounts coincide, a huge effort that would puzzle the ancient writers and readers entirely.
 
Upvote 0

bevets

Active Member
Aug 22, 2003
378
11
Visit site
✟581.00
Faith
Christian
bevets said:
Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. On Christian Doctrine 1.41

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University

Is there a way to make flashing letters? People seem to be missing the point.

bevets said:
This is a curious group to be concerned with proper biblical interpretation. Most atheists I have met LOVE to cite passages from The Skeptics Annotated Bible. They want everyone to know that the Bible is nothing more than the product of primitive, scientifically ignorant men. Here they have a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to rehash this cherished theme once again: A clear case that the original audience actually believed 'six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience'. Surely they would jump at the opportunity to shout this news from the mountaintops! Normally, they would. But something more important than Bible bashing is at stake this time. Evolution is the holy of holies for atheists -- without it their hatred for God seems much less 'rational'. Everything they hold dear has been built on the 'scientific' mythology which has erased our Creator. So they come to the aid of their embattled bible believing bretheren. Will this new found concern for biblical accuracy last beyond Genesis 9? Not if they hope to remain good atheists.

But let us return to the damning quote from James Barr. Not only has he offered his considerable expertise (which happens to be in the ONLY relevant field for this topic), he compounds the embarrassment: He tells us that this is the consensus of people who ACTUALLY READ hebrew. Certainly there have been creative interpretations that may seem convincing to people who are not hebrew experts (and WANT to believe). These interpretations deserve just as much consideration as any other crack pot theory.

Stay tuned. More straining at gnats is sure to follow.

Vance said:
Bevets, you show that you not only did not get what Barr was talking about when you blindly quoted him, but that you are dodging what he REALLY said.

Tomk80 said:
Again, you are missing the point of the quotes you posted entirely. It is not directed against an allegorical interpretation, merely against a day-age interpretation. How you can miss that is beyond me.

Jet Black said:
regardless of whether Bevets is right or wrong about Genesis, He is wrong about what Barr says about genesis.

Tomk80 said:
Indeed. Which I find odd about creationist quoting in general. You would say that if you would try to use quotes to support your position, you would take care not to misrepresent the person quoting it. However, among creationists this all in a day's work, as Bevets demonstrates here.

Some people said that the Jews were newcomers on the scene of world history and therefore had no status within civilization such as the Greeks had. Not at all, wrote the Jewish historian Josephus: the Jews have been here all the time and, unlike the Greeks, who have a lot of different and contradictory books, the Jews have one precise and unified history, one single narrative that goes back to the creation of the world about five thousand years before. The central point was the one book that gave a clear, or fairly clear, sequence in years from the absolute creation of the world down into later history. ~ James Barr

bevets said:
If the author had not wanted readers to think this was poetry, how could He have been more specific? If someone told you the resurrection was 'poetry' (not literal: i.e. '3 literal days but its a POEM'), what would your response be?

Vance said:
What Tom said, in both of his last two posts. Barr is saying nothing about whether it should be read figuratively or literally, only that the author uses "yom" in the 24-hour sense. I agree with this entirely. I think the author was using "yom" in the 24-hour sense. The way a poet would be using "tree" in the natural, branch and leaf, sense even when using that "tree" to refer to a family.

If the author had not wanted readers to think this was poetry, how could He have been more specific? If someone told you the resurrection was 'poetry' (not literal: i.e. '3 literal days but its a POEM'), what would your response be?
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
bevets said:
Some people said that the Jews were newcomers on the scene of world history and therefore had no status within civilization such as the Greeks had. Not at all, wrote the Jewish historian Josephus: the Jews have been here all the time and, unlike the Greeks, who have a lot of different and contradictory books, the Jews have one precise and unified history, one single narrative that goes back to the creation of the world about five thousand years before. The central point was the one book that gave a clear, or fairly clear, sequence in years from the absolute creation of the world down into later history. ~ James Barr
Ah, finally you have come with something more substantial. Was that so hard? This quote does seem to support your interpretation that the jews at the time of Josephus saw Genesis as literal history. Now, if you would be so kind as to supply the context of the quote? And how the jewish professors you mentioned earlier regard this particular statement? Thanks.

