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

[Vance]

That is not a response to Augustine's position at all. How do you respond to all the points Augustine makes in the OP?

As for how the writers of Genesis could be more specific if they wanted us to know it was poetry (actually, it is not all "poetry", but more generally figurative, with some poetic usage), my answer is there was no need to be more specific since at the time it was written is was clear to everyone that it was non-literal. Everything about the text speaks of figurativeness, UNLIKE the Gospel narratives. So, that answers your second question: a simple look at the styles of the narratives, the time at which they were written, not to mention the requirements of Christian theology all point to a literal resurrection, and equally to a figurative Genesis.

Pick out a Scripture YOU read figuratively (I am sure there are many in the Scriptures) and ask yourself the same question.

Now, how about that OP? Still going to avoid dealing with Augustine's points there?

 

[Sgent29]

Just to point out that St. Augustine was not the only biblical philospher with this type of viewpoint. Mammodies (1000 CE), perhaps the greatest Rabbi ever to live, who codified much of the bible and created modern Jewry, paraphrased:

When the physical world conflicts with the Torah, our understanding of one or both is flawed.

 

[bevets]

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?

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?

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?

As for how the writers of Genesis could be more specific if they wanted us to know it was poetry (actually, it is not all "poetry", but more generally figurative, with some poetic usage), my answer is there was no need to be more specific since at the time it was written is was clear to everyone that it was non-literal. Everything about the text speaks of figurativeness, UNLIKE the Gospel narratives. So, that answers your second question: a simple look at the styles of the narratives, the time at which they were written, not to mention the requirements of Christian theology all point to a literal resurrection, and equally to a figurative Genesis.

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.

Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~Augustine


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

 

[Tomk80]

Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~Augustine


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

[bot]
this quote speaks about whether a day-age interpretation combined with a local flood interpretation are scripturally sound. It doesn't make clear whether we should take genesis 1-11 allegorically or literally.
[/bot]

Jeesh, how hard can it be to understand that. Furthermore, the question how we can discern between genesis as allegorical and the resurrection as non-allegorical was already answered by Vance (and by me in part , but you chose to ignore that, which I can understand since I'm not a christian). That you continue to ignore the real meaning of your own quotes and are to frightened to enter into a meaningful discussion with Vance, instead choosing to reiterate the same quote over and over again, makes it very clear that you cannot address his criticism and in that way very accurately shows how weak your argument is.

 

[Vance]

Bevets, you still are not getting it, and your repeated restating of these quotes just shows that you don't get it. The author DID intend the words to be read in their literal meaning, but not to be read as literal history. Do you still not get that point? Nothing Augustine or Barr has said in any of the quotes given contradicts that point. Not a single one. Changing their color and bolding them does not change that fact. They don't say what you seem to think they say.

I also noticed once again that you are just dodging the points made by Augustine in the OP. It is becoming more and more obvious that they disturb you in some way, and that you are having a hard time in dealing with them. Every post in which you ignore them and seek to head off in this other direction shows not only that you don't even get the quotes you are using, but that you are determined to NOT deal with the OP.

 

[Vance]

bumping this to get a few more thoughts on the actual OP since it got a bit off-track

 

[HRE]

I need it in my subscribed threads

 

[Vance]

Risen from the Dust was mentioning Augustine's analysis, so I thought I would bump this again.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Vance, this is an excellent and thought-provoking post. I'm off March break and back to work now (and preparing to move my family and I to a new place here in our town), but when I have a chance I would love to seriously discuss these things.

Just as a quick respones, you do realize that St. Augustine did change his mind on key theological issues a few times in his life-time?

For example, he at one time believed in a literal millenium: thousand year reign. He later rejected it (for reason I will discuss when I have a chance) for a more allegorical understanding.

St. Augustine also quite clearly believed that unbaptized infants went to hell -- something that I could never accept -- yet influenced the church in many ways for over a 1000 years. In this area today, Catholicism has taken a much broader and more calm approach to the question of baptising infants -- a view which quite clearly contradicts St. Augustines view in the past.

Having said this, I would still like to note that I still highly admire St. Ausgustine's contribution to modern Catholicism -- which is vast.

For example, in a time when many were anit-semetic (such as John Chrystostom), St. Augustine quite graciously made an attempt to justify the Jewish people as a "witness" to God's presence prior to the coming of Christ.

