The Cosmological Model of the Book of Genesis

September 19, 2008

I’ll come right out and say it: I hope that none of my Readers take the 100% literally.

I mean that. But I should also clarify.

I hope, for instance, that my Readers take Genesis literally where the messages of faith it delivers are concerned. I hope that my Readers believe what is taught in Genesis about how all the world, and all the Universe, is the creation of , and that life arose on through the ordination and sustenance of God. I hope that my Readers believe that creation is “very good,” and that human beings are the pinnacle of God’s creation, made in His image and likeness. I hope my Readers believe that the complementarity of male and female, of and , is a part of the design of God, and is intended to give image to His love for the world by the unique unity it is designed to evoke.

I hope that my Reader derives very strong affirmation for his or her faith from Genesis, in other words, and that the book itself imparts important messages of faith to the Reader.

On the other hand, I do not hope that the good Reader looks to Genesis as a historical account. In fact, not only do I not hope this, I actively hope against it. I hope that none of my Readers thinks the world is only a few thousand years old, that humanity preceded all the other creatures, or that dinosaurs and humanity co-existed for a time. And I hope that my Readers do not look to Genesis for their cosmological model of the Universe.

The Cosmological Model of the Ancient Hebrews

It’s this last point that I’m going to focus on in today’s discussion, because it serves as an example of a few things. First, by looking at the cosmological model presented in Genesis, and by comparing it against what we know today about the structure of the heavens, we can see that the descriptions of the structure of the world, and of the Universe, that appear in Genesis are not meant to be taken literally, as they are reflective of an Ancient Near Eastern understanding of such things only. Even more importantly, however, we will see that even most Christians are not total Biblical literalists, not even the most ardent Young Earth Creationists.

Because if they were completely, totally, 100% literal in their interpretation of the text of Genesis and the cosmological model presented therein (and through the whole of the Bible, as well), they would assert that the Universe is structured like this:

three-tiered-universe.jpg

This is an earlier draft of an image I re-constructed in for Dr. ’s book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. The published version is a bit different, but this version contains all the important elements, and so will suffice. Let’s review what we see in this image.

First off, we have the firmament (Genesis 1:6-8,14-17,20, Psalm 19:1, Psalm 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22-26, Ezekiel 10:1, Daniel 12:3, Sirach 43:1,8), which separates the waters above it from the waters below it (Genesis 1:7).

Embedded in the firmament are the Sun, Moon, and all the stars — the lights of the heavens which separate day from night (Genesis 1:14-15,17). And the heavens are contained within the firmament; they are of the firmament (Genesis 1:20, Psalm 19:1).

This firmament, incidentally, is a hard dome, a fixed cosmological structure. The very word — firmament — implies (and, in Hebrew, actually means) something solid, something fixed. If one is completely literal in one’s interpretation of Genesis, there is no room whatsoever to argue that the firmament can be explained away as the great expanse of space; the word itself has a different meaning.

Excursus: What is the firmament? As noted previously, this is a cosmological structure which appears all through Scripture. The word is rooted in the Hebrew word raqa, which means “to flatten,” “stamp down,” “spread out,” or “hammer out.”

Notice a common theme there? Flattening, stamping, spreading, and hammering are all actions one applies to a physical object, and then a solid one. This is especially true of hammering and stamping. The nuance of the Hebrew word raqia (which we translate as “firmament”) is thus one of something solid, rather than of something expansive.

We see this elsewhere in Scripture, it should be noted.

“Exodus 39:3 and Isa 40:19 use raqa for pounding metals into thin plates, and Num 16:38 employs riqqua (broad plate) in a similar context. The verb raqa is even found in a passage referring to the creation of the sky, which is understood to be a firm surface like a metal. Job 37:18 asks, ‘Can you join God in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?’ (c.f. Exod 24:10, Job 22:14, Ezek 1:22)” (taken from: Denis O. Lamoueux, Evolutionary Creation, pp. 123)

Let us also remember: “firmament” is an English translation of the Hebrew term. Its root, ‘firm,’ implies solidity and hardness. The very word itself implies a solid structure. Something like is all well and good for referring to the firmament as “an expanse,” but that simply goes to show that Strong’s Concordance is hardly infallible: the Hebrew word which translates into “firmament” — raqia, implies something solid, and has always (until relatively recently) been understood as such by the Church.