If the author had not wanted readers to think this was poetry, how could He have been more specific? If someone told you the resurrection was 'poetry' (not literal: i.e. '3 literal days but its a POEM'), what would your response be?
I'd so he could not have been more specific. Genesis, especially the first chapters, has a very poetic structure. If it reads like a poem, it probably is a poem. The resurrection accounts, on the other hand, do not have a poetic structure at all, but read as eyewitness accounts. We read a poem as a poem and an eyewitness account as an eyewitness acount. The author could indeed not have been more clear that genesis is poetic. But I already gave you this answer, so why did you ignore it? Do you have any arguments against it?
 
Upvote 0

raphael_aa

Wild eyed liberal
Nov 25, 2004
1,228
132
69
✟17,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
' In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and nonliteral...exegesis....The typical conservative evangelical exegesis is literal, but only up to a point: when the point is reached where literal interpretation would make the Bible appear 'wrong,' a sudden switch to nonliteral interpretation is made.'


Barr, James, The Bible and the Modern World (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1973). Barr observes that conservative evangelicals are willing to use any argument, however contrary to their religious convictions and however religiously trivial, to support biblical inerrancy, (Fundamentalism, p. 259).
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good quote, Raphael. At least we really know where Barr is coming from.

But really, even Barr's quote above is not as conclusive as it may seem. First of all, the Jews of 70 AD should not be equated on these points with the Jews a few hundred years earlier, when the texts were compiled, much less the Jews of 1000 years earlier when these texts were first being handed down. They, just as every other culture, had grown and developed. Within that very long stretch of history, we had the rise of the concept of actually writing history, with Herodotus and then Thucydides, and on from there. Prior to that, there was very little concept of writing actual history with accuracy. It was just not thought about in that way.

Second, the fact that they viewed it as a lineage still does not mean that they viewed it as true and accurate history. As I have pointed out, Julius Caesar viewed his lineage back to Venus as a legitimate and important genealogy, but it is almost certain that he did not really believe it was historically accurate. This is very difficult for us to get our heads around nowadays. I know that when I was an undergraduate studying ancient history (the area in which I got my degree), it was one of the greatest struggles for us as students to grasp, the completely different mindset and viewpoint about "the past" and how to talk about it and write about it.

There is little doubt that the earliest tellers of the oral tradition, and the earliest listener's and then readers of these stories did NOT think of them as literal, historical stories, but very valuable and "true" stories about their past. True and valuable in a way we can only partially understand today with our empirical minds.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, in particular, YEC's have been avoiding commenting on what Augustine said in the OP. Even Bevets avoided responding to those statements, and attempted to divert the discussion to something else.

Where are the YEC's, and why do they think Augustine has it all wrong? They must think he has it all wrong, since they are following none of his guidelines or approaches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra009
Upvote 0

bevets

Active Member
Aug 22, 2003
378
11
Visit site
✟581.00
Faith
Christian
bevets said:
Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. On Christian Doctrine 1.41

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University

Is there a way to make flashing letters? People seem to be missing the point.

bevets said:
But let us return to the damning quote from James Barr. Not only has he offered his considerable expertise (which happens to be in the ONLY relevant field for this topic), he compounds the embarrassment: He tells us that this is the consensus of people who ACTUALLY READ hebrew. Certainly there have been creative interpretations that may seem convincing to people who are not hebrew experts (and WANT to believe). These interpretations deserve just as much consideration as any other crack pot theory.

Stay tuned. More straining at gnats is sure to follow.

bevets said:
If the author had not wanted readers to think this was poetry, how
could He have been more specific? If someone told you the
resurrection was 'poetry' (not literal: i.e. '3 literal days but
its a POEM'), what would your response be?

bevets said:
If the author had not wanted readers to think this was poetry, how could He have been more specific? If someone told you the resurrection was 'poetry' (not literal: i.e. '3 literal days but its a POEM'), what would your response be?


Vance said:
Yes, in particular, YEC's have been avoiding commenting on what Augustine said in the OP. Even Bevets avoided responding to those statements, and attempted to divert the discussion to something else.

Apparently you have failed to notice my signature.

http://www.christianforums.com/t68408

If the author had not wanted readers to think this was poetry, how could He have been more specific? If someone told you the resurrection was 'poetry' (not literal: i.e. '3 literal days but its a POEM'), what would your response be?
 
Upvote 0