Many of his thoughts regarding original sin (despite his arguments against unbaptized infants noted above) were extremly influencial and wellthought out.

Gah...I could go on and on with this -- but I do not have the time I would like to spend on it right now. I will comment on his thoughts regarding science when I have a chance, very soon, perhaps tonight.

 

[LittleNipper]

Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~Augustine


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

This is totally understandable since these very same professors likely do not believe Jesus' death was necessary, that Jesus was GOD, that Revelations was written before 100 AD. They likely hold most of what is attributed to Christ as not said by Christ. I imagine that they find nothing wrong with women preachers, deviate sexual behavior among consenting adults, homoxexual marriages, or Unitarian theology. so why should I care what THEY claim... They are no longer Orthodox. I never even consider them when I read my Bible. They are irrelavent to my relationship with my LORD...

 

[Vance]

Nipper, did you read further in the thread where it was shown that the quote was taken out of context and that the author meant something very different than what Bevets presented it for?

 

[Ledifni]

Just as a quick respones, you do realize that St. Augustine did change his mind on key theological issues a few times in his life-time?

Yes. That's a good thing. The ability to change one's views based on new evidence is a virtue, not a fault. Insisting on a constant belief in the face of contradictory evidence is not a character trait to be praised -- it's a fault to be avoided at all costs.

 

[Vance]

Yes, built into Augustine's approach as set out in the OP is the need to be open to new insights and willing to see that you have been wrong about a particular doctrine or reading of Scripture in the past. If the evidence is there, whether it be from science, from greater study and wisdom, or maybe from another person, we must not "hold so fast" to our own understanding of the things of God that we reject an approach that is closer to the truth.

I think it was NT Wright who said (or he may have been quoting someone else), I am sure that at least a third of what I believe about [whatever subject] is actually wrong, but I have no idea which third! It is this type of humbleness in all of these issues we must cultivate.

And, really, there are many things I thing Augustine got wrong, or at least got his emphasis level wrong. It really does not matter to me what Augustine actually ended up believing, it is his APPROACH set out in the OP that is essential. We could take out that whole section at the end about what he actually concluded, and the post would actually be better (although it does serve as a nice example that not all the early fathers were "six-dayers", and that such views were not the product of evolutionary thinking).

The approach has a "timeless" quality to it in the sense that it can apply to any age, regardless of the level of scientific knowledge available at the time. What Augustine concluded would be limited by what knowledge was available at the time. And, more importantly, we know that whatever he believed on these points, he held them TENTATIVELY, and not dogmatically, since he knew greater knowledge may come along to give greater insight.

I have no doubt at all that if Augustine was alive today, he would be a theistic evolutionist! :0)

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Yes, built into Augustine's approach as set out in the OP is the need to be open to new insights and willing to see that you have been wrong about a particular doctrine or reading of Scripture in the past. If the evidence is there, whether it be from science, from greater study and wisdom, or maybe from another person, we must not "hold so fast" to our own understanding of the things of God that we reject an approach that is closer to the truth...

Fair enough.

It's late, but I'm going to try to reply to your previous well thought-out post as fairly and with an open mind as possible. I pray the Spirit will guide all of us in ascertaining Augustine's thoughts in regards to openness to new scientific data and their implications in regards to our understanding of the Scriptures.

If it gets too late, I might have to finish it tomorrow afternoon -- since I have to work in the morning.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

We can find writters or theologians that believe in a lot of different interpretations of scripture which fit our ideology, so if it fits yours they are certainly correct and others are certainly wrong. He was wrong on a lot of issues of scripture if he had any part in catholic doctrine. So if he got these interpratation so wrong why would i think is one on Genesis is right. Look at the hebrew words used to write it. they make it a literal meaning. all of sin is started here and is the whole reason for christ. If this is a anology or not literal then Sin is not literal and Christ is not literal either.

What does 1 Peter 3:19 speak of when he went to preach to the Spirits from the days of noah. figurative i guess here as well. Why do you assume science is not incorrect or seeing the whole picture. All their proof is past history they can never see or prove but only on assumptions and ideas. Everything given as observable proof today for the theory does not prove anything unless they use their ideas and assumptions of the past with it. I say nothing what so ever in you OP will change my thinking of scripture. God did not make it that hard to figure out Genesis. All of it gives lineage from adam to abraham so how do you decide which lineage is fake and which are ture. If Adam was not true then noone from him to jesus were true as well. or do you say he is true but that he was not a part of a special creation. sorry but your TE is bad interpretation of genesis and putting to much Faith in science accuracy. Do other religions give lineage as the torah does. If not why would they believe it literal.