And this same principle, it should be noted, can be applied to Strong’s treatment of “foundations” — in which the Concordance attempts to whitewash the solidity implied by the Hebrew words that we translate as such. Job 26:11 and 2 Samuel 22:8 refer to the pillars or foundations of the heavens, while other passages (Deuteronomy 4:32, to name but one) refer to the “ends of the heavens”. Likewise, well over a dozen references to the Earth having solid foundations can easily be found in just a few books of the Old Testament, as will be seen shortly.

What else is present, then, in the diagram?

We see the foundations of the heavens (2 Samuel 22:8,16) and the foundations of the Earth (Job 38:4, Psalm 18:15, Psalm 82:5, Psalm 102:25, Psalm 104:5, Proverbs 8:29, Isaiah 24:18, Isaiah 40:21, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13,16, Jeremiah 31:37, Micah 6:2, Sirach 10:16, Sirach 16:19). The sea is also present, as is the land of the world (Genesis 1:9-10). Hades, the underworld, is also depicted (Tobit 13:2, Wisdom 1:14, Wisdom 2:1, Wisdom 16:13, Wisdom 17:14, Matthew 11:23, Luke 10:15, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:27, Revelation 1:18). The “Heavens of the Heavens” — the Highest Heavens (Psalm 148:4) — are represented, as is the dwelling of the Lord in the Highest Heavens.

This, then, is the view of the Universe of the people of the Old Testament, and would have been shared by all the Hebrews. It is also the cosmological model that the writers of the Old and New Testaments would have used when speaking about the Universe in any capacity. And if, O Reader, you profess the belief that Genesis is meant to be taken as a completely literal historical account, then this must be the cosmological model you profess as well…or else, you’re not a complete literalist.

You can’t profess this view of the solar system:

solar-system-mural.jpg

You can’t profess this view of the galaxy:

Galaxy-schematic.jpg

You can’t profess this view of the Universe:

local_group_0305_diagram_800.jpg

If, O Reader, you are a Young Earth Creationist who insists on treating Genesis as a literal account of history, you must profess the belief that the Universe is structured as depicted in the first image in this posting, the image I drew. And, if you profess the doctrine of sola scriptura, you are especially obligated to reject the cosmological model presented in the latter three pictures, which is (more or less) the cosmological model presented to us by modern .

Reciprocally, if you argue that the cosmological model presented by modern astronomy is correct, you are not in adherence to the doctrine of sola scriptura, nor are you interpreting Scripture 100% literally. You are, in fact, augmenting your understanding of Scripture with scientific evidence, and shifting your interpretation of Scripture to match the empirical evidence that scientific inquiry into the structure of the Universe has discovered.

Either way, something must here be acknowledged: there exists a discrepancy between the description of the Universe, as presented in Scripture, and the shape of the as has been observed by mankind.

Implications of this Discrepancy

The difference between the cosmological model presented in and the observed shape of the Universe is profound. They are not, in any significant way, similar.

On the face of it, at least, Scripture is simply incorrect about the shape of the Universe. That’s the main implication of this massive discrepancy: that Scripture is not inerrant and infallible.

So how, as Christians, do we address this problem, if in fact we believe that Scripture is inerrant and infallible? Well, if we believe that the Book of Genesis contains a literal account of creation, and that it is intended to be read as a historically/scientifically accurate work, we can’t address this problem. And in fact, this problem is one of many that utterly defeat our viewpoint. Faced with the overwhelming evidence that the shape of the cosmos is vastly different than is described in Scripture, there are only two options left open to a literalist:

  1. Admit that Scripture is in error, OR
  2. Denounce , research, and empirical study as demonic

It should be obvious to the Reader, I hope, that the second option — though often indulged in by Christians — is fundamentally irrational, and also out of alignment with Scripture. The Bible tells us, quite plainly, that the natural world reveals the glory of God (c.f. Psalm 19, Job 12), and so shall be for humanity a source of truth and revelation. God Himself is not revealed in the study of the world and of the heavens, because God is not empirically observable. But the heavens and the Earth tell His glory and are a testament to His might and his ordinance of creation. So we cannot dismiss the study of the world and the heavens — science, essentially — as demonic, for God Himself, through the Spirit which inspired the authors of Scripture, assures us that this is not the case.

The strict literalist, then, is left with no choice but to admit that Scripture is in error.

Moving Past Literalism

To this point, we’ve only looked at the interpretation of Scripture from a strictly literal perspective, which Young Earth Creationists claim to do. Of course, in making such a claim, Young Earthers commit a hypocrisy of sorts, since it is clear that most Young Earthers accept a non-Biblical cosmological model to be valid. Were they really literalists, 100% of the time, their cosmological model would be the same as was used by the ancient Hebrews, which was also reflected in other cultures of the ancient world.

Let’s be realistic: ancient cultures did not have the sophisticated tools and rigorous methods that modern researchers employ. They did not have the means to analyze the world and the Universe in as much detail as we do in this modern era. Indeed, they had only their eyes, and what could be observed with them.

We see this reflected in Scripture. Every aspect of the ancient cosmological model presented at the beginning of this writing is explicable when one considers the ancient context of its promulgation. It made sense for ancient scholars to assume that the position of the Earth was fixed, and that the world was set upon firm foundations; can any of us feel the Earth orbiting around the , and can any of us topple the Earth from its position in the heavens? Of course not.

Likewise, it made sense to assume that the sky was a fixed dome, in which the Sun, Moon, and all the stars were fixed — or, at least, it was a reasonable conjecture that this was the case. Likewise, it made sense to assume that a great sea was held back by the great dome of the sky, for how else might it come to pass that water should precipitate down from on high? And why else would the sky have such a sea-like blue hue?

This was the ancient understanding; the early Hebrews knew nothing of the vast distances that separate the stars, or of the nuclear fusion that drove the Sun, or of the fact that it was the rotation of the Earth — and not the movement of the Sun — which caused the cycle of days and nights. And the authors of Scripture — especially Genesis — would have understood the world and Universe through the cosmological model of their day. Their scientific understanding of things, if it can be called that, was an ancient one.

Is it possible, then, that we are meant to interpret Scripture in a less-than-completely literal way? Is it possible, then, that when we interpret Scripture, we must do so in the understanding that the science contained therein is the science “of the day,” and that it may not have been intended, by the Spirit, to be understood as a literal explanation of the ordering of the world and Universe? Is it not also possible, then, that we are not meant to interpret as literal what appears, at first glance, to be a historical account in Genesis?

As to a Child

When we explain complicated things to small children, we often have to use simpler examples drawn from the realm of the child’s understanding in order to illustrate our lesson to them. And additionally, we have to obfuscate. Think for a minute of, say, a song that is sometimes taught to children:

…the thigh bone’s connected to the knee bone.
The knee bone’s connected to the shin bone.
The shin bone’s connected to the ankle bone…

It’s not a bad learning tool, and a decent introduction to basic skeletal biology. And yet: which thigh bone? Which ankle bone? In both cases, there is more than one bone present in the actual human skeleton. But how do you explain that to a small child? The ankle more or less looks like it’s made of one bone, and feels as though it is — how do you explain to a small child, in a way that the child will understand, that there are actually many bones in the ankle?

And also: is it even important, for the purposes of the basic lesson you are attempting to impart to the child, to do so?

Accommodation

When we speak to children, we accommodate to their level of knowledge. We don’t bombard them with facts (or, at least, we shouldn’t) and precise details. We teach by using simpler examples, and by simplifying the concept being taught…for the moment. As children get older, we can teach them the finer details and more complex aspects of the lesson.

Is it possible, then, that God took this approach with humanity, his children? When the Spirit sought to inspire the ancient authors of Scripture to communicate a message of faith — that God is creator of all things — is it possible that instead of bombarding the authors with exhaustive explanations of atoms, amoebas, and astronomy, that the Spirit instead opted to accommodate to the ancient understanding of the author, and use the extant cosmological model of the day as a metaphorical vehicle for a theological teaching?

Could God not have opted to keep the Bible simple for us, that we might come to discover the more complicated aspects of the world and of creation when we were ready to do so…when we were older?

I don’t just think this is possible; I think it’s likely.

Humanity, at the time that many of the books of the were written, was as a child in its understanding of the world and Universe. Humanity “thought like a child…reasoned like a child.” And even into the time of the , that understanding of the natural world had not advanced very much; still, we only understood as a child does.