 

[Tomk80]

Do other religions give lineage as the torah does. If not why would they believe it literal.

I just wanted to jump in on this one. The answer here is yes. The romans had the habit of connecting there lineage to the gods, and the celtics frequently connected their lineages to past 'superheroes'. Did they believe it being literal? From what I can gather they did, but then again they might not have treated history the same way we do, in this also goes for the jews who wrote the torah. Your already starting out with a big assumption here, namely that ancient people like the jews viewed history (and historical writing) the same way we do. I think there is very little to support such an assumption.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

I just wanted to jump in on this one. The answer here is yes. The romans had the habit of connecting there lineage to the gods, and the celtics frequently connected their lineages to past 'superheroes'. Did they believe it being literal? From what I can gather they did, but then again they might not have treated history the same way we do, in this also goes for the jews who wrote the torah. Your already starting out with a big assumption here, namely that ancient people like the jews viewed history (and historical writing) the same way we do. I think there is very little to support such an assumption.

So adam and eve and Noah and all them were past gods or a least figurative. Its funny all those that can be traced are real. they had no powers or such. Every one seems to think that since other books were written before the torah that it just took from them, i say it corrected all the suberstitions and exagerations passed down about creation and the flood. It is true and all the others were the same stories in the Torah but in mans thinking and exaggerated into mythology. The Torah corrected them So we Would know the Truth and his people would not get caught up into all the mythology of the day. You assume wrong, because the torah gives prophecy to prove it is from God, another only found in a Religious book or group. It makes it clear it is true and real, if ou wish to ignore it or discredit it thats fine it will be hear when you and i are long gone, unless rapture comes before then.

 

[raphael_aa]

So adam and eve and Noah and all them were past gods or a least figurative. Its funny all those that can be traced are real. they had no powers or such. Every one seems to think that since other books were written before the torah that it just took from them, i say it corrected all the suberstitions and exagerations passed down about creation and the flood. It is true and all the others were the same stories in the Torah but in mans thinking and exaggerated into mythology. The Torah corrected them So we Would know the Truth and his people would not get caught up into all the mythology of the day. You assume wrong, because the torah gives prophecy to prove it is from God, another only found in a Religious book or group. It makes it clear it is true and real, if ou wish to ignore it or discredit it thats fine it will be hear when you and i are long gone, unless rapture comes before then.

All of the bits I have bolded in your text are assumptions and assertions with absolutely NO evidence. You assume for something to be TRUE it has to be literal and historical. This is definitely a product of the Western style of thought prevelant since the Enlightenment. You are ascribing to the text a definition of truth and a genre which its writers would have had no concept of. As is typical of certain creationists you assume your interpretation is the only correct one and anyone who holds a different view is seeking to 'discredit or ignore' scripture. This is simply false. I care about scripture so much that I do not want to see it abused and debased in the way that literalists do. I also realize that this is my opinion of scripture and in the final analysis I may turn out to be wrong. So I listen to and evaluate all the arguments about interpretations of scripture, I seek expert opinion, I pray. In the end, I still realize that my interpretations are tentative.

 

[Vance]

As someone with a University degree in ancient history, I can tell you that no one reading the Genesis 1 and 2 until the last few hundred years would ever have EXPECTED it to be a literal, detailed historical account. Especially up to the time all the Scriptures were written down. Thus the irony of modern Christians insisting that it must be read that way, when the original writers and readers would not have treated it that way.

 

[aboutface]

I would like to add my ten cents ( or for you Americano's my Dime's) worth to the debate.
The Bible teaches us that death entered the world when Man ( Adam) sinned.
Evolution teaches us that death was around for millions of years before Adam could have existed.
How then should we view our world?
Scripture through the eyes of science, throwing out what the god science says is wrong in the Bible. And with that you have just destroyed any possibility of belief in the Virgin Birth, let alone His ressurection, or
Science through the eyes of Scripture and where they differ then accept that our "knowledge" is flawed and God is right?
Your choice, but I think in the end,your very soul may just depend upon it.
For I have no doubt that if you do not believe all of scripture then your faith may when put to pressure just let you down.