Now, though, we have become something else. Humanity has grown; is it possible that we should begin to “put away childish things,” including the ancient understandings of the world and its origins?

The purpose of the Bible is not to tell us about the structure of the heavens, but to tell us about Heaven itself, about God, about humanity’s need for God, and about the glorious plan of salvation that God has effected and made manifest in . The Bible, as so ably put it, tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

Perhaps it is time that we respected the Bible enough to admit this.

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!

 
Posted by Kenneth Filed in Evolutionary Creationism, History, Religion, Sci-Tech, Space - the final frontier, Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This should have been obvious: no need for the Church to apologize to Darwin

September 17, 2008

My only question is: who the hell suggested we needed to apologize to Darwin in the first place?

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of was compatible with but planned no posthumous apology to for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop , the Vatican’s culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s ““.

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. , said the owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in .

described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and [] reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

The apology to , I can see some justification for. I’m becoming less convinced, as time rolls on, that it was really necessary — a simple admission that “those who came before us were in error” would have sufficed, I think — but I can understand the intent behind it. The reaction of to Galileo was not just cold, but actively hostile.

Darwin’s theories did receive a colder reception…but I suspect that was as much because the Church wanted time to evaluate his theories in order to see if there was anything in them which was not compatible with the extant theology concerning creation as it was because the theories themselves were new and somewhat controversial. Never in my experience of have I discerned anything other than general acceptance of the theory of evolution — most Catholics that I have known have no problem reconciling their with the discoveries of the scientific community.

The Church herself has no fixed opinion or doctrines concerning evolutionary theory, however. It is left to each Catholic to decide, for him/herself, what to believe and accept about human origins.

Also, and on another topic, I like how Archbishop Ravasi thinks. More like him, please:

“Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session,” he said, adding that Darwin’s theories were “never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned”.

Amen!

in-soviet-russia.png
 
Posted by Kenneth Filed in Catholicism, Evolutionary Creationism, History, Religion, Sci-Tech
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conversation with a Young Earth Creationist - part 2

September 16, 2008

As the Reader may recall from last time, what had begun as a conversation about dinosaurs and whether or not they were mentioned in took a very wrong turn; the Young Earth Creationist with whom I was debating the point shifted gears and began to attack me on the basis of my . I wish I could say that I was successful in returning us to the topic at hand, but as the following exchange demonstrates, I was anything but successful.

Me (from last time): As to the issue of the Pope, and my support for him meaning that I deny : how, exactly, is that the case? You claim that the Pope is not a Christian, that he is a liar and an idolater. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack here, which is typically indicative of a poor argument that you are attempting to hide behing a wall of insults.

But also…where is your evidence in support of these wild assertions? I hope you’re not going to throw some in my face here; Chick is not a credible source.

As to your assertion that the belief that we are not supposed to refrain from is not supported by Scripture: what the heck is talking about in 1 Corinthians 7, then?

Look, I actually like you — you’ve got spirit. I think, along the way, you’ve been brought into a goodly number of falsehoods and untruths, perhaps by well-meaning people or perhaps by people who don’t mean very well at all (don’t know ‘em, can’t say). Be that as it may; I like your passion for — it’s a commendable trait. But why do you mar it so, with these lies you tell? You do not even know Scripture well enough to know that is a Biblical teaching, and a condition of being highly praised by Paul.

Young Earth Creationist: Here are some examples of that un-Biblical thinking. Perhaps, rather than criticize others for using Scripture, you should worry about the unbiblical and even wicked past history of the popes.

Pope Gregory VII (1073-85): “The pope cannot make a mistake.”

Pope Paschal II: (1099-1118 ): “Whoever does not agree with the Apostolic See is without doubt a heretic.”

Pope Innocent IV (1243-54): described himself as “the bodily presence of Christ.” (presumably by a kind of at his election)

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303): “Every human being must do as the pope tells him.”

“It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope.” (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.)

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903): “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE, (Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894 p.304)

Pope Pius XI stated on April 30, 1922: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth.” (Revelation Four Views, A parallel Commentary, P 288 Edited by Steve Gree, Published by Nelson Publishers)

“God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it.” (Dignities and Duties of the Priest, Vol 12 Pg. 27)

“The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate Laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts Of Christ.” (Decretal De Translat, Episcopal Cap)

Me: I appreciate the out-of-context quotes, but did you think I’d fail to notice that you just copy-and-pasted from an anti-Catholic resource? Not exactly original, nor very honest. Do be careful of such websites, as well; where Catholicism is concerned, their attitude is far from Christian, which is a pity.

More to the point, though: the above is not nearly so unbiblical as you think.

Okay, where to start? First, after half an hour on Google, I can’t find any official source for the above statement attributed to (the only known quotation from a “Catholic” source is from The Benedictine Network1). Indeed, the majority of sites I can find that quote this statement are anti-Catholic sites. Now, I don’t necessarily doubt that the quote is legitimate, but I might point out that in the finest tradition of Uncle Screwtape, the problem is not that the quote itself is a lie. The problem is that the quote hides a lie behind a truth by betraying a probable context.

Popes rarely say anything with brevity, especially when making official statements. This would certainly have been true of Pope Gregory VII, given that he presided over a rather hectic time in ’s history — when dealing with heretics and anti-Popes, one should speak clearly and with detail. Which means that the quote above almost certainly has been excerpted from a larger document, and has probably been taken out of context.

What do I mean by that?

Consider this article for a moment. In the middle of it, this passage appears: “This does not mean that the Pope cannot make a mistake or commit a sin or that he can teach on any subject which strikes his fancy or that he is inspired by God. It does mean that under certain conditions the Pope is preserved from error…” It would be easy enough to pick out “the Pope cannot make a mistake” from that statement and cite it as “proof” of something, but of course to do so would betray context horribly, and would in fact completely reverse the meaning of the statement. And therein is the lie behind the truth.

Is that what has happened here? Hard to say — where is the source text from which this quote was excerpted?

It should also be noted that Gregory VII was something of an early reformer in the Church. He decreed, among other things, that clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to minister in the Church, that no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights, that all who were guilty of incontinence should cease to exercise their sacred ministry, and that the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.

Let’s move on to the next quote, attributed to . The problem that most non-Catholics have with this statement (it is true) is that they don’t understand what is. Only a baptized Catholic can be a Catholic heretic, because a heretic is one who rejects a core teaching of his or her religious denomination. To flip it around, I — being Catholic — am not a heretic to , because I have never been a Muslim. Obviously, I disagree with many core teachings of Islam, but since I was never a Muslim, my disagreements are not heresies in their own right.

Now, it might also do well to point out that Paschal II also presided over some rather troublesome times in the Church’s history; when dealing with severe problems in times when tensions are running high enough to lead to bloodshed, one needs to take a hard line…the same way a parent with squabbling children needs to be somewhat more of an absolutist than a parent with children who are playing together agreeably.

The point is, it’s not actually un-Biblical to say that someone who disagrees with a doctrine is a heretic. It’s simply a proper understanding and use of the term. And to speak in such a truthful manner is, I think, rather Biblical…wouldn’t the Reader agree?

Now, as to the quote from , I again cannot find a source for this statement apart from (not a trustworthy source, see 1) and several anti-Catholic sites. It is possible that there is some confusion here between the Catholic notion of alter Christus and what Innocent IV said, but absent the official source document for this statement, there is little to go on.

It is telling, though, that only those who already dispute the authority of the Pope are the only source for this statement, and in much the same way as the first quoted statement, one suspects that the real truth of the statement hides a sinister lie.

Now, the quote from is the first example of a statement which has more evidence for it. The source of this statement is a , Unam Sanctam, which was a statement on papal supremacy.

“The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal , the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ’s sheep. “

Now, how unbiblical does that sound? There is some expansion available on the above statement; let’s take a look at it:

“- Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers, the expression referring to the medieval theory of the two swords, the spiritual and the secular. This is substantiated by the customary reference to the swords of the Apostles at the arrest of Christ (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52).

- Both swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church by the hand of the clergy; the secular is to be employed for the Church by the hand of the civil authority, but under the direction of the spiritual power.

- The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness and sublimity; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When, however, the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by .

- This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one, granted to Peter by Divine commission and confirmed in him and his successors. Consequently, whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God and seems, like a Manichaean, to accept two principles.”

The declaration, then, that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff stems from the belief that the authority given to Peter was of divine origin, and that this divine authority is conferred on each successor to Peter as the head of the Church. To stand in opposition to this is to stand in opposition of the divine mandate imposed by Christ, and in a sense is to put worldly concerns over the concerns of faith2.

Is this un-Biblical teaching? was the rock on which Christ founded the Church, the Church that the gates of hell cannot prevail against. Christ commissioned Peter to feed His lambs, tend His flock, and feed His sheep. Catholicism follows in apostolic succession (see: the ) from Peter, and the Catholic pontiff is charged with no less a responsibility than was Peter. How can this be disputed, without disputing the very commission Christ gave to Peter, and thus disputing the Bible itself?3

Now, let’s look at the quote from . Here again we see that Uncle Screwtape is at work, for this is indeed a most grevious example of ripping a quote clean out of its context and turning a truth into a vehicle for a lie.

Here is the complete text of (The Reunion of Christendom), one of many encyclical letters published by Pope Leo XIII. And here is the proper context of the quoted text above:

“A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.

But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith.”

The statement “we hold upon this Earth the place of God Almighty” is a confession of the Church’s mission to spread the Gospel and Truth of Christ, its mandate of , and its desire that all might come to know Christ and be saved through Him. It is not a statement declaring that the Church usurps the authority of Christ, but rather an acknowledgement that, as humanity was made stewards of Creation, so too has the Church been made the steward of Christ’s Truth and Word in the world. Her mission is to see that all might be saved and know whatsoever is True, and her desire is unity with all her fellow Christians in Christ Jesus, to be an unblemished bride and a seamless cloak for the Lord.

The quote from is highly dubious; the only recorded source for it that I can find online is the website of “a former Catholic priest” who is now an ardent anti-Papist. Such entities are a dime a dozen on the , and I note that this one does not cite any sources for his wild claims about what various Popes have taught.

To be fair, the first three parts of the statement are all true — it is only the conclusion which is false. Of course, to this, we must ask whether this statement was uttered infallibly or not; if not, it is of no particular concern: the Pope is not immune from error in his normal speaking, nor even in his encyclicals (which are not statements of doctrine).

And that a human can be in error is not un-Biblical — indeed, it is a part of the reason the Bible exists!

As to the quote which reads, “God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it,” I think the best way to respond to this would be to turn to Scripture.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of , and whatever you bind on shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Christ gave His authority to the disciples, who have passed that authority on to their successors through the tradition of apostolic succession. The above teachings are actually very Biblical, especially in light of a certain teaching in John 20:

[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Here, Christ is explicitly commissioning his apostles (and, by extension, those who follow in the authority of the apostles) to forgive sin (by the power of Christ), and to lead His Church on Earth. If the apostles retain any sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin retained, because it is by His power that the sin is retained. Likewise, if the apostles forgive the sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin forgiven, because it is by His power that it is forgiven. On this verse rests the entire doctrine of the Sacrament of (or, as it is more commonly called, ). And from this same statement, the Church derives her authority, for it is an authority which Christ gave to her.

It is odd that supposedly biblical Christians fail to notice that the parallelism of the first sentence in the supposedly un-Biblical quote follows — directly — the parallelism of Christ’s own teaching. The concept itself is Biblical, and in this case the speaker made it really easy to pinpoint the exact Scriptural origin for the teaching. But evidently, some people are too blinded in their hatred to remember the truth.

Now, the last quote, ostensibly from something called Decretal De Translat, is one I’ve seen thrown around a fair bit in the past, and I note that — again — the only online mentions of “Decretal De Translat” that I can find are from anti-Catholic sites. I cannot find the source document itself in any form, and so cannot adequately analyze the context of the quote. This should give the Reader pause, of course, as to the validity of the statement as a condemnation of Catholicism as un-Biblical.

Of course, it’s also probable that the author of this statement was simply in error; the above is certainly not a statement of Catholic doctrine, and so is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Catholicism is un-Biblical.

So let’s review: of the few statements above which can even be verified, none express opinions which are ultimately against what is taught in the Bible. And yet, you present them as though they were evidence of exactly that, and so express something which is patently false. Don’t you grow tired of telling lies at any point?

1) the Benedictine Network is a group of Catholics who identify as neither orthodox, Western, or Eastern. They don’t exactly seem to be fully faithful Catholics (having penned articles like “Zen Christ“) and I wonder at whether they are in full communion with . And they actually have a bit of an anti-Papist streak of their own; they take some issue with the Church’s structured authority.

What an interesting development this is! So desperate are some evangelical Christians to condemn Catholics that they would turn to the documents of liberal-minded, “ecumenical” Catholics to find statements. One wonders when will be cited to likewise further the cause of their misguided arguments??

2) Now isn’t that almost the most concise history of the Reformation ever written?

3) And one notes that many evangelicals do exactly this, turning to arguments which dispute the authority given to Peter in plain contradiction of Scripture. Even the watcher is not innocent in this regard.

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Catholicism, History, Religion, Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conversation with a Young Earth Creationist - part 1

September 15, 2008

Me: Dinosaurs and man did not co-exist.

You’re welcome to claim that I’m an unbeliever because of that, but I might point out something: I know my heart and my thoughts (you do not know my heart and my thoughts). I know the level of my devotion to Christ (you do not know the level of my devotion). I know what I believe (you do not know what I believe).

And if you want to debate the history, I’m game.

Young Earth Creationist: “Look at the , which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an . What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God…” - Job 40:15-19 (NIV)

Me: What is the behemoth? Is it concretely identified as a reptile (which the dinosaurs were)? No, it is not. It is identified as a herbivore, muscular and sinewed, and as a creature which lives near a swamp/water. So it could be a ,but it could also be a , or an , or perhaps even a . Arguably, the description of the tail might argue against this, but it should be noted that the word could be a euphemism for genitals — and in fact, in the original-language manuscript of Job, this is the more sensible interpretation of the passage.

In other words, behemoth might be any number of animals apart from a dinosaur. Why rush to the least-obvious conclusion and insist that it was a dinosaur?

YEC: “His tail sways like a cedar” — it has to be big. Nothing exists now meets that description; “behemoth” usually means it is just humongous. Come on man, it is as if you don’t want to believe dinosaurs were in …why not? I doubt the elephant ranks first, plus dinosaurs at least started out as herbivores.

Me: You’re ignoring what I said — I already addressed that objection. But a little expansion on the point can’t hurt.

Firstly…yes, some dinosaurs were s. Some, however, were s. We can tell as much by looking at their teeth. A herbivore has teeth rather like that of a human molar — flat, built for crushing. A carnivore has teeth rather like the human canine, or like the fangs of any number of modern predators — sharp, pointed, made for piercing and tearing.

I read some rather whimsical comments, in the past, suggesting that T-Rex was a herbivore — what a fantastic lie that is! Even looking at a skull demonstrates that T-Rex was a carnivore — its teeth would be almost useless for chewing on plants, but they’d be excellent for latching on to prey. Small forearms don’t really enter into it — most predators eat their food on the ground, and few indeed use their claws/paws as an integral part of the eating process.

It’s not that I don’t want to believe that there were dinosaurs in the Bible — it’s that there aren’t dinosaurs in the Bible, plain and simple. Those reptile species died out long before humanity ever began writing down its histories and legends; indeed, the dinosaurs died out long before humanity even appeared on the scene.

If dinosaurs and man really co-existed, then we’d see indications of it in different archaeological sites that we’ve found the remnants of early human civilization in. We’ve learned from looking at the history of the Native Americans, especially, that people who live an early, tribal life make use of the world around them for tools and other things; we would expect to find examples of tools, weapons or jewelry made with dinosaur bones. Especially weapons! Some dinosaur leg bones are massive, and were likely very strong — they’d make excellent spears, don’t you think? And let’s not forget that a massive dinosaur leg bone would make a very excellent piece of building material, say…for a house’s roofing strut?

But we see no examples of any of this. Nor do we find depictions of dinosaurs alongside human beings in early cave paintings. And if one looks at historical depictions of Behemoth, one sees that Christians certainly made no connection between behemoth and a giant reptile throughout much of the time that there has been a Church.

More to the point, the term “sways” is a bit of a mis-translation. The relevant word is more accurately translated as “extend”. In fact, in the original Hebrew, the description of the beast doesn’t seem to be describing its tail at all — given that we see mentioned the sinewy “stones” of the creature (read: testicles), the text would actually seem to be referring to the beast’s penis Don’t forget that English-language Bibles are translations of the original text of Scripture; the word “tail” is likely a euphemism.

At any rate, you didn’t answer my question: why is it so important to think that behemoth must be a reference to a dinosaur?

YEC: Because it is in the Bible,

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-trex.html

Enough said. What are you gonna believe: some wise crack in a school, or a Christian source? You are Christian, right?

Wait, you support the Pope…that pretty much denies Jesus right there. There is nothing Christian about the pope; he is an idolater, he lies, and he is a deceiver. Catholics have made up lies like and (of infants?), and have even started wars (the First and s). Additionally, the reason why so many Catholic priests have become paedophiles is because they are not allowed to marry, which is a falsehood. People are supposed to marry.

Me: Dinosaurs are nowhere mentioned in the Bible, not by name nor by “kind” (if you prefer the use of that term).

fashioned me a handy brain in the process of making me, and He does delight in my use thereof. To that end, I am able to learn, to perceive, and to reason based on the arguments and evidences presented to me.

Now, as it so happens, I used to be quite the little dinosaur buff, and my knowledge of these fascinating creatures extends far beyond some “wise crack in school”. My home province, , has a large expanse in its southern regions called “The Badlands”, wherein numerous dinosaur skeletons — some near-complete — have been found. In addition to numerous trips there, I’ve studied many different resources and scientific journals on the subject — this is an area of natural scholarship that fascinates me, and while I’m no paleontologist, I believe I can speak to the issue of dinosaurs with some authority.

To that end, I have my doubts about your “Christian” source, not the least of which is that it fails to cite even one passage from Scripture in its supposedly Christian defence of several glaring errors (the most minor of which, I think, is that the author cannot tell the difference between the and the Tyranosaur).

For example: the arms of the T-Rex were indeed short. If you look at the pictured skeleton on the site, and try and imagine how the head and arms might move, there is no way that the T-Rex would have been able to reach, with its mouth, any item held in its hands. It would not have done well had it attempted to use those hands to manipulate branches, since their reach was so small. No, the T-Rex (not unlike the giraffe) would use its mouth and the length and articulation of its body to find food with.

Which brings us again to its teeth. Those are not the teeth of a plant-eater. If you want to see a herbivore’s teeth, look at the molars in the back of your own mouth; they are blocky, and more or less flat on top. If you want to see a carnivore’s teeth, look at the teeth of a lion. Now…which animal has teeth that more closely resemble those of a T-Rex? Your “Christian” source claims that the teeth would wear down if the T-Rex were constantly biting through flesh and bones…but this too is false, and we can observe as much in nature today. Alligators, crocodiles, and some species of predatory mammals all have jaws that are easily capable of biting through bone, and yet even into old age do not show measureable signs of tooth degradation. In many cases, that is because their teeth — unlike ours — are constantly growing; they periodically gnaw on things to sharpen and hone them.

Is not God’s design marvelous?

Your source also claims that “true” meat eaters are “smooth and sleek”. This is kind of a logical fallacy (look up “No True Scotsman” if you’re curious), and is also something of a patent falsehood. Alligators and crocodiles are not particularly sleek. Nor are they particularly fast — they rely on stealth and the murky water in catching their prey. In fact, many predators are not as fast as their prey; they either attempt ambushes and surprise to catch their prey, or else they prey upon the sick and the elderly in the herd (which are slower or have less stamina with which to flee).

As to the issue of the Pope, and my support for him meaning that I deny : how, exactly, is that the case? You claim that the Pope is not a Christian, that he is a liar and an idolater. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack here, which is typically indicative of a poor argument that you are attempting to hide behing a wall of insults.

But also…where is your evidence in support of these wild assertions? I hope you’re not going to throw some in my face here; Chick is not a credible source.

As to your assertion that the belief that we are not supposed to refrain from marriage is not supported by Scripture: what the heck is talking about in 1 Corinthians 7, then?

Look, I actually like you — you’ve got spirit. I think, along the way, you’ve been brought into a goodly number of falsehoods and untruths, perhaps by well-meaning people or perhaps by people who don’t mean very well at all (don’t know ‘em, can’t say). Be that as it may; I like your passion for Christ — it’s a commendable trait. But why do you mar it so, with these lies you tell? You do not even know Scripture well enough to know that celibacy is a Biblical teaching, and a condition of being highly praised by Paul.